Speaker 0: Look around you. Wrong rules the land while waiting justice sleeps. I saw it in the congress and crossing the country, campaigning with Ron Paul. Tyranny, rising, unspeakable evil, manifesting. Devils lying about our heritage who want to enslave and replace us.
But we are Americans with a manifest destiny to bring the new Jerusalem of endless possibilities. But first, this fight for freedom. Be a part of it, but don't delay because this is the hour of decision.
Speaker 1: Hour of decision with Lou Moore starts now.
Speaker 0: Welcome to hour of decision. My name is Lou Moore. This afternoon, we're gonna talk about Donald Trump getting a little getting a little aggressive with some of the other nations in the world. Specifically, we're gonna talk about his stated intention to take over Greenland to the north of us. We're gonna do that in the second half hour of hour of decision with JR Nyquist.
He's gonna talk about the strategic importance of the Arctic and the big problem we have, defense wise, dealing with both Russia and China in the Arctic. But in the first half hour, we're gonna talk about the Panama Canal. Actually, one of my favorite topics and, not one that is unimportant at this point in our history. So, Trump's being very provocative, but why? Why is he so exercised about the Panama Canal?
Well, he's got very good reason, folks, because the Chinese, from the inception of the, Panama Canal agreement that was finally ratified and the big turnover happened in 1999 when we turned over the canal supposedly to the people of Panama. Ever since then, the Chinese have actually been running this show, particularly the 2 ports on either end of the canal, under their control. But let's go back in history a little bit with the canal. We build it. Teddy Roosevelt, pushed it through even though it wasn't completed until Woodrow Wilson took power in 1914.
But, Teddy Roosevelt very anxious to display American naval power and to have naval American naval power that could be projected around the world, the great white fleet of admiral Mahan, and part of that picture was the ability to quickly, much more quickly, get ships, from the West Coast to the East Coast or vice versa in the United States and, of course, overseas from those locations as well. And and you just have to look at a map. I mean, if you don't go through the Panama Canal, but there isn't a Panama Canal, You have to go all the way down to Tierra del Fuego and around the tip of South America and back up. And so the it was an obvious, it was an obvious move to try to cut a canal through Central America, to avoid that long loop around South America and, but a lot of failures in the late 1800 by the imperial powers over in Europe, specifically France, and, huge disease problem. Yellow fever, unbelievable, in the jungles all through there.
And then there was also argument about where to actually build the canal, And,
Speaker 1: a
Speaker 0: lot of people thought it should be done through Nicaragua that has a huge lake that that would, limit the amount of, cutting overland, to build this canal because you got this big lake, in the middle of Nicaragua, but, that option was finally overruled, for the one that they ended up with going through Panama. And, the French had the concession for it and lost 40,000 Frenchmen to yellow fever and other jungle diseases, but they finally threw up their hands and turned it over to the United States who not only figured out how to make some of the cuts, in the land over, essentially mountain ranges, there that that whole range of hills and mountains that runs through the center of Central America all the way down to Panama, but also the conquest of yellow fever, one of the great health stories of the 19th early 20th century was, defeating yellow fever. And, so we also had a lot of casualties as far as people working on the canal, but nowhere near the huge number of people under the French. And I doubt a lot of them were French, a lot of third world people, that were working on this project, but but nowhere near the numbers of, casualties that they suffered.
I think we had 7 or 8000 deaths, still a huge number. So there was a lot of sacrifice involved, and, of course, the other element, to this story when we look at the history is there was no Panama. There was no nation of Panama. As this project was getting underway, Panama was part of Colombia, but a lot of people in Panama did not want to be part of Colombia. They were in a civil war, and part of the deal was Teddy Roosevelt put gunboats, and I think even a couple of battleships, down into that area and intimidated the Colombians enough that they backed off.
And so we ended up then paying money. Of course, we always pay money to all these people, but we paid some money to the Colombians. We paid some money to the pan, Panamanians, and we helped them secure their independence. So who knows if they ever would have become independent if we hadn't had this overriding interest in building the Panama Canal. So that's something that's pretty important to consider when you look at the whole picture here.
