Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy Three: Trump's MVP

Transcript

Episode Seventy Three: Trump's MVP · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome to episode number seventy three of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Ziggler. I'm your host on today's show. Sound of Freedom continues
• 0:08
  to shock Hollywood. The Secret Service imitates Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes regarding who
• 0:15
  left cocaine in the White House. Tucker Carlson continues to be the MVP of
• 0:20
  the Trump campaign and why it is not too early to panic in the GOP
• 0:26
  presidential primary process. I'm known as the Dutch Digital Marketing Man. I'm a
• 0:31
  digital advertising SEO and EMO marketing specialist. It also happens to be a big
• 0:37
  fan of John Ziggler and the Death of journalisten. Do you need help preaching
• 0:41
  your target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging and confaded messages
• 0:46
  and the best channels for your business. Please visit my website, the Dutch
• 0:50
  Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell your story. The
• 0:56
  website is the Dutch Digital Marketing Man. If you want to grow your business,
• 1:00
  Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. And
• 1:06
  hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. We begin this episode as we have
• 1:10
  the last few, with the news surrounding the hit movie of the summer,
• 1:15
  Sound of Freedom, a movie that is freaking Hollywood out because it did not
• 1:19
  come under the umbrella of the establishment studio system, and because it is perceived
• 1:27
  as a conservative film because it stars Jim Caviezel, who of course is most
• 1:34
  well known as having played Jesus Christ and Passion of the Christ, but in
• 1:38
  recent years has become associated with the QAnon movement, which to me has very
• 1:42
  little to do with this movie. Although it might have something to do with
• 1:47
  why it has been so popular, it is not, however, the reason
• 1:51
  why it is now grossed over eighty five million dollars at the box office in
• 1:57
  just a couple of weeks. It's heading for all over one hundred million dollars,
• 2:01
  shattering all expectations for everybody, including those involved in the film. The
• 2:08
  film is about the sex trafficking of children. I have not yet seen it,
• 2:14
  however, I have plans to see it early this week because a good
• 2:19
  friend of mine, Cyrus Narasta, who is a major film director and screenwriter
• 2:24
  who has actually directed Jim Caviezel in not one but two major films, has
• 2:30
  basically forced me to go see it. So we're going to go see it
• 2:34
  together. He's already seen it and raves about it. But also because Cyrus
• 2:38
  has agreed to be my guest on episode seventy four of the podcast, so
• 2:44
  we'll talk about the Sound of Freedom and how that became a success, as
• 2:47
  well as the writer's strike and the actor's strike which are threatening to basically bring
• 2:54
  a halt to all Hollywood productions, at least major Hollywood productions, and we'll
• 2:59
  get into a couple of other important issues as well, So that's something to
• 3:01
  look forward to a number seventy four of the podcast on Thursday, when we
• 3:08
  release our second episode of this week, so this is episode seventy three.
• 3:13
  Episode seventy four will have Cyrus Narasta as our guest, and one of the
• 3:17
  things we'll talk about is the remarkable, unbelievable story of Sound of Freedom and
• 3:23
  its massive success at the box office, against what everybody claimed, what the
• 3:28
  left has tried to do by attempting to destroy it, and also against the
• 3:34
  entire narrative that people aren't going to the movie theaters anymore in a post COVID,
• 3:38
  post streaming world, and that certainly has not been the case with regard
• 3:43
  to Sound of Freedom. Now Sound of Freedom, as I've mentioned previously,
• 3:46
  was owned by Walt Disney. They gave it up basically for a song,
• 3:53
  and then this independent group, Angel Studios, put it out and they have
• 3:58
  obviously hit a grand slam. Speaking of Disney, there were photos over the
• 4:04
  last few days that came out apparently they were basically leaked of the live action
• 4:11
  version of Snow White that Disney is planning on releasing I believe next year,
• 4:17
  early next year, I'm presuming, and these photos created quite a bit of
• 4:21
  controversy because, as many had feared and has happened previously with every live action
• 4:29
  version of an animated film, you know, these animated classics, they come
• 4:32
  out in live action, and of course you have to cast real people,
• 4:36
  and there is an incredible amount of pressure to cast in a woke fashion,
• 4:43
  and that means anything that's white or heterosexual is inherently on the outs, and
• 4:47
  anything that's non white and usually non heterosexual, is going to be promoted or
• 4:57
  anything else that is deemed to be politically correct be changed in the live action
• 5:01
  version. Well, it was almost a caricature, almost a parody of what
• 5:08
  people would perceive a live action version of Snow White. To be in the
• 5:13
  woke era, seems to have been reality. These photocagraphs indicate, as we
• 5:18
  now know, that the actress who's playing snow White is in fact Hispanic,
• 5:24
  and even more ridiculous than that, since obviously the name of the entire movie
• 5:30
  is snow White, Fairest of them All, skin as white as snow that
• 5:35
  whole bit. By the way, you know, it's important to point out
• 5:39
  snow White isn't just a run of the mill Disney animation. Snow White literally
• 5:46
  made Walt Disney Corporation. Without snow White, there might not even be a
• 5:51
  Walt Disney today. Disney was made because of the original snow White animation.
• 5:58
  So Walt Disney believed that till he died. So, you know, you
• 6:03
  would think that there would be at least a little bit more, you know,
• 6:08
  concerned about preserving the heritage of the original film when you go to live
• 6:13
  action. Then, for instance, Little Mermaid, you know, a little
• 6:16
  Mermaid, they decided to make the main actress black girl, even though she's
• 6:21
  a mermaid with red hair. Okay, weird, fine, but that's the
• 6:26
  way we live now in this woke Hollywood era. But it was not just
• 6:30
  snow white being Hispanic. It's that the dwarves, you know, seven dwarves.
• 6:36
  That's now a politically incorrect term. So the seven dwarves have been transformed
• 6:42
  from seven white dwarves to seven hipster homeless people seemingly from Portland. I mean,
• 6:51
  it's some funny how many people reference Portland in their description of the photo,
• 6:56
  because it's so absolutely true. I mean, it's that as it is
• 7:00
  as woke as you could possibly get with regard to the casting, from the
• 7:04
  standpoint of race, from the standpoint of apparent gender, from apparent sexuality,
• 7:11
  and most importantly of all, only one dwarf, So six are not dwarfs.
• 7:18
  They just look like they're homeless hipsters from Portland. And there's one dwarf,
• 7:24
  which of course is most confusingly because why are you allowed to have one
• 7:29
  dwarf but not seven. I mean, I have no idea what the rules
• 7:32
  are here. But the point of this is that this created a lot of
• 7:36
  controversy, so much that Disney basically lied. They basically lied at first,
• 7:42
  saying that the photos were not real. Then they had a correction and said,
• 7:46
  well, no, those actually are real, they just weren't authorized basically,
• 7:50
  and so here we have once again Disney, a company whose stock price
• 7:56
  has plummeted in the last two years and has been losing a lot of money
• 7:59
  at the box office this year, seemingly going down exactly the same path,
• 8:03
  and you know, just using my daughters as a focus group. When I
• 8:09
  described or actually they asked about it because I referenced it, those photos had
• 8:13
  come out, and my eleven year old daughter, Grace, who have referenced
• 8:16
  many times before on this podcast, immediately feared the worst and started asking questions
• 8:22
  about it. And I told her, and she could you could tell she
• 8:24
  was almost heartbroken by it and absolutely had no interest whatsoever in seeing this film.
• 8:30
  So I don't know who they're appealing to, and I certainly appears as
• 8:33
  if we're headed forget another box office disaster down the road for the Disney Company
• 8:39
  because of wokeness. Another story that we've referenced in the last couple of episodes
• 8:45
  of the podcast is, of course, the story of the cocaine that was
• 8:48
  found in a secure room in the White House, and it has been literally
• 8:54
  comical, even more comical than the snow white photographs that the authorities, including
• 9:00
  the Secret Service, have just not been able to figure out who might have
• 9:05
  left the cocaine in a secure room in the White House. They've really been
• 9:09
  doing their Sergeant Shultz from Hogan's Heroes impersonation. I'm oldening, I seem nothing.
• 9:20
  If you remember the Hogan hero Show, that's a pretty bad impression of
• 9:22
  Sargean Shultz. But you get the point here is that they're playing as if
• 9:28
  they have no idea who the hell could have possibly left the cocaine there.
• 9:31
  And look, I am somebody who has often taken contrarian positions against narratives that
• 9:39
  seem very, very obvious to the average person, because I you know,
• 9:43
  my inclination is always wait a minute, If it's that obvious, then maybe
• 9:48
  something wrong. Is something wrong? I gotta say here, I don't think
• 9:52
  there's anything wrong. I think if it, you know, if it walks
• 9:56
  like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck in this
• 9:58
  particular situation. And it is absolutely hilarious and obvious that this cocaine had to
• 10:05
  have been at least somewhat associated with Hunter Biden. The reality as he was
• 10:11
  there that day. The reality is that you can't get into that room without
• 10:18
  being checked out and that in fact, family members would have the best chance
• 10:22
  by far of not being fully checked out. The idea that there's not video
• 10:28
  evidence of who was in the room or near the room or going into the
• 10:31
  room, or fingerprint evidence, I mean, it's all laughable. I mean,
• 10:37
  there's just no way that the Secret Service, as they have now announced,
• 10:41
  could possibly have no idea who was responsible for the cocaine in the White
• 10:46
  House. It's just not possible based upon what we currently know. So I
• 10:52
  am for even John Ziggler to be in the category of this is obviously bullshit
• 11:00
  almost makes me a little bit concerned because I'm like, wait, this is
• 11:01
  so obviously bs. Is it theoretically possible that we're missing something? I don't
• 11:07
  think so, I mean, this is just that obvious. And if I
• 11:11
  had any concerns about is this a situation where, you know, maybe it's
• 11:18
  just too obvious, Maybe there's another narrative, maybe it was somehow possible that
• 11:22
  wasn't connected to Hunter Biden, and maybe it's possible they just don't know.
• 11:26
  Any concerns about that were pretty much removed when the absolute morons on ABC's The
• 11:33
  View decided to chime in on this. I mean, these people are notoriously
• 11:39
  as dumb as they get. I was on this show many many years ago,
• 11:43
  when Joy Behar was still there and Whoopi Goldberg was still there. They
• 11:48
  have a lot of other cast members that are just as dumb or dumber than
• 11:52
  those of the past on the show currently. I have no idea how this
• 11:54
  show is even still in the air, and I usually ignore it, but
• 11:58
  the level of stupidity that they exhibited in response to this story is just too
• 12:05
  rich to pass up. So I'm gonna play two clips from the View.
• 12:09
  The first centers around Sonny Hosting, who's probably the dumbest of all the view
• 12:15
  commentators, and that's really a tough call, but she is an idiot,
• 12:20
  and her theory on this is, you know, I think this was a
• 12:24
  tourist. A tourist. I mean, there's no evidence or logic that this
• 12:28
  could possibly be a tourist, but this is what it sounded like on the
• 12:33
  View when Sonny hosting, and even there was even a little bit of mockery
• 12:35
  from another cast member on the View as to how this would be possible.
• 12:39
  But this was actually said on national television on ABC regarding the story of cocaine
• 12:46
  being found in the White House. People in those positions cannot be doing drugs.
• 12:48
  Are adversaries could exploit It's it's not a small deal. I don't think.
• 12:54
  Yes, the thing is that cocaine game. We don't know who did
• 12:56
  this. I'm thinking maybe it's a tourist. Is a stupid tourist, I
• 13:01
  guess somebody like that, and you've got to put your phone there, You've
• 13:05
  got there, you gotta if you gotta put stuff there, and so somebody
• 13:09
  just you know, they let let's show. I just don't know how you
• 13:16
  get any dumber than that. It makes absolutely no sense. And by the
• 13:22
  way, had that been in the case, there probably would have been a
• 13:26
  greater effort to find out who the hell it was, because there'll be nobody
• 13:28
  to protect. But how would a tourists get in that room, How would
• 13:33
  they get the cocaine into the White House? Why would they leave it there?
• 13:39
  I mean, there's it's just it's just ridiculous. It's flat out ridiculous,
• 13:43
  But maybe not as absurd as Adam Navarro's take on this. Now,
• 13:48
  Adam Navarro is an alleged former Republican strategist. There's no evidence she actually ever
• 13:54
  worked for real Republican candidates. She's Hispanic, and she has used her hatred
• 14:03
  of Donald Trump, which I share, to basically make a brand new career
• 14:05
  for herself. I mean, she was seen for a while as a minor
• 14:11
  figure in politics because she was a female, Hispanic alleged Republican, again no
• 14:16
  real evidence that that was the case, and then when Trump came along,
• 14:20
  she basically became one of these anti trumpers who was really revealed as a liberal,
• 14:24
  unlike me, who stood my ground and stayed as a conservative libertarian,
• 14:30
  especially during COVID. But Anna Navarro is about as dumb as Sonny hosting.
