Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy Five: The Road To Tuolumne Meadows

Transcript

Episode Seventy Five: The Road To Tuolumne Meadows · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome episode number seventy five the The Journalism Podcast. My name is John Ziggler.
• 0:04
  I'm your host on today's show. The latest in the never ending Hunter
• 0:08
  Biden saga, Trump versus De Santis takes another turn a twist in the media's
• 0:14
  global warming climate change narrative. The right goes after the Barbie movie and the
• 0:20
  try that in a small town controversy. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing
• 0:25
  Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and EMO marketing specialist that also happens to
• 0:32
  be a big fan of John Ziggler and the death of Journalisten. Do you
• 0:36
  need help preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging
• 0:40
  and confaded message in the best channels for your business. Please visit my website,
• 0:45
  the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell your
• 0:49
  story. The website is the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. If you
• 0:55
  want to grow your business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital marketing
• 1:00
  Man dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. Since our
• 1:03
  last episode, a lot has happened, or seemingly happened in the never ending
• 1:08
  Hunter Biden Saga. It's now becoming very difficult to keep track of all the
• 1:15
  different aspects of the Hunter Biden story. Last week we had seemingly very credible
• 1:22
  whistleblowers testifying to Congress about the protection that he was given during the tax evasion
• 1:30
  investigation. By the way, one of those whistleblowers is named Joseph Ziggler.
• 1:34
  There's no evidence that he is a relative of mine. We've got the Charles
• 1:40
  Grassley, the Senator from Iowa's memo, seemingly maybe proving the allegation of a
• 1:48
  five million dollar bribe a Hunter and Joe Biden in the Barisma situation. You've
• 1:55
  got the cocaine story, which is still hanging out there, although I being
• 2:00
  told that we're never going to have any proof it was Hunter Biden, although
• 2:04
  it is possible there may be some evidence it was connected to someone close to
• 2:09
  Hunter Biden, but that's kind of I guess in between rumor and emerging fact.
• 2:15
  We'll see probably the next week or so about that. Of course,
• 2:19
  there's always the laptop story and the censorship of that story during the twenty twenty
• 2:24
  election, which on the right has an enormous legacy, especially for Trump fans,
• 2:31
  and a lot of this is coming to a head over the last several
• 2:35
  days and has happened since our last episode of this podcast, and I have
• 2:40
  to acknowledge that I hate this story. And it's not that I hate doing
• 2:46
  stories that criticize Joe Biden, although I don't really enjoy doing the same thing
• 2:50
  every other conservative is doing. I'm a contrarian by nature. I'm happy to
• 2:55
  rip Joe Biden as much as anybody. There are a couple of reasons why
• 3:00
  I don't like the story. Number one is I'm not certain as to the
• 3:06
  relevance. I mean, it's Joe Biden's son. If there was a bribe,
• 3:10
  obviously that's a big story because that's involving the person who's currently the president
• 3:15
  of the United States. And I have said that if you look at the
• 3:17
  timing of the allegations on the bribe allegation, they make some sense because Biden
• 3:23
  had no expectation that his future mattered, that his career was essentially over.
• 3:29
  There was no next act for him, and so you know, that's ten
• 3:31
  tends to be what people do at the end of their career. If there's
• 3:35
  nothing on the horizon, they sell out. And while this would be a
• 3:38
  pretty dramatic and horrendous sellout. It's at least theoretically possible from an incentive structure
• 3:46
  perspective, And if you know anything about the way I look at things,
• 3:49
  I'm always looking at the incentive structures. So I don't have any problem with
• 3:53
  the idea that this is a relevant story, But it's also murky one about
• 3:59
  how important it is. And also too, I have lost so much trust,
• 4:04
  not just obviously in the mainstream liberal news media, I have lost so
• 4:10
  much trust in what I'll call the Trump media that it's very, very difficult
• 4:14
  for me to discern what is real, what is fact, what is fiction,
• 4:19
  what is exaggeration, And there seems on this story the Hunter Biden's story
• 4:25
  may be the ultimate in general. The Hunter Biden's story in general maybe the
• 4:30
  ultimate example of a story where both the left wing and the right wing media
• 4:34
  get it basically wrong, where the left wing media has censored and ignored and
• 4:40
  diminished at every turn in a way that is illegitimate and wrong and should be
• 4:46
  criticized. The right wing media pretends that this is the biggest thing that's ever
• 4:50
  happened, that the evidence is clear that there ought to be impeachment hearings and
• 4:56
  an impeachment that results from those hearings immediately, and that to me to be
• 5:00
  seems to not be in keeping with what we currently know. Let me give
• 5:04
  you an example of this that I think is is maybe the most fascinating element
• 5:11
  of this whole situation. Let's take the bribery allegation and this Grassly memo.
• 5:16
  Now, Charles Grassly seems like a nice enough guy, but he's he's really
• 5:20
  old, and yeah, that doesn't mean he's wrong, but he's been hyping
• 5:27
  this thing for a long time and he finally was able to release it.
• 5:30
  And you know, I think it's fine that this, I guess you'd call
• 5:33
  it a memo got released. But I find it pretty hilarious that the very
• 5:39
  same people on the right, in the right wing media, the Trump media,
• 5:44
  the Trump supporters, are all jumping all over this document as if it
• 5:49
  is gospel truth, when there are so many similarities to what happened with the
• 5:57
  so called Steele dossier and Donald Trump himself and the aftermath of the twenty sixteen
• 6:01
  election. Now, in case you've somehow forgotten, the Steel dossier got revealed
• 6:08
  after Trump won the twenty sixteen election, that this was done by a guy
• 6:13
  who had been very well respected in British intelligence, the British intelligence community,
• 6:19
  and he had put together this document. Now, the funding of it,
• 6:24
  you know, as I believe in, just somewhat distorted it. You know,
• 6:28
  people claimed that it was funded by Hillary was actually originally funded by a
• 6:30
  conservative group, and you know, the funding, like everything in these stories,
• 6:35
  it's murky. But in the right wing religion, this was funded by
• 6:40
  by Hillary Clinton to try to get Donald Trump, even though the results of
• 6:46
  this investigation were never made public until after the election, which of course,
• 6:50
  you know, ought to make a rational person go hmm, okay, what's
• 6:55
  all that about. But this was the dossier that basically claimed that there's evidence
• 7:00
  that at the very least Trump was compromised by Putin in Russia and partially compromised
• 7:08
  by this so called p tape of him being urinated on or having Russian prostitute's
• 7:14
  urinate on his bed, and there was a tape of it allegedly, and
• 7:18
  that in theory you could argue that maybe Trump wasn't just compromised, that he
• 7:24
  was some sort of a Manchurian candidate, that that was the essence of it.
• 7:29
  And you know, the left of course went banatas because at that moment
• 7:32
  they were desperately seeking anything to discredit Trump's election, to rationalize Trump's election,
• 7:41
  and to discredit his coming presidency. And it turns out that the Steel dossier
• 7:47
  was basically bullshit. Now there are still elements of it. I think that
• 7:53
  had some grains of truth, but the basic, the basic essence of it
• 7:57
  was wrong. And there's some similarities here between the Steele dossier and this Grassly
• 8:05
  called the Grassly Memo alleging that there was these bribes that were given for five
• 8:11
  million dollars to Hunter and Joe Biden. First, the first similarity between this
• 8:18
  and the Steele dossier is that the allegations are so salacious and so matter of
• 8:24
  fact and so over the top, and the admissions so overt. That's it
• 8:31
  seems to me to be almost too perfect. That doesn't mean it didn't happen,
• 8:35
  I want to make that clear. It just seems too perfect. A
• 8:39
  lot like the Steele dossier fit into every liberals fantasies about Donald Trump in the
• 8:46
  aftermath of the twenty sixteen election. This allegation and the alleged documentation of it
• 8:54
  seems awfully perfect, too perfect, And there's even allegedly tapes which have not
• 9:00
  been released or not been proven to even exist, which makes it at least
• 9:05
  somewhat overtly or on the surface similar to the sole whole Steel dossier situation with
• 9:11
  the p tape, Now there's no allocation of a tape of although with under
• 9:16
  Biden any thing's possible, but there's no allegation of a tape of that sort.
• 9:20
  There's an allegation of taped phone calls, many tape phone calls allegedly proving
• 9:26
  this allegation of a bribe related to the whole Barizma affair. Now again we
• 9:33
  don't have those phone calls, and that seems awfully perfect too. But I
• 9:37
  think maybe the most important element of this whole thing is that the whole deal
• 9:41
  is based on hearsay, which again the Steel dossier was based largely of not
• 9:48
  entirely on at least single of not double hearsay, and that's a very hearsay
• 9:52
  is very, very dangerous in these situations. And then there's another element of
• 9:58
  this allegation involving barisma that bothers me greatly from a standpoint of trying to figure
• 10:03
  out what's true. And what's not and that is that a lot of people
• 10:09
  have pointed to this, this videotape of Joe Biden many years ago bragging about
• 10:16
  getting this prosecutor in Ukraine fired, and that people have gone, aha,
• 10:22
  see that's the smoking gun for this whole bribery allegation. That's why the Bidens
• 10:28
  were paid off because this was on behalf of Barisma, the company that hired
• 10:33
  Hunter Biden. Okay, except there's a couple of major problems there. Number
• 10:39
  one is that it's very obvious that this prosecutor was alleged to have been protecting
• 10:48
  Barisma, So how does that make any damn sense. That's no one's been
• 10:54
  able to explain that one to me, because I don't claim to be an
• 10:56
  expert on what was going on with Barisma and this process. But that is
• 11:01
  a narrative that I have not seen, incredibly discredited in any media that I've
• 11:07
  been able to find on this subject. So if it exists, you know,
• 11:11
  send it to me, because I haven't seen it. And then there's
• 11:15
  the issue of the potential reverse engineering of this story and this Grassly memo,
• 11:22
  and I'm not suggesting that, well, I guess I am suggesting it.
• 11:26
  I'm not stating that I think this is what happened. I think this is
• 11:28
  a possibility, and I think it's almost hilarious that right wingers and Trump fans
• 11:35
  aren't seeing this, because it's essentially what happened with regard to the Steel Dossier.
• 11:41
  The Steel Dossier, in many ways was reverse engineered to get a result
• 11:46
  that fit prior you know, perceptions and biases about Trump. Well, that
• 11:56
  videotape of Biden and the prosecutor that became a topic of wide ranging discussion in
• 12:07
  the right wing media back in the twenty twenty election cycle, and so when
• 12:13
  you look at the timeline of this, it certainly is possible, possible that
• 12:20
  this whole narrative has been constructed around that videotape, a videotape that I believe
• 12:30
  is misunderstood or out of context or whatever you want to say. Where because
• 12:35
  this was an issue, then that gets created, this narrative with the credibility
• 12:43
  given to it by intelligence sources which are basically just hearsay. Again, much
• 12:50
  like the Steel dossier, where you have a situation that because this videotape of
• 12:56
  Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired is out there, that a narrative is
• 13:03
  created to surround that and to put some meat on it and to create a
• 13:07
  scandal about it because aha, here we have a bribe that took place because
• 13:15
  of that. Well, of course, the first question you would ask yourself
• 13:18
  is why, if there was a bribe involved, would Biden be bragging about
• 13:22
  this publicly on videotape. I realize he's not the brightest bulb and the chandelier,
• 13:26
  but but you at least have to ask that question. You know,
• 13:28
  this is a great grand conspiracy, why would you brag about that publicly at
• 13:35
  a public event? It wasn't like it was sarahm Dish, you know,
• 13:37
  there was no there was no nothing hidden about the recording. There was.
• 13:43
  It was very out in the open. It was basically a public event.
• 13:46
  And so at least have the question, how does that make any sense?
• 13:52
  Now? Supposedly there are bank statements that back this up, but you know,
• 13:58
  thing those things can be either manipulated or forged or whatever. And it
• 14:03
  should be pointed out that the White House has indicated that they think that this
• 14:09
  whole thing is fabricated. Now they haven't proven that. They haven't come forward
• 14:13
  with any evidence of that, which means I don't buy necessarily what they're saying.
• 14:20
  However, you know, this also kind of reminds me of another situation
• 14:24
  where Democrats and Barack Obama in this particular case, played the Trump forces like
• 14:33
  a fiddle over the whole birth certificate situation, so called you know Obama's birth
• 14:43
  certificate wasn't real controversy, which was always ridiculous, that he really wasn't born
• 14:48
  in Hawaii. And what I think happened there was that the Obama people very
• 14:54
  smartly allowed Trump to go down this path, knowing it was all bullshit,
• 15:01
  because they would they knew that he would be embarrassing himself. Now, as
• 15:05
  it turned out, it actually helped him win eventually the twenty sixteen Republican nomination,
• 15:11
  and I certainly never expected that he would win the presidency after that.
• 15:16
  But from a micro standpoint, there's no question that that was an embarrassing endeavor,
• 15:22
  at least to the majority of Americans. When it came to Trump's crusade
• 15:26
  to prove that Obama's birth certificate was fake when in fact it was real,
• 15:31
  well, we could have theoretically a repeat of that with regard to this bribery
• 15:37
  allegation and the more that Republicans, you know, go down this path,
• 15:41
  the more that eventually they're going to be embarrassed. I don't know that to
• 15:46
  be the truth. It's part of why I hate this unhole Underbiden story,
• 15:50
  because everything is murky. I'm just pointing out that you can make a rational
• 15:54
  argument that Republicans are falling right into the same kind of trap that liberals did
• 16:03
  on the Steel dossier, and it's not an irrational argument. Again, I
• 16:07
  want to emphasize I have no knowledge at all. I don't have a strong
• 16:11
  confidence level in what actually is the truth here in either direction. I'm just
• 16:17
  saying it's possible. It fits with the basic fact pattern, fits with basic
• 16:22
  logic that that's possible. And I just find it hilarious that no one on
• 16:26
  the right is even considering this possibility. No one on the right is ever
• 16:30
  going, hey, and you know, remember what happened with the Steele dossier
• 16:34
  with liberals, Could the same thing be happening to us. No, that's
• 16:40
  not even part of the equation, which I find to be very interesting and
• 16:44
  also very telling. But there's no question here's the real impact of what's going
• 16:48
  on with Hunter Biden. There's no question that the entire cadre of Hunter Biden's
• 16:55
  stories has gotten more than anough traction on the right. Now it's still being
• 17:00
  ignored on the left. I mean, CNN and MSNBC didn't even carry the
• 17:04
  whistleblower hearings. They basically ignored it from all accounts, and so it didn't
• 17:11
  really exist. And all of these things have at least potential relevance. And
• 17:17
  I can assure you, I mean, holly hypocrisy, Batman, that if
• 17:21
  this was about Donald Trump Junior, an MSNBC and CNN and every other major
• 17:26
  liberal network and news organization would have been all over. Even the whistleblower allegations,
• 17:33
  which were disturbing from the standpoint of the protection, but the actual results
• 17:41
  really weren't that dramatic. I mean, I mean again, I'm not trying
• 17:45
  to diminish it or justify it at all. It's just it wasn't to me
• 17:49
  when as far as scandals go. Maybe we're just so desensitized now, I
• 17:53
  didn't think it was that big of deal. The scandal of it exists is
• 17:57
  the idea that there was protection for the son of a president with regard to
• 18:03
  an investigation. The significance of that, though, goes way beyond what did
• 18:10
  or did not happen legally to Hunter Biden. It has to do with the
• 18:14
  credibility of the FBI, the credibility of our of all of our institutions,
• 18:18
  the irs, I mean, and on the right, the trust level in
• 18:25
  those institutions is at all time lows, all time lows, and understandably so.