So, anyway, America takes over the canal. There is a because canal zone set up that runs the the length of the canal on both sides that that we controlled, the US military, controlled within the nation of Panama. But I think it's pretty obvious that this was a pretty good deal economically for the Panamanians who have this world, passageway world trade passageway going, you know, right through their nation. And, so, anyway, the pan canal operated all through the 20th century, but as we get in close to the 19 sixties, when, all over the world, the, colonial powers and the western powers, including the United States, were experiencing these wars of national liberation that were stirred up by the communist, that were stirred up specifically, by Khrushchev and the Russians. A lot of that ferment was also happening in, South America, Central America, and of course in 1958, Fidel Castro, was able to overwhelm Batista and become the communist dictator of Cuba, leaving a Cuban, leaving a communist nation 90 miles from our shores that very soon started smuggling in Soviet materiel and missiles, and, but it was a boon to all of the Marxist troublemakers and organizations all through that region, and that would include Panama.
So there was be beginning to be more clamor out in the street, the rent a mob that the Marxists always seem to be able to come up with, whether it's here or in a third world country like Panama, you know, agitation, to get their canal back that belong to them even though they had practically nothing to do with the building of it, and, they weren't even a nation and became a nation only because of our intervention, in the canal. So, during this time, right about this time, there was an article in the, Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR Magazine Foreign Affairs. And these here articles in foreign affairs frequently signal a big push is gonna come from the globalist in various directions. And in 19, 59, April 1st edition of foreign affairs, there was an article, describing how the American policy was embarrassing. It was just embarrassing, folks, toward Panama that we hadn't turned this canal over to them.
They said that the American policy had outlived its usefulness and changes in technology and international power structure and in the climate of world opinion, indicated that this was an embarrassment that we were still controlling the canal that we built that was in the central strategic, necessities and requirements, of the United States, that this was an embarrassment. And that Latin America might not approve going down the road. They might not continue to approve, of the fact that we were running, operating, and essentially asserting ownership over this canal that ran through, ran across, actually, the nation of Panama in Central America. This article was by Martin Travis and James d Watkins. They were both from Stanford and really smart people.
So there there's a signal, and so the agitation began, on the street, pressure from below, within Panama to a degree, and pressure from above at the UN, at the state department, and in all the other places that are so influenced by whatever the people at the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group, the Aspen Forum, whatever these people think. And so, that was the beginning of that. And so then we, come to the election of 1976, where just prior to that, there had been another or 3 or 4 years earlier, there had been another one of these here articles in foreign affairs magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations Magazine, about the forming of the Trilateral Commission. And the the hard it was called the hard road, to the new world order, written by a man named Richard Gardner, where he stated that it was just too difficult to get particularly these stubborn Americans to see the wonderfulness of the rules based international order and the vision of world citizenship in a one world government. And, that that they were going to have to do this in pieces and build, governmental institutions in pieces in 3, specifically, 3 trilaterals around the world, 1 in Europe, and, of course, that resulted in the European Union and, one in Asia, and they're still working on that one.
They have that big compact, the APAC, compact over in Asia. And then in America, they were hoping for a North American Union, and, and eventually, a piece of the world government, a regional government that would span all of North and South America. So that was a new plan, and, of course, the quarterback on that plan was none other than David Rockefeller, the president of the CFR, I believe, at that time, and then the president of the Trilateral Commission, which was formed in 1972, 1973. So just 2 or 3 later, 2 2, 3 years later with this new plan that our corporate masters had for us, He needed to elect a president to execute this plan. I had Gerald Ford in there with his vice president Nelson Rockefeller, but Ford was not a an effective president, not popular, not elected, and, had all the stench of Watergate around him, not because he was involved with Watergate or that there should have been a stench necessarily, but because, that's how he got in power, with the demise of Richard Nixon.
