Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy Seven: Climate Change is the New COVID

Transcript

Episode Seventy Seven: Climate Change is the New COVID · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome the episode number seventy seven of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Ziggler. I am your host on today's show. Trump gets charged
• 0:07
  again and allegedly awaits even more indictments. Black Republicans get willingly used by the
• 0:13
  media to make the Santists look bad. Congress pretends that we might have space
• 0:19
  aliens and their spacecraft, and more evidence the Left wants to repeat COVID lockdowns
• 0:25
  with climate hysteria. I'm known as the Dutch Digital Marketing Man. I'm a
• 0:30
  digital advertising SEO and EMO marketing specialist that also happens to be a big fan
• 0:36
  of John Ziggler and the Death of Journalism. Do you need help preaching your
• 0:40
  target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging and confaded message in
• 0:45
  the best channels for your business. Please visit my website, the Dutch Digital
• 0:49
  marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell your story. The website
• 0:55
  is the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. If you want to grow your
• 0:59
  bis, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. And
• 1:04
  hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. We begin episode number seventy seven with
• 1:08
  some programming notes First of all, apologies for this episode being out a little
• 1:12
  bit later than normal. Also because of travel considerations, this will likely be
• 1:19
  the only episode of this week. We should be back on schedule our normal
• 1:25
  Tuesday and Thursday morning release by next Thursday, so there will be about a
• 1:30
  week lull here in the podcast, but that should be the last time this
• 1:34
  happens into the foreseeable future, so we appreciate your patience and understanding. A
• 1:41
  lot has happened since episode number seventy six. Our normal taping schedule is Monday
• 1:47
  and Wednesday morning, and unfortunately, last Wednesday was a very big newsday,
• 1:53
  and I don't think cataclysmic, but lots of things that I would have liked
• 1:56
  to have talked about in the last episode, but we had our taped it.
• 2:00
  So I'm going to get to some of that in this episode, episode
• 2:04
  number seventy seven. We'll begin with this never ending weight for the next Trump
• 2:10
  indictment. There have been numerous rumors and reports that indictments were imminent on both
• 2:19
  the January sixth investigation as well as the Georgia election interference investigation. It's taking
• 2:25
  a scorecard now these days to keep track of all the Trump indictments, which
• 2:31
  stopped me. If you've heard this before, I think actually plays into Trump's
• 2:36
  favor here because it's just too much and everyone just loses any sense of proportion,
• 2:44
  or they get desensitized to it, they don't worry about the details,
• 2:47
  and they just discard the whole thing, which was always my fear. And
• 2:52
  there's polling data to indicate that at least half of the Republican voting population does
• 2:57
  not care about these issues at all. And I see no evidence, at
• 3:01
  least not yet, that there will be a cumulative effect, an effect of
• 3:06
  erosion. At a certain point, there's just going to be too much because,
• 3:09
  as I've said previously the Piers Zip Trump has been inoculated that he has
• 3:15
  immunity towards all of this because there's just so much going on. Well,
• 3:20
  as of this taping Tuesday morning, he has not yet been indicted on January
• 3:23
  sixth or the Georgia election interference investigations. However, since episode number seventy six,
• 3:30
  he has been indicted again. There were a couple of charges that were
• 3:36
  added to the classified documents case, including charges of obstruction of justice basically involving
• 3:44
  a cover up of the classified documents situation, and the Wall Street Journal,
• 3:52
  for some reason, I don't know, this felt a little contrived to me,
• 3:54
  decided that these new charges in the classified documents case, this, this
• 4:00
  was it, This was a bridge too far, This was finally enough is
• 4:02
  enough, and they called on the Republican Party to bail on Donald Trump's candidacy.
• 4:10
  Now, there was a day and age where the Wall Street Journal editorial
• 4:13
  board might have had enough cachet within the conservative media to start a firestorm of
• 4:18
  other significant figures saying similar things that did not happen. And especially since the
• 4:26
  Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch and Rubert Murdoch because of the firing
• 4:30
  of Tucker Carlson and other issues at Fox News Channel, has basically lost any
• 4:35
  Street cred within the MAGA world. I don't think it's going to have any
• 4:40
  impact at all. And there really was not that much coverage of what might
• 4:45
  have been a massive event in a previous Republican nominating process. I mean,
• 4:48
  I certainly can't recall a situation where the Wall Street Journal demanded that the clear
• 4:55
  front runner for the Republican race withdraw from the entire process, and certainly not
• 5:00
  because he was just indicted in a cover up of his use of classified documents.
• 5:08
  Here's how a liberal outlet reported on the Wall Street Journal's decision to call
• 5:14
  for Trump to drop out headline and ross story, Wall Street Journal urges GOP
• 5:18
  to dump Trump over his quote unquote truly stupid Mara Lago cover up. Reacting
• 5:26
  to the superseding indictment filed against Trump this past week that contains three new charges
• 5:30
  tied to obstruction of justice and illegally sharing classified documents, the opinion editors of
• 5:35
  the conservative Wall Street Journal urged Republican lawmakers to stop making excuses for him and
• 5:41
  to make sure he is not on the ticket in the twenty twenty for election.
• 5:46
  Citing overwhelming evidence that the former president had close aids who have now been
• 5:50
  indicted themselves as co conspirators attempt to erase sur balanced video sought by the FBI
• 5:58
  as Morlago resort, the editors declared that enough is enough and provided the laundry
• 6:02
  list of Trump transgressions that continue to cast a shadow over his third presidential run.
• 6:11
  As my wife said when I told her about these allegations of the maintenance
• 6:15
  man leading a cover up at Moral Lago and trying to get rid of the
• 6:18
  videotape. She very a dead pan said, Gee, that doesn't sound like
• 6:24
  Trump at all, which is funny because, of course, anybody who knows
• 6:29
  Trump at all, who realizes that he acts like a mob boss and thinks
• 6:33
  of himself as a mob boss, this is exactly what Trump would do.
• 6:36
  But is the finish with the article? Quote? This is from the Wall
• 6:39
  Street Journal itself. Does Donald Trump not understand the greatest truism in politics,
• 6:44
  ie that it's not the crime, it's the cover up? That screams from
• 6:48
  the page while reading the superseding indictment of mister Trump, who now stands accused
• 6:53
  of trying to delete incriminating Marlago security video unquote, the editors wrote, before
• 6:58
  bluntly adding quote, mister Trump is entitled to a defense and presumption of innocence.
• 7:02
  But this is a damaging allegation. Correct, this is a damaging allegation
• 7:10
  under normal circumstances. But unfortunately, these are not normal circumstances, And the
• 7:15
  reality is that I don't think that they will be damaging in a Republican primary.
• 7:19
  It's certainly not based upon what we currently know. Let's take the classified
• 7:24
  documents case for just a second, since that's the one we know most about.
• 7:28
  And I agree that if in fact proven the cover up here is ludicrous,
• 7:31
  it's disqualifying, But so many other things have already been disqualifying in this
• 7:36
  whole deal. I am still extremely skeptical that there will ever be a conviction
• 7:42
  in this case. It's currently scheduled for May and next year, which is
• 7:45
  perfectly time for the Democrats in my opinion, because Trump will be the nominee
• 7:48
  by then, barring some massive black swan event, but it will be still
• 7:54
  well before the general election in November of next year. Although they may be
• 8:01
  miscalculating here because it's possible under my scenario that Trump ends up getting a victory
• 8:07
  here. I don't think he'll be acquitted. I don't think he'll be acquitted,
• 8:09
  certainly, not on all charges if there's a trial in May. But
• 8:13
  to get a conviction, you needed an unanimous verdict, and there's nobody in
• 8:18
  the history of our criminal justice system, not even O. J. Simpson,
• 8:22
  that will be more difficult to get twelve people chosen supposedly at least somewhat
• 8:28
  at random to convict them. Because real Trump fans are never, ever,
• 8:35
  ever ever did I mention ever? Ever, I sound like Taylor Swift ever
• 8:41
  going to convict Donald Trump, especially while he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
• 8:46
  That is not going to happen. All you need, I keep saying
• 8:50
  two. Some people question me, why John too, what's the reason for
• 8:54
  two Trump supporters needing to be on any jury? Well, it's my theory,
• 9:00
  logic, and human behavior. It's a lot easier for two people to
• 9:05
  take a stand against the majority than for one person. One person may theoretically,
• 9:09
  over time, just decide to cave depending on you know, their fortitude.
• 9:15
  But two people, two Trump supporters holding each other's hand in during deliberations
• 9:22
  for a jury where they know that Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, those
• 9:26
  people aren't backing down, and they're not going to convict Trump on anything.