• 14:35
  But she's also a hypocrite because here her claim is, well, you know,
• 14:39
  it really doesn't matter who was the person responsible for the cocaine being left
• 14:46
  in the White House because right wingers would have turned this into a Hunter Biden
• 14:50
  conspiracy theory anyway, which is not a horrendous point, because, as I've
• 14:54
  said many times before, that's what much of the post Trump concer revative Republican
• 15:01
  right wing movement has become. It's about conspiracy theories. However, she then
• 15:05
  follows that up by claiming her own conspiracy theory, which is batshit crazy that
• 15:11
  some was planned in there by whom I have no idea. In the heavily
• 15:16
  democratic, heavily woke pro Biden White House too. You guessed it frame Hunter
• 15:24
  Biden. And here's what Dad sounded like on the view. So this is
• 15:28
  if it was this more fodder for the Republican machine. No matter what the
• 15:33
  answer would have been, they were always going to blame a Hunter Biden.
• 15:37
  As I said before, and I'm going to continue saying, We're going to
• 15:39
  see it for the next year. They are weaponizing Hunter Biden against his dad
• 15:43
  as an effective tool to get his dad to lose his school and to get
• 15:48
  his dad to feel the heartache. They're going to weaponize Hunter Biden. It
• 15:52
  had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. But you can hear that said a
• 15:56
  hundred times, and people who want to believe it are still going to believe
• 16:00
  that. Well, okay, and there's people who might believe that it was
• 16:03
  planted for somebody so that then they couldn't advance the Hunter Biden narrative. Who
• 16:08
  knows. I mean, the lack of self awareness here is just stunning,
• 16:15
  even for these morons. But that really made me feel a lot better that,
• 16:18
  Okay, this has got to be Hunter Biden, right, because the
• 16:22
  people on the view are getting it this wrong and this obviously wrong, and
• 16:27
  they're doing so for a reason because even they either know or suspect that this
• 16:33
  has to be related to Hunter Biden. Is the only scenario, based upon
• 16:37
  what we currently know, that makes any damn sense. And I do find
• 16:41
  it rather funny and ironic that people on the right, obviously mostly Trump supporters,
• 16:47
  are one hundred percent positive that it's related to Hunter Biden the cocaine,
• 16:52
  and their logic goes like this, Well, there are no other suspects who
• 17:00
  could rationally have been the source of the cocaine, because obviously we know Hunter
• 17:07
  Biden uses cocaine or has been using cocaine in a rather dramatic fashion, and
• 17:12
  it's proven. It's it's it's been court records, it's video, I mean,
• 17:17
  it's we know that we know he was there that day, and we
• 17:19
  know very few people can get access to that room. So the list of
• 17:25
  suspects is incredibly small to begin with, and he's the one suspect that stands
• 17:30
  out by far above all others. Plus there's an inherent explanation for why there
• 17:36
  would be a cover up for no other reason other than because of his recent
• 17:41
  plea deal. He would be going to jail because he'd be in violation of
• 17:45
  his probation. So there's a lot not just the you know, there's also
• 17:48
  the political aspect of this as we head into a you know, obviously Biden's
• 17:53
  reelection campaign, So there's all sorts of motivation for people to sweep this to
• 18:00
  the rug. Well, what I find to be ironic and funny about that
• 18:03
  is that these very same people do not see that logic when it comes to
• 18:08
  wait for it, I mentioned it all the time, the Jeffrey Epstein didn't
• 18:14
  really kill himself theory. It's the exact same logic because if Epstein had been
• 18:22
  murdered in a federal prison, the number of suspects, much like with the
• 18:26
  cocaine and the White House, would be unbelievably small, and you would know
• 18:30
  exactly who was in the area, who had access to the area, who
• 18:37
  was there that day. You would be able to question them, you'd be
• 18:41
  able to trace their bank accounts to see if they suddenly came into a lot
• 18:45
  of money. It would be the easiest crime to solve of all time.
• 18:51
  And it's exactly the same logic that the pro Trumpers are able to use when
• 18:56
  it comes to deducing that it must be Hunter Biden that's first ponsible for the
• 19:00
  cocaine. But for some reason they cannot see the exact same logic when it
• 19:06
  comes to the issue of Jeffrey Epstein not really killing himself when in fact he
• 19:12
  did. If hey, if he had been murdered, it would be exactly
• 19:17
  like the situation, only more dramatic as with regard to Hunter Biden and the
• 19:22
  cocaine at the White House. So I did have to at least mention that
• 19:25
  because that's one of my pet peeves when it comes to the holes in the
• 19:29
  logic of the Trump's supporters. When it fits their narrative, they can see
• 19:33
  it clearly, when for some reason it doesn't, they don't see it at
• 19:37
  all. And of course with the Epstein thing, the part that really drives
• 19:41
  me crazy is if there was a cover up in the Epstein case, well,
• 19:45
  Bill Barr's got to be instrumental in it. That was Trump's attorney general,
• 19:48
  and Trump has either got to be in on it or he has to
• 19:52
  be the biggest moron of all time to not break it up. Because this
• 19:56
  was all under their authority in a fed real prison. Well that that just
• 20:02
  eludes the ability of Trump supporters to be able to figure out. So it's
• 20:06
  just incredibly frustrating. So that's the cocaine in the White House story, which
• 20:12
  apparently is now going to go buy buys. Although there are is some reporting
• 20:18
  from Soldier of Fortune, which I don't really consider Soldier of Fortune to be
• 20:23
  a highly credible news source, but I know someone who knows the main reporter
• 20:29
  who's been doing the work here, and they think highly of this person.
• 20:33
  But Soldier of Fortune is saying that this idea that there weren't fingerprints is not
• 20:38
  true, and that in fact, there were fingerprints found, and there are
• 20:44
  rumors that the fingerprints are associated I'll say, because I don't want to give
• 20:49
  away too much associated with Hunter Biden. Now that's I would put that in
• 20:55
  the rumor category. What I'm hearing underground, not in a public consumption sort
• 21:02
  of way. But Soldier of Fortune absolutely is claiming and they think that in
• 21:07
  a couple of weeks, when the paperwork is forced to come out because of
• 21:12
  their request for documents, then in a couple of weeks we will find out
• 21:18
  that in indeed there were fingerprints found on the bag of cocaine. I don't
• 21:23
  know that that's true. I'm just telling you that that is what has been
• 21:27
  reported, and that some people believe that there's credibility to that. I will
• 21:32
  say that it sure seems as if this story is so ridiculous and it's gotten
• 21:37
  so much traction that you can certainly see that in the twenty twenty four campaign
• 21:44
  that Trump is going to use Hunter's cocaine much like he used Hillary's emails in
• 21:49
  twenty sixteen. Right, I mean it used to be Hunter Biden's laptop.
• 21:53
  Now that's actually all online. So now we got Hunters cocaine in the White
• 21:59
  House. I would think that Trump is going to be using that on almost
• 22:03
  a daily basis, just like he did with Hillary's emails. Now, I
• 22:08
  have said continually about the twenty twenty four Republican nominating process that Donald Trump has
• 22:18
  an MVP that has come from a very unexpected source, and that MVP is
• 22:23
  Tucker Carlson. And I've said this now for a couple of months, and
• 22:30
  I got to say that this view has been vindicated far more than I ever
• 22:36
  imagined was possible, and is being vindicated more so on a daily basis,
• 22:41
  especially in just the last few days. Last Friday as of this taping,
• 22:45
  on Monday morning, The Blaze, Glenn Buck's Outfit, and Tucker Carlson combined
• 22:52
  to do what was basically called a presidential summit, where Tucker Carlson by interviewed
• 23:00
  a lot of the major candidates for the Republican nominating process, except, of
• 23:07
  course, Donald Trump. Donald Trump had a quote unquote scheduling conflict and couldn't
• 23:14
  make it. Now, to be clear, that's bullshit. There was no
• 23:18
  scheduling conflict. He was playing golf the day before in Los Angeles, where,
• 23:22
  by the way, I should point out, and this is one of
• 23:26
  those class exigular things where you only I will point this out, and some
• 23:30
  people will think I'm nuts for even bothering to do so, but I do
• 23:33
  think it's a legitimate point. There was a video that was taken by an
• 23:37
  onlooker of Donald Trump hitting a shot from about forty or fifty yards into one
• 23:44
  of the greens that is crappy, although beautiful, most beautiful crappy golf course
• 23:48
  in the world in Palas Verdes, California. I've been there many many times
• 23:51
  because I used to live just a few miles from there when I first married
• 23:55
  my wife, because she lived there. And this Trump National Golf Course what's
• 24:00
  called Los Angeles. So he's hitting a pitch shot from about forty fifty yards.
• 24:06
  He's got five or six golf carts surrounding him. I'm presuming Secret Service
• 24:11
  and friends or whatever whoever else is with him on that day, and he
• 24:15
  cold shanks the shot. I mean cold shanks. And if you're not a
• 24:19
  golfer, you don't know that means, you know, he basically almost whips
• 24:22
  he hits it dead right. The shanks were depicted in the movie Tin Cup
• 24:27
  with Kevin Costner in a very overly dramatized way, but from a pitch shot
• 24:33
  from forty or fifty yards, A decent golfer should never, ever, ever,
• 24:37
  ever shank a shot like that. And and the reason I mentioned this
• 24:42
  is not just because it relates to the fact that Trump really didn't have a
• 24:47
  scheduling conflict with this laser event. But had there been a video under the
• 24:52
  current political environment of Ronda Santis playing golf or doing any other sport that doesn't
• 24:59
  matter, that's not to be golf. But let's say it was golf.
• 25:00
  Where he shanked a shot that dramatically. I'm telling you that video would go
• 25:07
  super viral among Trump supporters. This would the media would pick it up.
• 25:11
  The right wing media would pick it up as a metaphor for the fact that
• 25:15
  you know, De Santis isn't half demand that Trump is, and that this
• 25:19
  is symbolic of him, his failing campaign and he's just not ready for prime
• 25:25
  time, and he would be humiliated. Let me, they'd love using pictures
• 25:27
  of Rohn de Santis, whether it's white boots in response to the hurricane or
• 25:33
  marching in a parade in New Hampshire, pictures that aren't one hundred percent perfect
• 25:36
  and mocking de Santis. Well, my god, shanking a pitch shot from
• 25:40
  forty or fifty yards would have been easily fodder for mocking Ron de Santis,
• 25:47
  and nothing happened with the Trump video. I mean, here, you've got
• 25:49
  a guy whose personas wrapped up in golf more than any other president since Eisenhower,
• 25:55
  maybe more so because he owns all these golf courses and making millions of
• 25:59
  dollars from the Saudis and running them out to live golf, and you know,
• 26:02
  claims to be a champion golfer, and you know, this thing happens
• 26:06
  on video, It's a miracle that got caught on video by a bystander,
• 26:10
  and nothing, nothing happens because the right wing media is afraid of mocking him,
• 26:17
  and there's not enough De Santis supporters on Twitter to make something like that
• 26:22
  go superviral like there would be if it happened with De Santis, and Trump
• 26:26
  supporters were the ones that were sharing the video. So I think that that
• 26:30
  very very small episode is kind of emblematic of where we are in this race
• 26:36
  and the massive double standard between Trump and DeSantis. But anyway, back to
• 26:41
  this Blaze event with Tucker Carlson, which which Trump dodged, and he dodged
• 26:47
  it because he had his own event. Effectively, it was a Trump event
• 26:52
  in Florida, ironically enough, on Saturday, the day antress, so he
• 26:55
  didn't want to do two events in one day. They didn't want to give
• 26:59
  oxygen into an event that was effectively competing with an event that was going to
• 27:03
  be mostly his people. So these two events I think told us an awful
• 27:07
  lot, an awful lot about where this race stands and where it's heading,
• 27:11
  and why it is that Tucker Carlson really is the MVP of the Trump campaign,
• 27:18
  just as I have been saying. So this event on Friday, Tucker
• 27:22
  interviews basically all the non Trump candidates except for Chris Christie. I'll get to
• 27:29
  Chris Christie and admit bit because I think that situation with Tucker Carlson is also
• 27:34
  very very telling. But Tucker, you know, basically what the Blaze is
• 27:41
  doing here, in my opinion, is that they're trying to figure out a
• 27:44
  way to get into Tucker carlson business. They want Tucker to either work for
• 27:48
  them or them to work with Tucker. You know, it's very obvious to
• 27:51
  Glenbeck understandably sees a lot of opportunity in the fact that Tucker Carlson, like
• 27:57
  he himself, is a former Fox News star star who's now on his own.
• 28:03
  So this is basically what this was. This was not really about presidential
• 28:07
  politics. This was about forging a relationship between Tucker Carlson and the Blaze.