So in 1976, there's an election with him and a very improbable man from the deep south, the peanut farmer himself, Jimmy Carter, who we are now, in mourning in national mourning over his death as he was a president of the United States. And, I'm not doing this episode because of that. That's actually quite a coincidence. But Jimmy Carter is central to the story of the giveaway of the Panama Canal because, Jimmy Carter was the trilateral commission president and a half. I'm gonna read now just for a minute out of one of my very, very favorite books.
It's called with no apologies. It was written by Barry m Goldwater, the former Republican nominee for president and, at this time, the senate a senator from Arizona. He says here on page 300, the trilateral commission is a modern praetorian guard. David Rockefeller and Zibonow Brzezinski, who, by the way, is the father of Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe fame, These two gentlemen found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate in 1976. They helped him win the nomination and the presidency.
To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community, which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax free foundations, and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR and of the trilateral, which he meant of the trilateral commission. And, a reporter joked, going a few pages farther, one one reporter joked any moment of sarcasm, it would be unfair to say the trilateral commission dominates the Carter administration. The trilateral commission is the Carter administration, and he named a bunch of the, members of this new organization. I mean, it's a long paragraph naming just the major picks, cabinet posts, things like that, that came right out of the trilateral commission. And, one of the individuals that came out of the commission that would become very involved with the Panama Canal was a human demon by the name of Saul Linowitz, who was the co negotiator of the Panama Canal Treaty, which was ratified in the seventies, although it wasn't fully implemented until 1999 because some people didn't like this.
But, and they were dealing they were negotiating, turning over our canal, this this most central infrastructure to our national security, to our economy, to world trade, with a a quasi Marxist dictator by the name of Omar Torrios, who was kinda like, the guy down there in Venezuela. You know, oh, I'm not a communist, but everybody's running around in the military, acting like communist. Any dictator down there in Panama at that time. So there were some other things that happened in Panama after that. I won't get into the whole story of, his successor who got linked up with the cartels and, you know, Panama is another pit of snakes.
There's the Panama Papers, which came out of, I think, WikiLeaks, I'm pretty sure. Talking about all kinds of evil thinking and wrongdoing in all those banks there in Panama, but we won't get into all that right now. But, anyway, Linowitz was, the person who directly negotiated this treaty, and folks, this is just another example of the leveling of the United States, which has been the policy of the globalist from the beginning. And so, the the giveaway of the canal was supposed to happen to hand off in 1999, and I actually found myself there in a congressional delegation, in the year 2000, right after we had turned it over to, to the Panamanians and, saw a number of interesting things. First of all, even in at that time, I was told by the mayor of Panama City and other people, vouched for the accuracy of what she told me that there were 100,000 Chinese in Panama in 1999.
100,000. They had their own newspaper. That, the company who got the concession supposedly from the government of Panama, supposedly a Hong Kong a British a British company based in Hong Kong that was supposed to be running the ports at the two ends of the canal, the Hutchinson Whampoa company. Actually, this was a a company run by a man named Li Ka Ching who had direct access to the dictator of China and who was in the inner circle of the leadership of China. And, they had even by then, captured contracts to run ports in 35 or 40 places around the world in Jamaica, several places in the Caribbean.
They were involved with the port of Long Beach, and this was obviously a strategy by the Chinese to get as much influence, if not control, over ports around the world. But at both ends of the Panama Canal, folks, that's a big, big deal. And, I talked to a number of government officials down there, members of their senate there, a, I I think the finance minister had a meeting with him. And, I mean, let me tell you, there was a deep concern even then on the part of a lot of the Panamanians about what was happening. And what has happened, folks, is that, you know, we have we don't have control over this canal anymore, and there were assurances made.
And China is not a economic competitor. China, the Communist Party, the CCP of China, is one of our 2 mortal enemies on this planet and they're controlling this waterway that is in the vital national interest of the United States for it to stay open and particularly for it to for it to stay open for our navy. And, and another aspect of this is the fact that, with the Chinese control, sabotage of this canal. Piece of cake, folks. Piece of cake.
