Tariffs & the National Security Counsel Gets Gutted | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

today we talk about the tariffs President Trump placed on most countries, the NSC being gutted, the Houthis hanging around and the possible strike on Iran's nuclear program and whether it will be effective. New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️ https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.com Support the show on Patreon:⬇️ https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouse Find Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️ https://fogbow.com/ Lobo Institute ⬇️ https://www.loboinstitute.org/ Twitter ⬇️ https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCA LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/ Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.social Mick’s publications ⬇️ https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/ Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️ https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8 LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023 Substack ⬇️ https://amilburn.substack.com/ Andy’s book ⬇️ https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-Operations Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.social Find Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app Bluesky ⬇️ https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.soci Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of 5-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Hey, what's up, everybody? I want to thank our newest sponsor, The Perfect Gene. They sent us a couple of these, an order of these for everybody last week. And I've been rocking them. And I figured out there's a reason why some sponsors don't want to send you stuff, but these people did. And I've been rocking these jeans. I rocked them a few times this past week. And they're probably the best jeans I've ever worn in my life. I'm not saying that because they're paying us. I tried them out. They are legit. I used to hate, hate, hate wearing regular jeans because like, they're just not comfortable. And we all need to admit it. So I went to sweatpants. I was rocking the stretch chinos, which they do have also. I'm going to go back to rocking jeans, I think, with The Perfect Gene. I bought two other pairs too, with my own money.

• 1:15Speaker 01

  We used our promo code, which is HOUSE15 for 15% off. But honestly, it's incredible. There's a part in this video where the guys are doing lunges and the ladies are checking them out. I don't know if it's because of the jean, but I have found that people were, women were checking me out more and more over the last week. I don't know what that is. Maybe it's the way I carry myself, or maybe it's my gait, or maybe it's The Perfect Gene, or maybe it's all combined, all three combined. I don't know. But check it out. We really appreciate them sponsoring us. For a limited time, our listeners get 15% off their first order plus free shipping at theperfectgene.nyc. Or you could Google The Perfect Gene and use the code HOUSE15. That's HOUSE15 for 15% off.

• 1:58Speaker 01

  That's 15% off for new customers at theperfectgene.nyc with promo code HOUSE15. After your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. [BLEEP] your khakis and get The Perfect Gene. Guys, thank you for supporting this show. And thank you to Perfect Gene for helping us support the show as well. We couldn't do it without you guys. Thanks a lot.

• 2:25Speaker 01

  House 15, 15% off.

• 2:38Speaker 01

  Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on, Eyes on geopolitics. We changed the name up a little bit, so it's better to find on YouTube and everywhere else. So don't forget to like and subscribe there. I'm joined today with Mick Mulroy, Andy Milburn, a lot cooking since we last talked. Big news, this last, the end of last week was tariffs, all the tariffs that have been implemented on various countries, a 10% baseline tariff. And then if you were on the list, everyone had their own little, little, everyone had a different number. A little bit about the percentage of how they got to the tariffs is kind of hilarious. It's

• 3:20Speaker 01

  almost like they just did it on a napkin in the Oval Office and said, let's do this this way. I mean, I don't know that for sure, but that's what I, you know, seems like.

• 3:32Speaker 01

  What was I gonna say? Oh, the one little thing that I noticed was no Russia in a tariff. And before everyone says, oh, we don't really do trade with Russia, that we do $3 billion a year in trade with Russia. So still, even while there's the Ukraine wars going on and sanctions are high. So guys, I know you guys aren't economists, but what are your thoughts on what's happening with the tariffs?

• 3:57Speaker 01

  You guys decide first. Go first.

• 4:01Speaker 02

  All right. I'll go for it, Andy.

• 4:03Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, Mick, go ahead.

• 4:05Speaker 02

  All right. Well, I'll start with the fact that I'm not an economist nor a financial analyst. So I'm going to pose my, my statements in the form of a question, because, you know, the old Socratic thing, because they're truly questions. I guess I'd start with.

• 4:24Speaker 02

  Tariffs, obviously, ultimately are a tax on somebody, right? Whether it's the manufacturer that's coming in, the company that's, uh, that's, uh, does the importation, or the people in the, that are purchasing it. So, or all the above. So it does seem to me that they could call it what it is, is, which is, uh, the biggest tax, potential tax increase on the American population since, you know, income tax started. So we can at least be honest about what this could be. And we'll find out, like, this isn't one of those arguments that's gonna go on in perpetuity. We're gonna find out if all the cost of goods across the United States goes up. And if it does, that's the tax, the tariff tax, right?

• 5:09Speaker 02

  If it doesn't, then we'll know that too. So I think we start with that. And then, the questions I'd have, if you look back in history, and I know everybody's watched that, uh, you know, the clip from Ferris Bueller, I mean, has this worked in the past, and how effective? Apparently, that, um, actually caused the Great Depression to get worse, worse, the Snoop, uh, Polly, uh, Tariff Act, or whatever it was called. So, I look at past, I look at what's gonna actually happen, and then it's, it sets the stage of whether this is, uh, really gonna have a massive impact, not just on the upper income, right? Because everybody buys stuff. So this is a tax now, all the way down to the lowest income, including people who are

• 5:51Speaker 02

  on some kind of assistance, because then your assistance buys less. So it's a tax. Um, and then the question for me, is whether it's worth it. So, the intent is to bring all these manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Um, my question to the economists, not politicians, because I'd like to know somebody actually spent a lot of time looking at this. Is that gonna happen? If if we on this podcast or audience were collectively looking at whether we're gonna invest a couple billion dollars in building a car manufacturing plant in Tennessee, are we gonna do that not knowing that within three and a half years, this entire policy's going out the window?

• 6:35Speaker 02

  Because that's the danger of a president being able to do all this, whichever president it is. Because the next president can undo the entire thing, and then we've just wasted a billion dollars potentially, and halfway through a project that we're not gonna complete. So that's the second, I guess, question I'd have. And then the third question is, aren't we automating right now? Isn't that the intent of manufacturers right now? Are we gonna get to a point where it's not gonna increase jobs? Because we're trying to get to a point where we have these robotic systems that create cars and phones and everything that's that it can. And if that's the case, I could still see some potential benefit in bringing that back to the United States, but it's not all about, you know, the jobs that we lost back in the eighties.