• 28:12
  And I've said many times before that it was Tucker and Glenn Beck together that
• 28:17
  fostered this incredibly corrosive and bogus narrative that after the first Trump indictment, Republicans
• 28:23
  needed to rally around Trump and support him. Otherwise, if Democrats can get
• 28:27
  away with this, We've lost the country. We've lost the Republic. So
• 28:32
  I have a great deal of anger and frustration towards both Carlson and Beck,
• 28:37
  both of whom I've had relationships with in the past varying degrees, because they,
• 28:42
  even though they don't like Donald Trump at all and times have opposed him
• 28:45
  both publicly and privately, are now effectively doing his bidding for him at a
• 28:51
  time period that is very critical, not just for the Republican nominating process,
• 28:55
  but for the country as a whole. So Carlson does these interviews and he
• 29:00
  very strategically takes shots at people that he doesn't think, are you know there's
• 29:07
  going to be any blowback for him taking shots again, specifically Asa Hutchinson from
• 29:12
  Arkansas. Arkansas was absolutely zero chance, I mean less than zero chance of
• 29:18
  being the nominee even before this event. And he eviscerated Hutchinson on a number
• 29:22
  of issues. And he goes out to Mike Pence specifically on the Ukraine War,
• 29:26
  and I think Pence kind of got misunderstood a little bit, but okay,
• 29:30
  in perception, Carlson destroyed Mike penns. In fact, Tucker even joked
• 29:34
  about it the next day at the Turning Point event, the Trump event in
• 29:40
  Florida. And so the perception is that this was bad for Hutchinson, bad
• 29:45
  for Mike Pence. Carlson was very soft on Favake Ramaswami and rather soft on
• 29:52
  Nicky Haley, whom he has criticized greatly in the past. His interview with
• 29:59
  Ronda Santis was fine, although no mention of Trump, no mention of how
• 30:04
  you beat Trump. In fact, Trump was hardly mentioned during the entire event,
• 30:08
  which was ludicrous. I mean, I'll talk about the elephant in the
• 30:12
  corner of the room that nobody wants to mention, but no mention of how
• 30:15
  you beat Trump, no ability for DeSantis to go after Trump, no questions
• 30:21
  about COVID, although DeSantis did his best to bring COVID up a couple of
• 30:25
  times in the responses. DeSantis did just fine. But as I was watching
• 30:29
  the DeSantis interview, I realized, you know, this was a situation where
• 30:33
  there was really almost nothing to gain for DeSantis. The only thing that could
• 30:37
  happen would be bad is if there was a moment where de Santis looked bad
• 30:42
  or Tucker gave him a question that was awkward, or he misspoke or or
• 30:49
  said something that somehow would be against the doctrine of the right wing right now,
• 30:56
  which by the way includes criticizing Donald Trump. Bizarrely enough, that none
• 30:59
  of that happened, there were no mistakes, but all that did was not
• 31:03
  do any damage. And I believe the event itself, I mean, here's
• 31:10
  here was the bottom line of the Blaze Tucker event. Vavague Ramiswami got elevated
• 31:15
  further so the and I have predicted from the beginning that Vague Ramiswami was a
• 31:21
  problem for Rhonda Santis, and unfortunately he's I think he's going to turn out
• 31:25
  to be an even bigger problem than I realized at the beginning, because Vavage
• 31:29
  Ramiswami now has full traction, not as a guy who could potentially win the
• 31:33
  nomination or probably even come close to being in second place unless de Santis really
• 31:40
  collapsed, but he's going to be enough to where he's going to take the
• 31:45
  support of the soft Trump supporters who maybe think it's time to move on,
• 31:49
  and he gives those people a place to park before Trump actually wins the nomination
• 31:56
  and then the the scurry back to Trump. He's also a protector Trump.
• 32:00
  He's a surrogate for Trump. By the way, the guy's a fraud.
• 32:02
  He's a fraud on a number of levels, specifically covid He was very very
• 32:07
  much a covidiot through much of the pandemic, and now he's pretending that he
• 32:13
  wasn't. He's got these ties to the George Soros organization that he's claiming are
• 32:16
  not really paid to get his Wikipedia page scrubbed of this information. I mean,
• 32:22
  the guy is a fraud and very skivy to me, and I've called
• 32:28
  that from the beginning. But this event elevated him. Tucker didn't lay a
• 32:32
  glove on him. No one did. Tim Scott did, okay, And
• 32:37
  so the bottom line is all these other candidates, with the exception of penns
• 32:42
  and Hutchinson, get elevated from this event. In relation to de Santis,
• 32:49
  de Santis can't make any head room. But the most important part of this
• 32:52
  is not a word in criticizing Donald Trump for dodging the event. Not a
• 33:00
  word. I mean, I even heard Stu Glenbeck's co host with whom I've
• 33:07
  had a very good relationship for many years referenced it. It's unfortunate that Trump
• 33:12
  couldn't make it here today because of scheduling concerns. That's not what happened.
• 33:17
  Trump didn't want to be part of this. He didn't want to face Tucker's
• 33:21
  questioning, He didn't want to elevate the other candidates. And this is a
• 33:24
  preview. This is a preview of what's going to happen with the debates.
• 33:30
  That's basically maybe the most important part of what happened here. We saw Trump
• 33:36
  dodge a major presidential event and suffer zero consequences for it, get no blowback,
• 33:44
  and actually get the benefit of having his surrogate Vaveagu Ramaswamy be elevated by
• 33:51
  the event. That's the effect of what happened. All of this being done
• 33:57
  by the Blaze and Tucker Carlson Glenn Beck, former never Trump conservative, Tucker
• 34:02
  Carlson on record and court documents saying he hates Trump passionately. And these two
• 34:08
  guys are the ones doing an event that is absolutely positively further promoting whether they
• 34:15
  realize it or not, whether they intended or not, a Trump nomination.
• 34:21
  That event. Believe you know that are de santist people who thought, oh
• 34:23
  he did great. Well, yeah, fine, so no damage on his
• 34:27
  end. But in the bigger picture, in the bigger narrative, this didn't
• 34:30
  help because it proved a Trump he can get away with not showing up and
• 34:36
  get no blowback, and that when he doesn't come to these events, it
• 34:40
  helps people like vavak Ramaswami and maybe Nicki Haley and maybe Jim Scott get more
• 34:46
  traction, which helps Trump. That's helping Trump because anything that takes away from
• 34:54
  the ability of the santist to make up ground, anything that gives people who
• 35:00
  are not sold that we ought to go down the Trump path again, another
• 35:05
  viable option other than the santis is inherently good for Trump. And I don't
• 35:14
  know whether or not people just don't understand this. I honestly don't know.
• 35:17
  I'm not sure that that's the intention of Tucker and the Blaze here. I
• 35:22
  don't think it is. I just think this is kind of happening as it
• 35:25
  almost seemingly continues to do, where everything just breaks in Trump's favor. It's
• 35:32
  remarkable. It can't be by strategy. It's just a it's an incredibly frustrating
• 35:38
  phenomenon. Did no matter what happens in some way, shape or form.
• 35:43
  At worst, it doesn't hurt Trump, and at best it actually helps him.
• 35:47
  And that's how I put the Blaze Tucker Carlson event into that context.
• 35:52
  And then the next day Tucker spoke at the Turning Point event, where Trump
• 35:58
  did show up. By the way, Vavegu Ramaswami was also invited, which
• 36:02
  is, if that's not the biggest tell yet that VVEG is a Trump surrogate,
• 36:07
  I don't know what is or what could possibly be, because Turning Point
• 36:13
  is essentially a Trump organization. I'll prove that in a moment. But you've
• 36:19
  got Tucker invited to speak on his own and Vaveque and of course Trump himself,
• 36:23
  and it's all basically Trump supporters speaking in front of a much larger crowd
• 36:30
  than was at the Blaze event. And Tucker's speech was hilarious, it was
• 36:37
  at times insightful, but I gotta I gotta say, and I say this
• 36:40
  with great hesitation, great hesitation, and I don't I have no inside knowledge
• 36:49
  at all, and I'm not even an expert in this area because I've never
• 36:52
  done drugs in a serious way. I think I had a girlfriend after college
• 36:57
  who wanted to do some marijuana at times. I didn't like him, that
• 37:00
  was it. But I've never done serious drugs. But I gotta tell you,
• 37:04
  if Tucker Carlson was not famous and beloved on the right, and someone
• 37:08
  gave the speech that they gave at the Turning Point event that was that frantic
• 37:15
  and was that adhd and had that crazy maniacal laugh at inappropriate times, people
• 37:24
  would start to question whether or not they were on drugs. And I don't
• 37:29
  say that with any joy. I hope it's not true. But there's something
• 37:34
  up with Tucker Carlson. I mean, I've been saying this for a long
• 37:37
  time that his embrasive conspiracy theories was very concerning because I have an enormous amount
• 37:44
  of respect for the guy. He has a tremendous talent, he's funny as
• 37:47
  hell. I think he's very smart, and that's why it's been so frustrating
• 37:52
  that he's been the MVP of the Trump campaign. But if you don't believe
• 37:55
  me, go back and watch Tucker Carlson's Turning Points beach, which again was
• 38:00
  very entertaining at times. But there's something wrong there. I don't know whether
• 38:06
  or not it's Hunter Biden related, and then by the way, he went
• 38:07
  on a great rift on the Hunter Biden cocaine story. Maybe you know,
• 38:12
  a little too good a rift, given my suspicions here. But there's something
• 38:15
  going on with Tucker Carlson. I don't know what it is. I don't
• 38:20
  know when that it's drug related. Maybe he's just really happy to be gone
• 38:23
  from Fox News Channel and he's looking at life in a very different way.
• 38:28
  I don't know, but there's something off about Tucker Carlson. But there's no
• 38:34
  question that, as I have been saying continually, he is the MVP of
• 38:38
  the Trump campaign in almost every way. I've gone through a list of things,
• 38:43
  from January sixth, to the first indictment, to the interview with Trump
• 38:49
  that basically allowed Trump back into the good graces of Fox News Channel in a
• 38:53
  very very soft way. After that first indictment in New York, and then
• 38:57
  Tucker Carlson's firing, which I think has in many ways played into Trump's hands.
• 39:02
  I said that night that it would help Donald Trump. I said that
• 39:07
  on Dan Abrams Fox News Channel, a Fox News channel, on his News
• 39:10
  Nation. I would have really been something if Dan Abrams had a Fox News
• 39:14
  Channel show, but no on his News Nation TV show, I said that
• 39:17
  very night after Tucker Carlson's firing, that this was a very good day for
• 39:22
  Donald Trump. And it has turned out that way in various directions and in
• 39:27
  various ways. And you know who understands that now, Donald Trump himself.
• 39:32
  Donald Trump himself understands that the MVP of this campaign has been Tucker Carlson.
• 39:39
  And he basically said so in his Turning Point USA speech. Here is Trump
• 39:45
  himself talking about, you know, his sycophants at Fox News Channel, specifically
• 39:51
  Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, who he knows will never ever ever cross him
• 39:57
  because their entire careers are based in placating the Trump audience. But how he
• 40:02
  always had some concerns about Tucker Carlson, but then now, based upon recent
• 40:07
  history, those concerns are gone. That Tucker has gone from a six to
• 40:14
  a ten. And here's what that sounded like. And I have to tell
• 40:16
  you they don't get pulletzers for this. But if you look at people like
• 40:22
  Sean Hannity, right, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram has been really good.
• 40:27
  And I'll tell you what Tucker Carlson. I used to say, I used
• 40:31
  to say for me, I used to say, Tucker's a solid six out
• 40:37
  of ten. But last year and a half he was at ten. That's
• 40:42
  probably why they canned him, right, it was at ten. Now he's
• 40:45
  been great. So there's no doubt that even Donald Trump understands what I've been
• 40:50
  saying, which is that Tucker Carlson is his MVP for a variety of reasons.
