Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Twenty Seven: Die Hard

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Twenty Seven: Die Hard · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and twenty seven of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. The
0:07
Kansas City Chiefs and Taylor Swift win what was probably the biggest Super Bowl ever.
0:13
Some major news in the presidential race and the news media is not ignoring
0:17
it. Tucker Carlson interviews Vladimir Putin and some telling insanity on the climate change
0:24
front. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising
0:30
SEO and email marketing specialist that also happens to be a big fan of John
0:35
Zigler and the Death of Journalism. Do you need help reaching your target audience?
0:40
Let me help you develop the riot messaging and confated message and the best
0:44
channels for your business. Please visit my website, the Dutchdigitalmarketingman dot com and
0:50
let me help you tell your story. The website is the Dutch Digital Marketingman
0:56
dot com. If you want to grow your business, Peter can help.
0:59
That's the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the
1:04
show. We have a ton of really interesting things to talk about on this
1:08
episode of the podcast, but I want to briefly begin with yet another update
1:14
on the state of this podcast. For months, I've been saying that the
1:18
plan was to end the podcast with our last episode coming out on February fifteenth,
1:23
and that my plan was to basically drop out a public life, that
1:26
there was no way to keep the podcast going in a viable fashion. Our
1:32
executive producer, Meg Agavino, through a hell Mary pass to try to change
1:38
that trajectory and made a very generous offer with regard to his own financial situation
1:45
in connection to this podcast, and offered up the opportunity for listeners to continue
1:52
this podcast in a different form by becoming paid subscribers. And we now have
1:59
reached the point where that decision has been made, and yes, we will
2:04
be transitioning this podcast to a paid subscription format at the very beginning of March,
2:10
So this version of the podcast will in fact be ending. However,
2:15
our last free advertised based episode will not be on February fifteenth, and instead
2:23
will be on February twenty ninth. So if you're not going to be sticking
2:28
with us, which is understandable, I'm not regrudging that from anybody's perspective,
2:34
but if you're one of the many, many people who just listen to this
2:37
for free on a twice weekly basis, and you're not continuing with us,
2:42
you get a bonus couple of weeks for all intents and purposes, because from
2:46
a transition standpoint, it makes a lot more sense for us to wait till
2:50
the very beginning of March from a billing perspective and to make this as seamless
2:54
as possible. So the bottom line is, I am not going to be
2:59
ending the podcast, even this version of it, on February fifteenth. Instead,
3:02
that'll be on February twenty ninth, And if you have sent our executive
3:07
producer Mike got Gavino an email, you will get a link to participate in
3:14
the new version of the podcast through Patreon, which we will begin at the
3:19
very very beginning of March. You will get a link where you can sign
3:23
up. It's very simple, very easy. And the way that you can
3:27
get on that list of people who will be receiving that link for the new
3:30
version of the podcast is to email Mike at Gavino at Ago. That's a
3:36
g O T DOJ The Death of Journalism a goo tg t DJ. That's
3:43
a co TDJ at gmail dot com. So it's Ago TDOJ at gmail dot
3:50
com. Send Mike got Gavino an email, you get a link, and
3:54
at the very beginning of March, you can sign up for the new version
3:58
of the podcast. Far as my role outside of that, I guess you'd
4:03
call it now private behind a paywall version of the podcast. I probably won't
4:11
completely drop out of public life, but I do intend to severely scale back
4:16
my participation on Twitter because, frankly, a lot of the reason why I
4:21
am on Twitter to begin with, other than I'm a glutton for punishment,
4:27
is that in an effort to try to grow the current version of the podcast,
4:31
and now that we're completely changing radically the business model of it, there's
4:35
really no point to that. So really, this podcast, the new version
4:40
of the podcast, the Patreon version, will be, for all intents and
4:44
purposes, the only way to get for whatever reason you might want it,
4:47
John Sigler related content. So keep that in mind as you decide what you
4:53
want to do going forward. I guess thank you is necessary for the listeners
5:00
who have made it known that they want to keep this thing going. I'm
5:03
not sure from my personal standpoint whether or not this is a good thing or
5:08
a bad thing for me. I know my wife is thankful from a monetary
5:12
standpoint that I'll actually be He's carrying some of my own weight coming forward if
5:16
this goes anything close to what it appears to be and what is planned based
5:23
upon the number of pledges that people have made in order to be part of
5:27
the new version of the podcast. But anyway, that's the situation. I
5:31
have listened to Mike, I have listened to the listeners who have said that
5:36
they want this to continue in some form, and so that is now the
5:41
new plan going forward from here. But in the short run of this podcast
5:46
will continue as it is through the end of February. Now. Part of
5:49
why I chose the date February fifteenth originally as the end of this podcast was
5:57
because it was two episodes after the super Bowl, and I knew that the
6:01
super Bowl. Obviously every year it's a big deal, but this year I
6:03
anticipated that it was going to be an even a larger deal, at least
6:08
from a cultural perspective, because I had been predicting that the Kansas City Chiefs
6:13
were going to make the Super Bowl, and that meant that the Taylor Swift
6:15
phenomenon was going to be a major part of the narrative, and all that
6:21
came exactly true. I even predicted, not that I deserve any credit for
6:26
this at all, because it was basically a coin flip, but I predicted
6:29
that the Chiefs would win over the forty nine Ers in the Super Bowl.
6:31
And that's what happened in dramatic fashion in overtime in what was probably one of
6:38
the top five most memorable Super Bowls of all time. It's not in the
6:44
top couple, but it's you know, five or six seven range there,
6:49
and obviously only the second time the game's ever gone into overtime, and the
6:55
overtime really created maybe the most significant game related controversy that happened in the in
7:04
the actual Super Bowl. And the Super Bowl is still a football game.
7:08
I know, it's hard for some people to believe that it's it's quickly not
7:12
becoming all about the football anymore. In fact, I think we're actually on
7:15
the twentieth anniversary of when things outside of football started to overwhelm the act.
7:24
What was actually happening on the field twenty years ago was the Janet Jackson justin
7:28
Timberlake. You know, I know, you a Nipplegate situation, and I
7:33
remember saying at the time that that was the first situation in Super Bowl history
7:40
were something that happened outside of the game was the major headline the next day.
7:46
And I think that over the twenty year period since then, the outside
7:50
stuff has become a bigger and bigger deal as it's become an even larger cultural
7:57
phenomenon. Maybe our last communal moment outside of Christmas, New Year's and the
8:01
Fourth of July. That's what Super Bowl Sunday has become. And obviously the
8:07
Tailor Swift situation put that into a completely different stratosphere. And we don't have
8:13
the ratings yet for how big a deal this was. It's very likely that
8:18
this was the most watched sporting event, depending on how you determine these things,
8:22
and they do change the rules on this constantly, so it's a bit
8:26
like comparing apples to oranges. But I'm definitely of the belief, as I
8:30
predicted that the numbers here are going to be astronomical. That's going to be
8:35
the largest sporting event ever watched in America, probably one hundred and twenty million,
8:39
maybe more than that. Eyeballs that will have been on the Super Bowl,
8:43
and at the very end, I mean, the number of people watching
8:46
when the Chiefs actually won will probably be higher than one hundred and twenty million
8:52
people. So it's an extraordinary situation from that perspective. But the overtime itself
8:56
probably created the biggest controversy football wise, and frankly, I am not convinced
9:05
that the forty nine Ers coach did not misunderstand what the rules were, because
9:11
the rules for overtime are different in the playoffs than they are in the regular
9:16
season, and even I was not fully aware of what those rules were.
9:22
And without getting too deeply into it, the forty nine Ers elected to take
9:26
the football in overtime, which was obviously a mistake, not just because they
9:33
ended up losing the game, but just from a simple logic standpoint, it
9:37
makes no sense. And the main reason why it makes no sense is that
9:41
if both teams are going to get the ball, the second team one knows
9:46
what they have to do to either keep the game going or to win the
9:52
game, and that gives them the option or the added bonus of effectively knowing
9:58
that they have four downs to play with as opposed to three downs to play
10:03
with. You if you are behind and you get the ball in a second
10:07
in overtime and you know you have to, as the Chiefs did, you
10:11
have to kick a field goal to keep the game going, or you can
10:15
win the game with a touchdown. That means you have to go for it
10:18
on fourth down, There's no question about it. And that gives you a
10:24
little bit of freedom that effectively opens up an extra down for all intents and
10:28
purposes, and it influences your play calling throughout the entire series, and especially
10:35
with a quarterback like Patrick Mahomes, it makes it far easier to score either
10:41
a field goal or a touchdown because you have nothing to lose. There's zero
10:46
concern about going for it on fourth down because you have to. You have
10:50
no choice. And the Chiefs after the game said that they if they had
10:54
gotten the opportunity to either take the ball first or defer, that they would
11:01
have absolutely been a situation where they would have deferred instead of taking the ball
11:07
like the forty nine ers did. So that to me, Well, it's
11:11
gotten some publicity in some coverage and analysis, and I'm sure you know the
11:15
sports media will cover it in a great extent in the day after the game,
11:20
you know, frankly, I wasn't sure that during the broadcast itself that
11:24
that issue got nearly enough play, because that really did, along with a
11:30
missed extra point by the forty nine ers, really did determine who won that
11:33
game. I mean, the forty nine ers made a mistake, a tactical
11:37
error in taking the ball first in overtime. And there's another aspect to that
11:43
whole situation that nobody, or I'm guessing nobody in the major sports media is
11:50
going to mention that I think goes to the much bigger issue of what's going
11:54
to happen to football and what's already happened to football with regard to the changing
12:00
of the nature of the sport, and that is that for the first time
12:05
in Super Bowl history, there were no kickoff returns, zero kickoff returns,
12:13
and this despite the fact that there were an above average number of opportunities for
12:18
kickoffs, including or kickoff returns, including in overtime, but there was not
12:24
one time where the kickoff was actually returned. In fact, there wasn't even
12:28
one time when it was even close to being returned. So officially, now
12:33
the kickoff in a game called football is become ceremonial. In the biggest game
12:41
of the year, it was completely and totally ceremonial. Now this has happened
12:46
because of a change in the rules, and because kickers are better, and
12:52
because in yesterday's game they're playing in a dome, so there was no weather
12:56
and you had two good kickers. So all that came to result in no
13:03
kickoff returns. And I think this is the beginning of the end for football
13:11
as we know it. I'm a big believer in the slippery slope in all
13:15
things, and you know this is the way this happens. It's bit by
13:20
bit, piece by piece. It's a slow desensitization, and the kickoff has
13:26
now become so ceremonial so quickly that even when it came to this controversy over
13:33
the forty nine ers deciding to take the ball in overtime, no one even
13:37
referred to it as the kickoff. They referred to it as deferring. So,
13:43
in other words, in the subconscious or maybe even the conscious mind of
13:48
the players, because the chiefs were asked about this aut of the game,
13:52
and forty nine ers were as well, and the announcers. In the minds
13:56
of the people who are involved in this. They're the kickoff doesn't even exist
14:01
anymore. It's just you decide whether you're not you're going to take the ball
14:05
at at the twenty five or not. That's it. And you know,
14:09
I find the kickoff to be an exciting play. I think it's an important
14:13
play. I think it is important to the game of football for a couple
14:18
reasons. One, it shows your depth, right, because the people who
14:22
are playing on kickoffs are not your starters, and so there's a whole lot
14:28
of things that the kickoff does or used to do that determines who has the
14:33
actual better football team. Plus, it's an exciting play, sometimes in success
14:39
and sometimes in dramatic failure with fumbling or what have you. The problem,
14:43
of course, was that there were more injuries on kickoffs than there were on
14:48
normal football plays, and so the NFL and college to a certain degree have
14:54
basically gotten rid of the kickoff because they want to get rid of injuries,
15:01
which nobody's gonna fight about because oh, all injuries are inherently bad. Well,
15:05
injuries are inherently part of the game of football. But this is the
15:09
way this is gonna work, folks. It's bit by bit, you know,
15:13
they came for the kickoff and no one said anything. Then they came
15:16
for the punt and no one said anything. And then they came for the
15:20
ability to tackle the quarterback and no one said anything. And now you got
15:24
no football anymore. That's the way this is gonna work. And they make
15:30
the kickoff ceremonial and then they say, well, you know, the stats
15:33
show that no one's returning these kickoffs anyway, so why don't we just get
15:39
rid of it. Well, you castrated the kickoff. You made it impossible
15:43
for there to be kickoff returns, So what did you think was gonna happen.
15:46
This is just a process, a process of eliminating a part of the
15:50
game that was problematic. It's actually brilliant as it is evil, because eventually,
15:58
whether it's next year or two years to now, if they don't change
16:02
the rules, and there is some talk they may change the rules to make
16:04
it possible for there to be some kickoffs, But if they don't do that,
16:08
in a couple of years, they're gonna say, well, you know
16:11
what, there was no real reason to keep kickoffs, so we're just gonna
16:15
do away with them, and you're just gonna get the ball of the twenty
16:17
five yard line. We're just gonna save some time here. Well, first
16:21
of all, again something will be lost forever from the game. And more
16:25
importantly, this is a classic example of the slippery slope. It ain't stopping
16:30
at the kickoff, folks, This is just their way of doing it.
16:33
And I actually think that the Taylor's Swift phenomenon, this is no one else
16:41
is gonna give you this kind of analysis for better for worse. But I
16:45
actually think the Taylor Swift phenomenon is gonna help facilitate further the end of football
16:51
as we know it. Not because I have a problem with Taylor Swift or
16:56
her relationship with Travis Kelcey. I have been saying from the being it's real,
17:00
I have come to the conclusion that it's actually has a lot of good
17:06
and that conservatives ought to be embracing it because we could do a hell of
17:08
a lot worse than Taylor Swift being the celebrity mentor for millions and millions of
17:15
young women. I think she's better in that role than Madonna was during the
17:19
nineteen eighties. I think the relationship with Travis Kelcey seems to be very healthy.