• 9:31
  And so I've never heard of a case, nor can I recall a case
• 9:37
  or even imagine a case where jury selection is going to determine things more than
• 9:43
  the facts. The fact the media keeps talking about the facts. The facts
• 9:46
  here are irrelevant and part of why Trump fans will never convict on this is
• 9:52
  not just because they love Trump and because they you know, you know,
• 9:54
  he'll be the Republican nominee at this point in all likelihood, but also because
• 10:00
  as the DOJ in their minds, has been so incredibly discredited, everybody even
• 10:05
  remotely tangentially involved in this has been discredited. They see this as as incredibly
• 10:11
  hypocritical. They think because Hillary wasn't charged in somewhat similar circumstances, all know,
• 10:18
  not exactly the same at all. As some conservative commentators have tried lamely
• 10:22
  to claim as an excuse for being against the Trump indictments that this is not
• 10:28
  fair, that this is you know, liberal justice, and this is the
• 10:33
  politicization of our justice system, and then this is wrong and they're actually taking
• 10:39
  the moral high grounds. See, this isn't just going to be about supporting
• 10:41
  Trump. This is about defending the republic. This is partially why his indictments
• 10:48
  have actually helped him in the Republican polls. Just as Tucker Carlson and Glenn
• 10:52
  Beck immediately tried to facilitate after the first indictment in New York, when I
• 10:58
  predicted that this was going to be a deadly narrative because this would give a
• 11:03
  moral high ground, a moral imperative for making sure Trump was the nominee,
• 11:07
  because if he's not the nominee, we're letting the left politicize our justice system
• 11:13
  forever. And if they can get away with this, they can get away
• 11:15
  with anything. And of course, the reality is, if you make Trump
• 11:18
  the hominee, you're going to give twelve years to Biden and Harris where they
• 11:22
  know they can get away with anything because they will likely have the Senate the
• 11:26
  House, and we'll have just won a big victory under the most likely scenario,
• 11:31
  and demographics being what they are, you know, it's not going to
• 11:35
  get any better for Republicans into the future. And there's there's no place to
• 11:41
  go for the party after Trump, assuming there isn't even isn't after Trump because
• 11:45
  he can run again in twenty twenty eight if he's healthy enough. All right,
• 11:48
  getting ahead of myself here, the reality is that these charges in the
• 11:52
  classified documents case, if conservatives were being remotely consistent, forget about the what
• 11:58
  aboutism. The reality is these are disqualifying. They appear to have evidence behind
• 12:03
  them, They are serious enough to where they should prevent Trump from even considering
• 12:09
  being the nominee. And by the way, I'll acknowledge. Part of the
• 12:13
  reason why there's not going to be a conviction here is that audio tape,
• 12:16
  the audio tape that the media loves to play, where Trump is bragging about
• 12:20
  these the documents involving war plans with Iran, and they're classified. He could
• 12:26
  declassified them when he was president, but now that he's not president, he
• 12:28
  can't. And you know, the legal lanists love to say this is smoking
• 12:33
  gun proof. I gotta say, while technically they're correct, that tape I
• 12:41
  think largely plays in Trump's favor because everyone is laughing and it's really hard to
• 12:50
  convince, especially Trump fans, im possible to convince Trump fans that something the
• 12:54
  fairies is going on when everyone is laughing and having a good time. And
• 13:01
  even so from a technical standpoint, that tape certainly helps their case. The
• 13:05
  reality is that it doesn't feel like a crime is being committed. And like
• 13:11
  I'll give you a really good example. I've already mentioned references to the OJ
• 13:16
  Simpson case when OJ Simpson was convicted in Las Vegas for that heist, which,
• 13:22
  by the way, one of the people who impact the primorary person in
• 13:26
  that case, Albret Bearsley, who got robbed by OJ went to his death
• 13:31
  saying that I was the reason that the whole thing happened. I'll tell that
• 13:33
  full story at some other points. One of the top ten stories of my
• 13:37
  life. And I do believe that Alfred Bearsley's analysis was pretty good. So
• 13:41
  I know a lot about the case because again Bearsley thinks I'm the reason why
• 13:45
  it happened. But the weird part about the OJ Simpson Las Vegas heist cases,
• 13:50
  there was a tape, not dissimilar to the situation with regard to Trump.
• 13:54
  Without a tape, OJ doesn't get convicted of anything in that case,
• 13:58
  but that tape sounded like a crime was being committed. People were yelling,
• 14:03
  they were angry, they were talking about guns and implying kidnapping, and that
• 14:09
  was a large part of why O. J. Simpson ended up going to
• 14:13
  prison for several years in the Las Vegas situation. This tape is one hundred
• 14:18
  and eighty degrees different from that. This tape Trump is almost charming. Now.
• 14:24
  I do find it interesting that you originally with that indictment, they did
• 14:30
  not indicate that they knew where that document that Trump was talking about is,
• 14:35
  and there was some speculation did Trump salad did he get rid of it?
• 14:39
  Well, now in the superseding indictment, they have acknowledged that they do have
• 14:45
  the document, and now there's speculation that what really happened here was that they
• 14:50
  just didn't say they had the document. Trump claimed it wasn't a classified document,
• 14:54
  so they got him on the record basically lying, and now they have
• 14:58
  the document itself, which was in fact highly classified. So again, from
• 15:05
  a legal standpoint, I have no doubt that Trump committed crimes. I have
• 15:09
  very little doubt that those crimes will eventually be proven to a rational person.
• 15:15
  But I don't believe that a jury is ever going to convict Donald Trump of
• 15:20
  this is certainly not in South Florida and near his home base. And you
• 15:26
  know, getting two or three Trump fans on that jury should not be a
• 15:28
  problem. And at that point, at the best you get is a hung
• 15:33
  jury, and Trump of course will declare victory over that. That will be
• 15:35
  seen as a victory. Now of this taping, Trump has not yet been
• 15:41
  indicted on the January sixth or the Georgia election interference situation. However, you
• 15:48
  know, I don't see why necessarily in the world we live that those indictments
• 15:54
  would change anything. It should be pointed out. It should be pointed out
• 15:58
  that we now since the last taping of this podcast, have Rudy Giuliani admitting
• 16:03
  lying about the twenty twenty election being stolen, and we have videotape of various
• 16:10
  Trump supporters also admitting this under oath. I mean, this should be disqualifying
• 16:15
  too when you have your own people admitting it publicly and under oath and in
• 16:22
  legal documents that they lied and we're wrong about this twenty twenty election big lie
• 16:32
  theory that the election was stolen. And that's the really the basis of everything
• 16:37
  you do. It's the basis of why you're running again because you claim that
• 16:41
  your second term got stolen. It's you know, why you've been indicted in
• 16:47
  directly or indirectly. So we're about to be indicted on January sixth, and
• 16:52
  on the George interference, if reports are to be believed. It's why you
• 16:59
  got impeached the second time over the January sixth situation. It's all because of
• 17:03
  this big lie that Trump claims the twenty twenty election as was rigged and was
• 17:11
  fixed and was robbed from him. Well, that's a lie. We now
• 17:14
  know it's a lie, and I have seen zero indication. Now it's obviously
• 17:19
  anecdotal, non scientific, but I've seen zero indication on Twitter and other social
• 17:26
  media that any Trump fans are like, oh my god, I can't believe
• 17:30
  we were lied to. Oh my god. Now Hilariously, Steve Dace,
• 17:36
  who is a pro to Santis commentator on The Blaze, former Iowa talk show
• 17:41
  host, a guy who I agree with on most things, but I actually
• 17:45
  think he's a moron. And and he and I gotten a dust up back
• 17:49
  in the twenty twelve election cycle because as an Iowa talk show host, he
• 17:53
  endorsed Newt Gingridge. And of course everyone always says that Steve Days has a
• 17:59
  lot to pull an Iowa and I'm like, he endorsed Newt Gingridge in twenty
• 18:03
  twelve as an Iowa talk show host, and Gingridge finished a pathetic fourth,
• 18:07
  So where's the indication Steve Days has any impact at all? But um,
• 18:12
  you know, so I hold my fire against him because he is a de
• 18:15
  Santist guy. But he had almost a meltdownd on the air suddenly realizing that,
• 18:22
  oh my god, I was lied to about the twenty twenty election,
• 18:26
  And I'm thinking, are you really that dumb, Steve? I didn't really
• 18:30
  I never thought you were smart, But how can you be this dumb as
• 18:33
  to have not figured this out already on your on your own. But he's
• 18:36
  the only person, and he's already the Santist supporter that I have seen indicate
• 18:41
  any kind of transformation or epiphany moment that oh my god, we were lied
• 18:49
  to about the twenty election. I mean, come on, people, this
• 18:53
  is not difficult. I've gone through many many times in the past. Why
• 18:57
  we know that the twenty twenty election was not quote unquote stolen. Now,
• 19:02
  for those of you who are saying I'm naive or whatever, I actually agree
• 19:07
  that the media robbed the twenty twenty election because of the whole COVID narrative.
