What Does Trump Want From Venezuela and Greenland? Charlotte Priests, And Hilton Scandal

And we're live. Welcome back to the LOOPcast. It's Tom, Erika, and Josh. Josh, well-dressed today, auditioning potentially for the ambassador to Greenland. Or I guess you could just be like the mayor or president when it comes to America.

Who knows at that point? Yeah, maybe an emperor. Ooh, Josh, I think you've always fancied yourself as somewhat of an emperor, maybe the emperor of the Lucas. Especially of a snowscaped land, like Josh, which is the emperor of the snowscaped Greenland. It could be a new Hallmark movie. It's almost like it's too warm for me, but I can probably manage it. You know, didn't Trump take over the Kennedy Center? What if he takes over Hallmark next, and the next Hallmark movie is like, you know, this small-town guy ends up becoming the emperor of Greenland, and then meets this, like...

You know, ambitious, but wants to settle down, Greenlander woman. Anyway, totally off topic here. Welcome to the show. Welcome, everyone, here in the live chat. What a time to be alive. I'm seeing a lot of that indeed. What a time to be alive. Tons of news going on here. And I have the show as followed. So, we have updates on Venezuela. We actually, I believe, as of this morning, breaking news, just took over two oil tankers, unmarked. I think they changed the flag to Russian.

Very interesting. So, I have a little bit on that, but I have the update, basically, of what is the current situation in Venezuela, what is the administration projecting as the future, what is Trump's side on true social, all of that. I'll get all of that there. Second, we also have Greenland talk. So, we mentioned briefly that there's a lot of loose Greenland talk on Air Force One. We now have a double down from Stephen Miller and the administration on Greenland. We have European leaders, you know, writing an angry joint statement saying, do not take Greenland.

And we even hear from Greenland themselves a little bit, so I'm going to cover that. Second, we have the Hyde Amendment talk. So, many people were up in arms, probably rightfully so. I'm not sure of the exact situation. Trump said, you know, you got to be a little loose with Hyde. And for people that don't know, the Hyde Amendment protects funding from the government going towards abortion. Josh can be much more specific than that, but that's essentially the crux. And so, we have the situation there.

I see a lot of people talking about Charlotte. We do actually have the Charlotte situation. A third of priests there actually submitted a dubia, and so, you know, what is a dubia? Is it the most polite way to go around, you know, proper channels, potentially? So, we have all the information there, what's going on on the ground in Charlotte. But, of course, you know, we've got good news. We've got Twilight Zone. It's going to be a fantastic show, but it's going to be a fantastic show because people like Charity Mobile sponsor it, okay?

And if you're still spending your hard-earned money with a phone company that does not value you or your beliefs, Charity Mobile is a pro-life phone company serving pro-life customers and causes. They send 5% of your monthly plan price to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice at no extra cost to you, and not only that, Charity Mobile has never raised their mobile plan prices in their 30-year history, and all plans start under $50 before taxes and surcharges. You get the same nationwide coverage as the big guys, and their friendly live customer service is based right here in the U.S., plus Charity Mobile is running a special promotion for the entire Christmas season.

Now through February 2nd, new customers can use promo code LOOPcast. to get a free phone with every new line, plus free activation, free shipping, and a free power bank while supplies last. Switch to Charity Mobile and buy the way you believe. To get started, visit CharityMobile.com and use promo code LOOPcast. That's CharityMobile.com, promo code LOOPcast. Thank you, Charity Mobile, for sponsoring today's episode. Go check them out.

Great. Are we ready to dive in on Venezuela? Let's do it. Back to Venezuela. Back to Venezuela. So, I just wanted to, we kind of brushed, we didn't get to this. You went with the pronunciation. I went with the correct pronunciation.

You see that one Saturday night live 20 years ago about that? It was hilarious. Well, that pronunciation reminded me of, like, who is it, Eva Mendez, or who is the, like, she is always the Hispanic mom and stuff. That was your... Ivan LaGloria. There you go. Okay, so we brushed over this. I want to make sure I touch it. Very interesting to me. I saw someone saying that the Southern District of New York is the new Arkham Asylum, so I thought it was just interesting that they took him to New York.

I was not sure exactly why that was, and so I have the murderer's row available at MDC Brooklyn. So, we have Nicholas Maduro, Luigi Mangione, Sean Combs, P. Diddy, R. Kelly. Sam Baikman-Fried, Al Chapo-Guzman, Michael Cohen, Ghislaine Maxwell, Martin Shkreli, and Al Sharpton, all notable inmates. That is an insane line-up, Al Sharpton.

Some are saying, what a time to be alive, and they probably have good reason. Oh, man. Essentially, Maduro is charged in New York on domestic charges, so he faces four main federal courts. This is U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. One, narco-terrorism conspiracy, using narcotics trafficking to support terrorism.

Conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. Possession of machine guns and destructive devices that's in connection with the drug trafficking operation, and then conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices relating to arming the conspiracy. Now, each charge on this would carry potential life imprisonment. His co-defendants include his wife, Celia Flores, and his son, Nicholas Ernesto Maduro Guerrera, and several senior officials and gang leaders. Maduro, of course, pleads not guilty. Many people were talking about some of the protests outside of the courtroom, but also what happened inside of the courtroom.

I think it's telling. Here is a transcript from the hearing. It said, are you Nicolas Maduro? I am the president of Venezuela. I consider myself a prisoner of war. I was captured at my home in Caracas. The judge, I only want to know, are you Nicolas Maduro? Maros, yes. Have you been served the indictment? We waive the public reading.

Maduro, I have it in my hands for the first time. I prefer to read it personally, and then he reads him some rights. Maduro, I do not know of these rights until now. How do you plead? I am innocent. I am a decent man. I am the president of Venezuela. Defense lawyer, the plea is not guilty on all counts.

So, that is where he is standing. He is hanging out with Sam Bankman, Freed, and the boys. I do not know, actually, if he is still in there. He did. He did. It was kind of funny, though, because he was like, I had no idea I had this many rights, you know.

This is great, guys. This is too old for your time, but it reminds me of former Russian leader Boris Yeltsin at the... Houston, a grocery store, because he's like, he goes to visit NASA headquarters, and then like, he wants to go to a grocery store, and he's just like, oh, you can't believe how much food of all different varieties you have. Oh, yeah. The picture is so epic. He's like, oh, my gosh. Yeah. He's a good fat guy like me. He likes to eat food, and that reminded, that Nicholas Maduro, I don't have no idea I have this many rights.

I got rights. Welcome to a free country, brother. Yeah, I guess Southern District of New York is. specializes in handling high-profile transnational drug trafficking, narco-terrorism, and corruption cases. They cooperate a lot with the DEA, FBI, and Homeland Security Investigations. I was just curious why he was brought. They theoretically could have brought him anywhere. Erika shared a hilarious video that kind of affirms my theory that this is all an inside job. And it was basically like a... It was a fake phone call between them.

He's like, you know, you got to come get me. Like, I really messed things up. Like, Donald Trump's like, what did you do? I broke the entire country. You got to come get me. This is bad. He's like, can I go to Miami? He's like, no, you can't go to Miami. You don't have the cards.

But obviously, you know, the federal law enforcement agencies use the, what is it, the Southern District of New York. They have a certain circuit court that they use where they just. Run through a lot of the higher profile things.

Yeah. I actually didn't know that. I was kind of curious. Yeah. So, a very interesting briefing already took place, I guess. It was at 10 a.m. this morning. A group of senior Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who's got, what, like 20 jobs now and counting? Yeah. I guess he's now the offensive coordinator for your Detroit Lions. Yeah, for the Lions. I saw that. People are memeing that all over the place. Potentially the coach for the Ravens now.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, they'll brief all senators. War. As they already did, Secretary of War. I got that one wrong. About Venezuela and President Trump's plans for managing the power vacuum after the ouster of President Nicolas Maduro. I mean, imagine being a fly on the wall in that briefing. I am sure senators have some questions. Now, The interesting thing is that it feels like different members of the administration are sending different signals. In my guess, probably on purpose, maybe a good guy, good cop, bad cop routine.

What we've heard from Rubio so far, and he affirmed this in an interview on CBS's Face the Nation, he insisted America will not be, in fact, running Venezuela. That is counter to what Trump said, and that what we're really seeing here is a powerful oil embargo that the aim is to rebuild the oil industry, quote, for the benefit. Of the Venezuelan people. So, I don't know if this differs per se with what we heard from Trump. He actually had a phone call with Joe Scarborough of MSNOW.

I think they said this was supposed to be off the record, but Joe said it anyway. Joe, the difference between Iraq and this is that George W. Bush didn't keep the oil. We're going to keep the oil. Direct quote. Now, I don't even think that's true. I think... I think Bush did keep quite a bit of the oil, but that is a line going back, dating back, for those who are paying attention, to the Trump campaign trail. So, I'll share the true social that got everyone talking.

