Podcasts about World war

World War 3 this weekend? That may sound dramatic but look at the facts. Two U.S. carrier strike groups in the region.Israel signaling it may strike Iran.China watching and arming Tehran.Geneva talks collapsing. And Washington preparing military options while Congress moves toward a war powers vote. Is this brinkmanship… or are we closer than people realize? Let's break it down. ⭐️: True Gold Republic: Get The Endtime Show special on precious metals at https://www.endtimegold.com📱: It's never been easier to understand. Stream Only Source Network and access exclusive content: https://watch.osn.tv/browse📚: Check out Jerusalem Prophecy College Online for less than $60 per course: https://jerusalemprophecycollege.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Cormac Smith has worked in Public Relations and Corporate Communications for over three decades. In 2016 he traveled to Ukraine to take up a special appointment as the ‘Strategic Communication Advisor' to Pavlo Klimkin, then the Foreign Minister of Ukraine. He was attached to the British Embassy in Kyiv but was embedded in Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the first foreigner to hold such a position. While in Kyiv, he also advised and provided training for five other government ministries and worked directly with three other cabinet ministers: Health, Education and the Deputy Prime Minister. ----------LINKS:https://defencebrink.uk/https://x.com/CormacS63https://x.com/philipingmbe----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.gofundme.com/f/scaling-up-campaign-to-fight-authoritarian-disinformation----------A REQUEST FOR HELP!I'm heading back to Kyiv this week, to film, do research and conduct interviews. The logistics and need for equipment and clothing are a little higher than for my previous trips. It will be cold, and may be dark also. If you can, please assist to ensure I can make this trip a success. My commitment to the audience of the channel, will be to bring back compelling interviews conducted in Ukraine, and to use the experience to improve the quality of the channel, it's insights and impact. Let Ukraine and democracy prevail! https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrashttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.gofundme.com/f/scaling-up-campaign-to-fight-authoritarian-disinformationNONE OF THIS CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT YOU!So what's next? We're going to Kyiv in January 2026 to film on the ground, and will record interviews with some huge guests. We'll be creating opportunities for new interviews, and to connect you with the reality of a European city under escalating winter attack, from an imperialist, genocidal power. PLEASE HELP ME ME TO GROW SILICON CURTAINWe are planning our events for 2026, and to do more and have a greater impact. After achieving more than 12 events in 2025, we will aim to double that! 24 events and interviews on the ground in Ukraine, to push back against weaponized information, toxic propaganda and corrosive disinformation. Please help us make it happen!----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------DESCRIPTION:Cormac Smith on Ukraine: Why “As Long As It Takes” Is Not a StrategyJonathan interviews communications veteran Cormac Smith, formerly embedded in Ukraine's Foreign Ministry as a strategic communications adviser, on the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion. Smith argues the West should have said “with Ukraine until they win,” criticizing “as long as it takes” as planless and enabling slow-walked, constrained military aid and excessive fear of Putin's nuclear threats. ----------

Jump on the Elevator of History with us and ride it back to America's involvement in World War I.  When the US brought over a segregated unit of Black Men that were mostly a labor batallion, then they were loaned to the French Infantry who gave them French helmets, equipment, weapons and rations and put them on the front lines.  For 191 days, the longest of any unit in the war they stayed on the front lines, never giving up ground, always pushing forward and cementing their legacy and their strengths forcing the US Army to reconsider it's segregation and the idea that Black soldiers weren't capable or competent fighters.  And while it would take another thirty years to desegregate the US Military, it might not have happened at all without the persistence, dedication and heroism of the Harlem Hellfighters!  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/family-plot--4670465/support.

FIND Patrick Henningsen's work here: https://21stcenturywire.com/ And his Substack: https://substack.com/@patrickhenningsen GET YOUR WAV WATCH HERE: https://buy.wavwatch.com/WAM Use Code WAM to save $100 and purchase amazing healing frequency technology! GET HEIRLOOM SEEDS & NON GMO SURVIVAL FOOD HERE: https://heavensharvest.com/ USE Code WAM to save 25% plus free shipping! Josh Sigurdson talks with journalist Patrick Henningsen of The 21st Century Wire at Anarchapulco in Puerto Vallarta following Patrick's trip to Iran. The entire narrative surrounding protests, nuclear arms and war when it comes to Iran is an absolute lie. From the claims of 70,000 protesters killed by the Iranian government to the claims that women can't show their hair. As former CIA head Mike Pompeo boasted about Israeli intelligence controlling the protests and as the Israeli Culture Minister claimed the same, the US government wants you to think that Iran is committing a genocide against its own people and the US must step in. We've seen much of this narrative get propped up in the past regarding Syria, Libya and yes, Iraq. So, what would regime change look like? Are we facing a World War 3 scenario? What are the real casualty numbers following the protests? Why does Israel care so much about Iran? Is the 7 Country Plan mentioned by General Wesley Clark over 26 years ago still alive and well? Will Russia or China get involved? Patrick tears apart the false narratives surrounding Iran in this video and even delves deep into the history of this conflict as well as what it may look like going forward into the future. This may be one of the most fascinating breakdowns on Iran we've seen. Stay tuned for more from WAM! BUY GOLD HERE: https://firstnationalbullion.com/schedule-consult/ Avoid CBDCs! Get Your SUPER-SUPPLIMENTS HERE: https://vni.life/wam Use Code WAM15 & Save 15%! Life changing formulas you can't find anywhere else! HELP SUPPORT US AS WE DOCUMENT HISTORY HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/help-keep-wam-alive/# Get local, healthy, pasture raised meat delivered to your door here: https://wildpastures.com/promos/save-20-for-life/bonus15?oid=6&affid=321 USE THE LINK & get 20% off for life and $15 off your first box! DITCH YOUR DOCTOR! https://www.livelongerformula.com/wam Get a natural health practitioner and work with Christian Yordanov! Mention WAM and get a FREE masterclass! You will ALSO get a FREE metabolic function assessment! GET YOUR APRICOT SEEDS at the life-saving Richardson Nutritional Center HERE: https://rncstore.com/r?id=bg8qc1 Use code JOSH to save money! SIGN UP FOR HOMESTEADING COURSES NOW: https://freedomfarmers.com/link/17150/ Get Prepared & Start The Move Towards Real Independence With Curtis Stone's Courses! GET YOUR FREEDOM KELLY KETTLE KIT HERE: https://patriotprepared.com/shop/freedom-kettle/ Use Code WAM and enjoy many solutions for the outdoors in the face of the impending reset! PayPal: ancientwonderstelevision@gmail.com FIND OUR CoinTree page here: https://cointr.ee/joshsigurdson PURCHASE MERECHANDISE HERE: https://world-alternative-media.creator-spring.com/ JOIN US on SubscribeStar here: https://www.subscribestar.com/world-alternative-media For subscriber only content! Pledge here! Just a dollar a month can help us alive! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2652072&ty=h&u=2652072 BITCOIN ADDRESS: 18d1WEnYYhBRgZVbeyLr6UfiJhrQygcgNU World Alternative Media 2026

In this classic episode of True Spies, Vanessa Kirby meets Pat and Jean Owtram, two British sisters who played crucial roles as Allied codebreakers during World War 2. Bound by the Official Secrets Act, neither sister knew that the other was a spy until decades later. In their 90s, they reveal their hidden hands in planning D-Day, aiding the Resistance, and cracking the Enigma code. Tune in to True Spies to hear their story. From SPYSCAPE, the home of secrets and skills. A Cup And Nuzzle production. Series producer: Gemma Newby. Produced by Mariana Des Forges. Music by Nick Ryan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dan and Brian continue their Musical Decades theme month with a look at two Disney live action-animation hybrid films, the beloved Julie Andrews-starring Oscar winner and its less heralded (but adored-by-Brian) follow up. Join as they discuss Walt Disney's later career and his obsession with Disney Land, the film's multifaceted look at living your life with a "spoonful of sugar," Dick Van Dyke and his cockney accent, Mary Poppins' unexpected protagonist and peculiar structure, the curious choice of setting a whimsical family musical during World War 2, the traits of a '60s and '70s musicals depicted in the pair, and, of course, the battle of Nazis vs. animated suits of armor. Dan's movie reviews: http://thegoodsreviews.com/ Subscribe, join the Discord, and find us on Letterboxd: http://thegoodsfilmpodcast.com/

When you think about Transylvania the name Dracula comes to mind. But did you know that Transylvania was originally part of Hungry and only incorporated into Romania after World War one. More importantly Romania is home to the Via Transilvanica long distance hiking trail which was officially launched on the 8th of October 2022. At that time the trail was 1400km but at the time of this interview covers just on 1600km in distance. The aim of this trail was to give travellers the chance to discover various parts of Romania in quite a unique way - different regions with their history, people, culture, landmarks, and stories. On launching it was designed to be the trail that unites. In today's episode we catch up with Alin, one of the team involved in creating this trail, along with Siobhan and Geoff, two Australian Hikers who undertook this walk to get different perspectives on this relatively unknown trail. www.australianhiker.com.au   Australian Hiker can also be found on our various social media platforms Australian Hiker Facebook Australian Hiker Instagram Australian Hiker Twitter Australian Hiker Threads Australian Hiker Youtube  

February 24, 2026 ~ Chris Renwick, Lloyd Jackson, and Jamie Edmonds spoke with Rocky Raczkowski, a former commanding officer, about the potential for military action against Iran. Rocky believes the US will act in the coming days. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Homicide historian David Kulczyk releases 1926—Murder in America—New and Expanded Edition for the 100th anniversary of the deadliest year in American history.While researching his seven true crime books, Kulczyk noticed that there was an extraordinary number of oddball murders during the year 1926. The 1920's was a time of massive cultural and technological changes. The death and destruction of World War l dope -slapped the collective mindset of the youth of America and 1926 was the year that Americans all over the country said screw it. And screw it they did.......Mixing too much bootleg booze, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, with fast cars, sex, and jazz music can only lead to trouble. The number of allegedly normal people committing ghastly murders in 1926 is astounding. It is like a switch got turned on and some people went mad unlike any other time in American history. Originally released in 2019, Kulczyk discovered even more murders that occurred in 1926, hence this anniversary edition of the most insane year in American history. 1926—MURDER IN AMERICA—David Kulczyk

On episode 190 of Kliq This, Kevin Nash and Sean Oliver kick things off by examining the rapidly evolving world of AI-generated content, reacting to a shockingly realistic AI film featuring digital recreations of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. The duo debates whether this technology will ultimately replace traditional entertainment or remain a novelty, with Nash offering his characteristically skeptical take on the promises of Silicon Valley and the tech industry at large. The conversation shifts into the financial arena as Nash and Oliver dissect what they see as modern-day Ponzi schemes, from Bitcoin's volatile valuation to the murky world of precious metal ETFs. Nash channels his inner Warren Buffett, passionately arguing that nothing has true value unless it produces something tangible, while Oliver highlights the absurdity of paper silver trading at 350 times the amount of physical silver that actually exists. The pair also takes aim at Pam Bondi's now-infamous claim that the Dow crossed $50,000, using it as a springboard to discuss the current state of political and financial literacy. In the heart of the episode, Nash fields fan questions about the inherent dangers of professional wrestling, delivering a masterclass in ring safety. From his death-defying descent from the ceiling as Sting at World War 3 1997 to his philosophy on Hell in a Cell matches, chair shots, battle royals, and blading, Nash reveals the tricks of the trade that kept him safe over a decades-long career. He explains why he insisted that Hell in a Cell should stay "in" the cell, how he took chair shots without contact, and where wrestlers hide their blades — including Hulk Hogan's notorious habit of stashing his in his mouth. The Mount Ashmore segment crowns Nash's picks for wrestlers who could hold their booze, with The Undertaker, Steve Austin, Scott Hall, and Nash himself earning spots on the mountain. From there, the episode veers into Nash's hilarious gym stories — including a run-in with Nickelback-loving powerlifters — his meticulous approach to planning workouts on the road, and a weather report from a brutally cold Florida winter that cost him tens of thousands in landscaping. Nash and Oliver close out the show by tackling Trump's tariffs on Canada and the controversial delay of the Gordie Howe Bridge, with Nash connecting the dots between billionaire bridge owner Matty Moroun's influence and the political maneuvering behind the scenes. The episode wraps with a heartfelt look at the real-world impact on Canadian snowbirds in the Daytona Beach area, proving once again that Kliq This is equal parts wrestling history, cultural commentary, and unfiltered conversation. Cash App-Download Cash App Today: https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/3v6om02z #CashAppPod. Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App's bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. See terms and conditions at https://cash.app/legal/us/en-us/card-agreement. Direct deposit and promotions provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit http://cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosures. The Perfect Jean-F*%k your khakis and get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code KLIQ15 at https://theperfectjean.nyc/KLIQ15 #theperfectjeanpod BlueChew-Get 10% off your first month of BlueChew Gold with code NASH at BlueChew.com BetterWild-Right now, Betterwild is offering our listeners up to 40% off your order at betterwild.com/KLIQ 00:00 Kliq This #190: Wrestler Safety 00:34 AI Movies 02:51 Will this replace entertainment? (KT199) 05:51 Tech Bro Ponzi Schemes (KT199) 10:44 the DOW is over 50,000? 13:18 The Epstein Operation 15:34 BREAK CASH APP 17:52 Wrestler Risks (KT190) 30:56 BREAK PERFECT JEAN 33:43 Where to hide the blade 36:29 Who smoked Cigarettes? 38:10 FOR WORKERS HOLDING THEIR BOOZE (KT190) 39:12 BREAK BLUECHEW 41:11 PRE SHOW 021226 01:06:11 BREAK BETTERWILD 01:08:59 Becoming an "Investment Guy"? 01:14:37 Trump's Tariff on Canada/ the Gordie Howe bridge

Send me a messageChris Green is The History Chap; telling stories that brings the past to life.Did you know that the actor behind the much loved comedy character, Uncle Albert ("Only Fools and Horses") actually did serve in World War 2?This is his real story.Ways You Can Support My Channel:Become A PatronMake A DonationSupport the show

On today's live, Andy & DJ discuss former Prince Andrew being arrested and released on suspicion of misconduct over ties to Epstein, the Chicago Bears leaving Chicago to Indiana, and World War 3 potentially being on the horizon. 

Global strategist Michael Every joins us to discuss escalating Middle East tensions, the risk of a wider geopolitical conflict, and how global power dynamics between the U.S., China, Europe, and emerging alliances are reshaping the world order.From Iran tensions to resource security and economic realignment, this conversation looks at the bigger forces driving markets and politics today.#Geopolitics #Markets #Gold------------

Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman join our podcast to discuss how psychedelic policy is actually moving in Washington, DC. Lavasani leads Psychedelic Medicine Coalition, a DC-based advocacy organization focused on educating federal officials and advancing legislation around psychedelic medicine. Kopelman is CEO of Mission Within Foundation, which provides scholarships for veterans and first responders seeking psychedelic-assisted therapy retreats, often outside the United States. The conversation centers on veterans, the VA, and why that system may be the first realistic federal pathway for psychedelic care. Early Themes Lavasani describes PMC's work on Capitol Hill, including hosting events that bring lawmakers, staffers, and advocates into the same room. Her focus is steady engagement. In DC, progress often happens through repeated conversations, not headlines. Kopelman shares his background as a Marine and how his own psychedelic-assisted therapy experience led him to Mission Within. The foundation has funded more than 250 scholarships for veterans and first responders seeking treatment for PTSD, mild traumatic brain injury, depression, and addiction. They connect this work to pending veteran-focused legislation and explain why the VA matters. As a closed health system, the VA can pilot programs, gather data, and refine protocols without the pressures of private healthcare markets. Core Insights A recent Capitol Hill gathering, For Veteran Society, brought together members of Congress and leaders from the psychedelic caucus. Lavasani describes candid feedback from lawmakers. The message was clear: coordinate messaging, avoid fragmentation, and move while bipartisan interest remains. Veteran healthcare is not framed as the final goal. It is a starting point. If psychedelic therapies can demonstrate safety and effectiveness within the VA, broader adoption becomes more plausible. Kopelman raises operational realities that must be addressed: Standardized safety protocols across providers Integration support, not medication alone Clear training pathways for clinicians Real-world data beyond tightly screened clinical trials They also address recent negative headlines involving ibogaine treatment abroad. Kopelman emphasizes the need for shared learning across providers, especially when adverse events occur. Lavasani argues that inconsistency within the ecosystem can slow federal confidence. Later Discussion and Takeaways The discussion widens to federal momentum around addiction and mental health. Lavasani notes that new funding initiatives signal growing openness to innovative treatment models, even if psychedelics are not named explicitly in every announcement. Both guests stress that policy moves slowly by design. Meetings, follow-ups, and relationship building often matter more than public statements. For clinicians, researchers, operators, and advocates, the takeaways are direct: Veterans are likely the first federal pathway Public education remains essential Safety standards must be shared and transparent Integration and workforce development need attention now If psychedelic medicine enters federal systems, infrastructure will determine success. Frequently Asked Questions What do Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman say about VA psychedelic policy? They argue that veteran-focused legislation offers a realistic first federal pathway for psychedelic-assisted care. Is ibogaine currently available through the VA? No. They discuss ibogaine in the context of private retreats and future possibilities, not an existing VA program. Why do Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman emphasize coordination? Lawmakers respond more positively when advocates present aligned messaging and clear priorities. What safety issues are discussed by Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman? They highlight the need for standardized screening, monitoring, integration support, and transparent review of adverse events. Closing Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman provide a grounded look at how psychedelic policy develops inside federal systems. Their message is practical: veterans may be the first lane, but long-term success depends on coordination, safety standards, and sustained engagement. Closing This episode captures a real-time view of how federal policy could shape the next phase of the psychedelic resurgence, especially through veteran-facing legislation and VA infrastructure. Melissa Lavasani & Jay Kopelman argue that coordination, public education, and shared safety standards will shape whether access expands with credibility and care. Transcript Joe Moore: [00:00:00] Hello everybody. Welcome back to Psychedelics Today. Today we have two guests, um, got Melissa Sani from Psychedelic Medicine Coalition. We got Jake Pelman from Mission Within Foundation. We're gonna talk about I bga I became policy on a recent, uh, set of meetings in Washington, DC and, uh, all sorts of other things I'm sure. Joe Moore: But thank you both for joining me. Melissa Lavasani: Thanks for having us. Jay Kopelman: Yeah, it's a pleasure. Thanks. Joe Moore: Yeah. Um, Melissa, I wanna have you, uh, jump in. First. Can you tell us a little bit about, uh, your work and what you do at PMC? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, so Psychedelic Medicine Coalition is, um, the only DC based Washington DC based advocacy organization dedicated to the advancing the issue of psychedelics, um, and making sure the federal government has the education they need, um, and understands the issue inside out so that they can generate good policy around, around psychedelic medicines. Melissa Lavasani: [00:01:00] Uh, we. Host Hill events. We host other convenings. Our big event every year is the Federal Summit on psychedelic medicine. Um, that's going to be May 14th this year. Um, where we talk about kinda the pressing issues that need to be talked about, uh, with government officials in the room, um, so that we can incrementally move this forward. Melissa Lavasani: Um, our presence here in Washington DC is, is really critical for this issue's success because, um, when we're talking about psychedelic medicines, um, from the federal government pers perspective, you know, they are, they are the ones that are going to initiate the policies that create a healthcare system that can properly facilitate these medicines and make sure, um, patient safety is a priority. Melissa Lavasani: And there's guardrails on this. And, um, you know, there, it's, it's really important that we have. A home base for this issue in Washington DC just [00:02:00] because, uh, this is very complicated as a lot of your viewers probably understand, and, you know, this can get lost in the mix of all the other issues that, um, lawmakers in DC are focused on right now. Melissa Lavasani: And we need to keep that consistent presence here so that this continues to be a priority for members of Congress. Joe Moore: Mm. I love this. And Jay, can you tell us a bit about yourself and mission within Foundation? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, sure. Joe, thanks. Uh, I, I am the CEO of Mission within Foundation. Prior to this, most of my adult life was spent in the military as a Marine. Jay Kopelman: And I came to this. Role after having, uh, a psychedelic assisted therapy experience myself at the mission within down in Mexico, which is where pretty much we all go. Um, we are here to help [00:03:00] provide, uh, access for veterans and first responders to be able to attend psychedelic assisted therapy retreats to treat issues like mild TBI, post-traumatic stress disorder, uh, depression, sometimes addiction at, at a very low level. Jay Kopelman: Um, and, and so we've, we've been doing this for a little more than a year now and have provided 250 plus scholarships to veterans and first responders to be able to access. These retreats and these, these lifesaving medicines. Um, we're also partnered, uh, you may or may not know with Melissa at Psychedelic Medicine Coalition to help advance education and policy, specifically the innovative, uh, therapy Centers of Excellence Act [00:04:00] that Melissa has worked for a number of years on now to bring to both Houses of Congress. Joe Moore: Thank you for that. Um, so let's chat a little bit about what this event was that just, uh, went down, uh, what, what was it two weeks ago at this point? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. Yeah. It's called For Veteran Society and it's all, um, there's a lot of dialogue on Capitol Hill about veterans healthcare and psychedelics, but where I've been frustrated is that, you know, it was just a lot of. Melissa Lavasani: Talk about what the problems are and not a lot of talk about like how we actually propel things forward. Um, so it, at that event, I thought it was really important and we had three members of Congress there, um, Morgan Latrell, who has been a champion from day one and his time in Congress, um, having gone through the experience himself, um, [00:05:00] at Mission within, um, and then the two chairs of the psychedelic caucus, uh, Lou Correa and Jack Bergman. Melissa Lavasani: And we really got down to the nitty gritty of like w like why this has taken so long and you know, what is actually happening right now? What are the possibilities and what the roadblocks are. And it was, I thought it was a great conversation. Um, we had an interesting kind of dynamic with Latres is like a very passionate about this issue in particular. Melissa Lavasani: Um, I think it was, I think it was really. A great event. And, you know, two days later, Jack Bergman introduced his new bill for the va. Um, so it was kind of like the precursor to that bill getting introduced. And we're just excited for more and more conversations about how the government can gently guide this issue to success. Joe Moore: Hmm. Yeah. [00:06:00] That's fantastic. Um, yeah, I was a little bummed I couldn't make it, but next time, I hope. But I've heard a lot of good things and, um, it's, it sounded like there was some really important messages in, in terms of like feedback from legislators. Yeah. Yeah. Could you speak to that? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, I mean, I think when, uh, representative Latrell was speaking, he really impressed on us a couple things. Melissa Lavasani: Um, first is that, you know, they really kind of need the advocates to. Coordinate, collaborate and come up with like a, a strategic plan, you know, without public education. Um, talking to members of Congress about this issue is, is really difficult. You know, like PMC is just one organization. We're very little mission within, very little, um, you know, we're all like, kind of new in navigating, um, this not so new issue, but new to Washington DC [00:07:00] issue. Melissa Lavasani: Um, without that public education as a baseline, uh, it's, it's, you have to spend a lot of time educating members of Congress. You know, that's like one of our things is, you know, we have to, we don't wanna tell Congress what direction to go to. We wanna provide them the information so they understand it very intimately and know how to navigate through things. Melissa Lavasani: Um, and secondly. Um, he got pretty frank with us and said, you know, we've got one cha one chance at this issue. And it's like, that's, that's kind of been like my talking point since I started. PMC is like, you have a very limited window, um, when these kind of issues pop up and they're new and they're fresh and you have a lot of the veteran community coming out and talking about it. Melissa Lavasani: And there's a lot of energy there. But now is the time to really move forward, um, with some real legislation that can be impactful. Um, but, you know, we've gotta [00:08:00] be careful. We, we forget, I think sometimes those of us who are in the ecosystem forget that our level of knowledge about these medicines and a lot of us have firsthand experience, um, with these drugs and, and our own healing journeys is, um, we forget that there is a public out there that doesn't have the level of knowledge that we all have. Melissa Lavasani: And, um. We gotta make sure that we're sticking to the right elements of, of, of what needs to happen. We need to be sure that our talking points are on track and we're not getting sideways about anything and going down roads that we don't need to talk about. It's why, um, you know, PMC is very focused on, um, moving forward veteran legislation right now. Melissa Lavasani: Not because we're a veteran organization, but because we're, we see this long-term policy track here. Um, we know where we want to get [00:09:00] to, um. Um, and watching other healthcare issues kind of come up and then go through the VA healthcare system, I think it's a really unique opportunity, um, to utilize the VA as this closed system, the biggest healthcare system in the country to evaluate, uh, how psychedelics operate within systems like that. Melissa Lavasani: And, you know, before they get into, um, other healthcare systems. What do we need to fix? What do we need to pay attention to? What's something that we're paying too much attention to that doesn't necessarily need that much attention? So it's, um, it's a real opportunity to look at psychedelic medicines within a healthcare system and obviously continue to gather the data. Melissa Lavasani: Um, Bergman's Bill emerging, uh, expanding veteran access to emerging treatments. Um, not only mandates the research, it gives the VA authority for this, uh, for running trials and, and creating programs around psychedelic medicines. But also, [00:10:00] one of the great things about it, I think, is it provides an on-ramp for veterans that don't necessarily qualify for clinical trials. Melissa Lavasani: You know, I think that's one of the biggest criticisms of clinical trials is like you're cre you're creating a vacuum for people and people don't live in a vacuum. So we don't necessarily know what psychedelics are gonna look like in real life. Um, but with this expanding veteran access bill that Bergman introduced, it provides the VA an opportunity to provide this access under. Melissa Lavasani: Um, in a, in a safe container with medical supervision while collecting data, um, while ensuring that the veteran that is going through this process has the support systems that it needs. So, um, you know, I think that there's a really unique opportunity here, and like Latrell said, like, we've got one shot at this. Melissa Lavasani: We have people's attention in Congress. Um, now's the time to start acting, and let's be really considerate and thoughtful about what we're doing with it. Joe Moore: Thanks for that, Melissa and Jay, how, [00:11:00] anything to add there on kind of your takeaways from the this, uh, last visit in dc? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, I, I think that Melissa highlighted it really well and there, there were a couple other things that I, I think, you know, you could kind of tie it all together with some other issues that we face in this country, uh, and that. Jay Kopelman: Uh, representative Correa brought up as well, but one of the things I wanted to go back and say is that veterans have kind of led this movement already, right? So, so it's a, it's a good jumping off point, right? That it's something people from both sides of the aisle, from any community in America can get behind. Jay Kopelman: You know, if you think about it, uh, in World War ii, you know, we had a million people serving our population was like, not even 200 million, but now [00:12:00] we have a population of 330 million, and at any given time there might be a million people in uniform, including the Reserve and the National Guard. So it's, it, it's an easy thing to get behind this small part of the population that is willing to sign that contract. Jay Kopelman: Where you are saying, yeah, I'm going to defend my country, possibly at the risk of my l my own life. So that's the first thing. The other thing is that the VA being a closed health system, and they don't have shareholders to answer to, they can take some risks, they can be innovative and be forward thinking in the ways that some other healthcare systems can't. Jay Kopelman: And so they have a perfect opportunity to show that they truly care for their veterans, which don't, I'm not saying they don't, but this would be an [00:13:00] opportunity to show that carrot at a whole different level. Uh, it would allow them to innovate and be a leader in something as, uh, as our friend Jim Hancock will say, you know. Jay Kopelman: When he went to the Naval Academy, they had the world's best shipbuilding program. Why doesn't the VA have the world's best care program for things like TBI and PTSD, which affects, you know, 40 something percent of all veterans, right? So, so there's, there's an opportunity here for the VA to lead from the front. Jay Kopelman: Um, the, these medicines provide, you know, reasonably lasting care where it's kind of a one and done. Whereas with the current systems, the, you know, and, and [00:14:00] again, not to denigrate the VA in any way, they're doing the best job they can with the tools in their toolbox, right? But maybe it's time for a trip to Home Depot. Jay Kopelman: Let's get some new tools. And have some new ways of fixing what's broken, which is really the way of doing things. It's not, veterans aren't broken, we are who we are. Um, but it's a, it's a way to fix what isn't working. So I, I think that, you know, given there's tremendous veteran homelessness still, you know, addiction issues, all these things that do translate to the population at large are things that can be worked on in this one system, the va that can then be shown to have efficacy, have good data, have [00:15:00] good outcomes, and, and take it to the population at large. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Brilliant. Thanks for that. And so there was another thing I wanted to pivot to, which is some of the recent press. So we've, um, seen a little bit of press around some, um, in one instance, some bad behavior in Mexico that a FI put out Americans thrive again, put out. And then another case there was a, a recent fatality. Joe Moore: And I think, um, both are tragic. Like we shouldn't be having to deal with this at this point. Um, but there's a lot of things that got us here. Um, it's not necessarily the operator's fault entirely, um, or even at all, honestly, like some medical interventions just carry a lot of risk. Like think, think about like, uh, how risky bypass surgery was in the nineties, right? Joe Moore: Like people were dying a lot from medical interventions and um, you know, this is a major intervention, uh, ibogaine [00:16:00] and also a lot of promise. To help people quite a bit. Um, but as of right now, there's, there's risk. And part of that risk, in my opinion, comes from the inability of organizations to necessarily collaborate. Joe Moore: Like there's no kind of convening body, sitting in the middle, allowing, um, for, and facilitating really good data sharing and learnings. Um, and I don't, I don't necessarily see an organization stepping up and being the, um, the convener for that kind of work. I've heard rumors that something's gonna happen there, and I'm, I'm hopeful I'll always wanna share my opinion on that. Joe Moore: But yeah. I don't know. Jay, from your perspective, is there anything you want to kind of speak to about, uh, these two recent incidents that Americans for Iboga kind of publicized recently? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, so I, I'll echo your sentiment, of course, that these are tragic incidents. Um, and I, [00:17:00] I think that at least in the case of the death at Ambio, AMBIO has done a very good job of talking about it, right? Jay Kopelman: They've been very honest with the information that they have. And like you said, there are risks inherent to these medicines, and it's like anything else in medicine, there are going to be risks. You know, when I went through, uh, when I, when I went through chemo, you know, there were, there are risks. You know, you don't feel well, you get sick. Jay Kopelman: Um, and, and it. There are processes in place to counter that when it happens. And there are processes and, and procedures and safety protocols in place when caring for somebody going through an ibogaine [00:18:00] journey. Uh, when I did it, we had EKG echocardiogram. You're on a heart monitor the entire time they push magnesium via iv. Jay Kopelman: You have to provide a urinalysis sample to make sure that there is nothing in your system that is going to potentially harm you. During the ibogaine, they have, uh, a cardiologist who is monitoring the heart monitors throughout the ibogaine experience. So the, the safety protocols are there. I think it's, I think it's just a matter of. Jay Kopelman: Standardizing them across all, all providers, right? Like, that would be a good thing if people would talk to one another. Um, as, as in any system, right? You've gotta have [00:19:00] some collaboration. You've gotta have standardization, you know, so, you know, they're not called standard operating procedures for nothing. Jay Kopelman: That means that in a, you know, in a given environment, everybody does things the same way. It's true in Navy and Marine Corps, air Force, army Aviation, they have standard operating procedures for every single aircraft. So if you fly, let's say the F 35 now, right? Because it's flown by the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. Jay Kopelman: The, the emergency procedures in that airplane are standardized across all three services, so you should have the same, or, you know, with within a couple of different words, the same procedures and processes [00:20:00] across all the providers, right? Like maybe in one document you're gonna change, happy to glad and small dog to puppy, but it's still pretty much the, the same thing. Jay Kopelman: And as a service that provides scholarships to people to go access these medicines and go to these retreats, you know, my criteria is that the, this provider has to be safe. Number one, safety's paramount. It's always gotta be very safe. It should, it has to be effective. And you know, once you have those two things in place, then I have a comfort level saying, okay, yeah, we'll work with this provider. Jay Kopelman: But until those standardized processes are in place, you'll probably see these one-off things. I mean, some providers have been doing this longer than others and have [00:21:00] really figured out, you know, they've, they've cracked the code and, you know, sharing that across the spectrum would be good. Um, but just when these things happen, having a clearing house, right, where everybody can come together and talk about it, you know, like once the facts are known because. Jay Kopelman: To my knowledge, we still don't know all the facts. Like as, you know, as horrible as this is, you still have to talk about like an, has an autopsy been performed? What was found in the patient's system? You know, there, there are things there that we don't know. So we need to, we need to know that before we can start saying, okay, well this is how we can fix that, because we just don't know. Jay Kopelman: And, you know, to their credit, you know, Amio has always been safe to, to the, to the best of my knowledge. You know, I, [00:22:00] I haven't been to Ambio myself, but people that I have worked with have been there. They have observed, they have seen the process. They believe it's safe, and I trust their opinion because they've seen it elsewhere as well. Jay Kopelman: So yeah, having, having that one place where we can all come together when this happens, it, it's almost like it should be mandatory. In the military when there's a training accident, we, you know, we would have to have what's called a safety standout. And you don't do that again for a little while until you figure out, okay, how are we going to mitigate that happening again? Jay Kopelman: Believe me, you can go overboard and we don't want to do that. Like, we don't wanna just stop all care, but maybe stop detox for a week and then come back to it. [00:23:00] Joe Moore: Yeah. A dream would be, let's get like the, I don't know, 10, 20 most popular, uh, or well-known operators together somewhere and just do like a three day debrief. Joe Moore: Hey, everybody, like, here's what we see. Let's work on this together. You know how normal medicine works. And this is, it's hard because this is not necessarily, um, something people feel safe about in America talking about 'cause it's illicit here. Um, I don't understand necessarily how the operations, uh, relate to each other in Mexico, but I think that's something to like the public should dig into. Joe Moore: Like, what, what is this? And I, I'll start digging into that. Um, I, I asked a question recently of somebody like, is there some sort of like back channel signal everybody's using and there's no clear Yes. You know? Um, I think it would be good. That's just a [00:24:00] start, you know, that's like, okay, we can actually kind of say hi and watch out for this to each other. Jay Kopelman: It's not like we don't all know one another, right? Joe Moore: Yes. Jay Kopelman: Like at least three operators we're represented. At the Aspen Ibogaine meeting. So like that could be, and I think there was a panel kind of loosely related to this during Aspen Ibogaine meeting, but Joe Moore: mm-hmm. Jay Kopelman: It, you know, have a breakout where the operators can go sit down and kind of compare notes. Joe Moore: Right. Yeah. Melissa, do you have any, uh, comments on this thread here? And I, I put you on mute if you didn't see that. Um, Melissa Lavasani: all right, I'm off mute. Um, yeah, I think that Jay's hits the nail on the head with the collaboration thing. Um, I think that it's just a [00:25:00] problem across the entire ecosystem, and I think that's just a product of us being relatively new and upcoming field. Melissa Lavasani: Um, uh, it's a product of, you know. Our fundraising community is really small, so organizations feel like they are competing for the same dollars, even though their, their goals are all the same, they have different functions. Um, I think with time, I mean, let's be honest, like if we don't start collaborating and, and the federal government's moving forward, the federal government's gonna coordinate for us. Melissa Lavasani: And not, that might not necessarily be a bad thing, but, you know, we understand this issue to a whole other level that the federal government doesn't, and they're not required to understand it deeply. They just need to know how to really move forward with it the proper way. Um, but I think that it. It's really essential [00:26:00] that we all have this come together moment here so we can avoid things. Melissa Lavasani: Uh, I mean, no one's gonna die from bad advocacy. So like I've, I have a bit of an easier job. Um, but it can a, a absolutely stall efforts, um, to move things forward in Washington DC when, um, one group is saying one thing, another group is saying another thing, like, we're not quite at a point yet where we can have multiple lines of conversation and multiple things moving forward. Melissa Lavasani: Um, you know, for PMC, it's like, just let's get the first thing across the finish line. And we think that is, um, veteran healthcare. And, um, I know there's plenty of other groups out there that, that want the same thing. So, you know, I always, the reason why I put on the Federal Summit last year was I kind of hit my breaking point with a lack of collaboration and I wanted to just bring everyone in the same room and say like, all right, here are the things that we need to talk about. Melissa Lavasani: And I think the goal for this year is, um. To bring people in the same room and say, we talked about [00:27:00] we scratched the surface last year and this is where we need to really put our efforts into. And this is where the opportunities are. Um, I think that is going to, that's going to show the federal government if we can organize ourselves, that they need to take this issue really seriously. Melissa Lavasani: Um, I don't think we've done a great job at that thus far, but I think there's still plenty of time for us to get it together. Um, and I'm hoping with these two, uh, VA bills that are in the house right now and Senate is, is putting together their version of these two bills, um, so that they can move in tandem with each other. Melissa Lavasani: I think that, you know, there's an opportunity here for. Us to show the federal government as an ecosystem, Hey, we, we are so much further ahead and you know, this is what we've organized and here's how we can help you, um, that would make them buy into this issue a bit more and potentially move things forward faster. Melissa Lavasani: Uh, at this point in time, it's, I think that, [00:28:00] you know, psychedelics aren't necessarily the taboo thing that they, they used to be, but there's certainly places that need attention. Um, there's certainly conversations that need to be had, and like I said, like PMC is just one organization that can do this. Um, we can certainly organize and drive forward collaboration, but I, like we alone, cannot cover all this ground and we need the subject matter experts to collaborate with us so we can, you know, once we get in the door, we wanna bring the experts in to talk to these officials about it. Melissa Lavasani: So I. I, I really want listeners to really think about us as a convener of sorts when it comes to federal policy. Um, and you know, I think when, like for example, in the early eighties, a lot of people have made comparisons to the issue of psychedelics to the issue of AIDS research and how you have in a subject matter that's like extremely taboo and a patient population that the government [00:29:00] quite honestly didn't really care about in the early eighties. Melissa Lavasani: But what they did as an ecosystem is really organized themselves, get very clear on what they wanted the federal government to do. And within a matter of a couple years, uh, AIDS research funding was a thing that was happening. And what that, what that did was that ripple effect turned that into basically finding new therapies for something that we thought was a death, death sentence before. Melissa Lavasani: So I think. We just need to look at things in the past that have been really successful, um, and, and try to take the lessons from all of these issues and, and move forward with psychedelics. Joe Moore: Love that. And yes, we always need to be figuring out efficient approaches and where it has been successful in the past is often, um, an opportunity to mimic and, and potentially improve on that. Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. Jay Kopelman: One, one thing I think it's important to add to this part of the conversation is that, [00:30:00] you know, Melissa pointed out there are a number of organizations that are essentially doing the same thing. Jay Kopelman: Um, you know, I like to think we do things a little bit differently at Mission within Foundation in that we don't target any one specific type of service member. We, we work with all veterans. We work with first responders, but. What that leads to is that there are, as far as I've seen, nothing but good intentioned people in this space. Jay Kopelman: You know, people who really care about their patient population, they care about healing, they are trying to do a good job, and more importantly, they're trying to do good. Right? It, it, I think they all see the benefit down the road that this has, [00:31:00] pardon me, not just for veterans, but for society as a whole. Jay Kopelman: And, and ultimately that's where I would like to see this go. You know, I, I would love to see the VA take this. Take up this mantle and, and run with it and provide great data, great outcomes. You know, we are doing some data collection ourselves at Mission within foundation, albeit anecdotal based on surveys given before and after retreats. Jay Kopelman: But we're also working with, uh, Greg Fonzo down at UT Austin on a brain study he's doing that will have 40 patients in it when it's all said and done. And I think we have two more guys to put through that. Uh, and then we'll hit the 40. So there, there's a lot of good here that's being done by some really, really good people who've been doing this for a long time [00:32:00] and want to want nothing more than to, to see this. Jay Kopelman: Come to, come full circle so that we can take care of many, many, many people. Um, you know, like I say, I, I wanna work myself out of a job here. I, I just, I would love to see this happen and then I, you know, I don't have to send guys to Mexico to do this. They can go to their local VA and get the care that they need. Jay Kopelman: Um, but one thing that I don't think we've touched on yet, or regarding that is that the VA isn't designed for that. So it's gonna be a pretty big lift to get the right types of providers into the va with the knowledge, right, with the institutional knowledge of how this should be done, what is safe, what is effective, um, and then it, it's not just providing these medicines to [00:33:00] people and sending them home. Jay Kopelman: You don't just do that, you've gotta have the right therapists on the backend who can provide the integration coaching to the folks who are receiving these medicines. And I'm not just talking, I bga, even with MDMA and psilocybin, you should have a proper period of integration. It helps you to understand how this is going to affect you, what it, what the experience really meant, you know, because it's very difficult sometimes to just interpret it on your own. Jay Kopelman: And so what the experience was and what it meant to you. And, and so it will take some time to spin all that up. But once it's, once it's in place, you know, the sky's the limit. I think. Joe Moore: Kinda curious Jay, about what's, what's going on with Ibogaine at the federal level. Is there anything at VA right now? [00:34:00] Jay Kopelman: At the va? No, not with ibogaine. And, you know, uh, we, we send people specifically for IBOGAINE and five MEO, right? And, and so that, that doesn't preclude my interest in seeing this legislation passed, right? Jay Kopelman: Because it, it will start with something like MDMA or psilocybin, but ultimately it could grow to iboga, right? It the think about the cost savings at, at the va, even with psilocybin, right? Where you could potentially treat somebody with a very inexpensive dose of psilocybin or, or iboga one time, and then you, you don't have to treat them again. Jay Kopelman: Now, if I were, uh, you know, a VA therapist who's not trained in psychedelic trauma therapy. I might be worried [00:35:00] about job security, but it's like with anything, right? Like ultimately it will open pathways for new people to get that training or the existing people to get that training and, and stay on and do that work. Jay Kopelman: Um, which only adds another arrow to their quiver as far as I'm concerned, because this is coming and we're gonna need the people. It's just like ai, right? Like ai, yeah. Some people are gonna lose some jobs initially, and that's unfortunate. But productivity ultimately across all industries will increase and new jobs will be created as a result of that. Jay Kopelman: I mean, I was watching Squawk Box one morning. They were talking about the AI revolution and how there's gonna be a need for 500,000 electricians to. Build these systems that are going to work with the AI [00:36:00] supercomputers and, and so, Joe Moore: mm-hmm. Jay Kopelman: Where, where an opportunity may be lost. I think several more can be gained going forward. Melissa Lavasani: And just to add on what Jay just said there, there's nothing specific going on with Ibogaine at, at the va, but I think this administration is, is taking a real look at addiction in particular. Uh, they just launched, uh, a new initiative, uh, that's really centered on addiction treatments called the Great American Recovery. Melissa Lavasani: And, um, they're dedicating a hundred million dollars towards treating addiction as like a chronic treatable disease and not necessarily a law enforcement issue. So, um, in that initiative there will be federal grant programs for prevention and treatment and recovery. And, um, while this isn't just for psychedelic medicines, uh, I think it's a really great opportunity for the discussion of psychedelics to get elevated to the White House. Melissa Lavasani: Um, [00:37:00] there's also, previous to this announcement last week from the White House, there's been a hundred million dollars that was dedicated at, um, at ARPA h, which is. The advanced research projects, uh, agency for healthcare, um, and that is kind of an agency that's really focused on forward looking, um, treatments and technologies, uh, for, um, a, a whole slew of. Melissa Lavasani: Of issues, but this a hundred million dollars is dedicated to mental health and addiction. So there's a lot of opportunity there as well. So we, while I think, you know, some people are talking about, oh, we need a executive order on Iboga, it's like, well, you know, the, the president is thinking, um, about, you know, what issues can land with his, uh, voting block. Melissa Lavasani: And I think it's, I don't think we necessarily need a specific executive order on Iboga to call this a success. It's like, let's look at what, [00:38:00] um, what's just been announced from the White House. They're, they're all in on. Thinking creatively and finding, uh, new solutions for this. And this is kind of, this aligns with, um, HHS secretaries, uh, Robert F. Melissa Lavasani: Kennedy Junior's goals when he took on this, this role of Health Secretary. Um, addiction has been a discussion that, you know, he has personal, um, a personal tie to from his own experience. And, um, I think when this administration started, there was so much like fervor around the, the dialogue of like, everyone's talking about psychedelics. Melissa Lavasani: It was Secretary Kennedy, it was, uh, secretary Collins at the va. It was FDA Commissioner Marty Macari. And I think that there's like a lot of undue frustration within folks 'cause um, you don't necessarily snap your fingers and change happens in Washington dc This is not the city for that. And it's intentionally designed to move slow so that we can avoid really big mistakes. Melissa Lavasani: Um. [00:39:00] I think we're a year into this administration and these two announcements are, are pretty huge considering, um, you know, the, we, there are known people within domestic policy council that don't, aren't necessarily supportive of psychedelic medicine. So there's a really amazing progress here, and frustrating as it might be to, um, just be waiting for this administration to make some major move. Melissa Lavasani: I think they are making major moves like for Washington, DC These, these are major moves and we just gotta figure out how we can, um, take these initiatives and apply them to the issue of psychedelic medicines. Joe Moore: Thanks, Melissa. Um, yeah, it is, it is interesting like the amount of fervor there was at the beginning. You know, we had, uh. Kind of one of my old lawyers, Matt Zorn, jumped in with the administration. Right. And, um, you know, it was, uh, really cool to [00:40:00] see and hopeful how much energy was going on. It's been a little quiet, kind of feels like a black box a little bit, but I, you know, there was, Melissa Lavasani: that's on me. Melissa Lavasani: Maybe I, we need to be more out in public about like, what's actually happening, because I feel like, like day in and day out, it's just been, you gotta just mm-hmm. Like have that constant beat with the government. Mm-hmm. And, um, it's, it's, it's not the photo ops on the hill, it's the conversations that you have. Melissa Lavasani: It's the dinner parties you go to, it's the fundraisers you attend, you know? Mm-hmm. That's why I, I kind of have to like toot my own horn with PCs. Like, we need to be present here at, at not only on the Hill, not only at the White House, but kind of in the ecosystem of Washington DC itself. There's, it's, there are like power players here. Melissa Lavasani: There are people that are connected that can get things done, like. I mean, the other last week we had a big snow storm. I walked over to my friend's house, um, to have like a little fire sesh with them and our kids, and his next door neighbor came over. He was a member of Congress. I talked about the VA bills, like [00:41:00] we're reaching out to his office now, um, to get them, um, up to speed and hopefully get their co-sponsorship for, uh, the two VA bills. Melissa Lavasani: So, I mean, it, the little conversations you have here are just as important as the big ones with the photo ops. So, um, it, it's, it's really like, you know, building up that momentum and, and finding that time where you can really strike and make something happen. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Jay, anything to add there? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, I was just gonna say that, you know, I, I, I think the fervor is still there, right? Jay Kopelman: But real life happens. Melissa Lavasani: Yes, Jay Kopelman: yes. And gets in the way, right? So, Melissa Lavasani: yeah, Jay Kopelman: I, I can't imagine how many issues. Secretary Kennedy has every day much less the president. Like there's so many things that they are dealing with on a daily basis, right? It, we, we just have to work to be the squeaky wheel in, in the right way, right. Jay Kopelman: [00:42:00] With the, with the right information at the right time. Like just inundating one of these organizations with noise, it's then it be with Informa, it just becomes noise, right? It it, it doesn't help. So when we have things to say that are meaningful and impactful, we do, and Melissa does an amazing job of that. Jay Kopelman: But, you know, it, it takes time. You know, it's, you know, we're not, this is, this is like turning an aircraft carrier, not a ski boat. Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, Joe Moore: yeah, absolutely. Um, and. It's, it's understandably frustrating, I think for the public and the psychedelic public in particular because we see all this hope, you know, we continue to get frustrated at politics. It's nothing new, right? Um, and we, we wanna see more people get well immediately. [00:43:00] And I, I kind of, Jay from the veteran perspective, I do love the kind of loud voices like, you're making me go to Mexico for this. Joe Moore: I did that and you're making me leave the country for the thing that's gonna fix me. Like, no way. And barely a recognition that this is a valid treatment. You know, like, you know, that is complicated given how medicine is structured here domestically. But it's also, let's face the facts, like the drug war kind of prevented us from being able to do this research in the first place. Joe Moore: You know? Thanks Nixon. And like, how do we actually kind of correct course and say like, we need to spend appropriately on science here so we can heal our own people, including veterans and everybody really. It's a, it's a dire situation out there. Jay Kopelman: Yeah. It, it really is. Um, you know, we were talking briefly about addicts, right? Jay Kopelman: And you know, it's not sexy. People think of addicts as people who are weak-minded, [00:44:00] right? They don't have any self-control. Um, but, but look at, look at the opioid crisis, right? That Brian Hubbard was fighting against in Kentucky for all those years. That that was something that was given to the patient by a doctor that they then became dependent on, and a lot of people died from that. Jay Kopelman: And, and so you, you know, it's, I I don't think it's fair to just put all addicts in a box. Just like it's not fair to put all veterans in a box. Just like it's not fair for doctors, put all their patients in a box. We're individuals. We, we have individual needs. Our, our health is very individual. Like, I, I don't think I should be put in the same box as every other 66-year-old that my doctor sees. Jay Kopelman: It's not fair. [00:45:00] You know, if you, if you took my high school classmates and put us all in a photo, we're all gonna have different needs, right? Like, some look like they're 76, not 66. Some look like they're 56. Not like they're, we, we do things differently. We live our lives differently. And the same is true of addicts. Jay Kopelman: They come to addiction from different places. Not everybody decides they want to just try heroin at a party, and all of a sudden they're addicted. It happens in, in different ways, you know, and the whole fentanyl thing has been so daggum nefarious, right? You know, pushing fentanyl into marijuana. Jay Kopelman: Somebody's smoking a joint and all of a sudden they're addicted to fentanyl or they die. Melissa Lavasani: I think we're having a, Jay Kopelman: it's, it's just not fair to, to say everybody in this pot is the same, or everybody in this one is the same. We have [00:46:00] to look at it differently. Joe Moore: Yeah. I like to zoom one level out and kind of talk about, um, just how hurt we are as a country, as a world really, but as a country specifically, and how many people are out of work for so many. Joe Moore: Difficult reasons and away from their families for so many kind of tragic reasons. And if we can get people back to their families and back to work, a lot of these things start to self-correct, but we have to like have those interventions where we can heal folks and, and get them back. Um, yeah. And you know, everything from trauma, uh, in childhood, you know, adulthood, combat, whatever it is. Joe Moore: Like these things can put people on the sidelines. And Jay, to your point, like you get knee surgery and all of a sudden you're, you know, two years later you're on the hunt for Fentanyl daily. You know, that's tough. It's really tough. Carl Hart does a good job talking about this kind of addiction pipeline and [00:47:00] a few others do as well. Joe Moore: But it's just, you know, kind of putting it in a moral failure bucket. It's not great. I was chatting with somebody about, um, veterans, it's like you come back and you're like, what's gonna make me feel okay right now? And it's not always alcohol. Um, like this is the first thing that made me feel okay, because there's not great treatments and there's, there's a lot of improvements in this kind of like bringing people back from the field that needs to happen. Joe Moore: In my opinion. I, it seems to be shared by a lot of people, but yeah, there's, it's, it's, IGA is gonna be great. It's gonna be really important. I really can't wait for it to be at scale appropriately, but there's a lot of other things we need to fix too, um, so that we can just, you know, not have so many people we need to, you know, spend so much money healing. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Jay Kopelman: Yeah. You ahead with that. We don't need the president to sign an executive order to automatically legalize Ibogaine. Right. But it would be nice if he would reschedule it so that [00:48:00] then then researchers could do this research on a larger scale. You know, we could, we could now get some real data that would show the efficacy. Jay Kopelman: And it could be done in a safe environment, you know? And, and so that would be, do Joe Moore: you have any kind of figures, like, like, I've been talking about this for a while, Jay. Like, does it drop the cost a lot of doing research when we deschedule things? Jay Kopelman: I, I would imagine so, because it'll drop the cost of accessing the medicines that are being researched. Jay Kopelman: Right? You, you would have buy-in from more organizations. You know, you might even have a pharma company that comes into this, you know, look at j and j with the ketamine, right? They have, they have a nasal spray version of ketamine that's doing very well. I mean, it's probably their, their biggest revenue [00:49:00] provider for them right now. Jay Kopelman: And, and so. You know, you, it would certainly help and I think, I think it would lower costs of research to have something rescheduled rather than being schedule one. You know it, people are afraid to take chances when you're talking about Schedule one Melissa Lavasani: labs or they just don't have the money to research things that are on Schedule one. Melissa Lavasani: 'cause there's so much in an incredible amount of red tape that you have to go through and, and your facility has to be a certain way and how you contain those, uh, medicines. Oh, researching has to be in a specific container and it's just very cumbersome to research schedule one drugs. So absolutely the cost would go down. Melissa Lavasani: Um, but Joe Moore: yeah, absolutely. Less safes. Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. Joe Moore: Yes. Less uh, Melissa Lavasani: right. Joe Moore: Locked. Yeah. Um, it'll be really interesting when that happens. I'm gonna hold out faith. That we can see some [00:50:00] movement here. Um, because yeah, like why make healing more expensive than it needs to be? I think like that's potentially a protectionist move. Joe Moore: Like, I'm not, I'm not here yet, but, um, look at AbbVie's, uh, acquisition of the Gilgamesh ip. Mm-hmm. Like that's a really interesting move. I think it was $1.2 billion. Mm-hmm. So they're gonna wanna protect that investment. Um, and it's likely going to be an approved medication. Like, I don't, I don't see a world in which it's not an approved medication. Joe Moore: Um, you know, I don't know a timeline, I would say Jay Kopelman: yeah. Joe Moore: Less than six years, just given how much cash they've got. But who knows, like, I haven't followed it too closely. So, and that's an I bga derivative to be clear, everybody, um mm-hmm. If you're not, um, in, in the loop on that, which is hopeful, you know? Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. But I don't know what the efficacy is gonna be with that compared to Ibogaine and then we have to talk about the kind of proprietary molecule stuff. Um, there's like a whole bunch of things that are gonna go on here, and this is one of the reasons why I'm excited about. Federal involvement [00:51:00] because we might actually be able to have some sort of centralized manufacturer, um, or at least the VA could license three or four generic manufacturers per for instance, and that way prices aren't gonna be, you know, eight grand a dose or whatever. Joe Moore: You know, it's, Jay Kopelman: well, I think it's a very exciting time in the space. You know, I, I think that there's the opportunity for innovation. There is the opportunity for collaboration. There's the opportunity for, you know, long-term healing at a very low cost. You know, that we, we have the highest healthcare cost per capita in the world right here in the us. Jay Kopelman: And, and yet we are not the number one health system in the world. So to me, that doesn't add up. So we need to figure out a way to start. Bringing costs down for a lot of people and [00:52:00] at the same time increasing, increasing outcomes. Joe Moore: Absolutely. Yeah. There's a lot of possible outcome improvements here and, and you know, everything from relapse rates, like we hear often about people leaving a clinic and they go and overdose when they get home. Tragically, too common. I think there's everything from, you know, I'm Jay, I'm involved in an organization called the Psychedelics and Pain Association. Joe Moore: We look at chronic pain very seriously, and IGA is something we are really interested in. And if. We could have better, you know, research, there better outcome measures there. Um, you know, perhaps we can have less people on opioids to begin with from chronic pain conditions. Um, Jay Kopelman: yeah, I, I might be due for another Ibogaine journey then, because I deal with chronic pain from Jiujitsu, but, Joe Moore: oh gosh, let's Jay Kopelman: talk Joe Moore: later. Jay Kopelman: That's self inflicted. Some people would say take a month off, but Melissa Lavasani: yeah, Jay Kopelman: I'm [00:53:00] not, I'm not that smart. Joe Moore: Yeah. Um, but you know, this, uh, yeah, this whole thing is gonna be really interesting to see how it plays out. I'm endlessly hopeful pull because I'm still here. Right. I, I've been at this for almost 10 years now, very publicly, and I think we are seeing a lot of movement. Joe Moore: It's not always what we actually wanna see, but it is movement nonetheless. You know, how many people are writing on this now than there were before? Right. You know, we, we have people in New York Times writing somewhat regularly about psychedelics and. Even international media is covering it. What do we have legalization in Australia somewhat recently for psilocybin and MDMA, Czech Republic. Joe Moore: I think Germany made some moves recently. Mm-hmm. Um, really interesting to see how this is gonna just keep shifting. Um Jay Kopelman: mm-hmm. Joe Moore: And I think there's no way that we're not gonna have prescription psychedelics in three years in the United States. It pro probably more like a [00:54:00] year and a half. I don't know. Do you, are you all taking odds? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah. I mean, I think Jay Kopelman: I, I gotta check Cal sheet, see what they're saying. Melissa Lavasani: I think it's safe to say, I mean, this could even come potentially the end of this year, I think, but definitely by the end of 2027, there's gonna be at least one psychedelic that's FDA approved. Joe Moore: Yeah. Yeah. Melissa Lavasani: If you're not counting Ketamine. Joe Moore: Right. Jay Kopelman: I, I mean, I mean it mm-hmm. It, it doesn't make sense that it. Shouldn't be or wouldn't be. Right. The, we've seen the benefits. Mm-hmm. We know what they are. It's at a very low cost, but you have to keep in mind that these things, they need to be done with the right set setting and container. Right. And, and gotta be able to provide that environment. Jay Kopelman: So, but I would, I would love, like I said, I'd love to work myself out of a job here and see this happen, not just for our veterans, [00:55:00] but for everybody. Joe Moore: Mm-hmm. Um, so Melissa, is there a way people can get involved or follow PMC or how can they support your work at PMC? Melissa Lavasani: Yeah, I mean, follow us in social media. Melissa Lavasani: Um, our two biggest platforms are LinkedIn and Instagram. Um, I'm bringing my newsletter back because I'm realizing, um, you know, there is a big gap in, in kind of like the knowledge of Washington DC just in general. What's happening here, and I think, you know, part of PC's value is that we're, we are plugged into conversations that are being had, um, here in the city. Melissa Lavasani: And, you know, we do get a little insight. Um, and I think that that would really quiet a lot of, you know, the, a lot of noise that, um, exists in the, our ecosystem. If, if people just had some clarity on like, what's actually happening or happening here and what are the opportunities and, [00:56:00] um, where do we need more reinforcement? Melissa Lavasani: Um, and, and also, you know, as we're putting together public education campaign, you know. My, like, if I could get everything I wanted like that, that campaign would be this like multi-stakeholder collaborative effort, right? Where we're covering all the ground that we need to cover. We're talking to the patient groups, we're talking to traditional mental health organizations, we're talking to the medical community, we're talking to the general population. Melissa Lavasani: I think that's like another area that we, we just seem to be, um, lacking some effort in. And, you know, ultimately the veteran story's always super compelling. It pulls on your heartstrings. These are our heroes, um, of our country. Like that, that is, that is meaningful. But a lot of the veteran population is small and we need the, like a, the just.[00:57:00] Melissa Lavasani: Basic American living in middle America, um, understanding what psychedelics are so that in, in, in presenting to them the stories that they can relate to, um, because that's how you activate the public and you activate the public and you get them to see what's happening in these clinical trials, what the data's been saying, what the opportunities are with psychedelics, and then they start calling their members of Congress and saying, Hey, there is this. Melissa Lavasani: Bill sitting in Congress and why haven't you signed onto it? And that political pressure, uh, when used the right way can be really powerful. So, um, I think, you know, now we're at this really amazing moment where we have a good amount of congressional offices that are familiar enough with psychedelics that they're willing to move on it. Melissa Lavasani: Um, there's another larger group, uh, that is familiar with psychedelics and will assist and co-sponsor legislation, but there's still so many offices that we haven't been able to get to just 'cause like we don't have all the time in the world and all the manpower in the world to [00:58:00] do it. But, you know, that is one avenue is like the advocates can speak to the, the lawmakers, the experts speak to the lawmakers, and we not, we want the public engaged in this, you know, ultimately, like that's. Melissa Lavasani: Like the best form of harm reduction is having an informed public. So we are not, they're not seeing these media headlines of like, oh, this miracle cure that, um, saved my family. It's like, yes, that can happen psychedelics. I mean, person speaking personally, psychedelics did save my family. But what you miss out of that story is the incredible amount of work I put into myself and put into my mental health to this day to maintain, um, like myself, my, my own agency and like be the parent that I wanna be and be the spouse that I wanna be. Melissa Lavasani: So, um, we, we need to continue to share these stories and we need to continue to collaborate to get this message out because we're all, we're all in the same boat right now. We all want the same things. We want patients to have safe and [00:59:00] affordable access to psychedelic assisted care. Um, and, uh. We're just in the beginning here, so, um, sign up for our newsletter and we can sign up on our website and then follow us on social media. Melissa Lavasani: And, um, I anticipate more and more events, um, happening with PMC and hopefully we can scale up some of these events to be much more public facing, um, as this issue grows. So, um, I'm really excited about the future and I'm, I've been enjoying this partnership with Mission Within. Jay is such a professional and, and it really shows up when he needs to show up and, um, I look forward to more of that in the future. Joe Moore: Fantastic. And Jay, how can people follow along and support mission within Foundation? Jay Kopelman: Yeah, again, social media is gonna be a good way to do that. So we, we are also pretty heavily engaged on LinkedIn and on Instagram. Um, I do [01:00:00] share, uh, a bit of my own stuff as well. On social media. So we have social media pages for Mission within Foundation, and we have a LinkedIn page for mission within foundation. Jay Kopelman: I have my own profiles on both of those as well where people can follow along. Um, one of the other things you know that would probably help get more attention for this is if the general public was more aware of the numbers of professional athletes who are also now pursuing. I began specifically to help treat their traumatic brain injuries and the chronic traumatic encephalopathy that they've, uh, suffered as a result of their time in professional sports or even college sports. Jay Kopelman: And, you know. I people worship these athletes, and I [01:01:00] think that if more of them, like Robert Gall, were more outspoken about these treatments and the healing properties that they've provided them, that it would get even more attention. Um, I think though what Melissa said, you know, I don't wanna parrot anything she just said because she said it perfectly Right. Jay Kopelman: And I'd just be speaking to hear myself talk. Um, but being collaborative the way that we are with PMC and with Melissa is I think, the way to move the needle on this overall. And like she said, if she could get more groups involved in, in these discussions, it would, it would do wonders for us. Joe Moore: Well, thank you both so much for your hard work out there. I always appreciate it when people are showing up and doing this important, [01:02:00] sometimes boring and tedious, but nevertheless sometimes, sometimes exciting work. And um, so yeah, just thank you both and thank you both for showing up here to psychedelics today to join us and I hope we can continue to support you all in the future. Jay Kopelman: Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Joe. It's a pleasure being with you today and with Melissa, of course, always Melissa Lavasani: appreciate the time and space. Joe Moore: Thanks.  