The general who was the last US commander, the last army commander over the canal zone took me on a helicopter ride and showed me a couple of areas where one missile strike would completely depressurize these locks that push the ships, actually through the canal and completely completely destroy it is a waterway. I mean, it would not be a difficult thing to do. And with the Chinese, that just their influence has just increased within the government. Of course, as I said, they're running the ports at both ends through the Hutchison Wampoa company, and it's a bad deal. And Trump is calling, bullshit on this bad deal.
And, god bless him. I mean, some people are saying Trump is just trying to distract people, and MAGA people are mad at him about h one b visas, and I'm very happy with him about h one b visas and other issues. But folks, Trump is calling out some major national security issues talking about both the Arctic and about Greenland and talking about our Panama Canal, and we certainly should take it back. I mean, it just you know, Ronald Reagan was totally against this, but we had to get the votes. I mean, they needed a 2 thirds vote in the senate for us to give away the canal, and they were able to achieve that because William f Buckley, who at the at that time was possibly the most prominent and influential conservative supposedly in America.
He went on a tour of a the canal with Henry Kissinger and suddenly decided this is going back now again to the seventies, and suddenly decided this would be the greatest thing in the world if the United States gave away our Panama Canal. I mean, Ronald Reagan was apoplectic. Barry Goldwater was stunned, absolutely stunned by this, but Buckley, was very aggressive and on a lot of shows debating people, and he's so smart. And I look at these people over at the Council on Foreign Relations. They totally agree.
And he gave cover to enough conservative Republicans that they pass this treaty, but then, you know, Reagan didn't wanna implement it. He was president for the next 8 years after Carter, and so it it was left up to Bill Clinton. Finally, oh, for Clinton finally relented and let this deal, go through. Disastrous deal that gave up our canal. But, hopefully, one way or another, our new president, Donald Trump, will get the canal back and, you know, get the map out, folks.
You should have the map out anyway. If you're looking at Greenland, why that's a a strategic importance vital importance. We're gonna talk about that in the next segment of the show and why the Panama Canal is of such vital importance to us today. You are listening to Hour of Decision. My name is Lou Moore.
We're here on Liberty News Radio, laying it out as straight as we can, folks. And we've got JR Nyquist to continue to do that. Talking now about Greenland in our next segment after the news.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: You're listening to hour of decision. My name is Lou Moore, and I'm privileged to have with me JR Nyquist, who's a frequent guest on this show. And, Jeff is gonna talk to us about the Arctic. Why is the Arctic such a big deal? Why does Trump wanna take over Greenland?
And, I I I can't think of anyone. I would rather get the straight scoop, from about this important issue, than Jeff, this important defense issue. Jeff, and you can find all of his work, which is outstanding at jrnyquist.blog. You can buy the fool and his enemies, at Amazon as well as other books that he's written. And, Jeff, welcome to hour of decision.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 0: So, Jeff, talk to us about the Arctic. Why does anybody care about the Arctic? And, why are we having this interesting situation developing, between Trump and the Europeans over Greenland.
Speaker 1: Well, the Arctic, one one basic geography lesson. You know, we're all used to looking at maps that show the north south orientation, and it sort of flattened out some Mercator projection. And what those maps that we often look at don't show us is the world's a globe, and the Arctic connects everything at the top. Yeah.
Speaker 0: If I've been on the Internet, there's some people don't even agree with that anymore.
Speaker 1: The flat earthers. Yeah. I'm afraid it's true. And so what people don't realize when it comes to Russia in particular with its strategic advantages in hypersonic missiles and long range cruise missiles and bombers, The shortest distance between Russia and the United States is over the Arctic, and the shortest distance for for submarines for Russian submarines is the Arctic. And the the what I learned when I was I I was at this Arctic conference, as you mentioned, the McKinsey Institute put on.