Here we go. This is from President Donald J. Trump. I am pleased to announce that the interim authorities of Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 million barrels of high-quality sanctioned oil to the United States of America. This oil will be sold at market price, and that money will be controlled by me as president of the United States to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States. I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan immediately.

It will be taken by storage ships and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter. DJT. Yeah. I mean, we do have the whole issue, and Trump talked about this in the aftermath of the kidnapping, the capture of Maduro.

That Venezuela, back in the, was it the early 2000s? Yeah, mid-2000s, like 2004, 2006, they actually stole or seized, they seized the assets of the United States. I have the information on this. Oh, do you? Oh, do you? That's what this reminds me of. This is simply payback in a way. It's like, how much did they steal, Josh? Yeah, so, I mean, they did it twice. I mean, in 1976, and then again in 2007. So, in 1976...

You know, they had a president named Carlos Andres Perez. I've got to do that fancy accent. You're workshopping. By the way, for the folks who are watching the YouTube, I put in the link to the SNL skit where they brought in Jimmy Smith. It's funny. But anyway, so in 76, they took about You know, American subsidiaries like Exxon, Mobil, Gulf Oil, they lost about, they had invested $5 billion in the Venezuelan oil industry, and they were compensated $1 billion for it.

They lost quite a bit. That is some commie calculus right there. And then in 2007, Chavez. Ugo Chavez. Ugo Chavez. Ugo. Comes in and decrees that oil projects must give a 60% majority stake to the state-owned company. So, ConocoPhillips had anywhere from $4.5 to $30 billion in assets taken away. They were awarded by the International Criminal Court $2 billion and $8 billion by the World Bank. Most of those are totally unpaid, remain unpaid. ExxonMobil, they lost between $10 to $12 billion, and they were awarded $1.6 billion in 2014, though the final payout remains a bit of a subject of dispute.

And then Chevron decided to go ahead and try to negotiate, and they agreed to become a minority partner with the state-owned oil company, and they remain The operator, you know, they might have lost money as well, but it's also important to know that they lost, the American companies didn't just lose physical equipment, they lost rights to the Iranico Belt, which contains the largest proven oil reserves, like 300 billion barrels. In the world. So, you know, you're talking, you know.

Upwards of $50 billion or so, plus a major asset, all seized by a Venezuelan government, right? So, if Donald Trump asked for 50 million barrels, he is actually agreeing to pay for it at market price. But if he actually said, no, I want it as compensation, it would be more than justified, given how much it is. I mean, you are talking, that is like… About $3 billion, you know, that much oil. Yeah. So, to me, it's like, you know, we're talking about a lot of money, like people who, and again, you're like, oh, oil companies, who cares?

Like, okay, hold on a second. Anyone who owns shares in it, anyone who has any shares in S&P 500, I mean, you know, your stock portfolio took a hit in 2007, maybe you don't care, but by the way, theft is wrong. It is wrong for governments to steal this, and it's also stupid. That's why the government of Venezuela and the economy of Venezuela went in the tank. It was such a rich and prosperous country, but socialism makes everyone greedy. It's not like greed doesn't go away.

People always want more stuff. But socialism turns into itself, and it destroys an economy. It was a wonderful economy Venezuela had, and now people are starving, you know? Yeah, and if I may, I think a lot of this is dependent upon, again, brush over this a little bit. I want to get more in-depth now.

Eric and I were talking before the show. There's a lot of concerns about this power vacuum left over, and why this specific strike, the decisions made to do this, and not appoint the opposition leader, Machado. So, I wanted to say the current leadership of Venezuela is a big question. It is like, what is going to happen here? As of today, Delcy Rodriguez serves as the interim president of Venezuela, and she has de facto control of the government.

Venezuela's Supreme Court, aligned with the previous government, appointed former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as acting interim president in line with constitutional provisions for presidential absence. She was formally sworn in on January 5th before the National Assembly, and key figures from the Maduro administration remain Interior Minister Diosado Cabello, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez, and National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez. That is Delcy's brother.

They have publicly affirmed loyalty to the government structure while insisting Maduro is still the legitimate president. At first, it seemed like the tone was very aggressive towards Trump. I mean, obviously, you just kidnapped your president. I come with sorrow for the suffering inflicted upon Venezuelan people. Following an illegitimate military aggression against our homeland, I come with pain for kidnapping of two heroes, referring to Nicolas Maduro and wife Celia Flores. That is a statement from Delcy Rodriguez.

And then, pretty quickly, as of January 5th, January 6th, President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. That has always been President Nicolas Maduro's conviction, and it is that of all Venezuela at the moment. We extend an invitation for the U.S. government to work together on a cooperative agenda oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law and to strengthen lasting community coexistence. Clearly, a change in tone. So, one, the decision wasn't made to completely, you know, cut the head of the current governing regime, hopefully to keep some peace, to keep some order.

It wasn't to cut the head. It's just not to take out the whole body and all the head and maybe some of the arms. That's actually a poor choice of words. No, I mean, that actually proves the point. I mean, like, it's actually more, it's a surgical strike. You cut off the head, you get rid of Maduro, and then you say to the vice president, hey. It's better in everyone's interests if you play a little ball here and work towards free elections and peaceful transfer of power and rule of law and this kind of stuff.

So, I think it makes sense. I think it does, too, and I think one of the big concerns whenever something like this happens is that regime change. Like, are we involved in regime change? And I think that, in a sense, we are because we took out the head, and obviously, if Delsey doesn't play along, there will be more consequences for the cartel of the Suns, which is the political party that he ran, that Nicolas Maduro ran. So, in that sense, yes, there is regime change going on.

But it is nowhere near the instability that would have happened had we gone in, taken out not only Nicolas Maduro, but his entire political party, which controls the military, controls the economy, controls the courts, the legislature, what they have of it, and said, okay, this whole opposition party, which has been half of them in exile, not even in the country boots on the ground, to come in and then within weeks... Days or weeks have to get a fully functioning government, avoiding all of the pitfalls of corruption that have been endemic to Venezuela.

I think that the gamble here, and whether they're right or not, I can't judge, but I think that the gamble here is that the tactic that Rubio has chosen to take here, and Trump as well, is less destabilizing than a full-on regime change of, we're going to leave an entire vacuum. So, it's a little bit equivocation to say regime change or a vacuum was left when it's very different from what happened in, say, I want to say Libya. We did something much more drastic, and it was like, okay, all the young guys come in, and that really didn't go well.

We didn't kill Nicolas Maduro, which would have been a very serious step. He got his rights read to him in an American courthouse. Right. That's different. People have kind of been talking about this online. We made sure he was hydrated on the plane. Well, he had like 10 outfit changes between the time he got here and then on the plane. He has a new closet. He had a Nike Tech on. I guess the Nike Tech jumpsuit is like... I guess the Nike Tech jumpsuit is like...

Is selling like gangbusters or whatever, but I think it does kind of reveal, I'd be curious what everyone kind of thinks on this, is that we really got locked into the, you know, you're a neocon or not, you're an interventionist or not, you're pro-war, anti-war, and this is interesting to me because I feel like it really breaks a lot of those, maybe they were always kind of shallow dichotomies. Maybe Trump is just no labels. Well, ain't that the truth? I mean, that's an understatement of the century, Josh, I think, which you just got there too.

Because another thing that brought that to mind was he didn't install the… Some are saying the rightful victor. Yeah, the opposition leader, because they presented their election data saying that, yes, I won, they rigged it, they changed it back, and he could have been like, okay, you're the president now, and I think that was really favored by a lot of people that maybe fall into the, say, more neocon camps, like she's very friendly with the international community, the World Economic Forum, Davos, et cetera.

I think that would have been the preferred action, and Trump was like, no, he didn't take that approach. And so, he kind of angers those people, and he angers some people that don't want America to do anything. I think it's really just, I don't know, it's made me really think about my previous convictions and trying to take history and have that to inform me, but also to look at the current situation under a new light. And I think Greenland certainly falls in this camp, too.

Oh, boy. Yep, here we go. Not to transition that way. But before I say that, I honestly don't... We have a ton of information on this, other than it was announced this morning. This happened in the AM. But we get all these infrared footage of the United States taking over tankers. So, I guess we seized two Ghost Fleet tanker ships, including a Russian flag tanker linked to Venezuela, following a multi-week long pursuit. The boats were kind of running all over the place.

What I know about it is that we were enforcing a complete embargo on oil in and out of Venezuela. We had been doing that far before this operation. And I think we had kind of on paper, theoretically, been doing it, but not enforcing it. And so, I think a lot of those Caribbean boat strikes were kind of related to this, and then now we have these two ghost fleet. Like, they don't have anyone on them, but they're full of oil that, theoretically, we go to, say, Iran, we go to Russia.

Wait, like, literally no crew? I think there's, like, no crew. It basically is, like, maybe a few people, but, like, for the size of the tanker, does not have, like, a full crew on it. So, the Russians scrambled, I guess, they scrambled submarines to try to help it out. I can't speak with authority on this because there's a lot of weird things kind of surrounding this. As I understand it now, what was announced by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was that this action happened, we have the footage now, and there's going to be more details coming out.