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : How Escalation Turns Into World WarSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Have you ever watched a war movie and realized that the actors didn't know how the conflict would turn out? World War 2 movies are like that. When they filmed “Casablanca,” Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman weren't sure whether the Germans would win or lose.Life can be like that.Matthew 28:20 says, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”In your own life, you might be facing some really serious stuff. And it's not unusual to be staring at several problems at once. That's when God's Word is so valuable to us. Jesus has promised us that He will stick right with us all the way through. Human friends often go a long way with us—but only Jesus is sure to never, ever leave us.That's the best way to beat the uncertainties of life. Tell Jesus you can't make it without Him.It's then that the future no longer scares us at all.Let's pray.Lord, we don't know a fraction of what you do, including what our future looks like. We do know that we can trust you, and we thank you for that. In Jesus' name, amen. Change your shirt, and you can change the world! Save 15% Off your entire purchase of faith-based apparel + gifts at Kerusso.com with code KDD15.

Hosts Pastor Vincent Fernandez and Pastor Rico Basso Question Timestamps: Ben, email (1:34) - How did the disciples record Jesus's words? Did they have a dedicated scribe? Ed, NJ (6:00) - Is the Ethiopian Bible the oldest Bible that we know of? Faith, NY (15:39) - In Genesis 37:25, wouldn't the Ishmaelites have been related to Joseph? Why didn't they recognize their family? Jeff, NC (18:41) - How should Christians respond to LGBTQ influences on culture and government? John, KY (25:13) - Are we about to start World War 3? Kevin, NJ (27:46, continued after break at 33:24) - How do we approach the LGBTQ community in love? Why is homosexuality treated as a sin worse than others? Rini, NJ (43:42) - When people say "we stand with Israel," does that mean standing with the country or the people? Ron, NJ (48:13) - If a pastor is in error, is a congregant able to bring correction to him? Jonathan, NJ (51:06) - How are Christians supposed to submit to government authority? June, NJ (53:52) - Where does your soul go when you die? Ask Your Questions: Call: 888-712-7434 Email: Answers@bbtlive.org

The filmmaker John Sayles (“Eight Men Out”, “The Brother From Another Planet”) returns for his 3rd visit. In addition to the 18 feature films he has written and directed, he is also a longtime author of novels. His latest, “Crucible” is now available where books are sold. From the Oscar-nominated filmmaker comes a complex and sweeping historical novel about Henry Ford — the Elon Musk of his day — and his attempt to rule not only an automotive empire but the rambunctious city of Detroit. It is an epic tale ranging from the 1920s through the second World War, featuring violent labor disputes, misbegotten jungle expeditions, a tragic race riot, and the gestapo tactics of Ford's private army . . . Already the gateway for illegal Canadian liquor during Prohibition, the Motor City becomes a crucible for American class conflict during the Great Depression, with an army of laid off Ford workers drifting into the ranks of the burgeoning union movement — Henry Ford’s worst nightmare. To keep the hundreds of thousands still employed by him in thrall, the man who was formerly ‘America’s favorite tycoon’ recruits black laborers migrating from the deep South to serve as ‘strike insurance’, and gives Harry Bennett, pugnacious as he is diminutive, free reign over the legion of barroom brawlers and ex-cons who make up the company's ‘Security Department’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_cHq5UhYRI The Model T mogul has also bought a sizable chunk of Brazil’s Amazonian rainforest, vowing to grow his own rubber for tires, but stubbornly refusing to include a botanist in his troop of would-be jungle tamers. As a series of biological plagues descend on the Fordlandia plantation, the racial melting pot he has created in Detroit begins to boil over, and not even the Sage of Dearborn can control the forces that have been unleashed. The novel’s cast — Ford workers black and white and their families, young radicals, cynical newsmen, gangsters, Brazilian rubber tappers, cameos from boxer Joe Louis and muralist Diego Rivera — create the tapestry of differing points of view that John Sayles has become famous for, the events portrayed fundamental to the country we live in today.

In this episode of Gangland Wire, host Gary Jenkins, retired Kansas City Police Intelligence Unit detective, steps outside traditional Mafia territory and into a shadowy world just as dangerous—and just as fascinating: the international theft of ultra-rare automobiles.  Gary is joined by author Stayton Bonner, former senior editor at Rolling Stone, and legendary car-recovery specialist Joe Ford, the real-life figure behind Bonner's book The Million Dollar Car Detective. At the center of the story is a breathtaking pre-World War II automobile—the Talbot-Lago Teardrop Coupé—once described as the most beautiful car in the world. Stolen from a Milwaukee industrialist's garage in 2001, the car vanished into the international underground of elite collectors, forged paperwork, and high-stakes deception. Joe Ford explains how he became the go-to investigator when rare cars worth millions disappear—and why stolen vehicles are far harder to recover than stolen art. What follows is a years-long global hunt involving disgruntled mechanics, fabricated titles, shell corporations, Swiss intermediaries, and a billionaire buyer now locked in civil litigation. Bonner adds rich historical context, tracing the car's glamorous past—from European aristocracy to Hollywood royalty—and exposing how loneliness, obsession, and greed often surround these legendary machines. The conversation expands into other notorious cases, including the disappearance of the original James Bond Aston Martin from Goldfinger, and how wealthy collectors sometimes knowingly harbor stolen artifacts. This episode is a true-crime story without guns or gangs—but filled with deception, betrayal, and the relentless pursuit of justice across borders. If you love investigative work, high-end crime, and stories that feel like James Bond meets Gone in 60 Seconds, this one's for you.

It's a BIG week at SR Productions! Our new Instagram and brand new newsletter are officially LIVE (link in bio

We don't often get to review award-baiting, well-shot historical dramas on this show, but when we do we make sure they contain at least 50% Nicholas Cage. This time an Italian officer falls in love with a young woman on a Greek island in the middle of World War 2. But will the war tear them, or at least parts of them, apart? Join Tom and Ryan as they talk beautiful cinematography, less beautiful accents, and the difficulties of adapting novels to the screen. It's our review of Captain Corelli's Mandolin! Time stamps: 0:04:15 - Background 0:26:00 - Summary 0:41:25 - Notable Scenes 0:47:20 - The Good 0:54:30 - The Bad 1:08:45 - The Ugly 1:17:40 - Final Thoughts

February 25, 1946 was a pivotal day in the history of the country, but no one knew it at the time. Gladys Stephenson and her son James had a disagreement with a local store over their treatment, and an altercation ensued that sparked a serious racial conflict in a community that had a history of strained race relations. The governor called out the National Guard, blood was shed, and people died. More than 100 African Americans were jailed. The subsequent court case featured some of the finest trial lawyers in the country. The incident, remembered as the Columbia Race Riot, was the first such event following World War 2, and marked the first step in the American Civil Rights Movement. Hosts Tom Price and Jo Ann McClellan are joined by historian Dr. Gail O'Brien, author of the book The Color of the Law which talks about his pivotal event in American History.