• 19:11
  I mean, so depends on your definition I'm talking about. There were not
• 19:15
  votes that were purposely not counted, or votes that were stuffed in boxes that
• 19:18
  were fake. Is there some in every election, there's some level of hanky
• 19:26
  panky, But I'm talking about enough to influence the results in Georgia and Arizona
• 19:32
  and Wisconsin, which ended up determining that Joe Biden would be the next president
• 19:37
  of the United States. And to be clear, the twenty twenty election was
• 19:42
  a lot closer than a lot of people, some even on the right,
• 19:47
  perceive it to be. From an electoral college standpoint, it was not close.
• 19:52
  By the way, I happen to have hit the electoral college number exactly
• 19:56
  correct the day before the twenty twenty election in a all Them I did for
• 20:00
  Mediaite as a senior columnist. There, I didn't get all the states one
• 20:03
  hundred percent right. I flip flopped two of them, but I had the
• 20:06
  exact electoral college result. But if you take forty four thousand votes total in
• 20:12
  Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and you add them to Trump's total basically a
• 20:18
  small college football stadium, Now that's a big ask, but it's certainly doable.
• 20:22
  Had that occurred, we would have had a two sixty nine two sixty
• 20:25
  nine electoral college tie. And as I've said previously, under the conditions of
• 20:29
  November twenty twenty, in the middle of the pandemic, we would have had
• 20:32
  riots in the streets. We would have had some enormous civil unrest. You
• 20:36
  might even have called it some sort of a civil war, because then all
• 20:40
  hell would have broken loose, you would have had battles for faithless electors,
• 20:44
  and then you'd have the battle and House of Representatives. I mean, it
• 20:47
  would just would have been a complete crap show. And so it was closer
• 20:52
  than a lot of people think. But I have seen zero evidence nor logic,
• 20:56
  and now we have further proof of that that the election was actually stolen.
• 21:00
  So we have all this mounting crapstorm against Trump and supposedly eventually we're going
• 21:07
  to have more indictments. So I'm starting to wonder whether those are actually we're
• 21:11
  going to come, but everyone says that they are, and I'm still very
• 21:15
  skeptical that they're going to have any sort of cumulative effect. I'm also very
• 21:19
  skeptical that Trump is going to be able to overcome this. I mean,
• 21:23
  we have reports that Trump's Political Action Committee has now paid out already forty million
• 21:30
  dollars in legal fees forty million dollars already in legal fees with more indictments coming.
• 21:37
  This is money largely paid into a pot by middle class people, being
• 21:45
  paid to the campaign of an alleged multi billionaire, and they're going to pay
• 21:51
  the legal fees of Trump and other people connected to this situation. I mean
• 21:57
  that alone numerous levels ought to be disqualifying for Trump, if only because it's
• 22:04
  sapping his ability to be able to prepare for a general election, which presumably
• 22:10
  would have to do since it looks like he's going to be the nominee.
• 22:15
  And so this is another issue that should be concerning to people that is not,
• 22:21
  And it's so unconcerning to people that I still believe he's going to be
• 22:25
  able to bail at least on the first presidential debate. And we got a
• 22:30
  taste. We got a taste of exactly what I've been talking about about,
• 22:34
  how a non Trump Republican debate is actually still going to play in his favor.
• 22:41
  And this came from an event in Iowa, not this past weekend,
• 22:47
  but the weekend before, where a Republican presidential candidate who no one's ever heard
• 22:52
  of, former Texas Congressman Will Heard, really told the crowd the truth about
• 23:00
  Donald Trump. So Trump's not there at that moment, and the crowd,
• 23:07
  not in its totality, but significantly booed him, booed engeered him, and
• 23:14
  it made news, and to me, I was like, oh my god,
• 23:17
  that's exactly what would happen if anyone attacked Trump, especially at a non
• 23:22
  Trump debate, where you'd have a crowd there of Republicans and there would be
• 23:26
  Trump fans there, and immediately the person would be humiliated. They would be
• 23:33
  booed down. And that makes a big difference in a debate if if you're
• 23:37
  being booed by Republicans while you're trying to make a point, unless you make
• 23:41
  it exceedingly well and somehow get the crowd on your side, it's not gonna
• 23:45
  play on television, period. And here's the story. This is from townhall
• 23:51
  dot com. Republican presidential candidate and former Texas Congressman Will Hurd was booed off
• 23:56
  stage during a campaign event in Iowa after he began criticized former President Trump.
• 24:02
  Heard accused Trump of only running for president in twenty twenty four to quote stay
• 24:07
  out of prison, rather than to quote make America great Againe quote. The
• 24:11
  reason Donald Trump lost the election in twenty twenty is he failed to grow the
• 24:15
  GOP brand in areas like women with a college degree in the suburbs, black
• 24:21
  and brown communities, and people under the age of thirty five. Heard said.
• 24:25
  The crowd erupted in loud booze, with some guests clanging their glasses.
• 24:30
  Heard responded, quote, listen, I know the truth. The truth is
• 24:33
  hard. But if we elect Donald Trump, we are willingly giving Joe Biden
• 24:37
  four more years in the White House. America can't handle that. Unquote.
• 24:42
  Hurd's rant didn't stop there. He claimed that Trump doesn't speak the truth and
• 24:47
  that the former president is not running to represent the American people that voted for
• 24:51
  him in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. I think Heard is one hundred percent
• 24:55
  right. In fact, I would go further. You know, there is
• 24:57
  this narrative that Trump is running just to keep himself out of jail, or
• 25:03
  because if he wins, you know, he can pardon himself or what have
• 25:07
  you. That's part of it. I actually think the main reason this is
• 25:11
  relevant with regard to his legal problems is he knows he needs to either be
• 25:17
  the Republican nominee or at least be the presumptive Republican nominee when these trials occur,
• 25:23
  to make sure that his fans on the jury respond the way that he
• 25:30
  thinks that they will. I would I think that Trump is probably of the
• 25:33
  same mindset that I am. If I'm either the nominee or it looks like
• 25:37
  I'm going to be the nominee, and we get a couple of Trump fans
• 25:41
  on that jury. I'm set now if I'm you know, somehow not going
• 25:47
  to be the nominee, if I'm not running and I'm just former President Trump,
• 25:51
  then you know, it's a it's a roll of the dice because you
• 25:56
  know, even if you're a Trump fan, you might not see what's in
• 25:59
  it for you, because people are inherently selfish. Why what's in it for
• 26:03
  me to stick up for this guy? Because if he's not going to be
• 26:07
  president again, or at least the Republican nominee, what difference does it make.
• 26:11
  Really, I'll convict him on a few things, you know, I'll
• 26:14
  give him some support, but I'm not going to go to the mat for
• 26:17
  him. So I think that Trump probably understands the same thing that I do,
• 26:21
  and that is a large part of his motivation here, which of course
• 26:25
  is totally wrong at any point when it comes to presidential politics. And I've
• 26:29
  said many times that have Trump really cared about the country, he would have
• 26:32
  withdropped, never would have even entered the race. As Steve Cortez, my
• 26:36
  friend and now member of the Desantist Political Action Committee, never backed down.
• 26:41
  Tried to convince him of unsuccessfully. If he really cared about the country,
• 26:45
  he never would have run, and he certainly would have dropped out once all
• 26:48
  these indictments started. But he doesn't care about the country. He only cares
• 26:52
  about himself, and the country will suffer, The Republican Party will suffer,
• 26:56
  and the Democratic Party will continue to prosper largely because of it, which is
• 27:02
  a matter of by how much. Now turning to de Santis here for a
• 27:07
  second, Meghan Kelly did an interview with Rhnda Santis and Meg and Kelly is
• 27:14
  an interesting media figure. I don't know her directly. We've had some communication.
• 27:21
  I know I had lunch with her lawyer in the Michael Jackson case.