Now, to me, it suggests we're really serious about forcing this oil embargo because a lot of those countries really rely on Venezuela for being their supply of oil. It's massively rich in oil and other natural resources. They've been doing it forever, and so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I mean, this is a real international... Yeah, this has implications for all of Russia's operations. One of the tankers was headed for Russia, I believe. We do know that. And it was, like you said, they were scrambling with submarines to try and save the oil for Russia.

And this will have big implications for Russia's prosecution, I think, of their aggression in Eastern Europe as well. So, all of this redounds so globally. I mean, the Chinese foreign ambassador was complaining this morning and saying things like... The United States must not seize the oil. Governments should not be in the business of seizing private property. I was like, oh, that's rich coming from the Chinese for indignitary. I miss China.

China who does it, that partner with Venezuela that does it. Yeah, sure. This is total hunt for red October stuff, and I think it also does tie in with Greenland very much because Greenland is central to our strategic plan. And just a reminder that, you know, since 1947, we've lived on a planet that if one country with nuclear weapons gets out of control...

It blows us all up, right? This is a very fraught time. We think of the Cold War as over, right, when the Soviet Union fell, but Neil Ferguson and a few other people at the Hoover Institute have been arguing that we really are in Cold War III at this point, or Cold War II, I guess. Not World War III, Cold War II.

That is where I think, just to set the stage for the Greenland and why it matters what is happening in Venezuela. Yeah, so let me get into that real quick. I don't have a ton of time on this, but I want to make sure we get through it. So, Trump on Air Force One. Basically, we talked about it yesterday, but here's a quote from Air Force One. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. It's so strategic. Citing Russian and Chinese ships in the area and criticizing Denmark's ability to secure it, I think he referred to them as a one-dog sled.

So, he told reporters, we'll worry about Greenland in two months. And so, okay, the outrage machine, of course, whipped up over that. We've moved on to Greenland. Here is Stephen Miller, like, I don't know, tripling down on that statement from Trump. Here you go.

Another important topic, the premier of Greenland and the premier of Denmark and other Danish officials are responding to a Twitter post from your wife, Katie Miller, herself a former Trump White House official, showing Greenland covered with an American flag, saying soon. After that was posted, President Trump repeated the claim that the U.S. needs Greenland for national security reasons. The Danish Prime Minister responded to this in an interview earlier today, as reported by Bloomberg. Quote, I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says he wants Greenland, but I will also make it clear that if the U.S.

chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO, and thus the security that has been established since the end of the second world war. Can you rule out that the U.S. is ever going to try to take Greenland by force?

Well, let me go back a step. The president has been clear for months now, so I know you're treating this as breaking news. The president has been clear for months now. That the United States should be the nation that has Greenland as part of our overall security apparatus. Right, but your wife posted that like hours after the Venezuela operation. That's why it's newly relevant.

I'll talk with you about it for an hour. I think it's a really important conversation. I just wanted to reset Jake by making clear that it has been the formal position of the U.S. government. Since the beginning of this administration, frankly, going back into the previous Trump administration, That Greenland should be part of the United States. The president has been very clear about that. That is the formal position of the U.S. government. Right, but can you say that military action against Greenland is off the table?

What do you mean military action against Greenland? Greenland has a population of 30,000 people, Jake. The real question is, what right does Denmark have to control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having... Greenland is a colony of Denmark. The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States.

So, I think that gives you a taste of where they're going. They like to ask that same question of Donald Trump a lot of times. Would you rule out? Donald Trump absolutely rejects the premise of those questions. You know what I mean? Like, would you rule out flying to Mars on your own spaceship? Like, no. Like, Trump will never rule anything. He does not like to box himself in ever.

You know, I don't think it's really sophisticated saber-rattling here. You know, the media is trying to say, do we think the United States is going to somehow invade a colony of a NATO power, a fellow NATO ally? Technically not a colony. It's an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.

Thank you, Tom. If we want to get it all specific. I do think what is going to happen is the United States is going to say, we have a lot of money, and we would like Greenland. Whether or not we purchase it outright, I am not so sure that that is going to happen. That is the latest. Marco Rubio said that they want to meet with Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio said that buying Greenland is on the table. That is the ideal, because they would get everything that way, obviously.

But short of that, they could end up with an arrangement similar to what they have with a lot of Pacific Islands. It is called a compact, a free association. Where the United States provides defense, essential services, in exchange for unrestricted military access and operations.

That is definitely what the United States wants. I think it also wants the ability to mine some of these rare earth minerals in Greenland, and Denmark's not really in any position to do this, and we want to make sure we're there before China says, hey, let me have Greenland, because there ain't no way we're going to allow that to happen. Yeah, it's interesting looking at, so typically when you look at the map of Greenland, you don't look at the proper, like, North Pole-oriented map.

Let me see if I can zoom into this. Shout out to Cigar Mode in the chat, already pointed that out. Not from the Mercator projection. Let's look at it from the North Pole. Yeah, let's look at it from the North Pole. I mean, first off, very close to the North Pole, might be the closest. So, I mean, here's Alaska, here's Greenland. I mean, Russia is right here. Norway, Finland, Sweden, all right next to Russia, but really, I mean. This kind of puts to bed any thoughts on why we would want this.

There's one military base on the island. It's the United States Space Force Base, so we're already there. There's no other military presence there. I mean, shipping lanes are one thing. I kind of feel like it's less that, but think about it this way.

A bad apple, and people usually think of Putin as a bad apple in Russia. I don't anticipate them launching nukes, but look at that. They could. Putin is halfway there. I mean, like, I'd much rather be in a spot where you can protect, yeah, so. Well, when we have, from a Danish politician, it could be like five helicopters. There would be nothing we could do.

And we have, in a half hour or less, is the projection of how quickly someone can take over. I mean, they have such a, really, they have such a small population, it's actually the least dense populated country in the world. Like, there's so few people relative to the amount of land there is. I think it's technically the largest island in the world, fun facts.

And it's, yeah, you're right, and people live on the coast. It is not like people live in the middle. No, I mean, there is so much there. I mean, we have a Space Force base there. It is a Pituffic Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. In 2023, we renamed it.

So, yeah, I mean, there is obviously the military going on there. We have a military base there currently, but anything we do there requires Danish approval, which is kind of hilarious. I do not mean to make… It is a little hilarious. It is kind of hilarious. We've got to ask Denmark before we put up missile defense systems to defend from Russia. But what's interesting is that the foreign policy of the last several generations, the United States has been so overwhelmingly powerful with military might and economic resources that we're almost always expected in foreign policy.

He talks to apologize for being like the massive giant. Like, oh, sorry, sorry. Don't mean to be rude here. Whereas Trump is like so the opposite. He's like, I want this. I think we should have this. This one should be mine. And that violates the sensibilities of a lot of people, even in our own country, who are so internationalist in origin. They're America last.

I don't want to just, I don't, I'm not a fan of just taking things. Obviously, I don't believe in that kind of stuff. I don't think, oh, we want this, we just take it. But he talks enough like that, it scares so many people. I just, I'm going to sort of roll my eyes. I ultimately, you know, I would be shocked if Donald Trump just seized it, like with the military, and just said, it's mine. That would be... It wouldn't make any sense.

I don't think... It wouldn't make any sense, and it would not be... Like, the fact that people in Europe are like, well, that would... That would abolish NATO then. I'm like, oh, well. I know. Tell me more. Yeah, and I think a lot of Catholics online, you know, to kind of bring it back to, like, the just war and the international law and all, there is a strain of sort of, like, the Thomistic, the Neo-Thomists online who say, well, it would be like this intrinsically evil thing should the United States, you know, even look into seizing control, even purchasing Greenland.

Right. Any kind of territorial expansion at this point would somehow be this intrinsic evil. And I think the response to that is, no, it's not a question of intrinsic evil, and it's not a question of any sort of expansion of borders is somehow against Thomistic principles or natural law theory. The question is, would it be wise, would it be prudent, and politically, what I'm trying to say is, in itself, it wouldn't violate any natural law norms for a very powerful to work with a smaller nation and say, how can we benefit your country, our country?

And given that this is strategy in Cold War II, and we're talking like nuclear deterrence, this could actually benefit the entire world where the United States, instead of Denmark, be the one working with Greenlanders. And so, it's a question of prudence, not a question of intrinsic moral. And I'm curious, too, like, and maybe the timing on this is intentional or it's just sprung upon them, because I...

We're having these debates, and it's because we're interested in them, and they could genuinely be in the interest of the United States, but I think smartly, I saw Rahm Emanuel is gearing up to run, and he's like, we shouldn't care about Caracas. We should care about Columbus, and I do think there's an element of this where if we get too far down the, you know what I mean? You start talking big stick. You start talking everything. It's one thing to put together agreements that benefit both countries, but then also to see Like, you haven't handled the economy, you haven't handled deportations the way that we need to.