• 7:18Speaker 02

  So I'd have, I think, I'd like to hear those questions answered by non-politicians who are not economists on either side of the aisle, and start being asked directly to the manufacturing CEOs, to the global economists. And and then the last point I'd make is, this is one system that we're gonna have to address, because if this is wrong, this could seriously damage, and we haven't even started talking about the stock market, seriously damage our standing in the world, our relationships around the world, our economy, which is actually exceptional. I think we're too hard on ourselves, trying to always play that it's not.

• 8:01Speaker 02

  Or do we need to make this more balanced, like our whole system's checks and balances, right? So if the president can tariff, the president can take off the tariffs, we could be dramatically going back and forth every four years, so. That's what I got in the form of a question. Hopefully Andy can answer them all. Over to you.

• 8:22Speaker 03

  No such luck, Mick. Actually, I've got more questions than answers, but you know, as to, so you know, here's the little that I do understand. And of course, you know, everyone who knows me knows that I'm far from being an economist, but here's the little that I understand. And here are the questions that I that I would ask. So, you know, as far as the technicalities of trade, my understanding, because the rationale for this was reduce the United States' trade deficit. That was kind of the the leading rationale. And yet, my understanding is that the trade deficit has nothing to do with tariffs imposed on US exports at all. It has to do with the fact that Americans generally choose to to spend more than they invest, right, to include their

• 9:07Speaker 03

  government. That's that is what is creating the deficit and tariffs tariffs won't affect that at all, except arguably perhaps leaving Americans with far less to invest or save for that matter. So, you know, I would be interested to hear someone's answer who does know about trade deficits and their connections with protectionist policies to see how they are connected at all. You know, secondly, my very rudimentary understanding of economics and

• 9:40Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Ashkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 9:54Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant, so I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic, in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 10:05Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 10:11Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 10:16Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more, because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart Radio app today.

• 10:36Speaker 07

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 11:06Speaker 03

  ... and history is simply that, I mean, this is undeniable. The United States economy has been so strong that in the last three decades, it has far outstripped the G7. And even when Europe, you know, in the last year was looking at entering a recession, certainly a significant slowdown, the US economy was booming. So, you know, in the words of the old phrase, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" What are we fixing? Okay, so that's my second question. And the third, Mick, relating to, you know, your historical references, it's very difficult for us to judge cause and effect.

• 11:50Speaker 03

  But the truth is, 100 years ago, when the United States, when most countries had the system of protectionism, high tariffs, the US was nowhere near the lead economically in the world. And the Great Depression coincided with some of the highest tariffs, the highest tariffs in the last 100 years occurred with the in place immediately preceding the Great Depression. So whether or not you believe in cause and effect, that's an incredible coincidence, isn't it? And it's only in the last 80 years, where repeated rounds of trade talks in the aftermath

• 12:33Speaker 03

  of the Second World War have led incrementally to the lowering of tariffs around the world, that you've seen the global economy rise. Okay, so whether or not you're interested in proving cause and effect, that's again a remarkable coincidence. So I would ask, why are we ignoring all of this history, all right, even for the most basic...

• 12:56Speaker 03

  Understanding of economics and history that I have, those things seem pretty compelling arguments and I haven't seen any counter arguments and in fact, indeed, I think sadly in the years ahead, we're going to show exactly how disastrous these policies are unless indeed they are a very incomprehensible negotiating tactic. If they are a negotiating tactic, what exactly are we asking for? Again, with the leading economy in the world, we're doing tremendously. The stock market, you know, I know not everything, the economy and the stock market shouldn't be conflated, but the stock market was at its highest, you know, late last year.

• 13:40Speaker 03

  Unemployment was low. People generally were, by all measures, pleased with the way things are going. And we, I mean, look at how far the US economy has progressed in the last decade and it was the quickest to recover in the Western world after the pandemic. So all of these things were going really well. Again, why change that?

• 14:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, also you look at inflation too across the world compared to the US, like, yeah, inflation was tough here, but it's nothing compared to EU, Turkey for another, like, there's a lot of developed countries that have been hit hard with inflation since Covid. This will obviously add to inflation, right? Because most of the stuff we get is not American made and that's just a fact of globalization, market capitalism.

• 14:29Speaker 01

  And the big hit on Friday was for the stock market was because China announced a 34% reciprocal tariff on the US goods.

• 14:40Speaker 03

  So, yeah, we're going to make China a great again. I mean, this is absolutely playing into Xi's hands and he predicted, he predicted a few years ago that, you know, when, when the argument was always, he was always confronted with the argument, hey, the US is booming, you know, the American way works and all of this. He said, yes, you're going to see things turned upside down. In the next few years and sure enough, I think that's what we're seeing. Yes, China will be hurt in the near term. Uh, who knows as much as the US economy, the China will be hurt, but they're they're already redirecting the the emphasis of their exports and and they've proven to be very flexible. In any case, they bypassed tariffs previously

• 15:25Speaker 03

  by going through Vietnam. Of course, that's going to be less effective now that Vietnam is subject to tariffs. But the point is that they they can they can direct trade. The Chinese government can direct the the confluence of trade in a way that the United States cannot. And we'll recover and and we'll find a market throughout the world uh, from all of those countries that we have now alienated and not just a market for trade, but a market too for all those things that we for Chinese influence and you name it and military exports. Um, uh, allowing allowing basing rights, uh, extending the, you know, the

• 16:09Speaker 03

  the uh, there was, what's the term? I'm trying to remember the cliche about their um, uh, you know, the the China, call me out here, the rail rails and road and railway.

• 16:22Speaker 02

  Belt and Road Initiative?

• 16:24Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 16:24Speaker 02

  Belt and Road?

• 16:25Speaker 03

  Yeah. I mean, all the all of these things are going to flourish in the face of

• 16:30Speaker 02

  This is different.

• 16:32Speaker 03

  It's a gift. It's a gift to our adversaries.

• 16:35Speaker 02

  Yep. I mean, we even talk, we're even here in Japan and South Korea, talking to China about, you know, trade policy. Talk about realignment. And we gotta remember, we are the biggest in uh, economy in the world, and I agree with Andy. If you look at the stats and I just saw charts. I mean, we have really done well against our most, you know, significant um.