• 27:25
  I was on television once with her. I think way back in the Fox
• 27:29
  News days. I like Meghan Kelly. I think she's smart. She's obviously
• 27:33
  beautiful, which is a good combination for a female anchor person or newscaster or
• 27:40
  commentator, whatever you want to call her. I agree with her on most
• 27:42
  things. However, much like Tucker Carlson, and much like Glenn Beck and
• 27:48
  if you think about it, you know, Meg and Kelly, Tucker,
• 27:52
  Carlson, and Glenn Beck all have one thing in common. At one point
• 27:56
  they were the star at Fox News and then they left under the under circumstances
• 28:02
  of varying decrease of horrible and they went elsewhere, and then they've had their
• 28:10
  troubles elsewhere. Tucket, Carlson just left. But you know, they're all
• 28:15
  former Fox News stars. At one point, they were the person at Fox
• 28:18
  News Channel, and now they have left in a way that makes it impossible
• 28:22
  for them to ever return to Fox News Channel. And they have been at
• 28:26
  the top of the mountain basically, as what I'm saying from a media standpoint,
• 28:30
  and once you've been to the top of the mountain in the media landscape,
• 28:36
  it must be incredibly intoxicating and it must be very addictive because you never
• 28:41
  want to lose all of that. You're gonna lose some of that, but
• 28:44
  you never want to lose all of that. And as Glenn Beck proved during
• 28:48
  the twenty sixteen election, the word the easiest way or the worst way,
• 28:52
  or the most dramatic way to lose all of that is to be a conservative
• 28:57
  commentator who is vehemently again Trump. I can tell you that from personal experience,
• 29:03
  since I've been by far the most consistent of any conservative commentator of any
• 29:07
  note at all. But I'm certainly not anywhere near the level of Meghan Kelly
• 29:11
  or Tucker Carlson or Glenn Beck, especially from a national notoriety standpoint. But
• 29:18
  that's the easiest way to do this, and bet Glenn Beck proved that.
• 29:23
  And it's not a coincidence in my opinion that Tucker Carlson I've called the MVP
• 29:30
  of the Trump campaign in twenty twenty four and I mean that, who is
• 29:33
  on record as saying he passionately hates Donald Trump and court documents. And Glenn
• 29:38
  Beck, who I know personally has similar feelings about at least did about Donald
• 29:45
  Trump back when it mattered in twenty sixteen and beyond. And Meghan Kelly,
• 29:49
  who has written a book. This is the most amazing thing to me about
• 29:52
  Meghan Kelly and Donald Trump. She has written a book where she's strongly implied
• 30:00
  that the Trump team poisoned her before she moderated a Republican debate. And this
• 30:07
  was all over that whole thing where Trump went on and did an interview at
• 30:11
  to the debate, saying that she had blood coming out of her whatever and
• 30:15
  plutting that she was menstruating, and that's why she asked him a nasty question.
• 30:19
  I mean Megan Kelly's hope persona. I mean her. She was a
• 30:25
  character in a movie about Roger Les that was largely about sexual harassment at Fox
• 30:30
  News Channel. And here she is, you know, with Donald Trump publicly
• 30:36
  sexually harassing her, she thinks maybe even having her poisoned and having all sorts
• 30:42
  of public battles. And now in this election cycle, because she's on her
• 30:48
  own, she's been basically kissing Donald Trump's ass and to her defense, correctly
• 30:53
  predicting that it was going to be almost impossible to beat Donald Trump. But
• 30:59
  see, that's why I think she's been very pro Donald Trump. She's smart
• 31:03
  enough to realize, as I've been trying to warn you, that Trump was
• 31:06
  a very very heavy favorite, and that the Republican Party was not yet ready
• 31:10
  to move on from Trump. So that's where the audience is and was gonna
• 31:15
  be. And so she doesn't want to lose the audience that she has,
• 31:18
  so she's been kissing Trump's ass all over the place. In fact, recently,
• 31:23
  she did a commentary about how she got an audience with Donald Trump.
• 31:30
  That's how she referred to it, an audience, not an interview, an
• 31:33
  audience with Donald Trump and talked about how charming he is and what an incredible
• 31:38
  presence he has. I mean it was it was almost Carrie Lake like.
• 31:42
  It was pathetic. And she has criticized Ron de Sandis on numerous occasions,
• 31:48
  including for not doing an interview with her. We played that clip on this
• 31:52
  podcast. Will de Sandis did finally sit down with an interview before an interview
• 31:59
  with Megan Kelly, and it went very well from DeSantis's perspective. It always
• 32:04
  does from a substance standpoint. Meghan Kelly seemed to like Ron de Santis a
• 32:08
  lot. But even in that interview, I want to play a clip from
• 32:12
  that interview where Megan Kelly essentially makes the bogus argument. Now she's making Trump's
• 32:19
  argument here that somehow, because Trump's first presidential term was effectively stolen by the
• 32:29
  left through Russia Gate. I don't think she says COVID, but might be
• 32:31
  implying COVID as well, that he deserves a second crack at this and that
• 32:38
  as Trump says it is disloyal for anyone like the Santis who had been previously
• 32:45
  endorsed by Trump to run against him. Now, I have dealt with this
• 32:51
  disloyalty narrative numerous times, but I'm gonna let Rond de Santis do it because
• 32:55
  I thought this was maybe the best answer that round to sandis is given directly
• 33:00
  about Donald Trump certainly that I've seen, and I thought it was interesting that
• 33:07
  it came in an interview with Megan Kelly. So here listen carefully to Megan
• 33:12
  Kelly's introduction to this subject matter and then how the Santis handles it, um
• 33:16
  the other question about Trump, and then I'll move on to some more substantive
• 33:21
  issues. He says, this is a disloyal action. I know you've spoken
• 33:24
  to that before, but he says specifically that you got elected governor because of
• 33:28
  him, that you were dead in the race, and that you quote came
• 33:31
  over and begged him for an endorsement with tears coming down from your eyes.
• 33:36
  And do you believe that? Is it true? You believe that? You
• 33:38
  tell me, I mean commanded this was this was you know, public,
• 33:42
  We were I think we were on Air Force one and said, hey,
• 33:44
  I'm thinking about running. Will you support me? Will you tweet for me?
• 33:46
  And he's like, yeah, I'll tweek for you. That was it,
• 33:47
  and that was all that. But here's the thing. Politicians have to
• 33:52
  earn support. Nobody's entitled to support. You know, I'm loyal to my
• 33:57
  family, I'm loyal to our constitution, and I'm loyal to God. That
• 34:00
  is where my loyalty goes. I'll work with politicians to try to advance what
• 34:06
  I believe is in the best centrists of Florida in the country. But at
• 34:09
  the end of the day, it's about, you know, who can get
• 34:12
  the job done. And that's how I view it. And it's interesting.
• 34:15
  He doesn't say that about his own vice president running against him. He doesn't
• 34:19
  say that about his ambassador to the UN running against him. He doesn't say
• 34:22
  that about other people he endorsed in the past who are now running against him.
• 34:27
  He only says it about me because I think he can. He construes
• 34:30
  me as the only threat to his winning the nomination. What about the people
• 34:32
  say it's it's not your turn, it's still his turn. He got screwed
• 34:36
  out of his first term by Russia Gate and the impeachment. He got an
• 34:39
  unfair shot at it second time around because of all the election shenanigans, and
• 34:44
  that it's he deserves to have this next ary public. We're not a monarchy.
• 34:49
  It's nobody's turn. You have every right to put yourself forward. You
• 34:52
  know. I believe at this point in history, twenty twenty four's maker break
• 34:55
  for this country. I'm not running to be president. I'm running to do
• 35:00
  something as president for the country. I think I'm the guy that can win
• 35:04
  the primary, win the general election, and then deliver on all of these
• 35:07
  things and do it for two terms, which I think is really important because
• 35:12
  if you look Trump's first term, he did a lot of good things.
