Mr. Global Goes to Washington

Summary

American Power – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Mr. Global Goes to Washington
Date: June 24, 2026
Hosts: Nat Towsen (B), Chad Scott (C), Mr. Global / Matt Randolph (A)
Theme:
This episode explores the intersection of energy policy, public interests vs. corporate profits, shifts in American political messaging, the ramifications of the new Iran deal, and the broader implications for U.S. power projection and alliances. The episode anchors on Mr. Global’s recent testimony before a Senate subcommittee on energy, unraveling how energy, geopolitics, and messaging interact at the highest levels in Washington, and frames these systemic issues with both wit and insight.

---

Main Theme and Purpose

The episode dissects how American policy—especially around energy—is shaped not just by economics or geopolitics, but by who is at the table and the narratives they push. The hosts use Mr. Global’s Senate testimony as a jumping-off point to critique the focus on corporate interests in energy, discuss the actual benefits (or lack thereof) to ordinary Americans, and tie these into current global security crises like the Iran deal and America's slipping grip on global influence.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Mr. Global’s Trip to Washington: A Peek Behind the Curtain

• Mr. Global’s Testimony:

  • Invited by Senator Martin Heinrich, Matt Randolph (Mr. Global) testified before a Senate subcommittee on energy affordability.
    “One of his staffers emailed me and asked me if I would come. He follows me on a few different social media apps, I think.” (A, [02:40])

  • The session focused on energy affordability, and Mr. Global foregrounded the notion:
    “Energy should be draped in humanity and not profits.” (C quoting A, [03:29])

• Key Message:
  “To me, an energy policy that's draped in humanity is one that actually thinks about the people and not the corporations … we want the government and the media want us to celebrate the fact that we're the number one oil producer in the world. Why would we celebrate something that does not benefit us in any way ... if you're not a shareholder or in that industry, it does not benefit you at all. … It does us no good to be the number one oil producer if you're going out here and paying four or five bucks for a gallon of gas.” (A, [04:01])

• Behind the Scenes:

  • “When the cameras shut off, [there was] just the senator wanting to collaborate with me … I was like, this senator invited me here based on my views … I'm not going to stray from that.” (A, [09:13])

2. The Systemic Failure of “Free Market” Solutions

• Critiques of Free Market Ideology:

  • America’s trust in the free market, especially since Reagan, has been systematically debunked by crises in healthcare, climate, and energy.
  • “We are like decades into understanding that simply isn't true. It's not true. With healthcare, it's not true. With the climate, it's not true with energy. I mean, … the free market hasn't solved that. It hasn't solved our air quality issues, and it hasn't solved health care.” (B, [07:39])

• Inequality and Social Strain:

  • Increasing disparity between rich and poor, trillionaires and unhoused people, is “the underbelly of revolutions,” stresses Chad ([06:18]).
  • Both hosts and Mr. Global highlight the absurdity of a “richest country” needing 80 million Americans on some form of assistance ([18:19]).

3. Messaging, Reality, and Political Theater

• Party Messaging and Authenticity:

  • Mr. Global’s approach: “Your party affiliation doesn't impact my speech. … I certainly wasn't going to change for anybody. That's not how I got here.” (A, [22:48], [23:25])
  • He counters accusations of grandstanding: “Go back five years on my content … I did not say anything that I haven't said a hundred times before. So no, I wasn't being bombastic. I was being real. And that's something that doesn't happen enough in Washington.” (A, [24:42])

• Media and Alternative Voices:

  • The power of new media as think tanks and alternative analysis outpace old media: “Matt puts out a video … more views than an entire Ms. Now show.” (C, [14:27])
  • Mr. Global: Clips from the Senate went viral, used by think tanks and discussed by commentators like Malcolm Nance ([15:57]).

4. Legislating for the Long Term: Energy Policy’s Unseen Consequences

• Lack of Comprehensive Policy Since Bush:

  • “We haven't had a comprehensive energy bill since George Bush.” (A, [26:07])
  • That 2000s bill, improved by Obama, increased efficiency and conservation, cutting bills and oil demand, but was gutted under Trump.
  • “Without that bill today, our electric bills would be twice as high as they are.” (A, [26:42])
  • The need for bipartisan, future-focused energy policies is urgent.

• Partisan Polarization as a Blocker:

  • “Things have been polarized to a degree where it's operating far more out of spite … I have to undo what the previous administration did because they did it.” (B, [35:33])
  • Even so, recent bipartisan moves (infrastructure, CHIPS Act) noted, but current admin seen as solely interested in “wrecking green energy” ([35:55]).

5. Strategic Ramifications: Iran, Energy Security, and Global Perceptions

• America’s Weakened Position:

  • Military and strategic reserves are at historic lows. Enemies take notice; alliances tremble.
  • “America is weak from that perspective, what's” (A, [40:56])
  • Allies like Japan, South Korea may seek their own nuclear deterrents as faith in US security umbrellas flags ([44:19]).

• Iran Deal: Performance-based Promises Abandoned

  • Frustration as the US handed Iran almost all concessions upfront to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, rendering “performance-based” stipulations toothless:
  • “We went ahead and gave Iran all of those concessions that were performance based up front to get the strait back open today ... What do we have to give them the next time?” (A, [46:13])
  • Weakness of the new deal compared to the JCPOA, lack of nuclear inspection mandates, and abandonment of explicit human rights language all critiqued.
  • “We taught Iran that they could use the Strait of Hormuz as a lever against … the Western world. We taught them that again.” (C, [57:16])

6. US–Israel Rift and Party Realignments

• Fracture in Right Over Israel:
  • MAGA and Trump increasingly “anti-Israel,” driven by anti-globalism and even anti-Semitism, as J.D. Vance and Rubio jockey for 2028 positioning ([67:29]-[68:04]).
  • Broader point: Neither party cleanly aligned, but establishment voices now in flux.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On celebrating oil production:

  • “Why would we celebrate something that does not benefit us in any way, shape or form, if you're not a shareholder or ... in that industry, it does not benefit you at all.” – Mr. Global (A, [04:01])

• On being “real” with Congress:

  • “The United States doesn't produce a drop of oil. Big billion dollar corporations do. And that is not an answer that they likely would have gotten from anyone but me in that room.” – Mr. Global (A, [09:13])

• On Democrats and traditional media:

  • “They [the DNC] end up repeating these archaic points that don't really represent the will of the people who they work for.” – Nat (B, [12:20])

• On why bipartisan energy legislation used to pass:

  • “Because the worst president of all time at that time was a thousand times better than the worst president of all time at this time.” – Mr. Global (A, [28:56])

• On the current Iran deal:

  • “We basically just gave them everything we could to get the strait back open. … What do we have to give them the next time they do that?” – Mr. Global (A, [46:13])

• Summing up the Iran “deal”:

  • “It sounds like the US took what they could get, which is less than they had when the whole thing started.” – Nat (B, [57:08])

• On bipartisan grandstanding:

  • “Go back five years on my content and you will find everything I said in that room … I wasn't being bombastic. I was being real.” – Mr. Global (A, [24:42])

• On the power of people vs. government:

  • “It's not us, it's our parents, our government, when they're being like, our governments aren't getting along … but the people are cool, and we're cool with you if you're cool with us.” – Chad (C, [78:51])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:09] – Setting up the episode; Mr. Global’s testimony intro
• [03:29] – “Energy draped in humanity, not profits” — Committee hearing recap
• [06:18] – Economic contradictions: energy, healthcare, and the roots of unrest
• [09:13] – Behind the scenes at the Senate: reaction to Mr. Global’s statements
• [15:57] – Viral media impact, think tanks pick up Mr. Global’s message
• [22:48] – Would Mr. Global’s message change for Republicans? (“No.”)
• [26:07] – The last real energy bill: Bush to Obama to Trump
• [35:33] – The rise and fall of bipartisanship in energy policy
• [40:56] – America’s weakened global and strategic posture
• [46:05] – The new Iran deal: what happened and why
• [54:48] – Humanitarian aid and the end of US leverage over Iran
• [63:45] – The collapse of serious Iran negotiations; US team’s amateurism
• [67:29] – Fracturing of right over Israel, Rubio and Vance anticipate 2028
• [75:07] – “Least Worst Part of My Week” segment: moments of joy amid chaos
• [86:14] – Nat’s story: Knicks NBA championship and NYC solidarity

---

The “Least Worst Part of My Week” – Closing Uplifting Notes

• Chad: The magical energy of the World Cup in America, social media memetics of Europeans discovering US culture, and the real-world joy and solidarity it brings ([75:13] onward).
• Mr. Global: New child abuse law in NY state (“Kira’s Law”), and personal family news: two children expecting grandkids ([82:55]).
• Nat: NYC’s eruption as the Knicks win the championship—massive, peaceful crowds, solidarity, and the rediscovery of community and people power ([86:14]).

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Energy, globally and in the US, is still primarily dictated by corporate interests—despite the persistent myth that household consumers “win” when America leads on oil or gas.
• The “free market” has failed to deliver public welfare in healthcare, energy, or climate; much-needed policies and messaging lag behind reality.
• Partisan divides and short-term politics block serious progress and adaptation in energy and foreign policy—leaving America’s position weakened, both at home and abroad.
• The new Iran deal exposes America’s reduced power and leash on adversaries, with long-term dangers for international stability.
• Amid all the gloom, local and organic solidarity—from sports celebrations to viral cross-cultural moments—showcases the spirit and unifying force of ordinary people, pointing to where real power sometimes still lies.

---

Final Memorable Quote

"Power corrupts, but American power corrupts Americanly." (sign-off, [92:53])

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

You're listening to American Power. I'm your host, Nat Town, speechwriter, comedy writer, stand up comedian, and most Likely to Put Me in Heaven podcast host. I'm joined as always by our panel of experts. Our foreign policy and military expert, Chad Scott. Chad, how's it going?

[A]

Going good.

[C]

Got my reflecting pool blue on. If you guys are watching on the YouTube, I know it's B.O.

[B]

it's looking too blue to me.

[C]

Yeah, it's a bit too blue. It's not. I mean, now it's green, if I had the green on, but yeah, you

[B]

got to get some lichen on that shirt, my friend.

[C]

Exactly, exactly.

[B]

Also joining us, as always, your expert on energy of all forms. Yes. Know Ms. Mr. Global. Please say hello if you're listening out loud to no one because they won't hear you. To Mr. Global, Matt Randolph.