I was kindly invited by the president of the institute to attend, in in September. I I learned there from general dinner with her, that, the Russians deploy 5 submarines off our East Coast and 4 submarines off our West Coast now continually. They are very difficult to detect. They could go months at a time without being detected. They have long range cruise missiles, and guess where they come from?
They come from the north, east coast. They'll come past Greenland. And, there's Chinese submarines in the Arctic. The Russians have claimed the North Pole. They planted a flag underneath the ice at the bottom of the ocean.
Really? Claiming islands, landmasses. Yes. And, of course, the Russian Arctic buildup has been going on for, like, a decade. They have moved weapon systems and people.
They've set up bases. It's quite a thing. The Chinese who China is a country that doesn't have any land above the Arctic Circle. Yeah. China has announced that it is an Arctic power, and it's it's it's moving in, trying to get basing mining establishments.
It's tried to bribe its way in through Canadian Indian tribes to, to to build ports and to get in, and they have a thing in Canada we don't have in the US. Indian tribes have a kind of sovereignty that American Indian tribes don't, and there's a real danger, and the Canadians were very much talking about this, that they could lose the far north of Canada to a country like China if if these Indian tribes decided to take the Chinese money.
Speaker 0: That is, that is incredible. So so you've you've touched on a number of things I wanna follow-up on. But one of them, I mean, right off the bat, I think about Canada negotiating with their, native tribes and whatnot. I think of Trudeau who is like the worst And the soft creature.
Speaker 1: He's many of the Canadian politicians I met regard Trudeau as a creature of China.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Absolutely. Well, China, you know, all the money they moved into Vancouver is something I'm aware of from living in the northwest and just, you know, the whole regime is left of left, the regime that Trudeau has been leading.
Speaker 1: There are many Chinese faces in downtown Toronto. It's not just Vancouver.
Speaker 0: Sure. Sure. No. I can I can easily believe that? So, so what about, you know, we can talk more about the the strategic location of Greenland, but what about the mineral wealth there?
Is that a significant part of this conversation too? Or
Speaker 1: Well, the whole Arctic and the Canadian Arctic, especially, has vast mineral wealth. The the difficulty is is that, you have to build infrastructure to get at it. You have to build ports or railroads over the tundra to reach it, and that means the cost to exploit that mineral wealth, the initial cost is higher than it would be somewhere else. But developing it and being independent of sources, let's say, in Asia or in Africa or China, Russia, is is it's a strategic cost that we should bear when and not allow China and Russia to get those resources because China and Russia would like to get all of our resources, all of be able to cut us off. That's one of the strategies China and Russia and their allies are pursuing in Africa, in Latin America, get control of all the strategic minerals and have been in a position to strangle the United States.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, of course, in the, I'm aware of that. And then another factor in that conversation is the fact that we have vast mineral wealth, and we have rare earth minerals and things like that within the borders of the current borders of the United States, but we have a environmental movement that is also very closely tied particularly to the CCP, that is constantly, keeping us away from those minerals through regulations and lawsuits, and that's a problem too. Would you agree?
Speaker 1: Environmentalism has been used to block mining. Also the fact that Russia and China have engaged in, commercial dumping. I mean, Russia dumps minerals, and and if it's a certain price, there's no reason for us to keep our minds open. The Russians are doing it cheaper. So that is I think those are strategic moves to suppress some of our industries.
We know the rush the Chinese have done it in many commercial sectors. The the Russians also do it in certain raw material sectors.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I don't mean to digress too far now. I'm moving off of Greenland, but, you know, I I live in Utah, and there are vast reserves of uranium in Utah. And I understand that that now a lot of them are owned by entities connected to Putin and to Russia, you know, the infamous uranium one, deal that Hillary Clinton was involved with.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's funny how Hillary Clinton is is all of a sudden such an enemy of Russia when she did so much to help Russia for so long and also the Soviet Union when she was younger and, radical activist. Look. We have a problem in our politics.
