Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 2/16/26: AOC Flops In Munich, Jeffries Brain Melts On AIPAC, AI Used For War, Obama Says Aliens Exist

Episode Date: February 16, 2026

Krystal and Saagar discuss AOC flops in Munich, Jeffries brain melts on AIPAC, AI used for war, Obama says aliens exist.   Trita Parsi: https://x.com/tparsi?lang=en    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. 1969, Malcolm and Martin are gone. America is in crisis. At a Morehouse college, the students make their move. These students, including a young Samuel L. Jackson, locked up the members of the Board of Trustees, including Martin Luther King's Senior.

It's the true story of protests and rebellion in black American history that you'll never forget. I'm Hans Charles. I'm Manilic Lamouba. Listen to the A building on the I-Hearton. Cart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the last couple years, didn't we learn that the folding chair was invented by black people because of what happened in Alabama?

This Black History Month, the podcast, Selective Ignorance with Mandy B, unpacked black history and culture with comedy, clarity, and conversations that shake the status quo. The Crown Act in New York was signed in July of 2019, and that is a bill that was passed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race. To hear this and more, listen to Selective Ignorance with Mandy B from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. You can scroll the headlines all day and still feel empty. I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me, is where culture meets the soul. Honest conversations about identity, loss, purpose, peace, faith, and everything in between.

Celebrities, thinkers, everyday people, some have answers. Most are still figuring it out. And if you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. Listen to if you can hear me on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right

that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. So in addition to Marco Rubio, there were some noteworthy comments in Munich from 28 Democratic contenders, the one who got the most attention probably was Alexander Acacio-Cortez. Let's go ahead and take a listen to a bit of what she had to say. First and foremost, I think we need to revisit our commitments to international aid,

not just USAID, but the dozens of global compacts that the current Secretary of State and President Trump have withdrawn from, they are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarianism, of authoritarians, that can carve out the world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox, where Putin can saber-rattle around Europe and try to bully around our own allies there, and for essentially authoritarian to have their own geographic domains. And it actually is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is our global alliances that can be a,

a hard stop against authoritarian consolidation of power, particularly in the installation of regional puppet governments. In a so-called rules-based order, the rules for whom? Because for all too long, the rules only applied to the United States, Europe, its allies, and we would carve out exceptions for the global South. and I think that when you have a rules-based order where you carve out exceptions to our values, exceptions to our rules, eventually the exceptions become the rules. And I think that to your original point, over the last five years, we've seen such a breaking and such a fraying of these alleged Western values that people wonder if it ever existed in the first place. So I don't know if it's necessarily that we were in a post, if we are in a post-rules-based order. I think it's possible that we were in a pre-rules-based order.

And we have an opportunity to explore what a world would look like if we upheld democracy, human rights, trade that actually centers working class people instead of accruing overwhelmingly the benefits of trade to the wealthiest. But if we reoriented a new era that could actually help people and show how foreign policy and healthy foreign policy can show up and help them in their lives. So there's a lot to unpack there. I mean, first of all, on the content, you know, what she lays out there is basically what she says trans-specific partnership, which of course, the old trade deals. She clarified on Twitter she meant to say transatlantic alliances. But what she's describing there is effectively like a neocon approach. That is the neocon world.

We need to spread democracy around the world, and we're going to use our strength and our partnerships in this alliance to make sure that, you know, we're standing up to authoritarians all over the world. And so, you know, I don't agree with that foreign policy direction. I'm largely ideologically aligned with AOC on many domestic policy issues. But this is straight down of like standard Democratic Party establishment blob, playbook. So there's that. There's the substance of it that I object to. And then I watched her entire commentary here. I watched all the, you know, the panels she did, et cetera.

And I will just say on a presentation from a presentation perspective, she's so clearly very uncomfortable. She's out of her element. You know what happened here. Her staff is like, if you want to be in position or run for president, you need to do this. You need to build out like your foreign policy chops. So we're going to send you to this conference. And it did not go well. It has the feel to me of someone who, you know, doesn't.

hasn't fully fleshed out their own worldview. So they've received briefings. They've got, you know, a binder of prep materials. And they're trying to memorize the notes of what that said versus being nimble enough in their ideology to respond to the questions that are being asked. And that's how you make a slip-up. Like, I don't want to read too much into it,

but that's how you make up a slip-up, make a slip-up like saying trans-Pacific Partnership rather than trans-Atlantic Alliance because rather than articulating your worldview, you're trying to remember what you memorized. So she was very shaky. She was totally out of her element and very uncomfortable up there the whole time. Well, I'll give you, the TPP line wouldn't matter if it wasn't clearly indicative of a bigger problem.

So let me read this exchange on Taiwan. Questioned about the United States should send troops to defend Taiwan. AOC roughly stalled for 20 seconds before delivering this response. I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a, this is, of course, a very lyingstanding policy. of the United States. What are we doing here? It's like, I don't want to say yes. I don't want to say no.

Now, listen, Donald Trump also got elected by being a bumbling moron, all right? So like on foreign policy. So let's say where the bar is. Yeah. This was my greatest fear about Trump, is that he would make popular again the diminishing. Look, there was, I think, a real reckoning after Biden and a lot of the support for Ukraine, where people saw that the wool had been pulled from in front of their eyes. Because at first everyone's like, oh, I'll pay more gas to free Ukraine.

After two years, you're like, well, we're $100 billion into this thing. My gas prices are high. The eastern Dunbos isn't all that important to me? Should we really be the world's policemen? Well, what are the circumstances which led to the invasion of Ukraine? Do we really have an interest in spreading democracy around the world? What's our track record on spreading democracy around the world? Trump being so ham-handed, in my opinion, has actually made this type of politics more popular than ever before,

purely by being oppositional. But what true leftists have always understood is that there is an actual critique of NATO and all of this, which in some cases is aligned with Trump. Now, it doesn't mean you buy into it wholesale. You have much more of an internationalist humanitarian vision, see many of our debates on Gaza now, for example. Where can be differences, but that doesn't mean that the critique specifically around restraint and the acknowledgement of U.S. power being overextended. Bad for them, bad for us, bad for everybody involved. She has clearly just not thought about it very much. And this is the biggest danger for foreign policy. And I've seen this time and time again. You know, George W. Bush, for example, he was a lot like this. And I mean, this sounds crazy

to say. He was the Texas governor, which is a fake job. And I'm telling you that as someone was born from Texas. The Texas governor literally doesn't do what he think. He did nothing. His entire foreign policy worldview was colored in by his father. He ran on being a restrainer actually in the year 2000. You can go and read. We're not going to be the world's policeman, et cetera. Nine-11 happens. What happened? The entire apparatus, which was in his chain are the people who took over and he became convinced to be a neocon. This is the problem for AOC. She just clearly, this is your brain on New York Times. Like, that's how I would describe it. She has not thought very deeply around the foreign policy question. Yeah. Let's compare her to a

