Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy: While I Was In Yosemite

Transcript

Episode Seventy: While I Was In Yosemite · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome the episode number seventy of the Dona Journalism Podcast. My name is John
• 0:04
  Ziggler. I'm your host on today's program. The Supreme Court goes on a
• 0:08
  tear, but will be the real world impact? The Hunter Biden's story gets
• 0:13
  even crazier and some mainstream traction. ESPN has huge layoffs as Disney movies tank
• 0:20
  in the box office, France burns, and we now know what really happened
• 0:25
  on the Titanic searching submarine. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing Man.
• 0:31
  I'm a digital advertising SEO and EMMO marketing specialist that also happens to be a
• 0:37
  big fan of John Ziegler and the Death of Journalism. Do you need help
• 0:41
  preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging and confaded
• 0:46
  message and the best channels for your business. Please visit my website, the
• 0:50
  Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell your story.
• 0:56
  The website is the Dutch Digital marketing Man. If you want to grow your
• 1:00
  business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com.
• 1:06
  And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. This is our first episode in
• 1:10
  a couple of weeks because I went on our yearly vacation to Yosemite, which
• 1:14
  I will talk about later on in this podcast, because I think it has
• 1:18
  some relevance to topics that we've discussed previously. In episode number sixty nine,
• 1:23
  I talked extensively about what was the biggest story in the world at that time,
• 1:30
  which was the submarine that was lost searching for the Titanic, and I
• 1:36
  want to begin today's podcast with a quick review of what we now know what
• 1:41
  really did happen. By the way, there are so many things to get
• 1:44
  to in this podcast. I'm going to streamline my analysis, or at least
• 1:48
  try to otherwise. This will be a four hour episode, but I would
• 1:52
  be remiss if I didn't at least address the Titanic subsituation now. I'm sure
• 1:57
  there are some people who thought I cheated in the last episode because we released
• 2:01
  on Thursday mornings, and it was only a couple of hours before it was
• 2:07
  determined that the sub was indeed lost to an implosion. That I had released
• 2:12
  episode sixty nine in which I said exactly that, and it was very obvious
• 2:17
  to me that this was an implosion of these five people were always dead,
• 2:22
  that the search was a forest that the media had concocted this narrative that they
• 2:27
  might still be alive, and we had to countdown how much oxygen they have
• 2:30
  left because it was such a great story for their purposes in a dead news
• 2:37
  period to have people who are not news junkies be invested in the outcome of
• 2:42
  a story that was going to have a very definitive end regardless of how it
• 2:46
  turned out. And I told you that it was very obvious that this was
• 2:50
  an implosion, and I had very limited information at the time, but I
• 2:53
  used basically my normal formula. For those of you who followed me for a
• 2:58
  long time, you know, I have this very real formula that I used
• 3:01
  to determine whether or not a story is real, and in this case,
• 3:07
  I used it on the concept that there might actually be people still alive on
• 3:12
  that submarine in the days after it went missing. And the equation is this.
• 3:16
  You take the amount of evidence on a scale of one to ten that
• 3:21
  should exist if something is true, and then you divide that number by a
• 3:28
  number another number that you create from one to ten, which is the number
• 3:30
  the amount of evidence that actually exists, and then you multiply whatever you get
• 3:36
  from that division by the number from one to ten that the news media wants
• 3:40
  the story to be true. So in this case, this might have been
• 3:45
  one of the highest numbers I've ever gotten from this equation. I should have
• 3:49
  mentioned this in an episode number sixty nine, because if there was evidence that
• 3:54
  the people had not died instantly, that number would be pretty darn high.
• 4:00
  I mean, at least an eight or nine at that point. And at
• 4:03
  that juncture, the evidence that that was actually true that they were still alive
• 4:09
  was basically a one. So you're talking that that divisor is about an eight
• 4:14
  or a nine, which is about as high as you can possibly get,
• 4:16
  and then you multiply that by how much the media wanted to be true that
• 4:23
  these people were still alive, which would be at least an eight or nine,
• 4:26
  maybe at ten, and you're almost at a record level of the story
• 4:30
  being bullcrap. And that's why I was very confident in episode sixty nine that
• 4:34
  this was indeed an implosion. And the reason why I knew it was an
• 4:38
  implosion was very simple, because the text messaging system and the ability to determine
• 4:46
  where the sub was both went out simultaneously at a time period where they were
• 4:51
  nowhere near the Titanic, and so under the best of circumstances, a little
• 4:58
  bit more than halfway down to the Titanic, they would have known they've lost
• 5:01
  communication they and immediately they would have come back up to the surface. That's
• 5:08
  what I said in episode sixty nine. And there's absolutely no positive, possible
• 5:13
  way they would have continued going down to the Titanic and somehow found the Titanic
• 5:16
  of the dark and gotten stuck within the wreckage of the Titanic. It was
• 5:19
  just an absurd concept and a silly narrative that the news media brought into because
• 5:25
  they knew that was the best story for them, because that's the way the
• 5:28
  news media actually works these days. It doesn't matter what the truth is.
• 5:32
  If they've got manner from heaven, they're going to use it for everything they
• 5:35
  possibly can. Well, it turned out that right after that episode sixty nine
• 5:42
  was released that yes, surprise, surprise, the authorities announced that this was
• 5:46
  indeed an implosion. Now that didn't surprise me, but even I was a
• 5:50
  little bit surprised by how obvious it always was from the very beginning. Now
• 5:57
  that we have all the facts or most of the facts that this was indeed
• 6:00
  an implosion, and that all of this was much ado about absolutely nothing,
• 6:05
  and everybody knew it. The government knew it because they apparently had sonar or
• 6:12
  sound eliciting abilities that they heard the explosion. Now, who knows whether or
• 6:17
  not they tried to tell the media that or they kept it quiet for whatever
• 6:20
  reason. And I don't understand why they would keep it quiet and then reveal
• 6:25
  that information it was some sort of top secret program, which allegedly it was
• 6:29
  conspiracy. Theorists will say, well, they knew this story was good for
• 6:31
  the Biden administration because it was distracting from a whole bunch of other things,
• 6:35
  including issues related to Hunter Biden. I don't really buy. I never buy
• 6:40
  the distraction thing because that requires way too much competence and way too much conspiracy.
• 6:46
  But in this case, I'm actually willing to contemplate it. But the
• 6:50
  experts clearly knew it. James Cameron later came out with an interview that made
• 6:56
  it clear that all the people who are in to know here, and he'd
• 7:00
  been down there thirty three times, the director of Titanic, that he knew
• 7:04
  immediately that this was an implosion. You know, I guess I understand why
• 7:10
  the so called experts wouldn't say that like I did, because if they're wrong,
• 7:14
  they're going to really look like jackasses, and no one wants to doubts
• 7:16
  hope. But there was no hope here, and we now know that.
• 7:20
  And the people that really should have been clear about there being no hope and
• 7:26
  that this story was over before it began were the people at ocean Gate,
• 7:30
  because now we have the actual text messages, and we already knew that the
• 7:35
  text messages ended way too soon for this not to be a catastrophic problem,
• 7:41
  because as I said, they would have come back up to the surface.
• 7:44
  But now we know, and I'm kind of amazed that this hasn't gotten more
• 7:47
  publicity and news coverage, I guess because the story is over now. But
• 7:51
  we now know that at least the guy in charge, the CEO of ocean
• 7:57
  Gate, who was on this doomed submarine, was well aware there was a
• 8:01
  problem, probably a catastrophic problem, for at least a few minutes before the
• 8:07
  implosion occurred. That is obvious from the messages. And we'll never know whether
• 8:13
  or not the passengers knew they were doomed or in danger, but It's clear
• 8:18
  that the guy running the show did for at least five minutes, maybe more
• 8:24
  than that, depending on how you interpret the messages, because they did try
• 8:28
  to come back up to the surface, and obviously they never came close to
• 8:33
  making it, because the submarine imploded and everybody died instantaneously. So it is
• 8:39
  absolutely stunning and rather outrageous to me that the people at Ocean Gate not only
• 8:46
  waited eight hours from that moment when it was obvious that this thing was a
• 8:52
  catastrophe to tell the authorities, but then they acted and at one point even
• 8:56
  publicly complained the rescue mission wasn't happening fast enough, when they knew, damn
• 9:03
  right, well, this thing was an implosion, an instant that instantaneously.
• 9:09
  They absolutely positively knew it. And I'll never fully understand the eight hour delay.
• 9:15
  I guess they were panicked. I don't know if they were trying to
• 9:16
  come up with some cover store. I have no idea why you would delay
• 9:22
  for eight hours. But as I said in episode sixty nine, that was
• 9:24
  completely inconsistent with the idea that these people thought that they had five people stranded
• 9:31
  in the submarine, still alive in the depths of the ocean, and so
• 9:35
  everybody failed here. I mean everybody failed, but mostly the news media.
• 9:39
  The news media, for several days pretended that a reality existed that any rational
• 9:46
  person knew even at the time was utterly impossible. And now, of course
• 9:52
  they've just basically moved on because you know, none of this is helpful to
• 9:56
  them anymore, and there's other things to talk about, other fish to fry.
• 10:00
  But the Titanic situation, a submarine circumstances, the tragedy I found to
• 10:05
  be fascinating. Most people did, but probably found it fascinating for different reasons
• 10:11
  because I think it really illustrated the weaknesses of the news media. And we
• 10:16
  see this time and time again, and it's so easily predicted and predict a
• 10:20
  bull And that's probably why I was so confident in episode sixty nine that this
• 10:26
  was all bullcrap, because I knew this story played right into many of the
• 10:30
  news media's vulnerabilities. So that's the story of the Titanic Submarine. And no,
• 10:37
  I did not cheat. I just knew what was gonna be the end
• 10:39
  result because it was so incredibly obvious. It's just that no one else seemingly
• 10:45
  had the brains and the balls to say it before it was officially determined to
• 10:48
  be the case. Now the big story sends. The last time we spoke
• 10:52
  in episode sixty nine was obviously a series of Supreme Court decisions to which I
• 10:58
  allude at the end of episode sixty nine, and the biggest of those was
• 11:03
  the much awaited affirmative action case with regard to college emissions at Harvard and North
• 11:09
  Carolina. And I, like most conservatives, had been hoping for a long
• 11:15
  time that the supposedly conservative Supreme Court would end affirmative action in college admissions.
• 11:24
  And sure enough, by a six to three margin. In this court,
• 11:28
  the six number is really important because that means that John Roberts, who has
• 11:31
  gone very very soft and who's the Chief Justice, had gone along with the
• 11:35
  conservative majority, because you know, you're never going to get any of the
• 11:39
  three very liberal judges to go along on anything that's important whatsoever. And so
• 11:46
  by a six to three margin, they did, in fact determined that it
• 11:50
  is illegal to use a quote unquote affirmative action when it comes to college emissions
• 11:56
  at universities and schools that accept government funding. And on the surface, this
• 12:01
  is a very good decision. I agree with it. I thought that Clarence
• 12:07
  Thomas's opinion on this was fantastic. Of course, being the black conservative judge
• 12:15
  who has acknowledged that affirmative action has helped him in his career, he was
• 12:20
  particularly good when it came to absolutely eviscerating the dissenting opinion from Judge Jackson,
• 12:26
  the black female judge who was appointed in this democratic administration. I'll share with
• 12:31
  you just a little bit of what Clarence Thomas wrote about the dissent from Justice
• 12:37
  Jackson. He wrote, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between
• 12:45
  race and select measures of health, wealth, and well being to label all
• 12:50
  blacks as victims. Let me stop there for a second. He Judge Jackson
• 12:54
  basically referenced a study that we've talked about previously on this podcast, which I
• 13:00
  tour apart as being utterly ridiculous, that somehow showed allegedly that black lives are
• 13:07
  extended if they are treated by black doctors, and that therefore this would be
• 13:11
  a reason or justification for affirmative action in colleges, because if you have obviously
• 13:18
  more blacks in college, then you're more likely to get more blacks as doctors.
• 13:22
  I guess at the end of the whole thing, and this would help
• 13:26
  with the health and well being of black people. But Thomas continues her desire
• 13:31
  to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of
• 13:37
  Black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds, nor do Justice Jackson's
• 13:43
  statistics regarding a correlation between levels of health, wealth, and well being between
• 13:48
  selected racial groups prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable
• 13:54
  of drawing a direct casual link between race, rather than sociodat, economic status,
• 14:00
  or any other factor and individual outcomes. So Justice Jackson supplies the link
• 14:07
  herself, the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This,
• 14:11
  she claims, locks Blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view
• 14:18
  is irrational. It is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds
• 14:24
  seeking to push through barriers rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. Justice Jackson's
• 14:33
  race infused worldview falls flat at each step. He says, individuals are the
• 14:39
  sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not
• 14:46
  the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their
• 14:50
  race is not to be blamed for everything good or bad that happens in their
• 14:54
  lives. Amen a contrary, myopic worldview based on individual skin color to the
• 15:01
  total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determination, Thomas wrote,
• 15:09
  And it basically has a basic philosophy on this whole thing is bottom line
• 15:13
  is the whole concept of permanent victimhood. If not now, when, If
• 15:20
  you're not going to end affirmative action, now, when would you ever end
• 15:24
  it? And I am somebody who despises affirmative action with a white hot passion,
• 15:31
  and of course, because I'm a straight white male, my opinion on
• 15:33
  affirmative action means probably even less than it does on things like abortion. No
• 15:39
  one cares what a straight white male has to say, because it's always presumed,
• 15:41
  well, you don't benefit it from it, You don't benefit from it,
• 15:45
  so therefore that's why you're against it. No, has nothing to do
• 15:48
  with why I'm vehemently against affirmative action. I'm actually most against affirmative action,
• 15:54
  not just because whites and Asians in this particular case were dramatically discriminated against when
• 15:58
  it came to Kyle admissions. I'm against it because the entire concept is insulting
• 16:03
  to black people. I'm against it because we now live in a society where
• 16:08
  we have unofficial affirmative action in nearly every aspect of our culture, where it
• 16:15
  has gotten to the point now where you must, if you're a rational person,
• 16:19
  be at least suspect of any person of color who is given a position
• 16:26
  that is not based an hundred percent in merit, like in sports, if
• 16:32
  it's anything subjective whatsoever, there's always going to be a little bit of suspicion,
• 16:37
  a little bit of cynicism that hey, did they get their position because
• 16:42
  they really earned it and they deserved it because of the content of their work
• 16:47
  or their character or whatever, or did they get it because of the color
• 16:51
  of their skin? And I hate that because it demonizes and diminishes and and
• 17:00
  insults every achievement by a person of color or a black person that you can
• 17:07
  possibly comprehend again other than in endeavors that are very very objective as opposed to
• 17:15
  subjective, And frankly, there aren't that many of them, especially not in
• 17:18
  public life. I mean, how All of Hollywood, for instance, is
• 17:21
  completely subjective. Television the same thing. Anything involving entertainment is almost entirely subjective.