[A]

Glad to have lost my temporary swamp creature status.

[B]

We've got a lot of exciting stuff to talk about this week. We have a new Iran deal that may or may not be a deal. We have a lot of updates on the electoral cycle. But I want to start with Mr. Global goes to Washington. Our very own Matt Randolph recently sat in with the Senate subcommittee on energy. And I'd love to hear more about how your trip to Washington went.

[A]

Oh, it was just great. It was so great. Like, within 20 minutes of me walking out of that building, I was headed to Pittsburgh.

[B]

So to be clear, the highlight was leaving.

[A]

I had to exit the swamp. I had to get out of town. I just couldn't stand being there.

[B]

And when you swamp. You mean bureaucracy or the algae in the reflecting pool?

[A]

Yeah, I didn't go to the reflecting pool. I was like, they're arresting people down there. I'm not even going down there. Someone might recognize me.

[B]

You didn't want to sip. You want to just see what it tastes like.

[C]

Now I will say the memes are fire. Have you seen those memes? Like, they have some of the memes they're using. Like, it's like they got Swamp Thing. If you remember who Framed Roger Rabbit, they got the shoe dipping into the, into the green.

[B]

Oh, that disintegrates it.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, there's some fire memes going out there on the, on the green.

[B]

I do love that. Trump effectively nicknamed D.C. the Swamp and has now actually created like a bog, if not a swamp, a swamp like environment.

[C]

So how did you get invited to this thing? Like, did you just get like an email or something? Or did someone reach out to you?

[A]

The senators, Senator Martin Heinrich, who by the way wants to join us here sometime in the future. Yeah. And it's important to note he asked. I didn't ask. He asked. And that's a big thing. That's a. Yeah. No, seriously, one of his staffers emailed me and asked me if I would come. He follows me on a few different social media apps, I think. So that, that's how that happened.

[B]

And what specifically was this committee about?

[A]

This particular thing was about energy affordability. We did. There was a lot about gas prices, but it was really just about energy affordability for everyone, how it's impacting Americans.

[C]

You had some really cool conversations. You took it from an angle that I've never seen anyone really give to Congress. This idea of energy should be draped in humanity and not profits. That's like a direct quote for me. I was like, that's such a great quote. Like, just from your perspective, how do you see that being more of the reality? How do we make that a reality? How do we say, how do we focus on the humanity of energy rather than the profits of these companies? Because I think you had some really good points there that our audience should know if they didn't watch your hearing.

[A]

Yeah, well, you know, everything is so expensive these days. Everything. Right. And I've always, I've always felt like, and I've said this here before, you know, the things that are absolutely necessary just for us to survive should have. There should be some barrier between us and corporate irresponsibility that shields us. Like the things that are necessary to just continue to breathe shouldn't be treated like everything else. And to me, an energy policy that's draped in humanity is one that actually thinks about the people and not the corporations and, and not the billionaires. And how do we do that? And under our system, which is obviously capitalism. Right. How do we do that? And the best way to do that is to be supportive of all forms of energy and be, and be supportive of progress in the energy space and investing in, you know, future type energies and like doing everything we can towards that end. That'll drive down price. A lot of people think that I now want some, you know, communist or socialist type energy system. I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying, how about a little consideration for the people every once in a while. Because to me, a lot of it is in the messaging. We want the, the government and the media wants us to celebrate the fact that we're the number one oil producer in the world. Why would we celebrate something that does not benefit us in any Way, shape or form, if, if you're not a shareholder or if you're not in that industry, it does not benefit you at all. It does us no good to be the number one oil producer if you're going out here and paying four or five bucks for a gallon of gas. I was paying less for that when we were the number three oil producer. So who cares that we're the number one oil producer, like, and it's not us, it's the companies. So there's this sort of language in our country where we, we are often expected to celebrate the success of huge corporations who have no interest at all in benefiting us, you know, and that's the system we live under. Whatever. So how do we manage this under that system that, that. Where it actually benefits us? Some like. That's all I was talking about.

[C]

Yeah, it's so fascinating because it's not just energy that is like that. I, I personally think objectively, having lived in Europe, having lived in the United States, that we have like, the best medical care, but we have one of the worst health care systems. And it's so fascinating because we. How, how is it that we are so wealthy, so advanced in our medical care with such amazing stuff, and our health care is just so garbage. And, and it's. You see that across so many industries, whether it's energy, whether it's the, the, the healthcare industry, whether it's just basic decency of keeping people off the streets. Richest country in the history of the world, rampant problems. And again, it's. I just don't think it's a situation where we should be like, completely communist or socialist. But, man, we just are not headed in the right direction when we have Elon Musk worth a trillion dollars now and there are tens of thousands of people that just, they can't even eat or can't even get a house. That, that's just wild to me. And personally, I think that's what the, that's what. The kind of, the underbelly of revolutions. That's where that starts. So it just, it's just kind of fascinating because it's just not energy as well. And then I think it's. I just had a question. Oh, no, go ahead. If you.

[B]

I was just saying to the points that you're both making, just that, like, I feel like America adopted these ideas somewhat under Reagan of like, the free market will decide and ultimately do what's best for everyone. And we are like decades into understanding that that simply isn't true. It's not true. With healthcare, it's not true. With the climate, it's not true with energy. I mean, our energy is wasteful. Like being the biggest oil producer is awful for the world. I understand that oil is still functional for ship funk, needed for shipping and all these things, but it's not something to brag about when we should be in the middle of a green energy transition. It's also not cheaper for us as a result. And so the free market hasn't solved that. It hasn't solved our air quality issues, and it hasn't solved health care. So, yeah, the humanitarian approach, I mean, how do we do it under this system? I think part of it is changing the system, part of it is the messaging. I know everyone wants these carve outs where we go. I don't want to be a socialist, I don't want to be a communist. And I'm like, well, this system is exponentially worsening. Like the, the, the gap between the poorest and richest American or the gap between the 10 richest Americans and everyone else. It's not just getting bigger, it's getting bigger, faster every day. That's how we get trillionaires. And I'm sorry, Chad, what were you about to say?

[C]

Well, I was just going to. I was going to ask him if. Because we saw what he said. I watched a lot of what you said because just that kind of stuff's fascinating to me. I'm just such a dork in that way. But when the cameras shut off, were you able to talk to them at all? Can you give us what you can say behind the scenes? Was there anything they wanted to talk to you at all about without the cameras being on and the mics being on? Or was it just camera shut off, hearing over, and you guys went your separate ways?

[A]

It pretty much shut off. The only thing that they talked to me about when it was over was the senator wanting to collaborate with me somehow. And one of his. Because he had to leave early to go to a vote. And so one of his staffers came up and apologized to me that he had to leave because he wanted to speak to me about something. And she said, would you be interested in collaborating him, like doing some kind of live? And I said, you know, I think it'd be better if he just came on the podcast, you know, because. And so. Yeah, but I did. I, you know, when I was speaking, some of those people were looking at me like, this is different. Like, we haven't. People don't come in these rooms and talk like this. And from my perspective, I was like, this senator invited me here based on my views and the things he's heard me say. And I'm not going to stray from that. Like, I, you know, I didn't pull any punches. You know, that's what's needed. So when the senator says, you know, Mr. Randolph, we're the number one oil producer in the world, can you explain why our gas prices are where they are? My response is, the United States doesn't produce a drop of oil. Big billion dollar corporations do. And that is not an answer that they likely would have gotten from anyone but me in that room. Because people talk differently and act differently when they're surrounded by people like that. I don't, I don't care who you are. I'm not like, intimidated by anybody. I could be standing next to Chad Scott or I could be standing next to Michael Jackson. It wouldn't make any difference to me. They're both people.

[B]

You wouldn't be surprised. He was alive. Come on.

[C]

That would be weird.

[A]

I'm just, I'm just saying, like, I'm not, I'm not starstruck and I'm not intimidated by power. Like, none of that.

[B]

Nor should you be. Those people work for us.

[A]

Right? That's how I, that's how I view it. And so, and another thing, I felt like an idiot because the woman to my right was Claudia Sham, and I didn't know who Claudia Sham was. She's like this world famous economist that's like respected by like a lot of people. And I'm like, I didn't even know who she was. And I, I felt pretty bad about that later because I don't follow economists. But yeah, there was some pretty, there were some pretty powerful people. There was more media people in that room than anybody, though. There was the, what you didn't see off camera was the media. I don't know what they call them, like the gaggle or whatever. Just like there was just reporters and cameras and stuff and. But no, I mean, everyone was super nice, super friendly.

[B]

I think it's interesting because, you know, we've talked to Democratic legislators before and I have many times in my personal experience as an activist and speechwriter. And I think I used to assume a lot more malice, which is not. I don't forgive people, and I think some people are fully aware of the harm that they're causing and the disingenuous messaging that they're putting out there. So I don't forgive anyone. But one thing that I've become more aware of is the degree to which establishment Democrats are only hearing DNC operatives all the time. And they are, they, you know, when we, it's like why you can't get through to them about Palestine where it's like the only young people they know are people who've wanted to work for the Democratic Party since birth and the only people they're listening to are operatives and strategists who work for think tanks. And it's like they don't. They're not used to hearing you say things like, well, specifically because they've accepted a set of foregone conclusions such as we need the oil industry, such as, you know, these fluctuations in the market are okay as long as the corporations are turning a profit. And when you just kind of accept that as the flatline of your reasoning or not accept it, but when all of the reasoning that you're hearing has pre accepted these foregone conclusions that are not necessarily true, but they are part of this ideology, you don't even think that people think about that. And obviously I think these people need to be more in touch. But it's so good that you're able to speak to them clear headedly because I do think that within the Democratic Party, within the dnc, intentionally or otherwise, they end up repeating these archaic points that don't really represent the will of the people who they work for.

[C]

I will commend the Democratic Party for moving late. They are moving late. So I will say that the GOP were the first few decades because, because we've seen unfortunately, like, let's be honest, the, the bro podcast realm was a big part of getting Trump reelected. The Rogans and all the different comedians that decided they were going to suddenly become experts in everything and then they drove this, this narrative that now they're very much against. Like it's, it's very interesting watching them kind of come to this realization that they've made a mistake with Donald Trump, including Rogan and including these bro podcasters

[B]

who are now back calling and claiming it was just a joke and they never actually end him. Yeah, you had him on your podcast, Theo, but you know.