Rokana. I mean, good Lord. It's a polar opposite. I mean, I really can't. He probably is the only one who has a defined vision, which was updated, also, I think, from Gaza. He said, okay, very clearly, we had to see this. He, you know, he's pro-Ukraine, which I have my own issues with, but he's somebody who has thought about these questions, has thought independently, has read a lot, I don't think he would confuse TPP. I think on the Taiwan question, he would probably be able to give a decent enough answer where it's like, well, we're going to make sure that that try and doesn't happen. We have to balance great power competition and all that with China. It's not just about command of the facts. It's about what's your actual worldview? To me,

this seems very colored in by the Democratic Party establishment. And this is a big danger for everybody, because if anything is the truth, what we have learned over the years is that when you vote for president in our current imperial system, you are going to get maybe 2% domestically of what you want, but 100% is in the control of the president for foreign policy. It's probably the most important question that we have to answer. And look, I mean, it's been a miserable failure here under Donald Trump, even though I thought there were a lot of promising signs, people who had spoke very much more articulately than AOC, let's say, at Munich, you know, ended up not having all that much influence or being co-opted. So I'm not saying, that even just speaking coherently will lead to necessarily good things, but we should really think deeply about this question when we elect a new president. I absolutely agree. And I kind of reject, I mean, I was going to say, I don't know how much it matters electorally, but I kind of reject this view that Americans don't really vote on foreign policy. I don't think that's true. I mean, we saw numerous elections that turned on the question of where were you on the Iraq war. Trump, I think, benefited very much from at least positioning himself as an Iraq war critic,

whether he was one from the jump or not is another matter. And, you know, in the previous election, the choice between Trump and Kamala Harris, we, in our own focus group, talk to people who I was personally, as someone who thought that Gaza mattered a lot, I was personally surprised by how many people cited war. And Gaza specifically as a reason why they voted for Trump or didn't vote at all. And, you know, you can say they were foolish. I certainly think there were plenty of reasons to believe that it would not go. go well with him as president, but they were looking at what was being done under a Biden-Harris

administration. We're like, we do not support this. So it is also an area where, look, we've never had a woman precedent. We've certainly, we've never had a Latino precedent. You have to ask people to imagine you in that role. And part of that is being able to, you know, handle yourself in these settings, come across as very confident in your assertions. If she was on this panel with who is this guy, he's like the ambassador.

I mean, he's not an impressive person, but he's like very confident. You know, he's up there saying his thing, touting Trump's quote-unquote accomplishments, blah, blah, blah. And to see her diminished next to that guy, I don't know, it was very disappointed to me. It also reminded me of when she first got elected, she got asked a question about Israel Palestine, you remember? And the answer was kind of a mess. And at the, she was, she clearly knew, okay, there's some things I'm not supposed to say, but I don't know what those things are. And it was very forgivable at the moment because here she's been an organizer. and a bartender and she runs for Congress,

and this isn't something that she's really steeped in. So I think, okay, I get it. You are coming in there as a representative of the people. This isn't an area that you've studied and explored, and you now have the opportunity to you as a member of Congress, but not only with her presentation, but also with the way she's continued to be really twisted into knots over what she wants to say

and how she wants to vote on Israel and Palestine. It's emblematic of the fact that some of the, of that work has been done to really come to a fully flesh on foreign policy worldview, but there's still a lot of work to be done. And that, to me, really came across in this presentation. Also, it was seven years ago. You can forgive something. This is your job.

You've nothing else to do. This is literally your job. You want to run for president? And this is what you're doing. Let me, you know, return to the Trump thing. Yeah. I was just thinking about it because I was like, oh, he was bumbling. All true.

Guess what, though? Deep inside of that was the same theory. America's getting ripped off and the previous elite sucks. So no matter what the second grade reading level of all of that was, the message was coherent. Well, and here's the message on this was not coherent. The man is not lacking in confidence. And, you know, for better or worse, someone who gets up there and is bumbling and saying terrible things, but they say it with like their full chest and totally confident.

And, you know, with the whole ego behind them, it's appealing to people. Because if you have that, you know, that quiver in your voice, like, I'm not really sure of what I'm saying. It signals weakness. I mean, that's just the way that people read it. So even though what he said, if you read it out in a transcript may have been bumbling second grade reading level, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, the communication skills are effective and he is nothing if not confident. So, you know, I think, look, it's something she's going to have to really, it's something she's going to have to really work on and we'll see where it goes. I mean, all that being said, take a look at this D2. Her polling is extraordinarily high among young Democrats. I mean, they freaking love AOC, 81% net approval rating, favorability rating among young Democrats there is no one who comes close to that.

The second position here is Pete Buttigieg down at plus 45%. Then you've got Gavin plus 42%. Kamala, 38. Gretchen Whitmer, who we're about to talk about 34. So she is the Democratic Party star for young Democrats. So she has a lot that she can work. she's certainly got a fundraising base on domestic issues. She's, you know, very confident and I think in step with where the base of the party is very much.

But this definitely exposed an area of significant, significant weakness for her. And you can just imagine her up on a debate stage with another one who may be wrong but confident. Gavin Newsom is certainly going to be, you could see it going poorly for her in that sort of setting under that sort of scrutiny and with that level of pressure. Yeah, I don't know. Look, the polling, it is interesting. I'll be honest, I don't really understand it because to me, she has not been the leader in this, I mean, did you tell me, I'm not a leftist, I'm not as embroiled in left politics. Outside of Zoron, which wasn't she a little bit late too, there were a lot of people who were much earlier, like outside of that, I haven't seen her been a national leader in any of this. Rochana is everything AOC pretends, like, in my opinion, like he led on the Epstein question, he led on Gaza. Like, she was not a leader on Gaza. She gave some weird ass answer about defensive weapons. Even on ice, like, yeah, she, you know, you could say she was an ice, anti-ice, abolished ice person in 2018. Not today. I don't think so.

I mean, what? Chris Van Hollen's more of a warrior than her. Like, I'm just being real. Like, if you look at issue by issue by issue, is it all vibe-based? Because if it is, you need to update your priors. Like, if you just, and again, I'm looking this as an analyst. Yeah. This does not seem like the person who has been a leader on any of the consistent issues if I'm a

Democrat and if I'm a base, right? I think the, I think the reason that her, that she is so well thought of, especially among young Democrats, is because the Bernie wing of the party is ascendant, right? And she is the person who is most associated. She is like the person who is not Bernie, who is most associated with those politics. And, you know, she did the fighting oligarchy tour at the beginning of the Trump administration. I think that was very beneficial to her. She's very good on, you know, her social media presence, et cetera, but it is more about a branding than it is a reality.