17:23
They seem to be very much in love, and you know, the
17:27
relationship seems very normal. It's being conducted based upon the norms of society as
17:34
we knew it before the Great Reset and all the insanity that ensued. I
17:40
mean, so, I think conservatives despite the fact that Taylor Swift is a
17:44
liberal and it appears as if Travis Kelcey is a liberal advertising for Pfizer and
17:48
blood Light and all sorts of other and having during the National Anthem controversy,
17:53
all that kind of stuff. That doesn't matter. The lessons that they're teaching.
17:57
The example that they're providing is conservative in its core, in its nature,
18:03
especially given the chaos on that front that our culture is currently enduring,
18:08
where we don't even know, you know, what side is up. Everything
18:11
is completely upside down when it comes to gender and male female relationships and everything
18:17
else. So conservatives should be embracing Taylor Swift. But there's another side to
18:22
the Taylor Swift situation, and that is she has brought an enormous number of
18:27
new fans to the game. Now in the short run, that's awesome,
18:33
you know, because dads are experiencing the opportunity to bond with their daughters.
18:40
That's a big narrative that's out there. There was even a Super Bowl commercial
18:44
based upon that, which may have actually been a copy of a TikTok video.
18:48
That's a whole nother story for another day, but I mean, that's
18:52
a legitimate narrative. I've experienced it in a small way with my own children,
18:56
although frankly, I'm not sure how positive it was. Yesterday, during
19:00
the game, my six year old Diana, who knows nothing about football and
19:04
who's not even that big of a Taylor Swift fan, she just knows that
19:07
her big sister Grace is a big Taylor Swift fan. She was upset during
19:11
the whole game because the Chiefs were losing. And I said, well,
19:15
why is that such a big deal. Well, she's because I'm rooting for
19:18
Taylor Swift. I said, but your dad is rooting for the forty nine
19:22
ers because I like rock Party And she literally said to me, then you're
19:27
not really my dad, That's exactly what she said, Like, what are
19:32
you talking about? That's how deeper loyalty to Taylor Swift was a't six years
19:38
old. And I said, all right, well, what happens if in
19:42
the second half I root for the Chiefs. Will that make you happy?
19:45
I'm gonna make the Chiefs win by rooting for the Chiefs. And she was
19:48
kind of like, whatever, Dad, And so you know, I tried
19:52
to take credit for the Chiefs victory in the end, and I got nowhere
19:56
on that either. So I'm not sure how beneficial the alleged bonding between fathers
20:02
and their daughters is over Taylor Swift, but I'm willing to acknowledge there's probably
20:06
some benefit to that. But here's the problem. Here's the problem that no
20:11
one else is talking about. I do not trust the National Football League at
20:17
all. But I really don't trust the National Football League to deal with this
20:22
new fan base because they will be forced to try to keep it. And
20:27
in order to keep this new fan base, they're going to have to pander
20:33
to that fan base. These numbers that are going to come out on the
20:37
Super Bowl are going to be mind blowing in my estimation, and so that
20:44
has set a new benchmark. Well, you can't go in reverse, right,
20:48
It's all about growth. Growth, growth, growth is everything in corporate
20:52
America, or at the very least maintaining your position. So you can't go
20:59
back. I mean, the super Bowl is based upon projections for this year.
21:03
The Super Bowl has added probably twenty twenty five maybe thirty million viewers in
21:07
just the last couple of years. You can't go backwards from that. So
21:14
in order to maintain these new fans, the NFL is going to have to
21:18
continue to go down this path of pandering to people who are not core football
21:25
fans. About fifty I'm guessing based upon television ratings, about fifty million Americans
21:32
are core football fans. They're legitimate football fans, which is a huge number
21:37
and ought to be plenty in order to allow the National Football League to be
21:44
very, very profitable, But that's not the world we're living anymore. They
21:48
want thee hundred to one hundred and twenty million people to end up tuning in
21:53
for their biggest game, and in order to keep those people interested and engaged
21:59
and invested, the National Football League is going to continue to do things that
22:03
the core football fan doesn't like. And the core football fan has proven time
22:07
and time and time and time and time again, the National Football League can
22:12
crap in their face and they will do nothing about it. Whether it's in
22:17
the realm of race, whether it's in the realm of the nature of the
22:21
game itself, whether it's getting rid of the Washington Redskins nickname by the way,
22:26
when it comes to the Redskins, I called this one on this podcast
22:30
a year ago when I said they are systematically going to get rid of the
22:34
Washington Redskins in history in the National Football League. On their Twitter feed this
22:38
past week, they went through each Super Bowl and they created an artistic rendering
22:47
of that Super Bowl. And for the Redskins super Bowls, they called them
22:52
the Commanders, and they actually blocked out, they purposely blocked out the Redskins
23:00
logo on the helmet, and they did everything they possibly could not actually show
23:06
in their artistic renderings anybody who played for the Redskins in those multiple Super Bowls
23:11
that they both won and lost during the history of the Super Bowl. And
23:17
so that to me was the most obvious and dramatic example that I was right,
23:21
this is going to be in nineteen eighty four, George Orwell erasing of
23:26
history. And that's just one of many, many examples where the core football
23:30
fan has accepted being crapped on in multiple ways and will stick with the National
23:37
Football League. So now the National Football League is going to have these new
23:41
fans and they're the ones who will be catered to and pandered to, and
23:48
that means things that you can't even possibly imagine going forward. And it's absolutely
23:53
consistent with the wissification of football because none of those people, first of all,
23:57
care about football at its essence, and they have no memory of what
24:03
football used to be. They don't even remember kickoffs at this point. So
24:07
it's going to further lead. It's not going to facilitate, but it's going
24:11
to you know, I've used the phrase slippery slope. It's going to make
24:15
that slope sliprier and sliprier when it comes to the changing of the game,
24:22
and it's not going to be for the better. And I continue to believe
24:25
that in ten to fifteen years, even at the National Football League level,
24:29
we will not recognize what that sport is in comparison to what it was,
24:34
say, ten to fifteen years ago from today. By the way, one
24:37
other point on Taylor Swift and Travis Kelcey, it is extraordinary the significance of
24:45
winning, right, Winning is so important and everything winning changes everything. Sidney
24:52
Laupera One's saying money changes everything. It does, but SODA's winning, and
24:56
if the Chiefs hadn't won, all, any one we'll be talking about.
25:00
Is Travis Kelcey borderline assaulting his head coach Andy Reid. Now, it was,
25:07
it was. It was wrong. If he had been even just a
25:11
little more forceful and Andy Reid had fallen over, I think the story would
25:15
have been exponentially bigger than it even was. But it was completely inappropriate.
25:19
It was very indicative that, you know, Taylor's Swift situation may have put
25:25
Travis Kelcey under an awful lot of pressure because that was that's extraordinary. I
25:30
can't remember a similar situation where in the middle of a game a star player
25:36
did that to their basically legendary head coach. But Kelsey got away with it,
25:41
partially mostly because the Chiefs won, but also because he's almost untouchable now
25:47
because of his relationship with Taylor Swift. Now, there were a few other
25:51
things that I thought were significant that I want a reference regarding the Super Bowl.
25:56
The biggest political moment was when the super pack for RFK Junior, Robert
26:03
Kennedy Junior, ran an ad for his presidential campaign. Now, it was
26:08
not clear even to me immediately that this was a pack ad as opposed to
26:15
an ad directly from his presidential campaign. I was surprised to see it because
26:21
I had not heard anything before hand that Kennedy was going to run an ad
26:26
or anyone was going to run an ad on his behalf. And it was
26:29
only a thirty second ad. But what was striking about it was that it
26:33
was a copy of a very famous ad from the nineteen sixty presidential campaign where
26:44
our Ka Junior's uncle, not his dad, his uncle's campaign, ran an
26:49
ad that simply had people singing, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy,
26:56
Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy. That was the entire ad. And
27:00
you know, they did a decent job from a graphics standpoint of recreating the
27:04
ad, but to the average viewer under the age of like seventy five who
27:10
may have lived through it, or someone like me who's a student of history,
27:14
to the average view where they had absolutely no idea whatsoever what this ad
27:21
was referencing, and it seemed like it was, you know, made by
27:25
a high school student, not even a particularly proficient high school student when it
27:30
comes to technology, And so I didn't quite understand who they were going for
27:36
here. I mean, as I tweeted, they pretty much nailed down the
27:40
over seventy five liberal anti vax voting block, which is probably about what half
27:48
a percent of the population or something like that, you know. In the
27:52
other part of this, it didn't make any sense. Not only was it
27:55
referencing an ad that very few people alive have any memory or notedge of,
28:00
but Robert Kennedy again, it wasn't his dad, it was his uncle,
28:06
but most members of the Kennedy family have disavowed Robert F. Kennedy Junior.
28:12
In fact, the next day, Robert F. Kennedy Junior essentially apologized to
28:19
the ad because apparently members of his family who have disavowed him were upset,
28:23
and he played the this was my political Action Committee card and that I had
28:30
nothing to do with this. Now that's in this day and age, that's
28:33
kind of a dubious excuse. Yes, it's technically true, but there are
28:38
ways that the pack communicates with the presidential campaign. And I find it very
28:45
hard to believe that Robert F. Kennedy Junior had no idea that there was
28:49
going to be a Super Bowl ad that was going to mimic a nineteen sixty
28:55
AD that was run by his uncle, John F. Camas entity in that
29:00
campaign against Richard Nixon. I just don't believe that. But the fact that
29:04
RFK Junior is having to apologize for it is kind of extraordinary to me.
29:10
This was a complete waste of money by this pack and as we've saw during
29:15
the De Santas campaign, you know, political action committees often are you know,
29:19
run by scam artists who are just grifting off of the candidate's name and
29:26
are very very ineffective. That was to me very ineffective. It cost him
29:30
probably seven million dollars plus to run that ad, and I don't think they're
29:37
going to get any benefit from it at all. And you know, RFK
29:41
Junior is going to play an incredibly important part in this presidential campaign assuming he
29:48
gets on the ballot in all the key states, and we've talked about that
29:52
before. I'm sure we'll continue to talk about it again. And obviously we're
29:53
going to get to the presidential campaign in just a moment. But since that
29:57
was a political within the Super Bowl, I wanted to mention it in this
30:03
portion of the podcast. Interestingly, you know, unfortunately, even though the
30:08
Super Bowl is one of our last unifying events, one of our last communal
30:15
events. And I remember, you know, for years, I used to
30:18
really root, the only guy in America probably rooting for the Super Bowl ratings
30:23
to be as high as possible one because I like football. I used to
30:27
really love the National Football League, but no longer. And I'm very concerned
30:33
about the lack of unity in the United States of America. So anything that
30:38
unifies us, even for a few hours, I think is inherently good.
30:42
But there's also some intrinsically divisive elements of how the National Football League now runs
30:49
the Super Bowl, and we saw a lot of them during the course the
30:56
beginning the During an end of the game route the game, there was,
31:02
as there often is, a message in one of the end zones that said
31:07
end racism. This after before the game, the black national anthem was played,
31:12
which caused a bit of controversy, and I can understand why. Then,
31:17
of course, they had Reba McIntyre being used, kind of like Peyton
31:19
Manning on the whole bud Light situation. You got to bring Reba McIntyre in
31:25
so that you can get away with a whole lot of other shenanigans when it
31:27
comes to race, because she's white and Southern and you know, basically a
31:33
goddess within country music, and so that's that's cover for them. Peyton Manning
31:37
is cover for bud Light and on a whole bunch of other things. Reba
31:42
McIntyre was used in a very similar fashion. But I got asked on Twitter
31:47
by one of my big supporters from the Penn State case, guy by the
31:49
name of Andy, who doesn't watch football very much, and he asked me
31:53
on Twitter, so why was the end racism phrase in the one of the
32:00
two end zones during the game, And I said, well, it's quite
32:04
obvious, Andy, it's because we live in an inherently racist country, as
32:07
is proven by the fact that so few of the multimillionaires being paid to play
32:14
in the game are actually black, and so few of those who are given
32:19
the opportunity to participate in the massive halftime show are also black, proving that
32:25
we are a racist country. Of course, obviously, I was being as
32:30
sarcastic as I could possibly be, and I think the point was obvious because
32:36
at least sixty five to seventy percent of the players making millions of dollars to
32:39
play a sport in the biggest showcase in America all year long, are black.
32:45
And I would say in yesterday's halftime show, you know where Husher was
32:51
the star, at least ninety five percent of the people who participated were people
32:55
of color. So the idea, I mean just it is I'm call that
33:00
the National Football League has in its end zone and racism when there's probably no
33:08
bigger example or proof that we're not living in a racist country than the super
33:15
Bowl, where this country that's so racist that a portion of the population quote
33:22
unquote black people who make up thirteen percent of all citizens, are representing sixty
33:28
to seventy percent of multimillionaires playing a sport, and ninety five percent people who
33:32
are in the biggest entertainment showcase of the year, which is the halftime show
33:37
the super Bowl. It's just it's astonishing, and it's it is actually hilarious,
33:43
But there's also a serious issue to it, which is this is the
33:46
essence of our culture and the essence of the National Football League where we now
33:52
have to play pretend. We now have to play pretend that were still a
33:55
racist country while we can't believe our own eyes as to what we're actually seeing
34:00
is the exact opposite of anything that would be described as remotely racist. One
34:07
last thing on the Super Bowl before we move on to the extraordinary developments in
34:13
the presidential race, and that is I have to at least mention how remarkable
34:17
it is from a historical standpoint. And I say historical standpoint what I'm really
34:22
only talking about a fairly short amount of time, But it is really astonishing
34:27
that the National Football League just had its Super Bowl for the first time in
34:32
Las Vegas, because obviously, Las Vegas is the capital of gambling in America.