• 18:30
  And this plays directly into Donald Trump's hands. It plays into his hands
• 18:37
  with regard to the Republican primary process because nothing the quote unquote establishment of law
• 18:45
  enforcement does or says against Donald Trump has any real impact. Now on the
• 18:49
  left, even if it's not directly relevant, it doesn't matter. Perception is
• 18:56
  reality, and the perception is that our law enforcement and specifically FBI agencies are
• 19:03
  so corrupt and so biased that nothing that they do or say against Donald Trump
• 19:11
  is to be taken seriously because obviously there is a massive double standard when it
• 19:18
  comes to the way the Bidens are treated and the way Trump is being treated.
• 19:23
  And therefore, on the right, doesn't matter how many times Trump gets
• 19:29
  indicted, you know, whether it's local or federal, it doesn't matter,
• 19:33
  even if if the people aren't the same people involved. The agencies aren't the
• 19:37
  same direct agencies involved. It doesn't matter. It's all perceived as the same
• 19:45
  thing. They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater it, you know,
• 19:48
  garbage in, garbage out, whichever cliche you want to use. This all
• 19:52
  plays very very much to Trump's advantage because now nothing sticks to him. As
• 20:00
  I said in the last episode, you know there are people who are hoping
• 20:03
  on the dissent aside that you know, there will be an effect of eventually
• 20:08
  voters getting tired of all these indictments and they will move on from Trump.
• 20:14
  I think the more likely scenario is that it doesn't really impact Trump at all
• 20:18
  because he has immunity to all political viruses now. And part of the reason
• 20:22
  why he has immunity to all political viruses is because the lack of trust in
• 20:29
  any and all of these institutions on the right. And that's not completely irrational,
• 20:36
  because there's there's reasons. Now, some of them are many are greatly
• 20:38
  exaggerated, but a lot of them are based in reality as to why people
• 20:44
  on the right do not trust these institutions and why they are inherently skeptical of
• 20:48
  any and all investigations into what Donald Trump does, especially when in their minds,
• 20:56
  in the minds of right leaning people, certainly Trump supporters, in their
• 21:02
  minds, what Trump is alleged to have done didn't have any negative impact on
• 21:07
  their life. That's the key to this. I mean, you know,
• 21:11
  if it's just a theoretical violation, like most people in the right perceived that
• 21:15
  Classified Documents case to be, then it's not gonna make any difference. What
• 21:21
  was the damage done? And unless until they can clearly prove damage to the
• 21:26
  country, and even then I doubt many Trump supporters would be swayed. I
• 21:32
  don't think you have any chance of swaying the public, and I doubt,
• 21:36
  by the way, you even going to have a chance to sway a jury,
• 21:40
  because I think the number one thing that the liberal media is deluding themselves
• 21:45
  into believing is that the facts are actually going to matter in any of these
• 21:49
  cases. I mean, you know, take the classified documents case. We
• 21:55
  now know that there's going to be a trial these scheduled right now for May
• 22:00
  of next year, which by the way, is like, in my mind,
• 22:03
  the absolute worst scenario because by May Trump will very likely have the nomination
• 22:10
  wrapped up. It'll be before the Republican Convention, but not too far in
• 22:15
  front of the Republican Convention. He'll be the presumptive Republican nominee. In all
• 22:19
  likelihood, he'll go on trial, and you know, who knows what the
• 22:26
  evidence will be, but the media coverage of that will be off the charts.
• 22:30
  And I don't see how in the world there's gonna be a conviction.
• 22:34
  I really don't. I mean, the facts are not going to matter in
• 22:37
  that case. It's all going to be about jury selection. And if you
• 22:41
  get at least two strong Trump supporters on a twelve person jury in South Florida,
• 22:48
  which you shouldn't be that difficult. In fact, you should be fired
• 22:52
  as a lawyer if you can't get that done. As long as you get
• 22:56
  too strong Trump supporters on that jury, there is no chance whatsoever of a
• 23:03
  conviction because those people not only love Trump, but they know he's gonna be
• 23:08
  the Republican presidential nominee. So there's no chance they're gonna convict him. And
• 23:15
  by the way, Trump probably understands this as well as anybody, and I've
• 23:21
  not heard hardly anybody in the mainstream news media even discuss this. This has
• 23:26
  all been within the context of Wow it looks like the evidence is gonna be
• 23:30
  very strong against Trump and he clearly broke the law. And you know what's
• 23:33
  gonna happen if he's convicted in the middle of a presidential election, And why
• 23:37
  my point is he's not gonna be convicted. It's gonna be probably a hung
• 23:44
  jury, which will further divide the country. Trump will be able to claim
• 23:48
  it as a victory because he wasn't convicted, and you know and how this
• 23:52
  will impact a general election. Logically, it's not gonna help Trump with independent
• 24:00
  voters unless somehow he were to be quitted clearly, which I doubt based upon
• 24:04
  what we know of the current evidence. But as of right now, the
• 24:08
  first trial is scheduled for May of next year. That's the Federal classified documents
• 24:15
  case. And of course Trump has already stated that he expects to be also
• 24:19
  indicted on the January sixth case. And we have no idea what the evidence
• 24:23
  there, what even the charges are there. But Trump is already getting his
• 24:30
  troops and his cult prepared for yet and another indictment. And then of course
• 24:33
  there's the Georgia case involving the aftermath of the twenty twenty election. There could
• 24:38
  there theoretically be a tiring effect, an erosion effect. I would like to
• 24:45
  believe that there will be some of that, but Trump at this point has
• 24:52
  so much leeway and so much gas to burn, and such a big lead
• 24:57
  both nationally as well is in the key states, the early states of Iowa
• 25:03
  and New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, that I don't know that
• 25:07
  it would make much of a difference. It would have to be a dramatic
• 25:11
  erosion at this point, especially in a multi person race. And this is
• 25:17
  the biggest mistake that has been made so far in the twenty twenty four race.
• 25:22
  It's so obvious, but it's gotten very little attention in comparison to how
• 25:26
  important it is that the very same mistake that was made in twenty sixteen there
• 25:32
  being too many candidates, has happened in twenty twenty four. And there was
• 25:36
  hope, there was hope that Ronda Santis would eliminate those non Trump candidates early
• 25:42
  on and that it might become a two person race. And if that had
• 25:48
  happened, then there would be a real shot at the Santis pulling off this
• 25:52
  upset. Because even to this day, even post indictment, bounces Donald up
• 26:00
  is usually well below fifty percent, at least in the key States. Now
• 26:03
  there are many states he's well above fifty percent, and there are some national
• 26:08
  polls where he is up over fifty percent, but in the four states that
• 26:12
  I just mentioned, he is generally below fifty percent the prop which is great.
• 26:18
  I mean, if you're trying to knock off a guy who's effectively an
• 26:21
  incumbent president, I mean, that's a pathetic performance by Trump, given his
• 26:26
  name recognition and the fact that he's a former president, and the fact that
• 26:30
  virtually every Republican voters voted for him at least once or twice, maybe more
• 26:33
  than that. For president of the United States, that has not something to
• 26:38
  be bragging about. But the reality is that the Santist's share has actually dwindled,
• 26:44
  sends his very botched announcement on Twitter. I don't know how much of
• 26:49
  it is because of the botched announcement, but there's a whole lot of factors
• 26:52
  playing into all this. But there's no question that the Santists numbers are falling
• 26:57
  and that there are other candidate's gaining traction. So it's not just that DeSantis
• 27:03
  isn't the only other person in the race. It's that these other candidates and
• 27:07
  it's not by much, but it doesn't take much, you know. All
• 27:10
  it takes is for Mike Pennis to go from four to six percent, or
• 27:12
  Nicky Hanley to go from four to seven percent, or Tim Scott to go
• 27:17
  from two to eight percent er. But the Ramaswamy to come out of nowhere
• 27:22
  as a Trump surrogate and get you know, all his numbers are all over
• 27:25
  the place. I mean, most national polls he's at two or three percent,
• 27:29
  and then you get some of these polls where he's now tied with Ron
• 27:32
  de Sandis. That was a totally bogus poll, But there are other polls
• 27:34
  indicating the Ramaswami is now somehow a surging number three and sometimes getting into double
• 27:41
  digits, which I predicted very early on. Vic was going to be a
• 27:44
  major problem for DeSantis, and I underestimated how much of a problem he's going
• 27:48
  to be. But now you have a situation where DeSantis is really fighting to
• 27:55
  hang on to second place, which is like the worst possible scenario if you
• 27:59
  were just Antis supporter like I am. And you know who's catching on to
• 28:03
  that narrative very quickly, Donald Trump which I find to be hilarious. I
• 28:08
  mean, let's can we not forget and let's not bypass the most obvious absurdity
• 28:14
  of this whole thing. Donald Trump is a guy who famously does not believe
• 28:18
  in polls. He doesn't even believe in polls on election day. I mean,
• 28:22
  the evidence is overwhelming. It's already been released to the public that Trump
• 28:27
  knew and accepted that he lost the twenty twenty election because his own people investigated
• 28:34
  all these bogus claims and that found them to not be true, and that
• 28:38
  in fact, Biden won and Trump knew this, but publicly he has not
• 28:45
  accepted the results, pretended that the whole thing was rigged against him, that
• 28:49
  it was a fraudulent result. So he doesn't even accept the results on election
• 28:55
  day, which are, you know, the most solid, obvious results that
• 29:00
  can possibly get a high of a lot more solid than a political polling where
• 29:03
  you're randomly calling people on the phone or another, whichever way you do your
• 29:08
  modern day polls. Some of these are online, some of them are combination.
• 29:11
  Whatever the point is, then an election day poll is the poll,
• 29:15
  and Trump doesn't even accept the credibility of those quote unquote polls. But when
• 29:22
  it comes to these Republican primary polls, he thinks their gospel. And he
• 29:27
  has been touting them every single day. Why because they fit his agenda.
• 29:32
  Why because he likes them. Why because they show him winning and winning by
• 29:37
  larger and larger margins. And now he's put out a video where he is
• 29:45
  championing this narrative that Rohnda Sanders is not just fading, but that Rohnda Santis
• 29:49
  will soon no longer be in second place, and that Rohnda Sanders deserves this
• 29:55
  because he is very disloyal to the King, Donald Trump. And here what
• 30:00
  Trump's video statement on this subject sounded like, Well, like Ronda sanctimonious.
• 30:04
  Now they won't like him any better six months from now, with the start
• 30:08
  of primary season. The more people get to know him, the lower his
• 30:14
  polls are going. He's now in the mid teens and falling fast. He
• 30:18
  will soon not be number two. Looks like it won't happen much longer.
• 30:23
  But he deserves it because you're a very disloyal person. Make America great again,
• 30:27
  Thank you very much. Now, the first thing I want to mention
• 30:30
  about the Trump's statement, there is this idea of the Santis. Being disloyal
• 30:33
  is just such bullcrap. The person that's being disloyal here is Donald Trump is
• 30:40
  being disloyal to the country. And that's a narrative that gets absolutely zero play
• 30:45
  on the right, but it's one hundred percent true. We've never had a
• 30:48
  president who lost the presidency by a pretty clear margin decide to run again in
• 30:56
  the modern history. When his approved ratings are in the toilet and by an
• 31:03
  increasing margin. He is losing in the very same polls that he touts on
• 31:08
  a daily basis to the incumbent president, who is a danger to the country
• 31:15
  and who should be easily defeated because he's eighty some years old and looking every
• 31:21
  day of it and is going to be even older than that should he be
• 31:23
  win reelection. This makes him exceedingly vulnerable to being defeated. And yet Trump's
• 31:30
  approval ratings and Trump's performance against Biden are such that a guy who actually cared
• 31:37
  about the country withdraw from the race. He would withdraw from the race if
• 31:42
  he was loyal to the country instead of to Donald Trump. But Donald Trump
• 31:48
  doesn't even think that way because he's all about Donald Trump. He's not about
• 31:52
  the country. How even Lyndon Johnson, a narcissistic asshole, decided in nineteen
• 32:00
  sixty eight as the incumbent president to not run for reelection, largely because of
• 32:07
  his unpopularity related to the Vietnam War and other issues. And you know he
• 32:14
  did. I don't know why he did dad, whether it was he just
• 32:15
  didn't want to go through a reelection bid and lose, or whether he thought
• 32:20
  it was best for his party, whatever, but he did what you would
• 32:23
  call the right thing. Even Lyndon Johnson, Donald Trump didn't even consider that
• 32:30
  and instead argues that it's Rhonda Santis who's disloyal, which means that Trump thinks
• 32:37
  that this is a monarchy, that he is a king, that he has
• 32:42
  a throne, and that he unfortunately, effectively this is all true. That
• 32:47
  he owns the Republican Party and that it's his until he gives it to somebody
• 32:52
  else. We'll know. When you lost the twenty twenty election, you lost
• 32:59
  any right to that throne. In irrational world, you lost it. Now
• 33:05
  you know you should be able to get it back again. I mean,
• 33:07
  I don't have a problem with that, but that doesn't mean that anyone decides
• 33:10
  who decides to go up against you is disloyal. No, that's not the
• 33:15
  way this works. So it's an absurd concept on its face. But as
• 33:22
  far as the substance of what Trump said there is with regard to the santances
• 33:25
  poll numbers, I actually have to acknowledge that I think that there is some
• 33:30
  validity to it. As someone who generally believes in poles. By the way,
• 33:35
  I don't believe in poles nearly as much as my critics think that I
• 33:37
  do. But when Poles continually say the same thing over an extended period of
• 33:45
  time, and when the numbers make sense with what's happening on the ground,
• 33:49
  I take them seriously. I don't take them as gospel. But you know,
• 33:53
  if Jnald Trump is winning these these key states by between twenty five and
• 33:59
  thirty points, and he's winning nationally by between thirty five and forty points,
• 34:05
  you know what, that could be off by ten points and it wouldn't matter.