We don't correctly identify who is who. When I was at the conference in Toronto, I had, I also had dinner with a leading conservative MP who had recently lost her seat. She was the head of what in Canada would be the same as our conservative caucus here. She told me about how the Chinese were taking over Canada and how many politicians were bad, how the system had been subverted by China, that China was being taken over I mean, Canada was being taken over by China, and that this Arctic issue, both in Greenland and, Canada look. Greenland is the territory of Denmark, a country that's not super capable.
And you look at the wealth and power. China is a is a commercial gorilla. How is this small country gonna hold on to a large territory like Greenland in the Arctic? And Greenland is strategic, as you say, for minerals because Russian submarines have to pass by it in order to come to North America from their northern fleet. And and people don't realize, that that, again, as I said, that the the curvature of the earth means that these are these are your short distances for bombers and submarines to reach us.
And this whole top tier in the Arctic, Canada, Greenland, Northern Alaska, There are places there where bases can be built, where the Russians and Chinese would be right on top of us. You know, a Russian bomber this was explained by general Klantzick flying over the far north, Arctic North of Russia, can launch one of their long range cruise missiles from there and can from there and can hit Milwaukee Wow. With that cruise missile fired from a bomber that far away. Imagine if the air bases are closer, the warning time goes down, the ability to intercept becomes nil. If and the other thing is that the Arctic is so is actually far away from us because of the ice and because of the vast stretch of uninhabited Canada.
You the only way in there is by air or by sea. In the northwest passage, I was told, look. Don't talk about it, but the northwest passage is never gonna be practical.
Speaker 0: That's for Okay. And northwest passage and just to so our listeners understand.
Speaker 1: It's yeah. It's where surface ships can go from the Atlantic to the Pacific for going through the North of Canada and then going through the Bering Straits into the Pacific rather than the Panama Canal. This has been talked about for, you know, more than 200 years. Sure. This has been talked about
Speaker 0: Panama Canal is a whole another subject, but we won't we won't digress too far in this segment. But,
Speaker 1: yeah. So so this is why the Arctic is you know? And, of course, we've had 3 decades with warmer temperatures. So a lot of the Arctic ice has has has not been there, although the Arctic ice is coming back. Looks like we're going into a grand solar minimum.
We've got the the Arctic vortex both in Europe and here. We've been hit by colder weather. New Zealand's 1st week of summer was winter temperatures. Here, just the beginning of, of our winter, the beginning of their summer down in the southern hemisphere. So but but the Arctic being warmer, there's been more traffic, and it becomes more passable.
And, of course, there's been increases in technology, both for aircraft operating there, for ships and, of course, submarines, and, of course, the ability to exploit resources. So we have to realize that this is a strategic region, and it's actually closer to Russia and more of a in between in terms of basing, than people realize looking at a map.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, Trump has pointed out, how close, what's that little town? I can't think of the name of it. When I which is about the only town in Greenland. How close it is to New York City?
Speaker 1: Lille, Greenland. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's I mean, we've had bases in Greenland. It is strategic.
Iceland's strategic because the Russian fleet is up in the Kola Peninsula. Down into the Atlantic, it has to go one way or the other around Iceland. And, of course, the preferred route if they're coming to North America is between Greenland and Iceland, that that that little body of water there. And this is what makes Greenland strategic other than its minerals and the fact that if someone if China or Russia get a base there, it becomes quite seriously dangerous to North America. If you talk to a NORAD general, he would be saying this is really bad because we are talking about warning time, lead in time, you know, hypersonic missiles, cruise missiles.
Once they get launched down low, if the launch is very quick, we lose track of these missiles. We're not able to intercept them because they fly so low. ICBMs are vulnerable now because of the anti missile technology and the the the emergence of, of directed energy weapons. But but the the the real fact is is that, the the new weapons, the ones that are gonna get through and devastate our country, those are these long range cruise missiles and hypersonics that go way up and then come down and are basically almost impossible to intercept.