• 16:57Speaker 02

  Not competitors, but I guess competitors. Like if you look at the EU, we've we are, we have gone in 20 years from about equal to double the economy. And our, you know, base mean salary is the best in the world as far as I could see in those charts, unless the charts were inaccurate. So I mean, to your point, Andy, what is it we're fixing? And then is this gonna fix it? Or is this gonna essentially alienate you? Because this is all happening at the same time. We're talking about making Ca- Canada 51st state and taking over, uh, you know, territory of a NATO out. It's do it's it's not just trade. It's also and then questioning the value of NATO and um, we're gonna reorder the world.

• 17:41Speaker 02

  And right now, the world is in our favor is I guess the question I would have. So why would we do that? And we could get all the negatives, right? Because we did this and not on the positives, because it's then it's then gone and flips back the other direction in in three and a half years. Because if a Democrat's elected, they're probably not going to continue on this isolationist policy. And inside the Republican Party, it's traditionally been free trade since World War II. Or anybody that gets elected is from the like traditional side of the Republican Party, which is most of the senators, right? They could go back to the Reagan approach, which is more free trade than the Democrats.

• 18:25Speaker 02

  So and it seems like the only way this would be effective is if it's long term and we just don't have the capacity to do long term things. So.

• 18:35Speaker 01

  It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, fun fact that I read this week was, uh, during the Great Depression, 10% of households had stocks. Today, it's 72% of households have some money or a lot of money in the stock market. So or a cup to multiple couple on top of the fact that things are going to get more expensive if these tariffs are sticking around. People are getting smoked in their 401k and their investment accounts and stuff like that, their retirement like.

• 19:06Speaker 01

  It's mind boggling.

• 19:08Speaker 02

  And this idea it's only for wealthy people is totally not true.

• 19:12Speaker 01

  Right.

• 19:12Speaker 02

  I mean, we're even basing our military, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Andy, I've been retired for a while, but we're even basing a lot of our service members, you know, retirement on the stock market, aren't we? Isn't that what the T S P is in that invested in the stock market? So we're talking all the way out to the lowest level of soldier is is invested in the stock market. And that's intentional by the government. So we do have a responsibility to make sure that we don't do anything to significantly disrupt the stock market, in my opinion.

• 19:45Speaker 03

  So remember, yeah, remember Reaganomics, you know, taking us out of stagflation in the seventies? I mean, Reaganomics was based on, I mean, it was called at the time neoliberalism, right? Which was about reducing tariffs and trade barriers. I mean, it's just, it's extraordinary. Anyway, a lot of questions.

• 20:07Speaker 02

  We're gonna find out the answers.

• 20:09Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 20:11Speaker 03

  Our informed listenership will be able to chime in in comments on this.

• 20:16Speaker 01

  Yeah, the economists are gonna chime in on the comments.

• 20:19Speaker 02

  Good.

• 20:20Speaker 01

  Can't wait.

• 20:21Speaker 02

  Let's put those to the top.

• 20:22Speaker 03

  But you know, you know, seriously, it gets back to what I've I've gone on about before is sadly that I and I don't, I don't, I can't, you know, I wasn't brought up in the American education system, so I'm not.

• 20:37Speaker 01

  Thank God.

• 20:38Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah, I'm not, no, I mean, I'm not qualified to talk about it. I mean, you know, but but it does seem to me that there is just an incredible blindness towards history, geography, too, by the way, but especially history, you know, even recent history. And it seems as though this this ignorance has has has risen to, you know, right to the right to the top, which is certainly concerning. I don't know how you would address that. But that whole cliche about those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it.

• 21:11Speaker 01

  Andy, I'll give you a nice anecdote. When I used to do podcasts that were more comedic focused, I used to have my, you know, my buddies on. And I used to give them the citizens citizenship test, just the questions from the citizenship test.

• 21:27Speaker 03

  That's tough.

• 21:29Speaker 01

  Are they though?

• 21:30Speaker 03

  I don't know.

• 21:32Speaker 01

  I mean, they're not tough at all. And they would fucking fail. And it was hilarious at the time. But it speaks to a broader thing of like, what's wrong with our educational system? You know, I read another thing where like, majority of kids are functionally illiterate.

• 21:48Speaker 01

  Where? Like, they can read, obviously, but they like their understanding is by far like way less than what he was, you know, fifty years ago or something like that, you know? And it's scary.

• 22:01Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think, I mean, and add to that. So you absolutely, you know, the advent of the internet and then the phones are the big thing that I think have scared people away from books. And so now you have, you remember Mark Twain, you don't remember him, but Mark, Mark Twain said something along the lines of, you know, uh, being illiterate is sad, but sadder even than that is being literate, but choosing not to read. And I think that's, that encompasses, you know, a lot of people sadly in in this country, or they read what they want to read. And um, and and certainly not history.

• 22:39Speaker 01

  No.

• 22:41Speaker 01

  No, I don't think history is winning any, uh,

• 22:43Speaker 03

  So.

• 22:44Speaker 01

  And on top of the charts.

• 22:45Speaker 03

  In the meantime, I suppose we're all, you know, stashing dollar bill notes or bars of gold into our mattresses and just hunkering down to for the storm. There's a very sad component to this. And that is, and it touches on what Mick was talking about. The promise to return manufacturing to the United States. You know, then there's so many things that are convoluted with that statement. We are no longer a manufacturing based industry for, uh, I mean, a country. You know, for good reason, we've evolved beyond that and we have the best of both worlds. Uh, but this this promise to return manufacturing and coupled with.

• 23:28Speaker 03

  Lack of education in many of the areas that that were so that were the sources of US manufacturing. You know, this promise has been believed, but it's it's very difficult to imagine. You know, you name it, the steel industry or I know the not manufacturing, but coal mining or all of these things coming back to be viable industries within the US simply because we are isolating ourselves from the world. I mean, there doesn't seem to be a logical correlation here. And I think a lot of people are going to be not just disappointed, but but really, really hurt financially.

• 24:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, and if you saw the recent interview with Bill Gates. I mean, this is a guy who obviously knows technology and the potential of how it's going to evolve. And he's talking about just how we're going to automate almost everything we do in society. From building a house to being a physician. So we got to really look at that. And whether we are trying to get back to a time that doesn't exist anymore, where people work in factories. And we build things by our hands.