Brage, Mikael and Rudy sit down to talk about Scandinavian social democracy, with a focus on Norway and Sweden. We discuss the periodization of social democracy, starting from the 1905 independence of Norway, through the first World War period, the rise of social democracy in the interwar period, the golden years and the unraveling. We discuss why social democracy was able to take hold in Scandinavia through several historic compromises, what the economics of the countries were, the limits of the politics and how the parties tried to transcend these limits, before concluding with the unraveling of the politics in the 80s. Bibliography: G. Esping-Andersen - Politics Against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power W. Korpi - The Democratic Class Struggle K. Ostbjerg - Rise and Fall of Swedish Social Democracy J. Pontusson - The Limits of Social Democracy: Investment Politics in Sweden M. Rasmussen, C. H. Knutsen - Reforming to Survive: The Bolshevik Origins of Social Policies F. Sejersted, M. Adams - The Age of Social Democracy

Episode #484: In Myanmar, landmine contamination has often been attributed to relics of World War 2 or past conflicts. “But in Myanmar today, landmines are not a historical problem,” Nyein Nyein Thant Aung says. “[Landmines] are like a living system of control that continues to shape how people move, walk, and survive. They don't appear in dramatic footage, they don't require constant supervision, yet they often have a longer and deeper impact on a civilian life than more visible forms of violence.”Another misconception is that landmines are primarily defensive. Yet the strategic use by the Myanmar military is offensive, not only against military targets but civilians, she says, emptying villages, closing roads, blocking access to water and food, and making land unusable.The dynamic nature of the conflict, and pattern of opposing sides learning from the other's tactics, is also apparent in the evolution of the drone war. Nyein Nyein Thant Aung divides the military's drone use into different phases, beginning with their deployment in Kachin and Rakhine in 2016-2018 focusing on surveillance and reconnaissance. After Operation 1027 inflicted losses on its positions in 2023, the military began using dual-use drones as weapons platforms, copying tactical innovation demonstrated by resistance armed groups.These patterns of innovation and adoption are typical of present-day conflicts generally, Nyein Nyein Thant Aung says, with emerging tactics and technologies crossing borders. Foreign collaboration with the military in space and cyber affects both military domains and control of information spaces. Satellite technology provides imaging and coordinates in the military theater, giving a strategic advantage and guiding airstrikes, as well as control over communications channels.There are lessons from landmines that reflect on the wider, multidimensional conflict. “This is not an argument that landmines are culturally inevitable or accepted. Fear and resentment toward mines are widespread,” Nyein Nyein Thant Aung says. “The presence of landmines does not imply a strategic sophistication. So often it reflects insecurity rather than control… Being precise about these limits is important.”

Ask an American intelligence officer to tell you when the country started doing modern intelligence and you will probably hear something about the Office of Strategic Services in World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 and the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency. What you almost certainly will not hear is anything about World War I.  In World War I and the Foundations of American Intelligence (UP of Kansas, 2023), Mark Stout establishes that, in fact, World War I led to the realization that intelligence was indispensable in both wartime and peacetime. After a lengthy gestation that started in the late nineteenth century, and included important episode like the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Punitive Expedition in Mexico, modern American intelligence emerged during World War I. The War was foundational in the establishment of a self-conscious profession of intelligence. Virtually everything that followed was maturation, reorganization, reinvigoration, or reinvention.  World War I ushered in a period of rapid changes. Never again would the War Department be without an intelligence component. Never again would a senior American commander lead a force to war without intelligence personnel on their staff. Never again would the United States government be without a signals intelligence agency or aerial reconnaissance capability. Stout examines the breadth of American intelligence in the war, not just in France, not just at home, but around the world and across the army, navy, and State Department, and demonstrates how these far-flung efforts endured after the Armistice in 1918. For the first time, there came to be a group of intelligence practitioners who viewed themselves as different from other soldiers, sailors, and diplomats. Upon entering World War II, the United States had a solid foundation from which to expand to meet the needs of another global hot war and the Cold War that followed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Ask an American intelligence officer to tell you when the country started doing modern intelligence and you will probably hear something about the Office of Strategic Services in World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 and the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency. What you almost certainly will not hear is anything about World War I.  In World War I and the Foundations of American Intelligence (UP of Kansas, 2023), Mark Stout establishes that, in fact, World War I led to the realization that intelligence was indispensable in both wartime and peacetime. After a lengthy gestation that started in the late nineteenth century, and included important episode like the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Punitive Expedition in Mexico, modern American intelligence emerged during World War I. The War was foundational in the establishment of a self-conscious profession of intelligence. Virtually everything that followed was maturation, reorganization, reinvigoration, or reinvention.  World War I ushered in a period of rapid changes. Never again would the War Department be without an intelligence component. Never again would a senior American commander lead a force to war without intelligence personnel on their staff. Never again would the United States government be without a signals intelligence agency or aerial reconnaissance capability. Stout examines the breadth of American intelligence in the war, not just in France, not just at home, but around the world and across the army, navy, and State Department, and demonstrates how these far-flung efforts endured after the Armistice in 1918. For the first time, there came to be a group of intelligence practitioners who viewed themselves as different from other soldiers, sailors, and diplomats. Upon entering World War II, the United States had a solid foundation from which to expand to meet the needs of another global hot war and the Cold War that followed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Ask an American intelligence officer to tell you when the country started doing modern intelligence and you will probably hear something about the Office of Strategic Services in World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 and the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency. What you almost certainly will not hear is anything about World War I.  In World War I and the Foundations of American Intelligence (UP of Kansas, 2023), Mark Stout establishes that, in fact, World War I led to the realization that intelligence was indispensable in both wartime and peacetime. After a lengthy gestation that started in the late nineteenth century, and included important episode like the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Punitive Expedition in Mexico, modern American intelligence emerged during World War I. The War was foundational in the establishment of a self-conscious profession of intelligence. Virtually everything that followed was maturation, reorganization, reinvigoration, or reinvention.  World War I ushered in a period of rapid changes. Never again would the War Department be without an intelligence component. Never again would a senior American commander lead a force to war without intelligence personnel on their staff. Never again would the United States government be without a signals intelligence agency or aerial reconnaissance capability. Stout examines the breadth of American intelligence in the war, not just in France, not just at home, but around the world and across the army, navy, and State Department, and demonstrates how these far-flung efforts endured after the Armistice in 1918. For the first time, there came to be a group of intelligence practitioners who viewed themselves as different from other soldiers, sailors, and diplomats. Upon entering World War II, the United States had a solid foundation from which to expand to meet the needs of another global hot war and the Cold War that followed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Ask an American intelligence officer to tell you when the country started doing modern intelligence and you will probably hear something about the Office of Strategic Services in World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 and the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency. What you almost certainly will not hear is anything about World War I.  In World War I and the Foundations of American Intelligence (UP of Kansas, 2023), Mark Stout establishes that, in fact, World War I led to the realization that intelligence was indispensable in both wartime and peacetime. After a lengthy gestation that started in the late nineteenth century, and included important episode like the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Punitive Expedition in Mexico, modern American intelligence emerged during World War I. The War was foundational in the establishment of a self-conscious profession of intelligence. Virtually everything that followed was maturation, reorganization, reinvigoration, or reinvention.  World War I ushered in a period of rapid changes. Never again would the War Department be without an intelligence component. Never again would a senior American commander lead a force to war without intelligence personnel on their staff. Never again would the United States government be without a signals intelligence agency or aerial reconnaissance capability. Stout examines the breadth of American intelligence in the war, not just in France, not just at home, but around the world and across the army, navy, and State Department, and demonstrates how these far-flung efforts endured after the Armistice in 1918. For the first time, there came to be a group of intelligence practitioners who viewed themselves as different from other soldiers, sailors, and diplomats. Upon entering World War II, the United States had a solid foundation from which to expand to meet the needs of another global hot war and the Cold War that followed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

Ask an American intelligence officer to tell you when the country started doing modern intelligence and you will probably hear something about the Office of Strategic Services in World War II or the National Security Act of 1947 and the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency. What you almost certainly will not hear is anything about World War I.  In World War I and the Foundations of American Intelligence (UP of Kansas, 2023), Mark Stout establishes that, in fact, World War I led to the realization that intelligence was indispensable in both wartime and peacetime. After a lengthy gestation that started in the late nineteenth century, and included important episode like the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Punitive Expedition in Mexico, modern American intelligence emerged during World War I. The War was foundational in the establishment of a self-conscious profession of intelligence. Virtually everything that followed was maturation, reorganization, reinvigoration, or reinvention.  World War I ushered in a period of rapid changes. Never again would the War Department be without an intelligence component. Never again would a senior American commander lead a force to war without intelligence personnel on their staff. Never again would the United States government be without a signals intelligence agency or aerial reconnaissance capability. Stout examines the breadth of American intelligence in the war, not just in France, not just at home, but around the world and across the army, navy, and State Department, and demonstrates how these far-flung efforts endured after the Armistice in 1918. For the first time, there came to be a group of intelligence practitioners who viewed themselves as different from other soldiers, sailors, and diplomats. Upon entering World War II, the United States had a solid foundation from which to expand to meet the needs of another global hot war and the Cold War that followed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Old Month! You know what that means… films from the 1970s, because any older and it starts to get a bit dicey. To kick things off, we're doing Bedknobs and Broomsticks!Angela Lansbury plays a witch during World War (2) who suddenly has to look after three kids. Naturally, she immediately takes them to London to track down her magic teacher, before everyone gets swept up in some magical nonsense and ends up stopping a few Nazis along the way.Oscar and Carl watch this classic to figure out who would watch this.If you have any questions or requests, send them to askwwwtpodcast@gmail.com Find us through: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@whowouldwatchthis Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/whowouldwatchthis/ TikTok: @podcastwhowouldwatchthis Letterboxd: Carl: https://letterboxd.com/carlllllllllll1/Oscar: https://letterboxd.com/oscarfart/ More links: https://linktr.ee/whowouldwatchthis

Send us a textIn this 'EPISODE 451 IRAN AND ITS PROXIES, ARE WE EDGING CLOSE TO WORLD WAR THREE? WHAT DID JESUS SAY? MATTHEW 24 AND ISAIAH 24? ARE YOU READY?' author and host Elbert Hardy explains from God's prophetic word, both Old and New Testaments, where we are in prophecy today. We indeed are getting closer by the day. Things are heating up in the Middle East. May God intervene and take charge!Support the showGo to itellwhy.com to read Elbert's books free of charge, no Ads and no requests for money or Email addresses. You can watch faith building YouTube Links to Videos and the listen to Elbert's Life of Christ Audio Book in 30 minute Episodes arranged and read by the author straight from the Bible, but rearranged in logical harmony of the Gospels, Revelation and other scriptures. All FREE of charge in the public interest.

On the Record with Christian Briggs – I break down the real war shaping global power: the race for quantum supremacy. This battle isn't fought in elections or headlines, but in labs, supply chains, and mineral reserves. Whoever controls quantum, rare earths, and strategic metals controls finance, defense, and sovereignty. The future isn't just digital—it's physical, and America must act now...

This week, we're heading to the rough waters of Australia to review a World War 2 shark movie called Beast of War! Also in this episode, Joe returns to bring us the latest news including an update on the future of the Saw series, Steve reviews the latest movie club movies along with the brand new Sam Raimi film Send Help and Todd has a lot of questions about drinking urine. All that and more! Music provided by www.purple-planet.com

A bewildered human race is like a man lost in a forest asking, “Father, are you there?” In 1945, at the end of World War 2, Helmut Thielicke, a brilliant theologian, preaching through the Lord's Prayer to what was left of his congregation in the ruins of his church in Stuttgart said, “Everything will be all right so long as we hear His good voice calling to us above the howling of the wolves, above the sound of branches snapping, above the ominous noises around us. God is always there.”A Christian worldview believes in the Fatherhood of God. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1141/29?v=20251111

In part 1 of this explosive episode of On the Record, Christian Briggs takes listeners deep into what he calls the true battle defining the next era of global power: the race for quantum computing supremacy. Forget headlines that focus only on elections, inflation, or tariffs—Briggs argues the real war is unfolding in laboratories, supply chains, and strategic mineral reserves. Whoever wins quantum first, he warns, won't just lead in technology—they'll control the future of finance, intelligence, and military dominance.Briggs breaks down “quantum” in plain terms: computing power so fast it rewrites the rules of encryption, codebreaking, and strategic defense. He lays out why quantum capability could render today's cybersecurity obsolete—turning encrypted communications into readable data, collapsing the advantage of traditional supercomputing, and supercharging AI into a next-generation weapon system. But here's the twist: Briggs insists quantum isn't purely a software story. It's a materials story—and the U.S. is dangerously behind.This episode connects the dots between rare earth control, precious metals, and national survival. Briggs argues that gold, silver, and the platinum group metals aren't just “investments”—they're the physical backbone of the future economy: AI chips, defense electronics, EV infrastructure, solar scaling, nuclear energy buildout, and the hardware that supports quantum itself. He explains why silver's industrial demand is exploding, why platinum and palladium are pivotal for next-generation energy, and why gold still matters far beyond jewelry—as a key component in advanced computing reliability and a backstop for emerging digital monetary systems.Briggs also highlights the geopolitical side: supply chains, processing dominance, export licensing, and the fragility of Western reliance on foreign refining capacity. He frames U.S. moves like strategic reserves and resource repositioning as part of a broader counteroffensive to prevent a scenario where America is forced into economic submission by adversaries controlling the inputs of modern civilization.Whether you're an investor, a policy junkie, or just trying to understand what's coming next, this episode is a hard-hitting wake-up call: the future isn't just digital—it's physical. And if the U.S. doesn't secure the metals that power tomorrow, Briggs warns the nation risks losing far more than markets—it risks losing sovereignty.If you want, I can also generate 3 thumbnail text options (4–6 words) and a short YouTube description that matches your channel voice.

In part 2 of this explosive episode of On the Record, Christian Briggs takes listeners deep into what he calls the true battle defining the next era of global power: the race for quantum computing supremacy. Forget headlines that focus only on elections, inflation, or tariffs—Briggs argues the real war is unfolding in laboratories, supply chains, and strategic mineral reserves. Whoever wins quantum first, he warns, won't just lead in technology—they'll control the future of finance, intelligence, and military dominance.Briggs breaks down “quantum” in plain terms: computing power so fast it rewrites the rules of encryption, codebreaking, and strategic defense. He lays out why quantum capability could render today's cybersecurity obsolete—turning encrypted communications into readable data, collapsing the advantage of traditional supercomputing, and supercharging AI into a next-generation weapon system. But here's the twist: Briggs insists quantum isn't purely a software story. It's a materials story—and the U.S. is dangerously behind.This episode connects the dots between rare earth control, precious metals, and national survival. Briggs argues that gold, silver, and the platinum group metals aren't just “investments”—they're the physical backbone of the future economy: AI chips, defense electronics, EV infrastructure, solar scaling, nuclear energy buildout, and the hardware that supports quantum itself. He explains why silver's industrial demand is exploding, why platinum and palladium are pivotal for next-generation energy, and why gold still matters far beyond jewelry—as a key component in advanced computing reliability and a backstop for emerging digital monetary systems.Briggs also highlights the geopolitical side: supply chains, processing dominance, export licensing, and the fragility of Western reliance on foreign refining capacity. He frames U.S. moves like strategic reserves and resource repositioning as part of a broader counteroffensive to prevent a scenario where America is forced into economic submission by adversaries controlling the inputs of modern civilization.Whether you're an investor, a policy junkie, or just trying to understand what's coming next, this episode is a hard-hitting wake-up call: the future isn't just digital—it's physical. And if the U.S. doesn't secure the metals that power tomorrow, Briggs warns the nation risks losing far more than markets—it risks losing sovereignty.If you want, I can also generate 3 thumbnail text options (4–6 words) and a short YouTube description that matches your channel voice.

World War 1 features a couple battles that stand out above the rest. The Battle of the Somme is one, The Battle of Verdun would be the other vying for the top spot. Now where the Somme was a nasty meat-grinder, of trench warfare, Verdun was all about laying siege to forts. Lasting over 300 days it was by far the longest battle of The Great War. Verdun was a fortress town that served as the symbolic home to France's military power. The Verdun region was home to around 20 other forts making it the most heavily defended part of France. German General Erich von Falkenhayn determined the French would do anything to defend this region and if it was lost, do anything to get it back. The plan was to overwhelm the defenders in the area, destroy their fortifications and take advantageous positions. When the French had to counter attack to re-take Verdun, the German Army would be in position to inflict massive casualties or as Falkenhayn put it "bleed the French white." How did that all turn our for him, find out this week as we get Historically High on the Battle of VerdunSupport the show

Hour 1: Chuck Negron of Three Dog Night has passed away at 83. Kelly Clarkson and Sherri Shepard both announce the end of their talk shows. Kim Kardashian reportedly has a new boyfriend - Lewis Hamilton, an all-time great F1 driver. The plane ride from hell: Los Angeles to Manila with no bathrooms. Hour 2: Are Super Bowl ads still worth their GIANT price tags? The OG Jurassic Park cast is back… in this Xfinity ad. It's time to place your Super Bowl bets - please be careful. George Clooney has made his Super Bowl ad debut, and he's doing the bare minimum. Three highly anticipated movies will premier trailers during the game. You might have a collector's item in your freezer. Vinnie has a story dating back to World War 1. (50:54) Hour 3: Police are now saying Savannah Guthrie's mother was likely abducted. The first ‘Stranger Things' spin-off will already be here in April. Bob is insisting everyone watch ‘A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.” The Siegfried and Roy show ‘Wild Things' will star Jude Law and Andrew Garfield. Ethan Hawk is mad at Tom Cruise, but Sarah and Vinnie aren't. Bob is heading to the Super Bowl streets on Thursday. Vinnie's warning of the luxuries you can never go back from - be careful. (1:33:17) Hour 4: The Michael Jackson biopic has its first trailer, and it's starring his nephew. It sounds like it will be leaving out the murky parts of his life. Meryl Streep has been cast to play an older Joni Mitchell in her biopic. The Red Hot Chili Peppers are distancing themselves from their documentary. BTS is back, their new album and a documentary is out in March. Mason is on the show! Google Translate delivered a baby. Should people have to pay to get their selfie at the Trevi Fountain? Plus, how old is that guy? (2:14:48)

Are Super Bowl ads still worth their GIANT price tags? The OG Jurassic Park cast is back… in this Xfinity ad. It's time to place your Super Bowl bets - please be careful. George Clooney has made his Super Bowl ad debut, and he's doing the bare minimum. Three highly anticipated movies will premier trailers during the game. You might have a collector's item in your freezer. Vinnie has a story dating back to World War 1.