[C]

Yeah, like, and so what's interesting though is I give the Democrats credit. It's. They're late but they are starting to. And that's why we are getting interest from Adam Smith said and he, to his credit after you pushed back on him that last, after our podcast with him and the listeners don't know this, he reached out to you and you had a conversation with him. So I think they're getting more tune. Yeah, we're getting more into a tune. They're more in tune to the alternate media as, as a force, whether it's the tick tockers and the podcasters. Again, they were late and they have to play catch up. They, I think they didn't take us as serious as what the traditional media is and I understand that traditional media was, it was the more credible because they have the resources and that credibility and understandably. But we have the reach now. I mean, Matt puts out a, a video. His single video does more views than an entire Ms. Now show. So I, I will give credit to these Democrats that are coming around and I, I welcome talking to them on podcasts or on videos and things like that lives, whatever we want to do. But do you think, Matt though, that anyone. And here's the, I mean the million dollar question. Do they. Was it just kind of a placation like, oh yeah, it's cool to have Mr. Global in the room to generate some credibility. But do you think you actually. They listened and they cared or, or they, they're going to make any changes or is it just.

[A]

I, you know, I didn't expect, I didn't go in there thinking that anything I would say would result in anything within the government. But I knew that if I go in there, if I went in there, I knew how many media people would be there. And the line where I said the United States doesn't produce a drop of oil, it's big billion dollar companies. That clip went super viral and I don't know how many millions on my channels, probably 3 or 4 million views. And it's being shared by think tanks. I got a notification today that the Century foundation think tank based out of New York City shared that clip. Malcolm Nance was talking about it on his show and I'm not seeing a lot of this, but people are coming into my comment sections mostly on YouTube and they're like, hey, this person was talking about what you said and this person and some of these people, I'm having to go look and see who they are. Like, I honestly didn't know who Malcolm Nance was, but I went and looked him up and I'm like, oh, that guy's somebody. I don't know if y' all know who he is, but he's, he's kind of in Chad's realm. I. Isn't he a former intelligence guy? Yeah, but so that my overall driving message the whole time I was there was how we need to change the way we think about Energy, you know, that's what I was really trying to drive home is, is to get out of this. My, this corporate mindset. Like we do everything else. You talk about health care. Like, I don't know how anyone affords health care in this country. My health insurance is 2100amonth, and if we have to use it, it doesn't pay for much at all. And we got to pay a lot of money when we get to wherever we're going to use it. Like, it's insane. So me and my wife keep having conversations like, do we even keep this? Like, and the only reason I'm keeping it is because of my age. And like, something catastrophic could happen. Like, you know, what if I had a heart attack? You know, I mean, I'm 52 years

[B]

old or a terminal condition or a chronic condition. That's the problem. You kind of have to keep it around because if you get something, they'll hold it against you when you try to apply. I mean, I know you have no pre existing condition, but like, realistically speaking, you have to have that insurance because, I mean, in some cases you need it for employment also. I mean, sometimes it's not an option.

[A]

And I. Yeah, and I really feel like we are being steered towards a lot of this stuff and we don't realize it. Like, if you look at the poverty rate in the United States, it's not reflective of the condition of the United States. You know, it's a lot lower than it was 50 years ago. The, the poverty rate I think, is around 10 and a half to 11%. You know, there's times in this country it was over 20%. But what the poverty rate doesn't show you is that there's 80 million Americans on some type of assistance. And so what that tells me is you, you can need to be on assistance but not be considered poverty level. Like, and so to me, if there's 80 million Americans on some type of assistance, then that's a fourth of the country. Roughly, roughly 23, 4 or 5% of the country. That's a lot more grim of a picture than saying the poverty rate is 10%. The poverty rate, like a family of four making, I think it's 31,000 a year is or less is poverty. And I'm like, I don't know how One person making $30,000 a year is not in poverty.

[B]

Like, yeah, and to add on to that statistic about, no, my health Insurance

[A]

is almost $30,000 a year. What are you talking about? That.

[B]

And that's where I'm coming from means tested. All of these, like the SNAP programs, food stamps, all these things have been put to the point where, okay, so it's means tested, which means only if you're really, really, you know, qualify for. You need it. Which means that if you look at what, at how. In how essentially how, how poor you have to be, let's say in New York State, where I live, in order to qualify for food stamp for like SNAP benefits, food stamps, that's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in order to do, in order to qualify for that for low income, for a housing assistance, NYCHA housing for all these different. Fair, fair. So you can ride the metro. So you'll ride the, the get a metro card for cheaper, ride the subway. All these assistance programs we have in place for New Yorkers are. You have to be like pretty low percentile of New Yorkers to qualify at all. And I think a lot of the people, yeah, there's more people on, you know, assistance right now and aid programs, but there's also these people in like the 20% income bracket above, like you said, you know, 30,000 for a family. The people who are making 30,000 to 70,000 for a family of four, they have no assistance. And so they may not be under the poverty line, but in many ways their costs are just as high. So they're functionally living at the same way that people on assistance are living. Not exactly. But like the costs are still extremely prohibitive for people of that still lower income bracket that doesn't qualify for assistance.

[C]

Well, and that's what's fascinating is, and quite sad is you have the, the GOP will, will attack these assistance programs, but also they'll be like, rah, rah. We support our troops, we support our veterans. Yeah, 120,000. Yeah, exactly. 120,000 active duty service members and their families are on SNAP. 120,000. So the basic soldier doesn't make enough money to that deploys overseas and goes and does whatever. And I'm not saying that they should be in some sort of special category, but don't sit there as the GOP and say you are the party of the soldier, of the veteran and then come in here and try to destroy food programs that 120,000 mouths in the Department of Defense rely on. And so it's just a really, again, it's one of those where they love to have the headline, but when you dive deep, there's a lot of people that rely on these and there's a lot of people that really should be, if you're really following the GOP line revered in that realm. And I'm talking the junior enlisted troops from E1 to E4. Some of them just can't feed themselves properly with their families. And so it's just, it's really kind of, kind of sad. And that kind of was lead me to this. If so your, the committee you went on was very much Democrat led. Would you have said the same things

[A]

if there were no Republicans?

[C]

Would you have said the same thing though, if there was a Republican led? Would you have told them the same thing or would you have maybe been more firm or told them their policies are jacked up or something like that?

[A]

No, I would have said the exact same thing. I don't care what party you're in. Like your, your party affiliation doesn't impact my speech. I don't think I would have been any more harsh. They actually, they thought I was kind of harsh. You know, they're like, man, this guy's like real. Matter of fact, no, I've never done that. I've never been that way. But also when you have the following I have and people knew I was going, what am I going to do? Am I going to go to Washington and be a different person?

[C]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

Like people were depending on me to be me when I got there. And not, not that I needed that, but I certainly wasn't going to change for anybody. That's not how I got here.

[B]

I think that's also a good lesson on messaging, right? Like obviously you want to speak to people in language they can understand and sometimes party affiliation or political beliefs necessitate adjusting that. But I also think, I think it's much more important to have a core system of beliefs and understanding of the thing that you're talking about that you can, I don't say rattle off, that sounds uncaring, but that you are comfortable to speak to from any angle. Because ultimately, if you believe what you believe, you can't be undermined by rhetoric. You can only be undermined by arguments. Right. And I think that's a really good strategy because you don't want to appear two faced, right. And you do mean what you say. So you can, you can get really lost in trying to speak the way that your audience wants to hear, or you do need to say things that your audience is capable of understanding, is capable of processing, or it is possible to go too far and turn things off. But I think ultimately you're right that the priority should just be this is what I believe, this is what I would Say to anyone, you need to hear it.

[A]

Yeah. And someone made the comment, someone said that I was being bombastic or something for the cameras. And I said, go back five years on my content and you will find everything I said in that room in multiple times I've said throughout the years of my content. I did not say anything that I haven't said a hundred times before. So no, I wasn't being bombastic. I was being real. And that's something that doesn't happen enough in Washington.

[C]

Your whole life is in front of a camera. That's what we do. Like, yeah, we make videos all day, every single day, all week, as if that suddenly the camera changes and it's different. I would argue that those cameras that were on you got less views than the cameras that you put in front of your face and talk to. So that's such a ridiculous argument. I guarantee you that that's why it actually matters that you maintain that because there is that visual record. So. And I see I was seeing in the comments. And I get these in the comments too. For me, I always get like, oh, you should be the Secretary of Defense. I saw a bunch. You should be the run for office. So that had my. My question then for you is, let's say you're now Senator Global, not Mr. Global anymore, you're Senator Global. What do you think? What would you do if you had the power now? What would you do if you. Or what bill would you try to put forward to help the people in this regard? Energy wise. Yeah, with energy.

[A]

So we haven't had a comprehensive energy bill since George Bush.

[B]

Which Bush?

[A]

The little guy?

[C]

W.

[A]

Yeah. So that's the last time we had a comprehensive energy bill. And I tell. People don't understand how we are benefiting from that bill today. Like, if not for that bill today, the world would need about 3 more million barrels of oil a day than it is using. Without that bill today, our electric bills would be twice as high as they are. And look at your electric bill today. Imagine if it was twice as high.

[B]

And this is from that bill.

[A]

Yes. A ton of conservation fuel mileage standards, energy efficiency with appliances and at home. Just. It was a. It was a very comprehensive energy policy that covered every form of energy and. And looked ahead like 20 years. Well, we're like 20 years away from that. That was like 20 years ago. Barack Obama came in and this was something I mentioned. And this was something that I mentioned in that hearing that got. That perked up a lot of ears because when I was talking about this bill. And I said, and you know what happened after Bush passed this comprehensive energy policy? Barack Obama came in and instead of tearing it up because he didn't like the name or the letter next to the person that wrote it, he actually took it and improved on it like politicians are supposed to do, right? So Obama took that and he improved on it. Right. Just look, my pickup truck, you know, I drive an F150. If I fill that thing up, I can go about 650 miles on a tank. When that energy bill passed, that same pickup probably would have gone 300 miles on a tank. This is what I'm talking about. The things that people don't see because it just naturally became a part of our, our life, like all the benefits of this. And also because George Bush and Barack Obama, they weren't the type of people to stand up in front of a camera every day and brag about everything they ever did for. They didn't need that positive reinforcement every five seconds of their life like Donald Trump does. We need another comprehensive energy bill like that, that covers everything and future types of, like, investment and research and investment in future forms of energy, like, you know, fusion, things like that. But those, those are the types of legislation that help us the most. Even though we don't realize it and understand it, like 10, 20 years down the road, we don't realize it's actively helping us every day, but it is.