I'm saying you can do both at the same time, but politically, I'm just a little, I almost feel like we need to get this out of our system a little bit, and then refocus domestically. The polls before last summer's strikes on Iran, American people were like, no, I don't think you should do that. And then after it happened, it was like, oh, that was okay. I like that.

And then with Venezuela, they're like, no, no, I don't think you should do that. And then after that, it was like underwater. I saw that, yeah. 15 points, you know, people were, no, no, no. And then it was basically even Steven afterwards, and I think it will probably just only continue to go up. So, as long as we are not entangled, American people are like, okay, we swooped in there, took the bad guy out, I am okay with this. And if we get more oil out of this, and again, people, we are not talking about stealing oil.

Again, if we got the, we are paying for the market price of oil, we honestly could say, you know what, the first 100 million gallons of barrels. We should get a half price because you stole from our country. That would be fair, but he's not even asking for that. But overall, what we're going to see is overall oil production out of Venezuela go up, and the people are going to And, you know, ultimately, if people understand Trump, it's not that Trump wants to steal a bunch of oil from Venezuela.

He wants the economy of Venezuela to be better so that people who are Venezuelans will return to their home country. Yeah, they're still pressing deportations. You had 8 million people displaced because of what Hugo Chavez and Maduro did to that country. It's hard to even wrap your mind around. It's the largest in peacetime.

You're not fleeing from a country of all time, I think, ever. Eight million people. It's like hard to even wrap your mind around that. There's no war. There's no, and they left. Well, that's when you start to realize that socialism is basically a war with your own people, even if it's not a civil war. You know what I mean? But it really is. You're declaring war on your own country. It's suicide. It's terrible.

Okay. The only place that socialism, wait, what is it? The only place socialism works is heaven where they don't need it. I sent you the OG Vin Scully on the broadcast for the doctors of him talking about social media. I was like, this is literally Josh. Like, Josh is Vin Scully. He's like, that's the greatest compliment you've ever given me. Okay, on to High Amendment. Run me through this real quick, Erika, what we got going on. Yeah, here we go. So, Trump spoke yesterday to a gathered group of the GOP legislators in Washington, D.C., Trump Kennedy Center, as it is now known, and in it...

The bulk of his remarks was a push for health care reforms and calling on the GOP and Congress, the House, and the Senate to own the health care question. So, we have the expiring ACA subsidies that have driven 114% premium hikes for millions of Americans. I mean, a lot of us are feeling the pain right now if we're on the public exchange.

But he's saying to the GOP, like, look, healthcare could be the Republican strength. It should not be a political liability. You need to own it. And he's framing it as this solvable pocketbook affordability issue that could help us to win the elections come November, and he urged lawmakers to put the money directly back into the hands of Americans instead of going through all the insurance. So far, I'm with him.

So far, I was on board with his remarks, and then he said, this, can you roll the tape? Sure. Is this the transgender impersonation of the weightlifter? Oh, no, I was with him on that one, too. This is where he lost me. Here we go.

Let the money go in a healthcare account, or however you do it. Let the money go directly. To the people. Now, you have to be a little flexible on hide. You know that. You got to be a little flexible. You got to work something. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work.

We're all big fans of everything, but you've got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility. Oh, man. No, so just a refresher on the Hyde Amendment. Josh, I know you can speak to this more, but quickly, it was enacted first in 1976 by the great, pushed through Congress by the great Henry Hyde, and it bars the— He was a freshman legislator. He was a freshman, which is amazing. Talk about guts and glory. Barring the use of federal funds for abortion— Except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is at risk, but it was a low bar, but we passed it.

Just to be clear, in 76, it was for everything. It was only added, the exceptions for, you know, rape and incest were added in 93. Okay, thank you for the clarity on that. Yep, so originally, it was super awesome, and then under Clinton, they weakened it a lot, but it has been renewed annually, and only last year, on day four, I believe, of his administration, Trump signed an executive order rescinding all of the Biden administration's attacks on the Hyde Amendment, saying, no, we're going to return to the Hyde Amendment, and that was a huge win.

We had a party that day, did we not? It was beautiful. So, to hear... Tell me one more thing, so I did just hear him stand up and be like, all right, Hyde, a little flexibility here. You know, you got to work with it.

Again, Donald Trump, negotiator on everything, you know what I mean? Yes. The only thing he doesn't negotiate is on how awesome he thinks he is, but in his mind, he kept the Hyde Amendment stuff that he did on the fourth day, right? Yeah. It's like government money can't go to abortion. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. And he's like, well, hey, wait. If we just give people the money and they decide to spend it on whatever they want to, then we don't have to worry about it being taxpayer funds at that point.

It's like, well, I mean, it had been taxpayer funds. That's not. It is taxpayer funds. It is. Yeah. I mean, once you give it to, but see, once you give it to a person, then a person can do what they want to with it.

You said just keep my money, but put that away. Well, hold on a second. It is legally a different thing. Once it is given, and so Tom McCluskey actually has the right answer on this, our main man in the Capitol. I just talked to Tom, but yeah, you tell me. What Tom is saying is we need, you know, there was a decision by a bureaucrat at the IRS back in the 70s who said, Health care, yeah, abortion is totally a health care expense, and therefore, any health care money you spend, you know, all the tied up in that, you can bill it for insurance, all this other stuff.

Get rid of that. Yes. We never voted on it. It was bad then, it's bad now. Change that. Then, you're not dealing with a lot of those problems. Right. Abortion is not health care. But the reason I was making that stickler on that earlier point there, guys, is that because the federal government or state governments could give money to parents, and then parents could then spend that money on a school of their choice, and it could be religious. Well, that's taxpayer money going to the Catholic schools.

Did separate churches? No. Once the money is given from the government to the person, the person then can do it, but what we should still say is, hey, we want to give money to people so long as they don't kill people, so long as they don't kill children, and as much as we'd love to be able to make it against a lot of killed children, that's still hard to do in some of these states, so at least what we could do is make sure we understand when it comes to the Internal Revenue Service and the way our government looks at things.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No. Abortion is not healthcare. Of course. Okay, we laid that down. What is he... We laid all that down. Unsurprisingly, you know, the Hyde Amendment is a good thing. We're going to be in support of it. This was a long speech in which he, like, imitated a transgender waitress. Like, it was up and down. It was a classic weave, Trump. It was so long. 90 minutes. He could have said nothing about Hyde. Why did he choose to float that out?

Is it going to be a bargaining chip to potentially, if he had to work across the aisle to get some type of healthcare thing done, it could be sacrificed? Trump loves to float tons of stuff. He wants to look like all options are on the table, and then, you know, then he doesn't seem like he's... rigid or ideological. The American people in general appreciate that about Trump, that he's looking for the best deal or whatever. But I can tell you, Cynthia Loomis is a senator from Wyoming.

I mean, she's on her way out. She's retiring. She doesn't strike me as the most obvious rock star pro-lifer. Not that she's bad, but she's not like a Rick Santorum or a Chris Smith type guy, right? And she said she was baffled by these comments on being flexible on Hyde. She said...

You know, that's kind of a sea change. Our conference has generally gone out of its way to be very protective of Hyde, and it'll be interesting to see how this affects legislation moving forward. She said that the Trump statements, quote, could have a chilling effect in moving forward legislatively. That's why Kelsey said, our President Kelsey Reinhart said, actually, protecting Hyde is not only good policy, it's good politics.

You know, you're going to gut your own base to try to win more people at the table? No, no, no. So, overall, we just think it's the best, you know, I do think Republicans can win on health care. I do think we can have good policy, but Hyde is good policy, and it is good politics. And it's good health care. Do you want your taxpayer money going for paying for abortions? Do you want your taxpayer dollars going for transgender surgeries? So, Trump has been very good on this.

For the most part, let us just hope he sticks to his word on this. Okay, can I ask another question here? Because I see that, rest in peace, pray for the repose of his soul, Doug LaMalfa passed away. He was on the House side of the GOP.

And Thomas Massey, famously libertarian, doesn't play ball with everyone else. We are down to, I think, a one-vote margin on the House. Is there anything that can even be done about, so he gets and gives this rousing weave speech, basically just trying to browbeat Republicans, like, hey, do something about healthcare and take ownership for it. Can anything even be done? What is there to be done about healthcare, do you know?

Yeah, we're at 218, 213. We're not at 1. It's tight. It's still tight. Sorry, Erika, what were you going to say? I was going to say the House did pass some form of legislation yesterday about increasing the health savings accounts and bypassing. The problem is it's probably going to be shot down in the Senate, where I believe it's even tighter. Right, Josh?

Well, it's not that the margins are tighter in the Senate, per se. It's that, you know, the... Democrats can filibuster any legislation. So, with tax policy, the big, beautiful bill, they did increase some HSA stuff, and so some flexibility there. So, that is going to be good for 2026. But overall, my point is, Any legislation, any changes on health care, it is really going to end up being sort of a bipartisan compromise. It is going to have to get to 60 votes, and I am telling you, there is no way you are going to get 60 votes in the Senate and a decent enough majority in the House without high protections, because it is just not going to happen.