• 35:14
  Biden reversed almost everything on day one. I think you do need two terms
• 35:19
  for this stuff to really really stick. And so I think that I'm the
• 35:22
  only guy that fits that bill. So I have a responsibility to step up
• 35:24
  and offer myself for service. Let's talk about it. Like I said,
• 35:29
  I thought Rhonda Santis gave a fantastic answer there. It's almost exactly what My
• 35:36
  response to this is that the loyalty should not be to the man, it
• 35:40
  should be to the country, and that there are all sorts of reasons why
• 35:44
  a Santis candidacy would be far far better for the country and for the party
• 35:51
  and Donald Trump candidacy. Now, I don't think that it's going to change
• 35:55
  Megan Kelly's on error view of all this. I mean, I think he
• 36:00
  probably helped himself at least a little bit with Meghan Kelly and maybe with some
• 36:04
  of her audience. But Meghan Kelly, like Tucker Carlson and like Glennbeck,
• 36:08
  they know where their bread is buttered and they are not going to buck Trump
• 36:15
  unless they think he is going down. And that's a catch twenty two because
• 36:21
  without people like Tucker Carlson and Glennbeck and Meghan Kelly helping to torpedo Trump,
• 36:29
  it's not going to happen, and especially when instead they tend to nitpick at
• 36:36
  Ronda Santis. And we have seen this time and time again where the Santist
• 36:40
  is being attacked for things that would never even make it onto the radar of
• 36:45
  Trump attacks. I mean, hell, Trump gets indicted federally with huge evidence
• 36:50
  to support the indictment, and he gets defended. Meanwhile, Rhonda Santis has
• 36:55
  his state author via Frican American scholars, some guidance on public school curriculum for
• 37:06
  how to teach slavery, and one line causes a minor controversy that gets picked
• 37:13
  up by Kamala Harris in an overt political stunt that the media goes along with.
• 37:22
  And what happens. Instead of there being a unanimous support for Ronda Santis
• 37:28
  in the media and among other Republicans, we have people like Chris Christie attacking
• 37:35
  Ronda Santis for how he handled the issue and not showing leadership. Chris Christie
• 37:38
  doesn't really matter on this issue, and you shouldn't really be surprised. Except
• 37:43
  what mattered there is it proved that Chris Christie is not in this to take
• 37:45
  out Donald Trump. He's in this for his own aggrandizement, his own ego,
• 37:51
  and his own media prospects after he gets his ass kicked. That's what
• 37:54
  Chris Christie is in this force. And don't buy this notion that Chris Christie
• 37:59
  is is here as a special agent to take out Donald Trump in a debate
• 38:02
  which is likely never going to happen on behalf of RhD de Santis. No,
• 38:07
  that's not what's happening here. But far more significant than Christie was the
• 38:13
  fact that two prominent black Republicans in office in Congress, one of the House
• 38:20
  of Representatives, one in the Senate, one running for president, were used
• 38:22
  by the media to facilitate this bogus narrative. I'm talking about Byron Donald's,
• 38:30
  Republican congressman from Florida, and Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina, who's
• 38:35
  running for president, and both of them to varying degrees, and Donald's actually
• 38:40
  ended up revising and almost walking back. Some of his comments were generally supportive
• 38:50
  of the curriculum, but they went out of their way to make sure that
• 38:53
  they did not agree with that one sentence about there being some positive aspects for
• 38:59
  slaves of slavery, and which was a minuscule portion of all this. And
• 39:05
  again Ronda Santis didn't write it, and it's easily defensible. And I've said
• 39:09
  before I am in total favor. I don't think I don't think we should
• 39:14
  be providing a juvenile view of the world and reality to our children. Were
• 39:19
  something is one hundred percent terrible or one hundred percent good, there are some
• 39:24
  shades of gray. I've used the hurricane analogy that you know, even the
• 39:29
  most devastating hurricane does bring rain to places that need rain. Wildfires are devastating,
• 39:37
  but often are incredibly important in facilitating the future of a forest. I
• 39:42
  mean, so this is the reality, but the reality of the situation almost
• 39:46
  doesn't matter to me. It's the politics and the way the media plated that
• 39:51
  really agitated me. And I actually did an appearance on News Nation television with
• 39:54
  Dan Abrams to talk about this because Byron don and Tim Scott being black Republicans,
• 40:02
  especially since Donald's is from Florida, the media gave them instant credibility.
• 40:08
  Uhha. We have someone from the Republican team saying that the Santist is wrong,
• 40:15
  therefore the Santists must be wrong. And we love that because we actually
• 40:19
  want Trump to be the nominee, and we really don't want the Sandis to
• 40:22
  be the nominee because then we'd have to go through that whole COVID accountability thing
• 40:25
  and that would be terrible for us. So we're gonna you prop up Donald's
• 40:31
  and Scott here because they're helping our narrative. It's proof that we're right.
• 40:36
  If a black Republican agrees with our bogus narrative that we allied ourselves with Kamala
• 40:43
  Harris on But of course, and as I said on News Nation television,
• 40:45
  the part of this, and Dan Abrams agreed with me, the part of
• 40:49
  this that the media is either forgetting or just conveniently looking the other way on,
• 40:55
  is that when it comes to teams, neither Donald's nor Scott is on
• 41:00
  the de Santis team. Donald's is a overt Trump supporter on the shortlist to
• 41:07
  be his vice presidential nominee, and Tim Scott is literally running against Ronda Santis
• 41:13
  and maybe the biggest threat towards the Santa's losing second place position in the race.
• 41:20
  So you know, to me, automatically, everything they say on this
• 41:23
  should be looked at with suspicion. And it's basically a symbiotic relationship of manipulation
• 41:30
  between Donald's and Scott and the media. It's a dance. They give the
• 41:36
  media just enough of what they want to keep this wildfire going, pouring some
• 41:42
  gasoline on it and go oops, oh. I didn't realize that was going
• 41:45
  to happen. I didn't understand that me criticizing even a small part of this
• 41:50
  curriculum as a black Republican was going to somehow create more controversy and more criticism
• 41:57
  of Rhonda Santis she who would have thought, well, anybody with a brain
• 42:00
  would have thought it, and Donald's knew it, and Scott knew it,
• 42:05
  and it worked in their favor. Now DeSantis and his people, I don't
• 42:08
  think handled it perfectly. Dan Avrons called this the jump the Shark moment for
• 42:15
  the Desantist campaign, even had a graphic of DeSantis as Fonzie jumping the shark
• 42:21
  in that infamous Happy Day's episode, and I took a little issue with that.
• 42:24
  I said, that's not the jump the Shark moment in the Desantist campaign.
• 42:29
  The DeSantis jump the Shark moment was when he said he would maybe use
• 42:32
  RFK Junior in his administration to go after the CDC or the FDA. I
• 42:39
  think it's what he said, and the idea that rvgate Junior would be part
• 42:45
  of a rhanda Santas administration is just ludicrous. It's absurd, and it's pandering,
• 42:50
  and it's panicky because DeSantis sees the kind of traction that RFK Junior is
• 42:54
  getting on the right and I think he probably even realizes that it's hurting him
• 42:59
  in play. This is like New Hampshire where you have the COVID contrarian crowd
• 43:05
  that ought to be naturally rushing to the Santis' side. If they're undeclared in
• 43:09
  New Hampshire, they're going to vote for RFK Jr. Because he's much more
• 43:14
  aligned with them, especially on the vaccines. In my opinion, to Santis
• 43:19
  is great on the vaccines and especially in comparison to Trump. So that was
• 43:22
  to me the real jump the shark moment. But as far as this issue
• 43:25
  with slavery in the media, Donald and Scott gave the media exactly what they
• 43:30
  wanted and they got what they wanted out of it. And the person who
• 43:35
  lost here, and I don't know how much they lost, but they lost
• 43:37
  here in perception was Ronda Santis. And this goes to the bigger picture of
• 43:42
  something I've talked a lot about where one of my greatest concerns about that the
• 43:46
  Santis candidacy was everybody was incentivized to go after de Santis. Everybody, and
• 43:54
  this further proves it. Everybody, the liberal media, the right wing media,
• 44:00
  Trump, the Lincoln Project, Trump supporters, other candidates in the race.
• 44:07
  Nobody has an incentive to go after Donald Trump. Everybody has an incentive
• 44:12
  to go after Ron De Santis, and this is further evidence, much like
• 44:15
  the the what happened in Iowa William Hurd, that a non Trump debate is
• 44:22
  gonna be bad for Ron De Santis almost no matter how well he does.
• 44:27
  The best case scenario of a non Trump debate is you have a small audience
• 44:31
  where the Santist does fantastic and is able to fend off attacks from other people
• 44:37
  trying to get in second place position, and that the status quo is maintained.
• 44:42
  That's the best scenario, and that's not going to hack it when you're
• 44:47
  as far behind in both the state and national polls as the Santists currently is.
• 44:53
  Again, a guy with a hundred percent name recognition, a cult and
• 44:58
  a conservative met he had deeply invested in not attacking him. And maybe one
• 45:04
  of the most frustrating elements, there's so many frustrating elements of the sandis not
• 45:07
  being embraced as the Republican nominee to this point, is just how incredibly perfect
• 45:15
  his timing theoretically should be in twenty twenty four, I mean almost on a
• 45:22
  I would say at least twice weekly basis, the current president United States in
• 45:28
  his eighties, does or says something that gets mocked as an indication that he's
• 45:32
  out of it and he's too old to hold his office. And here's a
• 45:37
  guy who would be eighty five by the time his second term ended, and
• 45:40
  he already seems like he's on the verge of dementia at times. Joe Biden.