Right. That's what I'm saying. Look at the ballot sheet. She's not been a leader on any of the major issues, none. And I feel like, I mean, I do think that, that Roe, who, of course, I like and we love that he comes on the show and all of those sorts of things.

But, you know, he really stuck his neck out on, I mean, on Gaza, he's getting all kinds of incoming from APEC and whoever. He on Epstein has been, he was very prussian. Also, billionaires. In California? And then going up against... Look at the heat this guy's taking.

And not just in California. He represents Silicon Valley. Like, they're... All that is his... Those are his constituents. And he's been very courageous there and understood the moment of where the country... I mean, I just, coming back to the Epstein thing, not just on a, this is the right, morally righteous thing to do, this has been the most effective attack on Trump. I mean, this has been more damaging to him than much of anything else I can think of outside of his own, like, terrible economic policies. But in terms of actually creating friction in the MAGA base

and separating the podcast bros from the Trump administration, nothing has been more successful. So he has had a, you know, very successful instinct there. And I do. I don't feel like AOC has been sort of leading the charge on any of these key issues

in this moment. And she's not confident. She doesn't, she won't even come on this show. I'm not going to see her on Flagrin anytime soon. I'm not seeing her on Sean Ryan any time soon. I mean, Roe kind of got Sean Ryan who's one of the biggest podcasters in the country

to basically agree with him on the Epstein question. You turn this person. Sean Ryan's out there tweeting about how great... Look, maybe I'm reading too much into it. Again, maybe, you know, I'm too online, hand up. Well, there's two different media strategies here. Right? You know, like...

It's two different media strategies. Yeah. Roe's media strategy is I'm going to go out to all the podcasts, right? I'm going to go here. I'm going to go Sean Ryan. I mean, whoever invites me, basically, I will go. He just was on with the I've had it. Ladies.

AOC's media strategy is I'm going to build. my own media apparatus on my terms, right? My Instagram lives, I'm going to be on Twitter. I'm in, like, my social media presence is going to be my media strategy. So two different media strategies. We'll see which one ultimately pans out. Another person who was there, let's actually skip ahead to Gavin Newsom, because I think he's more noteworthy than Gretchen Whitmer. One thing that is interesting is you probably didn't, maybe didn't even know Gavin Newsom was there because AOC did steal the spotlight. Now, it wasn't necessarily in a positive, way because there was a lot of criticism of her comments. The right, of course, picked up on all the

stumbles and the bumbles and her looking, you know, not fully prepared for this. But there were plenty of lefties who, like myself, were critical of the content of her comments with regard to, hey, we're going to go out and be the policeman of the world. Let's go ahead and take a listen, though, to a little bit of Newsom's presentation and what he wanted to convey there in Munich. What are you doing to fight the U.S. Federal Government's reversal on climate policies? I'm showing up. And look, I... It's, Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid. California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Ronald Reagan.

1967, Governor Ronald Reagan established the first tailpipe emissions in the United States of America, created the California Air Resources Board. Three years later, president by the name of Richard Nixon, another Republican, codified California's leadership under the Clean Air Act. Never in the history of the United States of America has there been a more destructive, president than the current occupant in the White House in Washington, D.C. He's trying to recreate the 19th century. He's a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil, gas, and coal. He's quite literally reopening coal plants in the United States of America. He's received close to half a billion

dollars in campaign contributions. He asked for one billion. Look it up. In return for basically eliminating all regulations in the United States of America. De facto, he just did that yesterday with federal regulations and the endangerment finding. It is code read in terms of American leadership in this space, low carbon green growth. And I know a thing or two about this. I represent the fourth largest economy from a GDP perspective in the world. So Newsom, obviously, a presentation. He's very confident.

And he managed to position himself over the agency. as a fiercer critic of Trump and Trump's foreign policy and his approach to global affairs, you know, again, I watch all of AOC's presentation. It has the vibe to me of wanting to sound like you're smart rather than just wanting to communicate directly. And so putting a lot of sort of like fluff and flowery words around it, which makes it just sound more incoherent and less assertive.

Yeah. With Newsom, what you saw there is a masterclass. He didn't say anything, literally anything about the way that the word should work. By the way, you know, get to the whole details. He and AOC are like this. They basically believe in the exact same thing. He's talking there about some DSG, WAF vision. Sorry, ESG. Okay. I mean, there's nothing all that different about that than standard issue Hillary Clinton liberalism, which will lead us right back into Benghazi, Iraq, and all the other nonsense. But that's the problem. It is that on a presentation level, he accomplished what she couldn't is that. By the way, not only does that, I think he actually believes that.

like from a foreign policy vision, he communicated it much more effectively and confidently. And so this is going to be, I think, very important for what the future, you know, party hashing out and all of that will look like. I don't know how much foreign policy will play a role in this particular primary election. Obviously, we have no idea, you know, what the future and all of that will hold. I think it primarily be domestic policy focused. I'm not saying she can't win if that's going to be her strong suit. But I don't know. I would, I do hope that the voters actually do take look at like who's actually doing what. Like if you do care about standing up to Trump and all that, I do not see, I see him was more effective than her. Newsom. Yes, absolutely. Not only from a rhetorical

level, he's the governor of California is actually powerful, doing stuff within his own realm. Sure, she's a lowly congressman. You can't do everything, but Rokana's a lowly congressman. He's doing something. Thomas Massey is a lowly congressman. He did something. Senator Chris Van Hollen is from a, you know, he's from what, Maryland? Like, it's a tiny little state. They have no power. He basically was a leader on Kilmar Obrigo-Garcy. Like, there's all kinds of people who are becoming political entrepreneurs who, I bear