• 17:30
  There are so many other realms of life that are subjective. There are
• 17:33
  a few, still a few that are objective, but even the objective ones
• 17:36
  have been impacted by affirmative action, even doctors and even scientists. I'm sure
• 17:42
  at this point there's a hunger for people of color to prove that they're not
• 17:48
  racist and to signal virtue, and you know, to be able to show
• 17:52
  how much progress we've made. And to me, it's incredibly stunting of real
• 18:00
  racial evolution and growth. I've said this many times that the greatest disappointment to
• 18:04
  me of the Obama administration was not just that we didn't reach this panacea of
• 18:11
  this color blind world. It's that we decided to panic and go backwards.
• 18:15
  That because eight years of Obama's president didn't fix anything, but it certainly didn't
• 18:19
  fix everything. We decided to toss away the entire concept of equality and go
• 18:26
  with this this idiotic idea of equity. And that's really the difference in philosophy
• 18:32
  when it comes to this Supreme Court decision. Do you believe in equity,
• 18:37
  which is the equality of outcome, which is determined by governmental forces or usually
• 18:42
  by very liberal, woke governmental forces or pseudo governmental forces. Or do you
• 18:49
  believe in equality of opportunity? And I believe in equality of opportunity, But
• 18:56
  you know, the three liberal justices and the Supreme Court certainly don't. They
• 19:00
  believe in equity. They believe in equity of outcomes, which is one hundred
• 19:04
  percent against the entire concept of the United States of America. And it's insulting
• 19:10
  to black people because it is based in the premise that somehow black people cannot
• 19:14
  compete on their own, even generations after they have been legally considered one hundred
• 19:21
  percent equal in America. Now, does that mean that all racism has been
• 19:26
  abolished? Does that mean that there are never any circumstances where having come from
• 19:32
  a line of black people over several generations is not a disadvantage. Of course
• 19:37
  not. Obviously, economics mean everything in this country, and if you come
• 19:44
  from a several generations of poor people, regardless of what your color, the
• 19:48
  color of your skin is, it's going to be difficult to overcome. I
• 19:52
  would argue that if you come from several generations of poor white people, which
• 19:57
  do exist in this country. You're in far, far worse shaped today than
• 20:03
  if you come from generations of poor black people, because, at least in
• 20:07
  the latter circumstance, you have many elements of affirmative action working in your favor.
• 20:15
  Whether or not you're gonna have affirmative action working in your favor when it
• 20:17
  comes to college emissions, I still think is a very open question, because
• 20:22
  while I loved the basic result, I loved Clarence Thomas's opinion and his attack
• 20:33
  on Judge Jackson's descent. The decision itself, I thought was fantastic. It
• 20:38
  was great that liberals went nuts and were forced to take this bizarre position where
• 20:44
  they were very upset that racism was being outlawed by the Supreme Court. It
• 20:48
  was a very very telling set of circumstances that really expose what frauds many liberals
• 20:56
  are that they actually love racism. They just want the racism to be invoked
• 21:03
  on their behalf and by people who are philosophically like them, so they're not
• 21:07
  really against racism. That was all fantastic, however, and there's always a
• 21:14
  however, especially in this day and age, I do not think that this
• 21:19
  ruling is going to change the world when it comes to college admissions. I
• 21:25
  mean, the shorter version of how I read this was, boy, we
• 21:30
  hate affirmative action. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional, it's against everything
• 21:34
  the United States stands for. It needs to be abolished. But if you
• 21:41
  really want to still do it, here's how you can do it, and
• 21:42
  there really won't be much of a problem. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
• 21:45
  That's how I read it. Now that might be a bit of an
• 21:48
  exaggeration, but there was clearly a hardship I'll call it a loophole that was
• 21:56
  put in to this decision where they made it very, very obvious the court
• 22:00
  did. The six justices in the majority, especially Justice Roberts, indicated that,
• 22:07
  you know what, it's still perfectly fine, for instance, in essays
• 22:11
  for students to talk about the difficulty that they faced in their life, the
• 22:18
  hardship that they've had because of their race, and to me, because I'm
• 22:23
  a cynic, and because I know a lot about this admissions process. Now,
• 22:29
  I've never worked as an admissions official, but I have been an alumni
• 22:33
  interviewer for many years at my alma mater, Georgetown, University, which unfortunately
• 22:37
  just hired doctor Fauci. While I was on vacation, I got several texts
• 22:41
  about that, Oh god, Georgetown is such an embarrassment these days. But
• 22:45
  I digress. But I've been an alumni interviewer, and I'm also you know,
• 22:51
  through my father who has been on every board at Georgetown for many years,
• 22:56
  and having had his four kids go to Georgetown out and now he's got
• 23:00
  a couple of grand kids that have gone to Georgetown, and he's got lots
• 23:03
  of friends of friends have gone to Georgetown. I am very much aware of
• 23:08
  the way that the admissions process really works, and I'll be the first to
• 23:15
  admit a lot of it's very corrupt and always has been. I'll get to
• 23:19
  what's one element of this that the Biden administration now wants to attack now that
• 23:23
  they think affirmative action, or at least they're pretending to the affirmative action has
• 23:26
  been taken away from them in a moment. But the reality is, here's
• 23:32
  the reality. The people making these decisions at the vast majority of schools,
• 23:37
  especially the top schools, are all very very liberal. They are very liberal,
• 23:41
  so they want to achieve the goal of affirmative action. And frankly,
• 23:48
  after this decision, it wouldn't surprise me if at many of the top schools,
• 23:52
  and Harvard has already indicated this in their reaction to the decision. They're
• 23:57
  gonna double and triple down efforts to make sure that they still have diversity,
• 24:04
  probably diversity on steroids, just to stick it to the Supreme Court and to
• 24:10
  stick it to conservatives. And the reality is that all you need is the
• 24:17
  smallest of loopholes to be able to achieve this goal of quote unquote diversity under
• 24:22
  the guise of hardship. And it's the same thing as affirmative action. I
• 24:29
  mean it's not just the essays either, folks. I mean, yes,
• 24:33
  every single essay. Now it's going to be about the hardship of your racial
• 24:37
  situation. Now part of me thinks, you know what, white people and
• 24:42
  Asian people ought to do the same thing, And it's going to confuse the
• 24:47
  hell out of admissions officers and they're not going to be able to rely on
• 24:52
  the essay as a signal that you are a black person. So if everyone's
• 24:57
  doing it, which I actually would urge people to do, I think that
• 25:00
  would be fantastic. If every single essay or just about was about your own
• 25:06
  personal racial plight. Then it would essentially mitigate the entire power of the essay
• 25:12
  as being able to reveal to these admissions officers what your race is, or
• 25:18
  whether or not you deserve to admission because of your race, and whether or
• 25:22
  not your your race would promote the ultimate goal, which for them is the
• 25:27
  ultimate goal of diversity, oberall us. Diversity oberall us, which is the
• 25:33
  most important thing to them. It's not about getting the best people. It's
• 25:37
  not about those that deserve admission. It's about is what is our student body
• 25:41
  gonna look like? Or we're gonna be able to signal our virtue to our
• 25:47
  friends at our other schools and at the cocktail parties and feel good about ourselves
• 25:51
  because we have somehow figured out a way to let a lot of people into
• 25:56
  the school that maybe don't deserve to on merit, but you know, because
• 26:00
  of the color of their skin, they're going to get this opportunity. And
• 26:03
  we're gonna be able to pat ourselves on the back because we're all good liberals.
• 26:07
  But the essay is still not the only thing, folks. I mean,
• 26:11
  this is actually going to be very easy and we've seen it already in
• 26:15
  California. California, it's been illegal for many years to use affirmative action of
• 26:21
  college emissions. It hasn't stopped anybody from using affirmative action in the real world
• 26:26
  in college emissions. I mean, my god, because of the nature of
• 26:32
  the racial division in this country, it's incredibly easy to determine what somebody's race
• 26:40
  is. My gosh, names alone are a pretty darn good indication of what
• 26:45
  your race is. Your zip code, your high school demographics, which are
• 26:49
  all very well known publicly and to admissions officers. There's all sorts of clues
• 26:57
  even if, and this is still figuous whether or not there's going to be
• 27:02
  actual space in the application where you check a box that you're African American,
• 27:07
  Asian, White, Hispanic, whatever. So there's gonna be all sorts of
• 27:12
  ways. It wouldn't surprise me, by the way, if the if the
• 27:17
  college interview is brought back. You know, many schools do not have interviews
• 27:22
  anymore. Georgetown is. I don't even still do it because I dropped out
• 27:26
  a few years ago in protest of how woke Georgetown has become, so I
• 27:30
  no longer do alumni interviews. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if all
• 27:34
  of a sudden, you know, we do we come back with the with
• 27:37
  the the good old interview, that that becomes important because this will be a
• 27:42
  way for them to get around affirmative action. Again. Most of the people
• 27:48
  doing the interviews or liberals, it's all a wink, wink, nod,
• 27:51
  nod. They all have the same goal. It's going to be very very
• 27:55
  easy for them to do this. And so to me, it's naive to
• 28:00
  think that somehow this decision is going to change the world. I actually think
• 28:07
  it could even make it worse, because it might make it more difficult to
• 28:11
  prove what they're doing. Now, that's, you know, the worst case
• 28:15
  scenario, And I realize I'm a pessimist by nature, but I think that
• 28:21
  that's very possible. I think it's very possible that that's what's going to happen
• 28:26
  here. So while on principle I applaud this decision and I think it's hilarious
• 28:32
  how much the left is how to melt down about it, and the media
• 28:34
  has really exposed themselves as being in favor of racism, the reality here to
• 28:40
  me is that not that much is going to change. If they want there
• 28:45
  to be quote unquote diversity, they're gonna get their diversity because there's too many
• 28:52
  ways for this to happen, and it's incredibly easy, especially when and you
• 28:59
  know this kind it's a little bit like COVID, where every single one of
• 29:04
  these local and county and state health directors is not just a liberal, they're
• 29:08
  a Marxist, and there's nobody in the room saying what the hell are we
• 29:15
  doing here, and so they all think that what they're doing makes sense,
• 29:19
  and there's no one to stop them. There's no one to raise their hand
• 29:22
  and say this is bullcrap. Well's the same way when it comes to college
• 29:29
  admissions, because everybody in the room is at least a liberal of not a
• 29:34
  Marxist, and there's any conservative is going to shut the hell out because they
• 29:40
  want to keep their job and they know what the ultimate goal with the vast
• 29:44
  majority of these universities is. So this is the price that conservatives pay for
• 29:49
  having basically seeded massive, massive amounts of ground in the cultural battlefield that we
• 30:00
  suffered during COVID because for years and years, no one cared about those stupid
• 30:04
  health director positions, and they were all taken up by nutty liberals. And
• 30:10
  it's a similar circumstance, based upon my experience and understanding of the emissions process,
• 30:17
  that you're not going to have any any conservatives willing to stand up and
• 30:21
  say, wait a minute, what we're doing here is wrong. Now,
• 30:25
  is it possible that at least in the short run, there might be a
• 30:29
  chilling effect, There might be a little bit of fear maybe, But you
• 30:33
  know what this is. This goes back to another problem in this whole situation,
• 30:37
  because these universities, the top private ones are beyond rich, and the
• 30:44
  state ones are funded by the state government. And so let's say they get
• 30:49
  sued. It's it's not a corporation. No one's going to lose their job
• 30:56
  if they do something that causes them to get sued by a white person or
• 31:00
  an Asian person, or you know, some conservative group that's saying that they're
• 31:07
  still discriminating against the Supreme Court decision that allegedly banned a firmative action. In
• 31:11
  fact, it's probably gonna be a badge of flicking honor to get sued in
• 31:17
  the culture that is liberal academia. So I'm sorry to be a wet blanket
• 31:25
  on top of this seemingly great decision. But I just don't see it.
• 31:29
  I don't know that they needed to put so blatantly this hardship loophole in there.
• 31:34
  To me, what I'm seeing is the Supreme Court is basically several years
• 31:41
  behind because it takes so long for cases to get to and be decided by
• 31:47
  the Supreme Court. Then, in this chess game, this conservative Supreme Court,
• 31:51
  in this chess game with Liberals, they're always a step or two behind.