This week's episode of Wealth Formula features an interview with Claudia Sahm, and I want to share a quick takeaway before you listen — because she's often misunderstood in the headlines. First, a quick explanation of the Sahm Rule, in plain English. The rule looks at unemployment and asks a very simple question:Has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? Specifically, if the three-month average unemployment rate rises by 0.5% or more above its lowest level over the past year, the Sahm Rule is triggered. Historically, that has happened early in every U.S. recession since World War II. That's why it gets cited so much. And to be clear — it's cited a lot. The Sahm Rule is tracked by the Federal Reserve, Treasury economists, Wall Street banks, macro funds, and economic research shops globally. When it triggers, it shows up everywhere. That's not by accident. Claudia built one of the cleanest early-warning indicators we have. But here's the part that often gets lost. The Sahm Rule is not a market-timing tool and it's not a prediction machine. Claudia emphasized this repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal — a way to say, “Hey, if unemployment is rising this fast, waiting too long to respond makes things worse.” In other words, it's a call to action for policymakers, not a command for investors to panic. What makes this cycle unusual — and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful — is what's actually driving the data. We're not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. What we're seeing instead is very weak hiring. Companies aren't firing people — they're just not expanding. That distinction matters. And this is where I think the big picture comes in — not just for understanding the economy, but for investing in general. When you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that needs interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. And it includes the reality that if the current Fed leadership won't ease fast enough, future leadership will. History tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need — even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments, and even if it takes a shift toward a more dovish Federal Reserve. That doesn't mean reckless money printing tomorrow. But it does mean that structurally high rates are unlikely to be permanent. And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month's headline and more about what's positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. That's why I continue to focus on real assets that are already deeply discounted — things like multifamily real estate — assets that were repriced brutally during the rate shock, but still sit at the center of a growing, rent-dependent economy. This conversation with Claudia reinforced something I've been talking about for a long time:The biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I've made this mistake myself. If you want a thoughtful, non-sensational, data-driven discussion about where we actually are in this cycle — and what the indicators really mean — I think you'll get a lot out of this episode. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Well Formula Podcast coming to you from Montecito, California. Before we begin today, I wanna remind you, uh, listen, we’re back in, uh, back in the saddle in here in, uh, 2026. I know it’s takes some time to get used to it, but we’re, gosh, we’re at the end of the month actually by the time this plays. I think we’re in February. It’s time again to start thinking about investing. And so if you are interested in potentially using this year, which I believe and which many believe to potentially be the last year, uh, big discounts, uh, in real estate and, uh, various other types of offerings. Make sure. To sign up for the Accredit Investor group, our investor club, as we call it wealthformula.com. You do need to be an accredit investor and then you get onboarded. An accredit investor is just defined by who you are. If you make over $300,000 per year filing jointly, or 200 by yourself, every reasonable expectation to do so in the future. Or you have a net worth of a million dollars outta your personal, outside of your personal residence, you’re an accredit investor. Congratulations. Join the club wealthformula.com. Interesting podcast. Today we have, uh, Claudia Sahm She’s a Big Deal, Claudia Sahm. You may recognize that last name som, for this som rule. And what is a som rule in plain English. You actually have heard of the som rule multiple times from other economists who’ve been on the show. The som rule looks at unemployment. And asks a very simple question. Now, has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? So specifically, if the three month average unemployment rate rises 0.5% or more above its lowest level, over the past year, this som rule is triggered. Now, historically, that has happened early in every US recession since the World War ii. That’s why it gets cited so much. It gets cited a lot. By the way, the sum rule is tracked by the Fed treasury economists, wall Street Banks, macro funds, economic research shops globally, and when it triggers, it shows up everywhere, and that’s not by accident. Uh, Claudia has built one of the cleanest early warning indicators we have, but here’s the part that often gets lost. The som rule is not a market timing tool, and it’s not a prediction machine. Claudia, uh, emphasized that repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal, a way to say, Hey, if unemployment’s rising this fast, wait, waiting too long to respond makes things worse. In other words, it’s call to action for policy makers, not a command for investors to panic per se. So what makes this cycle unusual and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful? Well, it’s what’s actually driving the data. We’re not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. Um, what we’re seeing instead is very weak. Hiring companies aren’t firing people, they’re just not expanding, and that distinction matters. This is where the big picture comes in, not just for understanding the economy. For investing in general and when you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that need interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. I’ve mentioned this before and it includes the reality that have to fed, fed, uh, if the current Fed leadership won’t ease fast enough. I am likely the case that future leadership appointed by. Donald Trump himself, uh, will, so history tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need, even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments. And even if it takes a shift towards a more dovish federal reserve. Uh, that doesn’t mean, uh, reckless money printing tomorrow, but it does mean that structurally. High interest rates are unlikely to be permanent. Okay? And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month’s headline and more about what’s positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. Okay? That’s really, really important, and that’s why I continue to focus on things like real estate, right? Real estate is currently. Not for long, in my opinion, but deeply discounted things like multifamily real estate, um, that were repriced brutally during the rate shot, uh, but are still at the center of a growing and, and rent dependent economy. And again, uh, this conversation with Claudia reinforced something that I’ve been talking about a long time, which is the biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I’ve made that mistake myself. I am not immune. I have made lots of mistakes, and that’s one of them. So this is a great conversation. Hopefully you’ll enjoy it, especially if you want a thoughtful, nons sensational data-driven discussion. Where we are actually at in this cycle and what these indicators really mean. I think you’ll get a lot of this episode and we will have this conversation for you right after these messages. Wealth formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net. The strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps. Paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it at result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealthformulabanking.com. Again, that’s wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Dr. Claudia Sahm. Uh, she’s an American, uh, macroeconomic expert, uh, known for her work, uh, on monetary and fiscal policy and real-time economic indicators. She developed this som rule, which I think, uh, people have mentioned on this show before, so this is a great opportunity to talk to her about that. Uh, it’s a widely, uh, followed recession signal based on unemployment. She’s also a former Federal Reserve economist and senior policy advisor in government. Um, so welcome, uh, Dr. Sahm. Great. Happy to be here. Thank you. Well, let’s, let’s kind of start out with this som rule because, uh, you know, it’s funny, we, we have had a few different people, uh, at various times bring up the SOM rule, and I think one had actually said that it was triggered, but I don’t don’t think it was at any rate, let’s, let’s start with that. What is the som rule? Lemme start with why is there a som rule, and then we’ll then we’ll get to specifically what the, what the rule is itself. So when I started out on the project, it wasn’t so much about. Calling a recession, like there are some really fancy technical ways that economists like look at the tea leaves and the data and either try to forecast a recession, which is incredibly hard, or even just say we’re in a recession in real time. So like that’s a useful endeavor. But what actually was behind the development of my recession indicator was more of a call to action. How do we develop policies that, that the Congress can put into place very quickly if a recession comes? So these kind of what are referred to as automatic stabilizers, so they’re decided upon ahead of time, but then you do need a trigger that says a recession is here. So now that enhance the unemployment benefits, send out the stimulus checks, whatever it is that we kind of have as our typical tools that are used in recessions, we could have those ready to go as kind of guardrails. Then like you, you turn the policy on. So that was really my emphasis was on how do we do better policy and recessions, get the support out quickly. ’cause that’s the best chance of kind of stabilizing the situation. And then it’s like, well it was in a, it was in a policy volume that they asked for, like a really concrete proposal. So if I’m gonna say an automatic stabilizer, I need to have a proposal for what a trigger could be. So that’s really where the som rule came. So I think it is important. It’s definitely important to me to, I always remember like what the kind of reason for it’s sure. Now that also guided what the indicator itself looks like. So again, it was gonna be in, in fiscal policy. It needs to be simple, it needs to be something that we track it and it needs to, I felt it was important that it capture the reason that we. Fight recessions, why there’s such a bad, uh, you know, outcome. And so it looks at the, the unemployment rate. I use the national unemployment rate, take a three month average. ’cause we wanna smooth out, like there’s bumps and wiggles in the data from month to month. So you kind of, you know, three month average. One way to smooth it out. So you take that series of three month averages, you look at the current value, you compare to the lowest value over the prior 12 months, if you’ve seen an increase of a half, a percentage point or more. Which is really pretty modest, but half a percentage point or more. Historically, we have been in the early months of a recession, so it’s not a forecast. It’s supposed to be like we’re in it. Let’s go. It’s an empirical pattern. It’s one that’s worked in the United States. It reflects kind of our labor market institutions, the way unemployment rate moves and recessions. It historically is the case that once you get past a certain threshold of increased unemployment rate, it tends to build on itself. And in a typical recession, we see increases of. Two, three or more percentage points in the unemployment rate. Uh, so that’s, that’s what the summer rule is. And in fact, it did trigger in the summer of 2024. At that time I had said like, look around, we are not in a recession. GP is still expanding. Job creation is still happening. We don’t see the other hallmarks of a recession. And pointed to the fact that we’d had a very disrupted labor market after the pandemic in particular. You know, there had been a lot of immigration at that point. The unemployment rate is the total number of unemployed. So people who don’t have a job but are actively looking for one out of the labor force, right? And so these people that have to either be employed or looking for jobs, and so we actually saw from the pandemic. Both with the pandemic and then later with the surge and now the reversal in immigration. We’ve seen a lot of movement in the, in the labor force, which makes unemployment rate a little tricky to interpret. And then I’d also argue, we saw early in the pandemic, the unemployment rate dropped very rapidly. We even had labor shortages. So in some ways unemployment rate rising and it has risen over. I mean, it continued to rise last year in 2025. A lot of that’s also normalization. We’d had a very low unemployment rate. So I think the, the pandemic recession has a lot of features that were very unusual. We’ll talk probably more about the labor market continued to be kind of unusual. So the, you know, the somal was not the only recession indicator to fall flat on its face in the cycle. Um, but I think it’s still a useful, useful guide and I, and. You know, even if it’s not a recession, the, the unemployment rate is a full percentage point above, its low in 2023. So, I mean, that, that could, that could be a reason for policymakers to respond, even if it’s not responding to a recession. Right. That was the first time that it, that triggered and, and actually didn’t. End up in a recession, right? There’s some back in the 1950s, earlier, but it’s, it’s the first time where there’ve been some false positives in the past or, or near false positives. Like in 2003. It was kind of close, uh, is like the unemployment rate rises a little bit and then it falls back down. What we saw after it triggered in 2024 is it stabilized. Then last year it continued to rise. So this the pattern that we’ve seen since the pandemic of rapid recovery dropping unemployment rate and then it’s like gradually rising and yet has risen a full percentage point that you go all the way back in the post World War II period. We don’t see anything that looks like that. So that is a very unusual. Paris. So something’s more is going on in the labor market than just our typical business cycle, boom, bust, recession type dynamics. So what is that? What is the thing that’s happening that’s unusual right now in the labor market? Right? So the thing that is driving the unemployment rate up, I think this is a good lesson, a reminder to all of us. It’s not about layoffs. The rate of layoffs in the United States is really quite low. You look at unemployment insurance claims, they’re also quite low. What’s been pushing the unemployment rate up over the last two and a half years has been a very low rate of hiring and, and it’s, and it is something that over time will at least gradually put upward pressure on the unemployment rate and frankly. Until hiring picks up and we really don’t have many signs of it. Even as we enter 2026 unemployment rate’s gonna probably keep drifting up ’cause we’re not keeping job creation’s, not keeping up with, you know, people coming into the, into the labor market and, and that what’s, I think the puzzle right now is that hiring has been very low. But what we’ve seen in terms of consumer spending, business investment, so the kind of the big pieces of GDP, they’ve really held up pretty well, so. Business. It’s not, again, not that recession of the customers have disappeared. And so we’re not hiring, or we may even be firing workers. The customers are there for the businesses, but they’re choosing in this environment not to add, uh, to their payrolls. And that’s slowly pushing up down point rate. Yeah. Um, you know, it, it’s interesting what you’re, you’re talking about, but essentially you’re, people aren’t getting fired. They’re just, when they retire or leave, they’re just not replacing those. Individuals, you know, makes me think a little bit about what’s going on in the big, you know, in the tech push with artificial intelligence and that kind of thing, and increased in efficiency. Certainly you see that in the larger companies like Amazon and all that, where they’re just becoming massively more productive and cutting expenses essentially by, you know, using tech. Do you think that this is sort of an early indication, potentially of that kind of movement? So it. It’s possible, but I think we’re at the very front end of AI disrupting the labor market. This low hiring rate that we’ve talked about. You see this across all kinds of industries, including ones that don’t show high levels of AI adoption, and frankly, a AI adoption is pretty low. I mean, there are some sectors like tech and increasingly finance and some professional services have higher adoption rates. Uh, but in terms of it being able to explain the low hiring. I think it’s pretty tough ’cause the low hiring is such a, such a broad based, um, phenomenon. Now, AI might be, I think, indirectly contributing in that one of, one of the hypotheses about why, um, businesses have been, uh, not hiring despite, you know, economic activity. Continuing to push ahead could be that there’s a lot of uncertainty. Now there is a long list that we could draw of, of factors that might be causing businesses to be uncertain and hesitant to add to their payrolls. Uh, a lot of times you talk about things with tariffs or, you know, economic policy, regulations changing, you know, so there’s a lot going on there. But it could also be, there’s a lot of uncertainty about what this technology means for the future. Maybe you don’t need to bring on more workers because your ability to kind of use and adapt this technologies coming online. And so like that could be part of it. I think there’s another piece, you know, we have a lot of discussion about ai, but I do think that there’s, there could be a, a technology angle to this that’s, that is. Not in the AI technologies, but maybe just some of the more basic kind of automation is again, right after, you know, the, the pandemic recession as we came out of a, you know, very rapid recovery, uh, there was, there was a lot of hiring or that, ’cause businesses had done a lot of firing and they needed to bring back workers really rapidly and we actually had a period of labor shortages. There were workers moving around a lot and there were, that also put a lot of pressure on some employers, particularly in service sector, to automate more ’cause they just couldn’t get the workers, so they needed to bring technology. Online to help, you know, fill the gap. And over time, you know, businesses though, they haven’t done as much hiring, they have been firing. So the workers, they have longer tenures, have more experience, they’re probably more productive. So maybe businesses can kind of, you know, get away with not doing more hiring. ’cause the people they have there can kind of keep up with it. Um, and they’ve done some more automation. I don’t think those are sustainable. I think we’re going to need to see hiring pickup in terms of, of staying with, um, you know, as expanding, uh, demand from customers. But I won’t pretend to know what AI means for the future of the labor force. Right. So like there could be, I think that’s a big conversation about we’re headed, where we’re headed. I think it’s probably a pretty small slice of explaining. Where we’re at right now. You know, it’s interesting because obviously there was a lot of concerns about rising inflation, and particularly in the context of, you know, tariffs and, and among those types of things that were, were, um, coming down the pipe. And as it turns out, inflation seems to be coming down. How do you explain that from where you sit? Because it, it, it seems sort of to contradict a lot of what, you know, many economists believe to be likely. So when thinking about the effects of tariffs on inflation and this, this idea that it didn’t end up being as much of a factors we had really feared, uh, you know, a year ago. I think there’s a few things to keep in mind. One, the announced tariffs, uh. Didn’t come to pass fully. Right? So there’s a big difference between some of the, the, the initial announcements, whether it was on Liberation Day, April 2nd, or the initial kind of retaliation tit for tat with China, where we ended up with some triple digit, uh, tariff numbers. Those didn’t end up being where we, we ended now tariff, the effect of tariff rate. Is much higher than it was before. Right. Uh, president Trump came into office for the second time, so like, I don’t wanna minimize the, the, the increase in tariffs and the US government collected about $200 billion last year in, in additional tariffs. But there is a, there’s a good bit of daylight between what was announced and where we actually ended up. Businesses also proved very capable of trying to avoid those tariffs and not in like a. Illegal kind of way of avoiding them, but, but using inventories like trying to get ahead of them. We know the tariffs are tariffs. There’s been some evidence that, that it’s businesses are gonna start passing on the tariff cost increase when it’s actually tied to the inventories that they’re putting out in front of customers. And for some of our goods, like say apparel or things that have long seasons or come from, you know, all across the world, it actually takes quite a bit of time from the inventories being what actually shows up in front of customers. So there’s been the ability to. Kind of get around the tariffs ’cause they were rolling in. And so do be smart in terms of your inventories. And then it just takes time for those inventories to be, you know, um, to come down. Mm-hmm. By, there’s been several studies at this place, at this point that, that demonstrate that the, the tariffs, the cost of the tariffs is coming into the us. So the, it’s always the importer that pays the tariff, like literally writes the check to the US government. But it’s possible that the foreign producer could say, reduce their prices on what they’re, you know, paying or what they’re asking to be paid for that, uh, imported good. And then that would be a way of the foreign producer sharing the cost of the tariff. But everything that we see from the M Court data suggests that a very small fraction, probably less than 10%. Of the total tariff burden is being born by, at least at this point, born by the foreign producers. So it’s coming into the us. It’s sitting with either US businesses that are importing the goods or have the goods at some point in their, you know, in their supply chains and, and with us customers, the consumers we have, we’ve seen. I think you can really look at the inflation data. You can see the goods prices, which often are kind of a drag on inflation that they did turn around. They’re, they’re putting upward pressure on inflation. It’s not massive. It doesn’t explain all of these, you know, 200 billion in tariff costs, but then it is, it’s sitting with businesses. The effects still, it’s still just not that long enough to really understand. You know what, what the implications. It’s possible. I, I think that’s true with any, with any big policy change. Like it doesn’t happen overnight. I think that’s one thing that a lot of, a lot of economic models that, like, they’re, they’re very sensitive, right? Like as soon as a policy change happens, the models will kind of tell us something pretty dramatic in terms of adjustments. But this last year was a reminder, like when there’s, when there’s a big cost, there’s gonna be a lot of attempts to adjust around it to try to minimize that cost and then. It takes time, like in the real world, like the interactions are much more complex. You know, inventory lags all of the, like, it takes time to move its way through. So I think we’re not done with the pass through. I think we’ll probably still see more come to consumers, but businesses could decide to bear that cost. They, they could, you know, with profit margins. I mean some of, some of the inflationary environment in the pandemic did allow. There were very broad base increases in prices. You did see some companies be profitable from that because it was, there was a, you know, some of the costs were more targeted, but the, you know, the, the price increases were broad. So it could be a time where businesses see that, you know, consumers are more price sensitive now than they were in 21, 20 21, 20 22, so they’re not passing as much on it. Could be that that’s part of where. Like the cost businesses