• 24:43Speaker 02

  There's people who know where this is going. I don't think it's a mystery. I think a lot of the automations already occurred. I mean, I was just talking to somebody who was in a Tesla plant. And he's like, they're already building this thing pretty much with robots. So if that's where we're going, you know, that doesn't mean we don't want that to be in the United States, I don't think. But it's still a question of we're trying to get back to a time that essentially doesn't exist anymore and nor will it. So we need some economists, we need some futurists, we need some engineers to start weighing in on.

• 25:18Speaker 02

  I think policy, because right now it's it's people who, and in some cases, people are supporting this that spent their entire, you know, decades and decades long career saying the exact opposite. Reaganomics, right? Free trade. I mean, they've been saying, I mean, most of the people in the Senate have been around for a long time.

• 25:36Speaker 03

  Yeah, unfortunately, yeah.

• 25:38Speaker 02

  And now they're either not saying anything. Or they're saying the opposite of what they what they supported for decades. So it takes, you know, as far as where I see it, it takes them off of being a person that we should rely on. We should talk to people who actually know the industry, know how it's evolving and know whether this is going to work, even if it's the best case scenario that it's effective.

• 26:03Speaker 01

  It's like trying to turn a tanker going fif- forty knots like completely around like it's not gonna happen. It's gonna cost trillions of dollars to bring manufacturing and build factories and do all that back in the United States. How are you gonna do that when your stock market's in the shitter and there's no capital to spend? Who's gonna pay for it?

• 26:23Speaker 03

  The government.

• 26:24Speaker 01

  Right.

• 26:25Speaker 03

  Overseas?

• 26:27Speaker 01

  Right, exactly.

• 26:28Speaker 03

  You know, they're already, I mean, you you name it, any country in the world can import things now manufactured elsewhere, cheaper, cheaper price than we can do in the United States. I mean, it's, yeah, so, you know, even even us bumbling novice economists can can have pointed to multiple flaws in in this and it make, you know, last thing I'll say, I don't know, this last thing I'll say that's up to, that's up to D. I don't mean to make it sound so final, but on this topic, and I think it's an important one is, you know, where is the GOP in the Senate? Right? I mean,

• 27:11Speaker 03

  that is, that that is, you know, we even use that term, the Senate. It's it's synonymous with kind of wise advice, right? Something from Roman times and that is where our elder statesmen are in the positive use of the term and then it's supposed to be a steady hand, right? Therefore, and and as a constitutional bulwark against the executive.

• 27:42Speaker 03

  Perhaps getting out of bounds and and we were still waiting to to see any kind of coherent opposition from the senate, not even opposition, guidance. But sadly, some of the prominent names there seem to be more concerned with reelection and and holding on to their seats than with really providing value to the country. You know, it's one of those times where you have to ask, where is where is John McCain for instance, right? And I'm not, you know, I get it, there's probably people out there who hate John McCain, but the point is, you could always rely on him, right, to to criticize policy that he regarded being dumb, regardless of where it was coming from.

• 28:28Speaker 01

  Well, there is a bit of a

• 28:30Speaker 03

  We don't seem to have anyone quite like him, right?

• 28:32Speaker 01

  Yeah, the senate did vote on the Canadian terrorists, like trying to block them. And a couple of Republicans did break ranks, Rand Paul being one and a few, four others, Mitch McConnell into and some, a couple other people. But they're well aware that it's not going to go to the House. The House is not going to bring it up for a vote to at least block even the Canadian terrorists. And that's just Canadian terrorists, not terrorists top to bottom. You're not wrong, Andy. And like, I'll be real, I'm, I mean, I like John McCain. I'm not a huge fan of like the senate, obviously, or like politicians in general. But yeah, you would think some people would step up because like

• 29:15Speaker 01

  their constituents are going to feel the crutch, whether it's in the markets from their 401ks or to the like the grocery store, or when you're ordering something on Amazon, whatever the case may be, your day to day, I mean, I saw a thing, it's $4,000 a year for an average family. That's real deal money that they probably don't have.

• 29:33Speaker 02

  Yep. And a cool fact, or maybe not cool, but a fact, I just looked up because I heard this before. Senate comes from senex, which is an old term for old man. So.

• 29:46Speaker 01

  That's apt. Yeah.

• 29:49Speaker 03

  Roll there.

• 29:50Speaker 01

  Yeah. Um, yeah. So I mean, maybe we'll get an economist on to like, you know, actually give us some like real, real facts. I mean, but it doesn't take, you don't have to be, uh, go over to the London School of Economics to, you know, really have a grasp of what's going on. Um, moving on now, uh, National Security Council has been a bit of an upheaval, some firings and stuff like that. Uh, National Security Agency Director, General Timothy Haw, got the boot, um, on, you know, he was one of the holdovers from the Biden administration. Everybody generally said he was a rock solid guy. He used to run Cyber Command as well for the military. Um,

• 30:30Speaker 01

  this comes a day after, uh, far right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer had an in, had a meeting with Trump in the White House, running her mouth and going on about people who are disloyal to the president. And then you saw the next day, I think about six people got fired. I don't know the names of the rest of them. I know the.

• 30:48Speaker 02

  More than that.

• 30:49Speaker 01

  More than that. What are you guys thoughts on that? NSA, obviously a very important position. When I say NSA, National Security Agency, uh, Administ- uh, Agency Director.

• 31:02Speaker 02

  Yes. So a couple of things, um, to point out. Uh, the appointments of people to these significant four star commands isn't supposed to be political at all. It's supposed to be the opposite. The uniformed military is not supposed to be tied to a political party and certainly not loyal to a po- a politician. That's just from the time you're a private or a lieutenant to the, you're a some major four star general.

• 31:32Speaker 02

  You know, I think everybody knows this, but I have to say it. It's the loyalty to the Constitution, so fidelity to your oath to the Constitution. So they're picked.

• 31:43Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 31:57Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant. So I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 32:08Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 32:14Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 32:19Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart radio app today.