• 31:56
  And it's not really their fault. It's by the nature of time.
• 32:00
  It just takes so much time for these decisions to get made to be made.
• 32:04
  I mean, we saw that again with COVID. I mean, Supreme
• 32:07
  Court did nothing regarding COVID when it mattered, partially because it took so freaking
• 32:14
  long for these cases to get through and they didn't have the balls to be
• 32:17
  proactive about it and get it done in an emergency situation. So again,
• 32:24
  I realize I'm a pestimist by nature, but I'm just giving you my analysis
• 32:29
  of what I think is the most likely scenario here. Now. Of course,
• 32:35
  Liberals want some revenge, right, they want some retribution for this they're
• 32:42
  very upset about this decision. And President Biden has said he wants to now
• 32:47
  crack down on privilege, presumably presumably white privilege. Right, So, and
• 32:54
  how do you do that? Well, you cracked down on legacy admission at
• 33:00
  universities. And this is something that many many liberals. That was their reaction
• 33:04
  immediately to the Supreme Court decision. Well, if we're going to end affirmative
• 33:07
  action, then we should end affirmative action for rich white people who are legacies
• 33:13
  who get their kids and their grandkids into school because they went there. Now,
• 33:17
  again, I am in a terrible position on this one, probably even
• 33:22
  worse than on an affirmative action itself, because I was a legacy at Georgetown
• 33:27
  University. I was the first of four kids to go there. I can't
• 33:30
  believe that my siblings were allowed in after the first couple of years of my
• 33:34
  academic performance at Georgetown, which eventually did improve to respectable levels in my last
• 33:40
  two years. But my parents went to Georgetown. I was the first of
• 33:45
  four kids to go to Georgetown. My father has a couple of grandkids that
• 33:49
  have gone to Georgetown, and so you know, obviously I'm in the quote
• 33:53
  unquote legacy category, and I have seen a lot of corruption when it comes
• 34:00
  to the whole concept of legacies. I'm not gonna get into details because I
• 34:05
  don't want to get anybody in trouble, but it's as bad as even liberals
• 34:12
  probably perceive it to be when it comes to this concept of legacies, or
• 34:15
  more broadly, this concept of if you give money to a university, are
• 34:21
  you buying the admission for your kids or your grandkids? And in large part
• 34:27
  you are. In fact, this was one of the stranger parts of that
• 34:31
  entire college emission scandal that broke a few years ago, where you know,
• 34:36
  even some celebrities got caught trying to bribe coaches at usc pretending that they were
• 34:42
  athletes when they really weren't to get admission. I never understood that scandal because
• 34:49
  all you really have to do is if that money had just been donated directly
• 34:53
  to the school or to help build a building, or if you just increase
• 34:57
  then the amount of money just a little bit, you would have ensured basically
• 35:01
  your kid getting in. Any way, maybe they thought this was a more
• 35:05
  sure fire way because there is some ambiguity. But here's the thing about the
• 35:09
  way these schools work, and why that college emission scandal turned into a scandal.
• 35:15
  You're not supposed to do it in an unseemly fashion paying off a college
• 35:22
  coach to fake that you're your kids an athlete and is being recruited. That's
• 35:28
  unseemly. No, no, no, just give us the goddamn money straight
• 35:31
  up, and then then you know, if you trust us, we'll let
• 35:36
  your kid in or your grandkid in. That's the way this is supposed to
• 35:38
  work. It's supposed to work with a wink wink, nod nod, not
• 35:43
  you know, being nefarious and undercover about the whole thing and lying. They
• 35:49
  don't like that, so that's why that turned into a scandal. Well,
• 35:53
  while there is corruption in this, let me tell you why it is at
• 35:58
  schools haven't gotten rid of legacies and why they probably shouldn't And what liberals are
• 36:04
  missing on the issue of legacies, and that is this number one, legacies
• 36:12
  pay full freight. They pay almost one hundred percent of the time. They
• 36:16
  pay the full tuition, room board, the whole bit. Nobody pays full
• 36:22
  freight in this day and age, especially at the top universities, but legacies
• 36:27
  almost always do. Now, what does that mean, that means effectively,
• 36:30
  legacies are subsidizing a whole hell of a lot of scholarships that generally go to
• 36:37
  who, well, people who are of a lesser socioeconomic status, which statistically
• 36:44
  generally means people of color or people of color generally are more likely to be
• 36:47
  of a lower socioeconomic status when it comes to college emissions. Certainly, that's
• 36:52
  what the liberals are telling us. So who's benefiting from that? Well,
• 36:57
  the whole reason why there's basically the price of college is absurd. It's completely
• 37:02
  insane, and the sticker price hardly anybody pays except for legacies because the sticker
• 37:09
  price is not real, but the legacies pay it. And inherently that means
• 37:16
  that people who are not legacies are paying less. It's just basic economics.
• 37:22
  Okay, So that's that's number one. So people are not understanding that,
• 37:29
  and it's a it's a huge benefit to having legacies be at any university.
• 37:34
  Number two, a college ought to be able to have the right to create
• 37:39
  its own community. And having the children or the grand children, or the
• 37:45
  nieces and nephews whatever of people who have gone there go to the same school
• 37:50
  fosters a sense of community. Now, I realize that if three generations ago
• 37:55
  everybody went there was white, aren't you then facilitate you know, more white
• 38:02
  people going to a particular school. Yeah, but these things take time.
• 38:07
  Eventually, you're going to have generations of black people, Hispanic people, or
• 38:10
  Asian people who want their kids to go there. It should be already happening
• 38:15
  by now. And that's a positive element of legacies as well in creating this
• 38:21
  sense of community. And then there's the other situation, which I've already alluded
• 38:27
  to, which is you takeaway legacies, good luck getting big money donations to
• 38:32
  your school. Good luck because I guarantee almost everybody, not at all of
• 38:38
  them, but a huge portion of the people who put their names on buildings
• 38:43
  at major universities, they're not expecting much in return. They want their ass
• 38:47
  kissed a little bit, maybe get a plaque or whatever. It's cool to
• 38:52
  have your name on something. But the reality here is that they also expect
• 38:58
  that when it comes time for their of their grandkids to apply to the school,
• 39:01
  that they're going to get special favors. And guess what they do,
• 39:07
  because if they didn't, the entire economic system, the business model of universities
• 39:13
  and colleges would fall apart because there'd be no reason to donate. The only
• 39:19
  reason you donate. There's only three reasons you donate to a school one hundred
• 39:23
  percent ego, because you want your name on something. You're looking for some
• 39:29
  help when it comes to future admissions, or you want good tickets to premier
• 39:35
  sporting events. And if your college doesn't have the number three, then you
• 39:40
  better be able to bring the bacon when it comes to admissions, because otherwise
• 39:45
  you're not going to get any of these big dollar donations. And without the
• 39:49
  big dollar donations, guess what happens. The price of school goes up for
• 39:52
  everybody, and poor kids can't afford it. So legacies have a hell of
• 39:58
  a lot more value than the media is giving credit for us. It was
• 40:00
  several years ago when the Wall Street Journal, of all places, went on
• 40:04
  a diatribe about anti legacy, and I thought, oh my god, we're
• 40:08
  totally screwed. If the Wall Street Journal doesn't understand the value of legacies,
• 40:13
  or at least is pretending not to, then we're really done. But that's
• 40:17
  that's the next target for liberals as revenge for this Supreme Court ruling. Now
• 40:23
  the other big Supreme Court ruling was regard with regard to student loan forgiveness,
• 40:30
  and the Supreme Court also on a six to three vote, rejected Biden's plan
• 40:35
  to just forgive student loans. This also really upset liberals. However, there's
• 40:43
  something about this decision that I want to take the media on, since this
• 40:46
  is the Death of Journalism podcast, which is the fact that how in the
• 40:52
  world do the three liberal justices get off the hook for voting against where the
• 41:00
  conservatives did here? In other words, why was this not a nine nothing
• 41:04
  decision? This was as clear cut as it gets. Biden went around Congress
• 41:09
  he did not have the authority to forgive all these student loans. Nancy freaking
• 41:16
  Pelosi said he did not have the authority to forgive all of these loans.
• 41:23
  So this was as obvious and clear cut of decision pretty much as it gets.
• 41:29
  He overstepped his authority very clearly and very dramatically. Yet the three liberal
• 41:36
  justices still voted on his behalf and they get no blowback, They get no
• 41:42
  charges of being partisan, they get no criticism for demeaning the court. Oh,
• 41:49
  the sacred Supreme Court has become so partisan? Well, yeah, largely
• 41:55
  because the three liberal justices never vote against their cause, their political cause,
• 42:04
  on anything, regardless of what the legals argument is. See, the Supreme
• 42:08
  Court was supposed to be based in the concept that didn't matter what your politics
• 42:13
  were, you were interpreting the law, and the law here could not be
• 42:17
  more clear. Get that never matters to liberal justices and they never get held
• 42:22
  accountable by the news media for this at all. And this particular case was
• 42:27
  a perfect example of that. This should have been a nine nothing decision.
• 42:32
  And this was a decision obviously I agreed with this one actually will have impact
• 42:38
  because you're you're taking away a negative. Basically, you're not allowing the loans
• 42:44
  to be forgiven, so now the loans will have to be paid. And
• 42:46
  there's not any subjectivity really involved in this. This is not going to go
• 42:52
  back into the into the you know, the smoke filled rooms of an emissions
• 42:55
  office, not that they allowed to smoke anymore except I guess weed, But
• 42:59
  I digress. The reality is this is going to be much more out in
• 43:02
  the open. This actually will have a major impact. It might even have
• 43:07
  a negative impact on the economy, depending on how this all works out,
• 43:10
  because now all of a sudden, and I'm sure many of these people were
• 43:15
  presuming that they no longer had to pay their loans, and they might even
• 43:17
  be living their lives based upon the fact that they're not gonna have to pay
• 43:21
  their loans, and now they will, Well, something's going to have to
• 43:22
  give, and we'll see what or not that has any significant impact on the
• 43:28
  economy going forward. But the part of this decision that has me most agitated
• 43:34
  is the liberal reaction and the White House reaction of this incredibly lame and absurd
• 43:42
  argument as to why the loan forgiveness ruling was wrong, not on the law
• 43:50
  and not claiming that they actually had the authority to do this when they obviously
• 43:53
  did not. No. The liberal argument, and this is, I have
• 43:57
  to tell you, this is one of the dumbest, most corrupt, most
• 44:02
  assinine counter quote unquote arguments that I can remember, at least in recent time
• 44:07
  period. The counter argument is, well, we have members of Congress who
• 44:15
  did not return their PPP loans. Those loans were forgiven during COVID, and
• 44:24
  so therefore it is somehow hypocritical for those same people to be in favor of
• 44:32
  or against Biden's plan to forgive these student loans. Now, this is it's
• 44:39
  so absurd. It's actually difficult for me to even describe the insanity of this,
• 44:45
  but I'll try. The reality here is that the PPP loans were passed
• 44:55
  by Congress. That's number one, So legally, there in a completely different
• 45:00
  realm than Biden's plan to just blanket forgive student loans and let me stop there
• 45:07
  from them. Because ABC News is Terry Moran, a news anchor on ABC
• 45:12
  News. He's usually okay, you know, he became famous during the O.
• 45:15
  J. Simpson trial, like a lot of reporters from his generation did,
• 45:20
  and I'm very confused. I would love to have a conversation with Terry
• 45:22
  Moran about his evolution on this particular element of the comparison between the PPP loans
• 45:30
  during COVID and the Biden plan to forgive student loans. Because back in August
• 45:39
  of last year, late August of twenty twenty two, the White House tweeted
• 45:45
  a criticism of Republican Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green She's the super pro Trump congresswoman,
• 45:52
  for having had one hundred and eighty three thousand dollars in PPP loans forgiven when
• 45:59
  she was making the argument that it is absurd and wrong to forgive student debt,
• 46:06
  and the White House was trying to claim that this is hypocrisy because there's
• 46:09
  somehow the same thing. Well, Terry Moran took that tweet in late August
• 46:16
  to twenty twenty two, and he quote tweeted it. Now, Normally,
• 46:21
  unless you're very critical of a tweet and you quote tweet it, there's a
• 46:25
  presumption that you're in at least some level of agreement with it, And Terry
• 46:30
  Moran wrote fair points forcefully made. Now I interpret that as he's taking the
• 46:39
  white House side of this, because if he was taking Marjorie Taylor greenside,
• 46:45
  which would be insane for an ABC News anchor to do because you'd get destroyed
• 46:50
  by the woke mob on Twitter. But if you were going to do that,
• 46:54
  you would take what Marjorie Taylor Greene said directly, and you would quote
• 46:59
  tweet that now. But he took what the White House said in response to
• 47:02
  Marjorie Taylor green He quote tweeted that and said fair points forcifully made as if
• 47:07
  he was supporting the White House position, which again would be inappropriate in a
• 47:13
  rational world for an ABC News anchor to do so. But okay, that's
• 47:15
  the world we now live in because you're allowed to take that side. So
• 47:20
  Terry Moran appeared in twenty twenty two to be supporting this concept that it's a
• 47:25
  legitimate analogy and analysis in comparison to make between the forgiveness of student debt by
• 47:35
  the Biden administration their attempt to do so, and the forgiveness of PPP loans.
• 47:42
  Well, imagine my surprise when in the wake of the Supreme Court decision
• 47:47
  to stop Biden from doing this, it was Terry Moran who rather emphatically on
• 47:53
  the air, came out and said, wait a minute, this is not
• 47:59
  a fair compared Harrison, because of the fact that the PPP loans were passed
• 48:05
  by Congress, and obviously Biden's plan to get rid of student debt was not.