34:37
Although the rules have now all change where basically you can gamble almost anywhere,
34:43
but it was not that long ago the National Football League rightfully understood that
34:49
gambling, while it had its benefits for the league, was also extremely dangerous
34:54
because obviously, if you get too close to gambling, then you could get
35:00
into a situation where games are fixed. And I mean, my gosh,
35:04
this league, somehow, this multi multi billion dollar league, somehow still has
35:08
referees who are not full time in their jobs. It's an amazing thing when
35:15
you consider, yes, it would be difficult to fix an NFL game.
35:19
You couldn't do it with just one person, but still the appearance of that
35:24
possibility is something that is a theoretical mortal threat, an existential threat to the
35:30
league, and the league used to understand that they had to do everything they
35:34
possibly could to make sure that not only was there no impropriety, there was
35:37
no appearance of impropriety. And I always talk about the slippery slope. This
35:45
slope, Boy did this thing was really slippery. People went down this slope
35:50
at a record rate because it was not long ago that the league created a
35:55
massive firewall between anything having to do with law, Las Vegas and gambling,
36:00
and the National Football League to now completely embracing gambling and having their ultimate game
36:07
in Las Vegas itself. And I found this to be particularly remarkable given the
36:14
fact that part of I guess you would call it the very very beginning of
36:17
the Super Bowl pregame show was a documentary on what was my favorite show as
36:25
a kid and the favorite show of millions of other young American males during the
36:30
seventies and eighties. Every single week at twelve thirty PM, it was appointment
36:36
television to watch the NFL today and hear Brent Musburger say, you are looking
36:42
live, and I mean, that was it for me as a kid.
36:46
I mean, that was you know, chills, that was something you look
36:51
forward to for seven days. And I was particularly interested in this documentary because
36:59
not only was a huge fan of the NFL Today in that era, but
37:04
because I had a small connection to one of the stars of that show,
37:07
Jimmy the Greek Snyder, who was the odds maker on the NFL Today.
37:13
And I've told the story before, so I'm not going to go into it
37:15
in super detail. But I believe I can't prove this, but I believe
37:20
that I was probably the last media person to ever interview Jimmy the Greek before
37:23
he died. It was about a year before he died. But he was
37:27
in such horrendous shape after his destruction and firing at CBS, because he had
37:35
made some ill conceived comments that were at least somewhat historically accurate based upon what
37:40
black historians have said about the impact of slavery on the evolution of African Americans,
37:47
but he said it in a way that was very in artful, dumb.
37:52
He was drunk at the time, and everyone went bananas, and he
37:57
was fired and his life was compully destroyed and I'll just give one very short
38:02
antidote about my visit to his house. And the reason why I had a
38:07
connection was because Jimmy the Greek was from Steubenville, where I was once a
38:12
TV sportscaster, and I knew some people who knew him, and I was
38:15
then a sportscaster in North Carolina where he was living. So I went to
38:21
his house a couple of times kind of talked my way in that I probably
38:24
shouldn't have been in there, but I you know, I snowed the housekeeper
38:29
and letting me in. And what I found was heartbreaking. And the most
38:35
dramatic thing I found was I was waiting for Jimmy the Greed to come back
38:37
from wherever he was. You know, this was in nineteen ninety five,
38:43
right, and this was still an era where people had newspapers and magazines and
38:46
it was customary to place your newspapers and magazines. He hadn't used, either
38:52
on the coffee table or near the fireplace, and so I was waiting around
38:54
doing nothing, and I just happened to filter through the newspapers and magazines that
39:00
were sitting there. And you know, either as I said, on the
39:04
coffee table or near the fireplace, and he had been fired in January of
39:08
nineteen eighty nine. And I shit you not, every single newspaper and magazine
39:15
that was piled up in his living room was from January of nineteen eighty nine.
39:22
Some think were like from December of nineteen eighty eight. It was literally
39:28
as if time had stopped. This man should have two dates on his death
39:35
certificate, the date of his firing and the date that his body eventually gave
39:38
out in nineteen ninety six. And I was not a big Jimmy the Greek
39:43
fan. Frankly, I was happy with Phyllis George getting as much time she
39:46
wanted. She was so beautiful, And I never thought Jimmy the Greek was
39:51
any good. But I did think he got a raw deal. And I
39:55
didn't even have a heart to put him on camera. He was in that
39:59
bad as sh he was that crushed by what had happened to him. And
40:02
frankly, I'm getting farther afield here than I anticipated. But you know,
40:07
part of the reason I have so much respect for Matt Lower and why we've
40:09
become so close, is that Matt Lower has gone in exactly the opposite direction
40:15
of Jimmy the Greek both were unfairly destroyed from very high levels of celebrity.
40:22
Matt's a very happy guy. Jimmy the Greek was completely crushed by this.
40:27
And I have to give kudos to CBS and Brent Musburger because they did not
40:34
back away from this issue in this documentary, and Brent Musburger, quite touchingly
40:37
seemed to have a lot of regrets for what happened to Jimmy the Greek,
40:43
which I found to be emotional. Frankly, I was emotional watching it,
40:47
and I thought it was worthy of kudos and praise, even though it was
40:52
too little, too late. And I'm sure Jimmy the Greek would have loved
40:55
to have seen it, but he's been long dead now. But then there's
41:00
getting back to the issue of gambling. So here we have Jimmy the Greek,
41:02
the guy who did more than anybody else to kind of get the National
41:07
Football League to start embracing gambling. And you know, now we're having the
41:14
Super Bowl in Las Vegas and gambling is all over the NFL. So what
41:19
a remarkable vindication for Jimmy the Greek. But then Musburger himself. Musburger himself
41:24
is a part owner in a casino. He's devoted his entire existence now to
41:30
gambling, which I find to be amazing. And then yesterday he wins the
41:37
Pete Roselle War. Pete Roselle, the former commissioner National Football League, was
41:43
the commissioner that was most ardently against gambling in the NFL and was so concerned
41:51
about the dangers of gambling that he prevented Jimmy the Greek from even referencing point
41:57
spreads on the NFL today. So what a bizarre way for this to all
42:02
end ups. So in nineteen eighty nine, Jimmy the Greek gets fired,
42:08
and here we are in twenty twenty four and the National Football League is completely
42:15
embraced gambling, has this Super Bowl in Las Vegas, and Brent Musburger,
42:19
who throw Jimmy the Greek under the bus in the dramatic way, is winning
42:23
the Pete rosell War. It's just unbelievable. It's absolutely amazing how life turns
42:30
out. But that's the way it is. And I do believe that the
42:34
National Football League is playing with fire when it comes to eliminating all firewalls.
42:40
When it comes to the issue of gambling. You know, I'm not suggesting
42:45
that there's been any I mean, there's all sorts of people now think that
42:47
things were fixed because of Taylor Swift, and I've talked about the appearance of
42:52
that conflict of interest and how that is dangerous to the league. I don't
42:55
believe there's any evidence at all that anything was actually fixed, but appearances matter,
43:01
and eventually, when people start to lose trust and circumstances conspire to create
43:07
a very fishy situation. I'm telling you this is an issue that is going
43:13
to come back to haunt the National Football League in some way, shape or
43:15
form at some point down the road. Right now, I want to transition
43:22
to the big political news of the last week, and boy has there been
43:25
a lot. Obviously, most of the attention has been focused on the report
43:30
put out by the Special Counsel Robert Hugh on the issue of Joe Biden President
43:37
Joe Biden's classified documents. And when the story first came out, the big
43:43
headline was that Biden would not be charged, and that seemed to be a
43:49
good thing for Joe Biden. But then we learned, Okay, why is
43:52
he not going to be charged? And that's when the news probably could not
43:58
possibly have got worse for him. And the basic narrative of the Special Council
44:05
was, look, you know, Biden did some things that were suspect.
44:10
He didn't do all the things that he claimed that he did. What he
44:15
did wasn't as bad as what Trump is being accused of, but it wasn't
44:19
totally innocent either. By the way, there's some evidence that there may have
44:24
been a semblance of a cover up because his ghostwriter deleted some recordings after it
44:31
was announced that there would be a Special Counsel investigation. So, you know,
44:37
we, in deciding not to press charges against President Biden after he leave's
44:42
office, have decided that it wasn't really because and I'm paraphrasing here, but
44:46
it wasn't really because he wasn't guilty of anything. He might have been guilty
44:52
of some pretty serious violations of how to handle classified documents, but our concern
44:58
is we don't think that his memory is good enough to allow a jury to
45:07
convict him. Now that is extraordinary, And the Special Council didn't just stop
45:15
there. I mean, they tried to put it in as nice a way
45:17
as they possibly could, you know, saying that he would be perceived as
45:22
as an old man with a fading memory. You know, they've tried to
45:28
compliment him actually as much as they could, although in a kind of a
45:31
condescending fashion. But you know, it wasn't as if it was written in
45:36
in a vindictive way. But the bottom line, the most important part of
45:39
this whole deal is we can't recommend prosecution because we don't think the president has
45:49
enough mental acuity for a jury to be able to convict him, because he'll
45:53
always be able to claim he just didn't remember, that he is so little
46:00
idea of what's actually happening that he can't remember when he was vice president,
46:05
that he can't remember when his son Bo died. And I mean this wow,
46:13
I mean, holy cat. Was it shocking in its reality? No?
46:16
But was it? It was stunning to see it written by a special
46:21
counsel that you know, let's be clear, is you know he is a
46:25
Republican appointee. But I don't think that there's any evidence that this was overtly
46:32
political. I mean, in fact, some people have tried to claim that
46:37
this was all an inside job to take out Biden, which I don't believe
46:39
that either. I think it was trying to be as sincere as possible.
46:45
I think he's actually trying to be nice to Biden. And you know,
46:51
there are those in the media. You know, the media has been somewhat
46:53
split on this. I would say there's a minority in the major media that
46:58
have been trying to downplay this and have actually tried to attack Robert you like,
47:04
for instance, they brought Jeffrey Tubin back on CNN for some reason and
47:07
he had a temper tantrum against you. Joe Scarborough alleged for a Republican conservative
47:14
congressman who works with them as NBC, he had a temper tantrum. And
47:19
neither of them seemed to understand that it was not gratuitous that the special counsel
47:24
put this stuff about Biden's memory. It was not. It was integral to
47:30
the decision not to pursue charges, because as part of a prosecution, you
47:37
would have to prove that the person in this case Biden, knew what they
47:42
were doing, remembered what they were doing, and had some level of ill
47:45
intent. Well, you can't do that when you can't even rely on the
47:51
guy's memory to know when he was vice president or when his son died.
47:54
That's not gratuitous. First of all, it's factual, based upon Biden testimony.
48:00
And there you know, the Biden people tried everything they possibly could to
48:02
downplay This was just after the interview he gave, was just after the Hamas
48:07
attacks, and he was under a lot of stress and they were five hours
48:10
long. So what do you expect. Well, I'm sorry, he's the
48:14
president of the United States. He ought to be able to keep his attention
48:19
span for that long period of time and be able to remember basic things like
48:22
when he was vice president and when his son died. Now, we all
48:28
forget things, we all misspeak. But this has been something that has been
48:31
consistent from Biden, especially in public press events, and the fact that the
48:38
Biden team decided, or Joe Biden himself decided to immediately go out and do
48:45
a press conference was both fascinating as well as, in my opinion, completely
48:53
stupid. And it wasn't just because there were a lot of problems with Biden's
49:00
press conference. It's mostly because, in my opinion, as someone who's an
49:06
expert in the way the media wants to handle these kinds of situations, especially
49:10
the mainstream news media, the mainstream news media did not want to have to
49:17
emphasize this story. They wanted to de emphasize this story. But holding an
49:24
emergency press conference, especially when you rarely ever do that, effectively took away
49:32
any reasonable ability for the news media to ignore this story or downplay this story.
49:42
That's what the Biden team play should have been. Let's just take our
49:46
lumps, pretend this guy's a republic and hope that the media downplays it.
49:53
You and everyone will forget about it, and it's not going to be that
49:58
big of a deal. When you hold an emergency press conference, you take
50:04
that ability away, and anybody in the news media who has any kind of
50:09
a conscience or is maybe even concerned that, you know, the last chance
50:14
to get rid of Biden is fading away fast and we may end up with
50:17
a Trump presidency is going to take advantage of this and say, well,
50:22
you know, we can't ignore this. The president just held an emergency live
50:28
press conference, and then there was the substance of that press conference. So
50:32
the decision to do this was dumb, which I think there's evidence, which
50:37
I'll get to momentarily, that it came from Biden himself, But the decision
50:42
itself was dumb. But then there were all sorts of substance of problems like,
50:46
for instance, he mistook, you know, or we're mis identified the
50:52
president of Egypt as the president of Mexico twice. Now, by the way,
50:57
on this mix up with regard to Egypt in Mexico, that to me
51:04
is more egregious than a normal mix up. And if a Republican did it,
51:08
if Trump did it, it would be perceived even worse than claiming that
51:13
he had a meeting with French president Mitehran twenty five years after he died.
51:19
Because one, obviously, Mexico and Egypt couldn't be further apart geographically and maybe
51:25
even politically, and Mexico has absolutely no connection to the reason why he was
51:31
referencing the president of Egypt. But also if it was Trump, it would
51:36
be presumed that there was a racial angle to this, right, because well,
51:40
in Biden's mind, he got mixed up because of dark skinned presidents or
51:45
tan skinned presidents. I mean, I don't think that would be a leap
51:50
if this was Trump making the mistake, but it was Biden. And while
51:54
it was mentioned, you know, the racial angle was was never mentioned in
51:59
the mainstream news media. But that actually, I think was a smaller part
52:04
of the problem of the substance of the Biden press conference, because to me,
52:10
the bigger issue here is the level of anger that Joe Biden showed.