• 40:57
  And it continues even after the Turning Point USA situation. So after that
• 41:04
  happens on Sunday, Chris Christie, who was not at either the Turning Point
• 41:08
  event obviously because he's anti Trump, or at the Blaze event where Tucker was
• 41:14
  doing the interviews on ABC, Chris Christie took a shot at Tucker Carlson on
• 41:20
  the Ukraine War because Tucker has been very very much against US involvement in the
• 41:25
  Ukrainian Russian conflict or war, whatever you want to call it. And Tucker
• 41:30
  immediately fought right back and retweeted an article about Christie going after him and called
• 41:37
  Christie a coward, I assume, for not showing up at the event to
• 41:42
  be questioned by Tucker Carlson. And they had this tit for tat over who
• 41:47
  was right about us involvement with regard to Ukraine. And of course this helps
• 41:53
  Trump in one way. Right off the bat right, if the most popular
• 41:59
  even though he's unemployed, Boyd, the most popular commentator on the right,
• 42:02
  is attacking and being attacked by Chris Christie, it further diminishes any influence that
• 42:10
  Christie's attacks on Trump may have on the base. In other words, it
• 42:15
  further makes sure that everybody on the right knows that Christie's not one of us,
• 42:22
  that he is a rhino, that he's not to be trusted. He's
• 42:27
  a mainstream media guy. No one likes him and don't trust anything he has
• 42:31
  to say. And Tucker, you know, is sending that signal very very
• 42:36
  clearly and having this tit for tat battle with Chris Christie. That would be
• 42:42
  helpful enough to Trump. But here's the part that really exposes that Tucker is
• 42:47
  essentially whether he realizes it or not, intends to or not, or whether
• 42:53
  or not, it's just one of these very strange and frustrating coincidences where Tucker
• 42:59
  is doing Trump's bidding for him. Because when you look at this issue of
• 43:06
  Christie being a coward for not showing up to face Tucker's questioning. Why does
• 43:12
  Trump not get called a coward? Why does Trump not get criticized at all
• 43:16
  for not showing up to take Tucker's questions? Why is that? Well,
• 43:22
  because there's no price to pay in attacking Chris Christie. If you're a right
• 43:28
  wing commentator, there's an enormous price to pay, especially when you're unemployed,
• 43:34
  if you go after Donald Trump, because that's the customer base. The customer
• 43:39
  base is made up mostly of people who are either in the Trump called,
• 43:45
  or have been part of the Trump called, or like Donald Trump quite a
• 43:49
  bit, and they're very, very defensive of him. So you're not allowed
• 43:52
  to go after Trump for ducking like you are Chris Christie, which, of
• 43:58
  course, again that is for autoing for what's going to happen when Trump doesn't
• 44:01
  do these debates. Trump has now been signaled exactly as I've said, that
• 44:07
  he will not be attacked for dodging debates. This was a dress rehearsal for
• 44:13
  that, and it went perfectly for Donald Trump, even to the point where
• 44:17
  Tucker Carlson is attacking Chris Christie is a coward, but saying nothing about Donald
• 44:22
  Trump. And then that got even more bizarre that exchange between Christie and Tucker
• 44:30
  when Trump himself did an interview with Maria Bardaroma from Fox News where he's asked
• 44:37
  about how we would end the conflict in Krane, and his response is that
• 44:43
  if Russia doesn't do what he says, and I'm paraphrasing, but this is
• 44:49
  a very close paraphrase, if Russia doesn't do what he says, we're gonna
• 44:52
  escalate on behalf of Ukraine in a dramatic fashion, which many people would say,
• 45:01
  well, that's a recipe for World War three number one. But more
• 45:05
  importantly, it goes exactly against the Tucker Carlson doctrine, the Tucker Carlson doctrine
• 45:12
  for which Tucker has praised Trump. Tucker has said, the only presidential candidate
• 45:17
  who gets it on Ukraine is Donald Trump. And here is Trump, more
• 45:23
  dramatically than anybody else, saying, basically telegraphing that if Putin doesn't do what
• 45:30
  he says, his response would be to do the exact opposite of what Tucker
• 45:36
  Carlson wants. As Tucker Carlson tweeted about that, no, of course not
• 45:45
  will he say anything about that in the future. I highly doubt it,
• 45:49
  because Trump can get away with whatever the hell he wants to get away with.
• 45:52
  It doesn't matter what Trump says, because it's not about the truth,
• 45:55
  it's not about logic. It's about the audience. And as long as the
• 46:00
  audience is mostly with Trump, the commentators, at least the ones that matter,
• 46:07
  are also going to be with Trump, and they're going to be very,
• 46:09
  very very afraid to criticize him strongly. They'll be There are a few
• 46:15
  Republican, right leaning or conservative, I don't even know what to call him
• 46:20
  anymore in this day and age commentators who have been clearly onto Santas's side,
• 46:25
  clearly criticizing Trump mildly, but they always have to make apologies for it,
• 46:31
  and they always have to put it in couch language. They're not allowed to
• 46:36
  be very dramatic about it. They're not about allowed to be very upfront about
• 46:38
  it because the risk of alienating the audience is just too great. And that
• 46:45
  has an impact because if your side is smaller and not really willing to lay
• 46:52
  it all out there, and the other side is bigger and their people are
• 46:54
  willing to say that Rod de Santa sucks and our guy is awesome. Well,
• 47:00
  who's going to win that war? It's gonna be Trump every single time.
• 47:04
  And Tucker Carlson's involvement of this is really the ultimate proof of it,
• 47:08
  and it's the personification of it. And again I have predicted it, but
• 47:15
  it has come true even more dramatically, unfortunately than I thought that it would.
• 47:21
  Tucker Carlson is Donald Trump's MVP and continues to be so in absolutely infuriating
• 47:28
  style. Now, with regard to the Santis campaign, there have been various
• 47:32
  mainstream reports in the last few days that have been very, very negative towards
• 47:37
  the de Santis campaign, which continues to flounder. In the polls. There's
• 47:42
  no question that Trump is winning. He's winning big nationally. He's winning in
• 47:46
  most of the first few states that really matter, which are Iowa, New
• 47:52
  Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. I think if you combine all the
• 47:57
  known polls on those four states and you average them all out, Trump is
• 48:00
  ahead by about twenty five percent on average, by twenty five points. And
• 48:07
  so for those that say, well, the national polls don't really matter,
• 48:09
  it's those state polls that do well. The Santist isn't doing that much better
• 48:14
  in the state polling than he is in the national poll And the national polling
• 48:17
  has Trump buy up by like thirty five sometimes forty points, but it's about
• 48:22
  twenty five points on average in the four early states that really really matter,
• 48:30
  and there's no sign that that's going to get any better anytime soon, because
• 48:34
  the narrative is forming that the Santist campaign is in big trouble. Here are
• 48:38
  some of the alleged data points. The New York Times reported that Rupert Murdoch
• 48:45
  is urging Virginia Governor Glenn Junkin to get into the race because that he is
• 48:50
  apparently concerned that the Santist isn't going to be able to pull this off.
• 48:53
  I found this, if true, to be particularly rich and really infuriating,
• 49:00
  because you know, Rupert Murdoch, who obviously owns Fox News Channel among other
• 49:05
  conservative outlets, has done nothing, done nothing to help Ron de Santis.
• 49:10
  He's done nothing to attack Donald Trump. The firing of Tucker Carlson actually helped
• 49:17
  Donald Trump in numerous ways. So the idea that Rupert Murdoch has any place
• 49:23
  to be saying, well, you know, De Santis just isn't hacking it.
• 49:27
  Maybe Glenn Yunkin can get in. Not that Glenn Yunkin would do any
• 49:30
  better than the Santis even if the Santis got out. I mean, first
• 49:32
  of all, you'd have to get the Santis out, which isn't going to
• 49:36
  happen because they're in the same lane. So putting Yunkin in is only going
• 49:40
  to help Trump earther if Junkin gets in. But the bigger issue here is
• 49:45
  Rupert Murdoch hasn't done shit, if anything, this year. Fox News Channel
• 49:51
  is cozied back up to Donald Trump in every possible way, especially surrounding the
• 49:55
  two indictments handed the and Ingram and Jesse Waters are as pro Trump as ever
• 50:02
  as they said Tucker Carlson got fired. So this idea that somehow, well,
• 50:07
  you know, we did our best for the Santist and he just couldn't
• 50:10
  hack it, that's bullshit. So fuck you, Rubert Murdoch. And again,
• 50:15
  I don't know one hundred percent if it's even true story because the sourcing
• 50:19
  was you know, seem it was good sourcing, I guess, but it
• 50:22
  wasn't on the record quotes, So I'm always dubious about that. But I
• 50:27
  have absolutely no sympathy for Rupert Murdoch, And if I'm Glenn Yunkin, I'm
• 50:30
  not getting in because Rupert has already shown he's not willing or able to do
• 50:35
  what it takes to go after Trump. So why would I get in,
• 50:39
  Especially as I've already said that the Santist is already in there and already has
• 50:44
  a solid twenty percent of the boat. How the hell can I possibly take
• 50:46
  on Trump when that is mostly gone at this point. Then there's the story
• 50:52
  of the Santist's campaign laying off people, not many people, but laying off
• 50:57
  people this early in the process, when you're you're your big asset is supposed
• 51:01
  to be your money and your fundraising is not a good sign at all.
• 51:06
  Now, maybe these people just weren't cutting it, you know, maybe they
• 51:08
  didn't work out philosophically. There's all sorts of reasons in a big organization why
• 51:14
  you might get rid of a handful of people. But from a perception standpoint,
• 51:17
  that's not good. It starts to give off the stench of a campaign
• 51:22
  that's in a death spiral. Because fundraisers look at what's going on, they
• 51:29
  hear or read about the Rupert Murdoch murmurs that de Santis isn't cutting it.
• 51:34
  They see the DeSantis campaign laying people off, and they see the polling numbers.
• 51:40
  So the fundraisers are going to start to go, wait a minute,
• 51:44
  am I wasting my money with Rohn de Santis? Why am I going to
• 51:47
  give money to rhnd De Santis and just piss off Donald Trump who's very very
• 51:52
  very likely to be the nominee. This isn't worth it to me. Well,
• 51:57
  there are stories that that's actually happening. Again, who knows how true,
• 52:00
  because obviously the mainstream news media has a invested interest in Rhonda Santis not
• 52:06
  being the nominee, if for no other reason than the fact that the Santists
• 52:10
  nomination would mean accountability for them on COVID, which they desperately do not want,
• 52:15
  and it would likely also mean that Joe Biden might be defeated, and
• 52:20
  they don't want that either. So, as I've said from the very beginning
• 52:22
  here, everyone has a perverse incentive to be against Rhonda Santis, and so
• 52:28
  I'm always inherently skeptical of these stories involving the Santists where they go after as
• 52:32
  balls and they say, well, you know, fundraisers, these unnamed fundraisers
• 52:37
  are starting to get cold feet and they're abandoning the Santists. And in this
• 52:42
  case, there was one story in Politico then indicated that they're now looking at
• 52:45
  Tim Scott, these South Carolina US Senator Tim Scott, who happens to be
• 52:51
  African American. I don't really understand that philosophy because I don't see a path
• 52:57
  for Tim Scott against against Donald Trump, especially if the Santis is still in
• 53:01
  the race. You gotta still remember that part. You can't just I mean,
• 53:06
  the Santis is flailing, but you can't just erase him. He's going
• 53:09
  to have a certain percentage of support unless he gets out that is going to
• 53:14
  be large enough to prevent anybody else from potentially defeating Donald Trump. And you
• 53:20
  know, while I liked Tim Scott, I don't see him as a potential
• 53:23
  superstar that could somehow completely change the game and be the nominee even with the
• 53:30
  Santis and Trump still being in there. So I'm skeptical of that story.
• 53:35
  But again, perception creates reality, and the perception is that the de Santist
• 53:40
  campaign is in big trouble. This all starts to get a narrative of a
• 53:45
  death spiral the stench of death starts to surround the campaign, and the response
• 53:52
  by the DeSantis campaign was not comforting at all, because there are stories out
• 53:57
  of the Santist campaign, one that they're not a band in New Hampshire yet,
• 54:00
  which is a mistake. New Hampshire is gone. There's no way to
• 54:05
  win the Hampshire barring you know, as I've said, death or imprisonment,
• 54:10
  which is never going to happen for Trump before the New Hampshire primary. So
• 54:15
  if I was running the Santas campaign, which clearly I'm not, by the
• 54:20
  way, I've sent two emails to the campaign manager, blistering emails that have
• 54:24
  not gotten returned, one a month ago and one just this past weekend.
• 54:29
  Maybe someday I will share the content of those emails, but I have made
• 54:32
  it very clear to the Santas campaign that I am furious with how they have
• 54:37
  done. Not that I think that necessarily the campaign is the whole reason why
• 54:42
  things are the way that they are. I'm beginning to think that this was
• 54:45
  always destined, given the circumstances and Trump's luck and the indictments and everything else.
• 54:50
  But I'm not happy at all with the way that the campaign has responded
• 54:53
  to this very very difficult challenge. And the idea that has been reported that
• 55:00
  the descender's campaign and responds to fundraisers looking to bail on him and go to
• 55:06
  Tim Scott is to attack Tim Scott. Again. I don't know if this
• 55:10
  is true, but that's what's being reported in mainstream media outlets. And if
• 55:14
  there's any truth to that at all, these people are fucking morons. They're
• 55:19
  fucking morons. They ought to be embracing Tim Scott. I have already suggested
• 55:22
  they ought to announce that Tim Scott is going to be their vice presidential nominee
• 55:27
  to force Trump to prove who his nominee is going to be. And by
• 55:31
  the way, before I forget with that turning Point USA Trump event, this
• 55:37
  is how much of a Trump event. The Turning Point USA Florida event really
• 55:43
  was. They had a polling firm take a survey of the people who attended,
• 55:49
  and they asked them the question, who do you think should be vice
• 55:53
  president? Now, they didn't even say in the question. Apparently, if
• 56:00
  Donald Trump is the nominee. It was just assumed that he would be the
• 56:06
  nominee. And Trump was not on the list of possibilities for people to choose
• 56:13
  from. So right there, that event was a complete Trump campaign event.