• 48:10
  And here's what that sounded like on ABC. I must say that one
• 48:15
  of the arguments that the President was just making is at the very least disingenuous.
• 48:20
  He said, look at the members of Congress who benefited so much from
• 48:22
  the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP loans that went out the door during the
• 48:28
  pandemic. Many members of Congress who voted against. It took a lot of
• 48:30
  money from that program. That program was passed by Congress, the Senate,
• 48:36
  and the House approved the spending of that money, and out the door it
• 48:39
  went. What the Supreme Court said today was without congressional authorization or a clearer
• 48:45
  statement in the existing law that the president can do this on his own initiative.
• 48:52
  This program must be struck down in As I said, this is something
• 48:54
  that was widely expected in legal circle. So I don't even know what to
• 48:59
  make of That was bizarre to mean, I don't know if Terry Moran had
• 49:01
  a change of heart, if somebody spoke to him and said, look,
• 49:06
  dude, here's the major difference. You're totally wrong about this. But it
• 49:09
  was. It was just how emphatic he was in condemning the Biden administration.
• 49:15
  That was so shocking, especially given what I just told you about what he
• 49:19
  had tweeted last year. But here's the other part of this. He was
• 49:22
  right about that element of this equation. But that's not the most important part
• 49:29
  of this whole issue. The most important part of this issue, which to
• 49:32
  me much more dramatically destroys the entire Biden argument that somehow student debt forgiveness and
• 49:42
  p P p P loan forgiveness are in the same stratosphere. Is this not
• 49:50
  just that one was passed by Congress and one was not. That's important legally
• 49:54
  and from what the you know, the Spring Court, that's their role to
• 49:58
  interpret whether or not this was within the law and the Constitution, and clearly
• 50:04
  in this case it was not. But here's the bigger reason why the analogy
• 50:07
  between student debt and PPP falls apart. The entire premise of PPP was for
• 50:15
  the loans to be forgiven. That was considered the goal. The goal was
• 50:24
  for them to be forgiven. This was effectively an accounting gimmick. This was
• 50:30
  a payoff to try to keep the economy afloat while we shut down during COVID.
• 50:38
  This was a bribe to businesses to not get rid of employees, because
• 50:46
  if we shut down businesses and everyone lost their job and then everyone went on
• 50:51
  unemployment, the whole system would collapse in fairly short order. So this was
• 50:58
  a stop gap measure, a gimmick, basically a way for the government to
• 51:02
  print money for all intents and purposes by saying, here, we're gonna pay
• 51:07
  for your employees and other expenses during this time period where we shut you down.
• 51:15
  Now, if you don't do what we say, then you're gonna have
• 51:19
  to pay back the loan. If you do do what we say, so
• 51:22
  we're gonna buy control over you, then the loan is going to be forgiven.
• 51:29
  So that was the entire purpose of this boondoggle was for the loans to
• 51:34
  be forgiven. It could not possibly be more different than the student debt situation.
• 51:39
  So that so Biden is completely wrong. The Democrats are a thousand percent
• 51:45
  off on this, and even Terry Moran didn't get the real full story about
• 51:51
  why this analogy falls apart at every single possible level. There were a couple
• 51:55
  of other interesting and important Supreme Court rulings and other court ruling that I want
• 52:01
  to get to before we move on to other subjects. There was a perceived
• 52:06
  win for free speech, which I agree. It seems to be a win
• 52:08
  for free speech when it came to this very odd situation of whether or not
• 52:14
  a company had to do business on behalf of a gay couple, and the
• 52:21
  Supreme Court ruled that they did not. And of course liberals are very upset
• 52:24
  with this, claiming that this was an anti gay decision, and it was
• 52:28
  not. It was a free speech decision. But the part of this that
• 52:32
  I found very odd is that there are a lot of very legitimate questions.
• 52:37
  I'll give the Left credit on this one. There are a lot of very
• 52:39
  legitimate questions about the nature of the case itself and whether or not the case
• 52:44
  itself was even real. And I'm still not sure I know what the reality
• 52:50
  is. But because of my experience on the Citizens United case, I've talked
• 52:54
  previously about how bizarrely I was right in the room when the Citizens United case
• 53:00
  was birthed by Dave Bossie of Citizens United. It was completely contrived as a
• 53:05
  way of to save a movie called Hilary during the twenty eight election, when
• 53:10
  it was made based upon the idea she would be the Democratic nominee, and
• 53:14
  after it was obvious Obama was gonna usurper. You know, they had spent
• 53:17
  all this money and they wanted to get something out of it, so they
• 53:21
  provoked a Supreme Court case out of it, and it became very famous,
• 53:24
  and Citizens United, I'm sure, made way more money in donations because of
• 53:29
  the Supreme Court case going in their favor than they would have ever. No
• 53:32
  matter how successful the movie might have been, And so that made me very
• 53:37
  cynical about whether or not the Supreme Court really is this holy body that only
• 53:43
  takes cases that are a thousand percent legitimate and fully vetted. Because Citizens United
• 53:51
  was not, and that was a major, major case. And it certainly
• 53:53
  seems like to me a similar set of circumstances here where this case might have
• 54:00
  not even been real or legitimate to begin with. But I'm in favor of
• 54:04
  anything that's in favor of free speech, especially in this day and age,
• 54:07
  so I'll allow it in this particular case, as if iavity say or power
• 54:12
  over it. But I did find that to be an odd circumstance. The
• 54:16
  case that got the least amount of attention but may have the greatest at least
• 54:22
  short term political impact, was that the conservatives on the Court actually sided with
• 54:29
  the liberals when it came to a state gerrymandering case out of North Carolina that
• 54:34
  went in the favor of the Democratic Party. Now, this is a case
• 54:38
  that is very complex and a little bit confusing, and so the bottom line
• 54:44
  on this is how much does a state legislature have over the authority of its
• 54:50
  own state elections and its own state congressional lines, and basically they ruled that
• 54:55
  North Carolina, which was trying the state legislature, was to have a very
• 55:00
  Republican congress because of the way they drew the lines, was going to end
• 55:06
  up having a much more even distribution because the lines were not legitimate according to
• 55:12
  this Supreme Court ruling. And this is this geremandering issue is really becoming a
• 55:17
  bigger and bigger issue. It's really determining who controls the House to representatives because
• 55:22
  we have gotten so sophisticated when it comes to being able to draw these lines.
• 55:27
  We have these computer programs and we know based upon demographics, we don't
• 55:32
  even need a party affiliation. You can determine just by rural, urban,
• 55:38
  and you know, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. You
• 55:45
  have all the information you need to basically know whether or not a portion of
• 55:50
  the geography is going to vote Republican or Democrat. And that's how divided we
• 55:55
  are as a nation. So it's incredibly easy to take the same state,
• 55:59
  I mean North Carolina, which is kind of an odd state. I mean,
• 56:02
  it's gone for Trump a couple of times, but it as a Democratic
• 56:07
  governor and a Republican state legislature. But I mean, you could draw the
• 56:10
  lines in North Carolina to either have a huge Republican majority or where it be
• 56:16
  basically fifty fifty. And the Supreme Court decided that no, it should be
• 56:21
  closer to fifty fifty, and that's going to be a big win for Democrats
• 56:27
  potentially going forward. Of course, it depends on the state. But I
• 56:30
  did find that to be interested because it goes against the entire argument that the
• 56:35
  conservative justices here are politically partisan. I believe the liberal justices are absolutely politically
• 56:42
  partisan. I would say the majority of the so called conservative justices are not
• 56:47
  quote unquote politically partisan. I don't think they give a damn about whether not
• 56:52
  something helps Republicans or Democrats. The liberal justices due and I think this case
• 56:58
  pretty much proved it. One other court case that was in favor of free
• 57:01
  speech, which I'm very happy about, although I don't know how long it's
• 57:06
  going to last. A federal judge in the Missouri versus Biden case has issued
• 57:13
  an injunction stopping the administration the Biden administration from contacting social media companies in order
• 57:22
  to quote unquote stop disinformation. Now, doctor J. Batacharia, who has
• 57:29
  been a guest on this podcast, and who was a tremendous COVID contrarian,
• 57:32
  was part of this lawsuit. Just basically all has a lot to do with
• 57:38
  COVID and the things that the Biden administration was basically telling social media companies to
• 57:46
  censor and crack down on that were against their agenda that they disagreed with,
• 57:52
  some of which, by the way, are either mostly or totally true as
• 57:57
  it turns out. But the judge in the case has issued an injunction,
• 58:02
  so the administration is currently stopped from continuing this policy. But it was the
• 58:07
  media reaction to this. Now, this is not new law, this is
• 58:10
  just an injunction, but the media reaction to this was extremely telling, especially
• 58:17
  when it came from the New York Times. Here's how the New York Times,
• 58:22
  the paper of record, tweeted this particular story breaking news. A judge
• 58:30
  limited Biden administration officials from contacting social media sites, a ruling that could curtail
• 58:38
  efforts to fight disinformation. Let me translate that for you. A judge has
• 58:47
  curtailed the Biden administration's efforts to censor words, concepts, thoughts that they disagree
• 58:59
  with. Is that's what happened here and the judge rule that was a direct
• 59:06
  violation of the First Amendment, which apparently even the fricking New York Times no
• 59:10
  longer believes in. I mean, the New York Times, throughout its history,
• 59:14
  has taken numerous positions, sometimes at great risk, in favor of the
• 59:20
  First Amendment, in favor of free expression and free speech. And here they
• 59:23
  are very casually this going along with the party line that somehow this decision was
• 59:31
  wrong because it's gonna curtail the ability of the administration to fight disinformation. Basically,
• 59:38
  disinformation now is a buzzword liberals use for things that they don't like to
• 59:45
  hear, usually truthful things that they don't like to hear because it makes them
• 59:49
  feel bad about either having been wrong or maybe being wrong, or it makes
• 59:53
  them uncomfortable about their beliefs. It's not crazy stuff in most cases is in
• 1:00:00
  fact the crazy stuff they let go they don't even care about. I mean,
• 1:00:06
  the you know, UFOs are real, We've been visited by aliens and
• 1:00:10
  big Foot and locknest monster or you know, Epstein didn't kill himself. I
• 1:00:17
  mean, all that kind of crap. That's fine. They don't care about
• 1:00:20
  because that's crazy stuff, but you know the stuff that is actually real,
• 1:00:25
  Like you know, vaccines don't stop transmission, and masks don't work, and
• 1:00:30
  you know, social distancing doesn't work, and the schools should have been open.
• 1:00:34
  I mean, I'm paraphrasing here, but all the stuff related to COVID,
• 1:00:37
  that's disinformation because that makes us feel bad about ourselves. And we can't
• 1:00:43
  have that because we are entitled to our feeling of superiority over conservatives, and
• 1:00:47
  that means we're never wrong. So anything that might make us feel like we
• 1:00:51
  might have been wrong or that we were wrong, that's that's disinformation. And
• 1:00:54
  the federal government, in the mind of the freaking New York Times, I
• 1:01:00
  ought to have the ability to intimidate social media companies to stop people from being
• 1:01:05
  able to express their opinions under the guise of stopping disinformation. My god,
• 1:01:10
  stick a fork in the First Amendment. But at least this judge in this
• 1:01:15
  particular case has issued an injunction. The media reaction to it is depressing,
• 1:01:21
  but the ruling itself was correct. Now, what does all this mean That
• 1:01:24
  what I've been talking about for the last forty minutes or so with regard to
• 1:01:29
  all these court cases because there's a perception that is now being created that conservative
• 1:01:34
  court decisions are wins victories for the right. Well as seemingly happens all the
• 1:01:43
  time, even when he deserves no real credit. Sometimes when he does,
• 1:01:47
  this helps Donald Trump. That's right, you guessed it. Virtually everything that
• 1:01:52
  has happened this year has either directly or indirectly helped Donald Trump in his quest
• 1:01:59
  to be the twenty twenty four Republican presidential nominee. The mid terms are now
• 1:02:04
  long forgotten. You know, the concept that Trump is a loser, a
• 1:02:08
  loser in twenty eighteen, a loser in twenty twenty, a loser in twenty
• 1:02:12
  twenty two, that's long gone. It's long forgotten, by the way,
• 1:02:16
  as is most of COVID. He was a loser during COVID as well.
• 1:02:22
  Those issues are seemingly ancient history because in the minds of most conservatives, Trump
• 1:02:28
  deserves and I don't think there's you know, it's totally irrational. There's obviously
• 1:02:31
  an argument to be made on his behalf here. I think it's a little
• 1:02:36
  overrated, but I get it that Trump is the reason why conservatives are having
• 1:02:42
  victories in the Supreme Court, because obviously the Court is six to three quote
• 1:02:46
  unquote conservative because of Donald Trump's victory in twenty sixteen. And I agree with
• 1:02:52
  that. But perception is reality, and the perception is we're winning now.
• 1:02:58
  Trump's the reason why we're winning. Now, let's do some more this by
• 1:03:01
  giving him one last shot. That's going to be the narrative for a lot
• 1:03:05
  of people. And more importantly, the concept of Trump being a loser,
• 1:03:10
  which ironically I heard rohnd to Sanders try to make I think even on the
• 1:03:15
  day of some of these Supreme Court decisions, is just gonna go nowhere right
• 1:03:21
  now because it's against the general perception that's being created and the narrative that is
• 1:03:28
  obviously out there that Trump's a winner again, I mean, bizarrely to sand
• 1:03:32
  has just had the most successful state legislative session from a conservative perspective in modern
• 1:03:38
  history and gets no credit for that, for being a winner. But Trump
• 1:03:45
  will get all sorts of credit for things he has now nothing to do with.