[B]

Well, how did a bill like that educate me, please, A little. In a famously conservative administration, arguably the worst president of all time at the time, how did a comprehensive energy bill get passed under that administration?

[A]

Because the worst president of all time at that time was a thousand times better than the worst president of all time at this time. Okay, I mean, let's just speak.

[B]

I guess my question is why wouldn't he.

[A]

I would, I would give anything to have a George Bush back in office. I, I'm, I'm, you know, and I'm not a Republican. I'm just saying he was moderate enough and he worked well enough with the other side and he understand, he understood at the very least, like, people are going to need this in the future. It was around the birth of the shell revolution with. Yeah, or his handlers. I really don't care. The policy was passed and it's benefiting us every day. Y and I appreciated the fact that we had someone in office that built on it. Now imagine if the person that came after Obama said, hey, we can build on this again, like, you know, and just continue building on it. And improve. But that's not what happened. You know, Donald Trump came in and he tore it up. He tore it up just like he tore up the Iran deal. You know, he, he tried to roll back all of the great things that were in that policy. The fuel mileage standards, the energy efficiency standards, all the things that saving the average American about twelve hundred dollars a month today. He tore that up. So that's what we need people in office that will continue to build on the improvements and the foundations that were laid by the presidents that came before them. And we simply don't have that anymore. And since we don't, we're losing time because just like any other kind of business, this country, if it's not progressing and planning for the future, then it's falling way behind fat. And every day we lose and you know, is really bad. And I feel like right now we're getting so deep in a hole of just time lost where we could be passing important legislation that's going to help us 10 years from now. Are we going to have to wait for 20 years now to, for this legislation to pass that's really going to help us out? Like and I don't think people think that way. You know, they're, they're too tribal in their thinking and they just want to, they want their side to win. We need to get away from that. Yeah.

[C]

And the, to kind of answer your question a bit. Nat on how Bush got it through. He was, he, he, it was a, a moment in time where he was able to kind of ride the coattails of 9 11. And so there's the post 911 energy security concern. And so there was these concerns that we, our energy infrastructure, what if that was hit? We need to find a way to diversify. We need to find a way to get to a point where we're using less and can sustain. And so he was able to kind of build this coalition of Republicans along with Democrats that all were in that post 911 energy security realm. But also to be honest and correct me if I'm wrong, he gave industry a pretty good, within that bill there was a pretty solid like package of subsidies that went to the energy industry. So because of that they got, they had buy in too. I, I think they saw the writing on the wall at the time like in where they were like well I think green energy is going to at least be a part of this. So we want to make some money on it. So if we can get involved at, on the with because let's be honest, I mean Exxon and those companies, they have green energy plants as well. I believe they invest in those, if not to run their own systems, but to. They want to make money off of them as well. So I think that was like a perfect storm. Unfortunately, it took a tragedy to get it through. But I think there was that energy security concern and we might be seeing something similar now because we have once again realized, oh, there's a energy security concern right now with the Strait of Hormuz closing. And are we really that, quote, unquote, independent when it comes to energy? Because I've heard that we are a net importer, again because of the energy concerns that are happening. And so we may see another leap forward. But because of who's in the executive office right now, I just don't, I don't see that happening. And at least until 28 maybe, if we get the right person in.

[A]

In our last episode, Chad talked about how Republicans used to be conservationists. They used to believe in energy conservation. That was still a thing. Oh, you said that. I thought, Chad, about Idaho maybe.

[B]

I think we were agreeing. I think we were Talking about, yeah, 100 years ago, conservatives were extremely pro conservation more recently than that as well. But.

[A]

Well, 20 years ago. Yeah, 20 years ago, a Republican president passed an energy conservation piece of legislation is what I'm saying. So it wasn't that long ago that Republicans were kind of normal people. You know, they believed in energy conservation. And the cheapest form of energy is, is the one you don't have to use because you saved it. Like, you know, every unit of energy you don't have to use due to efficiency is by, like, it's free, it's cheap, you don't get any cheaper than free. And that was, I think it was George Bush that actually said that the, the cheapest form of energy is the energy that's free. I think he said that in a statement about that piece of legislation.

[B]

That's like the most coherent quote I've ever heard from him.

[A]

Well, I'm not going to argue with that. It might have been after someone threw a shoe at him. I don't know.

[B]

He had a lot of sound bites. They just weren't usually quite so actionable. I was going to ask because we invaded Afghanistan soon after 9 11. I was curious how that affected the oil industry because didn't that allow them to establish a new pipeline? Did that affect these same companies that, that were, you know, participating in this. In this or sorry, being regulated by this oil bill? Or how did that affect the energy Industry at the time.

[A]

Well, this, this wasn't an oil bill. I mean, he passed subsidies for, yeah, he had subsidies for renewable in there, for wind, solar, advancements in EV technology and research and subsidies for evs. Like this was a comprehensive bill that included everything. And I, if I remember correctly, I think the Democrats also controlled the Congress at the end of his administration and that probably had a lot do it

[B]

for the last term.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, for the last term. So, you know, back then the two sides would get together and yeah, they would get together and they would each give up something and get something and they would pass, you know, big pieces of legislation. They don't do that anymore. Right. So. Yeah, right.

[B]

And as horrible and toxic as he was, the, the spirit of bipartisanism existed, at least to some extent. And you're saying that right now, and I tend to agree, I think things were pretty bad already, but things have been polarized to a degree where it's operating far more out of spite. Like you said. Oh, I have to undo what the previous administration did because they did it, which is very different from the way they.

[C]

Well, and I would say that it's, it's just one man, because Biden was able to get bipartisan support on some pretty impressive bills. And that was just a few years ago. The infrastructure bill, the CHIPS act. Those are huge. Those are huge for our country. And it's just one specific guy. And we all know who it is. It was whether it's the first, the first administration tearing up the jcpoa, which is where, why we're in this quagmire in Iran now, or it's now him refusing to touch anything that looks bipartisan if it wasn't his idea. And any. And so they have to ram things through. And so when you look at, there's the status quo, even for the last, let's say the last Republican that was bipartisan was George W. Bush. That that was normal. Obama was normal. Biden was normal. We are in abnormal times. And so it's unfortunately going to require a complete changeover to get back to this bipartisanship and hopefully once again get us. Because we're now getting into the point where I think our strategic reserves are like critically low. And as much as I love clean energy for, for the, the population of the United States, we are going to still need oil for the foreseeable future to run our military as an expeditionary force. That's just, I mean, you can't have a solar powered like battleship. Well, we don't have Battleship, but you Know, I mean, like destroyers, we do have nuclear submarines and nuclear carriers, but the military is going to run on oil for the foreseeable future. And if we can make sure that our domestic energy needs are taken care of through green energy, it frees that up so that if we do need to deploy somewhere for a good reason, not a dumb reason like we are in Iran, then we would be prepared for that. So I think like, like Matt was saying, if we can secure ourselves with green energy home, if we do need to use oil when it, when we need to deploy or go fight, hopefully the righteous fight, if there ever is one, hopefully we don't have to deal or a World War 3 situation. We are in a better place both domestically and from a military standpoint. And I just, again, I just don't see it coming out of this administration. He just wants to wreck green energy. And the more we have to use here at home, the less there's going to be for a potential military deployment elsewhere. And that's kind of what we're seeing right now in Iran. Our strategic reserves are so low because we have overextended ourselves.

[B]

Yeah. And not that I want more military action, but you know, and then we shouldn't be in Iran in the first place. But there are instances in which an autocrat overthrows a people's republic and we try to prevent that. There's also instances where we help the autocrat. But in a hypothetical case when we're on the right side of history and haven't, you know, haven't made decades of deals with the autocrats, entire administration, which is hard to say because we've done that a lot. In the case where we are in the right and we'll be on the right side of history, we don't want to be militarily incapable of aiding the cause of justice because we've used our strategic energy reserve. We've exhausted our strategic energy reserve. I mean, if that's your argument for green energy, I support it.

[C]

Well, I mean, that's because I can tell you Russia and China, they're looking at what our levels of oil are and they make calculations based on what they want to do. If China, one of, one of the calculations China would ever have potentially for Taiwan. Now, I don't think they would invade Taiwan in the near term, but if they were to be crazy enough to do that, one of their calculations is can the United States sustain itself? And part of that sustainment package is going to be our petroleum reserves. And if we can make sure we have enough Petroleum for the military because we have bolstered our massive green energy domestically. I think that's all. Whatever angle we need to take, I'm for it to get. I mean, if it means being rah rah military and they're like, yeah, let's build more solar so the military is better, cool with me.

[B]

So, I mean, yeah, I think I support the troops. Build solar energy.

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

Where was that in the Bush administration?

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

So what were we. If you didn't support the troops back then, you couldn't get a platform. So that's what I'm saying.

[A]

No, before we went into Iran, we were told repeatedly, they're the weakest they've been in 50 years or whatever. Like, now is the time. Like Chad said, that is exactly how China and Russia are looking at us right now. Because we're the weakest we've been in a long time because we've exhausted however much of our munitions we've exhausted. But also our. Our SPR and our energy inventories are at historic lows. So just by definition, we are weaker than we've been in however many decades. Just like Iran was supposedly weaker than they had been. Although I wasn't buying this stuff about Iran. I felt like that was an excuse. But we're no different than anyone else when it comes to how countries view us right now. America is weak from that perspective, what's

[B]

the actual tangible threat from China or Russia for that matter? But specifically, like, what are we worried about China doing militarily if the US Appears weak, just having more power on a global scale, or is there a specific struggle that we are. You know, that's the. The point.

[A]

It's more economic. Don't you, Chad? It'd be more economic than military.