• 34:07
  It could be up by twenty points and it wouldn't make that much difference
• 34:12
  because Trump is still very much in command and they're not going to be thirty
• 34:16
  points off. It's just not scientifically possible based upon history. But as far
• 34:23
  as where de Santis is heading. I will agree that there is now and
• 34:29
  this is a stunning statement. There is a depressing statement. There is now
• 34:34
  a much better chance than when this is all said and done, ron de
• 34:37
  Santis does not finish second. There's a better chance of that scenario De Santa
• 34:43
  is finishing worse than second than there is of the Santis actually winning the nomination.
• 34:50
  I mean, what the fuck I mean that that is, I believe
• 34:54
  if you were if I was a betting man, which I'm not, but
• 35:00
  you know, I do talk about predictions and percentages a lot. There is
• 35:02
  no question in my mind that there's a greater chance percentage wise, of Rohn
• 35:08
  de Sandis falling out of second place and not finishing in second when this is
• 35:13
  all said and done, in other words, you know, not being the
• 35:15
  last person to withdraw. As Trump eventually wins the nomination, then there is
• 35:20
  of Rohn de Santis actually being the twenty twenty four Republican presidential nominee, which
• 35:27
  is incredibly depressing on so many levels, mainly because he's obviously the far,
• 35:31
  far better candidate on so many different levels than Donald Trump is. But that's
• 35:37
  the world we're now living in, and so you know Trump's political instincts are
• 35:40
  generally pretty good, and he's lying there about the disloyalty issue, but I
• 35:45
  think he's probably right. I'm not saying, I want to make one other
• 35:49
  thing clear, I'm not saying that the Santis will finish outside of second place.
• 35:54
  I still think the better chance here is that DeSantis stabilizes and he does
• 36:00
  finish in second place. How strong, I don't know. I think that's
• 36:04
  a critical question. But I'm still in the boat that he will be in
• 36:08
  second place because he has enough money, and he has enough name recognition,
• 36:13
  he has enough goodwill from the COVID response, and obviously Florida is a huge
• 36:19
  state that where he has a base of support that I think it would be
• 36:22
  very difficult for DeSantis to actually fall out of second place. But there's a
• 36:28
  better chance of that than of DeSantis actually winning. Now, as far as
• 36:32
  does Santis himself, he's under attack again for totally bogus things. The most
• 36:38
  prominent is this idea that now Florida is going to be teaching that slaves benefited
• 36:45
  from slavery. That's right, Yes, in racist Florida, they're going to
• 36:51
  teach school children that slaves benefited from slavery, and of course the left wing
• 36:57
  media is all over this idea. Kamala Harris gave a speech about it where
• 37:02
  she was outraged and said, we are not going to be gas lit about
• 37:07
  this issue. And this is this is horrendous. Of course, it's also
• 37:10
  not true. It's an absurdity. This is a very long document that had
• 37:17
  one footnote in it that asked for there to be some context regarding how slavery
• 37:27
  impacted African Americans. That was it. The vast majority of this guidance for
• 37:34
  public school teaching was about the horrors of slavery. And by the way,
• 37:38
  this was written in large part by African Americans. So and I can't stand
• 37:45
  in general forget about this particular issue. I can't stand this PC notion that
• 37:52
  there are many many issues in our history that are simply black and white.
• 37:58
  There's no content to them at all. I mean, even some of the
• 38:01
  worst things that ever happened still had inadvertent some positive aspects to them. I
• 38:07
  mean, you know, let me take this out of something that's super controversial.
• 38:13
  But you know, let's use hurricanes for an example, because then I
• 38:15
  can't get in trouble for talking about hurricanes. Hurricanes are generally bad, but
• 38:22
  even hurricanes are often the reason why we don't have droughts. And if you
• 38:29
  look at the history of Texas and Florida from a drought perspective, whenever they
• 38:35
  have a drought in certain areas of the state, especially you know, the
• 38:39
  seaboard or the portions facing the Gulf of Mexico, whenever those areas are in
• 38:45
  a drought, it's because they haven't had any damn hurricanes recently. So as
• 38:50
  much damage that is done by a hurricane, hurricanes actually do some really important
• 38:55
  things like prevent drought in drought von Morble areas and so using that as an
• 39:02
  analogy, some of the worst things that have ever happened in humanity had at
• 39:07
  least some positive impacts to them. And the idea that we're not even allowed
• 39:13
  to discuss those I think it's juvenile. I mean, that's not the way
• 39:17
  reality is. Reality is not, in very very rare circumstances, is reality
• 39:23
  all white, all black, all right, all wrong. There is some
• 39:28
  gray normally, even in the worst of situations. And allowing public school students
• 39:35
  to understand that and to learn how to think in a rational fashion and to
• 39:40
  understand the way reality actually works, I think is positive. But the most
• 39:45
  important thing is there is no way, shape or form. There's no rational
• 39:49
  way to argue that some health Florida is going to be teaching that slavery was
• 39:54
  good. And of course, if Rana Sanders wasn't running for president, this
• 39:59
  probably would and be that big of an issue. But as I have said
• 40:01
  from the beginning, there are unique circumstances here where everyone has a perverse self
• 40:07
  interest to attack Ronda Santis. And because he's the governor of a major state
• 40:13
  that's doing things differently than the rest of the country and released large portions of
• 40:17
  the country in the woke areas of the country, He's going to be attacked.
• 40:22
  Florida's going to be attacked even more so than normal because of the fact
• 40:27
  that it benefits Then they don't want to see Ronda Santis be the Republican nominee
• 40:31
  because they fear him on so many levels. Last week I went on News
• 40:37
  Nation Television with Dan Abrams, and I probably irritated him a bit by saying
• 40:42
  because I pushed back on his idea that the mainstream media might have embraced Ronda
• 40:46
  Santis if he wasn't so conservative, and I said, that's ridiculous. I
• 40:52
  didn't say that word, but I said that that's wrong. I wish I
• 40:53
  believed that, because the main reason why the mainstream news media was never going
• 40:58
  to give Ronda Santis fair shake is because of the COVID response. The media
• 41:04
  is very very, very very deeply invested in the mythology that they created about
• 41:07
  COVID. They turned out to be wrong. Rhonda Santis was right. If
• 41:10
  Rhonda Santis is the Republican nominee, that view will be validated in history,
• 41:16
  and the general election will largely be a relitigation of issues that they want to
• 41:22
  pretend never happen. I mean, the media never even talks about COVID anymore.
• 41:25
  Why Because they were wrong. There's nothing to talk about. From their
• 41:29
  perspective. Any discussion of this is inherently bad for them because they were wrong,
• 41:35
  and Rohn de Santis was largely right. Took him a couple of months
• 41:37
  to figure it out, but once he did, he was fantastic. And
• 41:40
  that's the way a real leader is supposed to operate. So the media has
• 41:46
  no interest in Rhonda Santis being the nominee. And I do think that They
• 41:51
  also believe that the Santis would have a better chance of beating Biden than Donald
• 41:53
  Trump would, even though the polls don't really indicate that currently. There's some
• 42:00
  evidence of that in swing states, but you have to use a microscope to
• 42:04
  find it. The media is not interested in finding it. The right wing
• 42:07
  media isn't interested in finding that. And so the narrative is that right now
• 42:12
  because in the big numbers, the numbers that anyone you know seemingly looks at
• 42:16
  that are usually irrelevant, the national numbers, the popular vote numbers, instead
• 42:22
  of the key swing states, Trump is actually doing a little bit better against
• 42:25
  Biden than the Santists. Although it's to be noted that Biden is doing better
• 42:30
  against Trump than he has been. It's becoming more and more clear, at
• 42:35
  least in recent weeks, that Biden has taken back control of the race in
• 42:39
  the polling against Trump. And you know, I think that's probably going to
• 42:45
  continue to be the case, even with all of Biden's vulnerabilities. I mean,
• 42:50
  Republicans are not taking into account that the economy is not crapping out like
• 42:57
  a lot of conservatives, including myself, had anticipated that it would. You
• 43:01
  know, it appears as if the interest rate increase has gotten inflation at least
• 43:07
  somewhat under control. It's at least going in the right direction. It has
• 43:13
  not created a massive increase in unemployment. The stock market is having one its
• 43:17
  movement's best couple of month periods in a very long time. It's having a
• 43:22
  fantastic year, and so there's no indication that between now and this time next
• 43:30
  year we're going to have a significant recession that a lot of people were counting
• 43:34
  on. And that makes a huge difference when it comes to how an incumbent
• 43:39
  nominee for president is going to do. So I don't see how Trump,
• 43:44
  especially when he's getting indicted every other month, is possibly be going to make
• 43:47
  up that kind of ground on Biden without there being a significant economic downturn.
• 43:54
  But with regard to the attacks on the Santis, I mean, it's obvious
• 44:01
  that they still think that the Santis is a threatened if he were to become
• 44:05
  president, that he would do far more with the presidency than Trump ever would.
• 44:10
  If a miracle happened again and Trump was elected. Now I will say,
• 44:15
  by the way, the Santis is still making mistakes, I don't understand.
• 44:20
  This cores light thing that he's now doing. I mean, when after
• 44:22
  Disney, I was okay with that, although I didn't like it. Going
• 44:27
  after a massive media company when when you're running for the Republican presidential nomination is
• 44:32
  not a brilliant political maneuver, and unfortunately the Santis's critics have been able to
• 44:37
  use that very much against him. But going after cores Light, now this
• 44:43
  seems stupid and desperate and tripling down on this anti woke strategy which clearly has
• 44:50
  not worked for whatever reason, even in the Republican nominating process. But with
• 44:54
  that said, I want to do play a clip from ron de Santis which
• 44:59
  I thought was right. It's an an interview that he did with Russell Brand,
• 45:02
  the liberal comedian an actor who was a COVID contrarian, and the Santis
• 45:10
  deals with this issue of whether or not the media really does go after him
• 45:16
  more than they even go after Donald Trump and why they do. And you
• 45:21
  know, I felt that this answer was almost a ten out of a ten,
• 45:24
  although it might be too late. I mean, part of this to
• 45:28
  me should have been in Rhonda Santis's announcement address instead of on a video podcast
• 45:36
  with Russell Brand. But here is Rhonda Santis in his own words, articulating
• 45:42
  basically what I just said with regard to the motivations of the media and how
• 45:45
  and why they treat De Santis the way that they do. I get attacked
• 45:50
  by the corporate press more than anybody running for office, more than Joe Biden,
• 45:54
  and now more than Donald Trump, because I think the corporate press views
• 45:59
  me as a bigger They understand that I will beat Biden, and they know
• 46:02
  I will actually deliver on all these things, whereas I think they think that
• 46:06
  Trump would not beat Biden, and then I think they think even if he
• 46:09
  did, that he would be distracted with all these other stuff and wouldn't be
• 46:14
  able to deliver. So I've been the target of all these people, and
• 46:17
  I think it's because I've been willing to lead. Also, I would point
• 46:21
  out during COVID, I was the one fighting Fauci. Donald Trump put Fauci
• 46:27
  in charge, he never fired Fauci. In fact, Donald Trump's last day
• 46:32
  in office, he gave Fauci a presidential commendation. And I'm just thinking to
• 46:38
  myself, this guy had been responsible for justifying school closures, for justifying mandates,
• 46:45
  for justifying lockdowns, and by January of twenty twenty one, we knew
• 46:51
  how destructive it was, we knew it had failed. So on the biggest
• 46:54
  hysterical issue, the biggest current thing, were all these elites got together COVID
• 47:01
  nineteen. I was one of the leaders throughout this world to stand against those
• 47:06
  people, fight back against them. And so I think that the fact that
• 47:09
  I've been willing to do that, I mean, for example, I've got
• 47:13
  a grand jury hearing evidence in Florida about misrepresent misrepresentations by pharmaceutical companies over COVID
• 47:22
  nineteen jabs. There's not another elected official in the country who's been willing to
• 47:28
  ask those types of questions. You know, we're doing it, and we're
• 47:30
  getting we're getting answers for that. So I think I presented a great opportunity
• 47:35
  for people because I have all the right enemies you see it by how they're
• 47:39
  attacking me, But I also have a proven record of beating these people,
• 47:45
  and we would do the same thing as president. So I thought that was
• 47:47
  absolutely fantastic, and I think Desandas is one hundred percent right on that.
• 47:52
  I just wished that was a larger part of the Desantas campaign narrative. And
• 47:57
  I question whether or not it's too late to set that narrative, and whether
• 48:01
  or not De Santis has allowed Trump for a number of reasons, including the
• 48:06
  fact that it took so long for De Santis to even get in the race,
• 48:08
  that Trump has been allowed to define him even on COVID. I think
• 48:13
  that was I think was one of the more brilliant things that Trump did.