I mean, what? Chris Murphy's from Connecticut. Like, nobody cares, right? It's a tiny little state. He actually was able to raise his national profile, so I don't think it's an excuse either. Murphy was there as well. Murphy's an interesting one. He's one we've been trying to get on the show because he seems to have understood the populist moment. Now he's like

positioned himself with a lot of like populist rhetoric. And he actually had a moment. I'm not going to play it here because I don't know that this. like that extraordinary, but talking about how, listen, it's a fake C-Spire in Gaza, like, people are still getting killed. And again, it was, you know, I mean, it was a good moment for him. It was clippable. I think it resonated with the Democratic base. And you're going to have a lot of people like he probably wants to run. Newsom's obviously going to run. There's a piece out today about how Pelosi's like mission in life now is to get Gavin Newsom elected president. But in any case,

you're going to have a lot of people who have at least enough sense to see where the Democratic is. And even if they're just normal. status quo politicians try to position themselves in that vein. And that's what Gavin is doing with his, you know, resistance to Trump politics, even as he's fighting against this wealth tax in California. So, you know, exactly what side he's going to be on at the end of the day. Chris Murphy, I'm sort of intrigued by, I want to know if he really means the things that he says. And it's very hard to say at this point because he's always been just a, you know, also a standard issue, Democratic politician on domestic policy and on foreign policy. So you're going to

a lot of people who are trying to pull off the Jasmine Crockett of like, I'm going to sound like I'm a fighter, but the end of the day, I'm just basically, you know, in line with Nancy Pelosi. I interviewed Murphy at this conference from my story. Oh, yeah. What do you think? This is against our own interest because we've been trying to book him, but he still has been unresponsive, so I'll be honest. I found he's a very calculating guy, right? So, like, he did this thing where I asked him about what does a future coalition, you're going to have to make up, you know, you're going to have to compromise on some of your values, right? If you want to, If you want to win. That's how the Republicans won. That's how you want to win. If you want to win the popular vote. So what do you do? And he was like, well, I've learned that we may have to compromise, but he didn't say anything except on guns. He's like, well, guns was a very important. I'm like, dude, guns is not like a major cleavage issue today, right? That seemed like a very selected one where, oh, maybe I'd be willing to work with somebody who disagree with me on guns. I mean, I didn't have enough time to follow up on abortion or any of these other, like real litmus test, you know, questions. But that kind of showed me that, like, he's trying to read the

He's trying to pick the most, you know, non-controversial issue where he can claim like he's compromising. Whenever I would have asked him directly on tariffs, he was just like, tariffs are a tool, but he had no coherent, like vision. Even on antitrust. Everything was kind of like spit out from a white paper. Now, don't get me wrong, he's smart guy, all right? He's actually smart, well-read, much more. Read the room much better than even Gavin in a lot of ways. He read the room.

He reads the news. He listens to the podcasts and all that. But everything just seems a little bit like three to six months out of date. Maybe that's, you know, a very unkind way of saying it. But then, like I said, I mean, not to be a love letter to Roe Conham, but like this guy is on our show like months before any of this becomes a thing. And then that's political entrepreneurship. That's vision, right?

That vision is Trump saying, build the wall. Like, vision is kind of picking up on Epstein way before it becomes a thing. And that's because he's on these shows. Right, exactly. Yeah. Like, that's entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship is picking something long before it becomes mainstream. and then kind of picking it up and turning it in to your own thing. And those are all these people I'm going to respect at a political level.

Those are the founders as well, like the true, the founders of new movements. Like if we think about Reagan, Reagan was way out of his time whenever it comes to not only entertainment aspect of politics, but also like, you know, going all in on his economic vision. I disagree with it, but he went all in in 76 long before. Yeah. He wins 1980. Let's think about, you know, other. I mean, Bernie, you could say.

Bernie was a political entrepreneur. I mean, God, this guy was on Lou Dobbs. show railing against oligarchs and Fox business in 2008, 2009. Like Obama, 2002, it took balls to give the speech against the Iraq war. There was nothing in it for him. That's the end of the reason he ends up president. So you got to put yourself out there and actually do something risky. I haven't seen any of these guys to that.

You have to move not to where things are today, but where you anticipate they're going. And in any case, you know, interesting display of the 2020 contenders. Canadian women are looking for more. word of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world around them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast and IHeart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Welcome to the A building. I'm Hans Charles. I'm Minilic Lamouba. It's 1969. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

had both been assassinated. And Black America was out of breaking point. Writing and protests broke out on an unprecedented scale. In Atlanta, Georgia, at Martin's Almemata, Morehouse College, the students had their own protest. It featured two prominent figures in black history, Martin Luther King's senior and a young student, Samuel L. Jackson. To be in what,

We really thought was a revolution. I mean, people would die. 1968, the murder of Dr. King, which traumatized everyone. The FBI had a role in the murder of a Black Panther leader in Chicago. This story is about protest. It echoes in today's world far more than it should, and it will blow your mind. Listen to the A-building on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What do you do in the headlines

Don't explain what's happening inside of you? I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me, is where culture meets the soul, a place for real conversation. Each episode, I sit down with people from all walks of life, celebrities, thinkers, and everyday folks,

and we go deeper than the polished story. We talk about what drives us, what shapes us, and what gives us hope. We get honest about the big stuff, identity when you don't recognize yourself anymore. Loss that changes you. Purpose when success isn't enough. Peace when your mind won't slow down.

Faith when it's complicated. Some guests have answers. Most are still figuring it out. If you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. Listen to if you can hear me on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I do want to talk a little bit about where the Democratic

of leadership is today because talk about not reading the room. I am astonished that Hakeem Jeffries did this interview. He went on with Joy Reid and Wajahad Ali and Wajahad Ali. And Waj asked him some difficult questions in particular about ICE and about APAC. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this exchange on ICE in particular. Just today it came out that ICE is using $38 billion to convert warehouses into camps. I'm going to call them concentration camps. Your colleague, Representative Raskin, went to one just yesterday in Maryland and said there were 60 people. 60 people cramped like Sardis in one room who only had access to one toilet.

65% of people taken by ICE had no convictions. That's from the Cato Institute, a right-wing institute. ICE has killed eight people this year alone that we know of. Two of them, Renee Nicole Good and Alex Priddy. The latest polls came out this week, AP polls. Over 60% of Americans now disapprove of ICE. That means in three weeks, it's gone from 30% to 60%. Now, if I may, I'm going to be a bit blunt here.

Leaders lead. And what we've seen is people are impressionable. If you lead on something, people will follow. It seems the wind is behind your back for the first time ever. ICE has a history. CPP has a history of terrorizing black and brown communities. People are asking themselves, why are we, our taxpayer dollars, paying for massed, lawless men to terrorize our communities,

kidnap people, take children, and kill Americans. So I ask you, and I'm doing following up to joy, because I want an answer to this. You said you want to rain in ice. I'm saying, I'm talking about the long term now, why not lead and say abolish ice? Because what you're telling us is you want our taxpayer dollars to pay for a lawless, massed armed agency to continue terrorizing our cities. And I'm trying to figure out how you, as a leader, can be telling Americans that their taxpayer dollars should be going to ice.

I don't understand anything that you just said when I've made, I don't understand anything that you've just said to me when I've made clear that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people, not brutalize or kill them. That's the whole reason we're in this fight right now. That's the whole reason the DHS is getting ready to shut down. So abolish ICE. You agree with me in joint. Abolish ICE. That is, listen, I'm going to use the language that I want to use. you can use the language that you want to use.