[C]

One thing that's really fascinating about this whole ordeal with Iran, and it's going all the way back to October 7th, when Hamas conducted that terror attack against Israel. It's become abundantly clear that despite the fact that China has presented itself as this. This counterbalance to the United States, they can't do a damn thing on the global stage when a crisis happens. When they have been. They essentially, on October 8th, when something was happening, the United States was already moving to support Israel. And when it came to potentially Iran, China was doing nothing. And so it became very clear that China doesn't have the capability to deploy expeditionary like the United States can. However, within their own backyard, they can. They can do things that eventually make it so it's more difficult for the US to operate. They can conduct exercises to cut potential areas of the Taiwan straight off. And if we're focused so heavily and spending so much money in the Middle east, we can't counter that in the South China Sea or the East China Sea. And so what happens is China will suddenly start chipping away at that, that region, whether it's through their island building, through their, their belligerent, whether you spray the, the coast guards of other countries, whether it's the Philippines or Vietnam or what we deplete ourselves in foolish endeavors in places like the Middle East. It emboldens China not only militarily per se. I don't think it's necessarily like a kinetic conventional force. It absolutely emboldens them asymmetrically, which by asymmetrically I mean they are more willing to conduct cyber attacks. They're more willing to conduct information operations because the United States isn't going to do anything. Look at how they folded when Iran just closed the Strait of Hormuz. We are the most powerful military in the history of the world and we folded the minute things got a little bit hard. And that type of messaging that we have when it comes to looking at not only the actual fighting with Iran, but this, this absolutely garbage deal that we're making right now is sending messages everywhere that we do not have the staying power. We can hit you in the mouth harder than anyone in the world, but then we'll back away the minute anything gets a bit difficult. And that's the message we're sending to China, Russia, even North Korea, they're even getting more emboldened with, with their belligerence by firing missiles over Japan and things. And I'm concerned that as the United States becomes more weak and we can get into the Iran deal here in a bit because I know that's a, a mess. But the, the weaker the United States presents itself, the more other countries that are our allies, like Japan, South Korea, the Baltic nations, Poland, they start to wonder if the US is really reliable. Can, will they be there when the chips are down or do we need our own massive counterbalance? And by massive counterbalance I mean do we need our own nuclear weapons?

[B]

Japan, capable of way more escalation. Theoretically, yeah.

[C]

Which becomes a proliferation spiral. We have been extraordinarily fortunate that only like nine countries created nuclear weapons since the, the first one was detonated. That's a miracle in non proliferation between us, Russia, et cetera. But if the, the deal that was made was always the United States would be the umbrella for the Western democracies to defend them, whether it was Europe, East Asia, et cetera. And if we do not present that, if we do not, if we show that we're weak or we don't have the staying power, then those countries are not going to rely on us. They're going to say they aren't going to be there in the major crisis because they can't even handle the Strait of Hormuz crisis. And so because of that, we are going to have potentially Japan recalculating. Well, maybe we need a nuclear weapon. You'll look at, look at what happened to Ukraine. They didn't have one and they got invaded. South Korea, their biggest foe, North Korea is expanding their nuclear arsenal to become the size of France's. And, and South Korea has no nuclear weapons because they have had the understanding that the United States will be their umbrella. Donald Trump has said flat out, I don't, I don't think that South Korea, Taiwan, they don't really matter to us anymore. Those types of conversations are really detrimental. And we could see these many cold wars start forming across the region when they, the United States is unwilling to, or at this point starting to become incapable of being the response arm to, to despotism, whether it is in North Korea, China or Russia.

[B]

So, so on that note, can we talk a little bit about the most recent incarnation of the Iran deal?

[C]

Oh yeah, I'm sure Matt has much to say about that.

[B]

Matt, I assume it's all very good. What are your favorite highlights?

[A]

My favorite highlights are how there was all these caveats to this deal where Iran would be rewarded and it was all performance based. Right. As we move through this, if Iran accomplished certain things and proved certain things to us, then they would get a reward. You know, kind of like you give your dog a treat, right? But you know, yesterday there Donald Trump was on social media threatening them. He threatened to kill the negotiators before they got home because Iran closed down the Strait of Farmers again because of the, the fighting between Israel and Lebanon and what happened last night and I actually predicted this is we went ahead and gave Iran all of those concessions that were performance based up front to get the straight back open today. It turned out to be 12 billion in unfrozen assets. All sanctions that they've had for over 40 years were dropped. That the, the U.S. treasury did that this morning. So roughly 85 or so percent of all of the things that they were going to achieve through a performance based agreement was handed to them up front based on what happened yesterday. And Iran just saying we'll walk out of negotiation so we basically just gave them everything we could to get the straight back open. And what the big question to me is, what do we have to give them the next time they do that? Because they're going to keep going to that well, you know, as long as we keep giving them something, every time they close the straight to Hormuz, they're going to keep going back to that well and getting what they can. We're about out of stuff to give them. So that's my take on it so far.

[C]

Well, and when you look at what the, the, the, the two things that were up front when you, when we originally went in and started this fight, the first one was by far the nuclear issue. And when you look at the language of this document, it's not even as strong as the JCPOA was. The JCPOA contained stronger nuclear language in their preamble. When you and the fact that the language of this mou, which I've highlighted this many times in some of my own stuff, mouse are not deals. Memorandum of understanding is a framework for who has what, what are we doing? We don't even know the status of their nuclear material. We don't know what. We don't know if it's been bombed to nuclear dust, as Trump likes to say, or if it's been moved. And even to get to that baseline, we have to have inspectors. Now I saw today that Vice President J.D. vance came out and said, oh, they've allowed inspectors or they're going to allow iaea, the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Iran came out and said, yeah, maybe we'll see. They haven't confirmed it. And so like you were just saying, Matt, they're going to want something even just to get those inspectors in. We have, we're going to have to give them something just to get to that level. And the frustrating thing is I keep hearing like right leaning content creators and right leaning commentators talk about, well, the jc, fine, we admit that the JCPOA is roughly the same as what Trump is giving them. I'm like, no, it's not. We got to the JCPOA without having to fight a war. We got to the jcpoa without having 13 soldiers die, 400 soldiers wounded, or spending this level of billions of dollars. And it's extraordinarily frustrating.

[B]

And we also didn't bomb any schools to get the jcpoa.

[C]

Exactly. And speaking of the bombs, everyone's accounting for the money that they're like, oh, they're not getting a dime of U.S. money. You know what we're going to have to spend on rebuilding all the bases Iran struck. Rebuilding our arsenals. That's going to cost money. This is not like there's so many second and third order effect costs here and we got nothing. In fact, Iran got in the language that all they had to say was we reaffirm prior commitments. That, that tells me that they are making no new concessions. They're reaffirming what they signed not in the JCPOA, but in the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty in 1979. This is a country that already signed by treaty that they were not going to build a nuclear weapon, then re agreed to it in the jcpoa. And now all they're saying in vague language is we'll go ahead and yeah, sure, we won't build a nuclear weapon. There's no meaningful nuclear concessions whatsoever. And there's no clear baseline because they don't. The United States just doesn't know what's there. We have to have verification mechanisms to start with. And so I'm getting tired of these, these people in the MAGA world saying that the JCPOA was weaker, it was exponentially stronger because it contained stronger nuclear language in the preamble and also provided for checkpoints and gateways. And they got this deal without losing soldiers and spending billions on equipment.

[B]

And I'm not listening to a lot of those MAGA voices, but I think, you know, when you say it is one guy who's unwilling to negotiate, who's doing everything out of spite, I agree to a certain extent. But also I think that has clearly proliferated into the media space and some of the other legislators of like, yeah, is there, there's always going to be an argument made for why what Trump did is, you know, there's always going to be a huge media apparatus explaining why what he did is actually better for America. Right.

[A]

That nuclear deal was 1969. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. It was June. Because I was for, in my head, I have 6-1-69. I didn't Google it or nothing, but June 1st of 1969, the way I remember it is that Iran has promised not to have nuclear weapons since before we landed on the moon. Like that's how I remember that. So that's like 50, what, six, seven years ago or something.

[C]

Well, what's fascinating is I think that the Trump administration purposefully made the language vague in the MoU because there's actually a law that requires the President to push any nuclear deal for Iran to Congress to vote on. It's the Iran Nuclear Review or Nuclear Agreement Review Act. And you know, when it becomes relevant is when a new nuclear deal has to be agreed upon that deals with Iran's nuclear capability. And what I think the Trump administration is coming forward with is they're like, well, this is such a vague language that they just reaffirmed to not have a nuclear weapon or build a nuclear weapon that they don't. It doesn't require Congress to get involved because I think the Trump administration rightfully calculates that the Republicans and the Democrats think this deal is so garbage that they're going to want to put their stamp of no on it. So the Trump administration just wants to keep it out of, out of Congress. And so they have to keep the nuclear language very vague. And when you do that, though, the Iranians will take advantage of that very much so. They're very good at that. So it's just a very frustrating deal. I mean, you look at the absence of the human rights the JCPOA upfront talked about, it's a boilerplate agreement that we have. Every deal we ever made with Iran, whether it was the, the Joint Plan of Action which preceded the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or any nuclear or any deal whatsoever, always is. Human rights were up front. We have taken that out and we have abandoned the Iranian people. What's frustrating is not necessarily that it's automatically frustrating that we've abandoned the Iranian people, but what's really frustrating is the first tweet Donald Trump fired off is basically, was basically, if you guys remember Trump tweeting, take to the streets. Take your country back. We have your back. So these people were like, oh, look at this. The Americans are coming. The Americans are going to help us. And then we come out with this mou. And the MOU specifically states that we will not interfere or basically meddle in the affairs of that country. And I'm like, that's a slap in the face of those Iranian people who anticipated some sort of support, any support, whether it's tacit media support or giving them Starlink terminals or whatever just to help them fight this regime. And now there's. The United States has become so neutered that we're like, ah, we're not gonna sorry Iranian people. Even though Trump said it three months ago, we're not helping you, period. And it's a part of that deal.

[B]

So, so we've lost power to sanction them in any way that would help for humanitarian aid. We clearly are losing, you know, the, the idea of a full scale invasion, as we've already discussed, is horrific. And we may not even have the power to do. Like, we basically lost the ability to keep. To aid the Iranian people via any form of intervention that we've used in the past. And clearly diplomacy is not at its best right now. Our remaining option.

[C]

Yeah, because when you say the, when you look at the language and I don't have it up, but the language basically says we cannot interfere, that their, their interpretation of interfere could be good aid. Like we could be sending medical aid and they could say, oh no, we're not, we're not doing that. You're not allowed to do that. That's interfering because you're undermining the, the Islamic Republic and the Ayatollah and whatnot. It was just, that's just extraordinarily poor judgment. And it's a humanitarian. It's setting up to be a humanitarian disaster is what it's going to be. Because we've already seen the Islamic Republic emboldened by the fact that the United States has backed off and become so weak in the region that they are now conducting open trials in the streets with executions once again. And that was something that the United States said, stop doing that. And we were, we for a brief moment where we're targeting that type of apparatus, but now it's, it's gone. We can't provide any, any food aid, any medical aid, any aid whatsoever or assist the people in overthrowing what is objectively a very, very murderous, evil regime in this is a regime that killed 30, 000 people just six months the streets.