• 48:16
  Trump knew that his great vulnerability was COVID response. But he also knew that
• 48:23
  to the non news junkie, maybe the average I don't know if you call
• 48:29
  it average or not, but you know, certainly not the person who's on
• 48:32
  Twitter all the time, the person who goes about their life and doesn't think
• 48:36
  about politics on a daily basis and doesn't live in Florida or near Florida,
• 48:43
  that they might not have a real strong idea about what De Santis actually did
• 48:49
  on COVID. And Trump saw that as a vulnerability, and he saw an
• 48:54
  opportunity, especially before De Santa's got in the race, where he could attack
• 49:00
  the Sandists at his strength and define the Santist as actually having been weak on
• 49:07
  COVID, which, of course, you know, Trump was doing basically what
• 49:09
  the liberals always do it's it's projection. He's he's he's attacking on his own
• 49:15
  vulnerability, and he's accusing someone else to doing exactly what he did. I
• 49:20
  mean, Trump was the one that was very, very weak in the COVID
• 49:22
  response. The Santist was extremely strong. But you know, in Trump's world,
• 49:29
  that doesn't matter, the truth doesn't matter. So he lies about the
• 49:31
  Sandis and he takes away the Sandus's strength. And I don't even think the
• 49:37
  Santis understood this. I think that the Sandis and the people around him probably
• 49:42
  thought this was so crazy, this idea that you could ever lose the COVID
• 49:45
  issue, that they were very vulnerable to being usurped there, that they were
• 49:53
  naive, that they didn't fully understand what they were up against. And Trump
• 50:00
  was able to poison the waters with the enough Republicans that you know, De
• 50:04
  Santis was really terrible on COVID. In fact, you know Andrew Cuomo was
• 50:08
  better in New York. And then when Trump went down that path instead of
• 50:14
  attacking full bore, going all guns a blazing and taking advantage of that misstep,
• 50:19
  that the Sanders people just let it slide, just let it go,
• 50:22
  which I think was the final nail when this is all said and done,
• 50:25
  and the coffin when they did not take advantage of that or the advantage of
• 50:29
  the opportunity to debate Gavin Newsom that Sean Hannity provided them on a silver platter,
• 50:35
  and that was basically to me, that was the end, because that
• 50:37
  was the last chance to recapture that narrative which was central to the DeSantis campaign.
• 50:44
  But with the Santas said in that clip with Russell Brand was absolutely correct,
• 50:49
  and that's the way the media works in this situation. Unfortunately, I
• 50:53
  think the media is probably gonna win. Both the right wing and the left
• 50:57
  wing media are deeply, deeply invested, as I've said, from the very
• 51:00
  very very beginning of this whole process in RHN de Santis not being the nominee,
• 51:06
  which is a large part of why those people who make the analogy to
• 51:10
  the twenty eight Democratic nominating process. I can't tell you how many people to
• 51:16
  this day constantly tweet at me when I say this is looking like it's pretty
• 51:21
  much over and De Santis isn't going to be the nominee. They said,
• 51:23
  oh John, what about Hillary and Obama? And oh eight? And I've
• 51:27
  gone through this before, so I'm not going to go through it all again,
• 51:30
  but you know, the number one factor in two thousand and eight on
• 51:34
  the Democratic side was that the news media just lifted Barack Obama on their shoulders
• 51:40
  and with pom Poms in hand, carried him to the lead against Hillary Clinton.
• 51:46
  And the exact opposite is happening with regard to Rhoda Santis. And it
• 51:51
  was, unfortunately, all very very predictable, and as far as you know
• 51:55
  what's going to happen from here, the next big decision, other than anything
• 52:00
  related to the next indictment that Donald Trump faces with regard to January sixth,
• 52:05
  of course, is going to be what happens with the debates. And I
• 52:07
  have been probably more outspoken and more outfront on this issue than anybody else saying
• 52:13
  that Donald Trump is not going to do all the debates and any debates that
• 52:16
  he does do, given the leverage he has because of the polling. And
• 52:20
  this is one of the many reasons why polling really does matter, despite what
• 52:23
  the Santis fans want to believe, is that he's going to have the leverage
• 52:28
  to effectively stunt any debates that he does participate in. To the point whether
• 52:34
  they're not real debates, and that there's no chance of there ever being amanoamano
• 52:38
  head to head battle between him and ron De Santis, because that's what Trump
• 52:43
  fears. Well, I found it to be rather hilarious that Ronan McDaniel,
• 52:46
  the head of the Republican National Committee, actually put out a statement warning Donald
• 52:53
  Trump, warning Donald Trump that it would be a mistake for him to skip
• 52:59
  the debates. Like, how the hell does Ruina McDaniel, who has her
• 53:04
  job because of Trump, possibly gonna warn Donald Trump? Or what or what
• 53:10
  are you gonna do to him? Runa McDaniel, What are you possibly gonna
• 53:14
  do to Donald Trump if he doesn't do the debates? Because of the leverage
• 53:19
  that Trump has from the polling and the perception of him winning the nomination in
• 53:25
  a very significant way and him being inevitable, there's there's nothing that anyone can
• 53:31
  do. The warning has nothing behind it. Now, if Trump had been
• 53:37
  still under containment, a phrase that I use all the time because that was
• 53:42
  the key moment in this old situation where Trump broke containment. If if Trump
• 53:46
  was still under containment, then maybe those warnings would have some teeth, because
• 53:51
  Trump wouldn't have all the leverage that he currently does. But he does have
• 53:55
  that kind of leverage, and I don't think there's any chance in the world
• 53:59
  at this point that Donald Trump does the first debate, which is about a
• 54:02
  month from now on Fox News Channel. And I think that that debate will
• 54:08
  be a complete fiasco for I shouldn't say complete fiasco. I think it'll be
• 54:13
  a net negative at best. I think it'll be a net negative for the
• 54:16
  De Santis campaign because right now he's fighting to hang on to second place.
• 54:22
  Well, what does a non Trump debate provide all of the other contenders an
• 54:29
  opportunity to take out rond De Santis and potentially make themselves the second place runner.
• 54:37
  I mean, it's the worst possible scenario for the Santis. Trump can't
• 54:42
  be attacked. Trump makes himself the alpha male. Everyone gets elevated to the
• 54:47
  Santis's status, while De Santis gets diminished because he's forced to fight off these
• 54:54
  minions. These people have no chance of being the nominee. I mean,
• 54:59
  it's perfectly just. I mean, Trump couldn't possibly have asked for a better
• 55:04
  scenario than this, and I anticipated this from very far away. This is
• 55:07
  my greatest fear, and that's where we're heading, and so I just don't
• 55:13
  see any path for how this is all going to turn around. I mean,
• 55:16
  the Sanders could do great in that debate. He probably will do great
• 55:20
  in that debate. He does, I think, very well in every media
• 55:22
  appearance that he does, but it's not gonna matter because the dynamics are very
• 55:29
  very very much set against him and in favor of Trump in every way,
• 55:34
  and somebody else is going to get even more traction, whether it's Vake Ramaswami
• 55:38
  or Tim Scott or whoever it is, and the Sanders's position will be further
• 55:45
  weekend. I hope that's not the way it somehow turns out, but that
• 55:49
  certainly seems as if it's the direction we're heading, and it's hard for me
• 55:53
  to imagine a scenario that is much different from that. And at this point,
• 55:59
  one of them any reasons why, maybe the most important reason why I
• 56:02
  want ron To Santis to be able to hang in there and at least finish
• 56:07
  a strong second in the Republican race is the issue of the COVID response,
• 56:12
  how it will be seen in history, and whether or not we're ever going
• 56:15
  to have to do this again, whether it's regarding a virus or more likely,
• 56:20
  in my view, regarding so called climate change, global warming, and
• 56:24
  the Santis has tried to make this an issue. I've seen him mention it
• 56:28
  in a couple interviews that they're going to do it again. If they get
• 56:31
  away with it, if there's no accountability in what happened with COVID, they
• 56:35
  will do it again. And I agree with that. I have not seen
• 56:37
  him make the direct connection between doing it again and the issue of global warming
• 56:45
  climate change, which to me is becoming more and more obvious. And frankly,
• 56:50
  if Trump is the nominee and then we lose to Biden and he loses
• 56:54
  the Biden, which would be the most likely scenario when we had the opportunity
• 56:59
  for Rond de Sanders to be the nominee, then we pretty much deserve whatever
• 57:02
  the hell we're going to get with regard to future lockdowns, whether it be
• 57:07
  regarding another viral outbreak or in my view, much more likely, the issue
• 57:14
  of global warming climate change. The evidence is overwhelming, it's increasing almost on
• 57:21
  a weekly basis that this is obviously the plan of the left, that they're
• 57:25
  going to use the playbook of COVID to restrict our lifestyles and the motivation or
• 57:32
  the alleged motivation. The weapon that they will use is global warming, climate
• 57:37
  change. And if you think that I'm chicken little, if you think I'm
• 57:42
  exaggerating, well let me give you another data point. This is from the
• 57:46
  LA Times over this past weekend. A real headline, a headline of a
• 57:53
  story written by a person whose job it is to cover climate change. It
• 57:58
  should be pointed out, so you know, this is someone whose job is
• 58:01
  literally hanging on the idea that there is such a thing as man made climate
• 58:07
  change, which in the you know, is almost the definition, textbook definition
• 58:10
  of a conflict of interest and something that should never happen in real journalism.
• 58:15
  But of course journalism is dead. But here is the the Los Angeles Times
• 58:22
  putting their toe in the water of a climate change, global warming lockdown with
• 58:29
  regard to energy, and they're really not even being subtle about it. Here
• 58:34
  was the headline, would an occasional blackout help solve climate change? Would an
• 58:43
  occasional blackout help solve climate change? Now this is an absurd question on every
• 58:52
  level. But let's I'm gonna grant. Okay, let's pretend there's climate change.
• 58:59
  Let's pretend and it's man made. Let's be pretend it's because of our
• 59:02
  use of energy. All those things I think are in great question, But
• 59:06
  I'm gonna just for the sake of argument, accept all of this. What
• 59:10
  is the possible evidence that an occasional blackout would have any impact whatsoever on the
• 59:19
  global climate. I mean, you have to be an imbecile. You literally
• 59:25
  have to be an imbecile to think that that is even remotely possible. Oh
• 59:30
  yeah, if we just turn out the lights occasionally or the air conditioning occasionally,
• 59:36
  we're gonna be able to change the climate. It won't get as hot.
• 59:39
  How about hilarious is that, by way, if we don't use air
• 59:42
  conditioning, then it won't get as hot. Somehow, they will stop using
• 59:51
  air conditioning. By the way, lots of people will die of heat exhaustion,
• 59:54
  because that happens whenever you have blackouts. People die in the heat.
• 1:00:00
  You know, if heat related blackouts are a death machine. I mean,
• 1:00:04
  it's been proven people die all the time when there are heat related blackouts because
• 1:00:08
  they don't have air conditioning and they die of heat exhaustion. But I mean,
• 1:00:14
  you know this idea that somehow, if we don't use air conditioning all
• 1:00:17
  the time when it gets super hot, then eventually the planet will cool itself.
• 1:00:22
  It's I mean, it's just too stupid. It's just too stupid to
• 1:00:25
  even go into. But this article didn't just ask an insanely dumb question.
• 1:00:34
  It started off with maybe even I wouldn't say a dumber question, but a
• 1:00:38
  further expansion of that incredibly stupid headline. Here's how the article began. What's
• 1:00:45
  more important keeping the lights on twenty four hours a day, three hundred and
• 1:00:52
  sixty five days a year, or solving the climate crisis? As if those
• 1:01:00
  two things are an either or as if it's you know, door number one
• 1:01:04
  or door number two. Those are our two options. If we don't keep
• 1:01:07
  the lights on twenty four seven, three sixty five, then we will solve
• 1:01:13
  the climate crisis. Again, presuming there is a climate crisis, which I
• 1:01:16
  don't even accept that that's a reality, and it's certainly not man made if
• 1:01:22
  it does even exist. But this is the La Times in their mind,
• 1:01:27
  asking that question that the very start of an article makes perfect sense because there's
• 1:01:30
  really only two options here. No, there's the third option, which is
• 1:01:36
  by not using electricity all the time and being forced to not use electricity during
• 1:01:44
  times where it's very hot. People are gonna die, and it's not gonna
• 1:01:47
  do anything. It's literally not going to do anything. Even if all your
• 1:01:53
  premises are correct, which I don't believe they are, it's not going to
• 1:01:58
  do any thing at all. Zero. So it's some absurdity on its face.
• 1:02:06
  Now, during this article, and I'm not going to bore you with
• 1:02:07
  this whole article, but during this article, the writer to something fascinating and
• 1:02:13
  very telling, and that is that Intermittently in this article, which was about
• 1:02:20
  this dispute over whether or not here in California, actually in Glendale, California,
• 1:02:24
  which is where my wife grew up, there's a battle over whether or
• 1:02:30
  not a plant can be refurbished. The energy companies want to refurbish the energy
• 1:02:37
  plant because the ability to get enough electricity to people in Glendale is being hindered.
• 1:02:45
  So effectively, this is a battle between the environmental whack jobs and the
• 1:02:49
  people who just want to have enough electricity to be able to keep the air
• 1:02:52
  conditioning on because it gets hot in the summer in Glendale, California. And
• 1:02:58
  during this article, the author basically goes into what I would call parenthetical statements
• 1:03:05
  or aside or soliloquies about their own personal thoughts or questions on this issue,
• 1:03:13
  and I want to share a couple of them with you because they really do
• 1:03:16
  say so very much about how insane the left wing media is on this issue
• 1:03:22
  and most importantly, where we are headed with regard to climate or global warming
• 1:03:30
  related lockdowns, especially if we get Trump Biden as the two presidential nominees,
• 1:03:37
  because let's be clear, both Trump and Biden on the same side when it
• 1:03:39
  came to COVID lockdowns and doctor Fauci. So here's the first aside from the
• 1:03:45
  La Times, and it's reference referencing what's going on in Glendale, California.
• 1:03:51
  It's a highly technical dispute, but it's part of a larger conversation about how
• 1:03:57
  much blackout risk we can it are acceptable in modern society, and whether our
• 1:04:03
  expectations should evolve in the name of preventing climate catastrophe. So we need to
• 1:04:14
  evolve. We came up with this amazing thing called electricity, and now we
• 1:04:18
  have air condescing where people can live almost anywhere if they have enough money to
• 1:04:21
  pay the electrical bill, and people aren't dying of heat exhausted on a regular
• 1:04:27
  basis, unless, of course, we have rolling blackouts during a heatwave.