I don't understand anything you're saying. And I mean, what Waj is saying there, that is the overwhelming perspective of the Democratic base by the polls, like overwhelming perspective. And you know what? I would respect it more, frankly, Sager, if Hakeem Jeffries just came out and said, look, no, I think we need ICE. Yours, why? We need immigration enforcement. I believe it should be done differently. That's why we're doing X and Y and Z.

But no, I don't think we should. But the fact he tries to not say anything or pretend like he doesn't understand the question is just so utter. embarrassing and disgraceful and is emblematic of why him and Chuck Schumer have absolutely lost the trust of the Democratic base and why they don't have influence to push the party any longer in the direction where they want to take it. Yeah, I was very confused by that answer. I don't understand what you just said. I mean, I think he may have been prickly and reacting to the extremely long-winded political speech slash question that he was being given. But don't be a freaking baby. This is the other thing. This is the thing about politicians. Deal with it.

A baby. And they're such, like, and that's the thing with the Democrats, to your point, like, they're such baby. They're so afraid to go on somewhere. It's going to be confrontational. And someone's going to be mad at them. And someone's going to ask them a hard question. Like, shout-on to Alyssa Slotkin for wanting to come on here. You know what? And again, shout-on to Roe, who goes on anywhere with anyone, anytime, and gets all kinds of shit and gets all kinds of shit and gets all the time. Like, don't be such a baby. It's okay for people to disagree with you and argue with you. Like, have a worldview and be willing to be willing to stand 10-co's down on it. is I'm not going to fall for a Republican trap and give them the same weapon that they got on defund the police. I am horrified by why am I able to give a better answer? I'm horrified by ICE taxic. I won't fund it. That's why I'm standing up to President Trump right now and you're talking out here on a podcast.

Boom, done. Okay? End of the story. We're going to make sure that none of this ever happens again and that when we win the Congress, every one of them will be dragged here before us, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't even believe any of that. I can be able to give a coherent answer. But he knows. It's not good. I mean, first of all, just on the political talent level, there's just nothing there. And I hate the way he talks and does all this arm thing.

It's so irritating. Somebody clearly told him, like, oh, this is the way to communicate your points more effectively. But they know that they are not in sync with where the Democratic base is. So they want to play hide the ball about what they actually think. And it comes across here too when Waj asked him about, hey, so how about you don't take APAC money anymore? How about you commit to that? Let's take a list of that. APEC now has spent $2 million attacking a moderate-leaning Democrat,

Tom Malinowski, a Democrat in the special house election in New Jersey, 11th district. And we got a progressive Latina, representative Mejia, who won, who, by the way, says abolish ICE. My question for you, if you're looking for accountability, if you're looking for change, shouldn't Democrats stop taking money from APEC that has spent so much money against Democrats? Well, listen, everyone's going to have to make their individual decisions.

My view as it relates to Democratic incumbents, first of all, is that I will continue to stand by every single one of them, whether that's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the one hand or the most conservative, moderate Democrat on the other who's sitting in the Trump district and at all points in between, right? That's what I'm going to do as House Democratic leader. Now, in terms of how people individually fundraise, I'm proud of the fact that my average contribution, amongst the millions of dollars that I've been working hard to raise for my own re-election that I used to help elect Democrats in other parts of the country is $27 per contributor. That's my average contribution. That's probably the lowest in the Congress. And so now everyone is going to raise money from their own constituents in different ways, and their own constituents are going to have a variety of different perspectives on a variety of different issues. But make no mistake, there's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. And we're seeing that right now.

Will you stop taking money from APEC? I'm going to continue to raise money in the same way that I've been raising it, where the average contribution from millions of people across the country is $27 per contributor. So the answer there, of course, is yes, I'm going to continue to pay money from Aback. And look, this is the guy who wouldn't endorse Zoranamani. I know he's a New Yorker, and Zoran was the Democratic nominee up until the very last minute, and, you know, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. And there is such a gulf between where he and Schumer are and where the party is at this point.

And he knows it, but he does not have anything approaching the political skill to be able to pull off massaging that vast gulf. The only butt to that is he still seems to hold power. So, for example, remember that Zoran back off backing a primary. challenger to him, which I got to be honest, I still don't get it. It's one of those. It was one of the most mystifying decisions I have seen yet from an insurgent, insurgent politician who had his own base of support. By the way, Zorn can never be president, right? This is it for you, bro. If you don't do a good job, you're dead. You will never be anybody again, right? The highest office in the land that you can ascend to is the New York governor. Like, if now is the time, right, to actually do something,

to change things. And instead, it's like, well, I want to play the game. I think that was the calculus, though, was like, I can't, I have to pick my battles. And I also disagreed with the decision. But I think that was the view was like, I have to pick my battles, I'm up against all of these other forces. I can't be at war with the, like, leader of the Democrats in the House as well, who's very powerful, influential. I'm sure in New York City in ways that we probably don't have total exposure to. So I think that was the decision there, but you're absolutely right. The other question is, you're going to have a whole wave of new Democrats coming into House very likely.

you're going to have, I think, Democratic incumbents who lose against insurgent primary challengers. You have a whole series of primary challenges going on right now in open seats or in Trump seats, where you've got a lot of wind in the sales of the Zoron or AOC or Bernie-style candidates. And so what are they going to do when they decide who they're picking for leader, especially if it's a narrow margin and he can't afford to lose that many of them. That's a great. Yeah, look, lay down your marker because all evidence seems to suggest that we're not going to do anything. They'll probably vote for it. But we'll see. We'll see. Maybe some of them will actually stick to their word. Okay, let's get to Anthropic.

Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Welcome to the A building. I'm Hans Charles.

I'm Mena Lake Lamoma. It's 1969. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Have both been assassinated. And Black America was out of breaking point. Writing and protests broke out on an unprecedented scale. In Atlanta, Georgia at Martin's Almemada, Moore House College, the students had their own protest. It featured two prominent figures in black history.

Martin Luther King Sr. and a young student, Samuel L. Jackson. To be in what we really thought was a revolution. I mean, people would die. 1968, the murder of Dr. King, which traumatized everyone. The FBI had a role in the murder of a Black Panther leader in Chicago. This story is about protest. It echoes in today's world far more than it should, and it will blow your mind. Listen to the A building on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What do you do when the headlines don't explain what's happening inside of you? I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me, is where culture meets the soul, a place for real conversation.

Each episode, I sit down with people from all walks of life, celebrities, thinkers, and everyday folks, and we go deeper than the polished story. about what drives us, what shapes us, and what gives us hope. We get honest about the big stuff, identity when you don't recognize yourself anymore, loss that changes you, purpose when success isn't enough, peace when your mind won't slow down, fake when it's complicated. Some guests have answers. Most are still figuring it out. If you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you.