• 45:46
  Then you have Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader, Republican from Kentucky.
• 45:53
  Literally Freeze seemed to have some sort of a seizure at a press conference
• 45:59
  where he could not talk. It was sad, of course, the hypocrisy
• 46:02
  on the left and in the media there was just off the charts. I
• 46:07
  mean, here, you know Fetterman, John Fetterman gets a pass. Diane
• 46:10
  Feinstein, who's having to be told to say I in committee hearings because she's
• 46:16
  so out of it and so old. They don't get nearly the kind of
• 46:20
  criticism and blowback that Mitch McConnell got. Certainly Biden doesn't get nearly the blowback
• 46:25
  in the media that McConnell got for his at this point one episode. But
• 46:30
  we've got Biden, McConnell, and Feinstein, and so this issue to the
• 46:36
  average voter of everyone in Washington is old, been there too long, and
• 46:40
  is corrupt and is all part of the same establishment. Could not be theoretically
• 46:46
  more fertile ground for a candidate like Rond de Sanders, especially when the alternative
• 46:52
  is a guy who's gonna be eighty if he somehow wins the election, and
• 46:58
  while he is a sprout late seventies, I have to believe that. You
• 47:02
  know, if by chance Trump actually wins, you know, he's gonna be
• 47:07
  in his eighties. And I think he's gonna fall off a cliff. He's
• 47:10
  already starting to show something signs of aging. But to me, a guy
• 47:15
  like Trump, when he hits the wall, it's gonna look bad. I
• 47:19
  don't know this. Maybe he's an exception, but he's not in great shape
• 47:22
  physically. The reality, though, he's still clearly in the group of old
• 47:28
  people who have been part of the establishment who a lot of the American public
• 47:34
  would like to see gone. And here we've got a forty four year old
• 47:38
  with a beautiful wife and a wonderful family full of young kids, who is
• 47:45
  not currently in Washington and has been a successful governor of a very large state
• 47:51
  in Florida, and so I mean, my goodness, who could more powerfully
• 47:55
  use, if only subliminally, doesn't even have to be overt about at this
• 48:00
  issue of age and being part of the establishment against Joe Biden better than Rhonda
• 48:07
  Santis. Nobody, nobody, but that's we're not gonna go without in that
• 48:14
  path because that would be too effective. And I actually think, you know,
• 48:17
  that's part of why the Desantists Biden polling is off. I just don't
• 48:22
  believe that the Santists would do worse against Biden in a general election. I
• 48:28
  think part of that is something I've talked about previously, where Trump fans now
• 48:30
  hate the Santis so much that they're just not saying they would vote for De
• 48:35
  Santis in a general election. But in reality, there's nobody who would be
• 48:40
  better to able to contrast Joe Biden's old age and being you know, in
• 48:47
  DC forever and ever than Rohn De Santis would and it's certainly much better than
• 48:53
  Trump. And there are other issues that are related to that. For instance,
• 48:58
  how can Donald Trump take on Joe Biden regarding inflation when it was Donald
• 49:04
  Trump who set the stage for the Biden inflation with his reaction to COVID and
• 49:08
  all the massive government spending and shutdowns. Trump can't do that. De Santis
• 49:15
  could, and there are other issues that are similar to that, and these
• 49:19
  are issues that actually matter, and unfortunately it doesn't look like we're going to
• 49:22
  be smart enough to go in that direction. Again, I'm not one hundred
• 49:24
  percent giving up yet. I haven't officially called the race blah blah blah,
• 49:30
  although I'm close. I'm just acknowledging what the most likely reality is now.
• 49:36
  As far as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, this continues to dominate the news
• 49:42
  cycle on the right, much like Trump's indictments. There are so many things
• 49:47
  going on with Hunter Biden that you need a scorecard that it's very difficult to
• 49:52
  keep track of. I mean, I try, honestly, even though I
• 49:54
  hate the story. I've explained why I hate the Hunter Biden's story. Part
• 49:59
  of it is because I just do not trust the conservative media at all on
• 50:04
  this topic, and so therefore it's very difficult to discern what is true,
• 50:07
  what's untrue, what's substantiated, what's unsubstantiated, what makes sense what doesn't.
• 50:12
  And I honestly do try, but I don't talk as much about this partly
• 50:15
  because I don't know if we know what the real true than some of these
• 50:19
  matters are, and because other conservatives are all over the subject matter, so
• 50:24
  I feel like I don't really need to be. But there's a similarity here
• 50:29
  between all of the Trump indictments and all the many, many news stories surrounding
• 50:35
  Hunter Biden and now Joe Biden and influence pedaling, And I guess the greatest
• 50:39
  revelation most recently is that the White House has changed its story dramatically on whether
• 50:46
  or not Joe Biden ever participated in any of Hunter Biden's alleged business activities.
• 50:52
  We now know that he participated in some conference calls. They're claiming that no
• 50:57
  business was actually discussed, which it seems implausible. But I can actually,
• 51:02
  at least theoretically see that as as possible, where you put the vice president
• 51:08
  on the call just to show support and access, but you maintain plausible deniability
• 51:15
  by not actually discussing anything of substance. But I don't know that that really
• 51:19
  passes the smell test when you've already lost your credibility because it's already clear that
• 51:23
  you haven't told the truth about this previously. And so there's so many things
• 51:29
  going on with Hunter Biden. The most dramatic is that Hunter Biden's plea deal
• 51:37
  fell apart in a complete and total debacle, and it was extraordinary what happened
• 51:44
  there in the media, it was totally stunned and didn't know what to do
• 51:47
  with themselves, where this sweetheart deal that Hunter Biden had was essentially revoked by
• 51:54
  the judge who did not understand it and did not believe that the plea bargain
• 52:00
  made any sense, and that the DOJ and Biden's attorneys had come to this
• 52:06
  agreement under false pretenses and that this had this prevented any further charges. And
• 52:12
  so basically the whole thing fell apart in court and real time, and it
• 52:15
  was rather extraordinary. Now, as far as what all this means, first
• 52:21
  of all, I think it's good for justice and that it appears as if
• 52:24
  an attempt to give Hundre Biden a super sweetheart deal has been averted, and
• 52:30
  this does not curtail any further investigations or potential charges against Hunter Biden. I
• 52:37
  think that's that's good because I'm in favor of equal justice for everybody and should
• 52:44
  not matter that your Hunter Biden's son, but Also from a big picture standpoint,
• 52:51
  I know I say this all the time. All this seems to play
• 52:54
  right into Donald Trump's hands because it has now created so much confusion and so
• 53:01
  much air of scandal, and there's so many different elements to this story that
• 53:07
  the details don't really matter. All that the average Republican voter is hearing is
• 53:15
  Trump was right about Hunter Biden. Trump was right, and that the twenty
• 53:20
  twenty election was illegitimate because this is stuff that should have come out in the
• 53:24
  twenty twenty election and did not because of media censorship and the whole laptop issue.
• 53:30
  Even if it's not directly connected, even if it may not be a
• 53:34
  one hundred percent true, it does not matter. Perception is reality, and
• 53:38
  the reality here is this goes right into the category of Trump was right and
• 53:45
  the twenty twenty election was not fair and Trump deserves another shot at this and
• 53:51
  everything that comes out about Hunter Biden, I believe helps Donald Trump. It
• 53:57
  also further discredits the DJ the entire justice system, which helps Trump on the
• 54:01
  charges against him. And so in theory, right in theory, you might
• 54:08
  get people who are saying, oh my god, we've got Trump fighting all
• 54:12
  these indictments, and we've got all this chaos and scandal surrounding Hunter Biden.
• 54:17
  Can't we just get rid of both Trump and Biden? Isn't there's somebody else?