• 1:04:30
  And this is actually a bad thing because we need to evolve our perception of
• 1:04:36
  electricity in the name of preventing climate catastrophe. So now we've gone from climate
• 1:04:44
  crisis to climate catastrophe. As if turning off the electricity occasionally is somehow going
• 1:04:51
  to impact that. I mean, it's just again beyond asinine. Then later
• 1:04:57
  on in the La Times article, again and again I've found myself asking would
• 1:05:02
  it be easier and less expensive to limit climate change and it's deadly combination of
• 1:05:10
  worsening heat, fire and drought and flood if we were willing to live with
• 1:05:16
  the occasional blackout. I mean, in all seriousness, if my eleven year
• 1:05:27
  old daughter who's going into fifth grade wrote this as an essay, I would
• 1:05:31
  consider this, you know, forget about the political aspects of it. I
• 1:05:34
  would consider this to be barely passable in the realm of logical thinking. I
• 1:05:42
  would give her a pass because she's only eleven years old, that somehow this
• 1:05:45
  was an either or situation, or that these things were connected, or this
• 1:05:49
  was remotely a logical way of thinking. But this is an LA Times climate
• 1:05:54
  change writer asking again and again found themselves asking would it be easier to just
• 1:06:02
  limit climate change? What's the fucking evidence that turning off the electricity occasionally it's
• 1:06:10
  going to have any impact whatsoever? Not to mention, I mean, once
• 1:06:13
  again point out there's no evidence that fire is related to global warming or climate
• 1:06:17
  change, none. And I'm not even sure that we can count drought and
• 1:06:24
  flood along those conditions are related to climate change global warming, but at least
• 1:06:30
  they have some logic to them. Of course, California, ironically, which
• 1:06:34
  you're gonna get to momentarily because there's another article related to what's happening in California
• 1:06:39
  that I've talked quite a bit about on this podcast, is currently a classic
• 1:06:44
  example the fact that climate change global warming is not causing permanent droughts or floods.
• 1:06:49
  But again, I'll get to that momentarily. Back to the La Times
• 1:06:54
  a little bit later on in this article another aside from the author, but
• 1:06:58
  absent major breakthroughs in carbon capture technology, will eventually need to shudder, most
• 1:07:05
  if not all, of those gas plans. To avoid disastrous temperature jumps,
• 1:07:13
  scientists say we need to cut carbon pollution nearly in half by twenty thirty,
• 1:07:20
  or else what? Or else what? What's going to be the disastrous temperature
• 1:07:27
  jump? Don't don't these people so stupid? They don't understand that these scientists
• 1:07:32
  are deeply invested in the gravy train here that you know, they always put
• 1:07:39
  we got to do it by twenty thirty because it's far enough away where we
• 1:07:42
  can theoretically do something. Also far enough away that no one will remember their
• 1:07:45
  predictions when they don't turn out to be true, and they can always claim
• 1:07:49
  doom and gloom, you know, ten years in advance, fifteen years in
• 1:07:54
  advanced, twenty years in advance, because there's no accountability on that. There's
• 1:07:58
  absolutely no proof of this. Forget about proof. There's not even logic or
• 1:08:01
  evidence to back this up. But in this writer's mind, we will eventually
• 1:08:05
  need to shut her most, if not all, well, those gas plants.
• 1:08:11
  That's insanity, that's an impossibility. There is no chance of us being
• 1:08:16
  able to do that logistically by twenty thirty, even if we wanted to,
• 1:08:21
  even if we thought it might actually do something positive without there being You want
• 1:08:27
  to talk about catastrophe, Here's what the catastrophe would be people in the middle
• 1:08:30
  of a heatwave without air conditioning. That would be a fucking catastrophe. That
• 1:08:35
  would be a climate catastrophe. But you know, because we've now changed where
• 1:08:41
  we live. And oh, by the way, where we take the temperature,
• 1:08:44
  but that's a whole nother story of another day. We have changed where
• 1:08:46
  we live because of air conditioning. In California is a classic example of this.
• 1:08:55
  You can drive well if there's no traffic. You can't do in normal
• 1:08:58
  conditions because the traffick is a terrible but if there was no traffic, you
• 1:09:01
  can literally drive. During the summer, you can drive from a place where
• 1:09:06
  it's sixty five degrees to a place where it's one hundred and five degrees in
• 1:09:12
  about two hours and that's normal. That's normal. And the places where it's
• 1:09:17
  one hundred and five degrees guess what, people didn't live there fifty sixty years
• 1:09:23
  ago. But then we got air conditioning to the point where normal people could
• 1:09:29
  afford it, and then people started to live there. And again point out
• 1:09:32
  take the temperature there, which I think is irrelevant, irrelevant fact that no
• 1:09:39
  one in the Climate Change COLT wants to address. But the reality here is
• 1:09:45
  that this is absurd. This is the view of the Los Angeles Times,
• 1:09:48
  published prominently, and to me, it is the most obvious indication that I
• 1:09:56
  have seen that we are headed, at least the left is gonna try to
• 1:10:01
  force us down this path of climate related lockdowns. That it's going to be
• 1:10:06
  about energy, It's about access to electricity. And I predicted previously that eventually,
• 1:10:13
  eventually this is going to cause a civil war in the United States because
• 1:10:16
  the Red States aren't going to go for this at all, and the Blue
• 1:10:19
  states probably will, and then there's going to be massive migration because this is
• 1:10:24
  the kind of stuff that will force people, even more so than COVID to
• 1:10:28
  leave a blue state to go to a red state. I mean, this
• 1:10:31
  is I think the most underrated issue facing America into the future. Here,
• 1:10:35
  this issue of how we're going to be allowed to use our energy, our
• 1:10:42
  gas resources, our electricity resources. And you know, thankfully, even in
• 1:10:47
  Los Angeles this is on the bright side. I know, I'm not big
• 1:10:51
  on the bright side. Even in Los Angeles. There was some indication in
• 1:10:56
  this article of pushback against this insanity because the writer was forced to basically finish
• 1:11:03
  the article, almost finished the article by saying of the hundreds of people who
• 1:11:08
  responded to my question the asmone question at the beginning of this article, most
• 1:11:15
  rejected the idea that more power outages are even remotely acceptable for reasons beyond mere
• 1:11:23
  convenience. A former member of the LA Department of Water and Power's Board of
• 1:11:28
  commissioners wrote that quote, someone dies every time we have a power outage unquote.
• 1:11:33
  An environment reporter in Phoenix, where temperatures have exceeded one hundred and ten
• 1:11:39
  degrees for a record twenty straight days, said simply, yikes, right,
• 1:11:46
  yikes, because this is this is the kind of insanity that is going to
• 1:11:50
  cost lives and cause massive disruption in the way that we live our lives.
• 1:11:58
  I mean, we have based our lives on this idea that we have electricity,
• 1:12:03
  and I guess the part of this that most frustrates me is that this
• 1:12:08
  is a classic maneuver by the left where they actually want things to go to
• 1:12:15
  hell to promote their agenda and rolling blackouts, which is largely because of a
• 1:12:21
  lack of infrastructure and a broken power grid, not because of global warming,
• 1:12:29
  but they want there to be rolling blackouts because in their minds, it'll say,
• 1:12:35
  see the reason why this is happening is because it's getting hotter. Well,
• 1:12:40
  no, it's because we have more strain on our broken electrical grid,
• 1:12:45
  You fucking morons. But in their view, screwing up the electrical grid is
• 1:12:51
  actually good because it'll then force people to realize how the climate is changing,
• 1:13:00
  how much hotter it's getting, and that's why because it's hotter, people will
• 1:13:03
  use more electricity on air conditioning. That's why we're having the rolling blackouts.
• 1:13:08
  But to me, the main point of this article is this is foreshadowing.
• 1:13:15
  This is where they're heading. They're not even trying to be clandestine about it.
• 1:13:19
  They're making it very clear. And I'm not suggesting it's going to happen
• 1:13:24
  this year or next year. But if Joe Biden wins reelection against Donald Trump
• 1:13:30
  and wins significantly, and then Kamala Harris takes over just short of two years,
• 1:13:34
  says she can run for two more terms or just after two years,
• 1:13:40
  I think I do think this is where we're headed, and it will be
• 1:13:44
  driven nationally because they know that the Red States will never go for this,
• 1:13:48
  so it's gonna have to be some national push on this. And there's already
• 1:13:53
  evidence of that the Biden Energy Department is proposing cracking down on inefficient water heaters,
• 1:14:00
  which is reminiscent of the state of New York already effectively banning new gas
• 1:14:05
  ovens. After saying that that was a conspiracy theory on the left, claiming
• 1:14:10
  that that was a right wing conspiracy theory. The evidence is overwhelming. This
• 1:14:14
  is where we're heading, folks, And it's all based upon this religion of
• 1:14:18
  climate change, global warming. Now, I have talked a lot, maybe
• 1:14:23
  too much, I don't know. I don't know people find it interesting or
• 1:14:25
  not. But I talk about my own experiences, and I have talked a
• 1:14:29
  lot about what's happened in the last almost year here in California with regard to
• 1:14:34
  our climate slash weather, and specifically the fact that this past winter and early
• 1:14:40
  spring we had the coldest, the wettest, and the snowiest winter slash spring
• 1:14:47
  in the modern history of the state. And California has always been used by
• 1:14:51
  the left wing media as the epicenter of the so called climate crisis because our
• 1:14:57
  droughts have been used as aha. See, California is in a permanent drought
• 1:15:02
  and it's because of global warming, climate change, and oh by the way
• 1:15:05
  those wildfires, that's clearly evidence of global warming climate change, even though there's
• 1:15:12
  no evidence that wildfires are because of global warming climate change, even if that
• 1:15:16
  was real, and I have stated continually, although the news media doesn't want
• 1:15:20
  to acknowledge this reality, that it has been now well over a year and
• 1:15:25
  a half, it's been about eighteen months since we had really significant wildfires in
• 1:15:31
  California, largely because of the fact that we just had this incredibly cold and
• 1:15:36
  wet and snowy winter and spring. Now, will we have wildfires later on
• 1:15:42
  this summer and early in the fall. I'm sure we will. But that's
• 1:15:46
  natural. It happens every year. It's often because of arson, not because
• 1:15:50
  of climate change global warming. Well, there's also other reasons that have nothing
• 1:15:56
  to do with climate change global warming that causes there to be wildfires. But
• 1:16:00
  and then there used to be, you know, a pushback among the experts
• 1:16:03
  on the wildfire global warming climate change theory, and they're all used, I
• 1:16:09
  won't look for this very very carefully because up until a few years ago,
• 1:16:14
  there would always be some semblance of quote unquote expert pushback. But then I
• 1:16:17
  think they just waved the white flag because the media made it clear that they
• 1:16:21
  really, really really wanted wildfires to be part of this equation because the pictures
• 1:16:26
  are just so awesome, right, and you know, fire is hot,
• 1:16:30
  and you know fire at night, you know, is really scary, and
• 1:16:33
  they want to be able to put those pictures in their articles or in their
• 1:16:39
  news stories. And so you know, the news media is decided, screw
• 1:16:43
  you experts, We're going with the wildfire narrative, even if there's no evidence
• 1:16:47
  to support the idea that wildfires have anything to do with the climate change global
• 1:16:50
  warming. And to me, it's one of those smoking guns. If the
• 1:16:54
  experts are willing to to seed bullshit on wildfires for political reasons and to help
• 1:17:00
  their allies in the news media, then what else are they willing to do,
• 1:17:03
  right, Because it's not about science anymore, it's about politics. Well,
• 1:17:09
  I was fascinated that the Washington Post this past weekend did a very very
• 1:17:15
  extensive article, very extensive article about what I've been talking about, and in
• 1:17:21
  some ways they did it in a fair fashion with regard to what's happened in
• 1:17:27
  California, Because I've been wondering, why is no one going to tell the
• 1:17:30
  story of what's happened in California. Well, the reason my theory was was
• 1:17:34
  because it doesn't fit with their overall narrative. What's happened in California over the
• 1:17:39
  last six or seven months blows apart so many of the basic premises that the
• 1:17:45
  lift left wing media has on climate change, global warming. So I was
• 1:17:49
  really interested to read what the Washington Post was putting out there on this.
• 1:17:55
  Well, the headline itself, as is usually the case, was very very
• 1:17:59
  telling headline in the Washington Post. This is written by a guy my name
• 1:18:01
  of Scott Dance. Again in another climate reporter, how California's weather catastrophe turned
• 1:18:11
  into a miracle California, How California is weather catastrophe turned into a miracle boil.
• 1:18:18
  I could probably talk for a half hour about that headline alone, but
• 1:18:21
  let's just break it down just a little bit. How California is weather?
• 1:18:28
  Weather? See that's interesting. So when you have six or seven months of
• 1:18:31
  the coldest, wettest, snowiest period in the modern history of California, that's
• 1:18:39
  weather. See, that's weather. But when it's July and you get a
• 1:18:45
  lot of heat in the southwest or the southeast, as we've had, recently
• 1:18:50
  in America. That's evidence of climate change, you see. So a week
• 1:18:56
  of really hot weather or two weeks whatever it is in July in places where
• 1:19:01
  it's always hot, that's climate change. But an entire winter and spring,
• 1:19:08
  I mean, I'm talking an entire winter in spring from a hot period in
• 1:19:13
  October. After that, from middle October late October darned near through June,
• 1:19:20
  it was colder than normal almost every single day throughout almost the entire state of
• 1:19:26
  California. And it was also wetter and snowier than ever been in the modern
• 1:19:31
  history of the state. So that somehow is weather and not evidence of climate
• 1:19:36
  California's weather catastrophe. It's a catastrophe. No, no, it was a
• 1:19:43
  predicted catastrophe that didn't turn out to be true because the experts once again were
• 1:19:49
  totally wrong, and it turned into a miracle. See here's what's happening.
• 1:19:56
  They have taken. Left wing media is taking what should be a period of
• 1:20:01
  time in California, their favorite climate change state that should make them question everything
• 1:20:09
  about what they believe about what's really happening with the climate, and they've turned
• 1:20:14
  it into holy shit, we got so lucky with a miracle it was an
• 1:20:19
  absolute miracle that the drought ended. And we thought then that once all this
• 1:20:26
  snow fell in the Sierra Mountain Ranges, that it was going to get too
• 1:20:30
  hot too fast, and everything was gonna melt and we were gonna get floods
• 1:20:35
  and that was going to be a catastrophe and that didn't happen. So so
• 1:20:41
  basically, again, it's a very long article. You know. The subheadline,
• 1:20:45
  by the way, is gushing waterfalls, swollen lakes, and snow covered
• 1:20:49
  mountaintops transformed the States arid landscapes, which is true. I got no problem
• 1:20:58
  with that. I have a big problem with how they manipulate the narrative here
• 1:21:02
  that somehow this is a miracle, that this is a complete outlier. Now,
• 1:21:09
  it was an outlier with regard to the fact that it was the wettest,
• 1:21:13
  coldest, and snowiest winter on record in California, but it was so
• 1:21:18
  much so that in a rational world it would make people go, well,
• 1:21:23
  wait a minute, how is this possible in a world that we are supposedly
• 1:21:30
  getting warmer every single day? And by the way, you know, I
• 1:21:32
  thought it was climate change, but yet it's always about warming, warming,
• 1:21:35
  warming, warming. We've now gotten to the point where the media is so
• 1:21:40
  invested in the global warming narrative, even if they call it climate change,
• 1:21:44
  that when it's hot in the summer, that's news. But when it's cold
• 1:21:48
  in the winter, you know, well, that's just the way it works.