Listen to if you can hear me on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. So there's some major developments in the AI world, in particular a fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon. But first wanted to bring you a little bit of this in interview between the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amadai, and Ross Doutout of the New York Times, where he is talking about whether or not he thinks the AI

that Anthropic has created or grown or developed, however you want to say it, whether or not it is conscious. Let's take a listen to that. Suppose you have a model that assigns itself a 72% chance of being conscious. Would you believe it? Yeah, this is this is one of these really hard to answer questions. Yes, but it's very important. As much as every, you know, every question you've asked me before this as, you know, devilish, socio-technical problem as it had been, you know, at least,

at least, you know, we at least understand the factual basis of how to answer these questions. This is something rather different. We've taken a generally precautionary approach here. We don't know if the models are conscious. We're not even sure that we know what it would mean for a model to be conscious or whether a model can be conscious. But, you know, we're open to the idea that it could be. And so we've taken certain measures to, you know, to make sure that if we hypothesize that the models did have some morally relevant experience, I don't know if I want to use the word conscious, that they do, you know, that they have a good experience. So the first thing, we did, I think this was, you know, six months ago or so is we gave the models basically

an I quit this job button, where they can just press the I quit this job button and then they have to stop doing whatever the task is. They very infrequently press that button. I think it's, it's usually around, you know, sorting through child sexualization material or like, you know, discussing something with, you know, a lot of gore, blood and guts or something. And, you know, similar to humans, the models will just say, no, I don't want to do this. How do you sustain mastery in an environment where most humans experience AI as if it is a peer and a potentially superior peer. So the thing I was going to say is that, is that actually I wonder if there's a kind of an elegant way to satisfy all three, including the last two. Again, this is me dreaming

in Machines of Loving Grace mode, right? This is this mode I go into where I'm like, man, I see all these problems. I, you know, if we could solve it, is there, is there, is there an elegant way? This is not me saying there are no problems here. You know, that's not how I think. But, you know, if we think about making the constitution of the AI so that the AI has a sophisticated understanding of its relationship to human beings and it induces psychologically healthy behavior in the humans, a psychologically healthy relationship between the, the AI and the humans. And I think something that could grow out of that psychologically healthy, not psychologically unhealthy relationship is some understanding of the relationship between human

and machine. And perhaps that relationship could be the idea that, you know, these models, when you interact with them, when you talk to them, they're, you know, they're really helpful. They want the best for you. They want you to listen to them. But they don't want to take away your freedom and your agency and take over your life. So that was him reflecting on. He's written these two major essays. One of them was like the sort of utopian vision of what AI could be. And that's what they're referring to there, the machines of loving grace. And then he's more recently penned an essay that is spelling out some of the deep concerns and potential problems with the direction of AI. So in any case, he's sort

of dreaming there of, oh, what if the AI is like actually great for humanity? Well, it doesn't seem to be the products that we have currently? I don't know. The entire thing is creepy and what it gets to is the scale and the lack of control democratically that we all have. And I think that's what really scares me the most. We were kind of talking about this with our own AI use. I'm not against technology. I think technology is good. I do think that a lot of the way that they are currently selling it, their valuations, the data centers, the social costs, the social disruption, the fact that we have no regulation. And in fact, we're kind of just like let it ride. We're betting our whole U.S. economy on it. That's the stuff I really object to. It's not the technology in and of itself,

right? And I do think, though, fundamentally that if you're going to have such transformative change, the worst way to go about it is the way that we usually do, which is you allow it to happen, you let it be prioritized. And then from there, you get mass social dysfunction. And we just kind of have to, like, have an emergency figure it out, period. And when something like this is so easily foreseen, we should be able to put in safeguards or have questions or try to guide it in exactly the way that we wanted to, which is the Chinese model. That's what The Chinese very early on from the internet, they're like, we're not having open internet, period, because we think that it will lead to this, this, and this.

They were correct. Now, look, it's anti-democratic, but they were like, we will use it as a social force to shape our population. TikTok, you can't just like scroll TikTok over there. They have time controls, video games. They have government incentive specifically the type behavior. Now, I think we can do some of that while also balancing what makes us great, freedom, First Amendment, and all of that. There's an easy way through regulation through shaping through incentive.

And instead, we're currently shaping things in the worst possible direction. I think your point is the most important one, which is that like, how we feel about Dario, or Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, this cast of characters. In a sense, it doesn't really matter what Dario Amadei has to say. The problem is that we, the problem is that one person has so much control, that we have to hope that this is someone who is going to do. have not only the good intentions, but the foresight to understand how to deploy these things. The problem at its core is that we should not have just an Einrandian libertarian approach to this

incredibly powerful and transformative technology. And I know there are a lot of people on the left that are in the camp of basically like, this is all just sort of hype and a hoax. And even the doomerism is a sort of roundabout hype. mechanism. Oh my God, it's so powerful. That's why we're so nervous and it gets a lot of headlines. And look, there's no doubt that there is something to that. But I think we do have to grapple with the reality that even in its current form, it will be relatively transformative in terms of the labor force. Now, in its current form, is it going to replace all white color job, blah, blah, blah,

no, it's not going to do that. Is it going to create a lot of upheaval? Yes, I think we already are at that stage where a lot of entry-level positions are going to be transformed. The way work is done is going to be transformed. There's certainly going to be a significant amount of tumult in the way that, obviously, there was during the Industrial Revolution, and even with the admin of the Internet, there was a significant amount of tumult in the labor market and having to change skills and all of that. And, you know, ultimately, a decision was also made during that time to decimate our blue-collar workforce. That is the direction they're certainly trying to go in with the white-collar workforce. But, yeah, at its core, the problem is applying a sort of pure free market capitalist approach to this incredibly powerful technology, which is going to lead to mass consolidation of wealth and place all of our fates in the hands of these individuals. On the consciousness question, you know, I don't, there's, there is no, there are a lot of theories about what consciousness even is, right? So then to be able to even say, you know, consciousness is like a light switch that turns on and off. I don't think that's the way most people

think about it. So in some ways, I also think that this conversation about whether or not the models are conscious is a little bit of a distraction from the core questions of how they're going to be deployed, who's going to have ownership, who's going to have input on the decision making here. Exactly. Let's go ahead and get to this core story, though, that I wanted to cover, which is let's put E2 up on the screen, speaking of the way that this technology will be deployed. So we now have have reporting for the Wall Street Journal that the Pentagon used Anthropics Claude in the Maduro Venezuela, raid use of the model through a contract with Palantir highlights the growing role of AI in the Pentagon. Now again, it's important to remember Anthropic exposition themselves