are dealing with that cost by maybe doing less hiring as opposed to passing it on to consumers. Uh, you know, they could be taking a hit with their profits. They, you know, so like, it doesn’t have to go all the way through to consumers. There are different levers that can be pulled. I do think we’ll still see some pass through in the, in probably the first half of this year, and that’s assuming that our whole tariff regime. Sit still, right? It looks like once again we might be, uh, increasing those tariffs, but, um, so yeah, I think it’s just tracing, you know, the tariffs through the system is really complicated. And one last thing I’ll say about the tariffs is they’re not just tariffs on goods that go to consumers. These tariffs have been broad enough that we’re also taring imported goods that are used by our manufacturers used for our, by our businesses in their production. So then it can take a really long time for that to end up with the, you know, the end customer could be a business to start with, and then it moves its way down. So I think these are just, you know, the costs are real. We can see the tariffs have been collected, the costs are there. We can see in the import data, there haven’t been import price data, there haven’t been a lot of adjustments by the foreign suppliers. So then it’s just a question of, we have these costs. Where did the cost go? I believe the last GEP was 4.3% and, uh, inflation was around 2.6, 2.7, or at least core. You’ve obviously, uh, worked at the Fed. Um, give us a sense of the situation that the Fed is trying to figure out here. Like what do they do with these numbers and, you know, all of the issues that surround them. The work at the Fed, I mean, it, it’s laser focused on the, the response, the mandates that the Fed has. So with maximum employment and price stability and with maximum employment, that’s not something that can be easily defined. It’s not like it’s a particular unemployment rate, it’s not a particular payroll number. But I mean, broadly speaking, it’s, you know, do, are, you know, the people who wanna work, are they working? In such a way that it’s not putting pressure on inflation, right? Like labor shortages that end up with wage increases that just, you know, end up with inflation. Like that would be a situation where the Fed would actually want to kind of help restrain some of the. Uh, employment growth. And we, we saw that in this cycle. I mean, the Fed raised rates a lot in 2022 and 2023. Uh, so that’s the maximum employment on the stable prices. The Fed has set a target of the 2%, uh, year over year PCE inflation. So a little different than the CPI inflation, but very much related. And, and it’s one, I mean, that’s, that’s the goal, right? And it, uh. So it starts with those two pieces and, and what’s been, I think what’s been challenging in say the last year as the Fed was, you know, trying to figure out what it was gonna do with interest rates was the fact that it, there was pressure on both sides of the mandate. Mm-hmm. Um, and not necessarily the, well, I mean, inflation itself has, was above the 2%. It continues to be above the 2%. Target has been. Since 2021. Now the Fed’s policy doesn’t have a look back, but I mean, they do worry that the longer inflation stays closer to three than two businesses. Consumers are gonna start to kind of embed three into their actions, their expectations. Then you kind of get stuck there. So like that, that both, you know, they were missing on the inflation mandate and there were, there were concerns that the, that we might see inflation get stuck above the mandate and the way you dislodge it if it gets stuck. Could end up risking a recession, right? So the Fed doesn’t want that to happen. So that’s a real concern. But then on the employment side, you know, we started out talking about the small rule, the rising unemployment rate. We’ve seen the unemployment rate rising. And then last year in particular, it wasn’t just the unemployment rate rising, we saw job creation just really take a leg down. Um. Some of that probably is less immigration population aging, so less supply of workers, which isn’t something the Fed would react to. ’cause that, I mean, if you don’t have as many people that wanna work, you don’t need to create as many jobs. But the unemployment rate was rising, so it’s clear, like there just wasn’t, there wasn’t enough job creation to keep up with, um, the workers who were there, uh, to work. And, and there was a concern that this could, could spiral out. Those small increased unemployment rate that, that very low level of job creation. And frankly, if you look at, I mean the, I mean, we have multiple months and probably more after revisions of declines in payroll employment. Mm-hmm. Like if you looked at the labor market data, you’d be like, aren’t we in a recession or like on the edge of one? Again, that’s not where we’re at, but it, it certainly gave that, that risk. Things could be slowing down. And, and the, the last piece that was really important in the Fed’s decisions was where, where’s the federal funds rate? Where are the interest rate, the policy interest rate they control? And it was still relatively high. For, for recent history, right. Not in the long history of the Fed, but mm-hmm. And so, like the Fed had raised, they’d raised interest rates quite aggressively to fight the inflation in 2022. They’d very gradually lowered it. Some was taken out in 2023 because made some pro, made quite a bit of progress on inflation in, or in 2024, they lowered the rates in 2025, the 75 basis points of cuts that the Fed did. It was out of concern. Of the labor market unraveling a risk, not a, not saying, hey, the labor market is unraveling, but saying the risk that the downside risk to employment are larger and more worrisome than the upside risk to inflation. So this inflation getting stuck, is that still the case as a going into 2026 here? So, you know, even, even last year we saw, we listened to Fed officials, there’s quite a bit of disagreement. Because it was a tough situation to read. There are some Fed officials that were more focused on inflation, some that were more focused on the employment side. Uh, and it really was just a matter of kind of reading the economy and trying to figure out this, a very unusual situation, like where, where was this headed? What did the Fed need to do? In the end, the consensus on the Fed was to do the rate cuts, kind of front load them. They talked a lot about it as insurance. They’re taking out insurance against the labor market deteriorating. And I think with that approach, in all likelihood, and there’s been certainly signaling of this, that when they meet at the end of January, it’ll, they’re unlikely to move again. That this is, this will be an opportunity to hold steady, be patient the Fed has, has taken out their restriction. So they don’t have the higher rates, so they’ve pulled rates down. We also know that early this year there’s various kinds of fiscal support that are coming online or tax cuts to households and to businesses that should give a little extra lift, uh, to the economy. So I think it’s a period of the Fed waiting to see what the effects of their policy changes are, seeing what the effects of the fiscal policy with the expectation this will be enough to stabilize the labor market. Even help get it back on track and really what the Fed would like. I mean, we’ll see what they get, but they’d really like the next cut to be a good news cut. Like inflation. Oh look, it’s moving back down again. We’re making clear progress back to 2%. I think that’s probably gonna take maybe even till the middle of this year to build that case. A strong case for the disinflation. Mm-hmm. But that’s, that’s what they would, would like to do. But they’re gonna keep an eye on the labor market. But nothing we’ve seen in the most recent data suggests that they gotta get moving like that. There’s some, you know, real pressure building. Um, in fact, the labor market looks a little bit better probably than when they met in December and inflation. Showing some signs of progress, but it, it’s pretty bumpy in terms of, there’s a lot of noise in the data at the moment. You mentioned, um, the Fed’s mandate and you know, certainly that’s something, um, that, uh, you know, that, that we know the Fed looks at these unemployment numbers that look at inflation. I’m curious though, that there’s, you know, there is this push and pull with the treasury. In particular, you know, looking at the amount of, of, of, of bonds that need to be refinanced, that kind of thing. I mean, presumably that’s one of the reasons why the Trump administration is pushing so hard, uh, on the Fed to reduce, um, you know, to reduce rates so that you know, this sovereign debt can be refinanced at a, something a little bit more palatable. How much of that actually. I know it’s not supposed to play a part in the Federal Reserve’s actions, but in reality is there, is there that kind of, you know, thinking that, you know, they have to, they, they may try to play ball a little bit with the, with the situation, with the debt. Yeah. There, the, the Fed is not playing ball right now with the administration. Uh, but, but there have been, there have been times in our past. So during World War II, there was an explicit cooperation between the Fed and the Treasury. The Fed kept interest rates low. Both the federal funds rates, so the short term interest rates, they also did, uh, some purchases of longer term to help keep longer term rates down. Right. So I mean, the, the Fed really, they, their policy was oriented exactly on this objective, keeping the borrowing cost of the US government low because it was financing the war effort. So, so there have been times where the Fed has cooperated with treasury. Now, when they came out of World War ii. What happened is, you know, treasury wants to keep interest rates low. This is good for, you know, the economy, good for growth, but it was, it really was creating a lot of inflationary pressures and it took until the early 1950s for the Fed to kind of regain its kind of operational independence from treasury and then go back to pursuing, you know, inflation as a key goal. And then also in the late seventies and maximum employment was added as an explicit goal. So we’re in a place now where. It’s employment, it’s inflation, it, there was quite, um, I mean, president Trump and some other officials have been, you know, very open about saying rates should be low to help with the deficit, with funding the gov. So like, it’s, it’s been in the discussion in the air. But that’s not, that’s not a mandate that Congress has given the Fed. That’s not what they’re pursuing. It does, you know, but things can change at the Fed. We’re gonna see a change in leadership this year with a new Fed chair. Um, the Fed always, I mean, Congress created the Federal Reserve. It’s changed its abilities, its responsibilities over time. I don’t wanna say that we’ll never get back to a place where the Fed thinks about. Its effect on the deficit. I mean, they’re watching it, they know, right? They’re tracking all these aspects of the economy. But in terms of what’s driving the Fed’s decisions about what the, the federal funds rate should be, that’s not part of the calculus right now. Yeah. Um, you know, another, just another question is for clarity. You know, the, the, um, officially right now there’s, there’s no quantitative easing. However, there is. Uh, you know, I’ve been reading, uh, about even, I think even today, there was a, a fair amount of liquidity, uh, being injected in by the Fed. Can you, for people who don’t understand the mechanics of this and what the difference in terminology is, can you explain to us maybe what the difference is between quantitative easing and what’s being done right now? So just as for context, where quantitative easing even came from. So if we go back to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve, in response to that recession, pulled the federal funds rate all the way to zero. Cut rates to zero And as sure many of us remember that that recession was a very deep and long recession. So, and the unemployment rate was, you know, 10% and inflation was not a problem. So the, the Fed would want in that environment to do more to support the economy. But when the federal funds rate is at zero, that’s, its, that has been its primary tool. Well, that’s, that’s. Stepped out. So then as a question of, well, what else could we do to help support the economy? And, and there, there were. Different possibilities. Uh, some European central banks looked at, you know, they actually did negative interest rates or tried to pull their policy rates, and that’s not what the US did. What was done was to do purchases of, uh, treasuries. Uh, there’s also been purchases of mortgage backed securities, and this is where the Fed is. I mean, and, and they’re creating reserves. So the fed, I guess, secretary, uh. Treasury doesn’t refer to it as magic money. Um, you know, they create reserves and then they’re going out and they’re buying tr so they’re pushing that liquidity, that demand into markets. And if you’re, if there’s a lot more demand for treasuries, well, the price of the treasuries will go up. The yield comes down. Interest rates go down. Yep. Interest rates go down. So they. They were, the Fed wanted to support the economy more. That was the tool that they used to do it. So when, when the Fed talks about quantitative easing, it’s not just the tool, the asset purchases, it’s also the intent, right? They wouldn’t do quantitative easing right now. ’cause if the Fed thought they really need to stimulate the economy more, they’ve still got like. More than three percentage points they could cut from the federal funds rate. Like if the issue were right now, we need to like get the economy going, they’re gonna like cut the funds rate and do it that way. They wouldn’t be pur like purchasing assets, purchasing treasuries to do that. But what what happened is between the global financial crisis, the Great recession, so all the asset purchases done then. There was some, some runoff of the balance sheet, but then again, in the pandemic there were a lot of asset purchases. Uh, the Fed has a really big balance sheet, and it has, uh, it, it kind of changes the way that the Fed can even just move around the federal funds rate. Like, I don’t wanna get too much into the, the technicals, but it’s, it’s just, you know, when the Fed says, well, we wanna lower the, the funds rate to 3.5%. In the old days, they could kind of do, you know, with the bank reserves and they could like, make these small purchases and it would, it would make that stick. Now with, there’s, uh, banks have a lot of reserves, so they’re not as responsive. And so just to kind of, there’s like the, the technical, the tools, the Fed has to just make it happen. In terms of operationally, it means that they have to do some purchases now and then they call their, I mean the new name they have for these are reserve management. Purchases. So it’s really about operations. It’s not about, but it does mean they’re purchasing assets. So if you’re just focused on like the Fed’s purchasing assets, they’re putting liquidity into the system. Yes, they are doing that, but it’s not with the intent to kind of push the economy to run harder. It’s just enough liquidity to keep. The federal funds rate stable at the level that they wanted to be at, to just make sure that all these operations are short in the very short term lending markets amongst banks, that it’s all kind of working as mm-hmm. As it should be. So it’s more about operations and it’s about stimulus policy. Right. A lot of our, um, a lot of our listeners are real estate owners, investors, and they’re, you know, they think about, um. Mortgage rates and that kind of thing. There was recently a, a pretty significant, well, I don’t know how significant it really was. I think it was about, was it maybe $250 billion worth of mortgage backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae. Um, that ca can you talk about the purpose of that and really the, you know, what kind of effect that would actually, we could actually expect from that. It’s certainly been, I mean it’s, it is clear. You know, we talked about one reason that the administration would want interest rates down. It’d be like financing the deficit. Right. Another reason that very much pulls into kind of the affordability debate is we want interest rates lower, one of them lower for consumers. Now the White House has put a lot of pressure on the Fed for them to lower rates even faster than they have. Has not played ball with that. But then the Fed has lowered its rates. The Feds rates are very short term rates, and the federal funds rate is like an overnight rate with between banks. Right. So it, and it has an effect on, you know. Credit card rates, short term rates, but it’s not one, it, it has an effect, but it’s really not like driving necessarily 30 year mortgage rates or you know, some of the longer term rates. There’s a lot of other factors that go into that, and so in this kind of, you know, push for lower mortgage rates. Pushing on the Fed is not the only lever to pull, right? The administration has other levers that they could potentially pull, um, in trying to influence mortgage rates. Now, there, I’d argue the administration’s tools here, like the, the $200 billion, Fannie and Freddie purchase that you mentioned. That really is about trying to reduce the spread. Between mortgages and treasuries. So in some ways it sounds similar, like, oh, fed and Franny, which are, you know, GSEs. So part, part of the, you know, government right now, at least they were privatized during the global financial crisis. You think, oh, they’re going out and purchasing this Sounds a lot like the Fed going out and purchasing. There are there, there’s some parallels, but we need to remember, Fannie and Freddie don’t create money. The Fed, when they start, when they start the process of their quantitative easing, they’re creating reserves like they’re actually creating liquidity and money supply. Fannie and Freddie have authorization to be able to make these purchases, but they’re not like the fed. They’re not creating reserves, but they can, so I don’t wanna think about them like bringing down the whole set of interest rates, but they can affect this spread between mortgages and say treasuries. Right? And so, because again, if you’re, if the. If the GSEs are going out, they’re purchasing mortgage backed securities, well that’s increasing demand for those, and that can push down the rates, that can like squeeze that spread. And, and while the announcement has been made, you know, I mean they’re, they’re in the early stages of putting that in place, but we even on the announcements, saw a response in financial markets and you’re seeing some movement down, uh, in mortgage rates now. It was. Pretty modest, right? And, and 200 billion while, you know, not nothing, uh, really pales in comparison to like the scale of say, the quantitative easing that the Fed did. Um, and there are probably other, but the, you know, the administration’s not done. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that Fannie and Freddie do more purchases. The the spread between mortgage rates and treasuries is pretty substantial. There’s other places where, you know, the fees that go into getting a mortgage are quite a bit larger than they were before the, the global financial crisis. So maybe they go in and try to chip away at the fees and, you know, so there’s, there’s different levers. And I fully expect, and I think we’re gonna get some announcements here again soon on the White Houses. Housing affordability agenda. So there may be other, other ways that they’re trying to, uh, influence, uh, the mortgage spreads. But that’s, that’s what that is all about. And it, it should have, and it looks like, you know, it’s having some effect in terms of bringing rates down, but it likely, it’d be modest, like in the 10 basis points, maybe 20 if they ramp up the program some. But like, it, you know, it’s, it, it, you know, every, every bit counts. But this is not a. Uh, this won’t be enough to, you know, move rates down, dramatic mortgage rates down dramatically, uh, when you, when you look at the economy. Um, and I, I, I think just, you know, one last question. I mean, I just in terms of, you know, the people listening to this are. They’re, they’re people, you know, with jobs and who are trying to invest their money, and they’re trying to, you know, build long-term wealth, but they’re, you know, everybody’s worried about what’s happening with the economy. What, what, what do you think, like, just as, um, um, you know, perspective for people to understand or try to have some framework for how to look at what’s going on in the economy. How they should judge it. Like what would you suggest, like just for mom and pop investors trying to, what is happening with the economy? I’m not an economist. What, what are the, what are the things that you think they should consider studying up on, looking into a little bit? One challenge for a lot of investors, I mean, frankly, it’s, it’s been a challenge that I try to deal with too. Uh, we’re, we’re in an environment where there’s just. There’s so much news coming out of DC uh, with the White House and policies and the Fed, and you know, I mean, like, there’s just, there’s a lot. The headlines are big. And like I talked about with the tariffs, we had like really big tariff announcements. The really scary numbers were, and then it like dialed back and then we pushed through it and it’s like, and it’s this remembering that, um. There’s always a tendency to have this idea that the, the president really runs the economy. I mean, that’s not just about this administration. That’s like a longstanding, you know, the president gets, uh, blame or credit for the economy when really, right. Like we have a over 33, $30 trillion economy, hundreds of millions of workers, tens of millions of businesses. Like this is not about one administration. And so we always need to be careful about. Putting too much weight on the policies coming out of dc. Uh, and you know, last year if you really just listened to all the, you know, we’re cutting immigration, we’re raising tariffs, we’re doing, you know, all, there’s a lot of uncertainty in Doge. Well then you might have missed, like, there’s a bunch of AI investment happening and we’ve got a lot of growth in the economy and while consumers are still pretty resilient, so you, it’s kind of like. Tuning down the volume, some coming out of Washington, especially the like every twist and turn. Uh, and then kind of focusing in on the fundamentals. I will say, you know, you don’t wanna turn down DC too far because we, we do have some like big picture events that could play out over many years. Right. So kind of keeping an eye on it, but for the long game. As opposed to reacting to every twist and turn, every policy announcement, because a lot of this clearly is more of a negotiation than it is like, we’re gonna actually do this. So, you know, as investors, you don’t wanna get whipped around by the latest headline, but you also can’t put your head in the sand. Like you gotta kind of try and find a way to pull the signal out of the noise. And it is really. It’s really hard. Yeah. Like this has been a challenging time and the, the US economy’s been doing things that are not typical. We talked about some of the things with the labor market and we are running some policy experiments that haven’t been run in a long time, so things could change pretty dramatically. But I think it’s just trying to absorb the information, not get too wound up about it, but like also keep an eye on like what’s good for long-term growth. Yeah. Because it’s good for long-term productivity. Thank you so much Dr. Sahm. It’s uh, it’s been a pleasure talking to you on, uh, wealth Formula Podcast today. Great. Thank you so much. You make a lot of money but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concept. Here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. It was Claudia Sahm. She is, uh, she’s a very, very smart lady. And, uh, just a reminder, if you have not done so, uh, I, I don’t frequently ask to do, do this, but, uh, make sure you give the show. Five stars and a positive review because that’s how we’re getting, you know, really high quality people like Claudia on the show, I’ve been around for a long time. It helps that the show is, you know, like over a decade old and all that stuff too. But, uh, anything you can do to support would be very helpful. And also one more reminder, uh, if you have not done so and you weren’t a credit investor, make sure you sign up for that investor club. At Wealth formula.com. That’s it for me. This week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is about Joffrey signing out. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheelwright and Ken m. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