We may not get anything on health care. It wouldn't be smart to bet against, but if they do get something done, like, okay, let's, the Democrats really want to throw some more subsidies. So, we're in a bargaining position here. Like, okay, well, yeah, but we want to make sure we protect Hyde, and we want to have a little bit more expansion of, let's say, health savings accounts or something else that we can try to, the whole idea is we should try to transition as much as we can people out of.

This is, of course, my long-standing wish, Brian, and I get people away from employer-based health care and then become individual consumers on the market and make it, you know, why don't we try to create great incentives that make, you know, individuals, for example, one of the things that Republicans have wanted to do is to allow associations to be purchasers of it. You know, why is it that you can get insurance through your employer, but why not, like, through the Knights of Columbus, or why not through...

You know, like the Rotary Club, you know, why not through the VFW, all these different associations, why can't you allow them to create healthcare, you know, not just for their actual employees that work full-time, but like members? So, why not, you know, let people pool together resources and make it affordable like that? So, that is one thing that Republicans have tried in recent years to be able to get through. And Democrats have stopped it, I mean, just because they want government-run healthcare, but if you want subsidies, hey, we want to protect Hyde, and let's let associations, something else, bring something else to the table here, and maybe we can get a bipartisan compromise.

Yeah, and I think that the issue with the way that Trump deals with everything, and I was just running back through the chapter titles and the art of the deal, right? And that whole speech yesterday, it was just like the art of the deal applied to healthcare. The problem being, of course, that yes, you can apply these principles of leverage and flexibility and compromise and always winning by... By moving forward your agenda, even incrementally, you can apply those to questions of, well, would acquiring Greenland, for example, be something that was propitious for the United States, Greenland, and the world?

Maybe. I don't know. But you cannot apply those principles when it comes to human life and grave moral evil like abortion or killing people or any of this. So, I think I love the approach of... I think that this is something that would fall under the executive branch, would be to go to the IRS and be like, hey, guys, here's what counts. Yes, let me do it. Here's what counts. Like that. Right. We still need Hyde as a backup, because who knows who our next president will be.

If it's Gavin Newsom, we'll go right back to, like, everything. Just so you know, the Hyde Amendment has to be passed every single year. It does. And, in fact, there was a fight over this when Jimmy Carter became president, and, you know, we shut down the government over this, and we were like, no, we're not going to do it. You want to open up the government? We want to hide. And, eventually, Carter buckled. Interesting. Yeah. I don't know if they would do that now.

I hope so. I mean, we've managed through all the years of Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Like, we're not moving on this. We want this every year. We expect it. Let's do it. Protect Hyde. Okay, I could talk health care for an entire show, but we have to move on to the good news. Could we not? Erika, what do you got? Okay, well, maybe with Barry Weiss back in the driver's seat, CBS has rediscovered its sense of humor because this was actually pretty funny.

Or it's just now very pro-Trump. A little light laugh 50 minutes into the show. Let's do it. There we go. And only in America, the many lives and many jobs of Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and a former Florida senator. He is now the face of U.S. foreign policy and President Trump's point man on Venezuela, all in addition to his roles as Secretary of State, Interim National Security Advisor, and Acting National Archivist and USAID Chief. Whatever you think of his politics, you've got to admit, it's an impressive resume.

And now, AI memes have added to that portfolio, casting... Secretary Rubio as the new governor of Minnesota, the new Shah of Iran, the prime minister of Greenland, the new manager of Manchester United, the head of Hilton Hotels and highest of high honors of all, the new Michelin man. Now, back in real life, of course, these memes may not add up to much, but for Rubio's hometown fans, which are many around here in Miami, it is a sign of how Florida, once an American punchline, has become a leader on the world stage.

Too much. I do love your memes. You could just pull up, this is my current favorite. This one's great. So, we have Marco Rubio dressed as a Viking warlord, and it just says, and Marco wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer. It's like the final meme of all. It's great.

See you in Valhalla, brother. This is what AI is for. This is what AI is for. I showed that picture to my kids. They're like, cultural appropriation. We're Vikings. How dare Marco. Marco of the southern Spanish descendancy. Get out of my Viking warlord gear. Yeah, that is appropriation. Your kids have it. They have it. They know what's up. All right, Josh, what do you got? By the way, did you know that President Trump just weighed in on this, what I'm just talking about right now?

Okay, it's not good news to be fired. And I think the Baltimore Ravens were foolish to fire their head coach, John Harbaugh. I'm taking the other side of this. Who just got an endorsement from Donald J. Trump, told NFL teams to hire him immediately. He and his brother are winners. I agree.

I think John Harbaugh has been a great, he did great. I think the problem was the quarterback position, not the head coach. Oh, not a Lamar guy. Interesting. The number of times that the Ravens went to the playoffs before the current quarterback and afterwards are pretty telling. So, anyway, I'm not going to focus on their playoff records per se, but 18 years, great coach, but he's also a good leader of men and a good Catholic. A faithful follower of Christ. Here is a little clip of him praying to our Father.

This is awesome. Is this off Hard Knocks, too? I can't remember. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. Okay.

Awesome. I think that was right after they won their division or something. Could be, but hey, to God, the glory. And, you know, John Harbaugh. Now. I will say this. You're looking at this wrong. Probably will be a New York Giants head coach. Yes, you're looking at this wrong.

I think that it's good for, I think the Ravens, it's good for both parties. I think he's a good coach. I think the Ravens needed a fresh start. I think John Harbaugh needed a fresh start. Same thing with Tomlin with the Steelers. They just consistently put together mediocre seasons. You need someone to put them over the hump, or they need to suffer for a little while to go through something new, and John Harbaugh, everyone's going to be throwing an offer at him.

He's going to go to a great situation. If he goes to the Giants, he's got a great young quarterback. They're building a good team. They have draft picks. The Ravens are kind of in ... Uh, what do you call it? They're in, like, purgatory a little bit. Yeah, they're in purgatory a little bit. Like, they've heavily invested in certain people that maybe aren't panning out, maybe need a new coach, maybe need something. So, I'm not, everyone's all mad about this. I'm like, actually, if that field goal, if the Tyler Loop field goal, which you talked about Tyler Loop missed that field goal, goes the other way, and he makes it, Mike Tomlin gets fired, for sure.

And I think it might be worth it, too, as my dad's a huge, uh... Steeler's guy. But anyway, mine is a little bit more spiritual. Yeah, mine's spiritual. Yeah, I was going to say. Yours is like dark spiritual, Tom. All right, apparently we have an increased request for exorcists.

How is this good news? Catholic Board reporting. Because here's the thing. Catholic Church in the U.S. has reportedly seen a surge in requests for exorcisms in the past few years, leading to an increased number of priests being trained as exorcists, according to recent reports. That is a good thing. That's a good thing. Dude, that's a great thing, because you don't call up... You know, you're female, Anglican, whatever. I don't want to dunk. Southern poverty, whatever. I'm not going to dunk on anyone else, but you call a priest.

You call a priest, you call an exorcist, and weird stuff's going on. That's what the police officers do, right? Yeah. The Baltimore Sun did kind of a report on this, and they said that the people that they interviewed, they said that 99% of the calls didn't need an exorcism, even though they were called. But I think that just kind of affirms, like, I think people, their head's in the right place, something weird is going on, call an exorcist just in case, and then that also takes how seriously that they take their job and their role as, like, unless we 100% verify there's something really bad spiritually going on here, then we're not going to, you know, engage, because To me, the interesting thing, if you listen, and again, I almost encourage some people not to dive into exorcists.

If you're like really freaked out and you're too scrupulous, listen, if you're in the state of grace, you're going to confession, you're receiving the sacraments, you're good. You don't even really need to worry about it. But for those who can handle it, the interesting thing to me about exorcists is that So, there's a real humility required to be an exorcist, and the way that they're trained isn't to personally engage. They literally just quote Jesus at the demons. Yeah. Just quote Jesus.

They're trained a very specific way. They utilize the power of Jesus to drive out the demons. So, they're not even one-on-one interacting. And so, I think it's actually good. I'm kind of back and forth on the idea that there's celebrity exorcists. There's clearly this kind of interest. And people in the supernatural realm, I don't think a real serious person could even disagree that there is a supernatural realm at this point. If you've lived enough life, you've seen some stuff. And I think there's a good kind of like...

evangelization that happens when you have people that are wrapped up in the wrong stuff, or maybe just curious. And then they're kind of reverse catechized. So I think that's a pro, but I think the negative is if you get too much of an ego and hubris, it kind of, you forget what this is all about.