• 54:21
  Well, Gee, there's Ronda Santras sitting right here, ready and waiting
• 54:24
  to go. That would be a rational way to respond to this, But
• 54:29
  I don't see that happening on the Republican side. So all these Hunter Biden
• 54:32
  stories, while they I am still uncertain as to their relevance, I do
• 54:38
  think there's some relevance. I just don't know how much their relevance regarding Joe
• 54:42
  Biden and his presidency and his credibility and whether or not he has been tainted
• 54:47
  with enough scandal to prevent him from getting a second term. The real impact,
• 54:52
  counterintuitive intuitively, of all this is to help Donald Trump in the Republican
• 54:58
  primary, like everything works out that way. But I think that's where we
• 55:01
  are headed currently with the arc of the Hunter Biden story. It is interesting
• 55:07
  to point out, related to Hunter Biden that Joe Biden has, finally,
• 55:12
  after some media pressure, especially on the right, acknowledge the existence of his
• 55:17
  illegitimate granddaughter who was born because of Hunter Biden so I mean that way that
• 55:23
  the White House has handled that situation has been abysmal and horrendous and heartbreaking,
• 55:31
  and the fact that they've gotten away with it is an indication. Further indication
• 55:35
  as if we needed any of the benefits of having the vast majority of the
• 55:39
  media on your side, they'll give you a pass on everything, including potentially
• 55:45
  ruining the life of a young girl because you don't want to acknowledge her being
• 55:51
  your granddaughter because she's illegitimate, because of the life that your son Hunter has
• 55:57
  chosen to live. I mean, it's just it's unbelievable. But you know,
• 56:00
  Biden has now in a statement, finally acknowledged the existence of his illegitimate
• 56:07
  granddaughter. Now. One of the other big things that happened in the news
• 56:10
  cycle after episode seventy six, in fact, it happened on the day we
• 56:15
  released Episode seventy six, was a Congressional hearing related to aliens and UFOs,
• 56:22
  And this story was fascinating in so many different ways. Maybe the most amazing
• 56:30
  element of this is how little reaction in proportion to what was being alleged the
• 56:37
  story actually created. I saw numerous videos on TikTok, for instance, of
• 56:44
  people saying, how is it that, quote unquote, our government just acknowledged
• 56:50
  that we have alien spacecraft and the aliens themselves, and everyone is walking around
• 56:57
  normally as if nothing ever happened, and they're meant to be funny. And
• 57:01
  there is a funny element to this, because if it was true, right
• 57:06
  people, their entire worlds would be rocked to their core. They'd be thinking
• 57:12
  about life in a completely different way. There might even be hysteria, and
• 57:15
  there's been none of that. Well, I would like to believe, although
• 57:21
  I'm hesitant to come to this belief, I would like to believe that the
• 57:24
  primary reason why there wasn't that much reaction through congressional testimony from one whistleblower indicating
• 57:32
  that we actually have both the spacecraft as well as apparently the aliens themselves who
• 57:38
  crashed here is that most rational people realize that at best this was not credible
• 57:45
  and it and at worst this was blatantly not true. And I'm in the
• 57:51
  blatantly not true category for a number of reasons, not that it's not possible
• 57:58
  in theory. Okay, I'm not saying that there's not life in any other
• 58:02
  on any other planet in these in our galaxy or all the vast galaxies beyond
• 58:07
  us. The you know, the infinitcy of you know, plus light year
• 58:15
  would say to infinity and beyond. So there's infinity out there. So when
• 58:20
  infinity and inherently is endless, there's always the theoretical possibility that there's life elsewhere
• 58:28
  other than Earth. However, however, there's so many problems with this testimony.
• 58:35
  First of all, the idea that something being alleged automatically in this day
• 58:39
  and age gets instant credibility simply because there's a congressional hearing is total bullshit,
• 58:46
  especially when it's the Oversight Committee, which is a complete joke of a committee.
• 58:51
  It's it's by far the most partisan of all congressional committees. This is
• 58:54
  just a House committee, and you know, they're the guy. They got
• 58:59
  a lot of publicity and a lot of times that's what these committee hearings are
• 59:01
  about. The people who run them. They know as subject's going to get
• 59:06
  cameras and attention, and they like that all right. So the threshold,
• 59:12
  see, there used to be shame. At least there was a perception of
• 59:15
  shame that nobody would have the audacity to have hearings on a subject that was
• 59:21
  obviously bullshit, but that's long gone. People don't care about that anymore.
• 59:27
  We don't live in that media environment anymore. And this is a subject matter
• 59:31
  that a lot of people have an interest in, understandably so, and there
• 59:35
  are a lot of people who built in already believe that aliens are real and
• 59:39
  UFOs are real, and that this is, you know, just been covered
• 59:45
  up by the US government for some reason. Of course, the cover up
• 59:49
  theory here doesn't make any goddamn sense either. I mean, if this was
• 59:52
  real and we were the first country to be able to capture an alien spacecraft
• 59:59
  and an alien and um, this would be a very prestigious thing. We
• 1:00:05
  would we would want to brag about this to the rest of the to the
• 1:00:07
  world, to the Earth and beyond, there will be no reason for a
• 1:00:14
  cover up. And if there was some semblance of a massive cover up,
• 1:00:19
  then then why weren't the videos that were played at this congressional hearing deleted?
• 1:00:24
  Why wasn't this whistleblower taken care of? Why why is he still alive?
• 1:00:29
  If this grand massive conspiracy was really going on to protect the reality that we
• 1:00:36
  have been visited by aliens and in spacecraft and that we actually have possession of
• 1:00:42
  them. Then there's the issue of the fact that no evidence at this hearing
• 1:00:47
  was provided, no documents, The videos were ambiguous at best. There's no
• 1:00:52
  photographs of the of the spaceships that we allegedly have or of these aliens,
• 1:01:00
  and even the description of the aliens was incredibly vague. Non human life forms
• 1:01:06
  what I mean, who the hell knows what the hell that means. So
• 1:01:09
  there was no evidence provided, the language was vague, and the whistleblower himself,
• 1:01:16
  his demeanor I found to be almost unseerious. It almost felt not not
• 1:01:23
  suggesting this, but it's possible that this is almost a practical joke in this
• 1:01:29
  guy's mind. I mean, he does not come across as a trustworthy narrator,
• 1:01:35
  and he's only one person, and he's admittedly he's admittedly providing hearsay,
• 1:01:42
  this is what other people have told him. And so none of this passes
• 1:01:46
  the threshold of what should be for a congressional hearing on a subject of this
• 1:01:52
  importance. Have we been visited by aliens from other planets? Do we have
• 1:02:00
  evidence of that? That should be a pretty high threshold. And maybe the
• 1:02:06
  moment that hit home most for me with regard to the whistle blower was that
• 1:02:09
  the whistle blower referenced as a point of credibility his interview on News Nation TV.
• 1:02:15
  And as someone who goes on news Nation TV about every other week,
• 1:02:19
  I thought, well, I'm not sure. I love NewsNation, but I'm
• 1:02:22
  not sure that that's really the source of instant credibility because News Nation, you
• 1:02:28
  know, some shows are much more credible than others. News Nation is struggling
• 1:02:31
  to get traction as a news network and they know if they do this subject
• 1:02:37
  that they're probably going to get an audience larger than their average audience. It
• 1:02:42
  reminds me very much of what CNN did in twenty fourteen with the missing Malaysian
• 1:02:46
  airliner, which they got obsessed with for month after month after month, because
• 1:02:51
  there were more people that were totally obsessed with that mystery than who would watch
• 1:02:57
  ESPN during a slow news period a regular basis. Well, it's similar with
• 1:03:01
  aliens and spacecraft when it comes to the audience of News Nation. But even
• 1:03:07
  if you throw out everything I just said that it's hearsay and the whistleblower didn't
• 1:03:13
  seem incredible, didn't bring any evidence to the table and the cover up theory
• 1:03:17
  doesn't make any sense. Just from a pure as signment standpoint, it absolutely
• 1:03:22
  makes no sense that we have been visited by aliens in spacecraft, and by
• 1:03:29
  the way, after having extraordinary journey to get here that would require technology way
• 1:03:37
  beyond our wildest imaginations, they crashed and burned here. They got here,
• 1:03:45
  and they couldn't even make a safe landing. I mean, that doesn't make
• 1:03:50
  any sense. But the biggest issue is how long it would take to get
• 1:03:54
  here. And it's not just because we have already quote unquote visited, not
• 1:04:00
  physically, but from a scientific standpoint, we know enough about any planet even
• 1:04:05
  close remotely close to us to know that there's no life on those planets,
• 1:04:11
  no certainly intelligent life on those planets. So the closest planet that we have
• 1:04:18
  not determined this definitively is so far away that even if you went by the
• 1:04:24
  speed of light, which you know we can't do but at least in theory
• 1:04:28
  you could do. Even if you went at the speed of light, it
• 1:04:30
  would take a ridiculous absurd amount of time, way way, way, way,
• 1:04:35
  way beyond our wildest imagination. With regard to life expectancy, of a
• 1:04:42
  living thing. And then you say, well, but John, maybe they
• 1:04:45
  figured out a way to live forever. Well, then why did they die
• 1:04:48
  when they got to Earth? But more importantly than that, and this to
• 1:04:55
  me is you know, to me, I think this is the most significant
• 1:04:59
  scientific that this whole thing is bogus. And that is so let's take and
• 1:05:03
  I always ask, much like you know, with regard to Epstein didn't kill
• 1:05:06
  himself, tell me who the suspect is if you if you think that he
• 1:05:11
  was murdered, give me a suspect. Because there's only a couple of people
• 1:05:14
  that were in that federal prison who had access to him at that time.