[B]

So.

[C]

And we, we won't help them, period.

[B]

According to the MoU, we kill that many people, we just sort of let them die via lack of assistance in our country. They just died due to medical Covid. Or, you know, all the other, all the other ways that we let people die that don't sound like murder. Not to undermine the, the sickening actions of the Iranian regime, just to, just to be clear, once again, separating the people from their regimes. Yeah. If this is, if this is a. I mean, I can't imagine that the Trump administration's goal was to end in a situation where we can provide better humanitarian aid. But this doesn't even really sound like a deal. It sounds like a major concession. I mean, it's a deal.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Insofar as like, it's not like a great negotiation. It sounds like the US Took what they could get, which is less than they had when the whole thing started.

[C]

That's 100% correct.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I mean, we taught Iran that they could use the Strait of Hormuz, we as a lever against not just the United States, but against the entirety of the Western world. We taught them that again, like I said, when it worked with regard to China and Russia, we taught them that we are not, we don't have the staying power, which is extremely dangerous in a place like the Middle East. When you look at countries like the, like Qatar, the United Arab, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, these are countries that traditionally countered Iran and with the US presenting is so weak, they're going to start making the calculation just like Japan and other countries, like maybe we need to have something that is that maybe Israel was smart to build a nuclear weapon and that then they'll start having that calculation. And if you think Israel is going to let Saudi have a nuclear weapon or Egypt or they're it's going to cause a spiral effect. And I'm worried that whatever this deal comes from is going to turn into a generational problem. And as Matt has said in the past, probably the best thing we can do right now is just kind of throw our hands up and walk away and have a better, smarter administration hopefully come in and clean it up.

[A]

I would just like to point out that the deal we agreed to was the first thing Iran offered us two months ago. Yeah, it's literally the first thing they offered us two months ago. And after two months of whatever we were doing, we just, I mean that shows you the desperation of the United States. We went back and just took the first deal they, they offered us while being told they were begging for a deal. Same 14 point deal, nothing changed.

[C]

It's the exact same. And you notice Rubio isn't touching this with a ten foot pole. No, he's not getting anywhere close. He sees this poison pill a mile away.

[A]

Someone commented today, I feel better when I see Rubio because I know things aren't terrible when I don't see Rubio involved in something. I know how bad it is. And someone made that comment and I was like, that is so true.

[B]

Imagine telling that to someone five years ago.

[C]

I know. And that's the thing is Marco Rubio's in the room.

[B]

Thank God, a voice of reason.

[C]

Yeah, because he's the only grown up is what it is. And like so his policies like are objectively not good policies whatsoever. But at least he's not JD Vance like bumble his way through.

[B]

No, truly, I mean I, I completely disagree with him on almost every political stance, but he's also sort of the kind of politician that like not even but we were talking about from 20 years ago, who can. Like, yeah, a conversation without getting, you know, I don't say getting emotional. You should be emotional about your beliefs, but, like, without having a tantrum, like, most of Trump's acolytes seem to treat public speaking well.

[A]

You just think about the situation he was put in. Like, what would have happened to him if he turned down the Secretary of State job.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Like, his career would have been over.

[C]

Yeah. He would have shunned Trump.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Oh, Trump would have had him investigated by the FBI by now. Are you kidding?

[A]

That's what I'm saying.

[B]

Like, he's a vindictive.

[A]

The Maga culture trapped Rubio. Like, Iran trapped the United States in the Strait of Hormuz. Like, he was stuck. He had to take that job. He had to work under Donald Trump, and he had. Like, it was the only. It was either that or just basically disappear forever.

[C]

Well, I think that. Well, and J.D. vance, I think, is the fall guy at this point. I mean. Yeah, Rubio's not touching. I think Rubio is smart enough to find ways. Oh, I gotta go. I'm gonna go talking at the Ukraine conference. I'm gonna go talk to this focus on maybe Cuba, which is a whole danger on its own. But JD Vance is now the one being pushed forward as the negotiator, part of the negotiating team of three, which is Witkoff, Trump Jr. And J.D. vance. The worst negotiating team in the history of ever. And they.

[B]

Don Junior's in there. Good Lord.

[C]

Yeah. And you have Kushner, you have Witkoff, Don Jr. Went briefly. Then you had. Now you have J.D. vance, who just left. And it's just ridiculous, because what ends up happening is the. You're gonna have J.D. vance look like the failure. And Donald Trump has already said this. He's already come out and said objectively, he was like, well, if it fails, I'll just pin it on Vance. That sounds like a good idea. That's a direct quote, he said. And so advance is, like, feeling the heat here. But I just want to point out how amateurish this negotiating team is. So when you look at the. The. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in the final days of the negotiation, which was the most heated, the United States sent a nuclear or a negotiating team that included treaty lawyers, nuclear scientists, intelligence officials, defense planners, treasury officials to talk about sanctions. They had cultural experts to understand Iranian culture so they could present themselves as respectful. They have technical experts. They had, like, nuclear scientists on this negotiating team helping these guys get to get across the finish line and everyone's like, oh, it was an 18 point plan. Well, it had like 140 pages of annexes of extreme detail in the JCPOA. This was an extraordinary feat to get across the finish line. And oh, yeah, it wasn't just the United States, it was Russia, China, the European Union was involved. So if, if Iran, like balked or if they broke the deal, it wasn't a bilateral deal where the US Was like, we'll get you, we'll bomb you. Which, by the way, is a tactic, not a strategy. When Trump's like, we're going to bomb you if you don't fall. That's not a strategy. That doesn't solve anything. But when you look at the, if they were to back out of the jcpoa, they then the Russians, the Chinese, the entirety of Europe, the United States, they would have all went hard against Iran and said, hey, we all agreed and put our signatures on that. Well, it was. They didn't physically sign it, I get that idea. But they put their backing, their diplomatic backing. Right now none of them have that. And so when it's just Witkoff, Kushner and Vance sitting there and occasionally Trump Jr. Making some phone calls, no one's going to take this seriously. And the Iranians certainly don't take this seriously. And they're running circles around this whole negotiating team and we all see it in real time.

[B]

Two questions. One, has Israel confirmed that they have a nuclear weapon? Do we know that for sure?

[C]

No. You mentioned they unofficially have. They have not confirmed, however, we know they do.

[B]

Like the. They will never know that Israel does have a nuke.

[C]

We have the capability to detect nuclear weapons anywhere in the world at any time. So we know. Exactly.

[B]

Okay, so it's purely in name. Israel has not officially, policy wise, confirmed that they have. No.

[C]

Then they never will for sure that

[B]

they have a nuclear weapon.

[C]

Yeah, they, they officially say they have. They do not. But we know. We don't know how many. We have a rough guess.

[B]

So my totally unrelated question, but it's about the negotiating team, is. Oh, it seemed in recent days that Vance is maybe trying to distance himself from the administration. Do you see any of that playing? I mean, I don't know if you saw this, but he spoke out against conflating anti Zionism with anti Semitism or conflating, rather more specifically, creating hatred, conflating hatred of Jewish people with. I think he said Jew hatred, which is really not the phrase I would have used. But he was like, it's. He was Saying conflating hatred of Israel with conflating hatred with the Jews is, you know, is anti Semitic. Is the raw is, you know, is inaccurate. If everything is anti Semitic, nothing is anti Semitic. Very strange to hear that coming out of the Vice president. And it's just gotten me looking at his public appearances more recently where he does seem to be tracking to a different direction. I'm not saying right or left, but he's, he's creating space between him and the administration. Do you see any of that panning out in the negotiations?

[C]

First and foremost, it's too late. J.D. vance is not going to distance himself from this. However, he's trying.

[B]

I didn't say he was a master strategist. Sorry.

[C]

No. And he's not, he's not going to. And he's not smart enough to figure his way out of this. So what's going to happen is, is he's going to try to find a different angle that distinguishes him from Trump. Right now, the Israel US Relationship is very much on the fritz compared to where we were just a few months ago. So, so as Trump and MAGA seem to go down this, this path of the anti Israel, more isolationism focus, that's where they're, they're getting this from, is not necessarily they're anti Jewish or Jew or anything like that. They're just, or anti Semitic. They just are anti Israel in general because we're, they're tired of the Middle east wars where however, there is a, a pretty sizable faction that is also funded by the very powerful APAC who still want the, the Israelis to be a part of the, the U.S. government lexicon. And so I think, whereas Trump and MAGA goes one way, I think J.D. bance is trying to distinguish himself by, by almost laying himself before the, the APAC Israel Jewish community and say, please fund me, I will support. Trump is not. Yeah. And so, but as, again, I think that ship has sailed. I think he's, he's, I would be not surprised if he is removed before 28. I won't, I won't put an official prediction on that, but I would not be surprised if, because he came out firmly against this war and to his credit, he kind of saw this coming. That being said, Rubio also was in that camp as well. And Trump kind of just was drug along by Netanyahu and Rubio absolutely is the more shrewd politician and has found a way to distance himself. And so what's happening is because of the, the, what I would call the divorce that is not really A divorce. That's a bit strong of a word. But the schism, the, the.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Basically this divide that's happening between Israel and the United States largely because of the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu and what they assumed between each other. I think J.D. vance is trying to carve out his niche in a way that he supports Israel, whereas Trump is starting to distance. And the MAGA movement is generally kind of that. You know how Marjorie Taylor Greene is very anti. And then now you have Tucker Carlson and then on the other side you have the Ben Shapiroes who are pro Israel. And so I think JD Vance is moving into that pro Israel space, whereas the Trump MAGA is moving more into that Tucker Carlson anti Israel space.