• 1:03:47
  He's out of power, and it's just because he was the person who
• 1:03:52
  nominated these people to the Supreme Court. It was really Mitch McConnell that got
• 1:03:55
  them through. Although I will give Trump credit for stay by Brett Kavanaugh,
• 1:04:00
  because otherwise his nomination would have easily been torpedo with a bogus sexual harrisment or
• 1:04:06
  assault allegation that came against him during those hearings. But the reality is none
• 1:04:15
  of this matters. Perception is reality. The perception is Trump's the reason for
• 1:04:18
  these wins. It eliminates, or at least temporarily eliminates and not permanently,
• 1:04:25
  one of the most lethal attacks against Trump, which is Trump's a loser.
• 1:04:31
  Well, the Republican base isn't going to buy that Trump's a loser when we're
• 1:04:36
  having all these conservative alleged victories in the Supreme Court and elsewhere. So I
• 1:04:43
  expect that Trump's lead, which has now grown to a monumental level, will
• 1:04:46
  continue to be that way barring some inexplicable event, especially during the summer months
• 1:04:54
  when most people are not really paying attention. Now turning to Hunter Biden and
• 1:05:00
  the craziness there. Now, I don't talk a lot about Hunter Biden one
• 1:05:03
  because he's not the president, too, because I know there are a lot
• 1:05:09
  of the conservative news outlets and podcasts that go into this story in great detail.
• 1:05:15
  But I just at least want to mention and but you know, I
• 1:05:18
  don't think it's a non issue. I think that in general, Hunter Biden's
• 1:05:23
  stories are somewhere between what the left is trying to pretend they are, which
• 1:05:29
  is nothing, and what the right is trying to pretend they are, which
• 1:05:30
  is the greatest scandal of all time. I would be in the Dan Abrams
• 1:05:34
  of News Nation category there where you know, whose show I appear on occasionally,
• 1:05:43
  That's where he is on this and that's where News Nation tends to be
• 1:05:45
  on almost everything. But I think Dan is being very sincere here and that's
• 1:05:48
  basically where I am. And you know, in the wake of his plea
• 1:05:54
  deal, his Sweetheart plea deal, we learned that his former business partner was
• 1:05:59
  offering to test to fly to the grand jury, and prosecutors never took him
• 1:06:02
  up on it. And I have to say, while obviously this podcast is
• 1:06:10
  based in the criticism of the news media, there has been some signs of
• 1:06:14
  life on the Hunter Biden story in recent weeks from even mainstream outlets. The
• 1:06:20
  bribery allegations, this allegation that five million dollars both Hunter and Joe Biden in
• 1:06:29
  a bribery scandal have been gaining traction even at CBS and even at CNN,
• 1:06:34
  and so that's pretty extraordinary that the Hunter Biden story has gone from Russian disinformation
• 1:06:43
  during the twenty twenty election to now being taken very seriously by mainstream liberal news
• 1:06:49
  outlets. And in the last couple of days, there was even cocaine found
• 1:06:55
  in the White House. They had to shut it down for a while for
• 1:06:58
  a has met crew. There's some indication that Hunter Biden was there at the
• 1:07:02
  time. We don't know at this taping who was responsible for the cocaine,
• 1:07:06
  but it's hard to imagine anybody else bringing cocaine into the White House. I
• 1:07:11
  have no idea who were what was responsible for that. But I mean,
• 1:07:15
  the Hunter Biden's story is just nuts, and it just keeps getting crazier and
• 1:07:19
  crazier. And there's no question that the even the liberal mainstream news media is
• 1:07:25
  being forced to pay attention to it. And you know, from from a
• 1:07:30
  broader non political perspective, it really must be very difficult to be the son
• 1:07:35
  of an United States president, because, I mean, the history the sons
• 1:07:42
  of US presidence, at least in the modern media age, is pretty awful.
• 1:07:46
  I mean, it's I mean, you know whether and you know brothers
• 1:07:50
  too, but I mean, it's remarkable just how often that happens, and
• 1:07:55
  I guess it just must be a hell of a mind screw. I have
• 1:07:59
  no idea what it's really driving the Hunter Biden situation, but I have said
• 1:08:02
  previously I'll say it one more time. I am very open to the bribery
• 1:08:06
  allegations because of the timing in which they are alleged to have occurred. Because
• 1:08:13
  at that time Joe Biden did not believe he had a political future and that
• 1:08:16
  there was an incentive for him to cash out. There was. It was
• 1:08:21
  not in his mindset that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton and then and then in
• 1:08:30
  twenty twenty there would be an opening for him to be the Democratic nominee and
• 1:08:34
  win. That was just you know it. Certainly it is his age,
• 1:08:39
  and so I'm open to it. I think there's some evidence of it.
• 1:08:43
  I think it's being overplayed a bit on the right, but that's normal.
• 1:08:46
  But I have not come to any one hundred percent conclusions yet on what actually
• 1:08:50
  did and did not happen with regard to any of the Hunter Biden scandals,
• 1:08:56
  especially with regard to the bribery allegation. Now, a couple other things I
• 1:09:00
  want to talk about in our remaining moments of the podcast. Still a lot
• 1:09:04
  to get to. There was a shooting spree over the Fourth of July holiday
• 1:09:10
  in Philadelphia, and stop me if you've heard this before, a transgender person
• 1:09:15
  was behind it. This time it was a black transgender person. They killed
• 1:09:18
  at least five people. Weirdly, there were signs based on social media posts
• 1:09:25
  of this person both being a Black Lives Matter supporter as well as a Trump's
• 1:09:30
  supporter. And so when you put this through the media, Dakota Ring,
• 1:09:39
  basically what's going to come out is let's move along. There's there's nothing to
• 1:09:43
  be seen here. They didn't get to the double digits and casualties, so
• 1:09:47
  therefore we're not required to do this. It's an urban center, so you
• 1:09:51
  know this is expected in Philadelphia. We're not sure if this person is as
• 1:09:58
  a liberal or conservative. If this was a white Trumper, sure great,
• 1:10:00
  but the fact that they're transgender, we have no interest in this, as
• 1:10:04
  we've already proven in the Nashville shooting, which was a huge story for two
• 1:10:09
  or three days and now has disappeared, and we still haven't seen the manifesto.
• 1:10:13
  But this is not the first, unfortunately, nor will it be the
• 1:10:15
  last time where a transgender person is responsible for this kind of heinous crime,
• 1:10:21
  and the media just pretends that that has no correlation or causation effect on this.
• 1:10:28
  I mean, I am definitely of the belief that you have to consider
• 1:10:31
  that as part of the situation where this is a massive thing going on in
• 1:10:38
  their lives. It's an indication, I believe, of potential mental illness,
• 1:10:42
  and therefore the fact that the personally this ends up going on a shooting spree
• 1:10:46
  and killing at least five strangers, there's no indication with any connection between the
• 1:10:51
  killer and the victims. You have to, if you're rational, consider that
• 1:10:57
  as a potential cause of what occurred here. But the news media has no
• 1:11:00
  interest, So we're just going to move along and pretend that didn't happen because
• 1:11:04
  it's just too dangerous and too confusing to us, and so move along.
• 1:11:09
  People, nothing to see here now, similar to this whole issue with regard
• 1:11:15
  to transgender people being able to get away with almost anything in the news media
• 1:11:17
  just ignoring it. I have been very skeptical of this entire narrative on the
• 1:11:24
  right of go woke, go broke. I mean, I'd love for that
• 1:11:30
  to be true. I would love there to be some punishment for companies and
• 1:11:33
  corporations that go woke and therefore they then lose business and they go broke.
• 1:11:42
  I've seen very little evidence that that's actually the case, but I have to
• 1:11:45
  tell you, and the last you know, a few days and weeks,
• 1:11:49
  there has been some evidence that that's in fact the case. Within that umbrella.
• 1:11:58
  I've been a little skeptical that bud Light was really going to suffer as
• 1:12:01
  much as conservatives have claimed because of their bone headed move to hire Dylan mulvaney,
• 1:12:10
  a transgender person, as a spokesperson for their beer, and it was
• 1:12:15
  obvious they were taking a hit. But it's also been very clear in the
• 1:12:18
  last few weeks that this hit was very significant and likely permanent, and no
• 1:12:26
  matter what bud Light has been trying to do to get out of it,
• 1:12:29
  it hasn't worked. By the way, you talk about the pharmaceutical companies getting
• 1:12:34
  good media coverage or preventing bad media coverage because all the money they spent on
• 1:12:38
  advertising on major networks. The CEO of Anheiser Bush went on CBS Morning Show
• 1:12:45
  a couple of weeks ago while I was on vacation. I saw a clip
• 1:12:47
  of it when I returned, and it was just an absolute joke. Gail
• 1:12:51
  King just softballed the hell out of the Anheuser Busch CEO. Of course,
• 1:12:57
  politically they're aligned because King's liberal and this is a very liberal thing they're being
• 1:13:02
  attacked for. So you're you know, you're not. If you're Gail King,
• 1:13:05
  CBS, you're not allowed to take the conservative side. But this was
• 1:13:09
  basically a commercial. This was this was paid for by by I don't know
• 1:13:14
  how many millions of dollars and Antiser Busch spends on CBS for commercials, whether
• 1:13:19
  it's during sporting events or whatever. But this was clearly a quid pro quel
• 1:13:24
  softball interview. But it seems like nothing that anhyser Bush can do as actually
• 1:13:30
  changed the narrative. In fact, Dylan mulvaney came out recently with a video
• 1:13:35
  of course, being a victim. That's what they do, That's what this
• 1:13:40
  is, the main point of this whole thing is to be a victim,
• 1:13:43
  where mulvaney indicated that no one from Blood Light had even reached out to them
• 1:13:51
  in order to say, hey, you're doing okay, because of course you're
• 1:13:55
  being attacked, Oh my god. And criticism is attack and it's bullying.
• 1:13:59
  And you know, the left has already demonized any criticism and you know,
• 1:14:03
  as being anti transgender and blah blah blah. And so it seems like bud
• 1:14:10
  Light is lost on all angles of this. They don't even get any real
• 1:14:14
  points now for being pro transgender. And so it does seem as if this
• 1:14:20
  is going to be a permanent situation for bud Light, a pr disaster.
• 1:14:26
  There are indications of lost market share that it are enormous, and and and
• 1:14:32
  if that's the case, you know, I'm not a bud Light drinker,
• 1:14:35
  so I don't really care that much about bud Light. I'm not a beer
• 1:14:38
  drinker really in general. But you know, that's that's a great development in
• 1:14:43
  my opinion, not that this is the biggest issue in the world, but
• 1:14:47
  to me, lines have to be drawn somewhere, and if this is where
• 1:14:51
  circumstances allow the line to be drawn, then fine, because then at least
• 1:14:57
  in these boardrooms and these places where black Rock is dominating what's actually happening because
• 1:15:03
  they own all the stock, maybe someone's going to go Hey, wait a
• 1:15:08
  minute, do we want to be another bud Light. There has to be
• 1:15:11
  a cautionary tale for people to stop the crap. And you know, another
• 1:15:16
  company that has been very much involved in this conversation is Disney, and this
• 1:15:23
  one hits much closer to home for me as the father of an eleven year
• 1:15:26
  old a six year old daughter, who have both loved Disney through most of
• 1:15:30
  their lives and loved Disneyland. And I've seen that love affair be very tarnished
• 1:15:34
  by the direction that the Disney is heading and have us drop our season passes
• 1:15:40
  to Disneyland. And you know, again, I'm always skeptical of this narrative,
• 1:15:45
  but there's a new narrative among conservative media that this has been a disastrous
• 1:15:50
  summer for Disney movies at the box office, that they have lost a ton
• 1:15:56
  of money, maybe close to a billion dollars. I think that's an overestimate
• 1:16:00
  of the number, but they clearly have had a very unsuccessful summer so far.
• 1:16:05
  The Little Mermaid had a good first weekend, which a lot of the
• 1:16:11
  woke crowd said, c C, we told you you could have a black
• 1:16:15
  Little Mermaid and everything would be just fine. But since then, has basically
• 1:16:18
  tanked, and it's part of a larger phenomenon where the Disney movies have largely,
• 1:16:26
  if not completely failed at the box office, and including Indiana Jones not
• 1:16:32
  doing as well as had hoped with the last installment of that endless series starring
• 1:16:38
  Harrison Ford. And what's really interesting to me about this, and a lot
• 1:16:43
  of this is the coincidence of timing. But there is a movie coming out
• 1:16:47
  this week. It came out on the fourth of July that has a Disney
• 1:16:51
  connection that appears as if it's going to surprise the hell out of everybody at
• 1:16:58
  the box office. It's all the Sound of Freedom or Sound of Freedom.
• 1:17:01
  It stars Jim Caviezel. I have not seen it, but I'm told very
• 1:17:05
  reliably by a film director friend of mine who has seen it, and it's
• 1:17:11
  one of the best movies he's seen in a very, very long time,
• 1:17:15
  and it is blowing the doors out of the box office, especially for an
• 1:17:19
  independent film that has a controversial conservative main actor. Jim Caviezel is not just
• 1:17:28
  very Christian known for the Passion of the Christ, but he has even been
• 1:17:31
  associated with the Q and an which I don't want to say is conservative,
• 1:17:34
  but that's in the media's mind. They see that as the Trump supporters.
• 1:17:40
  But he's had some very very controversial statements that he's made. And yet despite
• 1:17:45
  all this, it looks like Sound of Freedom is going to make up to
• 1:17:48
  twenty million dollars in its first week as an independent film, not a studio
• 1:17:55
  film, driven almost entirely by word of mouth, driven almost entirely by conservatives.