Speaker 0: Jeff, at this conference, you were rubbing shoulders with some of these folks who had been in top military positions both in the US and Canada. What, are there other concerns that they expressed, or or or what did you learn from them, and what did they learn from you? A little bit more from,
Speaker 1: what Well, they were they were what was interesting well, the discussion was interesting because, I was interested in picking their brains about these these threats. Really, they were very precise in these the danger of the submarines with the cruise missiles, the bombers with the cruise missiles, and, of course, the hypersonics that that travel so fast that go way up like an ICBM at first, but then quickly dive down. And they they can't even because they can maneuver in flight, they don't know where the target is that they're headed for. So it makes this whole interception thing over the north, you know, having radar stations, having bases, controlling the territory becomes very important. And my concern was, my goodness.
Well, the Chinese and Russians, I think, are together, and general Van Herk, I remember the look on his face. Well, we're really in trouble if China and Russia are working together here because in a few years, China is going to be as advanced as Russia with hypersonic missiles and these longer range cruise missiles and submarines. They're they're catching up with the Russians, and the Russians are ahead of us in this area. We don't have very good defenses. We just haven't invested in the defense.
He shocked me by telling me that they only have, about 2 dozen fighter aircraft for interception duty when they used to have a 1,000.
Speaker 0: And Yeah. I mean, NORAD was a big deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This shocked me. I couldn't believe it. And it was like the and I said, well, then they could attack us now. And I remember general Pelletier, this Canadian lieutenant general, said, oh, no.
3, 4 years from now. And I go, well, what do you mean? He said, whatever Trump does, if Trump wins, it's not going to, change anything between now and then. They're gonna get stronger, and there was a Canadian admiral there to explain we have to we have to build rebuild the infrastructure of our strategic attack and defense. We have to rebuild it because we spent the equivalent of, in today's money, of $7,000,000,000,000 in the 19 sixties to build the Minuteman, which is now be you know, it's dying.
It's overaged. It's rotting. The Minuteman missiles are rotting. We spent 7 trillion, and we're presently only committed to 1.2 trillion. It's not enough.
We don't have the commitment. And the Russians and Chinese are both building, and they're they're going to continue to widen the gap between now and in 2029.
Speaker 0: Sure. Sure. So, oh, wow. So, Jeff, Greenland is currently owned or is in some way part of Denmark. Yes.
Denmark is a NATO country. Yes. We are in the NATO alliance with Denmark. So what would be different, do you think, if Trump somehow negotiated or whatever to take control of Greenland? And, I mean, what would the difference be over the situation now in that respect?
Speaker 1: Well, the one the one main difference is is that we would be free to put bases wherever we wanted, and we wouldn't be charged exorbitant prices for our bases. People don't realize how much we paid bases. I mean, it's ridiculous. If we have a base in in Europe and it's protecting them that we have to pay for that, we're paying for their defense. So it's it's it's it's good in that respect, and having sovereignty over it would be positive.
I'm not sure exactly what Trump has in mind in all respects, but it's, it it freeze our hands a little bit. You know, it may not be significant, you know, if, you know, Denmark's a NATO country. If we have bases in there, you know, and we're able to operate there, which we have in the past, it it really isn't that big of a deal.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So so, I mean, what I'm hearing from you is the biggest problem has been our lack of continual commitment to staff up and resource up that whole region, to provide the defense that we need. And now we're in a position where it's gonna be difficult to even fund it with all of the other problems we have.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it it seems to. I mean, I heard this from the Canadian generals and from general Van Herc that there's a unwillingness in Ottawa and Washington to take the defense of the continent seriously as yet. They just don't understand the kind of commitment that's required that we made in 19 sixties that defended us. The the equipment is look.
This is one that shocked me. He said, you know, our AWACS planes have worn out. And that very soon, those AWACS planes for NORAD are gonna be retired. NORAD is gonna be without early warning aircraft, without any, for a period of, I think he said, 3 years before they'll hit any new ones.
Speaker 0: That is unbelievable. I know how much you read. There are no way in the world I could keep up with you in that department. Have you, you know, Pete Hegseth has written a couple of books. Do you know of any anything he has indicated, that that that he might be a positive force in this particular area if he becomes secretary of defense?