And just be cautious about any kind of, you know, you know, like purient interests, like, like you're almost like, you're interested in it because it's sensational and you're like, Ooh, it's like that. That's not. That's not the answer. Yeah. So, apparently, Straight Arrow News reported January 4th that in the last 15 years, the number of Catholic exorcists in the U.S. has risen from 12 to approximately 150. To me, that's great news. That's crazy. That's great. Because you wouldn't want to be shorthanded on exorcists.

No. When you need them, you really do need them. Right, so let us train some good ones. Let us do it. Good news. More exorcists. All right, the moment everyone has been waiting for is Charlotte. All right, so people have asked, we have been covering the Diocese of Charlotte and their woes over the last few months, but something really interesting happens this week. This rarely, rarely happens in the Catholic Church. More than 30 priests in the diocese. That is roughly a quarter of the diocesan clergy there.

It is a small diocese, mostly parish. ...pastors have taken the extraordinary step of formally submitting official questions to the Vatican Dicastery for legislative texts, asking whether their bishop has exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping liturgical changes. This challenge, the dubia, follows a December 17th pastoral letter from Bishop Michael Martin.

Which introduces new norms for the celebration of Mass, effective January 16th. So, this is coming fast. Among the most controversial directives, he issued a ban on altar rails. So, no new construction of altar rails, but also removing existing altar rails. Kneelers and pre-dos for communion, the removal of movable kneeling aides. And a clear preference for standing as the normative posture when receiving the Eucharist, though kneeling communicates may not be denied communion. Well, thank you for throwing us that phone. So, the question of the dubia, there were several questions posed, but the sort of underlying question that the priests are asking the Vatican is, can a diocesan bishop lawfully prohibit practices that are explicitly permitted?

Under the germ, or universal church law. So, that is the question here. They are also talking about... intinction, restrictions to vestments that he has also included in these reforms, so-called altar crucifixes, candles, the use of Latin in traditional prayers. So this is a really rare, rare thing that a group of priests and pastors would come together, typically when we've seen Dubia over the last 15, 25 years. It's been bishops, most famously perhaps It's been bishops, most famously perhaps The Dubia cardinals with the questions about Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Suplicans.

We think of Cardinal Burke when we think of Dubia. But for a group of lowly parish priests to come together and challenge their bishop, it shows how— And how many did you say it was? 31, which is a quarter of the priests. I was going to say, that's a lot. It's a lot. Many were pastors, too. Mass mutiny. I think a majority of those were pastors.

Yeah, that is what the report said from CatholicVote, which is where I get all my news. No, I am just kidding. But, yeah, so what is a dubia? The loop is known for great news and bad field goal kicks, but hey, that is okay. That is right. That is right. I know.

My kids were watching that game, and they were making fun of the poor guy's name. Don't knock it. The loop is cool. So, yeah, dubia are these simple yes or no questions, and they are submitted to the Pope directly or usually to dicasteries within the Vatican for clarification.

Usually on doctrine, liturgical practice, or moral teaching, and I mentioned a couple of the most famous ones. Some of them still outstanding. I don't think Cardinal Burke ever got his yes or no to a few of those Amoris Laetitia questions.

But they also had them under Benedict XVI, John Paul II, there were Dubia, so it goes on. Any other questions, Tom? Because you told me to speak to you when you were five years old, and I'm like, all right, do it.

Well, so I know that Catholic lefties for many decades were like, you know, talking about different models of the church, because they were so upset at Pope John Paul II and Benedict appointing bishops, like, oh, you know, back in the old days, the diocese would elect, you know, the priest would elect their own bishop, and he would serve it, you know.

Well, that's kind of interesting, because if that were the case, Today, we would not have this guy as Bishop of Charlotte. Let me tell you. I'm not suggesting we move to that. Let's just say what's going on through my mind. I think that... Most people, Charlotte has become the most recent example of this, have called for more uniformity when it comes to enforcing the germ and actually seen a lot of abuses in, let's just say, more progressive, liberal parishes like dancing or, you know, odd homilies or, you know what I mean?

All kinds of things, you name it. And there, I think there was calls for Some type of enforcement, like this needs to become more uniformed. We don't want desecration or irreverence or anything like that because we care about the liturgy, and what we did get instead in Charlotte is a crackdown on things approved in the germ, clearly against, you know, people that lean more traditional orthodox and like their traditions, and so now the question is, You know, does the... So, is this like a bishop to bishop to bishop?

Like, can they just basically do whatever they want? Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, sure. What explicitly is allowed in the germ that he's saying can't be done? I'm not saying... I'm not disputing it. I'm just trying to... Yeah, I mean... He's still allowing you to receive kneeling, obviously.

Yeah, if you so desire, but there is nothing in the germ that prohibits the use of altar rails, there is nothing in the germ that prohibits the use of the altar crucifix of these particular Roman vestments that he's banning, obviously the use of Latin in the liturgy. So, is he allowed to ban something that is not banned in this universal code? And just for those listening, the germ is explicitly allowed that he's not allowing, right?

That is the distinction. I am not defending this guy. I would say it is certainly church tradition, from what I understand. Right. So, what is the germ, Erika? Yeah, so the germ, just for those listening, when we are referring to the germ, it is not the type flu A that my family is going through right now, but it is the general instruction of the Roman Missal. And this is, I looked into it because I wanted to get my technical terms straight.

It is the church's authoritative legal and pastoral guide governing how the Mass is to be celebrated. In the Roman Rite, it regulates posture, gestures, responses, vessels, vestments, and sanctuary arrangement, among other things, and it was first issued in 1969-1970 to try to get a handle on the crazy, quote-unquote, reforms that were going on after Vatican II. So, Vatican II, we get Sancto Sacrum Concilium in 1963, which was on the reform of the liturgy, and that was used as this excuse to just...

Go hog wild when we get our clown masses that we think of, the puppet masses and all that. So, the germ comes through following those reforms to try to get a handle on this, and it was revised again in 2002 pretty substantially, but it is universal church law, meaning that bishops themselves, Tom, are bound to it. So, it is not a guidance. It is not a suggested set of rules, and they may not prohibit practices.

That the germ explicitly permits, to answer Josh's question. So, if the germ permits it, a bishop does not have the authority to then prohibit it. Namely, here, you would be talking about the use of altar rails, for example, or the use of Latin in the liturgy at your Sunday Mass.

They can regulate how the options are exercised, but they cannot eliminate lawful options entirely, and that is according to the German side. So, that is, I think, what the priests with this dubia are getting at in the Diocese of Charlotte. Look, he is eliminating lawful options that pastors can exercise in the celebration of the liturgy.

So, it'll be interesting to see. I think that we're getting some signals from Leo on how he's going to approach the liturgy wars. Obviously, the first foray that Bishop Martin made was to do a total crackdown and implement Tradiciones Custodes, shut down Latin Mass parishes, consign them to this one mountain parish that's a six-hour drive for a lot of people. And so, I think with his new catechesis that he just announced yesterday, Leo is... He's signaling how he's going to approach this unrest in the church, this spiritual sickness in the church, and what did he say he was going to do?

He's like, for all of my audiences, like Wednesday audiences going forward, we're just going to walk through the Vatican II documents, the magisterial teaching of Vatican II, and we're going to go line by line. I'm going to read them, and we're just going to talk about them, and this is what The conservatives, for lack of a better word, conservative, orthodox, Catholic, whatever you want to call us, were calling for, all through the craziness of the 80s and the 90s and the 2000s, that the spirit of Vatican II, the media version of Vatican II, that had caused so much disruption and whitewashing and beige Catholicism across the globe.

Was, in fact, not Vatican II itself. We were calling for a return to the documents. Like, let's just read what the Council Fathers said calmly and slowly. And if you do that, you find things in Sacrosanctum, I can't say it, Sacrosanctum Concilium, for example, on the liturgy. Like, we need to help people appreciate Latin. We need to have beautiful art. Our art and architecture should Share the patrimony of the church in order to draw people through the liturgy more deeply into a relationship with God.

It didn't say anything about clown masses. It didn't say anything about whitewashing all the beautiful iconography and emptying out the churches and tearing down the all trails. It didn't say that, and I think Leo, with this new catechesis, which I'm very excited about, if you couldn't tell, is signaling that we need to calmly go back to what did the fathers actually say. And actually, Benedict himself, I pulled up a talk that he gave late in his papacy to a group of seminarians in Rome.

He was much saying the same thing, that we just haven't read the documents, so let's do it. Let's sit down and read them. Yes. Well, I mean, and again, John Paul and Benedict were at the council. They knew what they were talking about. It would be nice. We had, you know, sort of an apparition over the last 12 years with the papacy of Francis. You know, it is one of those things where it is almost like it was emotional, because the number, you know, Catholic University of America did a survey of priests, and like two-thirds of them are conservative today in the United States.

The younger priests. But if you look at, yeah, the younger ones, the ones that are, well, younger, I mean, my age, 48 and younger. Yeah, define younger. I mean, like younger. 48 is the new 28. Not necessarily pups. But the point is that right around 1970, the percentage of priests in the United States that called themselves progressive was like two-thirds. It was massive.