• 1:21:50
  It's just the way you know, the winters are. Even if you
• 1:21:55
  have what's happening in California, which goes against the grain of everything we're being
• 1:21:59
  told. We're told California was in a permanent drought. Here's the reality.
• 1:22:03
  The reality is California has always been cyclical. I've studied this extensively. It's
• 1:22:11
  basically like clockwork. Every five or six years, there is one, maybe
• 1:22:15
  two years in a row where we get a lot of rain and a lot
• 1:22:19
  of snow, and that gets us through the next four or five years where
• 1:22:24
  we're gonna miss the rainy season because the rainy season is only a couple of
• 1:22:28
  months long, and if you know, the systems don't work out properly,
• 1:22:32
  or if it's an al Ninia or alan Nina or whatever the hell happens that
• 1:22:36
  particular winter, there's a very good chance we'll get very little rain and snow.
• 1:22:42
  But this year broke all the records, and in my view, that
• 1:22:47
  doesn't prove that there's no climate change. It doesn't prove that there's no man
• 1:22:53
  made influence on climate change, it doesn't prove that there's no global warming.
• 1:22:58
  But it ought at least be part of the narrative. And the hilarious part
• 1:23:01
  of this Washington Post article is that time and time again, the article goes
• 1:23:08
  through the narrative, don't I have to say eighty percent of what's written in
• 1:23:12
  this is dead on and fantastic, But it's all written from the wrong perspective,
• 1:23:17
  because each as they go through the narrative, they keep going, well,
• 1:23:20
  the experts thought this was going to happen, and they were wrong.
• 1:23:24
  And the experts thought this was going to happen and they were wrong. I
• 1:23:28
  mean, this is at least three or four times. And yet there's nothing
• 1:23:32
  at all in the article that suggests we'll wait a minute. If they were
• 1:23:36
  wrong about X, Y and Z, or A, B and C,
• 1:23:39
  why can't they be wrong about X, Y and Z. Why can't they
• 1:23:43
  be wrong about the larger picture? I mean, and this shouldn't be that
• 1:23:48
  difficult. I mean, it was at the beginning of this winter we were
• 1:23:53
  told we were heading for another year of drought, and then when that didn't
• 1:23:57
  happen, we were told, well, the snow came too early, and
• 1:24:01
  so by the time the spring comes around there there'll be no snow left.
• 1:24:04
  And then the snow's kept coming. And not only do they keep coming,
• 1:24:08
  but they got larger and larger and larger. And then we were told,
• 1:24:12
  well, no, it's too much snow now, because it's gonna get too
• 1:24:15
  hot too fast. There's gonna be floods. And none of that happened.
• 1:24:17
  In the Washington Post they document that. Of course, they documented from the
• 1:24:21
  standpoint of wow, just how lucky California got and this is a one shot
• 1:24:28
  deal. And you know, it's in no way ship or form an indication
• 1:24:32
  that we should question everything we think we believe about our religion. And it
• 1:24:40
  was particularly funny, ironic, whatever that this weekend. And I always talk
• 1:24:46
  about Ysemitic National Park because we go there on vacation at least once a year.
• 1:24:50
  It's my wife's favorite place. And you know, Yosemite is surrounded by
• 1:24:55
  the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges, and that's where all the snow comes from,
• 1:25:00
  and that's where we get a large large part of our water. That's why
• 1:25:01
  the snowpack matters so much in California. If you're not familiar, it's not
• 1:25:05
  just you know about pretty pictures. It's about literally the water supply for the
• 1:25:10
  next year. And that's why it's so telling and so fascinating. I mean,
• 1:25:15
  here we have the ultimate real life experiment where you know, the line
• 1:25:19
  between rain and snow through most of the winter is a very fine line,
• 1:25:24
  and the things were really getting warmer. The Sierra Nevadas would not have gotten
• 1:25:28
  a record amount of snowfall this year over an extended period of time. It's
• 1:25:31
  not like it happened on one monumental, unheard of storm that in a week
• 1:25:40
  dumped all this snow. This happened week after week after week after month after
• 1:25:45
  month, and then even after it was over, it still remained cool,
• 1:25:48
  which had the Washington Post very very confused as to how that could possibly happen
• 1:25:55
  in this era of global warming. But this past weekend, so a top
• 1:26:00
  of Yosemite National Park is this place called Tuolomie Meadows. We've ever been to
• 1:26:05
  Yosemite, you probably knew what I'm talking about, But Twolomie Meadows is absolutely
• 1:26:10
  beautiful, but it's very very difficult to get to, and in fact,
• 1:26:14
  it's impossible to get to in the wintertime because it's blocked off by snow because
• 1:26:18
  it's the highest point and you know, even in bad years, there's always
• 1:26:24
  going to be snow there. Well, the road to get to Twollowing Meadows
• 1:26:29
  gets opened up to great fanfare every year because it's you're only allowed to get
• 1:26:34
  up there for a couple of months during some years, during drier years,
• 1:26:38
  you might be able to get up there for four or five months before it
• 1:26:41
  closes back down in late fall or sometimes early fall, depending on you know
• 1:26:45
  what happens with the snow. Well, this year, the road to Twolomie
• 1:26:50
  Meadows opened up just this past weekend on July twenty second. July twenty second
• 1:27:02
  was the first time they were able to open the road to twallow me Meadows
• 1:27:08
  because the snow had finally been cleared enough for cars to pass. July twenty
• 1:27:16
  second. That is an all time record late date for that happening. And
• 1:27:25
  here this is interesting from a media perspective. So I take the picture from
• 1:27:30
  the Yosemite National Park Facebook page of cars finally being able to enter towards Twallow
• 1:27:35
  me Meadows and I posted on Twitter and I explain, you know what's going
• 1:27:40
  on, And I say this, this is the latest date that this has
• 1:27:44
  ever happened. And I had people who are in the climate change contrarian realm,
• 1:27:54
  I mean, their entire Twitter accounts are based upon them being contrar arians
• 1:28:00
  or skeptics on the issue of global warming climate change, say to me,
• 1:28:04
  Wow, that's really awesome. What's the proof that this is the latest date.
• 1:28:09
  Well, in a world where the news media was remotely fair an objective,
• 1:28:15
  what I would have been able to do is site three or four articles
• 1:28:20
  from news outlets in California that were citing, oh my gosh, how amazing
• 1:28:27
  this is, that this is the latest date, by far, that this
• 1:28:30
  road has ever been opened at Twollomie Meadows. But I look for it.
• 1:28:35
  I couldn't find it because nobody wrote anything about this. There was not one
• 1:28:41
  article. What can you imagine, by the way, if it was the
• 1:28:43
  earliest date ever to get into Twolomie Meadows, of course that would be news
• 1:28:49
  everywhere because that would fit the global warming climate change agenda. But because it's
• 1:28:56
  the latest, and by the way, it's by far the latest date that
• 1:28:59
  this road has ever opened up. There were no news articles, so I
• 1:29:01
  had to go back and find a direct link to the actual data where they
• 1:29:06
  keep track of the date for the last almost hundred years where that road has
• 1:29:12
  opened up. And sure enough I was correct. I knew I was right,
• 1:29:15
  but that didn't matter. But the point of this is it's because there
• 1:29:19
  was no news coverage of it. Even people on my side were skeptical as
• 1:29:25
  to whether I was actually telling the truth, which I was, and I
• 1:29:28
  was able to prove that. But to me, that's the ultimate example,
• 1:29:31
  the ultimate proof of the news media not even being remotely fair, remotely objective,
• 1:29:38
  acting like this is a religion, accepting that their religion is true and
• 1:29:42
  then seeing everything else through the prism of that religion. And you know,
• 1:29:46
  it used to be that this was kind of just a comical issue, almost
• 1:29:50
  academic. You know, it was on the fringes. But I now believe
• 1:29:54
  this is one of, if not the biggest issue of our time. And
• 1:29:59
  it's largely be because of this issue of lockdowns that I've already referenced that this
• 1:30:01
  is where we're headed, that they are going to take away at least in
• 1:30:05
  blue states our ability to use gas and energy. They're already doing it.
• 1:30:10
  But it's very clear that this is going to be a This is going to
• 1:30:13
  be the next big battle, the next big war, and I think it's
• 1:30:16
  going to divide the country in huge, huge ways. And it's all based
• 1:30:23
  on what I think is at best or worst, depending on your perspective,
• 1:30:28
  something that is grossly exaggerated and fundamentally misunderstood, and not based in science,
• 1:30:33
  but based instead in politics and panic and the media being broken and being dumb
• 1:30:41
  and being all about agenda and all about ratings and all about staying within their
• 1:30:45
  club, and not about telling the truth, and not about fairness and not
• 1:30:49
  about journalism. And that's part of why I talk about this, probably more
• 1:30:54
  than most people do, but also because in this particular case, I think
• 1:30:59
  I have been way ahead of the curve when it came to what was happening
• 1:31:01
  in California. And it was interesting that the Washington Post finally acknowledged essentially that
• 1:31:06
  I'm right. Of course, they tried to spin it very much in their
• 1:31:10
  own direction, which is what you expect now from the broken national news media.
• 1:31:15
  I want to shift now to the area of movies. Talked a lot
• 1:31:18
  about Sound of Freedom, which has been the big surprise box office hit of
• 1:31:25
  the summer. The movie starring Jim Caviezel, who is perceived by the left
• 1:31:31
  wing media as a right wing figure even though he's a Christian, although he
• 1:31:35
  is absolutely now associated with Donald Trump. I referenced that there was a quote
• 1:31:42
  unquote rumor. I knew there was more than a rumor, but I didn't
• 1:31:45
  say it was a rumor that he and Trump were going to get together and
• 1:31:48
  screen Sound of Freedom. That happened, Altho, they didn't get as much
• 1:31:53
  publicity as I thought that it might, but it was certainly out there that
• 1:31:56
  Jim Caviezel sat next to Donald Trump at a screening of Sound of Freedom,
• 1:32:00
  and Trump of course praised Sound of Freedom. Sound of Freedom about child sex
• 1:32:06
  trafficking. It's a very good movie if you haven't listened already. In episode
• 1:32:11
  seventy four, I give my perspective on the film and we interview my good
• 1:32:15
  friend Cyrus Narasta, film director and writer who has directed Jim Caviezel in two
• 1:32:19
  major films, as very close to Jim Caviezel and was actually a casual consultant
• 1:32:25
  on the movie Sound of Freedom. It's now gotten one hundred and twenty five
• 1:32:30
  million dollars at the box office, which blows away anything that they could possibly
• 1:32:33
  have imagined was possible with regard to box office receipts for a movie about child
• 1:32:40
  sex trafficking during the summer. But I'm very glad that this has happened because
• 1:32:45
  I do think that it has taught Hollywood a lesson. It has defied the
• 1:32:49
  left wing media attacks on the movie, which were completely absurd. I'm not
• 1:32:54
  as big a fan of the movie from a technical standpoint as Cyrus, and
• 1:32:59
  it was also more difficult for me to watch it because I have an eleven
• 1:33:01
  year old daughter and most of the movie is about an eleven year old daughter
• 1:33:03
  be or eleven year old girl being kidnapped and forced to be sexually enslaved,
• 1:33:09
  so that's not exactly pleasant. But it's very well done and I would recommend
• 1:33:13
  you go see it, but most importantly from a political standpoint, even though
• 1:33:15
  it's not a political movie at all, but from the politics of the way
• 1:33:19
  Hollywood works. I'm thrilled that for Sound of Freedom has succeeded, has broken
• 1:33:25
  through, has gotten around the left wing media lockdown on making sure that they
• 1:33:34
  are in control of whatever projects are allowed to succeed, that they are the
• 1:33:40
  ones to decide which movies are successful and popular in which are not. Well,
• 1:33:44
  this got outside their grasp, and so that's part of the reason why
• 1:33:47
  I've been rooting for Sound of Freedom and the success story there continues. Now.
• 1:33:53
  Interestingly, the movie Barbie just came out this past weekend. This is
• 1:33:58
  the movie about the kid's doll Barbie, starring Margot Robbie. My eleven year
• 1:34:02
  old daughter, who I've just referenced, has been, although not clearly as
• 1:34:06
  much as she used to be, because she's eleven years old now a huge
• 1:34:10
  Barbie fan. I mean, maybe the best Christmas video we have is of
• 1:34:16
  our daughter Grace, after having asked for the Barbie dream House for all of
• 1:34:23
  Christmas, thinking that she didn't get it, and then coming into our playroom
• 1:34:28
  and finding the Barbie dream House having been sitting there the whole time, she
• 1:34:33
  went absolutely bananas. It was a fantastic video, something that will cherish for
• 1:34:39
  all time. By the way, technically it wasn't the Barbie Dreamhouse. Grace's
• 1:34:42
  mother and dad had gotten her a much better version of a Barbie Dreamhouse like
• 1:34:47
  structure. Which was built with great frustration the night before. But please don't
• 1:34:53
  tell Grace about that. But she was a huge Barbie fan and still likes
• 1:34:58
  Barbie enough to wear she's very, very eager to go see this movie.