Or
Speaker 1: I don't know. I hope so. But the problem is the secretary of defense doesn't allot the money. He's the guy that goes begging to congress, and I think he will go begging to congress because the generals the general you know, if general Van Herc is a 4 star general representative of our other generals, The the the, the the the pleading that I saw on his face, the pleading look was was he was seriously worried. This is a very smart man, who is very worried about the defense of the country and where things are headed, and the Canadian generals were extremely worried about their country.
I mean, it was on their faces. You couldn't you couldn't, you couldn't take away this body language. And and so, and the the frustration was it was a political issue because, remember, it's United States Congress that appropriates the money. The house begins all spending bills. They have to originate the bill.
The senate then votes on it. The president either signs it or doesn't. That's how it works. And and all the Pentagon can do is say, look. We need this.
And the problem we've had in the past is largely the democrats, but republicans are also less willing. You know, remember, Newt Gingrich said I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk. We got used to this, welfare spending where we're giving the money to the people. We've got all these programs. We've sucked up so money into that, and we've got Social Security, of course, with this aging population.
And the problem is we don't have that 7,000,000,000,000 that we need in the over the next decade to be safe.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So, did you mention to me, Jeff, I'm trying to remember my adult and aging brain, that there was a connection between these spy balloons or at least that there could be, you know, these drones and spy balloons seeing
Speaker 1: I I, yeah, I got to talk to general Van Herc about the balloons, because he's the one that ordered them shot down. They knew they were there. They were tracking them. They had a plan to deal with them. There there there were a couple of issues, but the main one was that, the Canadian government wouldn't shoot them down at first.
So they are allowed to drift into American territory where there were always people under where the balloons were. And the balloons were were going to go over 2 ICBM fields. So what we did, he said, we we camouflaged, and they stopped the communications so that it couldn't detect anything. And then they made sure they shot down the balloon where people on the ground couldn't be hurt because it had a 60 mile radius that it could fall, and there were always people, human beings in that radius. And that if anyone got killed, general Van Herc would be responsible for those deaths.
But furthermore, the payload would be damaged. If they shot it down as it exited North America over the water, they could recover the payload, which was very valuable, that Chinese spy equipment, to understand what they had on there. So they were able to recover all that equipment on those on that Chinese balloon. So I think they did an excellent job.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Interesting. Very, very interesting. So what do you think is going to happen next as far as Greenland and as far as our enemies, the Chinese to the Russians, which by the way, is there any doubt that these guys have been working together forever? Is there real any doubt about that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very interesting. We know that the the primary, Russian Soviet era defector that said they were always working together was a guy named Anatoly Galitzin and Charles Rivers editors, whoever they are, basically saying Galitzin was making good predictions, a book that was really quite positive on Galitzin, the first positive book on Galitzin in decades, I think, since Scott Riebling and, yeah, Epstein wrote their books. And, of course, my book, but I'm talking about, you know, people that really
Speaker 0: Yeah. Were Yeah. Yours.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. That were really kinda first in doing this. And and this is a huge turnaround because somebody is paying for that. Charles Rivers' editors, their stuff is advertised everywhere.
Somebody's there's been some kind of wake up in American intelligence, and the CIA that Russia and China have been working together and maybe to look at the glitz and stuff again. So I think that's a positive development that there's that there is a kind of, there there's something percolating in the intelligence community and the defense community, and they are very worried because right now, China and Russia being aligned together, it puts us in a position of, potential strategic inferiority in a number of areas.
Speaker 0: Absolutely the case. Jeff, as usual, very enlightening, and unfortunately, not very positive, but it seems to always be the case when we talk about the strategic realities that America has faced against our enemies over the or for a long time. Anyway, JR Nyquist, folks. Go to the jrnyquist.blog. He, contributes there regularly.
This is information you will not find anywhere else. I'm just gonna say it, and it's always of extremely high value. Jeff, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Lou.