52:19
And there, you know, I'm gonna play a couple of clips that do
52:22
illustrate some level of anger on his part, and that, to me was
52:29
the most damaging part. Now, maybe I don't know, maybe my view
52:32
on this is in a small minority, but based upon my experience with people
52:38
in their eighties who are starting to lose it, they're starting to lose their
52:43
memory and they're becoming very insecure about it. That's the typical reaction, especially
52:51
among men who were at one point in their lives very with it and very
52:53
successful. I've had a couple different examples of this in my life where when
52:59
they get hauled on it or they are forced to deal with it, their
53:04
reaction is anger. They are angry, and it's understandable because they themselves know
53:10
what's happening to them, if they're at all honest, they realize that they're
53:16
starting to lose it and that angers them. And the fact that Biden showed
53:22
anger, Now some of it, you know, the reporting indicated that his
53:27
people wanted him to show anger, and that just indicated to me, these
53:30
people are completely clueless. Because anybody who's had this experience, and I don't
53:35
know what the percentage of the population who has had this experience is, but
53:38
it's got to be pretty high. That is that is something that is very
53:43
typical. So he's basically proving that the issue is real because he's acting in
53:50
a way that is one hundred percent consistent with most people's experiences with men in
53:57
their eighties who were starting to lose it and express anger. So I want
54:00
to play this first clip, and this doesn't. This isn't where he shows
54:04
the most anger. This is this is him essentially. It sounds like he's
54:08
mostly scripted here. This is like faux anger, faux outrage over how dare
54:15
Hugh even raise this issue? And he tries to play the moral high ground
54:21
card by saying, you even go after my son Bo. Well, as
54:24
he references Bo, almost unbelievably, he can't remember where the rosary in reference
54:35
to Bo came from. He pauses and then just moves on. But this
54:39
is essentially Biden's scripted response at that press conference to the issue of his memory
54:47
being very, very faulty. In addition, I know there's some attention paid
54:52
to some language and the report about my recollection of events. There's even reference
54:57
that I don't remember when my son died. How in the hell dare he
55:04
raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to
55:07
myself, wasn't any of their damn business. Let me tell you something some
55:14
of you have coming. I wear since the day he died. Every single
55:17
day, the rosary he got from our lady of every Memorial Day, we
55:24
hold a service remembering him, attending my friends and family and the people who
55:29
loved him. I don't need anyone. I don't need anyone to remind me
55:34
when he passed away. I passed away. Simple truth is I sat for
55:38
a five hundred view or two days of events going back forty years. At
55:43
the same time I was managing international crisis. Their task was to make a
55:47
decision about whether to move forward with charges in this case, that's their decision
55:52
to make. That's a council's decision to make, that's his job, and
55:58
they decided not to move forward. For any extraneous commentary, they don't know
56:04
what they're talking about. It has no place in this report. The bottom
56:07
line as a matter is now closed. I'm can continue what I've always focused
56:12
on my job of being President of the United States of America. No,
56:15
thank you, and I'll take some questions. So I didn't think that was
56:19
particularly effective at all. And Biden always tries to wrap himself in the tragic
56:25
death of his son bo but I didn't think that worked, partially because of
56:30
the not being able to remember the details on the rosary situation. But it's
56:36
this issue of outrage and anger that I think is really misplaced and is a
56:40
very bad strategy, assuming that it is a strategy by the Biden people.
56:45
And the ultimate example of this comes from the nineteen eighty four presidential election where
56:52
Ronald Reagan was running against Walter Mondale and Reagan had a very bad first debate
57:00
and there began to be questions about him as he was trying to run for
57:05
a second term, about whether or not he was mentally capable as the oldest
57:09
sitting president, of still being able to do the job. And at the
57:15
second debate, he was asked this question very politely but very pointedly, and
57:21
Reagan, instead of getting outraged and angry, he flipped it and he told
57:29
a joke, and he told a joke that hit a home run. Now,
57:34
interestingly, you're not gonna be able to see this, obviously, because
57:37
this is an audio podcast, But as we play this clip, I actually
57:40
think that, you know, Reagan was probably gonna win anyway, But the
57:45
election was decided not just because Reagan was able to get off this joke,
57:51
but because as he finished the joke, the director of the debate switched from
57:59
Reagan on a one shot to Reagan and Mondale on a two shot, and
58:05
in the background, Mondale laughs, And that was game set match for the
58:14
entire election, rightly or wrongly. And here's what that sounded like. Back
58:19
in nineteen eighty four. You already are the oldest president in history, and
58:22
some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with mister
58:28
Mondale. I recall yet, that President Kennedy had to go for days on
58:32
end with very little sleep during the Cuba missile crisis. Is there any doubt
58:37
in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances. Not
58:40
at all. It's true, and I want you to know that also.
58:45
I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going
58:49
to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. Now, what was
59:01
so amazing about that were so many things that were amazing about that particular moment,
59:07
especially contrasting it to the way Biden has handled the issue, is that
59:14
it should be pointed out that after that moment in that debate, Reagan had
59:20
a terrible time finishing his closing statement, an almost embarrassing moment that was maybe
59:29
worse than anything that happened in that first debate. But the story had already
59:34
been written at that point, the narrative was already set. Reagan had already
59:39
dealt with the issue, and so almost no one in the media talked about
59:45
his rambling closing statement that frankly had me embarrassed as a Reagan supporter in nineteen
59:52
eighty four, And so Reagan won the day because he handled it with humor.
1:00:00
And let's be clear, we now know that Reagan was at the beginning
1:00:04
stages of Alzheimer's, that he eventually got Alzheimer's and died very dramatically, wrote
1:00:14
a goodbye letter to the people of the United States, knowing that he was
1:00:19
no longer going to be able to remember anything. And obviously that didn't just
1:00:24
start after his presidency ended, and so that was an incredibly similar situation where
1:00:34
Reagan was able to survive and prosper because he joked about it and he didn't
1:00:40
get angry like Joe Biden did. So that's a major difference and a huge
1:00:46
blunder when it comes to the Biden's strategy. Now is it a strategy,
1:00:52
I don't know, but I think there's evidence that that decision to hold that
1:00:58
ill fated press conference was made by Joe Biden himself. And the best evidence
1:01:02
I have for it comes from the CBS White House correspondent, and this was
1:01:08
her report on the basic issue, and listen at the end where she makes
1:01:15
it pretty clear the way I interpret it, that this was Biden's decision to
1:01:22
come out and hold this press conference. This is not a new problem for
1:01:27
the White House and for the Biden campaign. There have been long standing,
1:01:30
mounting questions about his age and mental sharpness, and so this only adds to
1:01:37
those concerns, and that is why you are seeing so much damage control.
1:01:40
That is why the President insisted that he could have the opportunity to take questions
1:01:46
and address this head on. At the same time, though, Catherine,
1:01:51
another issue might be how willing they are to acknowledge that Americans feel this way
1:01:58
and have concerns about his age and cognitive state, because when asked about it
1:02:05
twice and how he would reassure voters who have those concerns, he grew angry
1:02:10
and frustrated and lashed out at reporters for even asking the question. But certainly
1:02:15
they are well aware that this is going to follow them well into the campaign,
1:02:20
and now that you have it written out in this extensive report, there
1:02:24
are concerns about how this could do real political damage. Now there are a
1:02:30
couple notable things there. One it does seem at least from her reporting,
1:02:34
and this is the White House correspondent for CBS, so she would have inside
1:02:37
knowledge that somebody is telling her, yeah, this wasn't our call. The
1:02:42
president wanted to do this, which again is classic and a classic situation and
1:02:49
example of and consistent with the idea that Biden is angry that people are calling
1:02:54
him out on his memory problems because he knows those problems are re and he
1:03:00
becomes very stubborn and decides, no, I'm gonna do this and no one
1:03:06
can stop him. The other part of that report there on CBS is clearly
1:03:14
this was an example of where even on CBS and other networks ABC. You
1:03:20
know, I just saw a clip from John carl On this week where he
1:03:22
was very upfront and clear cut about this issue, was not backing away from
1:03:29
it. You know, I think because of the press conference, it eliminated
1:03:34
any ability for the mainstream news media to ignore this topic, as they might
1:03:39
have if it had just been some words on a paper in a special counsel
1:03:45
report that decided not to press charges against Joe Biden. But here, you
1:03:50
know, in that clip you just heard from CBS, they are not ignoring
1:03:53
this. They are emphasizing this, and they're not backing away from it,
1:03:58
and they're really not even trying to diminish it. They're making it very obvious
1:04:02
that this is a real legitimate issue that strikes at the heart of the Biden
1:04:09
reelection campaign. So I found that clip to be interesting, but it was
1:04:13
also not isolated. There were all sorts of examples of the mainstream news media
1:04:18
doing similar things, including on CNN. CNN might have been the most surprising
1:04:27
of all the networks. I'm going to play two clips for you from CNN.
1:04:32
One from MG Lee who was at that press conference, and you're about
1:04:38
to hear a clip where there's two different elements. First is Lee confronting Biden
1:04:44
during the press conference in a very aggressive fashion on this issue of his memory
1:04:48
and fitness for office. And then her on CNNs she having to be talking
1:04:54
with Anderson Cooper where she provides analysis of the interchange between they were in the
1:05:01
exchange between her and President Biden over this entire issue. And so here's what
1:05:08
that sounded like on CNN. It mister president, for months, when you
1:05:13
were asked about your age, you would respond with the words watch me.
1:05:16
Well, any American people have been watching, and they have expressed concerns about
1:05:21
your age. That is your judgment. That is your judgment the public.
1:05:26
That is not the judgment of the press. The expressed concerns about your mental
1:05:29
acuity. They say that you are too old. Mister President. In December,
1:05:32
you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats who could defeat
1:05:36
Donald Trump. So why does it have to be you? Now? What
1:05:40
is your answer? That qualified person in this country president of the United States
1:05:43
and finished the job I started? He said, you know this is your
1:05:46
opinion, this isn't anybody else's opinion. Public polling clearly suggests that this is
1:05:51
a serious concern that a lot of people have. So, you know,
1:05:55
I took this as a president who clearly wanted to sort of get out there
1:06:00
show this sort of fighting side to him. And we know in conversations that
1:06:03
we've had with Biden advisors, people who know him really well, that they
1:06:06
think that he does sort of well in that setting when he's sort of shouting
1:06:11
that sort of fighting and fighting back at questions, fighting back at the concerns.
1:06:16
So I just wonder if there was sort of this opportunity that the White
1:06:19
House saw to put him in that setting take some of these difficult questions that
1:06:24
they expected that he would have. Now that's about as aggressive a questioning as
1:06:29
you're ever going to get of a Democratic president from a liberal quote unquote mainstream
1:06:34
news outlet like CNN and kudos, good job. They're doing their job on
1:06:42
this, and I think they're doing it in an affair, responsible, and
1:06:45
respectable way. Most of this podcast is based in media criticism, but I
1:06:49
got to give compliments when they're due, and I think in large part the
1:06:56
mainstream news media deserves some credit for how they are handled. Again, I
1:07:00
think it's partially because Biden made a blunder and holding that press conference, and
1:07:03
there may be some ulterior motives here that are providing an incentive for the media
1:07:09
to actually do their jobs in this isolated situation. But they are doing their
1:07:14
jobs. And it's not just with regard to the memory issue. It's also
1:07:20
with regard to the substance of the Special Counsel Report and the actual issue of
1:07:28
how Joe Biden handled classified documents. I'm not going to play it for you
1:07:31
because it's too long, but CNN did a four and a half minute long,
1:07:36
brutal fact check of what Biden and the Biden team are saying about the
1:07:44
Special Counsel Report, almost all of it turning out to be false. And
1:07:48
then there's also this clip by CNN legal analyst Ellie Hanig, who's a smart
1:07:56
guy, who talked about some of the basic of the issue related to Biden
1:08:01
and the classified documents himself, that put all of this story in a very
1:08:08
different light than the Biden team would like you to believe. Here are the
1:08:12
facts Joe Biden established by this report. Joe Biden retained sensitive classified documents after
1:08:19
he left the vice presidency market classified or yes marked classified, highest level top
1:08:26
secret sci They related to our international affairs, to war plans, to foreign
1:08:30
relations. He knew it. He knew it. He's on tape after he's
1:08:34
out of the vice presidency saying to his autobiographer, the classified documents are in
1:08:40
the basement. He knew it. But he just denied that. That's exactly
1:08:43
so that's key part of the report. It's the second sentence in the report,
1:08:45
and he just denied sharing that with the ghostwriter. And I just looked
1:08:48
at this closely. They had recorded conversations between Biden and exactly so all of
1:08:55
this almost couldn't be worse for Joe Biden and his re election chances. It
1:09:02
would be difficult really to kind of comprehend, Okay, what kind of scenario
1:09:08
would have been worse for the Biden team over the last week than what transpired.
1:09:14
And the media is playing an extremely important role in this, and by
1:09:18
and large they are doing their jobs. Now. There are few interesting exceptions
1:09:25
to that. I've already referenced Jeffrey Tubman and Joe Scarborough The New York Times
1:09:30
rather hilariously tellingly and not surprisingly, had a headline election twenty twenty four Republicans
1:09:38
pounds some report that puts spotlight on Biden's memory lapses. With the Republicans pounce
1:09:45
thing has become almost a cliche, and you know, to the point of
1:09:49
hilarity where instead of talking about the actual issue, the discussion is about the
1:09:56
you know, the Republicans pounce. There's also a massive hypocrisy when it comes
1:10:01
to the way The Times has handled issues related to Donald Trump. They have
1:10:08
put out, you know, headlines in the past that, you know,
1:10:12
we don't need any sort of medical proof that Trump has mental problems, and
1:10:17
yet they had a headline regarding Biden that you really need a medical expert to
1:10:23
be able to determine whether or not someone has problems when it comes to their
1:10:28
memory and mental acuity, and that, you know, the implication is that
1:10:30
the Special Council was not qualified to make that analysis and conclusion, which of
1:10:36
course is massive inherent liberal bias on the part of The New York Times.