• 1:18:01
  And what's kind of funny about this is that Disney once owned Sound of
• 1:18:08
  Freedom. Now they owned it because they bought twentieth century I guess it's twenty
• 1:18:13
  century Fox. It's also confusing with what everybody owns. But but Disney at
• 1:18:17
  one point had the rights to this thing and bottled it up. This movie
• 1:18:20
  has actually been made for years. It's been essentially in the can for years.
• 1:18:27
  Well, Disney gave it up. They didn't even decide to put it
• 1:18:30
  on their streaming service. They could have just killed the thing. But for
• 1:18:34
  whatever reason, Disney gave it up, and this conservative I guess Christian esque
• 1:18:43
  company picked it up, and now it looks like it's going to be a
• 1:18:45
  huge hit. So Disney is having this summer disaster at the box office.
• 1:18:51
  And some would argue, well, that's just the post COVID nature of movies
• 1:18:57
  now. We're now living in a new world where it's possible unless you're Tom
• 1:19:00
  Cruise or something close to that avatar, it has to be massive to be
• 1:19:06
  able to make a big impact at the box office because people aren't going to
• 1:19:10
  the movie theater anymore. It's it's an almost an anequated medium. Well,
• 1:19:15
  Sound of Freedom may be proving that not to be the case. But most
• 1:19:20
  interestingly, it's going to be a lot of Schordenfreud for conservatives to see a
• 1:19:28
  movie that Disney gave up be a massive success largely because of conservatives supporting the
• 1:19:34
  movie at the theaters. So I'll be curious to see whether or not of
• 1:19:40
  whether or not Sound of Freedom actually does meet the expectations that are now being
• 1:19:45
  created, which are pretty extraordinary if in fact it does. Around the twenty
• 1:19:49
  million that is currently projected as of this taping for the first week slash weekend,
• 1:19:55
  this is a weird week obviously because of the Fourth of July holiday coming
• 1:19:58
  on a Tuesday, I would be an extraordinary number for a non studio independent
• 1:20:03
  film, and it may actually have repercussions throughout the industry. Now back to
• 1:20:11
  Disney. Disney owns so much. They own the ABC and they own ESPN,
• 1:20:16
  among other things. And I was very interested, as or a lot
• 1:20:20
  of sports fans, to see that ESPN laid off about twenty name on air
• 1:20:29
  personalities over the last couple of weeks. And so the parent company is not
• 1:20:36
  doing well. The stock prices way down, of the profits are still enormous,
• 1:20:41
  so I don't never quite understand how this works. But ESPN, because
• 1:20:45
  of chord cutting and the enormous cost of sports content, has decided that they
• 1:20:54
  have to cut back, not just off air but on air. And there
• 1:20:58
  were some pretty shocking names, names of people that if you're a sports fan
• 1:21:01
  over the last decade or two decades, you surely know who they are.
• 1:21:08
  Now they're not the superstars. Unfortunately, Stephen A. Smith was not part
• 1:21:13
  of the series of layoffs. That would have been tremendous because I loathed Stephen
• 1:21:16
  A. Smith. But he's still making tons of money to shout bullcrap.
• 1:21:21
  They couldn't get rid of him, I guess because he's their virtue signaling being
• 1:21:26
  the black celebrity on the network. But they got rid of a lot of
• 1:21:30
  other people and I've discussed previously in this podcast about how ESPN does not believe
• 1:21:35
  in the star system, that they specifically have a strategy of not having stars,
• 1:21:44
  and this goes against what had always previously been the entire philosophy of news
• 1:21:51
  media and sports media in general, where if you get a star, yes
• 1:21:57
  they're a pain in the ass, yes they're more or expensive, but if
• 1:22:00
  you get somebody whose voice and or face will actually get and keep people watching
• 1:22:09
  your channel, then that's incredibly valuable. It's far more valuable, exponentially more
• 1:22:15
  valuable than just a placeholder, someone that nobody knows. You're just there to
• 1:22:20
  describe what's happening or whatever the venue is, whether you're a play by play
• 1:22:27
  announcer or a commentator or an in studio anchor or whatever, that those people
• 1:22:33
  really don't have very much value at all. Yeah, they're creating content,
• 1:22:36
  but nobody is coming into the tent because of them, and no one's staying
• 1:22:43
  in the tent keeping their eyeballs on the TV because of them. And so
• 1:22:47
  the theory always went that these megastars were worth it in the long run.
• 1:22:53
  Well, that philosophy changed with the business model changing, and in sports,
• 1:22:59
  I think This was more dramatic than anywhere else, and we saw it in
• 1:23:02
  news. I've talked before about how, in my view, NBC made a
• 1:23:10
  very conscious decision to get rid of big name, big contract, straight white
• 1:23:15
  males, no matter how they could do it. From Brian Williams to Matt
• 1:23:19
  Lower, who I know got railroaded because he's a very close friend of mine,
• 1:23:24
  you know, to Chris Matthews, to Bob cost Is, to Al
• 1:23:28
  Michaels, to Jay Leno, even Johnny Miller. These were all huge names
• 1:23:33
  in broadcasting. They were all in various ways gotten rid of. Some pretended
• 1:23:40
  to be retirements, but you know, none of them felt like real retirements,
• 1:23:44
  and all of them were at some level either pushed out or fired.
• 1:23:48
  And I think it was the beginning of the end of the star system.
• 1:23:53
  And I think ESPN has adopted this concept that, you know, if you
• 1:23:59
  be a celebrity, then you get paid too much money and you become too
• 1:24:04
  much of a pain in the ass and you're just not worth it. Well,
• 1:24:10
  I can actually understand this philosophy, and I think what ESPN is deciding
• 1:24:14
  is there are these mid range celebrity broadcasters that are actually the worst to have
• 1:24:21
  on your roster, because nobody's really coming in to your ten to use that
• 1:24:29
  metaphor because of them. But they're they're famous enough to where they can command
• 1:24:34
  a large salary, and so you're paying them probably more than their worth when
• 1:24:42
  it comes to the actual ratings, and then in the bottom line, that's
• 1:24:46
  all that really matters. They want, you know, be able to create
• 1:24:49
  advertising, and it's becoming much advertising dollars, and it's much more difficult to
• 1:24:54
  do that in this business environment, largely because of cord cutting and fewer and
• 1:24:59
  fewer people watching cable television. And they also way overpaid for all sorts of
• 1:25:04
  sports properties, so they need to cut costs in whatever way they can.
• 1:25:09
  But I do think that there are several takeaways from this one. Disney's hurting.
• 1:25:15
  ESPN is really hurting, which I love because I loathed ESPN in every
• 1:25:18
  possible way, especially since what they did to the Penn State Choe Paterno Jerry
• 1:25:24
  Sandusky story to have gone out of their way to not correct it back in
• 1:25:28
  November twenty eleven. But also they have become the symbol of wokeness in so
• 1:25:33
  many ways, and does wokeness play a role in this I think it probably
• 1:25:38
  does, because I do think it hurts their audience. I've never understood.
• 1:25:43
  I mean all the way back when I was a TV sportscaster in nearly nineties.
• 1:25:46
  That's when I met Lizzabb my co host on With the Benefit of Hindsight
• 1:25:50
  in the beginning of this journey on the Death of Journalism back in the NBC
• 1:25:57
  affiliate in Steubenville, Ohio, Wheeling, West Virginia. Even way back then,
• 1:26:01
  you know, it was it was obvious that to me that this is
• 1:26:05
  where things were heading. But you know, and I'm somebody who has been
• 1:26:14
  very deeply interested in sportscasting my whole life. I mean, these big names
• 1:26:20
  were important to me, and I think we're ending that era. I mean,
• 1:26:25
  there aren't gonna be any giants of the industry anymore. It's almost impossible.
• 1:26:30
  You never gonna have another Howard Cosell. I mean Howard Cosell hate him,
• 1:26:34
  love him or hate him. Brought people into the tent, kept people
• 1:26:39
  into the tent. He was probably worth all the money that they paid him,
• 1:26:43
  even though you know, back then it was a lot of money,
• 1:26:45
  but today it would be seen like peanuts. I think Bob Costas, who
• 1:26:49
  NBC got rid of. As I've already alluded to, was somebody who brought
• 1:26:54
  people to the table at these kept people to the table because of the gravitas
• 1:26:58
  of his voice and the fact that he'd been associated with so many other memorable
• 1:27:02
  moments in the past. Al Michael's similarly nineteen eighty US Olympic hockey team.
• 1:27:08
  Do you believe in miracles? Those all those are all now things of the
• 1:27:12
  past. You're gonna have very very very few, you know, people that
• 1:27:17
  are able to become stars become superstars because the system no longer once that they
• 1:27:26
  don't want it, because they don't think that it's worth the money. And
• 1:27:31
  and this I also think in a bigger picture, I think that you know,
• 1:27:36
  I've always been confused by the fact that sports fans are clearly more conservative
• 1:27:43
  than the average television audience member, and why ESPN was cropping in the face
• 1:27:49
  of their core audience, which is at least middle of the road, if
• 1:27:54
  not conservative, middle aged white guys. I've never understood how they didn't think
• 1:27:58
  that was going to eventually haunt them, And I think that has been part
• 1:28:00
  of the equation here. But I think larger than that is this entire concept
• 1:28:08
  that we are. The era of cable news, cable news television, cable
• 1:28:13
  sports television as a news product is quickly coming to an end. We're seeing
• 1:28:19
  that with the destruction of CNN. We're seeing that with the destruction of ESPN.
• 1:28:25
  These were used to be huge names. The landscape is quickly changing.
• 1:28:30
  There are so many other places to get your information. Twitter, although Twitter
• 1:28:34
  has had a massive meltdown over the past weekend, and I don't know whether
• 1:28:39
  or not that is now passed. It. You look to me like people
• 1:28:43
  were going to drop off the Twitter. I was considering even quitting Twitter because
• 1:28:46
  it basically it was impossible to navigate, and they had these this rate limit
• 1:28:50
  and depending on your status as an accountant, I don't know if that's still
• 1:28:55
  going on or not. I can't tell all. It doesn't seem as if
• 1:28:58
  it is. It seems like everything's going back to normal. And you know,
• 1:29:00
  I've always told you I don't fully trust Elon Musk when these kind of
• 1:29:03
  things more because he's way too confident and he's way too busy. But you
• 1:29:08
  know, people have Twitter. That's where I get most of my news.
• 1:29:11
  I even find TikTok now to be a more interesting venue or medium for getting
• 1:29:17
  news related material than sometimes cable news. And by the way, something on
• 1:29:24
  TikTok is likely to be more popular than even on Twitter and oftentimes on a
• 1:29:30
  major cable news channel. More people will see it on TikTok than they'll see
• 1:29:33
  it on certainly CNN or sometimes even Fox News channel. And so the world
• 1:29:39
  is changing at a a remarkable rate within the media, and ESPN I think
• 1:29:45
  has overextended. There's so many different ESPN brands and networks. I really,
• 1:29:53
  you know, I think they need to consolidate everything and get back to their
• 1:29:57
  basics. It might be too late. I don't know. I'm not an
• 1:30:00
  expert in the business element of the whole thing, but it is extraordinary that
• 1:30:05
  ESPN did what they did first time. Really ever, that that many named
• 1:30:13
  on air personality, people that sports fans would know by name, are just
• 1:30:17
  being laid off and told we don't want your services anymore. The other part
• 1:30:23
  of this that I've never understood, and I even talked with lizzabeb about this,
• 1:30:26
  and she would know a lot more about it than me, but and
• 1:30:29
  she didn't have a good answer either, is why they don't just come to
• 1:30:31
  these people and say hey, can you take a pay cut? I mean,
• 1:30:34
  you've put all this equity into these people. They're known to the audience.
• 1:30:40
  You know, they're likely to be able to latch on, many of
• 1:30:43
  them with the other smaller networks, whether it be Fox or somewhere else,
• 1:30:47
  And so you're going to lose at least some semblance of audience that goes with
• 1:30:53
  them. They have some semblance of a fan base. Why not instead of
• 1:30:57
  losing them completely, why not just say, hey, look, the world
• 1:31:00
  has changed, we needed to take a pay cut, because most of these
• 1:31:02
  people would take a pay cut to stay on ESPN, But seemingly that's never
• 1:31:06
  part of the equation, and I've never I've never understood why. So that's
• 1:31:11
  the situation with the ESPN, which I find both gratifying as well as a
• 1:31:16
  little bit depressing, because I'm going to miss a lot of what made sportscasting
• 1:31:23
  great and back in the day, back when I was a young man,
• 1:31:26
  and clearly is never going to happen again. I do at least want to
• 1:31:30
  mention what's been going on in France because the media has been downplaying this,
• 1:31:35
  partially because of the holiday, partially because they don't have a good narrative,
• 1:31:40
  the latch on here, latch onto here. But France has basically been burning,
• 1:31:45
  at least up until the July fourth holiday, for about a week,
• 1:31:49
  and it's all because of riots that occurred because of a police shooting, and
• 1:31:57
  basically what it's turned into is a Muslim uprising and it's really scary some of
• 1:32:04
  the pictures that are coming out of France. It doesn't appear as if the
• 1:32:09
  French government is particularly alarmed. The media is not treating this as a huge
• 1:32:15
  deal, but many people, including myself, believe that this is an extraordinarily
• 1:32:20
  significant development one with regard to the future of Europe and how it is that
• 1:32:29
  immigration has changed the entire culture of Europe, and that the core issue here
• 1:32:33
  is that you now have two different Frances. You have the traditional France and
• 1:32:40
  you have this new Muslim France. And it's really a classic example of where
• 1:32:45
  when you give an inch, they take a mile. You know, that's
• 1:32:48
  the entire concept of liberalism in so many ways. They don't understand the slippery
• 1:32:55
  slope, they don't understand unintended consequences, and so they say, oh,
• 1:33:00
  let these poor people come in. They're not going to cause any harm.