• 1:35:03
  And her six year old sister, Diana also wants to see this movie because
• 1:35:09
  she's not as into Barbies as Grace has been, but she's still into Barbies,
• 1:35:14
  and here in lies the problem. So the movie blew the doors out
• 1:35:18
  of the box office this past weekend one hundred and fifty five million dollars,
• 1:35:23
  largely because it had a hundred million dollar marketing budget, and it's all anybody's
• 1:35:28
  been talking about. And Margot Robbie is popular and luck as a man,
• 1:35:32
  I'm a fan of Marco Robbie because she's beautiful and has done a lot of
• 1:35:39
  very sexy roles in the past. And you know, it's been marketed in
• 1:35:44
  a way that conservatives who have seen the movie think is fraudulent. Specifically,
• 1:35:48
  Ben Shapiro has really gone completely on the warpath against Barbie, but he is
• 1:35:55
  not alone. There have been other conservative commentators who have said that this is
• 1:35:59
  a terror movie, that it's very woke, that it's very anti mail that
• 1:36:03
  it's not very good, that it's more focused on adults than it is on
• 1:36:09
  kids, and that it has been misrepresented in its marketing, that it's something
• 1:36:14
  completely different than what is perceived. And Ben Shapira, among others, as
• 1:36:18
  predicted that the second weekend for Barbie will see one of the most dramatic drop
• 1:36:26
  offs in box office receipts, maybe in history. And I think that's possible
• 1:36:30
  because the movie did better than even expected with one hundred and fifty five million
• 1:36:34
  dollars this past weekend, which then you know, that's great for the movie,
• 1:36:39
  but then that creates a problem where if the second weekend you only get
• 1:36:44
  forty million dollars or whatever it might be, the percentage of drop off is
• 1:36:48
  precipitous and dramatic and newsworthy, and I'm kind of rooting for that. Now.
• 1:36:55
  I have not seen Barbie yet. We are scheduled to see Barbie as
• 1:36:58
  a family tomorrow, so I'll report back in our next episode of the podcast
• 1:37:03
  on Thursday. I'm my wife and I have actually talked about whether or not
• 1:37:08
  we even want to go based upon these reviews, but the kids have been
• 1:37:13
  told that they were going, and they're looking forward to it, and so
• 1:37:16
  I think what we're going to try to do is just reduce expectations as much
• 1:37:20
  as possible. My eleven year old daughter, Grace is very much aware of
• 1:37:25
  wokeness and you know, and she suffered because of it. I mean,
• 1:37:28
  she's sad about what's happening with the live action version of Snow White. She
• 1:37:32
  was sad about what happened with the live action version of Little Mermaid, and
• 1:37:38
  so I mean, these are all things from her childhood that Hollywood is systematically
• 1:37:42
  destroying for whatever agenda they have. And I do think there is an agenda,
• 1:37:46
  and I do think it's largely political. But it's sad. And I
• 1:37:51
  mean it literally is sad because one of our greatest Christmas moments and memories is
• 1:37:57
  Grace getting that Barbie dreamhouse, at LEAs in her mind, a Barbie dreamhouse.
• 1:38:01
  And and I'm, you know, Hollywood is now going to piss all
• 1:38:04
  over that. And and I'm we're gonna be forced to pay money to watch
• 1:38:10
  our daughter, you know, have a part of her childhood be at least
• 1:38:15
  besmerged, if not erased, And it's just very very frustrating and angering.
• 1:38:19
  And again, I want to hold off on my own assessment of this,
• 1:38:24
  I trust that the conservatives I'm seeing attack Barbie are basing this on something that's
• 1:38:30
  real. Will I will not be surprised if I agree that it's a complete
• 1:38:35
  pile of garbage. But but we have not yet seen it, and like
• 1:38:40
  I said, we plan on doing so, and I'll report back in the
• 1:38:42
  next episode of the podcast. There's been a almost somewhat similar controversy in country
• 1:38:49
  music to the Sound of Freedom situation. I think there's some similarities between what's
• 1:38:55
  going on with Sound of Freedom and what's happening with a country music star.
• 1:38:59
  But the name of Jason Aldean. Now I'll be the first to acknowledge.
• 1:39:03
  Even though I once lived in Nashville and I like country music enough. I'm
• 1:39:08
  not a huge fan, but I like it enough. I'd never heard of
• 1:39:11
  Jason Alden until the last couple of weeks when this controversy erupted over a song
• 1:39:16
  that Jason Aldean has created called Try That in a Small Town. And the
• 1:39:24
  reason why there was controversy over this is that the music video for the song
• 1:39:30
  try That in a Small Town has now been banned from Country Music TV,
• 1:39:36
  which is I guess, you know, the country music version of what MTV
• 1:39:42
  used to be for mainstream popular music, and the reason why it was banned
• 1:39:47
  was because it was perceived by some on the left and the woke mob as
• 1:39:55
  being racist. Now, the theme of Try That in a Small Town and
• 1:40:00
  the music video is that we aren't seeing an enormous amount of turmoil in our
• 1:40:06
  nation's cities and a lot of lawbreaking and a lot of bad behavior and a
• 1:40:13
  lot of insanity. And during this video, this music video from Jason Aldean,
• 1:40:19
  there are scenes, real life scenes, not fictional recreations, real life
• 1:40:26
  video of actual things that have happened in real cities where the song is based
• 1:40:31
  on the idea of this kind of stuff might fly in a big city,
• 1:40:38
  but not in a small town. Thus, Try That in a small town,
• 1:40:42
  and the idea of the song is we'll take care of our own in
• 1:40:46
  a small town. You're not gonna be able to get away with this crap
• 1:40:49
  in a small town. The big cities are different, and in the left
• 1:40:55
  wing mindset, this is inherently racist because most big cities have large populations of
• 1:41:01
  black people. Now, there is no evidence whatsoever that this music video was
• 1:41:08
  intended to be or even indirectly racist. It was based in reality. And
• 1:41:15
  there have been many African Americans I've seen on TikTok and other places who have
• 1:41:18
  come forward and said, this controversy is ridiculous. There's nothing racist about this
• 1:41:25
  video at all, but that doesn't matter to the left. And the fact
• 1:41:29
  that they got so exercised about this the left did you people in the View
• 1:41:32
  and other places, really is very telling about how insecure they are about what's
• 1:41:39
  really happening in American cities. Because the song has hit a nerve. It
• 1:41:45
  hit a nerve because it's based in reality. It's based in truth, and
• 1:41:49
  the left knows this, which is why they are seeking to censor it.
• 1:41:55
  And the fact that even country music television was willing to cave on this is
• 1:42:02
  so indicative of how broken our media culture is. And I've seen this happen
• 1:42:09
  time and time again, where institutions that you would think wouldn't cave because inherently
• 1:42:17
  their customer base is more conservative or in this case, more white. I
• 1:42:23
  mean, let's be real, it's not as much as it used to be,
• 1:42:27
  but the country music audience is largely white, largely Southern, and largely
• 1:42:33
  more conservative than average. So you would think that country music television would be
• 1:42:39
  impervious or at least somewhat impervious, to caving over an erroneous, politically correct
• 1:42:45
  charge of racism against a popular song. But that's not the way things work.
• 1:42:53
  In fact, it often works the opposite way. And I've seen this
• 1:42:57
  happen in country music, and I've seen it happen in gaul. Now,
• 1:43:00
  golf and country music both perceived as white endeavors slightly different demographics, although there
• 1:43:06
  is a lot of crossover between the two the audience for golf and the audience
• 1:43:11
  for country music. But golf is also incredibly pc We saw it during COVID.
• 1:43:17
  I've talked about how I believe golf because they were signaling their virtue and
• 1:43:23
  were terrified at being seen as pro Trump if they continued to play when it
• 1:43:28
  was the safest sport imaginable during COVID. Because they were so vulnerable as a
• 1:43:33
  white conservative sport and seen as connected to Trump, they had to go above
• 1:43:40
  and beyond to prove their virtue. To signal their virtue, so they effectively
• 1:43:46
  caved because of the very factors that would make you think that they didn't need
• 1:43:53
  the cave. I mean it wasn't the golf audience that was demanding that golf
• 1:43:58
  shut down during COVID, And it's not just during COVID. By the way,
• 1:44:01
  golf, which is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy, has gone further
• 1:44:06
  than any other sport that I'm aware of in the realm of affirmative action direct
• 1:44:13
  affirmative action, where during PG eight Tour events, they now give slots to
• 1:44:18
  golf tournaments based upon someone's race. These are slots that are directly and specifically
• 1:44:27
  reserved for people of color based largely on their race, not on their playing
• 1:44:34
  ability or their credentials. Now, you would think that golf would be the
• 1:44:39
  last sport that would be forced to do that, but it works the opposite
• 1:44:43
  way because they have to because they feel so vulnerable to the woke mob and
• 1:44:49
  to the mainstream news media because they are perceived as a white conservative endeavor and
• 1:44:59
  white servatives. Especially in the realm of Trump. This is an area so
• 1:45:02
  many areas where Trump has had negative impacts that he gets no accountability for the
• 1:45:09
  right. But there are so many aspects of this that are because of Trump
• 1:45:13
  that Trump exacerbated this in such a big way. He made quote unquote being
• 1:45:17
  a white, straight male conservative, so toxic and so vulnerable that endeavors like
• 1:45:27
  golf and in this case country music have to go above and beyond. They
• 1:45:32
  have to fall all over themselves to prove to the mainstream world that they're not
• 1:45:38
  down with that they're not on team Trump. We're different, We're not racist.
• 1:45:44
  Let's prove to you how not racist we are by giving slots in our
• 1:45:48
  golf tournaments to people because of their race, by canceling a popular music video
• 1:45:56
  because some whack jobs on the left erroneously believe that it is a racist video.
• 1:46:02
  So this is what happens where we live in an upside down world where
• 1:46:06
  the institutions that you would think would be the strongest, that would be most
• 1:46:12
  willing to fight back, are actually the least willing to fight back because they
• 1:46:16
  are perceived as vulnerable. And I do believe that Trump has exacerbated this impact,
• 1:46:25
  and so it's the exact opposite of what you would think of happening logically.
• 1:46:30
  And this whole controversy with try that in a small town I find to
• 1:46:33
  be very outrageous, but also I think very significant because of the divides in
• 1:46:42
  America. I mean, I think white and black is a huge one,
• 1:46:45
  no question about that. I mean, male and female is probably an underrated
• 1:46:49
  divide, but most and most households you have men and women living together together,
• 1:46:56
  although not as much as you used to. But the most underrated by
• 1:47:00
  far divide in America is urban versus rural. Urban versus rural is the divide
• 1:47:06
  in America in so many ways, and yes, politically it's a large part
• 1:47:12
  of this. I mean, you can basically predict how someone is going to
• 1:47:15
  vote whether or not they live in an urban area or whether they live in
• 1:47:19
  a rural area. Obviously, urban areas are far more liberal and rural areas
• 1:47:25
  are far more conservative. But it's it's not just about the politics of it.
• 1:47:30
  It's about the way they view the world, the way they view the
• 1:47:34
  culture, the way they view the country. I mean, the value system
• 1:47:39
  is very, very different. And this is something that used to be championed
• 1:47:43
  by the mainstream news media. I mean, I haven't seen too many people
• 1:47:45
  mentioned it, but John Cougar Melvine Camps I was born in a small town
• 1:47:50
  song. You know, it's considered an all time classic, and camp as
• 1:47:56
  a liberal, but you know that was an ode to how awesome it is
• 1:48:00
  to live in a small town and not in the big city. And look,
• 1:48:04
  I've done both. I've lived almost everywhere in this country. I mean,
• 1:48:09
  I've lived in big cities, I've lived in small cities. I've lived
• 1:48:14
  in more rural and suburban areas. I actually think it's one of my strengths
• 1:48:18
  as someone who commentates on the nature of this country, because I think I
• 1:48:23
  have a pretty unique understanding of the country. I mean, I grew up
• 1:48:26
  in the suburbs of Philadelphia. I went to college in Washington, d C.
• 1:48:30
  I've spent a lot of time in New York City because my dad worked
• 1:48:32
  there. I lived in Boston, where my dad worked for a while.
• 1:48:36
  I've I've lived in a small town in Ohio. I've lived in the South.
• 1:48:43
  I've lived in North Carolina. I've lived in Tennessee. I've lived in
• 1:48:47
  Jacksonville, Florida, which really is the South because it's northern Florida. I've
• 1:48:51
  lived in Kentucky and Louisville, Kentucky, and then I've lived in you know,
• 1:48:57
  Los Angeles, California, and then the suburbs of Los ange Angelus.
• 1:49:00
  So I mean I have about as diverse of a background when it comes to
• 1:49:04
  urban and rural and throughout the geography of this country as anybody I know.
• 1:49:10
  And while there is probably some mythology and exaggeration about how awesome small towns are,
• 1:49:15
  I think there's truth in Jason Aldean's song that there is a there's a
• 1:49:20
  different set of rules, there's a different sense of the culture the country.
• 1:49:27
  And it's not based in race. It's based in values. A lot of
• 1:49:30
  it's based in religion, because I don't know what the percentages are, but
• 1:49:35
  there's no question that in rural areas of the country, people are far more
• 1:49:42
  likely to be religious and usually Christian, than they are in urban areas.
• 1:49:46
  And that changes your entire worldview, your entire mindset. It's the prison through
• 1:49:53
  which you see everything, and people do tend to take care of each other
• 1:49:57
  a lot more, and they also tend to enforce the rules on their own
• 1:50:02
  a bit more. And you know, in an urban area, now we
• 1:50:05
  see people, uh you know, who are stealing stuff from from stores and
• 1:50:12
  no one's even saying anything about two of them are doing anything about it,
• 1:50:15
  in fact, and oftentimes they're not even allowed to buy their employers. People
• 1:50:19
  are getting in trouble for going after shoplifters, as insane as that is in
• 1:50:26
  urban areas now, where it's basically they're inviting people in urban areas to steal
• 1:50:32
  from certain stores. Well in a small town, you know, like like
• 1:50:36
  the song says, try that in a small town, that ain't gonna work.