• 32:39Speaker 07

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 33:10Speaker 02

  In my experience, for their competence as military leaders. And they should remain in place if they were competent in the first place, regardless of who is the commander chief. Now, yes, as a lot of people point out, the president gets to pick that. That's true. But having the right to do so and making... And whether it is right is two different things, right? You could fire every, the president and commander in chief could fire every officer of the military and obviously that's not right. So, uh, and I don't know, General Hope, um, I would say everything about him, sounds like he was, uh, the right person for the job and, um,

• 33:51Speaker 02

  was an exceptional officer. So this is, I don't think, um, the kind of move you'd like to see. And I, and I know obviously a lot of Republicans on the Hill and I, with few exceptions, um, I, I've heard anybody disagree with that. Uh, the other part of course is the NSC. The NSC is, is supposed to be where the fusion of policy comes together. And there are appointees, there are political appointees, but there's also detailies, people who simply come from the different agencies and departments because they have to make this work, they have to represent and they are the continuity. So if

• 34:30Speaker 02

  everybody switches out, uh, in the NSC every time there's a election in four years, then the continuity is damaged substantially and our long-term policy objectives that don't change, uh, because they're the interest, interest of the United States, um, are damaged, uh, at least with the knowledge and how and who and all that stuff. So there's a reason we have detailies at the NSC and that's it. And that's commonly, uh, that's a common, uh, belief that this, this consistency with detailies, uh, is very beneficial to the, um, long-term US national security objectives.

• 35:11Speaker 02

  So that's to set it up. This person, I didn't know much about her. I was surprised by what people claimed that she had claimed herself. So to the best, I looked it up, it does appear that she said, pretty blatant.

• 35:28Speaker 02

  supremacist stuff at a white supremacist rally and that she said very anti Islamic

• 35:39Speaker 02

  statements and that she denied or she has the theory that the US you know carried out nine eleven against herself right which is not only wholly nonsensical illogical it should be offensive to any American that somebody would propose that our government elected by our people attacked ourselves and then lost thousands of servicemen and women and others in the fights that came from it and you know to a trillion dollars um it's hard to believe

• 36:15Speaker 03

  confused I just want to say very quickly because that is the argument used to hear from al Qaeda

• 36:20Speaker 02

  yeah who who simultaneously took credit for it and then said we did it on the inside it was you know yes so it's it's hard to believe that that person is then having a significant influence over what has been traditionally non-political positions right not loyal to who right and the NSC people that were picked by the NSC or the the National Security Advisor so this is seriously undercut the National Security Advisor it is against all tradition both sides of the aisle and it's really hard to believe that somebody who admittedly said these things and has no

• 37:01Speaker 02

  experience that I could see in national security has this big of an influence it's it's really shocking that more people haven't said the obvious it's surprising when you talk I guess it isn't surprising when you talk to people it's like I go brief people on the hill and you say one thing and then the cameras turn off and gone but I don't I don't know any any uh uh senior elected official that thinks that the US military should be tied to a political person and but on the basis of loyalty I'll leave it there

• 37:38Speaker 01

  To them, Andy.

• 37:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, I've got very little to add to that very articulate defense of, you know, national security apparatus being, should be free, held above politics. And, you know, I would, it, it, it really confuses me when I hear people try to argue otherwise, that it's okay to, for, you know, the military or the national, again, you know, NSA agency to have a political bias, or, or, you know, to allow political bias to sway decisions to hire or fire people, you know, I mean, I think it goes, should go without saying

• 38:22Speaker 03

  that if you are, if you're in the military, you hold a military rank, or, or a rank indeed, you know, aside from the director of these agencies, you know, which of course are political appointees, but beneath that, if you're going to be fired, it should be for a question of performance, or a question of conduct, right? Not because someone has said something about your political views. I mean, think about it, that, that just conjures up the worst images of, you know, the Soviet Union. And, and people have, by the way, are throwing back and forth the term Orwellian. And as one of the people who's actually read 1984

• 39:01Speaker 03

  several times, I do encourage our, our literate audience, which deep, deep tells me as a minority of our audience, but nevertheless, our literate audience to reread that book, or watch the movie, because it is, you're going to see some very astounding parallels.

• 39:18Speaker 01

  Good point. All right. Yeah. Well said. Moving on, Houthi, the campaign, I don't know if you want to call it that, against the Houthis is continuing since March 15th. It's been about three weeks. Couple of MQ9s since it began have been shot down. I have a couple of questions. Has this slowed down the Houthis at all?

• 39:47Speaker 03

  Well, it's difficult to say, Dee, because the Houthis have actually been fairly quiet since January. Remember when the, when the ceasefire was agreed to in Gaza? Remember they, you know, they, they were connecting their attacks, their piracy attacks on ships with what was happening in Gaza, even though the majority, nearly all of the ships they hit had nothing to do with Israel. Actually, none of them did. One of them had an Israeli officer on board. But since January, they've been relatively quiet. The strikes, the current strikes started in March. I do want to preface this by saying that, you know, this is kind of the, the fourth group of strikes.

• 40:27Speaker 03

  The Saudis were pounding the Houthis for, you know, since, since 2015. You know, the Israelis have had their shot. And I'm not saying this is in chronological order. There's been overlap. And under the Biden administration in 2024, there were a series of strikes, largely ineffectual. It's fair to say because they were, they were few and far between. And now we have since March the 15th, this set of strikes. It's difficult at this stage to judge their effectiveness. You know, the Pentagon said very little about, you know, what the targets were. But it is clear that, you know, they've gone after some of the old targets.

• 41:08Speaker 01

  Yeah, I mean, if you just have, you're on a group signal chat, a signal chat, you can find out where the target was.

• 41:13Speaker 03

  Exactly, yeah. You know, it's clear, it's clear some of the targets are old targets, military sites we've hit before, radar stations, missile storage depots. You know, they, they've mostly been, there's a lot, a lot of bombings focused in the, the northern governor, Sadar. And, but there's also, you know, they've been going after mid-level Houthi commanders. And there's a, I forget his name, but there's kind of a Yemen, Yemeni analyst in one of think tanks in Washington. Al, Mohammed Al-Bashir or something. He estimates anyway that, you know, 19.