1:10:42
Then you know, then there's Business Insider. That Business Insider is all that
1:10:46
influential, but I think they're an indication of what some in the mainstream news
1:10:51
media would like the narrative to be because they're still hoping against hope that Biden's
1:10:57
going to be able to hold this all together and fend off Donald Trump.
1:11:01
But Business Insider head a headline, Biden is obviously an old man with a
1:11:06
fading memory. But don't expect the Special Council report to significantly affect twenty twenty
1:11:13
four. Now, that, of course, is one of the key questions
1:11:15
here. What is the real impact of all of this? And I am
1:11:21
someone who agrees that we are not going to see and I could be wrong
1:11:27
about this, but I don't think I am. We are not going to
1:11:30
see in the coming days a bunch of polls that show that Joe Biden's support
1:11:34
has completely collapsed, and that Donald Trump is winning now by fifteen points,
1:11:40
and that effectively the presidential campaign is over. That's not going to happen.
1:11:45
And the reason it's not going to happen is we're not living in that era
1:11:48
anymore. We're not. Things are so polarized and so fragmented that it's almost
1:11:56
impossible for even dream a revelations or developments to have a seismic earthquake like impact
1:12:08
on a presidential race. There's just not enough undecided voters, and especially because
1:12:15
Trump is Trump, you're not going to get even weak Democrats to suddenly go,
1:12:19
well, Biden can't possibly be president, I'm voting for Trump. That
1:12:24
is just not going to happen with a large swath of voters. So you're
1:12:29
not going to see I don't believe, and I'm pretty confident about this,
1:12:33
major dramatic shifts in the polling in the next week or two. You might
1:12:39
see a little bit. You might see Biden's approval rating drop a little bit,
1:12:44
you might see Trump's margins increase by a point or two. By the
1:12:48
way, if that doesn't happen, if I'm the Trump people, I would
1:12:53
be very very concerned. But I don't think we're going to see massive movements
1:12:58
in the polls. So from that's standpoint, Business insiders hopeful headline that this
1:13:03
isn't going to affect twenty twenty four very much may have some validity, but
1:13:09
that's not the way it's going to impact the race. I don't see it
1:13:15
changing minds immediately. I see it changing the narrative of the entire campaign and
1:13:25
altering the path that that campaign is very likely to take, and I specifically
1:13:32
mean this regarding the debates. I have said for months, quite emphatically,
1:13:41
that there will be no general election debates unless the Biden team is so desperate
1:13:48
that they see no other choice but to have to debate Donald Trump. And
1:13:54
they're going to avoid those debates for obvious reasons, because Joe Biden can't make
1:14:00
it through two hours with Donald Trump and a couple of people asking questions with
1:14:06
no rest, without looking remarkably foolish and without you know, being the old
1:14:13
man behind the curtain and the Wizard of Oz. It's just not possible.
1:14:17
I half jokingly have suggested that, you know, maybe the Biden team will
1:14:21
propose five fifteen minute debates, all held at eleven am in the morning,
1:14:29
and that you know, that will be their proposal to the Trump team,
1:14:32
because Biden could get away with that, you know, you know, I
1:14:35
believe that Biden would be capable of lasting for fifteen minutes. He's not capable
1:14:42
of lasting for two hours. Now, they might try to figure out a
1:14:45
way to get that to an hour and a half if they're ever forced to
1:14:49
accept any sort of debate proposal, but there's just no way Joe Biden can
1:14:56
hide this problem for two hours on Life national television in the evening, going
1:15:01
up against Donald Trump. That's not possible, however, because this is now
1:15:08
an accepted huge part of the campaign narrative. I don't think they're gonna be
1:15:15
able to get away with ducking the debates. They're in a catch twenty two.
1:15:18
And they're also not barring Trump conviction on a felon account, They're not
1:15:27
gonna have enough leverage to be able to get away with this. Like,
1:15:30
for instance, if they were up by ten points in the polls, they
1:15:33
could say, you know what, we have no interest or need to debate
1:15:36
Donald Trump. He doesn't deserve a national platform, he's an insurrectionist blah blah
1:15:41
blah blah blah. All that might actually win the day or at least not
1:15:46
cause them a major major problem. However, and this is like the inverse
1:15:50
of what we saw with the Republican nominating process. I said constantly Trump winning
1:15:56
in the polls allows him to stay out of the debates and not have to
1:16:00
face Ron de Santis one on one. Well, Biden losing in the polls
1:16:05
or at the very best even in the polls with Trump, takes away any
1:16:10
leverage he has to dodge those debates, especially when the narrative has now already
1:16:16
been set, even within the mainstream news media. Effectively, Joe Biden's PR
1:16:24
team, they've already set the narrative that his mental acuity and age are key
1:16:30
issues in this campaign. And if that's the narrative, you cannot get away,
1:16:35
especially when you're losing in the polls, you cannot get away with dodging
1:16:40
the debates. So I don't know what the Biden team does at that point,
1:16:44
other than you know, the idea of five to fifteen minute debates at
1:16:46
eleven am. They're stuck. They are stuck at that point. I do
1:16:51
not see how they can get out of that. Barring a Trump conviction on
1:16:55
a felony count or some other black swan event to radically real to the race.
1:17:00
They can't do it because Biden will get mercilessly mocked, and independent voters
1:17:09
will see the dodging of the debates as the surest sign that, Aha,
1:17:15
he's just not capable of doing the job. He's just not, especially when
1:17:21
you consider he's asking to be rehired for this job for another five years.
1:17:31
Five years. He's already eighty one and clearly losing it. Today he can
1:17:39
get it up for fifteen minutes. In five years, he's not gonna be
1:17:44
able to get it up for five minutes. And you just can't possibly have
1:17:48
the president of the United States be in that level of condition. Of course,
1:17:51
I have always said if he wins reelection, he ain't going to be
1:17:55
president in five years. Kamala Harris is going to be president, and if
1:17:59
they have their way, she's gonna be president in January twenty twenty seven,
1:18:01
so she can run for two more terms. And as far as this issue
1:18:06
of Kamala Harris and or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Obama, I'm sorry, I
1:18:14
am still in the camp, especially now that we're into mid February, that
1:18:18
the people out there, especially in the right wing, that are claiming this
1:18:21
is all part of plan This is all part of a conspiracy, and Michelle
1:18:27
Obama is going to come in on her white horse, and I don't know
1:18:30
if that'll be racist or not to maybe I won't be a white horse,
1:18:33
but I digress that she's going to come into the last minute and save the
1:18:39
day and she's going to be the nominee is completely ludicrous. And the people
1:18:45
telling you that the Megan Kelly's and the Glen Becks are lying to you.
1:18:51
They're lying to you just like the right wing media lied to you in twenty
1:18:56
sixteen when they told you that Hillary Clinton was close to death shouldn't be elected
1:19:01
president of the United States. How's that working out. It's twenty twenty four
1:19:05
and Hillary Clinton is still perfectly fine. That whole narrative was a lie that
1:19:10
no one ever had any accountability for, that never been revisited. And that's
1:19:15
the same thing that's going to happen here. When either Biden or Harris are
1:19:19
the Democratic nominee at the Democratic Convention in August, Nobody in the right wing
1:19:25
media is gonna go, oops, I'm sorry. We were wrong when we
1:19:28
told you it was going to be Michelle Obama and this was all part of
1:19:30
a massive conspiracy plan by the evil Democrats. Democrats don't know what the fuck
1:19:35
they are doing. They are panicked about this. There is no alternative option
1:19:43
for them. The options are Biden Harris. There's no way, shape or
1:19:48
form they can squeeze Harris out. And my god, so many people are
1:19:53
convinced that, oh no, they're going to bypass an historic woman of color
1:19:58
who's Vice president of the United States with no scandals, that somehow the woke
1:20:03
Democratic Party is gonna get away with that in order to contrive a way for
1:20:10
Gavin Newsom, a super rich, straight white male with greasy hair from a
1:20:16
state that most of the country thinks is completely out of its fucking mind,
1:20:20
he's gonna be the nominee instead of Harris. Are you crazy? I mean,
1:20:28
there's no way to do that, even logistically now, because Newsom can't
1:20:31
even win any primaries because he can't get on the ballot. Even if if
1:20:36
this happened, and for this to happen, Biden would have to facilitate it.
1:20:44
And his press conference maybe the most significant part of his press conference was
1:20:48
he was signaling he ain't gonna do that. He is as stubborn as you
1:20:55
could possibly be. And that's another characteristic of guys in that age group who
1:21:00
start to get dementia. They become extremely stubborn. And so there's he was
1:21:06
signaling to everybody, I ain't going anywhere. And you know, could that
1:21:13
change if there's a more dramatic example of his health and his memory not being
1:21:21
up to snuff. Yeah, I think that's possible, but the alternative then
1:21:26
is going to be Harris. There's no way around this. I've asked dozens
1:21:31
of times on social media. Can someone please give me a rational scenario where
1:21:36
they can get out of this without having to go to Harris. I don't
1:21:41
see what it is. And you know, frankly, if Biden's mental acuity
1:21:47
is as bad as it might be, and they're gonna hide him, they're
1:21:53
gonna put him on tape in every possible way they can, and they're gonna
1:21:57
use that fifteen minute phenomenon as much as they possibly can. You know,
1:22:00
he can fake it for fifteen minutes so that they give you, they give
1:22:05
him to you in spurts, and maybe over time people will think, well,
1:22:09
it's exaggerated, or he's dealing with it, or you know, you
1:22:13
know, maybe that's just Grandpa Joe and somehow it's endearing. I think they
1:22:16
they think they might be able to thread that needle. I don't think they
1:22:21
can. I mean, I don't think the problem is as bad as some
1:22:26
people think it is, but it is bad, and I just like,
1:22:29
for instance, to me, the line is a two hour debate. There's
1:22:32
no chance of Joe Biden getting through a two hour debate under the circumstances of
1:22:39
a normal presidential debate without there being a disaster. The State of the Union
1:22:45
is going to be an interesting test. My guess is it's going to be
1:22:47
a very short State of the Union speech that's on teleprompter. You know,
1:22:53
for a one night deal. Biden might be able to get it together and
1:22:58
get it up and hold it hold it on together. But the reality is,
1:23:03
best case scenario for the Democrats, this is going to be an issue
1:23:06
that dogs Biden. And it's the prism through which everyone is going to see
1:23:11
everything, and now all of a sudden, all of his gaffes that used
1:23:15
to be expected and endearing are now going to be signs or proof of this
1:23:20
guy's got dementia and cannot do the job. And the first poll that was
1:23:26
out after the Special Council report, which is from ABC, indicates that the
1:23:32
percentage of people who do not believe that reverse all this, the percentage of
1:23:38
people who believe that Biden is too old to be president has increased, and
1:23:43
it's now an overwhelming number of voters, even on the Democratic side. Of
1:23:47
course, the alternative is Trump, and so that kind of you know,
1:23:51
throws Biden a lifeline because one Trump is toxic and two Trump is almost as
1:23:58
old as Biden. I mean, one of the things I was thinking about
1:24:00
when this story broke was how unbelievably frustrating it is that can you imagine right
1:24:06
now if ron De Santis was both either head to head with Trump or somehow
1:24:14
one Iowa New Hampshire and was the presumptive Republican nominee, what kind of position
1:24:18
DeSantis would be in right now? I mean, we'd be talking about a
1:24:21
Ronald Reagan landslide if Ronda Santis was the presumptive Republican nominee, because obviously,
1:24:29
you know, age is not an issue with him, mental acuity is not
1:24:31
an issue with him, he would be in a far, far better position,
1:24:36
not being under ninety one criminal indictments and not being seventy seven years old
1:24:42
and being a graduate of Harvard and Yale to be able to attack Joe Biden
1:24:46
on this issue, then Donald Trump will be. And it's just so frustrated
1:24:51
that if you know, if Trump had never run and done the right thing
1:24:55
for the country and for the cause, or you know, things that turned
1:24:59
out different, Ronda Santos would be in such a great position right now,
1:25:02
and the country would be better for it. But unfortunately, you know,
1:25:06
we don't live in that world anymore, and we got very unlucky by the
1:25:10
way, as far as the way that Trump camp should handle this. While
1:25:15
watching the Super Bowl yesterday and sitting next to my eighty four year old father
1:25:20
in law, who you know, I love him. He and I have
1:25:24
a great relationship. He had a very successful career in the financial world.
1:25:30
He kind of looks like Joe Biden, and you know, when you talk
1:25:32
to him about finances for short spurts, he's as sharp as he ever has
1:25:39
been before. But outside of that, especially when he gets tired, it
1:25:45
gets it gets off the rails pretty dramatically. And while he was taking a
1:25:50
nap in the middle of the Super Bowl, I suddenly got a great idea.
1:25:56
I think it's a great idea that here's what that Trump cam'p ain't ought
1:26:00
to do. They ought to find somebody who is a lot like my father
1:26:04
in law eighty four eighty five years old and put them on a twenty four
1:26:10
to seven live stream on TikTok. This. I think this is a brilliant
1:26:15
idea. Just put them on TikTok, and have you watch their lives twenty
1:26:24
four to seven, twenty four to seven, Watch an eighty four and eighty
1:26:29
five year old man, somebody who you have to pick the right person because
1:26:31
you know, this is a person who had a very successful life, he
1:26:35
was very smart. And watch how they live and just imagine this is what
1:26:43
you will be voting for in a second Biden term. And I got to
1:26:46
tell you, I think that would be incredibly effective because when I look at
1:26:51
my father in law again, he's trying his best, and there's no signs
1:26:56
that he hasn't been diagnosed with dementia or anything. But I'm there's just no
1:27:00
chance you could possibly pull off that job. And there's nothing extraordinary about Joe
1:27:06
Biden that indicates that he would be able to do that, especially five years
1:27:12
from now. So that's my contribution to the Trump campaign. Create a live
1:27:18
stream of an eighty four or eighty five year old guy with a lot of
1:27:23
the similar characteristics to Biden, and let America see just what the reality is
1:27:29
of that particular age group. And look right now, gun to my head,
1:27:35
you gotta say, barring a conviction, Trump has moved ahead as the
1:27:40
favorite in his race. How much of a favorite. We don't know yet.