• 1:50:40
  And and so I have a lot of sympathy for and empathy with Jason
• 1:50:46
  Aldean here one, because I think the song is onto something. And too,
• 1:50:49
  I'm against censorship, and I'm certainly against political correctness, but with regard
• 1:50:55
  to the comparison to Sound of Freedom, I actually think this is all working
• 1:50:59
  out very very well for Jason eldeen, partially because I think he's handling this
• 1:51:02
  exactly the right way. So the country music television essentially censors the very popular
• 1:51:11
  video. And he was doing a concert in Cincinnati this past weekend and he
• 1:51:15
  addressed the dust up with the very approving crowd, and he did not hold
• 1:51:23
  back. Here is a portion of his introduction to the song, which at
• 1:51:30
  the end you're going to hear him suggest that you know, there was some
• 1:51:32
  question whether or not he would still play the song, and the answer was
• 1:51:35
  basically, hell, yes, we're gonna play the song. And you'll hear
• 1:51:39
  the beginning of the song at the end of this clip, but here is
• 1:51:42
  Jason Aldeane in Cincinnati addressing this controversy with a very approving and i'm sure increasing
• 1:51:48
  crowd. What I am is a proud American. I'm proud. I love
• 1:52:06
  our contrary. I want to see it restore to what it wants was before
• 1:52:10
  all this busing started happening to us. I love my contrary, I love
• 1:52:19
  my family, and I will do anything to protect that. I can tell
• 1:52:23
  you that about Here's what I want to say a lot of things out there,
• 1:52:42
  and one thing I love you. Guys know how it is this day
• 1:52:44
  and age. Cancel culture is a thing, and that's something that if people
• 1:52:48
  don't like what you're saying, they try and make sure that they can cancel
• 1:52:51
  you, which means try and ruin your life, ruin everything. One thing
• 1:52:57
  I saw this week was a fun conch of music fans. I could see
• 1:53:00
  through a lot of the bullshit, all right. I saw a couch of
• 1:53:10
  music fans rally like I've never seen before, and it was pretty bad ass
• 1:53:15
  to watch. I gotta say thank you, guys. So watch so have
• 1:53:23
  people asking me, man, everything's going old? As soul you think you're
• 1:53:26
  gonna play it tonight, that you think you're not gonna play it, And
• 1:53:34
  I said, you know people are killing to my shows. You guys know
• 1:53:39
  what I'm about. You know that you know what I stand for. I've
• 1:53:41
  never shot away from that and at all. And I know a lot of
• 1:53:48
  you guys grew up like I did. You kind of have the same values,
• 1:53:51
  the same principles that I have, which is which is we want to
• 1:53:58
  take our kids to a movie and not we're about some asshole coming in there.
• 1:54:00
  Shoot nothing theater right now. So somebody asked me aboutthing, you're gonna
• 1:54:09
  play this song tonight. This is the answer. The answer is symphol.
• 1:54:16
  So people have spoken, and you got spoke very very loud. That is
• 1:54:20
  moving. I give that response an A plus from Jason Aldean, and it
• 1:54:30
  certainly appears as if this is going to help his career in a big way.
• 1:54:33
  I mean, like I said, I've never heard him before this,
• 1:54:36
  but a lot of people have. And I do think that, much like
• 1:54:41
  with Sounding of Freedom, that there is a reaction among a lot of Americans
• 1:54:45
  to gravitate towards this content that is being banned by the mainstream and or being
• 1:54:51
  attacked by the mainstream, and that's the connection that I made the Sound of
• 1:54:55
  Freedom. So hopefully Jason Aldean is going to see that, and there's evidence
• 1:54:59
  of that. I mean, the song after the controversy hit exploded up the
• 1:55:02
  charts, and so Jason alteen is going to be just fine. This larger
• 1:55:08
  issue, though, is still a significant one, and it's very, very
• 1:55:11
  frustrating to see that institutions that on paper should be willing and able to fight
• 1:55:17
  back against the woke mob are actually far more willing to cave to it because
• 1:55:23
  they feel more vulnerable because they're perceived as white, straight, male, conservative
• 1:55:29
  Christian whatever it is. And I have to say, this is a topic
• 1:55:33
  that I thought maybe more about than I normally would have, because coincidence would
• 1:55:38
  have it. I went to a country music concert this past weekend because I
• 1:55:44
  mentioned all the places I've lived, and one of the places I lived was
• 1:55:46
  Nashville, Tennessee. And when I was living in Nashville, Tennessee, I
• 1:55:49
  obviously became very well acquainted with the country music scene, and I became very
• 1:55:56
  very close to the lead singer of a legendary country music band named Diamond Rio
• 1:56:01
  but during the nineties, Diamond Rio was probably the country music band, or
• 1:56:05
  at least one of the top two or three, and they've had a ton
• 1:56:10
  of number one hits, and their lead singer as a guy by the name
• 1:56:13
  of Marty row Well, Marty and I would play golf at least two or
• 1:56:16
  three times a week because you know, he had nothing to do during the
• 1:56:18
  day, and I was doing an evening talk show on a radio station in
• 1:56:23
  Nashville, Tennessee, so I had nothing to do during the day. So
• 1:56:26
  we became very very close. But of course, you know, I moved
• 1:56:29
  to other places and we fell out of touch, and you know, recently
• 1:56:32
  we got back in touch and he was doing a concert just outside of La
• 1:56:38
  so he invited me and the family, and my wife and my two kids
• 1:56:42
  to dinner. He treated us to a very nice dinner, and then we
• 1:56:45
  went to his concert and saw him after the concert, and of course we
• 1:56:48
  had we talked about the Aldine situation, and he and I are very much
• 1:56:54
  politically aligned. Marty as a great guy. I mean, I've been very
• 1:56:57
  lucky. You know, I've met a few come friends with a few celebrities
• 1:57:00
  in my life, and I've been very very lucky as to the ones that
• 1:57:04
  I've been associated with, because they've actually been very, very good people.
• 1:57:08
  I mean, I would put Marty Row almost in the Frank o' harris category
• 1:57:13
  of really great people who also happened to be celebrities. But one of the
• 1:57:19
  things I was thinking about with regard to Marty and this Jason Aldean controversy is
• 1:57:28
  how it is that it's not just within country music, that something has happened
• 1:57:33
  in our media culture over the last couple of decades that I have never seen
• 1:57:39
  anyone mentioned, and that is what has happened to the Southern accent on television.
• 1:57:46
  Now. You might not think this is important, You may not think
• 1:57:48
  this is interesting, but you know, I find it interesting. I find
• 1:57:55
  it significant because I think Southern culture is an important part of what makes America
• 1:58:01
  America. I mean, our differences and our diversity, I think is often
• 1:58:06
  our strengthal. That we've played that that theme in a wrong direction, almost
• 1:58:11
  to the point of absurdity, But I think the South is great in a
• 1:58:15
  lot of ways. Of course, because of the Civil War, it's gotten
• 1:58:17
  a negative connotation in the news media. But you know, before fragmentation in
• 1:58:23
  the media back in the four channel era, you know, there would be
• 1:58:27
  a certain number of television shows that would be based on Southern characters, where
• 1:58:33
  the characters would have overtly Southern accents. I mean, obviously Dukes of Hazard
• 1:58:39
  was probably the most famous of all those shows. Not that Dukes of Hazard
• 1:58:43
  was a great show, but it wasn't just Dukes of Hazard. I mean,
• 1:58:46
  by way. One of the places that this used to be in commonplace
• 1:58:49
  was in college football. I mean, the announcer with a Southern accent in
• 1:58:56
  college football used to be like the the announcer with a British accent in golf
• 1:59:02
  coverage. I mean, you almost have to have a British accent announcer.
• 1:59:05
  It's almost law in any golf coverage. Well, it used to be that
• 1:59:09
  way with college football and the southern accent. Well that's gone now. And
• 1:59:14
  you would think with fragmentation and all these hundreds of different media options now you
• 1:59:19
  would see an increase in it. And now there are some shows that still
• 1:59:24
  cater to that kind of an audience, but they're very, very very niche.
• 1:59:28
  I'm talking about mainstream shows where Hollywood has effectively just eliminated the Southern accent.
• 1:59:36
  I mean it's almost become toxic in and of itself. I was watching
• 1:59:41
  something on CNN. They did one of these documentaries on the nineteen nineties and
• 1:59:46
  television, and it was stunning to see Hillary Clinton, who was then,
• 1:59:49
  of course, the first lady of Arkansas, either having or pretending to have
• 1:59:55
  a Southern accent. And she's not the only one that is just dropped the
• 2:00:00
  Southern accent because I guess it's just no longer cool and it seemed, I
• 2:00:03
  guess in some ways now as conservative or toxic in some way. And even
• 2:00:11
  the exceptions to this proved the rule. You know, let me give you
• 2:00:15
  an example. It's always been a pet peeve of mine. I hate ESPN.
• 2:00:19
  I've been very clear about that for many, many years, you know,
• 2:00:24
  especially with what happened with the whole Penn Stag Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky case.
• 2:00:28
  But ESPN is actually the exception that proves the rule on this. They
• 2:00:32
  have a guy by the name of Marty Smith on ESPN's making a boatload of
• 2:00:38
  money, does a lot of commercials and what have you. And he is
• 2:00:41
  a Southern, straight white male with an unabashed, unapologetic Southern accent. Yet
• 2:00:49
  his job appears to be to be there to effectively sell out Southern white males
• 2:00:59
  whenever necessary. Let me give you an example. When it came to the
• 2:01:02
  Bubba Wallace NASCAR controversy, where Bubba Wallace that whole fate noose panic it turned
• 2:01:11
  out to be just a rope with a hole at the end of it to
• 2:01:14
  open and close a garage door, which should have been able to be figured
• 2:01:16
  out in about five minutes. It was Marty Smith, the token straight white
• 2:01:24
  Southern mail with a Southern accent among the ESPN stars, who was there to
• 2:01:28
  signal virtue and to throw the South under the bus. Immediately bought in completely
• 2:01:35
  to this bogus narrative and then expressed shock when it turned out not to be
• 2:01:41
  true, with no accountability whatsoever. So even the exceptions to the rule,
• 2:01:46
  now a guy like Marty Smith is actually there for the purposes of doing the
• 2:01:51
  opposite, to actually denigrate Southern, straight white males with an accent. And
• 2:01:59
  I just think it's not the biggest deal in the world by far, But
• 2:02:02
  I just think that it's an indication of the power of our media culture and
• 2:02:08
  how the South is being ostracized and almost eliminated systematically piece by peace. The
• 2:02:15
  Jason Aldeen situation, I think is an example of that, and I don't
• 2:02:21
  think it's good for the country, and I don't think it's right. And
• 2:02:25
  as someone who has lived in the North and the South and in the West,
• 2:02:29
  I think there are positives and negatives to every aspect of our country.
• 2:02:33
  But we ought to be celebrating a lot of our differences. And there are
• 2:02:38
  a lot of things about the South that are pretty awesome. And I have
• 2:02:43
  been outspoken and saying that eventually, I do think that we're going to break
• 2:02:46
  apart as a country, partially because of these things that I'm talking about.
• 2:02:53
  You know, the media might be rationalizing this, that we're homogenizing everything.
• 2:02:58
  We're getting rid of the Southern Act said we're all going to talk the same
• 2:03:01
  We're we're all going to be, you know, believing the same things,
• 2:03:05
  and you know that'll be good for the country. But that's just not realistic.
• 2:03:09
  And so when you're eliminating large parts of the country and you're ostracizing them
• 2:03:14
  and demonizing them, that's not going to be positive. And politically, we've
• 2:03:18
  seen this. The political divisions are remarkable. I've said many times that you
• 2:03:25
  know, there was only one landlocked state in the twenty twenty presidential election,
• 2:03:30
  and that was Georgia, and that was only because Donald Trump is that damn
• 2:03:34
  toxic. So if Trump had won Georgia, like he should have, because
• 2:03:40
  you know, Georgia is still culturally mostly conservative, although there's such a large
• 2:03:45
  black population that it becomes more and more difficult for Republicans to win statewide in
• 2:03:51
  Georgia, although the governor there won fairly easily as a Republican governor, Kemp.
• 2:03:57
  But if it was not for Georgia, there would not be one state
• 2:04:01
  in the entire country that was not that was touching. In other words,
• 2:04:08
  Georgia is surrounded by states that went for Trump, even though it went for
• 2:04:12
  Biden. That was the only state that did that, the only quote unquote
• 2:04:16
  politically landlocked state. Because we are that segmented, we are that divided,
• 2:04:24
  and I don't think that's healthy because I think, especially where we're going elsewhere,
• 2:04:29
  that this is a recipe for breaking apart. And I've said that in
• 2:04:32
  all likely we're going to break apart based upon the old college football conference configuration,
• 2:04:41
  where you know, that's that's what binded people together, not that it
• 2:04:45
  would be be because of college football conferences, but that that would delineate,
• 2:04:49
  you know, the old Southeastern Conference, Southwestern Conference, the Pac Ten,
• 2:04:54
  which is exploding now, and as USC and UCLA go into the Big Ten
• 2:04:58
  somehow the Big Ten Conference, all these different regions of the country are are
• 2:05:02
  going to eventually, I think have a lot of pressure to split. And
• 2:05:05
  that's a that's a far afield from the elimination of the or the bastardization of
• 2:05:11
  the Southern accent. But I did find that to be relevant to the whole
• 2:05:14
  Jason Aldean's story, because that's really what the essence of what this is is
• 2:05:18
  demonizing Southern thought, rural thought, and taking something that used to make America
• 2:05:26
  great and was with the backbone of America into somehow being negative, all because
• 2:05:30
  our cities have become catastrophes and you're not allowed to criticize them because to criticize
• 2:05:35
  them would be inherently racist. And it's those rules that the media has created
• 2:05:41
  which are so incredibly detrimental to the country as a whole, and in this
• 2:05:45
  particular case, caused unwarranted censorship. Although hopefully, as I said, I
• 2:05:50
  think it'll work out well for Jason Aldean. There are a couple other stories
• 2:05:55
  I wanted to get to in this episode that I'm going to say for the
• 2:05:58
  next episode of the podcast because they're pretty deep and extensive, but they I
• 2:06:03
  just want to give a heads up that I do want to further address the
• 2:06:08
  Northwestern hazing situation that ESPN is now jumping all over in a way that's very
• 2:06:14
  similar to the Joe Paterno Penn State Jerry Sandusky fiasco, as well as some
• 2:06:19
  issues related to LBGTQ and the explosion of that belief at Ivy League Liberal schools,
• 2:06:28
  which is evidence of a social contagion in not having anything to do with
• 2:06:30
  actual gender identification or medical science. But we'll get to those issues and a
• 2:06:35
  whole lot more in the next episode of the podcast. Until then, thanks
• 2:06:40
  so much for listening. As there's always the case, please remember to subscribe,
• 2:06:44
  rate, and review this podcast. If you share it on social media,
• 2:06:46
  please tag me and I'll be happy to share it with my followers on
• 2:06:50
  Twitter and my friends on Facebook. Until next time. This has been episode
• 2:06:55
  number seventy five of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zickler.