• 41:52Speaker 03

  Houthi officers, I didn't know there was such a thing, but nineteen Houthi officers have been killed from around mid-ranking, you know, at the rank of major or above. You know, my point is this, though, bombing alone, we just never really learn this lesson, do we? I mean, the air power theorists again and again confound us, but bombing alone achieves little, and it's going to achieve little, especially against the Yemenis for all the reasons we talked about on this program, which have to do with terrain, which have to do with just the way the Houthis are structured, and it has to do also with the ready resupply of fresh materials from Iran. Now, we are putting pressure on Iran, which is good. I

• 42:37Speaker 03

  would argue too, though, you do need a combined effort on the ground. I'm not suggesting for a moment we send US troops, and I don't think the government would do that either. But certainly, you know, here's where special forces come into play. I'm not saying that we do that work as special forces, but doing what we do by with and through, raising or working with existing anti-Houthi Yemeni militias to, you know, to follow up on the ground and not just conduct BDA, but go after objectives and targets, and most of all, the flow of lethal aid that is, you know, resupplying the Houthis. Unless we do that,

• 43:19Speaker 03

  unless it's a comprehensive strategy, imagine that word, then bombing alone is going to accomplish little. And I don't think you're going to see companies, you know, merchant marine companies around the world having a great deal of confidence with transiting the Red Sea just based on the strikes that have been conducted, because all it takes is one or two missiles to be fired for, you know, for any one of these companies to suffer catastrophic loss. And I would be amazed if we had prevented that capability with the last round of bombing.

• 43:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, so a lot there. I agree with, I agree with you, Andy. I'd say a few things. So last administration, I mean, they obviously had an effort. I don't think it was substantial enough, so I concur with the escalation. I do can also concur that we need to start hitting the decision makers because you can kill, you know, you know, foot soldiers to the end of time and it's not very effective. I'd also agree that it's largely air campaigns just don't get the, get to the place that we intend most of the time. So we have a very effective, especially honed over the last 20 years,

• 44:38Speaker 02

  ability to do a regular warfare in the form of, as Andy said, by with and through and partner forces, right? So we, and we have done that in Yemen. I have done that in Yemen. So it's, it is, it is something that we're very familiar with. Hopefully there's some guys left that are familiar specifically with Yemen and partner force operations, but we could do this. We could actually combine our substantial air effort with working with, in their own interest, right? Elements on the ground that could challenge the Houthis' position, both in Yemen and their ability to keep carrying out these,

• 45:19Speaker 02

  which are clearly terrorist attacks, right? You're attacking civilian commercial vessels unarmed and it affects the whole world economy. So I think we should look at that. So I applaud for the increase, but I think there's going to have to be more done to make it, you know, fully effective. But just us showing up could turn the tides. I read a long time ago, there's a, there's a depiction of the Spartans in Sicily. If you remember back during the Peloponnese, you know, war, they had a lot of partner forces out there too.

• 45:52Speaker 02

  Just the Spartans showing up, they only had the ability to send six and they showed up with the Sicilians on top of the ridge line and it changed the tide of the battle, even though obviously those six weren't gonna add much, but when they saw the Spartans up there, it, the morale even switched from the Athenians, who were there to try to take over that area. So I, I, I agree, we should look at partner force operations, easier said than done, but could be effective in combination with this substantial military expenditure too, of resources, because they're gonna have to ask for increase, because this is really working at the cyclic rate. And of course, all of this is set up for what I think we're

• 46:34Speaker 02

  talking about next, which is, you know, what, what influence would this have on Iran? I'd say the last, last point on Yemen is, it does appear that a lot of the IRGC cuts forced, kind of counterparts are leaving Yemen right now. So they're concerned about just what's gonna happen on the ground there. And I think that might be in part not trying to poke the bear that's the United States, but also because they're concerned that this could keep escalating and they could leave, they could lose yet another significant proxy force.

• 47:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, and make it on the head, we are talking about Iran next and the nuclear negotiations. Just came out from Reuters, literally thirty minutes ago, that, uh, let me find it, uh, Iran wants, Iran wants indirect talks with the US and warns regional countries over strikes against it, where I'm assuming we have bases, whether it's in Turkey and other areas, obviously.

• 47:42Speaker 02

  Bahrain, yeah, for sure.

• 47:46Speaker 01

  There was, I saw a little thing that there was a little bit of, uh, the Trump administration did kind of seem a little bit receptive to indirect talks, even though that was a red line a couple of weeks before that.

• 47:59Speaker 01

  That's where we're at. What are you guys, what are you guys tracking with that?

• 48:04Speaker 02

  So the issue with indirect talks is they're slow, right? They're really slow and there's a lot of miscommunication. We can see all this with the negotiations, right, for ceasefire in Gaza. And we've traditionally, we have also used the Obadis. They're, they tend to be very effective when it comes to being the go-between. Usually in passing messages, this complex negotiation, I can't see working to get to a new Jipoa or new nuclear agreement that also includes proxy forces, super complicated, very detailed. You have to bring in experts. Not sure how this could work entirely through an intermediary.

• 48:46Speaker 02

  So I think the Trump administration is right. It's just to be effective, this needs to be face-to-face. And if they don't want to do that, it's probably going to look to many as if they're just delaying this. So this is going to be then a question of do they go toward a nuclear weapon? If they do, I think, I think the US has at least made it clear that we're willing to take the military, military steps to mitigate that from becoming a reality, which is a substantial increase in escalation. And it would be pretty destabilizing in the region, especially depending on what Iran does in retaliation,

• 49:26Speaker 02

  which could be things like mine the Straits of Hormuz, which would seriously disrupt the flow of global trade, including energy, and take months to work out.

• 49:39Speaker 02

  We would have to do it. We're the only country in the world that can demine something like that. And then it's up to commercial insurance companies or whether they're going to ensure, whether we got all the mines, right? So, and we won't know. So it, I mean, they have a, they have a, and I'm not saying this is a reason I do it, but we have to look at, you know, what Iran could do in retaliation. But we're, it looks like from our force posture that we are preparing to have that capacity in place by mid-April, including air and missile defenses at these key bases you already referenced, D, and the lift, the airlift necessary to drop the types of munitions, these massive ordinance penetrators,

• 50:19Speaker 02

  GBU 57 alphas and bravos, to be able to do this. So we are headed toward that. I think.

• 50:28Speaker 02

  We would all be better off if Iran came to the negotiation table. They're talking about they can't be forced by, you know, bravado. I would just point out that a newspaper in Tehran supported the idea of killing President Trump. So when they want to talk bravado, I don't, I don't think they have a lot to hold on there. I think we should just drop all the bravado and get to negotiation table and start talking behind the scenes and not doing everything in public, which is mostly posture.

• 51:01Speaker 03

  Mick, do you think that we can't do anything long term to the, do you think we still have the ability militarily to, to affect a long term ability of Iran to create nuclear weapons?