• 56:21
  I mean, you're asking who should be the vice president, not even Trump's
• 56:25
  vice president, just the vice president because it's just so obviously assumed that the
• 56:30
  nominee is going to be Trump. And by the way the results, Carrie
• 56:35
  Lake got more votes than anybody else at thirty percent. The former news anchor
• 56:40
  turned losing gubernatorial candidate in Arizona. Then Congressman Brian Donalds, who's also an
• 56:49
  African American Trump supporter, He was number two. Vake Ramiswami was a strong
• 56:53
  third, and then everybody else. Tim Scott was fourth, Rhonda Santis was
• 56:59
  fifth. I find to be hilarious. But the reality here is not only
• 57:02
  was that event just a Trump campaign organization for all intensive purposes, but here
• 57:10
  these whack jobs actually think that his VP candidate ought to be carry Lake.
• 57:15
  Well, if it's going to be carry Lake, people ought to know that,
• 57:19
  because that's probably Trump's biggest decision. This is a guy who would be
• 57:22
  over eighty years old if he got elected. He can only serve one term.
• 57:27
  His vice presidential nominee is the most important vice presidential nomination maybe in history.
• 57:34
  So I have suggested, again knowing there was no chance of this,
• 57:37
  that DeSantis forces this issue and aligns himself with Tim Scott. One because I
• 57:45
  think Scott does a lot to help him with regard to the narrative, and
• 57:47
  he's qualified, but also because he's from South Carolina. So you do an
• 57:52
  Iowa South Carolina campaign, you ignore New Hampshire, you ignore Nevada. You
• 57:58
  just realize you're only shots or Iowa and South Carolina, and to that,
• 58:02
  to that end, you align yourself with the senator from South Carolina, Tim
• 58:07
  Scott. Instead, the De Santa's campaign apparently is doing the exact opposite.
• 58:13
  They're going to attack Tim Scott because they're afraid of Tim Scott encroaching on their
• 58:19
  fundraising as well as their strong number two position. Well, how is that
• 58:24
  gonna work out? How the hell is that going to work out in South
• 58:28
  Carolina. So let's say you pull off a miracle in Iowa and you get
• 58:32
  your ass kicked in New Hampshire for various reasons that I've articulated previously, and
• 58:37
  now you're going to South Carolina. You think Tim Scott is going to indorse
• 58:42
  you instead of Donald Trump, assuming he's no longer a viable factor in the
• 58:49
  race. You think Nicki Haley is gonna indorse you over Trump, who's the
• 58:53
  clear front runner. No, they're gonna at best stay silent and probably in
• 59:00
  doors Trump. And that means South Carolina is the end, because you're gonna
• 59:04
  get beaten badly in South Carolina. So they're doing exactly the opposite of what
• 59:08
  they ought to do with regard to Tim Scott, and all of this is
• 59:14
  going in a very very negative direction and has the stench of death narratives surrounding
• 59:19
  it. Now, there have been other candidates that have survived the stench of
• 59:22
  death. John McCain is probably the most prominent, most obvious in recent history.
• 59:28
  John McCain began the two thousand and eight Republican presidential nominating process as the
• 59:32
  favorite. Then he fell off the map. You know, he famously was
• 59:37
  carrying his own luggage and flying commercial, not even first class on campaign trips.
• 59:45
  I mean, he got as bad as it could get. And then
• 59:46
  he came back and he won the nomination. However, there are a lot
• 59:52
  of differences, and the biggest difference, of course, is there was no
• 59:55
  Donald Trump in that race, and there was nobody winning that race by the
• 1:00:00
  margins that Trump is currently winning them by. And it's also important to point
• 1:00:07
  out that, you know, Trump has been gaining and DeSantis has been fading
• 1:00:13
  even since his announcement. So there are a lot of very big differences,
• 1:00:17
  the biggest of course, being the presidence of Donald Trump. Who Donald Trump
• 1:00:22
  is as a former president, as someone who has a cult and who someone
• 1:00:27
  who has one hundred percent name recognition, who almost every Republicans voted for for
• 1:00:31
  president at least once, if not twice, or three or four times if
• 1:00:36
  you count the primaries. So it's a very different situation, and it's very
• 1:00:40
  very difficult as an underdog to get out of the death spiral that once people
• 1:00:45
  start thinking that you know, you're in big trouble, it becomes a self
• 1:00:50
  fulfilling prophecy. And I have been threatening, if you will, to make
• 1:00:55
  a call on this race for quite a while. I'm still not one hundred
• 1:01:00
  percent ready to do that. There's still something in my gut that says hold
• 1:01:06
  off for a little bit longer. But I do want to address the issue
• 1:01:09
  of why it is not too early to be making some significant predictions and conclusions
• 1:01:19
  about where this is all heading. I have used previously a movie analogy to
• 1:01:24
  describe this race. I've used the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie to describe what's been
• 1:01:30
  going on, or what could be going on, or what I thought might
• 1:01:32
  go on. And if you haven't seen the movie Valkyrie, it's basically Tom
• 1:01:36
  Cruise tries to leave this coup against Adolf Hitler, and for a few minutes
• 1:01:40
  they think that they have succeeded, and then as it becomes clear that they
• 1:01:45
  did not succeed, the rats they abandoned ship, and the people that are
• 1:01:50
  left, including Cruise, they get killed. Because if you don't take out
• 1:01:53
  the king, or in that case, Hitler, then he's going to make
• 1:01:58
  sure you die. And you know, that's the way I kind of saw
• 1:02:02
  this Republican nominating process going that if you don't take out Hitler early, and
• 1:02:07
  you let him survive, and you let him get stronger, you're gonna get
• 1:02:12
  crushed. Now, again, to be clear, I've never said that Trump
• 1:02:15
  is Hitler. I'm using that analogy from a political standpoint, and I think
• 1:02:20
  it's born out as being a pretty darn good one. But I want to
• 1:02:24
  bring up a different movie analogy and a different Tom Cruise movie analogy when it
• 1:02:30
  comes to trying to explain why we are far further along in this process than
• 1:02:37
  most people, especially on the DeSantis team, seemingly understand or want to understand.
• 1:02:45
  Now, I don't know whether or not this analogy is going to work.
• 1:02:46
  I've used it on a couple of people and it seemed to But I
• 1:02:50
  think it does a pretty darn good job of explaining my entire philosophy as to
• 1:02:57
  why we are so much further along in this process. Then even the news
• 1:03:00
  media seems to be willing to admit. Matt can't tell you how many times
• 1:03:05
  I have been told John, it's only June, it's only July. We're
• 1:03:08
  so far away from actual voting. You can't possibly be this panicked right now.
• 1:03:14
  You can't possibly be this pessimistic. There's so much time to turn things
• 1:03:17
  around. Bullshit, bullshit under the current circumstances of the race and the unique
• 1:03:25
  nature of Donald Trump. So here's the analogy, and it's a different movie
• 1:03:29
  analogy, and it does involve Tom Cruise. I want you to imagine that
• 1:03:34
  the Republican nominating process is actually like a battle between two movies to see which
• 1:03:40
  movie is going to get bigger box office, right, So the box office
• 1:03:45
  is the voting, all right, And let's pretend in my analogy, let's
• 1:03:51
  say last year, since the movie came out last year, Let's say that
• 1:03:53
  Top Gun two, which would in this analogy is Trump. Okay, Obviously
• 1:04:00
  it's a sequel. Obviously the first one was a big success, and people
• 1:04:04
  have a deep emotional investment in that first movie. And obviously the star is
• 1:04:11
  a superstar, much like Donald Trump, a controversial superstar, much like Donald
• 1:04:15
  Trump, who seems to be Teflon. It doesn't matter, you know,
• 1:04:18
  how much Tom Cruise embraces scientology, it doesn't seem to impact his ability to
• 1:04:25
  get people to pay at the box office for his movies. So there's a
• 1:04:29
  there's a Trump analogy to Tom Cruise from a superstar standpoint and from a Teflon
• 1:04:33
  perspective. And there's also an analogy with regard to the sequel of Top Gun,
• 1:04:39
  although obviously it was a lot longer in the making, the sequel,
• 1:04:42
  the Top Gun. But let's say Top Gun two announced. You know,
• 1:04:46
  it's it's opening weekend, you know, many many months in advance, maybe
• 1:04:51
  in a year in advance, because that's often what happens with movies. And
• 1:04:56
  let's say that on the same weekend there was in an anouncement that there was
• 1:05:00
  going to be a sequel to good Will Hunting, all right, And in
• 1:05:05
  this analogy, the good good Will Hunting two sequel is Rhonda Santis. Goodwill
• 1:05:13
  Hunting was a great movie, but it was a movie that mostly appealed to
• 1:05:15
  people with a brain. It wasn't a big feel good movie. There weren't
• 1:05:19
  explosions, there weren't superheroes, there weren't you know, fighter jets. Uh.
• 1:05:25
  And it was memorable and it got a lot of awards, but it
• 1:05:28
  never had the same impact. It never had the same place in the American
• 1:05:35
  cultural stratosphere as Top Gun. It's known as a really good movie that made
• 1:05:42
  Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's career. And let's say they decided to make a
• 1:05:45
  sequel and they announced that they're gonna have it on the same weekend, opening
• 1:05:50
  up as Top Gun two. So in this analogy, Top Gun two is
• 1:05:55
  Trump and Goodwill Hunting two is the Santis. Well, you would know immediately
• 1:06:02
  immediately that Top Gun two was a heavy, heavy, heavy favorite to get
• 1:06:09
  more money at the box office than Goodwill Hunting two, if only because of
• 1:06:14
  their cultural footprint, and much like Rhonda Santis, whose cultural front footprint from
• 1:06:19
  COVID was really big, especially in Florida and in the Southeast, but it
• 1:06:26
  was nowhere near as big nationally as Top Gun was, So it's not the
• 1:06:30
  feel good movie. It's much more cerebral and its footprint was not as large.
• 1:06:35
  So the only way the Top Gun two would ever lose to Goodwill Hunting
• 1:06:41
  two in this theoretical box office battle is if something catastrophic happened within the production
• 1:06:49
  of Top Gun two. You know, Tom Cruise got hurt or killed,
• 1:06:55
  or Tom Cruise got into a battle with the directors and they just couldn't come
• 1:07:00
  to any conclusions about what the movie was going to be like, or something
• 1:07:04
  catastrophic would have to happen. Where Top Gun two missed the date for opening
• 1:07:12
  weekend. They just couldn't get it together, They couldn't get it done well.
• 1:07:15
  The analogy is the same with Trump. Let's say Trump physically wasn't able
• 1:07:20
  to do it, didn't want to do it, decided he wasn't going to
• 1:07:23
  run, or for whatever reason, he just couldn't get it up, and
• 1:07:28
  you know, the whole thing collapsed. Well, that didn't happen. Trump
• 1:07:31
  made it very clear right after the twenty twenty two mid terms he was in
• 1:07:34
  it, and he was in it to win it. He was a little
• 1:07:36
  listless, but he clearly was in it to win it, and his supporters
• 1:07:42
  were still very psyched about seeing the sequel. And that's effectively a huge part
• 1:07:48
  of the only scenario that would have allowed, under my analogy, Top Gun
• 1:07:54
  two to lose to Goodwill Hunting Too. Now, the other scenario would be,
• 1:07:59
  let's say there were so many problems with Top Gun two that it was
• 1:08:03
  clear that the movie was gonna suck, and let's say that there was a
• 1:08:06
  lot of buzz surrounding Good Will Hunting two that, Wow, this thing really
• 1:08:11
  is awesome. You know, they came up with a way to use Robin
• 1:08:15
  Williams suicide since he was a major character, and you know, many drivers
• 1:08:19
  back and uh, you know the the let's say for tend there were critics.
• 1:08:23
  They were saying, this thing might even be better than the original,
• 1:08:27
  right, And but we don't live in that world in politics anymore, especially
• 1:08:30
  not in the Trump world, because there are no critics, there's no Cisco
• 1:08:34
  and Ebert anymore for people to trust enough to be told in the last few
• 1:08:41
  weeks before opening weekend, Hey, Top Gun two sucks, Goodwill Hunting two
• 1:08:45
  is awesome. Go see Goodwill Hunting two. Those people don't exist period.