1:27:43
I need to see some polling post Special Counsel report. But I don't
1:27:47
think this was an earthquake for the race, because I don't think earthquakes are
1:27:53
possible anymore. But this was a significant development that absolutely plays in Trump's favor.
1:28:00
And there are other things that played in Trump's favor. For instance,
1:28:05
I don't know how in the world, after this Special Council report you possibly
1:28:12
get a Florida jury to convict Donald Trump on the classified documents case. I've
1:28:18
been saying this for months, that a Florida jury will have nullification simply on
1:28:25
political grounds, and that jury selection is all that matters when it comes to
1:28:30
a very divisive, divisive figure like Donald Trump. I mean, the facts
1:28:33
and the law aren't going to matter in any of these cases. The media
1:28:36
is not accepting this reality. They're still pretending that facts, logic, and
1:28:41
the law matter. It's all going to be about politics. It's going to
1:28:45
be Oj Simpson on steroids. It's only going to matter about who is on
1:28:49
those juries. And even before this Special Council report, You're never going to
1:28:55
get twelve Florida jurors to convict the Republican presidential nominee in a situation where there's
1:29:01
no clear cut damage to the nation. But now you have the president of
1:29:08
the United States dodging prosecution because he's not mentally sharp enough to be prosecuted.
1:29:15
There's indications that he even may have been somewhat involved in a cover up,
1:29:21
which is the key charge against Trump when it comes to the federal charges against
1:29:27
him. And I'm not suggesting that what Trump is alleged to have done is
1:29:30
not worse than Biden. I one hundred percent agree that, based upon what
1:29:36
we currently know, what Trump is alleged to have done is worse, but
1:29:41
it's not fundamentally worse. It's not dramatically worse, and certainly not enough to
1:29:47
where you could possibly have a Florida jury go all right, well, Joe
1:29:51
Biden didn't get any charges at all, and now we're gonna convict Donald Trump.
1:29:57
Has a political opponent in the middle of a presidential campaign. No chance,
1:30:02
no chance, And it doesn't matter what the law says, it doesn't
1:30:08
matter even really what's presented in court. There's no way you're gonna get twelve
1:30:13
Florida jurors to do that. Regardless of when that case actually goes to trial.
1:30:18
So that was I think the most underrated element of what happened with the
1:30:24
Special Council. I just don't see there's any way you can possibly convict Trump
1:30:29
now before an election on that one case. And you know, quickly these
1:30:34
cases are falling by the wayside. Fanny Willis is all broiled and scandal with
1:30:41
her Special prosecutor and having a romantic relationship with him, and there's in the
1:30:45
Georgia case and so, and no one gives a shit about the New York
1:30:49
case. So you're now basically down to the dec case with regard to Jack
1:30:56
Smith, the Special Council, and issues related to January sixth, which is
1:31:00
really always the most dangerous case to Trump, the most substantive and important case.
1:31:05
But there's real questions about whether or not you're going to be able to
1:31:08
get that the trial soon enough. And I think their window is a lot
1:31:13
smaller than they think, and I think once we get to summertime, there's
1:31:18
just no way to do it realistically or logistically. And this is not my
1:31:23
area of expertise, but I just I have a real tough time believing that
1:31:28
the not just presumptive but legitimate Republican presidential nominee is going to undergo a federal
1:31:35
prosecution trial in the middle of a presidential campaign, you know, from a
1:31:42
Department of Justice that is run by his opponent. I just I find that
1:31:46
really hard to believe, especially given all the ways that this can be delayed.
1:31:53
And you know, Trump's losing this immunity argument, but He's actually winning
1:31:56
it because the longer the immunity argument goes, the less chance there is that
1:32:00
there's an actual trial, And given the nature of a DC jury pull,
1:32:04
it's the really only realistic chance there is of Trump being convicted before the November
1:32:12
election. So Trump won on multiple levels when it came to what the Special
1:32:17
Council did here. And then there's the issue of the Supreme Court hearing the
1:32:23
case on whether or not he should be on the ballot in Colorado. And
1:32:28
I have been one of those who have been part of the chorus of non
1:32:31
left wing loons who have been saying this case is ridiculous. There is absolutely
1:32:38
no chance that the Supreme Court is going to allow the state of Colorado to
1:32:43
pull off a major presidential campaign candidate from the ballot there based upon their interpretation
1:32:51
of the insurrection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. There's just no chance that why,
1:32:58
well, it's pretty simple, Ronald Trump has never even been charged with
1:33:01
that. And then there's all sorts of technical issues that the Supreme Court justice
1:33:05
has brought up. Even the liberal judges seemed to be like they were looking
1:33:11
for an excuse to side with Trump and against Colorado. And I've predicted one
1:33:16
that Colorado would be overturned and that Trump would be allowed to be on that
1:33:20
bout and then therefore be on the bout in Maine and everywhere else as well.
1:33:26
But I had been concerned that it might end up being a six'
1:33:30
to three or maybe even a five to four decision if Roberts wooked out like
1:33:34
he is often doing, you know, because he likes to pretend that he's
1:33:39
a moderate or a liberal now. But I figured it would probably be six
1:33:43
' three at least in favor of Trump, because I figured that the liberal
1:33:47
justices were playing a game here, and we don't know what the final result
1:33:53
is going to be, but the perception seemed to be this is going to
1:33:56
be nine to zero at worst eight one, depending on whose side you're on
1:34:00
here, but it could very easily be unanimous, and I now think it
1:34:04
probably will be unanimous, because while the Colorado basically, even though this was
1:34:13
brought by alleged Republicans in Colorado, but liberals in Colorado, they were trying
1:34:17
to force the Supreme Court to use up a lot of their credibility, a
1:34:24
lot of their gas tank of credibility and what will probably be multiple cases involving
1:34:29
Trump. So you know, if you force them to use one of their
1:34:32
pro Trump cards to keep him on the ballot, maybe down the road,
1:34:36
that makes it more difficult for them to side with Trump and a really legitimate
1:34:41
and close case. I think somewhat similarly, it seems to me is that
1:34:45
the liberal judges were looking for an excuse to vote in favor of Trump to
1:34:49
be able to preserve their credibility for when there are future Supreme Court cases this
1:34:56
year involving Trump, and they can at least say, well, I sighed
1:35:00
with Trump on the Colorado case, but this time my siding against Trump is
1:35:05
going to be far more credible because I have some semblance of credibility from the
1:35:13
perspective of the fact that I sided with him previously. Now do I know
1:35:16
for sure, this is the way they're thinking about it. No, I
1:35:19
can't stand that that's even a legitimate theory, because that's not the way the
1:35:24
Supreme Court is supposed to work. But these are very political animals, especially
1:35:29
the three liberals on the Court. They almost always vote in unison. They
1:35:32
almost always vote in a partisan fashion, and if they do so here,
1:35:39
it won't shock me. But the conventional wisdom currently is this is going to
1:35:43
be nine to nothing in Trump's favor, which you know, probably helps the
1:35:47
liberal justices vote against him with more credibility in the future, because there's no
1:35:51
question there's going to be future cases involving Donald Trump in the twenty twenty four
1:35:57
election to go to the Supreme Court. Now, as far as the big
1:36:01
picture, I've referenced this before, and I want to delve into it too
1:36:05
deeply right now. But there's a reason why I want to reference it one
1:36:09
more time. I have said that the ultimate nightmare scenario of the twenty twenty
1:36:15
four presidential election, at least for me and for true conservatives, would be
1:36:19
if Donald Trump won with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Now that
1:36:27
is seemingly a long shot, but I got to tell you after the last
1:36:31
week, it's becoming more and more plausible, and it might even be one
1:36:38
of the more likely scenarios. Now, there are those who believe that the
1:36:41
Democrats cannot win the Senate and on the map. I agree that that seems
1:36:46
like a long shot. But let's pretend for a second that this Biden age
1:36:51
issue really resonates and that Biden gets disqualified in the minds of fifty five or
1:36:58
more percentage points of the American voting populace, and that Trump is seen as
1:37:03
clearly going to be the winner. We're not nowhere near there yet, but
1:37:08
we could be that we from where we are now, you can see the
1:37:13
possibility that Trump becomes entrenched as the likely presidential winner. Well, if that
1:37:19
happens, there's going to be a huge movement and independent voters are going to
1:37:24
buy this, this idea that there needs to be a check on Trump,
1:37:29
and if the perception is because let's remember that Republicans, even though there was
1:37:35
no red wave in twenty twenty two like there was predicted to be, and
1:37:39
I never bought into the red wave theory. The reason why the Republicans barely
1:37:44
won the House in twenty twenty two was a check on Joe Biden. Well
1:37:49
if and I believe by the way that Republicans gained seats in the House in
1:37:55
twenty twenty largely because it was perceived Biden was going to win. One of
1:38:00
the many problems with the rigged election, you know, theory that's put out
1:38:04
there by Trump people, How the hell did the election get rigged against Trump?
1:38:10
But Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives. But okay, whatever,
1:38:15
Those people don't think logically anyway. But the point here is there are
1:38:18
a lot of people, independent voters who believe in this check theory, putting
1:38:24
a check on the president. And if Trump is perceived as a sure winner,
1:38:30
then the House is for sure god for Republicans. And we're going to
1:38:34
see that this week in the special election race for George Santos's old seat in
1:38:42
New York, where you know, look, special elections are very difficult to
1:38:45
predict. There's gonna be really bad weather in New York on election day,
1:38:49
which is probably only gonna hurt Republicans more. But you can't know that for
1:38:55
sure. But my perception is Republicans are going to lose that spec election.
1:39:00
They're going to lose another seat in the House. The majority that they have,
1:39:03
which was already paper thin, is going to be ridiculously thin after that.
1:39:09
And who knows what's going to happen, you know, in California with
1:39:13
a special election coming up there, that's also losable, although I don't think
1:39:17
Republicans will lose it after Kevin McCarthy withdrew from the House representative. As the
1:39:21
point here is, I think the House is gone. I think the House
1:39:26
has gone even if the presidential race is seen as head you know, head
1:39:30
to head toss up. But if Trump is perceived is going to win,
1:39:36
then you know the House is gone. And you might even see enough momentum
1:39:42
and fear of a Trump presidency that Democrats somehow hang on to the Senate,
1:39:47
and that is a disaster for the country, for conservatism, for the Republican
1:39:54
Party. That's Arnold Schwarzenegger two point zero. I've gone through in the past,
1:40:00
back in the last episode about what happened with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Once he
1:40:02
realized that he could not govern California as a Republican, he completely abandoned the
1:40:09
Republican Party became a full on Democrat. The Republican Party has never recovered in
1:40:14
California since then, and the last chance to save California was lost thanks to
1:40:18
Arnold Schwarzenegger. And yet he's here. He is still popular enough to do
1:40:23
state farm Super Bowl commercials. It's just unbelievable. That's even after we learned
1:40:28
that he impregnated his housekeeper while married to a Kennedy. I mean, it's
1:40:31
unbelievable the things that happened in this country. But the Arnold Schwarzenegger two point
1:40:38
zero effect is very much in play when it comes to Donald Trump being the
1:40:43
president and Democrats taking both the House and the Senate. Now, other than
1:40:47
the developments in the presidential race, the biggest media story of the past few
1:40:50
days has been the interview that Tucker Carlson did with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
1:40:59
And I viewed that interview by saying, look, I don't have any problem
1:41:01
with Tucker Carlson interviewing Vladimir Putin. I don't like Putin, I don't like
1:41:06
Zelinsky. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I've been confused by
1:41:12
why Carlson is so very much against Ukraine and against war in general. But
1:41:18
I have no problem with the idea of interviewing somebody as notorious as Putin.
1:41:25
I wanted to see what actually transpired from that interview before I evaluated it.
1:41:32
It was obvious that the mainstream news media was going to condemn it because one
1:41:38
they don't like Tucker and two they really don't like their authority being usurped.
1:41:45
I mean, this is the job for a network anchor person to interview Vladimir
1:41:49
Putin, not an independent Twitter host who's not even on Fox News Channel anymore,
1:41:57
not an opinion guyde You know, Chris Wallace, formerly a Fox NewsChannel
1:42:01
now on CNN, had a complete temper tantrum that seemed to be based largely
1:42:06
in jealousy over what Tucker Carlson did, and you know, somewhat to his
1:42:12
credit, he at least waited until after the interview was aired and did have
1:42:16
some somewhat substantive criticisms of it, not all of which I agreed with.
1:42:21
But you know, most of the mainstream news media has either ignored this,
1:42:25
or condemned it, or downplayed it in some way, shape or form.