And they came of age, they went through seminary when there was, you know, Second Vatican Council and all these possibilities, all this, you know, this energy, and it was like a new Pentecost for them, and they went completely bananas with the liturgy. And I, you know, I grew up in the 80s, like, what the heck is this? This is like, blah, boring. The Lord of the Dance?

Here's the thing. Pope Francis became a priest right as that second Vatican Council, and the new Mass is changing, and he loved it. It was a seminal moment for him. Well, same with Bishop Martin here in Charlotte. It was a very generational thing for him, whereas Pope Leo, let's talk about Pope Leo for a second. Born in 1855, so he lived in Chicago, and grew up a boy with the Latin Mass. And probably had fond feelings of it, because he was a boy, and this is the way it was.

The new mask comes around when he's 15 years old. He's like, okay, this is, I'm speculating, of course, on him. I don't know what he truly feels in his heart of hearts, but he's 15. He's like, oh, we're doing this other thing. Okay, but it wasn't like, you know, Francis was. It was like, finally, we can get the vestiges off of this stuff. I feel like Pope Leo still has positive thoughts about the liturgy and the way things were done. He had an experience with it.

He received sacraments under the Latin Mass, and I feel like he has an appreciation for it. So, my hope, as he begins the Second Vatican Council stuff, as you say, teachings on it, it will be like, let's talk about this, and that Francis and this Bishop Martin are the aberration. And I just... I say this, I've said this a dozen times in this program, I don't even go to Latin Mass. I've been a few times. I like it. It's fine. Whatever.

It's not my thing. Sure, go for it. Whatever. But the way that the, I mean... The way that the Catholic faithful have, what they've had to endure in this country, given the sex scandal stuff, has been really tough, and you would think the people who want to go to church, who want to be there, want to worship Jesus, you wouldn't say, you can't worship that way. The attacks on people who want the Latin Mass, hey, look, if some Latin Mass typers are kind of jerks, maybe you should, as a father, say, hey, stop being a jerk.

Don't be a jerk. But don't be a jerk yourself. A lot of people have a lot of math. Exactly. Don't be a jack wagon. It's so easy. Don't be a jack wagon. Quote, Benedict. Quote, graphic. Quote, graphic. That was the most Gen X thing to say. Don't be a jack wagon. I think it's pretty obvious. You bring up a good point. What Pope Benedict did in 2009. Yeah, because they both learned from each other, and they beautify each other. Yeah, of course.

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious by just casual, you know, humble observation of both Pope Leo and Pope Francis. Pope Leo. How he carries himself and how he even celebrates mass, how he walks around, what vestments he wears. I mean, it's pretty clear he has some type of affinity for it. I mean, he's restored a lot of the traditions that Pope Francis kind of bucked, and I'm not here to get into motivation as to why. It's just that's a humble observation.

You see it. So, I have hopes for that, and I guess just to speak to specifically the people in Charlotte, like, I mean, it's got to be so frustrating. I really feel for you because, like you said, Josh, it's like... Clearly, the people are upset because they care. They want to live a sacramental life. They want a good, holy, orthodox, reverent mass, and they love and are attached to the rich historical tradition of the church in terms of how we have our liturgy.

And all of that makes sense to me. And so, when you have someone come in immediately and make a really big power play and clearly not communicating or listening to his flock. If you get a dubia from a third of the priests in your diocese, first off, you're not listening to your priests, but you're not even listening. You're not listening to the people. You're not listening to your priests. It's not a good situation. So, I appreciate the humility and the...

The tact that I think everyone, especially the priests, have used at this point. They could have been a lot. I can't speak to everyone, but they could have chosen a lot of different ways to go about this. So, I appreciate the respect for the church, our mother, at the same time. That is one of the cool things about the church, is we do have channels for this. We do have opportunities.

And so, yeah, I just really feel for you guys over in Charlotte. I'd imagine myself, I would be, you're probably a little bit more charitable than I would. I think I'd be very, very angry. But also, at the same time, like, I feel like you probably just humbly, you want to do God's will, serve the church, and live a sacramental life. That's the core. I guess maybe if I could communicate that, too, if I could sit down with someone that could actually, was actually listening, wasn't just doing things, that's what I would communicate.

Good people, like they just want to live good sacramental lives. They're angry because they care, not because, not of an arrogance thing, or not out of an ego thing you want, and maybe some are, but I'd say the majority that I talk to, that's just where they are, and that's a beautiful thing that should be encouraged. The same could be said of a Novus Ordo parish, too, right?

But this isn't even TLM. I know TLM's a part of this, but this is affecting Novus Ordo parishes. Even in the journey, someone pointed this out. They don't hate their sheep. Right, even in the germ, someone pointed this out, the germ assumes Ad Orientum posture. I go to a Novus Ordo, quote-unquote, church that has Ad Orientum posture, you know, that's treated like, you know, the devil in certain communities, like, oh my gosh, you wouldn't face the flock, which is crazy, but like, again.

These aren't even, like, crazy, the most radical, whatever, and I'm like, I got a lot of respect for those people, actually, but, like, these are really normal, everyday Catholics that want to receive the sacraments, live a good life, and go to heaven, you know, be reverent, respect authority, but, you know, see obvious power plays happening that are a problem. So, I don't even think this is a trad whatever thing. This is, like, a faithful thing. This is your flock that you're not listening to, clearly.

This wouldn't have happened if there was communication and compromise and things like that. This is, like, a raw power play. Church, that is going to listen to your people, right? Of course, there is that. Yeah, I mean, there is that layer over the top of all of it. As long as you do not say something that makes me angry, says Bishop Grumpy. Yeah, that is tough. Okay, 12 zone. We need to move away from the Pope Francis being disgusted by people who go to church kind of stuff.

Yeah, like, let us just be happy. As my 15-year-old would say. Do not be a jack-lagging, just be happy. We got some Pope Alex from today's episode. Kumbaya. All right, Josh, what do you got? Well, this is totally Twilight Zone. It can explain what's going on with all the Somali-run daycares in Minnesota, but the Trump administration, the Health and Human Services Department, is working on rescinding a rule that was put in by Joe Biden and his administration that allowed daycare centers to receive federal funding without verifying attendance.

That's right. The Biden administration didn't require verification that kids were actually attending these child care centers before he would give them as much as $19 billion in federal funding. Have you read any good headlines on this, Josh? Because that's not what's said.

It's that Trump is punishing five blue states and taking away money from innocent kids who need child care. That's like... That's a little bit of an exaggeration, but that's basically been the whole point. Yeah, if by innocent kid you mean a 45-year-old Somali guy.

The kids in which you don't need to verify that they're real. Our country is so unserious. You're getting a glimpse into how unserious all of this is. We have entire states that run daycare operations with federal money that do not need to provide Social Security numbers.

For employees or for children. It is crazy. When Donald Trump first ran for president 10 years ago, he said, we are governed by stupid people. Like, these laws and these things we are doing are stupid. These are idiots. And you are like, oh my gosh, this guy, that is a little harsh. And you are like, yeah, wow, no, he was right. This is really, or are they stupid, or they know what they are doing and they are corrupt?

The answer is, it is not a good answer no matter what. Twilight Zone. Hello, people. Why are we doing this? Also, sending them as much as $19 billion in federal funding, that is almost what we would get in oil from Venezuela. Oh, yeah. Good point.

So, just to talk about the scope of these problems, $19 billion, not all of it maybe is fraudulent, not all of it, but say like a couple billion is fraud. But what we need to is we need to have lawmakers on Capitol Hill say, enough of this. Stop giving money to daycare centers that don't exist.

You know, just cut taxes for families. Make it so that they can keep their kids at home if the wife wants to, or the husband, or whatever. Wants to be a stay-at-home mom or dad or whatever. Cut taxes instead of having the money go to these small daycare centers. Or you could take that money and go pay a daycare center, and then you wouldn't have fake ones popping up. Yeah, exactly. Because you'd actually have to go. That's why the money should follow the recipient.

The same thing, this is what we talk about with schools. We shouldn't give money to schools, we should give money to parents so that they can buy education for their children. Then we see, oh, this school doesn't have any more students. Fund students, not schools. That is one of Chris Ruffo's primary tenants. I got to just give money.

All right, Erika, your twad's on the line. Oh, boy. I am on Mom Donnie watch, you guys. I am up here in the Northeast. It is chilly. It is cold, and we have a socialist mayor in New York City.

And with the whole, like, personnel is policy, right, Josh? Am I right? Personnel is policy. So, he has been putting in place his administration. And this week, he appointed one of his advisors during the campaign. This was his housing policy advisor during the campaign. Her name is Sia Weaver, and in fact, this week, she was inducted as his director of the mayor's office to protect tenants.

And let's just say she has a history. So, I was like, personnel's policy? What's his policy going to look like for, this would be like the office in charge of making sure that landlords are doing their job, you know, rent control, all this stuff, protecting the tenants.