• 1:08:53
  I mean, Rush Limbaugh is dead. You know, William F. Buckley
• 1:08:57
  is dead. You know, George Will no longer has any credibility. George
• 1:09:00
  Will, by the way, bizarrely predicted that neither Trump nor de Santis will
• 1:09:05
  be the nominee, which is just absurd, And I mean it's just hilarious
• 1:09:10
  to me that George Will could make that prediction in the mainstream outlet like the
• 1:09:15
  Washington Post with a straight face. But there's nobody who is trusted anymore on
• 1:09:19
  the right who would be given the credibility for people to believe that the top
• 1:09:27
  Top Gun two movie sucks and the good Will Hunting two movie is awesome.
• 1:09:32
  And to the extent that the critics do exist, you know, there's hundreds
• 1:09:36
  of them. They're all deeply invested in the production of Top Gun two.
• 1:09:43
  There are no critics or commentators or hardly any who are vehemently in favor of
• 1:09:49
  Good Will Hunting two, and those that are are tepid about it at best
• 1:09:54
  because they're so afraid of pissing off the Top Gun two fans. So we
• 1:10:00
  already know that the Top Gun two production was able to make it to the
• 1:10:04
  finish line. The movie's gonna be there. It's gonna give people what they
• 1:10:09
  want, you know, the planes flying around and a crappy script, but
• 1:10:14
  doesn't matter because Tom Cruise will be the hero and you're gonna feel good about
• 1:10:16
  America, make America great again. So we already know what Top Gun two
• 1:10:21
  is gonna bring. And now instead of a scenario where there's a narrative that,
• 1:10:27
  boy, you really got to see this Good Will Hunting two movie,
• 1:10:30
  there's a narrative of you know, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck just worn't up
• 1:10:34
  to it. They you know, it's just not working out. There's there's
• 1:10:39
  I was fighting on the set, and you know they're firing people, and
• 1:10:44
  you know, the people that are funding the movie, you are getting nervous
• 1:10:46
  about it. So there's no buzz surrounding what a great movie Goodwill Hunting two
• 1:10:53
  is gonna be, which further facilitates the commentators siding with Top Gun two realize
• 1:11:00
  I've gone down a very deep hole on this analogy, and I hope it's
• 1:11:02
  worked for you. But the reality is, we would know six months in
• 1:11:08
  advance that Top Gun two was going to kick the shit out of Goodwill Hunting
• 1:11:13
  too, for all the reasons I just stated, because there's no scenario to
• 1:11:18
  stop it. What's gonna happen. We're gonna find out that Tom Cruise was
• 1:11:23
  instrumental in Scientology killing the wife of Scientology's leader. By the way, she's
• 1:11:29
  been missing for many, many years under highly suspicious circumstances. You know what,
• 1:11:34
  theoretically that could happen. Guess what if that happens to Trump? No
• 1:11:39
  one's gonna give a shit because we already know much like like Tom Cruise,
• 1:11:44
  that he's teflon. He's been impeached twice as president, he's been indicted twice
• 1:11:49
  in his post presidency. He'll probably be indicted a third time in his post
• 1:11:55
  presidency, and no one cares so. So again, I hope that analogy
• 1:12:01
  makes some sense, but it's important to me because I get so much criticism
• 1:12:08
  for jumping the gun, and I'm actually, like, guys, I think
• 1:12:13
  we're actually way past the point where this thing cannon should be called the only
• 1:12:17
  reason why I haven't done it yet is I don't even know why. I
• 1:12:21
  mean, I'm just trying to hold on to some hope here that some miracles
• 1:12:27
  going to happen, and other than death or imprisonment, it's really difficult to
• 1:12:30
  see what the scenario is that turns this around for the Desantist campaign. And
• 1:12:36
  if you don't like my top gun to goodwill hunting to analogy, let me
• 1:12:43
  give you some math, because I don't think people have fully understood the math
• 1:12:46
  on what it would take for De Santis to come back against Trump right now,
• 1:12:50
  and partially because people are terrible at math. But let's pretend that for
• 1:12:58
  the sake of argument, that Trump is leading to Santis by about twenty five
• 1:13:03
  percent all right in the in the Key States. So in order for De
• 1:13:09
  Santis to turn that around and take even a very small lead, he would
• 1:13:15
  need to flip. He would need to flip about twenty five percent of Trump
• 1:13:23
  supporters to De Santis. Now you're saying win him at john twenty five percent?
• 1:13:28
  What do you mean by that? Well, let's do the basic math.
• 1:13:30
  Okay, Let's say to make the numbers easier, let's say it's twenty
• 1:13:34
  four percent, that's Trump's beating to Santis. By that means you need to
• 1:13:39
  take twelve percentage points and you need to flip it from Trump to the Santis.
• 1:13:45
  So if you took twelve percent of the voters and they flip their support
• 1:13:47
  from Trump to the Santis, that would be equivalent to twenty four percent.
• 1:13:51
  So now it would be tied. And by the way, that would be
• 1:13:55
  a herculean task, given the nature of Trump supporters, and given the nature
• 1:13:59
  that they're so many other options for Trump supporters who might decide to salar on
• 1:14:02
  him to go to other places. But I'm going to pretend under the best
• 1:14:06
  site case scenario that that's possible that you would somehow get twelve percent of the
• 1:14:13
  voters that who are Trump supporters to flip to the Santis. Well, twelve
• 1:14:17
  percent is about twenty five percent of Trump's support, right, He's got about
• 1:14:25
  forty eight percent, and that's actually being optimistic of Republican primary voters. So
• 1:14:30
  of that twelve percent of the Republican primary voters is twenty five percent of Trump's
• 1:14:36
  overall total. So you need to flip twenty five percent of Trump supporters too,
• 1:14:44
  to Santis, not to other candidates to de Santis. And if you
• 1:14:50
  look at it from a time standpoint, that means one percent a week,
• 1:14:57
  one percent of Trump supporters me to flip to the Santis every single week for
• 1:15:05
  twenty five weeks, just to get the race basically tied or maybe give the
• 1:15:13
  Santis a little bit of an edge. Now, I will acknowledge that if
• 1:15:17
  we got close to that appening, the narrative of Trump collapsing and the Santis
• 1:15:23
  gaining is about the only thing the Santis has going for him. The only
• 1:15:26
  good thing that's occurred over the last several months is that it's gotten so bad
• 1:15:30
  for the Santis and so good for Trump that if it ever flips in the
• 1:15:33
  other direction, if it over starts to go in the other direction, that
• 1:15:36
  the momentum narrative could be very powerful. That Trump could be seen as damaged
• 1:15:42
  or dead in the water and the Santis is surging. And then you know,
• 1:15:45
  theoretically you got a chance. Then you got a chance. But you
• 1:15:48
  gotta get that going, You have to get it started. And while these
• 1:15:53
  numbers I'm using are simplistic, they're not far off. How the hell are
• 1:15:58
  you gonna every single week flip one percent of Trump's very ardent support directly to
• 1:16:06
  you and not to somebody else, because if they flip to somebody else,
• 1:16:12
  it doesn't do you that much good. In fact, it could actually hurt
• 1:16:15
  you if they all go to the same person. And by the way,
• 1:16:19
  this really bugs me because I have so many people tell me, but John,
• 1:16:25
  look what happened in the two thousand and eight Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton
• 1:16:30
  and Barack Obama. In this analogy, Trump is Hillary and the Santis is
• 1:16:36
  Obama. And this one drives me crazy because I did a movie about that
• 1:16:41
  entire campaign called Media Malpractice. Obama got elected, So I know more about
• 1:16:45
  the two thousand and eight election than just about anybody, And there are so
• 1:16:48
  many problems without analogy. Now, if the media was fair, desantists post
• 1:16:54
  COVID would be treated as an Obama like savior. But we know that the
• 1:16:57
  news media is not going to do that, one because he's a con servative
• 1:17:00
  and two because they're deeply, deeply, deeply invested in not having been wrong
• 1:17:03
  when it came to the COVID response. So that's never going to happen.
• 1:17:06
  In fact, the opposite is going to occur, and I've predicted that from
• 1:17:10
  the beginning, and that, of course has been one hundred percent true.
• 1:17:13
  But the biggest problem with that analogy is that, really what happened in the
• 1:17:18
  most simplistic way possible between Hillary and Obama is that writing a hurricane wave of
• 1:17:26
  positive media attention, Obama flipped the Black vote from Hillary to him. Once
• 1:17:34
  black voters saw that Obama was for real and ironically enough, the Jeremia or
• 1:17:41
  Right story, which should have ended his campaign, the Jeremiah Right Reverend Jeremiah
• 1:17:45
  Wright story, and effectively clinched him the nomination because Black people not only saw
• 1:17:50
  him as viable and worthy of their support, but now he was an authentic
• 1:17:56
  black person instead of this you know, highly educated, half white, half
• 1:18:01
  black person that didn't seem to have anything in common with their experience. So
• 1:18:08
  while there were obviously liberal whites who were gravitating towards Obama, the voting block
• 1:18:14
  that flipped were Black voters, and that happened almost instantaneously. It happened literally
• 1:18:20
  almost overnight. There are no voting blocks in GOP politics, there's none.
• 1:18:29
  You literally have to flip one voter at a time, which makes this catching
• 1:18:38
  up scenario that much more difficult that you know, getting one percent of Trump
• 1:18:44
  voters to flip a week is you got to do it one by one because
• 1:18:50
  there are no voting blocks none. There used to be a few voting blocks
• 1:18:57
  within the Republican Party, but there's nothing remotely close to, for instance,
• 1:19:02
  the analogy of black voters. When it comes to Democratic primaries, Black voters,
• 1:19:09
  for whatever reason, tend to vote monolithically. There is no comparison to
• 1:19:14
  that on the Republican side. So this is an uphill against the wind on
• 1:19:20
  Ice type of battle where, especially when the momentum is against you and you
• 1:19:27
  know who knows you might lose your fundraisers because they think that you know,
• 1:19:31
  losing is inevitable, that becomes almost impossible. And so my main point here
• 1:19:38
  is I realize people hate the pessimism, especially when this early. I want
• 1:19:42
  to explain why it is I feel so strongly about this, why I have
• 1:19:46
  been sounding the alarm bells, and frankly, I think at this point I
• 1:19:51
  ought to have some credibility because I've been navigating this minefield for you better than
• 1:19:58
  anybody else that I'm aware of. I've predicted every single step of this whole
• 1:20:01
  thing. And that's another part of this that drives me crazy. I love
• 1:20:04
  this when people who follow me on Twitter they'll say, well, John is
• 1:20:10
  almost always right, Zike is almost always right. But on this one thing
• 1:20:15
  that I'm deeply emotionally invested in, he's wrong. I have no reason for
• 1:20:19
  why he's wrong, but he's just wrong. And I get that all the
• 1:20:24
  time. And of course, once it turns out I'm right, I don't
• 1:20:26
  even get an apology. All I get is the hatred and the you know,
• 1:20:30
  I'll turn you off your podcast, or I'll turn it off, I'll
• 1:20:33
  stop following you on Twitter. Because people just don't want to hear that.
• 1:20:36
  They don't want to hear the truth, especially when it's negative. They would
• 1:20:41
  rather hear something that makes them feel good. And you know, we're at
• 1:20:45
  a place right now with the first debate, you know, just over a
• 1:20:49
  month away. It's very unlikely Trump is going to participate in that. Based
• 1:20:55
  upon what happened with the Blaze event, It's very unlikely he's going to get
• 1:20:58
  any real blowback for that. And I think what we're going to see is
• 1:21:01
  that even the supporters of the Santis in the right wing media, people like
• 1:21:05
  Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh or Dave Rubin or Steve Dace, or even to
• 1:21:11
  a lesser extent, Jesse Kelly or Tomy larn has been a Trump supporter.
• 1:21:15
  People who have been kind of De Santi's curious, they're gonna start to pull
• 1:21:19
  back. They're gonna start to pull back, and they will abandon to Santis
• 1:21:24
  saying that, well, his campaign just wasn't ready for prime time. Blame
• 1:21:28
  it on the campaign. That's going to be the narrative that will give commentators
• 1:21:32
  like that, who have a lot to lose and have a large customer base,
• 1:21:36
  that's going to give them an excuse for getting back in line with the
• 1:21:43
  Trump campaign, getting back into the Trump fold before it is too late where
• 1:21:46
  they have to defend Trump for an entire year one he's the nominee, very
• 1:21:51
  likely against Joe Biden. So that's my prediction for the next step in this.