1:42:30
I will say that, first of all, I'll say I did not watch
1:42:33
the entire two and a half hours of this interview. I watched a good
1:42:39
portion of it. I watched clips of it, I saw a lot of
1:42:42
analysis of it. I found it largely to be boring. I mean,
1:42:45
I'm not much into international affairs. I'm much more of a domestic guy anyway,
1:42:50
and I don't like when someone isn't speaking English because to me, that's
1:42:56
more difficult to become engaged in the interview. But I tried. I did
1:43:01
find it interesting that Tucker introduced the interview by vouching for Putin's sincerity, which
1:43:10
I didn't think was appropriate and was rather suspicious, and then he allowed Putin
1:43:15
to basically ramble on for almost a half hour in the first question, which
1:43:21
was interesting and I think indicative of the nature of the interview itself. However,
1:43:29
I will say that, you know, I set the standard that one
1:43:31
of the key ways to evaluate Tucker's interview was, was he going to confront
1:43:38
Putin on key issues like, for instance, a couple of people you could
1:43:43
say, are being held hostage, including an American journalist being held hostage by
1:43:47
Russia. And Tucker absolutely did that. Now is he going to get any
1:43:53
results out of that? I don't think so, but I'll give him credit
1:43:57
for not just you know, glossing over that issue and in fact confronted Putin
1:44:02
pretty hard on that topic. He did not do so though in the same
1:44:06
way regarding this issue of the assassination of of political opponents by Putin, Now,
1:44:15
who knows why that didn't happen, but it didn't, And so that
1:44:17
to me was a negative towards Tucker. But by and large, I thought
1:44:23
Tucker did a fine job. I wasn't outraged by it, you know,
1:44:28
I don't have a problem with Putin being heard out. However, something happened
1:44:35
in the aftermath of the interview that was very troubling, and to my knowledge,
1:44:41
at least as of this taping, we haven't gotten to the bottom of
1:44:45
it. It appears as if the Putin people were not happy with the way
1:44:48
this interview turned out. Now, it's always hard to tell what that really
1:44:54
means. Is this a misinformation campaign, is this real? This strategic who
1:45:00
knows, but an effort to put out their view that this was not a
1:45:08
good interview. They actually reference that Tucker Carlson had been paid a meaningful fee
1:45:18
to do this interview. That's what was put out there by apparently a Kremlin
1:45:24
spokesperson. Now, do we know this is true? Obviously not, But
1:45:30
to my knowledge, Tucker hasn't even responded to this, and that's a major
1:45:35
major problem if that's true, And who knows what they really mean? Meaningful
1:45:41
fee? What does that mean? I mean, there's all sorts of things
1:45:45
that that could mean, but I think it demands an explanation or response from
1:45:51
Tucker Carlson, and at least as of this moment, I have not seen
1:45:57
that, and I'm asked about it on Twitter and there's been no response,
1:46:03
and so I would like to know more about that. So those are my
1:46:09
two biggest problems I think with what Tucker did were one declaring that he believes
1:46:14
Putin to be sincere before the interview even ran, and this idea that Tucker
1:46:23
may have been paid a meaningful fee at least that's what is being alleged by
1:46:29
the Russian side of this equation. That deserves some sort of response. But
1:46:32
by and large, I didn't have a huge problem with what I saw in
1:46:38
the interview. My biggest takeaway, though, forget about Tucker Carlson for a
1:46:43
second. My biggest takeaway, and I did watch enough of it to certainly
1:46:47
realize that this is quite obviously the case. It is so obvious that Vladimir
1:46:54
Putin is way way smarter, way way sharper than either Joe Biden or Donald
1:47:04
Trump. I mean, there is no way around that. You cannot possibly
1:47:10
be an objective and rational person and say that Vladimir Putin somehow, from an
1:47:15
intellectual standpoint, is not far superior to either Biden or Trump, and that
1:47:25
that's scary. It is scary how much smarter Putin is than either of these
1:47:32
two. Now, does that, you know, rule the day? Hopefully
1:47:36
not, But that's just a scary proposition. This guy is very, very
1:47:43
serious, dude. I believe him probably to be evil to what extent I
1:47:47
don't know, but he is sharp as attack and has some scary theories and
1:47:56
ideas and seemingly maybe even plays for the way the world would work if he
1:48:02
had his way. And the fact that on our side we're either going to
1:48:06
have Biden or Trump facing that reality is pretty daunting and pretty scary, and
1:48:14
then indication of just how completely screwed up things are in this country that those
1:48:18
are our options when one of our adversaries is Vladimir Putin. Of course,
1:48:25
if you're a Trump fan, you don't even think Putin is an adversary,
1:48:29
and now and talk about how much the world has changed. I mean,
1:48:32
what I'm about to tell you, if it had happened in any other pre
1:48:36
Trump presidential campaign, would have been a massive story and probably a game changer
1:48:45
when it came to the presidential race. And instead, we're living in a
1:48:49
universe where ninety five percent of people probably don't even know this happened, especially
1:48:55
considering that it occurred over Super Bowl weekend. But Donald Trump is now saying
1:49:00
that he will get Russia and his buddy Vladimir Putin, I guess, to
1:49:05
attack NATO allies if they don't hit their military spending targets. Let me repeat
1:49:15
that, because it's bonkers, even by the standards of the world in which
1:49:18
we now live. Donald Trump is saying, while running for president and being
1:49:25
now maybe the favorite to be the next president of the States, he will
1:49:28
get Russia to attack NATO allies if they don't hit military spending targets. I
1:49:34
mean, it's funny, but it's also unbelievable. And we've just left the
1:49:41
gravitational pull of the rational Earth. There's no other way for me to describe
1:49:45
it, and then this isn't even a major news story. This is how
1:49:48
desensitized we are to the Trump insanity now, as far as the Putin interview
1:49:55
and how other people are perceiving it and whether or not it, you know,
1:50:00
is an indication of the hypocrisy of the mainstream news media because they were
1:50:02
condemning that while they also you know, kiss Zelenski's ass all over the place.
1:50:10
I have to at least reference this amazing classic Twitter exchange between Glenn Greenwald,
1:50:18
a liberal journalist who's now become a favorite of conservatives because he actually seems
1:50:24
to live by his liberal principles and he's a free speech guy. I don't
1:50:28
agree with everything Glenn says at all, but at least some of it I
1:50:31
think has a lot of merit. And Elon Musk, who obviously owns Twitter
1:50:36
and you know, is the person about which I'm probably most conflicted in the
1:50:41
entire world, because sometimes I love what he does, sometimes I hate what
1:50:45
he does. Well, this was definitely in the former category of things that
1:50:49
I love that Elon Musk is willing and able to do. So they're talking
1:50:54
about the issue, and this is before this is before we know the substance
1:51:00
of the Tucker Carlson Putin interview, and you know, it appears as if
1:51:05
they're speculating about the media reaction to it and relating the issue of hypocrisy when
1:51:13
it comes to the way Ukrainian President Zolensky is handled by the American news media.
1:51:17
So in other words, you know, you're supposed to be tough on
1:51:20
Putin, and the speculation is Tucker is not going to be tough enough on
1:51:25
Putin. But let's take a look at how the American media has handled Zelenski
1:51:30
and see whether or not there's hypocrisy or unfairness or massive bias there. So
1:51:34
that's the context of this exchange. So Glenn Greenwald, he posts who were
1:51:41
the American journalists who conducted even minimally adversarial interviews with Zolensky. So greenwal asks
1:51:50
that question and impops Elon Musk, the richest man of the world, who
1:51:57
responds to be fair, it's hard for them to talk well giving a blowjob
1:52:03
at the same time, God, it must be great to be Elon Musk.
1:52:12
It must just be fantastic to be able to just not give a shit.
1:52:17
But it's true, I mean, it's not literally true, But in
1:52:20
some of these interviews with the American mainStreet news media, you could it's not
1:52:26
far off from a proper description to say that they were giving him a blowjob,
1:52:30
and therefore it was difficult for them to talk and get an adversarial interview
1:52:36
with the guy they were giving a blowjob too. But that's Elon Musk in
1:52:40
response to Glenn Greenwald. All right, now, I have not talked much
1:52:45
in the last few episodes because there's been so much else going on about one
1:52:48
of my most passionate topics, which is the issue of global warming, climate
1:52:55
change, and how the American and international media handles this in a way that
1:53:01
makes absolutely no sense, that is incredibly biased, and I believe is mostly
1:53:06
wrong, and is incredibly consistent with the COVID precedent, and that we are
1:53:12
heading if the media and liberal establishment has their way towards very similar government led
1:53:19
lockdowns related to climate as we got due to the COVID panic. And there
1:53:26
are three stories related to climate change global warming that I wanted to rather briefly
1:53:31
share with you. This all comes in the context of the fact that for
1:53:35
a second consecutive winter, we here in California allegedly the epicenter of all the
1:53:43
damage that global warming and climate change are causing. That was supposed to be
1:53:49
the reason why we have a quote unquote permanent drought in California. That's what
1:53:54
we were told through the last decade, permanent drought thanks to climate change,
1:54:00
global warming, even though drought and severe rains has always been the cycle here
1:54:04
in California. That's what happens. If you have a brain, if you've
1:54:09
looked at the history, that's the way it works. We have a very
1:54:12
short rainy season in California, basically two maybe three months, and generally for
1:54:18
five years we will barely get any rain, and then for one or two
1:54:24
years we'll get dluged and it all evens out in the end. And yes,
1:54:30
you know, the weather's not perfect. Sometimes you get too much rain,
1:54:33
you get some month slides and some flooding. A lot of that is
1:54:36
because we're overpopulated in places that were never intended to be inhabited and we're living
1:54:42
in a desert and a lot of this is man made. But there's no
1:54:45
evidence that there's anything changing. But we were told, because we were in
1:54:49
a dry cycle for about five or six years that this was all part of
1:54:55
climate change, global warming. The proof is there. Look at the wildfires,
1:54:58
look at the drought. California is our proof, our smoking gun,
1:55:01
literally our smoking gun. So for two years now we haven't had any wildfires
1:55:08
of any significance at all. We've had massive rains during the winter time.
1:55:14
The drought is completely over, despite the fact that allegedly we just endured the
1:55:18
hottest year on record. The drought somehow is gone, and not just in
1:55:24
California, but also in Nevada, also in Colorado and throughout the entire country,
1:55:30
including Alaska. There is far less drought written area in the United States
1:55:38
today than there was a year ago or two years ago. How does that
1:55:42
happen If we're enduring the hottest year on record, which we are continually told
1:55:48
is happening on a consistent basis, that doesn't make any sense, especially when
1:55:54
they're telling us that drought is directly related to increases in temperatures. So that's
1:56:00
the context of all this. Because we've just endured another very rainy period in
1:56:05
California. The drought is gone for another year, and you know, which
1:56:12
is fantastic because I mean, there's all sorts of good things that have happened
1:56:16
because of the last two years that we've had significant rains in the winter,
1:56:20
and we're only in mid February. Only in mid February, we still have
1:56:25
another month or so where we could still get further rain, and then this
1:56:30
issue will be further put to bed. Of course, nobody, nobody in
1:56:33
the media here in California or nationwide, ever revisits this permanent drought issue.
1:56:40
So in that context, there there's a story going on now that to me
1:56:44
is just so telling. And this is a great example of when you keep
1:56:48
your eyes open and you pay attention, and you wait long enough, you're
1:56:53
patient enough, the truth is going to come out in various ways. Right
1:56:58
now, there is a proposition that is supposed to be on the November ballot
1:57:02
in California that would require any tax increases to be approved by the people of
1:57:14
California. Now you would think that the Party of Democracy, the Democratic Party,
1:57:18
trying to save democracy. It's all about saving democracy, even though they're
1:57:23
trying to get Donald Trump taken off of ballots, so they don't seem to
1:57:26
really like democracy. You know, in Oregon, they're keeping Republican state lawmakers
1:57:31
from being able to run for reelection. It's a whole nother story for another
1:57:34
day, But there's all sorts of examples of hypocrisy when it comes to democrats
1:57:39
and liberals on this issue of embracing democracy. So the issue here is the
1:57:44
people of California would have to approve any new tax increases, and both Governor
1:57:50
Newsom and former Governor Jerry Brown have argued to the Supreme Court that this ballot
1:57:59
in is, this proposition should be taken off of the November ballot, taking
1:58:04
away the ability for people to even vote on this. So think about how
1:58:09
an undemocratic this is. Not only do they not embrace the idea that the
1:58:14
people should have a say on whether or not we get taxed more, but
1:58:16
they don't even want people to be able to voice their opinion on whether or
1:58:20
not that should be the new law of the state of California. And in
1:58:26
their petitions to the Court, a large part of their argument has been in
1:58:32
doing so, if California did this, if California allowed or required the actual
1:58:40
citizens to approve new tax increases, it would curtail the ability for them to
1:58:47
fight climate change. I shit you not, I shit you not. This
1:58:54
is actually their argument, not a minor part of their argument. This is
1:58:58
a huge part of their own argument. You can't do this. You can't
1:59:01
let the people decide whether or not they're gonna have tax increases, because clearly
1:59:05
they're not going to give themselves tax increases, and then we won't be able
1:59:11
to fight climate change. Well, there's two huge issues that the media will
1:59:15
completely and totally ignore here that ought to be huge massive news. Number one,
1:59:23
So you're saying that fighting climate change costs a lot of money and requires
1:59:30
tax increases. You're you're saying the quiet part out loud. You're admitting,
1:59:36
we remember, we keep talking about how green energy and all the new jobs
1:59:42
that is going to create. It it's it's you know, it's basically economically
1:59:45
neutral. No, no, no, you're admitting it's gonna cost a lot
1:59:49
of money and cause tax increases, and you don't trust your own people to
1:59:55
decide whether or not those tax increases should be implemented. That's huge. That's
2:00:00
a massive admission. Number Two, the science of this, it's a third
2:00:06
grader could understand. Even if you accept everything the climate alarmists say, which
2:00:14
I don't. Even though I'm incredibly open minded on this issue, I have
2:00:17
examined every single part of it, and I don't think they get out of
2:00:23
the batter's box on this entire topic. There's nothing that they have said that
2:00:28
I'm one percent certain is true, and there are so many different layers of
2:00:35
obstacles that they have to getting to home plate, which would be Okay,
2:00:41
let's spend a whole bunch of money to try to fix the climate. I
2:00:44
mean, there's so many of them, and one of them is exposed by
2:00:47
this ludicrous notion that California law or a proposition in California shouldn't even be allowed
2:00:55
on the ballot because of the fear that it might hinder the ability to fight
2:00:59
climate change. Because even a third grader knows, even if everything we're being
2:01:03
told is true, California can't do anything about the global climate nothing. I
2:01:11
don't think even the entire world. I mean, I mean, I'm willing
2:01:14
to accept that if you got the entire world on board and we did everything
2:01:17
we possibly could to reduce emissions, could that maybe influence the climate in some
2:01:25
way? I guess. So. I'm not even convinced that CO two emissions
2:01:30
is having any impact on the temperature. We know that the relationship between CO
2:01:36
two and temperature is the exact opposite historically of what the climate alarmists are telling
2:01:43
us. Even Al Gore inadvertently admits that in his movie and Inconvenient Truth.