[B]

Yeah. And I would say just two quick points. One is that the Trump MAGA movement, while they are anti globalist, are also largely anti Semitic. There are a lot of anti Semites in that group. I mean, that's part of why Marjorie Taylor Greene, I mean, it's, it's one of the horrific consequences of the Democrats being compromised by AIPAC for years and years is that they have been incapable of criticizing Israel to the point where they are getting scooped on it by far right Republicans who are synced up with anti Semitic conspiracy theories. Like there was a way of negotiating with Israel, of, of criticizing Israel without being anti Semitic, of course. However, I think if you scratch just below the surface of a lot of these anti globalists, it's a valid criticism that they're poor, that, you know, we're all poor while our money's going to Israel. But then the second sentence out of a lot of those people's mouths are about an international cabal of Jews or whatever specific hatred or, or conspiracy theory they have or just specific bigotry towards Jewish people. So I do think it is in many ways like largely motivated by anti Semitism on the right. But there are a lot of people who are anti globalist. Maybe they aren't, maybe they don't think about it that way. The other thing I was going to say that I think is interesting is that this schism existed in the Trump administration from practically day one. Right. Like his cabinet was split between the more America first types and the global business types. But I don't think it was stressed in the same way because quite frankly, we didn't have, you know, Trump wasn't invading. You know, he was very anti military, very very anti war. Not necessarily in rhetoric, but you know, he, he was very reticent to take military action in the first term. So I think, you know, the, the presence of Israel and obviously this is all post October 7th, and the, I wouldn't say the crisis started there, but it became front and center in the media after October 7th. I think that's kind of forced the hand of this, of the schism between the globalists and the anti globalists. And I totally agree with you that Vance is too confident. I mean, just look at the previous Trump administration. They're all, the entire cabinet's gone, not just from the cabinet. Like, they're gone from politics. Like, a lot of these people have completely left the public eye. I mean, obviously Mike Pence, but J.D. vance, I mean, whatever, whatever chance he has at capturing the moment, I feel like he'll be chewed up by the time it's even, you know, the beginning of election cycle.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And I think, and I don't know, Matt, if you want to jump in, I think just at some point Rubio is going to start chewing Vance up as, as just because he's. Vance wrote a book that resonated with a lot of people in the lower middle class and that got him elected, essentially. And he was, he was brought in to carry Ohio and he never really had to cut his teeth the way a Rubio did. And I think Rubio is going to absolutely wreck him when the chips are down. And. Yeah, so. And I don't know your thoughts on, on any of that, Matt, because I just, I, I just don't see Vance as a viable. I hope so. I hope he, he'll be, he'll lose faster than any candidate.

[B]

Oh, you hope he's the nominee.

[C]

Yeah, go ahead.

[A]

I don't think he even runs like, he's talking like he probably won't even run. But what I'm more interested to know is if Rubio vacates his position at some point, like in the next year to kind of distance himself from the administration to begin his campaign. Because the last thing Rubio wants to be doing is running for president as part of the Trump administration.

[B]

Right.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Every day.

[A]

I'm just saying, like, that's not a good start.

[B]

I think that's a realistic prediction. I just also think Vance has not accepted to himself yet that he's not running. I think he'll get chewed out by the MAGA machine by the time it's time to run. But I think he's making pivots right now that look like he's trying to sell it. I mean, maybe he just wants to sell another book. Who knows?

[C]

Yeah, I.

[B]

Forever.

[C]

I agree with Matt I think what's going to happen is, is Rubio is going to, he's already doing it. He's finding a way to look competent while distancing himself. He finds the avenues to get in front of a reporter and sound like the, the guy that's like, oh yeah, this guy kind of knows what he's talking about relative to the craziness that comes out of Trump. And I talked about this before when he came out and said try not to listen to stupid people. And he was talking about Trump like he came out and said that. And he may not have realized it, but then again, he may have, he may be playing this game where he is simultaneously looking like he's the Trump, he's like the mastermind of, of what's going on when it's great, but distances himself when it's falling apart. And so we'll have to see because I, I think, I, I do think that Rubio is going to present himself as the very much front runner and all the, all the predictive markets show him currently ahead of Vance. Vance is largely, you can't lose MAGA and be hated by the standard regular republic. It's just not going to happen. And I think the writing is on the wall and I agree with Matt. I think he's gonna, I think by the end of this we might see sometime in late 27, middle mid 28, before the, the presidential elections, a, a Rubio who's distanced himself, maybe still a part of it, but finds a way to say I got some family thing going on or whatever and gets out, but then roars back as a candidate. And then you have Vance may not even be vice president. Hell, you might even see Rubio as vice president if Vance screws enough things up. I don't know, I'm just again, conspiracy theories on that. But yeah, it's, it's all very, very much a, a, as the, as the popularity of Trump wanes and as the, which is happening day by day as the, the popularity of Rubio grows because he just looks more confident, I think you are going to see a bit more pushback or not just not necessarily pushback, but you're going to see a bit more of the kind of. Well, let me reframe what Trump said, whereas you wouldn't dare do that before. So, yeah, and again, it's one of those, as we see this and I think it'll be a great talk in another show is this, this, this rift, this, that is absolutely coming between definitely Netanyahu and Trump and the implications for what that's going to mean, because they have polar opposite goals when it comes to this war moving forward, this war in Iran. So. But that's a. That's a whole other discussion.

[B]

So I want to take us to our last segment of the show where this is. And this has been not our most uplifting show, but it was important to talk about all this stuff. So I do want to go to our final segment where we discuss, if not the best, the least bad thing that happened to us this week or a story that we particularly want to highlight in a segment we call the least worst part of My week. And now there's a sound effect for that if we want. I don't know, just saying we could.

[C]

We should get one.

[B]

We get a little jingle there, considering we only do Warcheck every few episodes. Chad, you want to go first?

[C]

I'm hoping. I'm hoping I'm not stealing someone's. But I. I have caught the World cup fever. I really have. Normally, I give some, like, cool factoid, but, man, I just am falling in love with scrolling through TikTok or Reels or whatever and watching Europeans come to the United States and experience American culture. And it's. It's just so. It's almost starting to be like, they call it the. They're calling it the Great American Sleepover. And it's almost like we're getting a sliver of taste of what New York may feel like right now after the Knicks one, where this kind of magical thing is happening. And all these. All these countries are coming to the United States. And, I mean, whether it's Kansas City or Phoenix or Los Angeles, Seattle, whatever, and they're getting to experience all this cool American culture that they wouldn't have. Would have never experienced. And you're seeing just some absolutely hilarious videos. Everything from TSA having to put out a warning that you cannot smuggle ranch dressing back to Europe. That's not allowed. And so now a company, because it's

[B]

a state secret how we make it right.

[C]

And that's what's funny is it's like I lived in Europe and I never realized because I'm not a big ranch fan of ranch dressing. But they don't have that. They don't really have root beer either. And so, like, they try things like root beer floats, and they're blown away. The Europeans are. And so now, surprisingly. Yeah, I know.

[A]

It's.

[B]

It's.

[C]

It's so fascinating because. But they're. They're. This company is making TSA approved Ranch carriers. So they can take their ranch back with them to Europe like a nip,

[B]

like you would with liquor. Something like that little ranch on the.

[C]

It's just 3 ounces of ranch. There you go. And so you see them, they're going to places. Like, I saw one amazing video where this. Their American friend took. I think they were Belgians or something. They took them to Walmart and they were blown away by Walmart. And then she's like, wait a minute. And then takes them to Costco, which is a whole other world. It's just ridiculous. And so it's just really fun watching. And they're talking about how Americans are. Everyone's been so nice to them and everything's been so great. And I want to just point out that a lot of the reason that's been great is because this is all taking place in blue cities where. Yeah. Diversity. And all of those things are even in Dallas. Like, they went to a rodeo and they were welcomed and. And they. They went like. The Scots, they came in and they drank Boston out of beer. Like, out of beer. They ran out of beer. And then, like, you know what beer Boston drinks. I know. And it's like they. Apparently, they ran out of rules. They were breaking the rules when it came to the, like, how you could. You're supposed to drink. So instead the. The Scots rented boats so they could break the rules. So they're like, we're in international waters. We're gonna drink more or something like that. It's just. Is. And so it's just this really fun ever. They're going like Buc EE's. And this British guy is like, these. They have 65 petrol pumps at this one. This ridiculous. And it's just like. And I just. I'm getting a kick out of it. It's because they were like, there's. There's one where they went to. I don't know if it was IHOP or something. And ordered one. An order of pancakes. And it was like a stack. And if you're on the YouTube video, it's like. It was like a. It's like 2ft tall. And he's like, this is one order of pancakes. And the weight. The waiter was like, oh, yeah. Welcome to America. There's a reason we're not skinny anymore. And so it's just. It's just been this really fun World cup thing. And I've never been a. A soccer or football fan, but they got me, like, looking for American. The Team USA World cup jersey.

[A]

And so.

[C]

And I'm getting in on it, and it's just a lot of fun. And I'm really happy because you look in the comments, and the people are like, it's not us. It's our parents, our government, when they're being like, our governments aren't getting along and they suck, but the people are cool, and we're cool with you if you're cool with us. And it's just a great time. So I'm just really happy that's happened. It's this extension of the Knicks winning in the magic there. And now we have the magic of the World cup, and it's a lot of fun. So that's my least. Least worst part.

[B]

I love that. Is there a team you're rooting for? Are you rooting for the U.S. well, so.

[C]

So I root for the U.S. but if the U.S. fail, falls apart, I'm gonna go for Germany because that's kind of where I. I was a big fan of soccer because I lived outside of Munich when I was there.

[B]

Right.

[C]

I say outside of Munich, it was like, I live, like, an hour from Munich, but that's outside. So, like, by Bayern was Bayern Munchin. I think I'm. And I'm saying that terribly, but that's their team out of. And so I was like, I'll go for Germany if the US but the US Is doing pretty well. They. They're. They beat Paraguay and they beat Australia, which they weren't supposed to beat Australia, and the Australians are pissed. And I'm. And now everyone's like, God help us if the US Wins. We would be insufferable.

[B]

I'm like, that is one thing I'm thinking about.

[C]

Yeah. So. But yeah. So the US Team is fun to watch, though.

[B]

I'm really enjoying. Japan has got a really interesting team, too. They're coming from behind. They're, like, surprising a lot of people. Was pulling from Mexico the other day. I was happy to see them win.

[C]

Yeah, the Japanese that clean up the stadium after they. That was so cool. They were cleaning the stadium up after they. But they do that in their baseball games, too.