Yeah, another publication protesting against the dangers of relativism. It's easy to let this topic pass, simply claiming to know how bad it is, right? Don't be so quick. Join me in the next episode of Catholic Life Coach For Men as I review C S Lewis's book Abolition of Man. He is writing during the rise of relativism after World War 2, and as a classical English professor is uniquely suited to bring this issue up. The invitation is not to merely to oppose relativism in the universities, but even where it tries to creep into our homes. Fighting for objective truth, and the goodness of truth is essential! I talk about how to do that in this episode. I'm happy to announce I have a book out and available! You can find it on Amazon (more options to come.) Also if you struggle with it, consider my course on Anger. It's a collection of powerful ideas and exercises that will help you regain control of your temper - and protect those you love! You can find it here: St Joseph's Way

5 Hours and 22 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are the first 5 episodes of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 1: The Rise of the National Socialists in the Weimar Republic/Germany w/ Thomas777Episode 2: The Invasion of Poland and the U.S. Enters the War w/ Thomas777Episode 3: FDR and The New Dealers Push For War w/ Thomas777Episode 4: The Origins and Rise of Winston Churchill Pt. 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 5: The Origin and Rise of Winston Churchill Pt. 2 - The 1930s w/ Thomas777Thomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

5 Hours and 9 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 6-10 of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 6: The Origin and Rise of Winston Churchill Pt. 3 - 1936-1939 w/ Thomas777Episode 7: Winston Churchill Becomes a Warlord - Part 4 of 4 w/ Thomas777Episode 8: Dispelling Myths, and an Introduction to 'Operation Barbarossa' w/ Thomas777Episode 9: Laying Out the Details of 'Operation Barbarossa' w/ Thomas 777Episode 10: The Conscience of the War (WW2) Wagers and Planners w/ Thomas777Thomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

6 Hours and 55 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 11-16 of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 11: The Nuremberg Regime Pt 1 - Background w/ Thomas777Episode 12: The Nuremberg Regime Pt 2 - Background w/ Thomas777Episode 13: The Nuremberg Regime Pt 3 - Rudolf Hess w/ Thomas777Episode 14: The Nuremberg Regime Pt 4 - Rudolf Hess (Pt. 2) w/ Thomas777Episode 15: The Nuremberg Regime Pt 5 - Rudolf Hess (Pt. 3) w/ Thomas777Episode 16: The Nuremberg Regime Pt 6 - Rudolf Hess (Pt. 4 of 4) w/ Thomas777Thomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

7 Hours and 59 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 17 throught the Livestream Q&A of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 17: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 18: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 2 w/ Thomas777Episode 19: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 3 - The Defendants w/ Thomas777Episode 20: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 21: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 2 - The Cross-Examination w/ Thomas777Episode 22: The Final Episode in the WW2 Series - The Verdicts at Nuremberg w/ Thomas777Livestream Q&AThomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Air Date 1/29/2026 Today we examine the collapse of the American-led, rules-based world order (such as it was) in real time. Canada's Prime Minister pointed out that the emperor has no clothes and declared US hegemony over while Europe called Trump's bluff on Greenland... all the more reason why he would prefer a fake "Board of Peace" that he can rule over as a worldwide plutocracy. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991, message us on Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01, or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes Check out our new show, SOLVED! on YouTube! In honor of our 20th birthday, we're giving new Members 20% OFF FOR THE LIFETIME OF YOUR MEMBERSHIP...this includes Gift Memberships! (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Use our links to shop Bookshop.org and Libro.fm for a non-evil book and audiobook purchasing experience! Join our Discord community! KEY POINTS KP 1: TACO Returns: Trump 'isolated and Humiliated' by Greenland Saga Says Hayes - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 1-21-26 KP 2: Why Trump Just Threatened Canada in Davos | About That - CBC News - Air Date 1-21-26 KP 3: Trump's War on Iran / Davos / Canada-China Relations with Prof. Jiang Xueqin of Predictive History - Reason2Resist with Dimitri Lascaris - Air Date 1-22-26 KP 4: MAGA Empire with Aslı Bâli and Greg Grandin Part 1 - The Dig - Air Date 1-16-26 KP 5: Iran's Protest Movement with Yassamine Mather and Kevan Harris - Jacobin Radio - Air Date 1-20-26 KP 6: Mehdi Reacts to the Intense Debate Over Iran's Protests - Zeteo - Air Date 1-17-26 (00:44:46) NOTE FROM THE EDITOR On why an might-makes-right is evil DEEPER DIVES (00:56:10) SECTION A: GREENLAND (OR IS IT ICELAND?) A1: Chris Hayes' Map-based Theory Behind Trumps Greenland Obsession - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 1-14-26 A2: Why Donald Trump Really Wants Greenland - Full Story - Air Date 1-19-26 A3: 'What Starts World Wars': Trump Ramps up Greenland Obsession, Floats Military Action - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 1-6-26 A4: Trump Threatens Greenland: The Start of World War 3? with Richard Wolff - The Socialist Program with Brian Becker - Air Date 1-21-26 A5: Greenland Tariffs Have European Leaders Ready To Give Up On Trump - Mallen Baker - Air Date 1-18-26 (01:33:49) SECTION B: IRAN IN CHAOS AND STILL A TARGET B1: Iran's Khamenei Says US, Israel Links Behind "thousands Killed" in Protests - Al Jazeera English - Air Date 1-18-26 B2: MAGA Empire with Aslı Bâli and Greg Grandin Part 2 - The Dig - Air Date 1-16-26 B3: News Brief: For Media Reporting on Iran, Trump Suddenly Morphs Into Pro-Democracy Humanitarian - Citations Needed - Air Date 1-17-26 B4: What Will Happen in Iran Now That Protests Have Died Down? - DW News - Air Date 1-17-26 (02:02:12) SECTION C: CANADA MADE AN ADVERSARY C1: Canada Prepares For US INVASION - And Mark Carney Declares US Hegemony OVER - Owen Jone - Air Date 1-21-26 C2: Mark Carney and the New World Order - Front Burner - Air Date 1-20-26 C3: Canada-China Form New Partnership: This Is Huge - The Rational National - Air Date 1-16-26 (02:25:22) SECTION D: THE WORLD MOVES AWAY FROM THE DOLLAR D1: The New Trump World Order - Why, America? with Leeja Miller - Air Date 1-19-26 D2: Oxfam Warns of Rising Authoritarianism & Billionaire Boom - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-21-26 D3: Foreign Central Banks Are Dumping US Debt At Alarming Rates - UNFTR Media - Air Date 12-19-25 (02:50:02) SECTION E: DYING COLONIALIST EMPIRE E1: "Empire in Decline": Historian Alfred McCoy on U.S. Aggression in Venezuela, Iran & Beyond - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-13-26 E2: Will Trump's Board of Peace Replace the UN? - Today in Focus - Air Date 1-21-26 E3: MAGA Empire with Aslı Bâli and Greg Grandin Part 3 - The Dig - Air Date 1-16-26 E4: Gaza, Venezuela, and Greenland Mark End of World Legal Order Set up in 1945 - Redeye - Air Date 1-19-26 E5: America Is Now The Enemy - Large Man Abroad - Air Date 1-20-26 SHOW IMAGE CREDITS Description: Photo of Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland standing alone, half in shadow, and off to the right against a wall with logos of the summit. Credit: "President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland" by the U.S. Government via Wikimedia Commons| Public Domain   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow BotL: Bluesky | Mastodon | Threads | X Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com  

On our radar this week… The first-ever recipient of a previously owned Nobel Peace Prize apparently wants to be the Genghis Khan of the 21st Century. In the last week, Trump has  Threatened to invade Venezuela if his hand-picked government doesn't do his bidding;  Stationed an armada near Iran in preparations for an aerial war;  Hinted at an imminent effort at regime change in Cuba;  Doubled-downed on his armed assault on the Constitution in Minneapolis with a change in messaging but little else, He replaced one Nazi-adjacent ICE commander with a fascist-adjacent ICE commander in Minneapolis with vague promises of a future future drawdown on masked thugs roaming the streets, but not now. Sent his FBI and Tulsi Gabbard to investigate the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, a continuation of his b.s. claims of fraud costing him a win over Joe Biden, and  Had his FBI raid the home of a reporter in violation of federal law; and, Arrested reporter Don Lemon for covering a peaceful Minneapolis protest because it “disrupted” a religious service Trump’s war on Minneapolis inspired a powerful anthem from “The Boss.” Bruce Springsteen's “The Streets of Minneapolis” pulls no punches in denouncing Trump, ICE Barbie and Stephen Miller. Due to copyright restrictions we can't play it here … but it's well worth a visit to YouTube. Trump World is also having a direct impact on Michigan politics. Trump has reportedly inserted himself in the battle for the party's gubernatorial nomination, torpedoing frontrunner John James and encouraging 78-year-old rich guy Perry Johnson's newly announced campaign.  Michigan Democrats have launched their first attack ad on independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Duggan even as the party's contests for Attorney General and Secretary of State are all but over.  A Republican dark money group is promoting one of the Democrats in next week's primary to fill a state Senate primary … with the belief that State Board of Education President Pamela Pugh would be easier to beat in the April general election. Democrats, including Saginaw Dem chair Jennifer Austin and Saginaw state Representative Amos O'Neal, are crying “foul.” Senator Elissa Slotkin says Kristi Noem has to go. In a Senate speech, Michigan's junior senator noted she had voted to confirm Noem … but the cabinet member derided as “ICE Barbie” has betrayed fundamental American values. We’re joined this week by political science guru Norm Ornstein, emeritus scholar at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute with his assessment of congressional dysfunction and Trump's drive for one-person government. He is the co-author, with Thomas E. Mann, of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism. Norm is a Minnesota native. He was a child prodigy, graduating from high school when he was fourteen and from college when he was eighteen. He received his BA from the University of Minnesota and PhD in political science from the University of Michigan.  By the mid-1970s, he had become a professor of political science at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., establishing a reputation as an expert on the United States Congress. Ornstein is a frequent contributor to The Washington Post, The Atlantic and the National Journal. He wrote a weekly column for Roll Call for 11 years, and was co-director of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project. He helped draft key parts of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain–Feingold Act. Ornstein is a registered Democrat but considers himself a centrist and has voted for individuals from both parties. We’re now on YouTube every week! Click here to subscribe. A Republic, If You Can Keep It is sponsored by © Clay Jones/claytoonz.com  

The post–World War order is dead. What comes after it in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia?

The world was deeply impacted by two American food creations... Spam and Chocolate Chip Cookies. We would never imagine them as culinary compliments. In fact, they are culinary antagonists to each other. Yet both creations were at the heart of one of the most difficult times in world history... World War 2. Spam became the product that fed millions as part of the lend-lease act during WW2. Chocolate Chip cookies became the most asked for product from soldiers during WW2. Together these two food inventions lifted hearts and built an appreciation for the American Brand that to this day impacts not only America but the world.  #BardsFM_TheAmericanBrand #SpamAndChocolateChipCookies #TheHeartOfACheerfulGiver Bards Nation Health Store: www.bardsnationhealth.com EnviroKlenz Air Purification, promo code BARDS to save 10%: www.enviroklenz.com EMPShield protect your vehicles and home. Promo code BARDS: Click here MYPillow promo code: BARDS >> Go to https://www.mypillow.com/bards and use the promo code BARDS or... Call 1-800-975-2939.  White Oak Pastures Grassfed Meats, Get $20 off any order $150 or more. Promo Code BARDS: www.whiteoakpastures.com/BARDS BardsFM CAP, Celebrating 50 Million Downloads: https://ambitiousfaith.net Morning Intro Music Provided by Brian Kahanek: www.briankahanek.com Windblown Media 20% Discount with promo code BARDS: windblownmedia.com Founders Bible 20% discount code: BARDS >>> TheFoundersBible.com Mission Darkness Faraday Bags and RF Shielding. Promo code BARDS: Click here EMF Solutions to keep your home safe: https://www.emfsol.com/?aff=bards Treadlite Broadforks...best garden tool EVER. Promo code BARDS: TreadliteBroadforks.com No Knot Today Natural Skin Products: NoKnotToday.com Health, Nutrition and Detox Consulting: HealthIsLocal.com Destination Real Food Book on Amazon: click here Images In Bloom Soaps and Things: ImagesInBloom.com Angeline Design: AngelineDesign.com DONATE: Click here Mailing Address: Xpedition Cafe, LLC Attn. Scott Kesterson 591 E Central Ave, #740 Sutherlin, OR  97479

For most of the years since World War 2, many global powers said they adhered to a rules-based international order. Since Donald Trump returned to the White House that idea is falling away. But did it ever exist in reality? And what's the alternative now? The BBC's International Editor Jeremy Bowen wraps up our week of special coverage.Producers: Cat Farnsworth and Xandra Ellin Mix: Travis Evans Senior news editor: China Collins The Global Story brings clarity to politics, business and foreign policy in a time of connection and disruption. For more episodes, just search 'The Global Story' wherever you get your BBC Podcasts.Photo: Presidents Putin, Trump and Xi as Russian dolls. Credit: Yuri Kochetkov. EFE/REX/Shutterstock