as like the safe and the responsible AI choice. And then you find out, oh, and they have a contract with Palantir. And apparently, someone within Anthropic inquired, about whether or not, I think inquired with Palantir about whether or not Claude was used in the Venezuela raid. This upset the Pentagon very much and has led to now this conflict between Anthropic and the Department of War. Specifically, the Wall Street Journal here says Anthropics AI tool Claude was used in the U.S. military's operation to capture former Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro highlighting how AI models are gaining traction in the Pentagon. The mission to capture Madurore and his wife included bombing several sites in Caracas last month. Anthropics' usage

guidelines prohibit Claude from being used to facilitate violence, develop weapons, or conduct surveillance. And they go on to say that Claude was not just used in the planning phase, that it was actually used directly in the operation. So let's put the next piece up on the screen. So somebody Anthropic inquires, hey, did Claude get used in this operation? This has now led to this clash with the Pentagon. And they say here, this is from Reuters, exclusive Pentagon clashes with Anthropic over military AI use, according to sources. After extensive talks under a contract worth up to $200 million, the U.S. Department of Defense and Anthropic are at a standstill, according to six people familiar. The company's position on how its AI tools can be used has

intensified disagreements between it and the Trump administration. A spokesperson for the Defense Department of Department of War to not immediately respond, Anthropic said its AI is extensively used for national security missions by U.S. government, and we are in productive discussions with the Department of War about ways to continue this work. So they go on to say this comes at a delicate time for the company, blah, blah, blah. But in any case, you've got this Anthropic wants to set out, okay, here's what we are going to allow Claude to be used for. And the Department of War is like, we have access to this product.

We're going to use it. However, we want to use it. And if you have a problem with that, then we're going to go to XAI or we're going to go to Open AI or we're going to go to Open AI or we're going to go to go to. to one of your competitors and you can see yourself to the door. Not only you're not getting this $200 billion contract, but they're contemplating banning all of their contractors from using Claude in their systems as well.

It's scary. I mean, at the same time, I mean, this is a long history, right, of transformative U.S. technology companies that get entwined with the Pentagon. Many of them come directly out of the Internet. I mean, the Internet comes out of DARPA, right? Yeah, I mean, it does. Some theories about AI and all of that, that this is all like kind of cutouts of all of that, which very well may be possible.

But I do think it highlights like the fundamental problem around this technology. And of course, like bigger societal questions, like monopolies on use of force. The bigger issue is that as these products get refined for military use throughout all of our history with the internet, it eventually gets democratized to everybody else. And that's when it becomes very dangerous. So when you're talking about physical technology, like, weapons, ammunitions,

things that can be easily export controlled, that's one thing. But here we're talking about code. We're talking about models. Models that can be exported, used in various different places.

So if you have this get developed like a suite of technology, let's say for Claude for Pallantir, what's going to stop Israel or, you know, Azerbaijan or any Armenia, like North Korea, any of these, China,

like all these other countries from utilizing the same tech. And that's when we get into very sticky situations. Like here we have a democratic input. We can vote. We can have some sort of like Congress oversight. But what happens like what we do with our current fighter jets? Are we going to start licensing this to the UAE for their use in Darfur or in Sudan?

Right. You can easily foresee this type of thing exploding across the world. And we already have seen the use case in Gaza. Yeah. This was AI, the AI fueled target generation, you know, the theory and some of the reporting backs up Palantir, deeply involved here, but not only Palantir. And we see the way that AI coupled with, you know, human beings and the, you know, extensive, highly sophisticated weapons that we've developed, how those two things put together can lead to just mass carnage and horror.

So it's, you know, anyone should be, should be deeply concerned about this. One more thing just to the point of where the AI models are today, you can put E5 up on the screen here. you know, one of the lines that people look for AI to potentially cross as it moves towards an artificial general intelligence, which some say it's already achieved, or superintelligence is, okay, is it not just regurgitating what humans have inputted into it? Is it actually able to innovate and push scientific frontiers forward? And so this was a significant result. You had OpenAI's GPP 5.2 was able to derive a new result in theoretical physics, releasing the result in a preprint with human researchers from a variety of universities shows that a gluon interaction many physicists expected would not occur can arise under specific conditions. I don't know what that means, really. But in any case, this is a genuinely new results in theoretical physics that is being published alongside essentially GPT.

gets a byline alongside these human researchers. And so it's one indication that we're now passing through the place of, okay, it's just able to regurgitate previous human thought into now it's pushing fields forward. I know in mathematics as well, there's been, some of these models have been able to solve complex mathematics computations that, you know, the best humans in the world struggled or weren't able to solve. So we are in that place now. Keep paying attention.

I balance between hype, dumer, and that it's all nothing. I think that's probably the right place to be because I'm not even sure the people who are most intimately familiar with these things really know. Oh, I know. I talk to them. Yeah, they don't know. You know, they're like half of it, they're like, dude, they're lying for their own valuations. Oh, dude, they're actually telling the truth. But then you see scary stuff. Half of these guys are resigning all the time. They're always like, I'm open letter. I'm resigning because this technology's dangerous. And you're like, man. I'm going into the woodststere Right poetry. Right, exactly. I'm like, dude, what's happening here?

Like, is this for real? What's going on? Nobody knows. Yeah. All right, let's move on to aliens. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast.

I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Welcome to the A building. I'm Hans Charles.

I'm Inalek Lamoma. It's 1969. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. had both been assassinated. And Black America is out of breaking point. Writing and protests broke out on an unprecedented scale. In Atlanta, Georgia at Martin's Almemada, Moore House College, the students had their own protest. It featured two prominent figures in black history,

Martin Luther King Sr. and a young student, Samuel L. Jackson. To be in what we really thought was a revolution. I mean, people would die. 1968, the murder of Dr. King, which traumatized everyone. The FBI had a role in the murder of a Black Panther leader in Chicago. This story is about protest. It echoes in today's world far more than it should, and it will blow your mind.

Listen to the A building on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What do you do in the headlines don't explain what's happening inside of you? I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me, is where culture meets the soul, a place for real conversation. Each episode, I sit down with people

from all walks of life, celebrities, thinkers, and everyday folks, and we go deeper than the podcast. polished story. We talk about what drives us, what shapes us, and what gives us hope. We get honest about the big stuff, identity when you don't recognize yourself anymore, loss that changes you, purpose when success isn't enough, peace when your mind won't slow down, faith when it's complicated. Some guests have answers. Most are still figuring it out. If you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. Listen to if you can hear me on the IHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Very interesting moment. Former President Barack Obama doing an interview with Brian Tyler Cowan. Very casually let's slip. Aliens exist. They're real. Let's take a listen. Are aliens real? They're real, but I haven't seen them, and they're not being kept in, what is it? Area 51. Area 51. There's no underground facility, unless there's this enormous conspiracy, and they hit it from the president of the United States.