• 51:19Speaker 02

  That's a damn good question, Andy. So the, we have the only military capability that I think has a chance at. Fordal, for example, is mostly underground, mostly defend.

• 51:34Speaker 02

  Very difficult, but also Nantons and Asperon. And there's more, but there's several more. So we have the capacity to do, to degrade it. I think it's, it's essentially going to be setting the program back. So it's not going to be a one and done. We're not like, oh, that's all done and there we're going to do. And this is just the ones we know about. We don't know, we don't know. So we have to be, I think, very upfront with the chances of success. Right? Because it, it's not a guarantee. We're the only ones that I think they can actually have a chance, but it's not a guarantee. And then the big issue out there is what if they just acquire it from somewhere else? Right? And they, obviously Russia has it, North Korea has it.

• 52:19Speaker 02

  They have the know how to do it. Could they purchase it? That would be a big step on those willing to sell them this capability. But if it if it is a big if there's there's no one pull the trigger and this is not. This could be pull the trigger and we've set it back for another four months. We're going to have to do it again. So the best best case for us is to get a negotiated verifiable agreement. Right. We so we know that they're not going toward a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they're going to have major sanctions relief, if not complete sanctions relief, so that their economy and their people can start joining the rest of the world economy.

• 53:00Speaker 02

  If it's, you know, hopefully it's still still around to go back to our beginning. But that's better for us. If not, we're going to have to continuously have direct military action against a country to keep them from getting that. And they will have the ability to respond. It could have, I'm not against. I think if you say it's unacceptable, you have to be willing to use the military option. So I'm not against this, but I'm also not going to pay to Pollyannaish position. Like, we're going to wake up, the B twos are going to do their things and all this is over. It's not over. It's just.

• 53:35Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 53:50Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant. So I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 54:01Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 54:06Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 54:12Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart Radio app today.

• 54:32Speaker 07

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 54:59Speaker 02

  Start it once that happens.

• 55:06Speaker 01

  And I think we definitely need to like at least talk about the Israel's whole play on this. I mean, they're itching for it. They want it to happen as soon as possible. I don't think Israel really gives a shit about an agreement or not. I think the quicker they do it, the happier they'll be. Frankly, at least that's my opinion. Bibi Netanyahu is going, I believe, to Washington this week to meet with Trump. I think that's about tariffs, but who knows? I mean, it could be about tariffs and also because Israel got hit with 17%. I think it also could be, you know, maybe finalizing or figuring out what to do next with Iran's nuclear program.

• 55:47Speaker 01

  And if it does, like Charles Lister, your colleague from the Middle East Institute, last week said that he spoke to somebody in the Pentagon where, yeah, at most it's probably going to not come back three months, Iran, if we hit them, even with our big boy bunker busters. What does that do? Like if we do hit them, I mean, we have to just be like, we're going to hit you again and again and again until you come to this negotiation table.

• 56:14Speaker 01

  I don't know. It's like a self-licking ice cream cone.

• 56:17Speaker 02

  Got to have carrots and sticks. You got to have both and you got to be willing to use them. But it's also, there's no, there's no clear answer here. We don't control, you know, what the enemy, in this case Iran, decides to do in retaliation or whether they view regime security so far above the goodwill of their people or the good outcome of their people that they really don't care about sanctions relief. Because it's funny, like no matter how much you sanction, the regime always ends up, you know, driving the fancy cars and drinking, you know, Johnny Walker's low, right? They always end up rich, no matter what. So.

• 56:56Speaker 02

  Anyway, this is a, this is a big, a big, big step, but I think we gotta be ready to do it. We just have to understand that it's not, it's not the answer at all.

• 57:08Speaker 03

  And sanctions, first of all, you know, the, much of this thing has been taken out of sanctions. Iran has found ways around them. And of course, you know, with China and Russia as major allies, they very, you know, Iran has a sizable market or, or access to markets. Uh, so you know, our, our ability to impose pain on Iran through sanctions is not the same as it was, say, 10 years ago. And by the way, now compared to the rest of the world, we pretty much sanction the whole world now. So Iran might be better off than most. I mean, I'm only half joking there. Uh, so you, yes, Iran's in a, uh, Iran's had a really bad year.

• 57:52Speaker 03

  Iran's been denuded of its, uh, IADS, its integrated air defense system. Uh, it lost its president, it's suffering internal dissensions, its economy is in the shitter. Uh, but on the other hand, it's, it, it is, you know, it's, it's creating enough enhanced uranium uh, to make two bombs per year. So in that sense, time is on its side by, by delaying. And of course it knows, and the lesson of North Korea is that if you join that nuclear club, you get treated totally differently.

• 58:30Speaker 02

  Yep. Very true.

• 58:32Speaker 01

  It's the ultimate regime security, is it not?

• 58:35Speaker 02

  It's, it is.

• 58:36Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 58:37Speaker 02

  You wanna be North Korea or do you wanna be Libya, you know, and right, who's, you know, drug and killed in a ditch?

• 58:46Speaker 02

  That's key gave up, he knowingly gave up his nuclear weapons, uh, ambitions, so.

• 58:52Speaker 03

  And as did Ukraine.

• 58:54Speaker 02

  Yeah, as did Ukraine. Here's, that's a good point, Andy. Another, another example of, um, the fork in the road, which one a country could take. So we have to be ready and it's gonna trigger, uh, you know, nuclear arms race, obviously.

• 59:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, I was gonna say a Shia bomb is gonna trigger a Sunni bomb in Saudi Arabia, right? Saudi Arabia can have that probably done in a year.

• 59:14Speaker 02

  Sure, you can pay for it. They can pay for it, absolutely.

• 59:17Speaker 01

  Um, and maybe that's the move, is that the move to like mutually assured destruction on both sides?

• 59:24Speaker 02

  We don't want that to happen.

• 59:25Speaker 01

  Obviously, but it worked during the Cold War.

• 59:30Speaker 01

  That's a discussion for another day.

• 59:32Speaker 02

  Yep.

• 59:33Speaker 01

  But.

• 59:33Speaker 02

  Yeah, I do.