• 1:21:57
  I think you're going to see these De Santis supporters, most of them
• 1:22:01
  are soft De Santa's supporters in the right wing media, start to become silent
• 1:22:08
  and maybe even as if this continues, go in the other direction. I
• 1:22:12
  hope I'm wrong about that, but that seems to be the cycle that we're
• 1:22:15
  in again. I'm not officially calling this. I don't know when I'm going
• 1:22:17
  to do that. Again, It's not a big deal if I do,
• 1:22:19
  but it will impact the way this podcast moves forward, especially when it comes
• 1:22:25
  to political issues. But I did want to address this issue of why we
• 1:22:30
  are very very deep into this whole situation. And then this is not a
• 1:22:34
  situation where it is too early to make in conclusions or to panic. It
• 1:22:40
  might actually be too late. Really, honestly, it may actually be so
• 1:22:45
  late that it's ridiculous. When this is all over, people are going to
• 1:22:48
  go back and go, oh my god, this thing was over back in
• 1:22:51
  March and April when we reacted to the indictments, that we did that in
• 1:22:58
  the way that we did in a very very pro Trump fashion, and once
• 1:23:00
  Trump broke containment and got a big lead, there was no way to combat
• 1:23:05
  that there was no way to fight back, and that the de Santis campaign
• 1:23:09
  simply got overwhelmed, and that they got into a situation that was very very
• 1:23:13
  different than what they had anticipated when they clearly decided they were going to run
• 1:23:17
  after the big victory in the twenty twenty two midterms. That the circumstances of
• 1:23:24
  November twenty twenty two were very, very different than March, April or May
• 1:23:30
  of twenty twenty three for reasons that really have nothing to do with Trump's ability
• 1:23:35
  to win the general election, or being a good candidate, or Santa's not
• 1:23:39
  being a good candidate. It's just circumstances the way they played out, and
• 1:23:43
  maybe we're always inevitable. There are several other stories I want to deal with
• 1:23:46
  before the end of this podcast. One of them kind of relates to the
• 1:23:51
  media agenda against RHNDA, Santas and Florida. I mean, we see all
• 1:23:57
  sorts of stories about how horrible Florida is, but this one I wanted to
• 1:24:02
  share in particular because it wasn't just about Florida. It was about probably the
• 1:24:06
  most conservative states in the United States. And it's because of a study released
• 1:24:13
  by CNBC. CNBC released their annual report of the ten worst states to live
• 1:24:19
  and work in. The ten Worst States. This is CNBC, obviously owned
• 1:24:25
  by NBC. They're the financial news network for NBC, and here are the
• 1:24:30
  ten worst states to live and work in according to CNBC. Number one Texas,
• 1:24:41
  two Oklahoma, three Louisiana. Stop me if you are getting a trend
• 1:24:45
  here for South Carolina, five, Alabama, six, Missouri, seven,
• 1:24:51
  Indiana, eight Tennessee, nine Arkansas, and number ten Florida. Now all
• 1:25:00
  of those are red states, very red states, some of them at all
• 1:25:04
  of them on presidential politics or Trump states, and it's just an amazing coincidence
• 1:25:10
  that those are the ten worst states to live and work in. Well,
• 1:25:14
  what were the criteria? Well, the report measures quality of light life issues
• 1:25:18
  including crime, healthcare, children in healthcare, as well as get this inclusive
• 1:25:26
  policies on discrimination and reproductive rights. So basically for all densive purposes, CNBC
• 1:25:35
  compiled a list that was based on the idea of which states liberals would least
• 1:25:43
  like to live in based upon their own bizarre world criteria. Of course,
• 1:25:48
  if you really wanted to find out which were the worst states to live and
• 1:25:54
  work in, wouldn't you just ask people in those states their level of satisfaction
• 1:26:00
  with regard to life and work, Or wouldn't you just do a story on
• 1:26:04
  the migration patterns, which are rather dramatic post COVID as to which states people
• 1:26:11
  are moving to and which people people are moving from. By the way,
• 1:26:15
  Jennifer Rubin, former supposed conservative columnists to the Washington Post had to be corrected
• 1:26:20
  in a column she did attacking Florida, where she claimed absurdly and hilariously that
• 1:26:28
  more people had left Florida in recent years than had moved to Florida, which
• 1:26:32
  you have to be an imbecile to even think that's possible, but then to
• 1:26:36
  somehow get that past editors in the Washington Post and then forced the paper to
• 1:26:42
  retract it because it was exactly the opposite. She had the number in the
• 1:26:46
  exact wrong direction in her attempt to attack Florida and Rhnda Santis. Complete fail
• 1:26:54
  I mean, should be a fireable offense. But because you know she did
• 1:26:58
  it in the direction that was in face of her masters at the Washington Post,
• 1:27:01
  I'm sure she won't be fired, but it was unbelievably embarrassing. But
• 1:27:06
  here we have CNBC instead of you know, if they're going to do this,
• 1:27:11
  there are ways to do it, and I think it's an important question,
• 1:27:14
  but they clearly came up with a formula that would allow them to come
• 1:27:18
  up with the worst response responses for conservative states. I mean that if you
• 1:27:25
  if you build criteria based upon how woke a state is, wokenes is being
• 1:27:30
  good and you know, conservative being bad, especially when it comes to abortion
• 1:27:34
  and discrimination quote unquote discrimination issues. Of course, you're going to end up
• 1:27:39
  with a list that has nothing but red states, starting by tech with Texas
• 1:27:44
  and ending with Florida. So I found that to be hilarious. I do
• 1:27:47
  also want to mention a couple of stories involving around COVID. You know,
• 1:27:51
  I'm not a big fan of rfk Jr. I think that he is full
• 1:27:58
  of himself, and it's under Danibal growing up as a Kennedy when your father
• 1:28:01
  was Robert F. Kennedy who was assassinated, and your uncle was John F.
• 1:28:05
  Kennedy who was assassinated, and you know, obviously you know, the
• 1:28:10
  Kennedy's live in a completely different world than everybody else. And when you live
• 1:28:15
  in that world, I think you lose your sense of reality because you think
• 1:28:19
  automatically that everything that you think and say is important because you're a Kennedy.
• 1:28:25
  And I think that that leads to rfk Jr. Being a conspiracy theorist.
• 1:28:29
  He's a conspiracy theorist with regard to the assassinations. I dealt very deeply in
• 1:28:32
  episode seventy one about why he and many many other people are wrong, specifically
• 1:28:38
  about the jfk assassination. I think he's a conspiracy theorist when it comes to
• 1:28:43
  the vaccines. I mean, I am not someone who believed in vaccine mandates,
• 1:28:47
  but I think that he went too far with regard to the idea of
• 1:28:53
  the vaccines killing people. I also don't think that we've proven a connection between
• 1:28:58
  vaccines in general, and ought to. But then over the weekend there came
• 1:29:02
  out this statement which he's now claiming was off the record, which is ridiculous
• 1:29:05
  because it was clearly being videotaped, where he claimed that the COVID nineteen virus
• 1:29:13
  was designed specifically in a lab to save Jewish people and Chinese people and to
• 1:29:21
  target other groups. And look, I actually believe in the lab league theory,
• 1:29:30
  but I don't think there's any evidence or logic at all to suggest that
• 1:29:34
  it was designed or could have been designed. I mean, that's a very
• 1:29:38
  conspiratorial mindset. Could have been designed to make sure that Jewish people and Chinese
• 1:29:45
  people were saved from the virus were not vulnerable to the virus, but that
• 1:29:49
  other ethnic groups were specifically targeted. And he's getting some criticism for this,
• 1:29:57
  but it is very disturbing to me how much even people in the right have
• 1:30:01
  been enamored, have become enamored, like Joe Rogan, who I guess is
• 1:30:04
  now somewhat of a right wing figure, have become enamored with RFK Junior.
• 1:30:09
  And I think it's it's one of the many, many factors that has hurt
• 1:30:12
  to the Santist campaign, especially in New Hampshire, where the you know,
• 1:30:16
  the COVID contrarian energy which should be one hundred percent with Ronda Santis and against
• 1:30:21
  Donald Trump, is instead being focused on RFK Junior. Well, RFK Junior
• 1:30:27
  is a crackpot. That's the reality. He's a crack pot. And while
• 1:30:31
  you might agree with him on some things, he ain't going to be the
• 1:30:34
  Democratic nominee. And he is a distraction which helps Donald Trump and doesn't hurt
• 1:30:41
  Joe Biden in my opinion, hardly at all, especially when you know who
• 1:30:45
  are those people going to vote for in the general election. The anti vaccine
• 1:30:48
  people are going to vote for Donald Trump over Joe Biden. I find that
• 1:30:54
  hard to believe. Maybe I guess, but I mean, stranger things have
• 1:30:58
  happened. But the most important point of this is RFK Jr. Is not
• 1:31:02
  somebody that the right should be embracing. He's a nut, which unfortunately might
• 1:31:08
  be a qualification in this day at age to be a right wing hero.
• 1:31:13
  But that's another story for another day. Speaking of COVID, there was a
• 1:31:16
  story out of Scotland which is really remarkable that ought to be a massive,
• 1:31:21
  massive story, but of course we don't live in that world where there this
• 1:31:27
  is a country that was about the had about the most stringent COVID lockdowns there
• 1:31:33
  were, specifically within the United Kingdom, and they have facilitated the study that
• 1:31:41
  appears as if it's going to conclude that everything we did during COVID was basically
• 1:31:46
  bullshit. This is a story from the Daily Express. The Scottish Daily Express
• 1:31:53
  headline no evidence to support COVID lockdowns in Scotland during pandemics, says new report.
• 1:32:00
  Nicolas Sturgeon, the Leader of Scotland, introduced a raft of stringent restrictions
• 1:32:05
  in Scotland, but a new report for the Scottish COVID Inquiry suggest there was
• 1:32:12
  insufficient or no evidence to suggest that lockdown, social distancing and face masks had
• 1:32:18
  any impact on slowing the spread of the virus. Their article begins A new
• 1:32:25
  report has shed new light on the impact of Nicolas sturgeons intrusive COVID lockdown restrictions
• 1:32:30
  and revealed there is no evidence to say they were effective. Scots were subject
• 1:32:36
  to the strictest restrictions in the UK during the pandemic. The Scottish government's handling
• 1:32:42
  of coronavirus is going to be scrutinized by the Scottish COVID Inquiry, which commissioned
• 1:32:47
  an independent report on the epidemiology of the virus. The author of this report
• 1:32:56
  has said there was quote insufficient evidence or alternatively no evidence to support the use
• 1:33:02
  of face masks outside healthcare settings, lockdowns, social distancing and test trace and
• 1:33:12
  isolation measures in twenty twenty. He adds, quote the evidence base has not
• 1:33:17
  changed materially in the intervening three years. So basically, here's the bottom line
• 1:33:25
  what this report, and my gosh, it looks like somebody in Scotland is
• 1:33:30
  looking for, if not accountability, at least finding out what the hell really
• 1:33:34
  did and did not happen and should have happened and should have not happened in
• 1:33:39
  a serious way. That there was no evidence going in to the restrictions that
• 1:33:45
  they were going to work. This was always known. This was not something
• 1:33:48
  that had never been studied before. The experts quote unquote all new that there's
• 1:33:54
  nothing much you can do in a viral pandemic. But politically, for various
• 1:34:00
  reasons that I've gone through many many times before, both from a personal self
• 1:34:04
  interstandpoint as well as a liberal political incentive structure, they all embraced these bullcrap
• 1:34:13
  restrictions, so there was no evidence going in. And then most importantly,
• 1:34:18
  now we have three years of real world, unprecedented data that we never had
• 1:34:25
  before. And what's that data show. Well, shockingly, the experts were
• 1:34:30
  right before they changed their minds for political reasons. None of this stuff did
• 1:34:34
  anything, especially face masks did absolutely nothing. And of course, you know,
• 1:34:42
  the rest of the world media ignores this, The American media ignores this.
• 1:34:45
  I mean that ought to be his story. Then this is not isolated.
• 1:34:48
  This just happens to be a very dramatic example in a country that you
• 1:34:54
  know, America ought to at least have some interested in respect for it's part
• 1:34:58
  of the UK, and they had most stringent COVID restrictions within the UK.
• 1:35:02
  Instead, we get crickets, mostly here in the United States, because the
• 1:35:08
  news media is completely and totally invested in their fairy tale, and with Ron
• 1:35:13
  de Santasis campaign seemingly not heading for the Republican nomination, it looks like to
• 1:35:17
  me they're going to be able to get away with that into perpetuity. I've
• 1:35:23
  often made the connection between what happened with COVID and what the left is trying
• 1:35:27
  to do with global warming and climate change. I at least need to mention
• 1:35:30
  all these stories over the past week about the heat waves in America and how
• 1:35:36
  Death Valley might set an all time record and it's incredibly hot in Arizona,
• 1:35:42
  and I'm just like, this is unbelievable to me, how incredibly easily the
• 1:35:47
  left wing media has gotten away with shifting from global warming to climate change,
• 1:35:55
  claiming that cold weather is weather and not climate, but the hot weather in
• 1:36:00
  July that's climate change. I mean, the hypocrisy is everywhere. I mean,
• 1:36:05
  at least be remotely fair about this, at least be remotely consistent.
• 1:36:12
  But they're not. So if it's hot in the summer, that's climate.