2:01:48
So I don't even accept that. And by the way, even if that
2:01:51
was true, how do we know that we wouldn't reduce the emissions so much
2:01:56
that we'd get things to become too cold? I mean, it's just soris.
2:02:00
What is this perfect year that we're shooting for? I always ask that
2:02:03
what is the perfect year? Please? Someone tell me what year of climate
2:02:09
are we shooting for? Because you know what, I can pretty much guarantee
2:02:12
you that in that year of perfect climate, there are a lot of disastrous
2:02:15
things that happen across the globe. So there is no perfect year when it
2:02:19
comes to climate or weather. But the idea that California itself can influence even
2:02:25
a little bit the global climate is so ludicrous as to be laughable. And
2:02:30
yet nobody in the news media will touch this because it's a third rail.
2:02:35
It is a religion. It is all religious religious base, it is religious
2:02:42
based thinking. They have accepted the fundamental premise and therefore anything anything that even
2:02:49
pretends to fight this cause is inherently good. And so now even a ballot
2:02:57
proposition, not just the substance of the proposition, even allowing it on the
2:03:01
ballot is being attacked because it could hurt the ability of California to fight climate
2:03:08
change, which is just absolutely hilarious. Now, on the science front,
2:03:13
there is a new study out that I also think, much like the California
2:03:17
proposition that I just referenced, inadvertently tells you an awful lot that the news
2:03:23
media is ignoring. This is a story and a study involving the idea that
2:03:29
you know, that threshold we keep warning you guys about that if we go
2:03:32
past one point five degrees celsius and temperature increase, that we're screwed, that
2:03:39
we're hosed, that there's nothing we can do, and the impact of that
2:03:43
is going to be catastrophic, that we're going to destroy the planet. And
2:03:45
that's why there's urgency for us to destroy our economies and our way of life
2:03:53
in order to try to fix this problem that you know, I don't even
2:03:58
think they've proven that we have. So here is how Popular Mechanics reported on
2:04:03
this new study headline, oops, scientists may have miscalculated our global warming timetable
2:04:14
clues have emerged that reveal a much hotter history than we thought. And then
2:04:20
they have a couple of bullet points at the top of the article. The
2:04:25
Paris Climate Accords in twenty fifteen set an ambitious and necessary goal of keeping global
2:04:31
temperatures at one point five degrees celsius above pre industrial tempts that somehow, you
2:04:40
know, they've concocted in their minds that you know, pre industrial world,
2:04:45
post industrial world, we can't go over one point five degrees increase in degrees
2:04:50
celsius. Otherwise we've lost the planet. There's no going back. But a
2:04:57
new study says we might have blown passed that threshold several years ago. Oh
2:05:03
my gosh. The new study from the University Western Australian Oceans Institute boy that
2:05:12
they probably don't have any conflicts of interest at all there. The University of
2:05:15
Western Australia Oceans Institute studied long lived Caribbean sponges and created an ocean temperature timeline
2:05:27
dating back to the seventeen hundreds. Well, the study claims that we surpassed
2:05:32
one point five degrees celsius in two thousand. Other scientists question if data from
2:05:41
just one part of the world is enough to capture the immense thermal complexity of
2:05:47
our oceans. Okay, so this is fascinating to me, folks. This
2:05:51
is a classic example of if we use our brains and we require some level
2:05:59
of life chicken consistency, they just screwed themselves. Of course, the media
2:06:04
ignores this, so there's no ramification, there's no accountability. There's two massive
2:06:11
problems here. Number one, so the scientific establishment is acknowledging Oops, we
2:06:19
may have been wrong about the data. That's huge. That's huge, right,
2:06:28
I mean, if you were this wrong about the data, then why
2:06:32
should we believe you going forward. You've just destroyed a huge part of your
2:06:38
credibility because this is what you do, this is why we're supposed to believe
2:06:42
in you, and this is a pretty short period of time we're talking about
2:06:45
here. Their claim is that, based upon you know, the these sea
2:06:50
sponges, that they can say that, oh my gosh, we've already warmed
2:06:57
past that threshold. Now, the cynic in me says, this is consistent
2:07:02
with my theory. My theory is that we're gonna see a change. I've
2:07:08
said this on the podcast previously, that we're gonna see a change, maybe
2:07:12
even ever so slightly in the narrative, because I think they're afraid they're gonna
2:07:16
run out of data ammunition, that they have juiced the data so much in
2:07:24
the Latin the most recent years, that they're gonna run out of ability to
2:07:28
keep that temperature increasing. So they're gonna need to change the narrative. I've
2:07:34
suggested there's a couple of different ways this could go. They could try to
2:07:39
actually claim success that now the temperature is suddenly diminishing because of efforts we've made,
2:07:45
we must keep going with those efforts. That's one possible shift in the
2:07:49
narrative. But this study provides a potential different shift in the narrative. Oh,
2:07:57
we don't need any further warming in the data because we miscalculated and we're
2:08:03
already past that threshold, which means we need to be an absolute emergency proportions
2:08:11
when it comes to our ability to fight global warming climate change. So I
2:08:16
don't know which direction they're going to go in. And I'm not suggesting that
2:08:18
there is a massive conspiracy or any memo going out. I mean, I
2:08:22
think there could be different factions working against each other. This is all my
2:08:28
theory that at some level they realize they're going to have a data problem,
2:08:31
and how they deal with it is going to be fascinating. Of course,
2:08:35
the news media won't tell you anything more than what they want you to hear.
2:08:39
But to me, for them to admit, oops, we were wrong,
2:08:45
that's a big problem. But it's not even as big as the second
2:08:48
problem if you use your brain. If they're right. Let's pretend they're right,
2:08:54
and that warming has been even more dramatic than we realized, and that
2:08:58
we're already past the threat threshold. Oh my gosh. If that's really the
2:09:03
case, then why hasn't there been any real world impact yet? Why haven't
2:09:11
we seen, for instance, the ocean's rising. Why haven't we seen drought
2:09:16
increasing? Why is that not happening? Why is it not abundantly obvious then
2:09:28
that the real world has changed, You're always going to be able to find
2:09:33
some evidence of change. The climate is always changing, always has, always
2:09:37
will, and if you're looking for differences, you're always going to be able
2:09:41
to fight it. In the globe this large, in this diverse, even
2:09:43
in this country this large, in this diverse, there's always going to be
2:09:48
something out of an ordinary happening that you're gonna be able to point to and
2:09:52
go aha, see climate change. But it's clear cut that we're not seeing
2:09:58
dramatic real world impacts at all, in California being a great example, we're
2:10:05
seeing the exact opposite in California and Nevada and Colorado, where the drought has
2:10:11
disappeared despite the fact that the last two years has supposedly been super hot.
2:10:16
So where's the real world impact? Why are the ice caps not disappeared completely
2:10:22
if we've actually been warmer than we even realized. So you can't have it
2:10:28
both ways, unless, of course, you're part of a religion where the
2:10:31
media is at best enabling you and at worst one hundred percent on your team.
2:10:39
And it really is on your team. I mean that popular mechanics story.
2:10:41
I mean on multiple occasions they went out of their way to say,
2:10:46
you know, if you don't believe in this, you're you're an idiot,
2:10:48
basically. And this is the way that the median aerrative always is. They
2:10:52
don't even want to they don't want to have the discussion. The science has
2:10:56
settled. Science has settled, just like it was with maximum and vaccine matin
2:11:01
dates. The science was subtled, remember with COVID, and yet that turned
2:11:05
out to all be wrong. And yet somehow these people have the audacity to
2:11:09
be still relying on the science is settled, and you're an idiot if you
2:11:13
don't go along with this, even though I would argue that, you know,
2:11:18
the science here is far more complex than it was with regard to COVID,
2:11:24
far more and in a weird way, the complexity here allows them cover
2:11:28
because the fact that there's cover enables there to be confusion. And you know,
2:11:37
because it's so complex, people can't figure it out for themselves. And
2:11:41
there's not you know, data on a day to day basis as to how
2:11:43
many people have gotten the virus, and there's not data that shows that the
2:11:48
vaccine mandates aren't doing anything or the mask mandates aren't doing anything, and so
2:11:52
eventually they just decided to drop it. You know, we never hear about
2:11:56
COVID anymore. We just drop it, never mind, forget it. Climates
2:12:00
science is so complex that they can pretend that, oh well, you just
2:12:03
can't understand it. Just trust us, trust us, the same basic not
2:12:07
the exact same people, but the same concept. Same allies. Trust science,
2:12:11
Trust the media, and it all ends up being bullshit and it's all
2:12:16
based upon alarmism. And the third story I want to reference with regard to
2:12:22
climate also deals with alarmism to a hilarious degree, and that is on the
2:12:28
issue of hurricanes. And I talk about drought a lot, but I actually
2:12:31
think the hurricane issue may be more clear cut that the climate change people are
2:12:41
completely wrong and are basically lying. But get this, there's now a movement
2:12:48
among the climatologists to add a sixth category for hurricanes, a sixth category because
2:13:00
five wasn't enough. Right, This one goes to eleven. To use this
2:13:05
is spinal tap famous line. This one goes to six. That's how big
2:13:09
this hurricane is. Five wasn't scary enough, So they're gonna they're thinking about
2:13:13
creating a category six hurricane. Well, here's the facts. The facts are,
2:13:22
or here are the facts. The facts are that in America, in
2:13:24
the history of the country that we have records for, in the history of
2:13:28
the United States of America, there have only been four Category five hurricanes that
2:13:35
have made landfall, four of them four. So it's not as if all
2:13:41
of a sudden we're seeing this onslaught of category fives that where we have now
2:13:46
now we got to open up a category six hurricane option. That's number one,
2:13:50
but number two of those five category of those four category fives that have
2:13:56
reached landfall, all but one of them occur before Al Gore was even vice
2:14:01
president of the United States. They're all, you know, basically ancient history
2:14:07
when it comes to this entire topic of global warming, climate change before anyone
2:14:11
ever talked about this, before Al Gore ever talked about it, because people
2:14:13
forget al Gore was vice president for eight years, never discussed this issue in
2:14:18
a significant way. This was his consolation prize for losing the twenty two thousand
2:14:22
election. In the Florida recount, John Kerry got a similar consolation prize.
2:14:28
That's basically what they do with losing Democratic presidential candidates. I can't believe Hillary
2:14:33
Clinton hasn't gotten in on this grift. But when you lose an election as
2:14:35
a Democratic presidential candidate, they give you a global warming climate change as a
2:14:41
grift as a consolation prize. And that's what made al Gore famous after he
2:14:46
was vice president. But you know, the reality, the reality here is
2:14:52
that three of the four category fives happened before al Gore was even vice president.
2:14:58
And most interesting, it's not just the severity of hurricanes that hasn't changed,
2:15:03
it's also the frequency. The most frequent decade for hurricanes in the United
2:15:09
States of America was the nineteen forties. And it's not even close. It's
2:15:16
not even close. Look it up yourself. It was the nineteen forties that
2:15:20
had the most frequent number of hurricanes to hit the coast of the United States,
2:15:30
the nineteen forties. And so you know, the idea that because this
2:15:35
narrative is a lot like wildfires, wildfires have absolutely nothing to do with climate
2:15:41
change, global warming as it is, and if they do, then why
2:15:43
the hell haven't we had any wildfires in over two years in California over two
2:15:50
years, zero major wildfires. Well, hurricane activity at least makes a little
2:15:56
bit more sense if there is such a thing as global warming climate change,
2:16:00
But there's no evidence that there's more of them or that they're more severe.
2:16:03
But they're trying to create a Category six just to scare the hell out of
2:16:07
you. And it's just absolutely hilarious and telling. But nobody in the news
2:16:13
media is objective about this. No one keeps their eyes open and when the
2:16:18
truth eventually comes out as it did in those three stories that has told you
2:16:20
about, they never mention it. And younger people are brainwashed about this.
2:16:24
They have no context. They didn't live through, you know, twenty thirty,
2:16:28
forty fifty years of actual weather and climate to realize that it's always been
2:16:33
hot in the summer, it's always been cold in the winter, and things
2:16:37
happen in cycles. And this is why this is now such a potent political
2:16:41
issue and why I believe we're heading towards a very similar result as what happened
2:16:46
with COVID. It may take a little while, but you know, a
2:16:50
second Biden term, or i'm maybe even a third term if it's Kamala Harris
2:16:56
may result in exactly that. So you have been warned. This is no
2:16:58
law. Are just a funny issue. Look at these wacky liberals having this
2:17:03
religion called climate change, global warming. This has real world impact and I'm
2:17:09
very, very confident I'm right about this. That'll do it for this episode
2:17:13
of the podcast. We'll have an episode number one hundred and twenty eight,
2:17:16
which will not be the last episode of the free version of the podcast,
2:17:20
although that will be ending at the end of February. If you're interested in
2:17:24
the paid subscription form of the podcast coming in March, email our executive producer,
2:17:30
Mike at Gavino at Ago TDJ. That's Ago TDJ at gmail dot com.
2:17:37
You'll get put on a list, you'll be sent a link at the
2:17:41
beginning of March, and you'll be able to participate in the new version of
2:17:46
the podcast as we continue it on thanks to Mike and many of our listeners
2:17:52
desiring it to do so. Whether or not that's good for me or not
2:17:56
yet to be seen, but I'm committed to keeping up my end of the
2:17:58
bargain there, so thanks so much for listening. This is the death of
2:18:01
journalism podcasts. My name is John Ziggler.