• 59:35Speaker 03

  It worked in the Cold War and a, you know, it was a

• 59:40Speaker 03

  bipolar, that's the wrong term to use, but you know, they the world was divided down two lines, right? And both sides, you could rely on both sides to some extent to make rational decisions based on rational assessments of self preservation. That is why it worked. I'm not sure you can rely on the same calculus in today's world.

• 1:00:06Speaker 01

  All right. Last bit of news about Fogbo.

• 1:00:09Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:00:10Speaker 01

  You want to announce that?

• 1:00:12Speaker 02

  Guys, let me know, let me say this. So,

• 1:00:16Speaker 02

  obviously, there's a lot of issue around the world with foreign aid. We're increasing our activities. If you don't know what I'm talking about. Fogbo does a humanitarian enablement around the world. Our model is, you know, for the most part, veterans, but also diplomats, intelligence folks and people, of course, who did a lot of work with NGOs, charities. So we're looking at a potential expansion pretty substantially because of the, you know, the lack, the vacuum that's out there. For the folks that have those backgrounds, would love for you guys to send me your resume. If you're interested, you can just go to Fogbo, the website, and go through there. Just put my name, Mick, if you wouldn't mind.

• 1:00:59Speaker 02

  So they'll kick it over to me and I'll review it. I'd also point out that our new advisor, our most senior advisor on our board is David Beasley, former governor of South Carolina. More importantly, the former director of the World Food Program. And he was the director when they were nominated and received the Nobel Peace Prize. So we're super lucky to have him. We're moving out as fast as we can to get to cover down on all these areas around the world. But ultimately, we need more people. So please, if you're interested in that kind of work, again, we're primarily veterans, but we really need people who have spent a lot of time

• 1:01:40Speaker 02

  in austere environments to include conflict zones that want to help get critical food aid, medical aid to the people in need. So thanks for letting me.

• 1:01:52Speaker 01

  Of course. Yeah. And that the link for that is in the description for Fogbo. Always in the description. So check it out, both in the video description and the show notes. So hit that link if you want to, shoot over your resume to mix organization. I mean, I'm assuming there's probably a lot of aid workers out there who are experienced, who are out of a job now, right? So.

• 1:02:15Speaker 02

  14,000 at USAID. So.

• 1:02:17Speaker 01

  So check them out. Fogbo. They do great work. Andy Milburn, Andy Reginald Milburn, to be exact. When the Tempest gathers incredible book. You could check out all of his publications, his Substack, his Twitter, his LinkedIn, everything is in the description as well. Jason Lyons too. Do us a favor. If you like this show and you want to get it ad free, both this show and the team house, so two shows for the price of one. Go to our Patreon, patreon.com slash the team house. Any and all the information that I just said is in the description or the show notes. Check them out there. As always, guys, this is great. I really appreciate it.

• 1:02:57Speaker 02

  Have a great.

• 1:02:58Speaker 01

  Hey guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show. If you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the team house. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the team house ad free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast Eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad free. And you support the channel and the show and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company,

• 1:03:39Speaker 01

  this small business survive, especially during our early years. And you are what continues to help this thing going even as. We navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page. And there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop. So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers. And we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop.

• 1:04:19Speaker 01

  And additionally, they got T-shirts up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff.

• 1:04:29Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 1:04:43Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant. So I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 1:04:54Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you, you're not alone.

• 1:04:59Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 1:05:05Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more. Because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart radio app today.

• 1:05:25Speaker 07

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:05:55Speaker 01

  So please go and check them out and support the show. We really appreciate it, guys.

• 1:06:00Speaker 04

  Thank you.

• 1:06:04Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 1:06:19Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant, so I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic, in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 1:06:30Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 1:06:35Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 1:06:41Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more, because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat, it's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast, on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart Radio app today.

• 1:07:01Speaker 07

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:07:39Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Oshkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 1:07:53Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant, so I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic, in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 1:08:04Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 1:08:09Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 1:08:15Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more, because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart Radio app today.

• 1:08:35Speaker 00

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:09:12Speaker 04

  Hi, I'm Jenna Ushkowitz. You might know me from Glee. This is At the Table, the food allergy podcast, a show about food, connection, and what it really looks like to live with food allergies. Each episode, we hear stories from real people like Daniel.

• 1:09:26Speaker 05

  People would always think I was lactose intolerant, so I just kind of shortened my explanation to I'm deathly allergic in a big way that defined a lot of my childhood.

• 1:09:37Speaker 04

  And while there are challenges, there are moments that remind you you're not alone.

• 1:09:42Speaker 06

  One of the best guys that I dated, he made a point to memorize all my food allergies.

• 1:09:48Speaker 04

  So join us and hear their stories and more, because living with food allergies isn't just about what you can't eat. It's about still having your seat at the table. Brought to you by Genentech and Novartis. Listen to At the Table, the food allergy podcast on America's number one podcast network, iHeart. Follow At the Table and start listening on the free iHeart Radio app today.

• 1:10:08Speaker 00

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. She's been thinking about this sleepover all week, but I think about her food allergies all the time.

• 1:10:43Speaker 01

  Fortunately, her doctor prescribed Zolair, omalizumab. It's proven to significantly reduce allergic reactions if a food allergy accident happens. Zolair 150mg is a prescription medication used to treat food allergy in people one year of age and older to reduce allergic reactions due to accidental exposure to one or more foods. While taking Zolair, you should continue to avoid all foods to which you are allergic. Don't use if you are allergic to Zolair. Zolair may cause a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. Tell your doctor if you ever had anaphylaxis. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or if you have swelling of your throat or tongue. Zolair should not be used for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Zolair is for maintenance use to reduce allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, while avoiding food allergens. Serious side effects such as cancer, fever, muscle aches and rash, parasitic infection,

• 1:11:27Speaker 01

  or heart and circulation problems have been reported. Please see zolair.com for full prescribing information. Ask an allergist about Zolair. This is an advertisement for Zolair, paid for by Genentech and Novartis.

• 1:11:38Speaker 00

  Games on a break? Don't doom scroll. Try rips on Underdog. Buy a digital pack, rip it open, and reveal a real, physical card. Football, basketball, even Pokemon. Packs start at just $5. Ship it straight to your door, or sell it back instantly at full market value. Max value up to $125,000. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Deposit $5, get five free packs. Real rips, real cards, real cash. Only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18+, terms apply. Top Grails are extremely rare. OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast.

• 1:12:20Speaker 00

  Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.