Michelle Tandler, who is a refugee from San Francisco, she's an amazing investigative journalist. She's done some great job out on the West Coast. She came to the East trying to escape California, and she did some digging into Sia Weaver's Twitter history before she deleted her ex-account. So, Sia Weaver is this new appointee in the... She's the new director of tenants or something in New York City. So, here's a few choice quotes. There is no such thing. As a good gentrifier, only people who are actively working on projects to dismantle white supremacy and capitalism, and people who aren't.

Wow. Mic drop. Gentrifier. Yeah, that's a banger. Gentrifier is people going to communities and slowly transform it, you know, from, let's say, a historically black neighborhood to being a richer white neighborhood or whatever, so. Exactly. But, you know, usually the gentrifiers are almost always. Gay men, by the way. Yeah, Sia Weaver also believes in rent control.

Awesome. Rent control, I'm just going to keep going. Rent control is a perfect solution to everything. It is an effective way to shrink, yes, the value of real estate. It is a more effective way to shrink the value of real estate than reducing rezoning applications. And to see a weaver, one of the goals of being a housing advisor would be to shrink the value of real estate.

She wants to. Like, that's her goal. Because when I first read that, I was like, oh, she's criticizing rent control. Nope, that's one of her goals. She says, this country built wealth for white people through genocide, slavery, stolen land, and labor. Awesome. White supremacy built both the North and the South, and private property.

Is the weapon of white supremacy. So, New York City, that is your new director of tenant rights. All right, audio meme. Good luck. Dad, can we get Venezuela? No, we have Venezuela at home. Yes, we are already growing our own Venezuela in New York City. Of course, Department of Justice's civil rights. Yeah, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon says that the feds are on it. They are watching New York City with eagle eyes. Just waiting to bounce as soon as they violate something, but it is what you vote for.

I think Hugo Chavez would approve. All right. She's got a wealthy $1.7 million, $1.6 million home, too. Indeed. She's totally full of gas. Indeed, indeed. Hooking with gas. And she's white, so maybe she's proving her own. She's following the Bernie Sanders. Why don't you get away with your home, hon? Bernie Sanders playbook. Love it.

Okay, I'm going to take everyone here on an odyssey, okay? Oh, I love odysseys. It's in regards to Hilton Hotels. Hmm. Okay, so to start, set the scene. Well, I guess Tim Waltz dropped out over this, but Minneapolis daycare fraud. Turns out, not the first fraud related to the Somali community, but there was the feeding kids. Autism centers, yep. You know, long, illustrious list of fraud. So, we get the video, you know, there's no kids in the daycare. DHS is like, say less, we're going to go to Minneapolis to go sort this out.

Minneapolis ups its presence, they go, and they try to book hotels for work. And they were rejected. The rooms were canceled when they found out that they worked for DHS by what seemed to be a Hilton Hotel, and I'll say that's important. It'll come in later, but it was in writing. So, I don't know who the genius behind this operation, but they literally have it in writing. They were canceling them because here's the exact quote.

From, uh, based on upcoming reservations. For further investigation online, we have found information about immigration work connected with your name, and we will be canceling your upcoming reservation. You should see a proper cancellation email in your inbox shortly after.

This email is in regards to a reservation you made with Hampton in Lakeville property. We have noticed an influx of GOV reservations made today that have been for DHS, and we are not allowing any ICE or immigration agents to stay on our property. If you are with DHS or immigration, let us know, as we will have to cancel your reservation. Please pass this info on to your co-workers that we are not allowing any immigration agents to house on our property.

So, you know, people were kind of like, okay, Hilton, like, what's going on here? It turns out this was not a Hilton. It was a franchise of Hilton owned by an independent group. So, you take a look into the LLC.

This particular hotel, the Hampton Inn Lakeville, outside Minneapolis, was bought for $15 million last summer. The LLC was used to purchase the hotel as owned by four Indian partners, Parmjeet Singh, Anupreet, Hundal, Karan Deep, Nagra, and Mohinderjeet Kaur. Whoa, Tom. Are you sure they aren't Scandinavians? Yeah, they're from Denmark. They're Scandinavians. They sound like very Swedish names there. This was last summer's purchase, franchise.

And it's a franchise called Everpeak Hospitality. So, Hilton responds and is like, hey guys, you know, you can't, you can't do this. Don't blame us. Like, you can't, you can't just say no, you can't stay here specifically because you do immigration enforcement work. And they're like, no, no, no, it's all good. Everclear comes back, it's all good. We got it sorted out. It's fine. We're going to change it.

So, this guy, Nick Sorter, shows up, independent journalist, and goes up to the hotel. This is after they had the conversation, supposedly. He is in Lakewood. It is January 5th. Hello, how are you? Good, how are you doing? Good. Do you have any rooms for tonight?

You should, yeah. Okay. Like, how many? Can we get, like, ten? Ten? I mean, yeah, I know that could be. Let's see. Did you already make reservations by any chance? No. No? What's the name? It would just, it would be, I'll just put it under my... Right now?

It depends, because there's a lot of stuff going on right now. Not. ...accepting people from immigration, ICE agents, DHS, into our property. It's just a part of management ownership. Okay, I thought that changed today. I just talked to the owner of the building, and he didn't say there hasn't been any changes.

Very interesting. Good job, Nick. And now we get a statement from Hilton. Which, to be clear, I don't even think I'm blaming Hilton on this. No, I am not. I do not blame Hilton. Statement from Hilton on a recent video. The independent hotel owner had assured us that they had fixed this problem and published a message confirming this. A recent video clearly raises concerns that they are not meeting our standards and values. As such, we are taking immediate action to remove this hotel from our systems.

Hilton is and has always been a welcoming place for all. We are also engaging with all of our franchisees to reinforce the standards. We hold them... So, Hilton is now done with them. Now, again, this is just a suggestion. Maybe we should look into the visa potential of the owners of this building?

And take a look to see if they're here legally. It's kind of funny. When this broke on social media, some armchair constitutional scholars were like, oh, we might just get a Third Amendment case, you know, quartering of troops and stuff like that. It's like, no, no, no, no, no. First of all, our federal government is paying for it. They're not just saying, you can't let our people stay. And it's not like homes. It's like a place of business. But that's not even the end of it.

The United States federal government has lots of employees in lots of the agencies all across the United States of America, and Hilton had a choice to make. Do you want to foreclose any sales to any federal government agency, any of their employees? You have a choice to make, Hilton. You can say you do not want to sell to any Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, name all the alphabet agencies.

You have to say no to all of them. You don't get to pick and choose, and so Hilton made a very rapid decision, and I applaud that, being like, yeah, no, no, we're not on behalf of our shareholders. We are not going to commit financial suicide and say no to the United States federal government. You do not have the choice to say, I'm going to do business with the United States federal government, and then when the government comes knocking and wants to buy the room that you said, oh, no, we don't rent to you.

That doesn't fly. So, it's good to see him take care of business and say... Great to see that from Hilton, but I can't help but think of the irony of if you are an immigrant, a recent immigrant to America, and you buy and take advantage of America's economic system, and then you deny immigration... You deny access to the business that you operate, run, make money off of to immigration to a specific function of the U.S. government. Dare I say that's not super American?

Yeah. I hate to ask some uncomfortable questions here, but are we a country, or are we just here for everyone to take an economic advantage of us? No, we actually mean it. We actually mean it when we want our laws enforced. We have had a very generous immigration policy since 1965. It has been going for 60 years. The question is, is it going to continue in the future? And it's not if we keep getting abuses like this. I think we got to get rid of chain migration immediately.

I think we should prioritize cultures and countries that we have pre-existing relationships with that are our allies. And maybe even those should be revisited, because frankly, Britain's going to be a majority Muslim pretty soon. So, maybe it might be a good time to take a pause and take a beat on some of this stuff. But yeah, that is very troubling. You're right. That we would have four Indians who own these hotels who refuse to rent hotel rooms to our own federal government?

Like, why? I don't know how much longer we can be a serious country with that kind of arrangement. Anyway, good show, guys. Back to form. Deep episode on Thursday, another episode on Friday. Coming soon. If you want to support us, go check out Charity Mobile or become a champion. Thank you to all our champions listening today. CatholicVote.org slash champions is where you can join them. It is the best way to support us. Thank you to all of our champions. We are going to end in a daily prayer today.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Soul of Christ, sanctify me. Body of Christ, save me. Blood of Christ, inebriate me. Water from the side of Christ, wash me. Passion of Christ, strengthen me. Oh, good Jesus, hear me. Within your wounds, hide me. Permit me not to be separated from you. From the evil one, protect me. And at the hour of my death, call me and bid me to come to you. That with your saints, I may praise you forever and ever.

Amen. St. Thomas More, St. Fidelis, Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Fun fact, say that every time I receive the Eucharist, it might be my favorite prayer of all time. I love the Anima Christi. Okay, have a great week, gang, and we will catch you guys on the next Live on Friday. Peace.