• 1:36:16
  If it's cold in the winter, like it was here in California, the
• 1:36:19
  coldest, wettest, snowiest winter in modern history. Then that's not to be
• 1:36:26
  discussed because that's a that's an anomaly, that's a fluke. That's just weather
• 1:36:30
  being weather, even though it happened for six months. Here we have a
• 1:36:35
  few days of really hot weather in July, and somehow this fits with the
• 1:36:43
  global warming climate change narrative. And of course they always put into there the
• 1:36:47
  forest fires which now are perking back up due to arson out of Canada,
• 1:36:54
  and that's smoke coming in to the United States. How the hell arson is
• 1:36:58
  part of global warming climate change? I have no idea, But none of
• 1:37:00
  this matters because the news media doesn't care about the truth. It's all about
• 1:37:04
  the agenda. And this is very very simple for them, and anything that
• 1:37:09
  seemingly facilitates their view. Uhha. We see that through the prism of global
• 1:37:15
  warming climate change, so it must be true. If it doesn't fit,
• 1:37:18
  we just ignore it. It's a fluke, it's a it's an anomaly.
• 1:37:23
  And then of course what this creates is the perception among the masses that the
• 1:37:27
  only time they hear about whether is when it fits with the global warming climate
• 1:37:32
  change narrative. If it doesn't, it doesn't get reported. Well, Gee,
• 1:37:36
  there's a shocker that over time, people who are now being taught in
• 1:37:42
  schools that this is real. They must think it's real because oh my gosh,
• 1:37:45
  it's really hot in July. Well, no shit, Shorelock, It's
• 1:37:50
  always been this hot in July. And occasionally you're going to have records.
• 1:37:56
  We only have a very small database of records, so there's always going to
• 1:38:00
  be records. Statistically, I mean, if you only have one hundred years
• 1:38:03
  or so of records, right, think about this, and you have three
• 1:38:06
  hundred and sixty five days. Just from a statistical standpoint, you're gonna set
• 1:38:12
  many records every single year, just just basic math, which people in general
• 1:38:18
  and the media in particular are very very bad at doing. So I at
• 1:38:23
  least had to mention that, you know, a lot of people try to
• 1:38:28
  claim that my pessimism about the future is overdone because you know, over time,
• 1:38:35
  when people get older, they will become more conservative. You know,
• 1:38:39
  I claim that if Biden wins this election, we're gonna have twelve years of
• 1:38:43
  Biden Harris rule, largely because the demographics are going to continue to shift in
• 1:38:47
  the Democrat's favor. More Republicans will continue to die, and more socialists will
• 1:38:53
  continue to be eligible to vote, being churned out by our Marxist educational system.
• 1:38:59
  And people say to me, but John, over time, people will
• 1:39:01
  inevitably become more conservative, and I say, no, no, no,
• 1:39:04
  no. That has always been historically the case. But that was based on
• 1:39:10
  a completely different set of cultural values, that was based in a completely different
• 1:39:15
  way in which we raised our kids, that was based upon a completely different
• 1:39:19
  educational system that wasn't churning out complete and total Marxists. And there's a poll
• 1:39:28
  out that I think kind of goes to my argument here that we really are
• 1:39:31
  screwed. With regard to the younger generations, there was a poll about mis
• 1:39:36
  gendering. Misgendering is, you know, claiming that someone is a different gender
• 1:39:42
  than they want to be called. And among millennials, Now, millennials are
• 1:39:46
  not even the youngest generation, you know, millennial obviously people born the era
• 1:39:53
  of the two early two thousands, So these are people that are just coming
• 1:39:57
  of age now, you know, college or just beyond college. They asked
• 1:40:00
  millennials about whether or not it should be a crime to misgender, and a
• 1:40:08
  plurality of the respondents of millennials said that yes, misgendering should be illegal.
• 1:40:16
  Now it wasn't fifty percent. I think it was thirty eight percent, but
• 1:40:20
  that was the response that got the strongest response. Yes, it should be
• 1:40:26
  illegal a crime to misgender somebody, which final way could happen by accident incredibly
• 1:40:31
  easily. Not to mention, it's an insane concept on its face, but
• 1:40:39
  more millennials believe that it should be illegal. I'm sorry that yes, that
• 1:40:44
  it should be illegal to misgender somebody. Then believe that it shouldn't be illegal,
• 1:40:48
  or who are uncertain? So barely over a third said that it should
• 1:40:57
  not be a crime. That's the most shocked part of this. Forget about
• 1:41:00
  you know, undecided and who should it be? Who thinks it should be
• 1:41:04
  a crime. Barely over a third of millennials believe that it should not be
• 1:41:10
  a crime. Are willing to tell a pholster it should not be a crime
• 1:41:14
  to miss gender someone. A crime, A criminal offense, not just wrong,
• 1:41:18
  a criminal offense. I mean, that's that is just incredibly daunting and
• 1:41:25
  very very scary, an indication of just how utterly screwed we are with regard
• 1:41:29
  to the younger generations. I also want to mention, because this goes back
• 1:41:35
  to a story we talked about in the last episode, which was about the
• 1:41:40
  Northwestern controversy, Northwestern University and college football and the firing of Pat Fitzgerald,
• 1:41:47
  and how bogus that media firestorm was, how similar it was to the Penn
• 1:41:54
  State case. Go back to episode seventy two if you're interested in hearing my
• 1:41:58
  thoughts on that. I have to mention because it was so similar to pend
• 1:42:02
  State and so similar to what happened with the Ohio State wrestling and Michigan football
• 1:42:08
  and Michigan State gymnastics. But that was legitimate because Larry Nasser was guilty as
• 1:42:13
  hell. But all these Big ten schools have been embroiled in these quote unquote
• 1:42:18
  sex abuse scandals, and they've all paid out huge money to the accusers in
• 1:42:26
  these cases, most of the time the accusers being completely anonymous. Well,
• 1:42:30
  a sportswriter friend of mine, I think he's a former sports writer now sent
• 1:42:34
  me a post that he saw on Facebook, and the account that posted this
• 1:42:42
  was Northwestern University hazing claims it's a sponsor to a sponsored post, and under
• 1:42:49
  the heading on Facebook was the following message. Any Northwestern football player who was
• 1:42:57
  hazed may be eligible for significant compensation. Our experienced attorneys are here to listen
• 1:43:04
  and to help. Click learn more for a confidential, free case review.
• 1:43:12
  So this is really what it's all about. I mean, immediately the attorneys
• 1:43:15
  smell blood. A big time academic institution has admitted guilt by firing a revered
• 1:43:23
  coach and it's in the realm of sex abuse, and they know that these
• 1:43:27
  schools are going to cry uncle. They're not going to vent any of the
• 1:43:30
  claims. This is going to be easy money. And it's incredibly easy to
• 1:43:35
  claim hazing. It's almost impossible to disprove. All you have to do is
• 1:43:39
  prove you're on the team, and you can claim hazing and you're going to
• 1:43:43
  get a boatload of money. And it's just remarkable to me that the news
• 1:43:46
  media is so stupid, and the sports media in particular so stupid that they
• 1:43:51
  think, Wow, how horrible are things in the Big Ten? That Penn
• 1:43:59
  State did this, and Ohio State did this, and Michigan did this,
• 1:44:03
  and Michigan State did this, and even Northwestern, the academic jewel, they
• 1:44:09
  all covered up this horrible sex abuse. Yeah, there's another narrative. Did
• 1:44:17
  you never think, you morons, that there was a domino effect that one
• 1:44:23
  led to the other. Again, I'm going to put Michigan State in its
• 1:44:26
  separate category because Larry Nasser was actually guilty and you know, and so therefore
• 1:44:32
  that's legitimate. But I would even argue that the money that was paid out
• 1:44:38
  by Michigan State was in large part because of the pressure that was created by
• 1:44:43
  Penn State that one each of these cases begets the next. And if you've
• 1:44:48
  listened to my other podcast with Lizabeban Mike Agavino, with the benefit of hindsight,
• 1:44:53
  you know, the Penn State case was completely in totally bogus. So
• 1:44:57
  it was a bogus case where Penn State paid out one hundred and thirty million
• 1:45:00
  dollars for nothing, just simply to forward a narrative that bizarrely helped their self
• 1:45:05
  interest and got the story to go away that then facilitates I believe the Ohio
• 1:45:12
  State wrestling case, which I've also investigated deeply and I'm convinced is much due
• 1:45:15
  about very little or nothing and certainly had no culpability on the part of Ohio
• 1:45:20
  State. But those wrestlers saw what happened at Penn State, and they realized
• 1:45:25
  that this was potentially money manna from heaven. So and they get the media
• 1:45:30
  to go on their side. They used Jim Jordan, the Trump congress person,
• 1:45:34
  to get media coverage, and they get Ohio State to cry uncle.
• 1:45:38
  Then people at Michigan, Ohio State's rival, doesn't do exactly the same thing,
• 1:45:45
  and they get a bunch of money they could help by Sports illustrated with
• 1:45:48
  what I think was a bullcrap article with a crazy narrative that made no damn
• 1:45:53
  sense, somehow implicating boschem Bleckler in that. And again there was the Michigan
• 1:45:58
  State case involving Lara Nasser as well. But now you add in Northwestern,
• 1:46:02
  and what's clearly going to drive that is that the people at Northwestern have seen
• 1:46:08
  what's happened at all the other schools in the Big ten. One begets another,
• 1:46:11
  begets another, begets another because everyone knows there's free money and that there's
• 1:46:15
  no scrutiny, there's no vetting that that's incredibly easy for this to happen,
• 1:46:19
  and you get to stay anonymous, which is the most corrupt element of the
• 1:46:24
  whole thing. So it's just further evidence that this is this whole issue is
• 1:46:30
  ripe with corruption and it is incredibly easy for a scam to be perpetrated,
• 1:46:35
  and I believe that that's effectively what has happened in the Northwestern case. Was
• 1:46:40
  there some truth to the hazing, probably so. My guess is it was
• 1:46:44
  greatly exaggerated, and that Fitzgerald certainly should not have been fired over it.
• 1:46:48
  He was originally suspended for two weeks. That was more than enough punishment,
• 1:46:53
  but then the media firestorm came, and then they came up with these absurd
• 1:46:57
  allegations of racism. Then he had to go. And then, by the
• 1:47:00
  way, Northwestern fired their baseball coach had only been there a year right after
• 1:47:04
  that because of allegations of bullying. Who knows. I don't know how much
• 1:47:10
  money the baseball program will have to pay out, but this is the way
• 1:47:13
  it works now. These young people have figured out the game. They have
• 1:47:16
  figured out the buttons to push, whether it's for money or just retribution,
• 1:47:21
  or to get rid of a coach they don't like who maybe didn't give them
• 1:47:24
  the playing time they deserved, or they weren't a success and they want someone
• 1:47:28
  to blame. They have figured out how to manipulate woke institutions because it's incredibly
• 1:47:32
  easy to know exactly what the woke institutions and the media that enables them is
• 1:47:39
  going to promote and accept as a narrative. And it's incredibly easy to target
• 1:47:44
  somebody, especially if they happen to be a heterosexual, white male, as
• 1:47:46
  in the case of the baseball coach in Northwestern and the football coach at Northwestern,
• 1:47:51
  because in the academic woke environment, those people have no protections none.
• 1:47:57
  If you get hit with a woke allegation at woke institution, you're done.
• 1:48:01
  The only place you're going to survive it as if you're in the Southeastern Conference
• 1:48:05
  in you're a place like Georgia or Alabama who really care about football and are
• 1:48:11
  going to say, go screw yourself, come back when you get some real
• 1:48:13
  evidence, and we're going to fight to protect our own people. But that's
• 1:48:16
  not what happens in the Big Ten, and that's not what happened at Northwestern.
• 1:48:21
  So that'll do it for this episode of the Death of Journalism. In
• 1:48:25
  episode number seventy four, I want to make sure you're aware that we're going
• 1:48:29
  to interview my good friend Cyrus Narasta, who's a major Hollywood screenwriter and a
• 1:48:34
  director, about a variety of issues, including a sound of freedom. I
• 1:48:39
  may also review some of your questions that you've provided to me about episode number
• 1:48:44
  seventy one, which was mostly about my alternative view of the Kennedy assassination,
• 1:48:50
  where I strongly believe that Lee Harvey os Wild acted alone, but that the
• 1:48:55
  Warrant Commission got it incorrect with regard to the logistics. So if you haven't
• 1:49:00
  listened to that yet, I hearge you to do so because it's gotten a
• 1:49:01
  lot of reaction online. That's most of episode number seventy one, and I'll
• 1:49:06
  answer some of your questions in episode seventy four, which will come out on
• 1:49:11
  Thursday morning. Until then, please remember to subscribe, rate and review and
• 1:49:14
  share this podcast with others. If you share it on social media, please
• 1:49:16
  tag me and I'll share your post as well on Twitter and Facebook. Until
• 1:49:20
  next time, thanks so much for listening. My name is John Zigler and
• 1:49:25
  this is the Depth of Journalism podcast.