• 1:33:04
  Well maybe not initially, but eventually they're going to get numbers and they're going
• 1:33:11
  to create their own culture, and it's going to be a culture different than
• 1:33:15
  yours. Now there's diversity in a melting pot, but then there's also Balkanization
• 1:33:19
  where groups of people have absolutely nothing in common. And we have that some
• 1:33:24
  in America, but it sounds to me like France has it in spades.
• 1:33:29
  And now those chickens are coming home to rouse. To mix a few metaphors,
• 1:33:32
  the reality here is that the entire essence of France has changed, is
• 1:33:40
  changing and will continue to change in a way that doesn't appear to be good
• 1:33:45
  for anybody, especially when you've got riots to this degree in the streets,
• 1:33:49
  and it appears as if people are afraid to do anything about it because they
• 1:33:54
  have the cloak of protection of being a religion and or race. See that's
• 1:34:00
  one of the biggest problems in this whole thing. Once a group gets protection,
• 1:34:06
  pc protection, whether from their race or their religion or whatever, then
• 1:34:11
  everyone is terrifying to do anything to say knock it off, or to curtail
• 1:34:15
  it, or to rest people. I mean, we're seeing it in a
• 1:34:18
  smaller degree in our cities in America, I mean in San Francisco or Los
• 1:34:25
  Angeles or New York. Who's going to stop a bunch of kids who of
• 1:34:30
  color from shoplifting. Nobody because you're going to be seen as a racist,
• 1:34:36
  and it's just not worth it. So then everyone knows that that's accepted,
• 1:34:41
  and guess what happens more shoplifting, and then sooner or later, the rule
• 1:34:45
  of law means nothing, and you know, basically new rules for society get
• 1:34:50
  created and people are treated differently based upon their race or in this case,
• 1:34:57
  their religion, and it is is incredibly devastating to a functional society. And
• 1:35:04
  that's what I see is happening in France. It appears as of this tamping
• 1:35:09
  that things have calmed down, but this is the problem that's not going to
• 1:35:13
  go away. And I think it's very much consistent with the inherent problems with
• 1:35:19
  liberalism and their view of life in general, but specifically when it comes to
• 1:35:25
  immigration. By the way, there was almost a Russian coup since the last
• 1:35:29
  time we spoke. Boy, the news media really wanted the Russian coup,
• 1:35:32
  didn't they. I was in Yosemite, where I get no internet access at
• 1:35:39
  all. Or basically no Internet access. And even I was able to tell
• 1:35:43
  how much the news media really desperately wanted there to be a coup in Russia
• 1:35:47
  because I guess that would be proof that Biden had won the Ukrainian War.
• 1:35:53
  That was the interpretation I had, That was the motivation for the news media.
• 1:35:59
  Putin has apparently withstood the coup attempt, but he did so in a
• 1:36:03
  way that didn't exactly exude strength and certainly gave rise to this speculation that his
• 1:36:14
  days in the long run might be numbered because he did not while he had
• 1:36:17
  the strength to survive, he did not have the strength to destroy his opponents.
• 1:36:24
  And that's going to make it much easier to do this again in the
• 1:36:29
  future, because that's a sign of weakness. Now, I always have a
• 1:36:31
  rule I don't talk about things that I don't either have a unique take on
• 1:36:35
  or I don't have a strong level of knowledge of, and I certainly consider
• 1:36:42
  the internal situation to Rush to be in that category. But from a media
• 1:36:45
  standpoint, there's no question that the media jumped the gun when it came to
• 1:36:50
  how dramatic that was going to be because it fit what they wanted to have
• 1:36:56
  happen. Now as far as my Yosemite vacation, I referenced Yosemite National Park
• 1:37:01
  many times in this podcast with regard to the issue of climate change and global
• 1:37:06
  warming, and I believe, for very very good reasons. It's not just
• 1:37:11
  because my family goes up there at least once a year because it's my wife's
• 1:37:15
  favorite place. It's because Yosemite Valley really is, in all seriousness, the
• 1:37:20
  epicenter of California's climate, and California's climate has been the epicenter of the argument
• 1:37:28
  that the media has tried to make that the United States and the world is
• 1:37:32
  undergoing global warming climate change. And there have been many, many times in
• 1:37:38
  the past where lack of snowfall in the Sierra Mountain Range just above Yosemite Valley,
• 1:37:45
  not being high enough, being lower than normal, has been aha proof
• 1:37:50
  proof that global warming is real, that we're having droughts because of global warming
• 1:37:58
  and climate change. And I have always said, if you look at the
• 1:38:01
  history of Yosemite Valley, it actually almost single handedly destroys the entire climate change
• 1:38:08
  global warming narrative, largely because the valley was created by a glacier which started
• 1:38:15
  melting around ten thousand years ago. Well before man could have possibly had anything
• 1:38:21
  to do with it. And the glacier is, by the way, the
• 1:38:25
  glacier still exists to a very small degree. There was there were articles a
• 1:38:30
  couple of years ago I went back and researched into indicating, oh, isn't
• 1:38:34
  it a shame that the last of the Yosemite glaciers are going to go away
• 1:38:39
  because of climate change global warming? Well, it turns out because we just
• 1:38:43
  had the coldest, the wettest, and the snowiest winter in the modern history
• 1:38:48
  of California and the Sierra Mountain Ranges that guess what, Shockingly, the last
• 1:38:55
  remaining Yosemite glaciers have actually increased in size. And in fact, by the
• 1:39:01
  way, there was still snow on the top of Halftome when we got there.
• 1:39:06
  There still was when we left in late June, which is absolutely unheard
• 1:39:11
  of. Snow on the top of Halftome impossible. I mean, every single
• 1:39:15
  waterfall was at full blast. There were hundreds of waterfalls that we had never
• 1:39:21
  seen before. The water was so high we were not allowed to go swimming.
• 1:39:27
  The water was so cold. Even in some places where you might be
• 1:39:31
  able to get away with taking a dive in the water, and some people
• 1:39:35
  did. It was so cold you couldn't stay in for more than a second
• 1:39:41
  or two. Now, the water in Yosemite is always cold in the summer,
• 1:39:45
  but it's never been anything like this. I mean it was so cold
• 1:39:48
  that if my favorite daughter had fallen in and was drifting away, I would
• 1:39:53
  have dove in to try to save her. But my second favorite daughter,
• 1:39:58
  I would have thought about it. I would have been shooting hard for her
• 1:40:01
  to make it the shore. Now, I didn't tell my daughter's which was
• 1:40:05
  which, but that's how freaking cold it was. You at least think about
• 1:40:10
  it, whether or not you could actually go in to save you know,
• 1:40:14
  your daughter in distress. And of course none of this disproves man made global
• 1:40:19
  warming or climate change, but it should at least be part of the freaking
• 1:40:24
  equation. It should at least be part of the news story. In October
• 1:40:29
  of last year, we had two plus weeks of really really hot weather,
• 1:40:32
  a heat wave, which we always have in October in California, and the
• 1:40:35
  news media went bananas, bananas, Okay, fine, because it fits their
• 1:40:42
  agendas. See which everything's getting hotter, So when we have record heat,
• 1:40:47
  that's a sign that we're right, and you're a denier for even questioning whether
• 1:40:51
  or not we're right. Well, then when the next six months turn out
• 1:40:57
  to be the coldest, wettest, snowiest period modern California history, shouldn't that
• 1:41:01
  also be a story. I sent out a whole thread of tweets on this
• 1:41:06
  entire issue. You can find it at my Twitter feed at Zigman, Freud,
• 1:41:12
  Zigma and Freud, and I even shared it with a local Fox television
• 1:41:17
  news anchor, former Lizabebe colleague, Elix Michaelson, which he then quote tweeted
• 1:41:24
  in a fairly snarky way. But at my point that Elix was, Hey,
• 1:41:28
  shouldn't you guys at least have this be part of the story what's happening
• 1:41:30
  in Yosemite. It's a complete contradiction to everything you guys are saying. I
• 1:41:35
  mean, in dry years Yosemite is always used as see global warming, climate
• 1:41:43
  change. Yet here we have the wettest, the coldest year in modern history
• 1:41:50
  and nothing cricket. You might see occasional story of wow, isn't it great
• 1:41:56
  that the you know, there's so much water or usembity the crowds are overflowing.
• 1:42:00
  Yeah, by the way, Yosemite itself because it's run by liberals with
• 1:42:04
  no accountability, is a complete cluster farc I mean, the actual semantics and
• 1:42:11
  the logistics of Yosemite are an absolute joke, which again the news media is
• 1:42:15
  ignoring because this is a massive national park, maybe the most photograph national park,
• 1:42:21
  maybe the most famous national park. But I mean, is it is
• 1:42:26
  borderline unworkable now, especially when the crowds get big as they have been this
• 1:42:31
  year because there's so much water. But that's another story for another day.
• 1:42:36
  But I mean to me, I could probably do two hours on how liberalism
• 1:42:42
  it gets exposed as a fraud by the way that Yosemite is run by these
• 1:42:46
  morons with no accountability. But the bigger issue is global warming climate change,
• 1:42:53
  and I could not create a scenario. I could not create a scenario that
• 1:42:59
  more goes against the global warming climate change narrative than what has happened in Yosemite.
• 1:43:04
  And all I ask is for fairness. If you're gonna use very little
• 1:43:09
  snow in the Sierra Nevada's as proof that we're in a permanent drought, then
• 1:43:15
  you know when the opposite happens and you get a record snowfall that's blowing the
• 1:43:18
  doors off of anything else that's ever happened in modern history, that you at
• 1:43:24
  least make that part of the story and then you come up with an explanation
• 1:43:27
  for that. I mean, how does that happen? And to be clear,
• 1:43:31
  part of the reason why I'm so obsessed with this issue is, I
• 1:43:34
  mean, this is the smoking gun in my view that this whole narrative is
• 1:43:40
  fatally flawed, not just because of the history of Yosemite Valley, but also
• 1:43:45
  because of the way that the snow makes it into water in these waterfalls and
• 1:43:51
  rivers. Because the only way this happens is if over the winter it's snow
• 1:43:59
  in the Sea area Nevadas. Well, the difference between it being snow in
• 1:44:04
  the Sierra Nevadas and rain, which would mean you know, the water was
• 1:44:10
  gone by the summertime, the only way that happens. The line between rain
• 1:44:15
  and snow is very fine, because it's not like it's ten degrees most of
• 1:44:23
  the winter there. Oftentimes, and this is historically the case, it's in
• 1:44:29
  the high twenties or low thirties, or even mid thirties, high in the
• 1:44:32
  low forties, and you're right on that line between rain and snow. Well,
• 1:44:38
  if we were really experiencing global warming, then we would we would see
• 1:44:45
  that that line would go in the winter time from snow to rain. This
• 1:44:49
  doesn't take a rocket scientist or any kind of side you know what it takes.
• 1:44:53
  It takes a non scientist who's not a victim of groupthink and isn't part
• 1:44:58
  of a religion, and doesn't their career be based and getting not getting kicked
• 1:45:02
  out of the club, Because that's what's really driving this, that the incentive
• 1:45:08
  structure is all wrong for these so called experts. They all have to go
• 1:45:12
  along with this, but no one's using common sense. And so everything I
• 1:45:17
  expected to be the case with regard to Yosemite was in fact true. It
• 1:45:24
  could not have had a more living embodiment of at least for this year that
• 1:45:30
  the global warming climate change narrative ought to at least be questioned, It ought
• 1:45:35
  to at least be part of this equation, part of this narrative. Hey,
• 1:45:40
  isn't this odd? Maybe we should think about how this could possibly happen,
• 1:45:43
  But no, we'll just ignore it, and then they'll hope for a
• 1:45:46
  dry year next year, and then next year when if it's dry, you
• 1:45:50
  know, I'm sure we're going to go through the same rigor moarole all again.
• 1:45:54
  I mean, there are there are posts in the park that theorize how
• 1:45:58
  Yosemite is going to change under global warming climate change, and all the waterfalls
• 1:46:02
  are going to be dry by June June. Well, here we were in
• 1:46:06
  late June and everything was at full blast record levels. I mean, the
• 1:46:12
  La Times about ten years ago did an article about how it would be normal
• 1:46:15
  going forward that by July Yosemite would be dry, dry by July. Well,
• 1:46:21
  this year, the best time to go to Yosemite is going to probably
• 1:46:25
  be August September, because by then you'll at least be able to swim,
• 1:46:29
  because the levels of the river will be low enough for that to be deemed
• 1:46:32
  safe by the overlords that run Yosemite. One other series of subjects I want
• 1:46:41
  to tackle before the end of this podcast. Obviously, I am the host
• 1:46:45
  of With the Benefit of Hindsight, which, along with Lizabeb and Mike Agavino,
• 1:46:49
  takes an incredibly epic and deep dive into the whole Penn State Joe Paterno
• 1:46:55
  Jerryson Dusky quote unquote scandal where we disproved that all of it, that it's
• 1:47:00
  all bullcrap, that the entire narrative is wrong, and that everybody, including
• 1:47:04
  believe it or not, Jerry Sanduski, was innocent, And if you haven't
• 1:47:09
  listened to that yet, I urge you to do so, because it's a
• 1:47:12
  remarkable piece of work and we're very proud of it, even though we knew
• 1:47:16
  that it wasn't going to change the world, because the world we now live
• 1:47:19
  in doesn't work that way. Well, since our last episode, Jerry Sanduski
• 1:47:25
  officially found out what I already knew to be the case, which is that
• 1:47:29
  his latest appeal for a new trial has been rejected in Pennsylvania's state court.