[B]

Oh, yeah. I've been to a Japanese baseball game. It is a different animal. Everyone stays the entire time. Everyone cheers all the time. There are horn sections in every part of the stadium. And, yeah, everyone picks up their trash at the end and leaves. And there's a section for the opposing fans. And they have their own, you know, flat. Oh, huge flags and everything, which, you know a little bit more about how we treat some of our sports. But I just want to double on what you said, which is it's not us, it's our parents. It's. It's not our. It's not the governments, it's the people. Right. I mean, I think there's a really good book about this called How Soccer Explains the World. And I'm not going to summarize its thesis, but if you're interested in looking through, looking at soccer or if you call it football, a. As a, like a lens through geopolitics, it's really interesting. But one of the things I think, you know, I talk to a lot of people and, and you know, I think a lot of reflexive millennial liberals roll their eyes at sports. And I think that culture is coming around a little bit, and a lot of leftists actually really enjoy sports and team sports especially. And I think it's. It's both a really good example of collaboration. I mean, that's pretty straightforward. But more importantly, you know, I'm always going off about how isolated everyone is and how isolation is effectively pro capitalism and keeping everyone online and arguing with each other as a way of making everyone feel isolated. And you see all these people who, you know, would be enemies or are told that their countries are enemies or are told that, you know, America's evil and America's actions, globally, very evil, but American people watching sports, a lot of fun to hang out with. And I think you're, you know, maybe, maybe it's ridiculous, maybe some people think it's ridiculous to see sports as political, but ultimately it's like the largest populist motivator in the world. It's one of the most, the most eyes in the world are on, you know, these events and these things, like you said, are like really beautifully bringing people together. And I'm not above how wholesome that is. And like people finding. Not only finding essential humanity between each other, but like doing things for the pure sake of having fun, which is just, you know, putting on costumes, you know, making effigies, like floats. Like, it's not just wearing a jersey. People are getting creative on statues, putting, throwing cones on statues.

[C]

Yeah, this is Scott in Boston. There's cones all over statues, so.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So, Mr. Global, you got a least worst story for us or a famous. Actually that's party or a favorite World cup team.

[A]

Yeah, I don't know anything about World cup stuff, but I, I do have a couple of things, actually. Sometimes laws are going to be passed that you always thought would have been

[C]

a law

[A]

that you're shocked to find out wasn't a law. And that you may or may not know what I'm referring to, but this is actually a law that I may or may not have been signed today in the state of New York. Kira's Law. And I don't know if you're familiar with Kira's Law, but it just passed the state legislature, the senate. And it's a law that says, hey, we're going to consider child abuse in child custody cases. And I'm like, that makes sense. Like that's a good idea. Why wasn't that a thing before? I don't know. I don't know all the particulars of it, but I read that story and so it. It's going to elevate child abuse to be like the most heavily weighted thing in child custody cases in the state of New York. Another one of those things you just thought would have always been a thing. Sometimes it's shocking to find out what laws are not laws, if that makes sense. Like things that aren't laws. You're like, I would have thought that would have been a law. So really good news for the state of New York. And the other thing I have, which I just found out last night, there's going to be another little global in the family. I'm going to be a grandfather again. My beautiful daughter Emily, Congratulations. Who is a third year medical school student, is pregnant. So she has a lot on her plate, obviously. Coming up in my son Grant. So congratulations to you both again. Love you guys very much. Looking very much forward. Also, my other daughter, Delian, who is in the air force out in Sacramento, is now, I think, in her seventh month of pregnancy. So there's two coming, oh, really fast. So that is my worst or best news of the worst week. Is that what the second.

[B]

You got it perfectly.

[C]

Mr. Global's daughter. This is the worst news of the week.

[B]

This is the worst news of the best week. I have a granddaughter.

[C]

Are you gonna be.

[A]

Are you gonna be.

[C]

So how are you gonna go. Are you gonna go buy Papa Global or are you gonna be. Are you Grandpa?

[B]

She's Emily Global. Right?

[A]

Well, right now they all call me Papa Papa, so. Okay, so Papa Global, some say Papa, some say Papa, it just their mood that day. I don't care what they call me, honestly. But yeah, Senator Global. No, I. I'll never be a senator. I don't know why people get bounce

[B]

me on your knee.

[A]

I'm not, not going to be a senator.

[B]

I know, but as they say, and I believe this, the best politicians are the ones who never wanted it and had to be forced into it. People who grow up with the aspirations of being a politician. No, that's a suit.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So we're gonna force you is what I'm saying.

[A]

They said I looked like a senator in my. In my suit that I Wore in Washington D.C. by the way, did you wear a hat? Isn't really.

[C]

No. He went full Mark Kelly. Did I.

[A]

Is that how.

[C]

Yeah. You suit straight, glorious, bald and I. I'm partial, obviously.

[B]

So a lot of rings. Yeah.

[C]

What you got, Nat?

[B]

I don't think it's gonna shock anyone to learn what my least worst part of my week is. If you listen to the podcast lately, because the New York Knicks have won the NBA championship for the first time since 1973. They were in it for the first time since the 90s. Oh my God. Of course I'm happy that the Knicks won. Of course there are several Knicks insignias on camera if you're watching this on YouTube and are finally rewarded for that. And other than my amazing facial expressions, it's not just that the Knicks won. I like the Knicks. There's a lot of bandwagoners and I think it's really nice that people have decided for the most part that that's fine and it's okay to not like something if it hasn't been fun in your entire life and then start liking it when it becomes fun. But more than just the Knicks winning, it is the insane solidarity I've seen in this city. And there's a quote from the mayor gave an amazing. Let me get started. I watched the parade from the Woolworth Building. I had to fight my way through a crowd. I was was attacked by police multiple times for trying to get to an office building that I was invited to go to. I also watched an enormous number of people behave largely non violently. Just have fun. And at the end of the parade, the mayor gave this great speech and he said this line, I want to read it to make sure I get it right. But he said so often when the city comes together, it's because we're forced to by a moment of pure tragedy or adversity. What a gift it is to be brought together by pure, unfiltered joy. And I think that's so important because again, sports culture can be seen as frivolous. I certainly thought about it that way for a long time in my life, as you know. And I do still think it's odd when the, you know, a head coach getting replaced has the same type font size as a Iran deal headline. But this was a huge demonstration in the value of community, of local culture. Two million people came to that parade with basically no major consequences of, you know, a little property damage, which given the amount of people, is inevitable. And, you know, a man OD'd on top of a scaffolding and EMTs climbed up and saved his life. Like, I saw that. I mean, it was incredible. I mean, I mean, the police were trying to prevent them. And you can watch the clip. I'm not making this up. And the EMT said, this man will die if I don't go up there. They climbed multiple level. People were climbing on subway platform, subway, subway entrances, scaffolding. It was everywhere. We're lucky nothing collapsed. But it was this really amazing moment where people took care of each other. Not just the EMTs, but in general, people were a band. I saw people handing water bottles around because it got too hot. People were helping each other in and out of the crowd and gathering for this really amazing collective moment. And I think, you know, I've seen a lot of negative takes of like, oh, you could show up like this, but you couldn't show up for Palestine. And I will have, you know, or for your candidates. I'll have, you know, I and a number of people left directly from the Knicks parade to go canvas for congresspeople and other politicians in our area. And I think, if anything, I don't think a lot of this will directly translate into direct action, but I think a civilian population, largely of people who are not politically involved, realizing how important it is to gather, realizing how much power they have when they gather. Because, I mean, I know I talk ill of the NYPD a lot. They do have the fifth largest military budget in the world. If they were military, they're drastically overflowed. I mean, these guys just don't know how to handle a crowd. I mean, they are used to pushing around tourists, and New Yorkers are not tourists. And they literally overheard on a auto radio someone saying, we can't lose Broadway. Like, they treat it like it's the military and they're all from Long Island. But it was amazing to see all these people gather. Most people I've seen since 2020 gathered in one space. Again, largely nonviolent, fully joyous, every person decked out in blue and orange, whether or not they owned Nick's gear, just to celebrate something. And I think that's ultimately more important than winning the championship, which is, as I've already established, one of the most important things that's ever Happened in the world or my world.

[A]

So Broadway was like the bridge on Saving Private Ryan, huh?

[B]

Broadway. Yeah, we can't. We can't lose Broadway. And they eventually did. They did. By the way, we gotta hold Broadway. One of my favorite moments, I'm in this crowd and I'm with a group of people who have to get to work. And they're like, we have to work in the Woolworth Building. And they were like, flag down the cop. They'll let us through. And I said, they will not. We're all kettled in here. They had put a barrier in front of us, but what happened is people had come in and gotten stuck so you couldn't get back out in the other way. And I was talking to other people, and I said, I don't know, man. I only see 20 cops. Like, do you really want to. And I didn't cause this. I promise I didn't cause this. But everyone was saying the same things. And all of a sudden I start hearing people go, 10, 9, 8. I was like, what's happening at 1? And at 1, you just hear the barriers collapse and people go. It's just the hordes have taken off. That's when the cops nab me. But I got away. But it was just like the People's army has united and succeeded, and there's just nothing they could do. Everyone moved into Broadway. It's so funny. It was just this moment of, like, I don't know who decided to count down to 10, but by the time. From 10, by the time they got to 1, everyone in that little pen was counting, not knowing what was happening. And then one second later, just moving on out. And it was like, that's people power in a way that you don't see that often. And if sports fandom is what it takes, that's awesome. I love it. Go, Nicks.

[C]

Hopefully we can do this. Hopefully the US can. Can have kind of the same experience with the World Cup.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I think it. It's kind of. It's good that the Knicks just had this, because I'm loving scrolling Knicks, you know, celebration footage, like you were saying with World Cup. But I feel like a lot of people are like, oh, that felt so good. What do I do now? And it's like, world Cup. That's what you do. And. And the World cup is international, so if we can redirect that energy towards, like, international solidarity, I think that'. Awesome. And I. It gives me, you know, I don't want to be a Pollyanna, but it gives me a little bit of hope that people, you know, when they're given the opportunity to express joy and meet each other, rise to the occasion, better world for Mr.

[C]

Global's future grandchildren.

[A]

20 cops where I live is like the cops and the four surrounding counties. Yeah, if I saw 20 cops, there's some bad stuff going on.

[B]

I mean, that was 20 cops around that one barrier. That's what I'm talking about.

[A]

That's what I'm saying.

[B]

But there were 2 million people at the parade. What were they gonna do, you know? Yeah. New York people do not understand just how many cops there are in New York until there's like, a parade or a police brutality march when the cops often outnumber the protesters. That's a very real thing that happens in New York. So sorry to end on a dower note there, but I am glad that Knicks fans are more powerful than the police. And that's been our episode. I'm Nat Town for chad Scott and Mr.

[A]

Global.

[B]

You've been listening to American Power from find out media. And always remember, power corrupts, but American power corrupts Americanly.