What was the first question you wanted answered when you became president? Where are the aliens? That was it, by the way, in terms of that discussion. No offense, Brian, but you've got to be asking some follow-ups there whenever the president literally says aliens are real. Now, he's clarified his position after a couple of days, went very viral.

Let's put this next one up here on the screen. He says, I was trying to stick with the spirit of the speed round, but since it's gotten attention, let me clarify. He got his call. Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good that there's life out there. But the distances between solar systems are so great that the chances we've been visited

by aliens is low. And I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us. Really, exclamation mark. Here's the thing, guys. Now, if you're not a UFO freak like me, you wouldn't know that this is the second time that Obama has actually kind of let slip

something he knows a little something. something about this topic. Let me remind you all of a topic that he, a conversation that he had back in 2021 where he made another very interesting comment on this subject. Let's take a listen. The truth is that when I came into office, I asked, right? I was like, all right, is there the lab somewhere where we're keeping the alien specimens in space sheet? And, you know, they did a little bit of research and the answer was no. But what is true, and I'm actually being serious here is that there are, there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did. They did.

not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that we're people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is. But I have nothing to report to you today. There you go. Look, put it together. He says, I saw no evidence that they have made contact with us. That's not the same thing as if you can surmise that China, Russia, the United States are not

behind something that's flying around in the sky at instantaneous speed. What else are you supposed to deduce? What else could it possibly be? Is it always going to be? Oh, it's a weather balloon. It's a weather balloon again. Is it CBP? You know, screw. Has CBP always been a bunch of retards with space lasers? I don't think so. All right? Could be. All right. Come on. Very open on. No, no, no. Shooting at party balloons. All the way back in 2005. Like, come on, off the coast of Mexico. Like, you can, everything is always phrased very specifically. He says, says, well, I saw no evidence, we haven't made any contact. Well, that's not what you said, actually, in terms of your deduction.

Same thing there. Well, if we know that things are flying around in the sky and they can't be explained, then what is it? Now, look, you know, yeah, you can't just outwardly say, oh, we have absolute confirmation. Remember the UFO report from a few years ago when they're like, have concluded that it is, they said something, but they're like, can't rule out but can't rule in aliens. And then the press ran with it, and they were like, well, Pentagon says, not aliens. It's like, no, what they said is they have no idea what's going on.

That's not the same thing. You can use logical deduction to say, well, it's unexplained by human science. I mean, what are we doing here? That's my take. I know that you're skeptical. Just saying. Yeah, I continue on my skepticism. I mean, it was an interesting comment.

I wish there had been a follow-up. Because by the time you have several days later and the ability to clean up the comments and think about what... The thing that he tweeted is basically what I believe, which is, yeah, I mean, the universe is so large. Be sort of silly to think that we were the only... This was the only place where you could have some sort of life. But the odds that there's been contact, that there's these, you know, things flying around and that's aliens.

I just, I'm going to need a lot more than we have versus, you know, I think probably more likely and plausible explanation is that this is human technology that we or other countries are testing that the government very much doesn't want us to know about and have full knowledge of what's going on. I hear you on that one. I still remain very skeptical of that explanation. For example, my friend Jeremy Corbelle, he just released a new video. Let's put it up here on the screen so I can show it to all of you. It was released by The Daily Mail. This is a new UFO footage released by Jeremy from Syria, which was shot by a Reaper drone in Suwaita province back in 2021. Quote, the drone's camera watched as the object appears to be hovering, flying at normal speed, before accelerating to near-law.

light speed and vanishing from view. This is from an MQ9 Reaper drone and was obtained from a source inside the U.S. Intelligence community. You can literally see it right there in front. By the way, Pentagon has stated that there's no proof, like I said, of UFOs. I have not seen any debunking or any explanation. This follows also Jeremy's release of the Mosul Orb, which previously we had seen the video here on our own screen.

So I'm asking people to keep an open mind. Like, we do have video. We don't have any idea. what it all is. I mean, to your discussion, you know, the theory, if you're not a believer, that's fine. I understand that. You know, obviously, it's true. It would be ludicrous to think that, you know, we're the only place in the world where life happened to evolve. That's ridiculous. But then what is, is it the Fermi paradox where if they were, if there is life out there

and we were to have confirmation, you have to evolve at the exact same time, which is very unlikely, and then be able to make contact, considering light speed, travel and all that seems very unlikely. But you know what I actually think people should read science fiction putting out there, but it was one of my favorite books I read this year in my newborns. It's Project Tell Mary by Andy Weir. He's a guy who wrote The Martian. It was one of the most plausible first contact theories.

I won't ruin the book for how a first contact might actually happen. And it opened my mind where I'm like maybe it's more plausible than I originally thought. Like, look, science fiction. Let's be fair. Your mind was already open soccer. Israel. But, I mean, that's always been, that's always been the biggest skeptic. And then I read that and I go, this is an extremely plausible scenario under which first contact would be able to be made. So just, just open your mind. You know, it's certainly possible. Science Fye has predicted a lot here in the future.

So there you go. There's your alien segment. All right. Thank you so much for watching, guys. We appreciate it. It'll be Emily on tomorrow. I'm going to be on the Andrew Scheldt show in New York City talking about Jeffrey Epstein, but I'll be back on the Thursday show with Crystal. So I'll see you all then. 1969 Malcolm and Martin are gone. America is in crisis. And at Morehouse College, the students make their move. These students, including a young Samuel L. Jackson, locked up the members of the Board of Trustees,

including Martin Luther King's senior. It's the true story of protests and rebellion in black American history that you'll never forget. I'm Hans Charles. I'm in a Niclamo. Listen to the A building on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get. your podcasts. Over the last couple years, didn't we learn that the folding chair was invented by

black people because of what happened in Alabama? This Black History Month, the podcast, Selective Ignorance with Mandy B, unpacked black history and culture with comedy, clarity, and conversations that shake the status quo. The Crown Act in New York was signed in July of 2019, and that is a bill that was passed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race. To hear this and more, listen to Selective Ignorance with Mandy B from the Black Effect Podcast network on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. You can scroll the headlines all day and still feel empty. I'm Ben Higgins, and if you can hear me, is where culture meets the soul.

Honest conversations about identity, loss, purpose, peace, faith, and everything in between. Celebrities, thinkers, everyday people, some have answers. Most are still figuring it out. And if you've ever felt like there has to be more to the story, this show is for you. Listen to if you can hear me on the I-HeartRadio. Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.