• 1:47:34
  This was not a surprise. In fact, I'm actually kind of gratified that
• 1:47:38
  it happened as quickly as it did, because it seems to me as if
• 1:47:41
  the state of Pennsylvania has a huge incentive to try to run out the clock
• 1:47:45
  and hope that Jerry Sanduski dies before anyone catches win to win an incredible scam
• 1:47:50
  the entire case was, because that's really what's preventing there from being a new
• 1:47:56
  trial. All the judges in Pennsylvania are elected, and the entire state apparatus
• 1:48:00
  is deeply invested in Jerry Sandoski being guilty, and the media has no clue
• 1:48:04
  and doesn't care. And they're invested as well in Jerry Sandowski being guilty,
• 1:48:10
  and so of course this got no attention. All I would ask it's a
• 1:48:14
  little bit like the global woman climate change situation, where all I ask is,
• 1:48:18
  hey, can't this year's Yosemite be part of the story. I would
• 1:48:23
  just ask if I realized the news media is deeply invested in Sandusky's guilt,
• 1:48:28
  But how is it that nobody at this point here we are, it's twenty
• 1:48:32
  twenty three, he was convicted in the spring of twenty twelve, where eleven
• 1:48:38
  years passed his conviction. Why is nobody in the news media even bothered to
• 1:48:44
  ponder the question? Gee, if Jerry Sinoski was nearly as guilty as we
• 1:48:49
  presumed him to be, so that we never even considered his defense, and
• 1:48:55
  we know we've locked him away through away the key and everyone was guilt and
• 1:49:00
  we brought into every ridiculous element of this absurd narrative. If this was really
• 1:49:04
  the case, then why is he still appealing? I mean, he has
• 1:49:10
  no money, he has no political capital, serial pedophiles don't keep appealing.
• 1:49:16
  I mean, would I would ask in all seriousness, because I've never found
• 1:49:19
  one. Could somebody find for me a serial pedophile who has, like Sandusky,
• 1:49:26
  never plea bargained, never confessed, never stopped appealing many many years after
• 1:49:32
  his conviction, always maintained his innocence. Where has that happened where the person
• 1:49:41
  wasn't actually innocent, Because it's only happened to my knowledge, one or two
• 1:49:45
  other times, and those people ended up being exonerated. That is not the
• 1:49:49
  modus operandi of a serial pedophile, especially under these circumstances where it's obvious as
• 1:49:57
  day that you're not gonna be able to sneak unto the radar and find some
• 1:50:00
  sympathetic judge to go easy on you, give you a new trial. That's
• 1:50:05
  never going to happen in Sandowsky's case, because the entire state is deeply,
• 1:50:10
  deeply, deeply invested in his guilt. So he has no political zero negative
• 1:50:15
  political capital, no money. These things cost money. Why did he never
• 1:50:19
  plea bargain? Why did he never confess? Why has he continued to appeal
• 1:50:26
  time and time and time and time again. There is never ever, to
• 1:50:30
  my knowledge, been a case remotely like that in our modern history where we
• 1:50:39
  know a lot about these serial pedophiles. And the most the largest reason,
• 1:50:44
  the most obvious reason for why this never happens with a serial pedophile is they
• 1:50:49
  plea bargain. That's the normal routine. The Sandosky defense never even contemplated a
• 1:50:58
  plea bargain. Jerry wouldn't allow it because he knew he was innocent. The
• 1:51:05
  reality is the guys who are guilty, to them, this is an illness.
• 1:51:12
  It's an illness, and so therefore confessing and plea bargaining can sometimes even
• 1:51:19
  be a relief for these guys. I was told by Jim Clemente, the
• 1:51:24
  fraudulent sex crimes expert hired by the Paterno family in an incredibly ill conceived strategy
• 1:51:30
  to try to get Joe Paterno's name restored. I was told that I was
• 1:51:38
  guaranteed, guaranteed to get Jerry Sandowsky to confess if I just followed Jim Clente's
• 1:51:44
  like three or four point plan. And Clemente complimented me. Complimented me clearly
• 1:51:51
  because he saw the transcript and I think even saw I sent him the audio
• 1:51:56
  of my interview with Sandowski in prison. I did exactly what he said and
• 1:52:00
  didn't come anything close to an actual confession. The reason is because Jerry's not
• 1:52:08
  a pedophile, and the reason why Clemente was so confident that he would confess
• 1:52:14
  one because Clemente is a fraud and doesn't know what he's talking about. But
• 1:52:17
  too because this is not difficult to get these people to confess. A lot
• 1:52:24
  of times they want to confess. They want to unburden themselves, especially if
• 1:52:28
  they haim to be a religious person like Jerry Sandowski, who's near death,
• 1:52:32
  he would want to confess his sins and unburden himself of this horrible illness that
• 1:52:39
  he's been battling his entire life, for which there's absolutely no evidence that that's
• 1:52:45
  actually been the case. And so I just wish somebody in the news media
• 1:52:49
  would just go, hmm, this is odd. How come we've never seen
• 1:52:54
  a serial pedophile do this before. I'm sure there's some explanation, No need
• 1:53:00
  to get into it, move along. It's old news. That's the way
• 1:53:02
  the news media looks at this, and it's part of why I am extremely
• 1:53:08
  pessimistic about there ever being any semblance of justice when it comes to the Jerry
• 1:53:13
  Sandusky case. However, I don't know this is a sign of optimism or
• 1:53:16
  pessimism. There was a case out of Baltimore that just concluded that is remarkably
• 1:53:26
  similar to the Jerry Sandusky case. This involves a seventy five year old wrestling
• 1:53:30
  coach by the name of Neil Addleberg. Neil Addleberg's case. Boy, boy,
• 1:53:36
  what a load of crap this seems to have been. This guy got
• 1:53:41
  accused much like Jerry Sandusky. He was a beacon of the community, longtime
• 1:53:45
  coach, worked closely with a lot with kids that he was trying to help,
• 1:53:49
  and one of them ends up accusing him as an adult many years prior,
• 1:53:55
  of having sexually abused him. There's no actual evidence, the story doesn't
• 1:53:59
  make ends. It's contradicted by the facts. But what's really interesting thing and
• 1:54:05
  it really interesting about this is it came about literally because of the Catholic Church
• 1:54:11
  scandal. This was part of an investigation into the Baltimore Archdiocese that came up
• 1:54:17
  with squat. They had several grand juries looking into the Catholic Church scandal in
• 1:54:24
  Baltimore and they couldn't find anything. And so it seems pretty obvious to me
• 1:54:30
  that this was the best they could come up with. They didn't want to
• 1:54:32
  have this entire effort be empty handed. They had to save some face,
• 1:54:39
  so they indict this poor old guy. And he had two things that at
• 1:54:45
  least two things that Jerry Zanduski did not have. He did not have a
• 1:54:46
  media firestorm because of Joe Paterno's firing, so while there was negative media coverage,
• 1:54:53
  it wasn't overwhelming. But also he had a lawyer that was good enough
• 1:54:59
  and smart enough to ask for a bench trial instead of a jury trial because
• 1:55:03
  juries are too emotional when it comes to this kind of issue. And they
• 1:55:08
  had a bench trial, which is determined by a judge. Well, Albert
• 1:55:14
  got acquitted on all counts. And I'm going to try and track down this
• 1:55:17
  attorney, maybe even have it on the podcast if he'll come on, because
• 1:55:20
  I find this to be fascinating and so incredibly similar to what should have happened
• 1:55:26
  and would have happened in the Jerry Snowski case if not for the fraudulent media
• 1:55:30
  firestorm that completely changed all the incentive structures and polluted the jury pool in a
• 1:55:40
  massive way. And this judge, while they made some confusing and statements I
• 1:55:45
  don't agree with in their ruling because he had the play Kate the believe all
• 1:55:48
  victims. Crowd made the right ruling and acquitted him on all charges, and
• 1:55:55
  so hopefully, well if I can, we'll do more on that subject if
• 1:55:58
  I'm able to get the on the podcast. Similar to this, it has
• 1:56:02
  also now been decided that Michael Jackson, who's been dead for many years his
• 1:56:10
  estate, is going to be facing a sex abuse allegation civil trial because Wade
• 1:56:16
  Robson, one of the stars of the very fraudulent HBO quote unquote document drama.
• 1:56:25
  I would call it a documentrama because it was not a documentary. I
• 1:56:29
  think it was a fictional film. I think it was literally shot as a
• 1:56:34
  fictional film. I really do believe that if they get one hundred percent discovery
• 1:56:39
  here, they're going to find out that what HBO did was that they shot
• 1:56:45
  the interviews with Robson and his partner in crime, James safe Chuck, as
• 1:56:50
  if they had a script, and they did many takes. I'm convinced to
• 1:56:55
  that that this was not an actual documentary, and the reason why it was
• 1:57:00
  not an actual documentary Leaving Neverland is because Wade Robson and James safe Chuck were
• 1:57:05
  lying they were never abused by Michael Jackson. I'm not going to go into
• 1:57:10
  all the details as to why, but I am positive that Wade Robson especially,
• 1:57:15
  and I'm just as confident really with safe Chuck because safe Chuck latched onto
• 1:57:19
  Robson's allegation in this multi billion dollar lawsuit against Michael Jackson's estate. But I'm
• 1:57:27
  going to be fascinated to see what happens here with regard of this trial.
• 1:57:31
  Now, the idea that there's going to be a trial is absurd. It
• 1:57:34
  was based on a court ruling that was very convoluted, nonsensical, and I'm
• 1:57:40
  sure that the Michael Jackson estate is outraged by it, probably even shocked by
• 1:57:45
  it because legally it makes no sense. But I have always been in the
• 1:57:47
  camp as someone who has investigated this case, not as deeply as the Sandowsky
• 1:57:51
  case, but pretty darned deeply. I've spoken to many members of the Jackson
• 1:57:56
  family and Tom Mezzero, Michael Jackson's attorney, than interviews with him and many
• 1:58:00
  other people involved in this case. I have always said I want there to
• 1:58:06
  be a trial because I want these allegations to be exposed for the crap that
• 1:58:12
  they are, and it's gonna be fascinating. It's gonna be a fascinating situation
• 1:58:16
  to see where we are in our legal system, because you're going to have
• 1:58:21
  an incredibly bogus claim about as bogus a claim as you could possibly imagine,
• 1:58:27
  giving Wade Robson's history, which makes it impossible for a rational person to really
• 1:58:31
  believe that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. So you're gonna have this
• 1:58:35
  incredibly preposterous allegation with you know, a good amount of money behind it and
• 1:58:43
  lawyers behind it, going up against Michael Jackson's estate, which has the best
• 1:58:46
  lawyers money can possibly buy, an unlimited resources to defend themselves in a civil
• 1:58:54
  trial situation where it's you know, just a preponderance of the evidence, not
• 1:58:58
  beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's a very low threshold of evans. And
• 1:59:02
  I presume that this trial is going to happen in Los Angeles, where you
• 1:59:06
  have a jury pull that is both theoretically very pro Jackson but also very prone
• 1:59:14
  to making bad decisions in jury trials. So you've got a lot of forces
• 1:59:19
  here that are going to be determinative of just how broken our system really is.
• 1:59:26
  And that's what Robson is banking on. This is basically a roll of
• 1:59:30
  the dice. His career is over. He got rejected by the Jackson Estate
• 1:59:33
  for a job as a choreographer on the Las Vegas Michael Jackson Show, and
• 1:59:39
  that's clearly what motivated his false allegation, and he's rolling the dice that if
• 1:59:45
  he can get this in front of a jury, maybe a jury will somehow
• 1:59:49
  see that this is fifty one percent true, and that once you get that
• 1:59:54
  you've got this this estate with unlimited money, now you know you might hit
• 1:59:59
  the lottery. That's what Robson's hoping to do. Well. I would like
• 2:00:02
  to still have enough faith in our system and enough faith in the truth,
• 2:00:06
  even as much of a pessimist and a cynic as I am, that that's
• 2:00:11
  not gonna win the day. I could be wrong, and if I am,
• 2:00:14
  it'll be very depressing. But I gotta believe that there's just no way,
• 2:00:19
  there's just no way that this can actually happen. And so I hope
• 2:00:24
  this trial goes through, and I hope there won't be fair media coverage.
• 2:00:27
  If I can, I'm going to attend this thing, because this is going
• 2:00:30
  to be comical. I mean, it'll be just hilarious to see Wade Robinson
• 2:00:36
  cross examined by somebody who actually knows what the hell they're doing, because his
• 2:00:41
  story is just obviously and completely fraudulent. But we'll see what happens with that.
• 2:00:46
  That'll do it for an episode number seventy of the Death of Journalism Podcasts.
• 2:00:50
  Good to be back. We'll be back with our normal schedule next week,
• 2:00:54
  with releases on Tuesday and Thursday morning. Till then, please remember to
• 2:00:58
  subscribe, rate, and review you this podcast, share it with others,
• 2:01:00
  word of mouth, or share it on social media. If you share it
• 2:01:03
  on social media, please make sure to tag me on Twitter or Facebook and
• 2:01:06
  I'll share it with my followers and friends as well. Until next time,
• 2:01:11
  this has been the Death of Journalism Podcasts. My name is John Szickler.