• 1:05:17
  We know who they are. Give me a suspect. No one ever does,
• 1:05:20
  because it didn't happen that way. Tell me what planet they came from.
• 1:05:26
  Just pick a planet. Pick a planet that is that we are a
• 1:05:30
  celestial being that we have not yet proven that there's no intelligent life. Just
• 1:05:34
  pick it so we know how far away it is. Well, here's the
• 1:05:38
  problem, because we know how how fast light travels. Okay, let's pretend
• 1:05:44
  that somehow, as nonsensical as it is, that they have figured out a
• 1:05:48
  way to go the speed of light. And all the other problems from the
• 1:05:53
  life expectancy and all that. Here's the biggest issue. When they would have
• 1:05:58
  had to have left at that time, there would have been no reason to
• 1:06:02
  come to Earth because we had no intelligent life. In fact, there might
• 1:06:09
  not even have been an Earth. So why did they start the journey to
• 1:06:14
  begin with? Why would they come here? There was nothing here when they
• 1:06:17
  would have had to have started their journey. So it's all absurd. Every
• 1:06:24
  bit of it is absurd. And yet because it's a congressional hearing, and
• 1:06:28
  because there's a built an audience for this, the media tries to pretend that
• 1:06:32
  it's real when they know that it's not. Most of them at least are
• 1:06:35
  smart enough to know that it's not, And so we get this story that's
• 1:06:41
  out there now. And by the way, this has significance because, as
• 1:06:44
  I've always said, every conspiracy theory that people believe makes it easier than for
• 1:06:51
  them to them buy future conspiracy. So if you believe that there are aliens
• 1:06:58
  that have visited Earth from outer space and spacecraft the United States has and has
• 1:07:02
  been covering up. If you believe that, it becomes incredibly easy to sell
• 1:07:08
  further bullshit and this is the whole secret to Trump. Trumps has created on
• 1:07:14
  the right a whole series of mythologies that the right wing media has enabled him
• 1:07:20
  on, including still to this day, somehow the twenty twenty election was stolen,
• 1:07:24
  even when his own people are saying publicly under oath that that's bullshit.
• 1:07:28
  But once you believe that, then it's far easier to believe that the DOJ
• 1:07:32
  is targeting Trump to prevent him from being president again, which plays right at
• 1:07:38
  the Trump's hands. So I'm not just agitated by this because it's false and
• 1:07:43
  obviously false, the alien UFO story, but because it does have implications on
• 1:07:49
  our culture. And once we start buying this bullshit and it gets even more
• 1:07:55
  credibility than there's no stopping it because then every and this is this is one
• 1:08:00
  of my pet peeves where now we've gotten to the point where because a few
• 1:08:04
  conspiracy theories, like especially surrounding COVID, which I never thought really were conspiracy
• 1:08:10
  theories. They were just the establishment throwing bs out there because they were trying
• 1:08:15
  to lock us down and had no coaching argument. But what we're perceived as
• 1:08:20
  conspiracy theories turned out to be right. So because that's happened a few times.
• 1:08:25
  Now, all of a sudden there are people saying, well, then
• 1:08:29
  that means that all conspiracy theories at least could be true. No, that's
• 1:08:33
  not how this works. No, you, each theory has to stand live
• 1:08:39
  or die on its own, and this one aliens UFOs does not if you
• 1:08:45
  have an understanding of the way science works and the planets work and reality works.
• 1:08:53
  But unfortunately, apparently many people do not. Speaking of conspiracy theorists,
• 1:08:58
  Tucker Carlson has now declared that he knows that he knows that he was fired
• 1:09:05
  because of the Dominion Voting Systems settlement with Fox News Channel. That it was
• 1:09:12
  as had been rumored at the time on the right, and I knocked this
• 1:09:17
  down as obviously false, that it was as part of the settlement, not
• 1:09:23
  because of revelations in the documents that became public because of the settlement, but
• 1:09:30
  because of the settlement itself that is a part of the settlement. Dominion voting
• 1:09:35
  systems demand did the Tucker Carlson be fired? Now? Of course, this
• 1:09:41
  narrative is very good for Tucker Carlson. It gets him off the hook for
• 1:09:44
  all the real reasons he got fired, like for instance, having called one
• 1:09:47
  of his bosses the C word in the very same documentation related to the voting
• 1:09:54
  the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit and settlement that, as I reported at the time,
• 1:10:00
  reported on News Nation that night that Tucker Carlson was fired, that that's
• 1:10:03
  what had happened. I had a very very good, but very very odd
• 1:10:08
  source on that story. That turned out to be one hundred percent vindicated because
• 1:10:12
  the Wall Street Journal, owned by the same company that made the settlement,
• 1:10:15
  reported the exact same thing that this was the primary reason, but it's very
• 1:10:19
  good for Tucker to facilitate the idea of conspiracy and that demand at the establishment
• 1:10:26
  they wanted him taken out, and so that this was all part of the
• 1:10:30
  voting system's lawsuit. Well know, the timing was related to it. I
• 1:10:35
  mean, I said at the time that obviously the settlement and the firing coming
• 1:10:41
  so close together have to be related. I mean, if you have an
• 1:10:43
  earthquake on one day, and a couple of days later a building in the
• 1:10:46
  earthquake zone collapses, it was probably because of the earthquake. Well, I
• 1:10:51
  think that's a pretty good analogy here, But it wasn't as part of the
• 1:10:55
  settlement. And the reason why we know it wasn't as part of the settlement,
• 1:10:58
  not just because hasn't been reported that way, and Dominion Voting Systems has
• 1:11:00
  denied it. Here's why we know. Dominion voting Systems had absolutely positively no
• 1:11:10
  motivation to make Tucker Carlson's firing part of the settlement. None because that would
• 1:11:18
  cost money. Right, that would be a chip that would be very valuable
• 1:11:23
  if in negotiations the dominion voting systems felt they had so much leverage that they
• 1:11:29
  could say, all right, you know what, here's what we want.
• 1:11:32
  We want X amount of money and we want Tucker Carlson fired. Fox News
• 1:11:39
  sound would go, what what are you talking about? First of all,
• 1:11:41
  Tucker didn't even go out to you guys. In fact, Tucker was probably
• 1:11:45
  our host that was the least on board with the whole rigged voting narrative.
• 1:11:51
  We've got several other hosts that were way, way, way worse on this
• 1:11:57
  issue. Why do you want Tucker, Well, we just want Tucker for
• 1:12:00
  some unknown reason. Well, it's gonna cost you money. We'll give you
• 1:12:04
  a Tucker, but you know we're gonna take down the amount of money you're
• 1:12:09
  gonna get several hundred million dollars, because that's going to cause a massive problem
• 1:12:14
  for us. We're gonna lose our number one host, and we're gonna piss
• 1:12:16
  off our audience, and you know we're gonna lose ratings. So if you
• 1:12:21
  really want Tucker, I mean, it sounds crazy why. I don't know
• 1:12:25
  why you would want this, but it's gonna cost you a lot of money
• 1:12:28
  in negotiations, and for some reason, under this very fictitious narrative that I'm
• 1:12:32
  creating here, dominion voting system says we don't care, we don't want the
• 1:12:36
  money, we want Tucker Carlson fired. It's just it's ridiculous. It's an
• 1:12:43
  absurd on its face, and it did not happen, and it's just another
• 1:12:47
  indication that Tucker Carlson is a conspiracy theorist. And it's not the type of
• 1:12:53
  conspiracies that turn out to be true. It's the type of conspiracies that are
• 1:12:57
  self serving, in this case, very self aving to him, and are
• 1:13:01
  not true, and they help facilitate narratives that create further damage because if you
• 1:13:08
  believe that, then you can believe all sorts of other bs that never happened
• 1:13:13
  either. And I will always acknowledge that COVID plays a huge role in this.
• 1:13:18
  I mean, COVID understandably understandably the COVID hysteria and panic and the and
• 1:13:27
  the way the media handled that, and the censorship and the lockdowns and the
• 1:13:30
  great reset. I mean, my god, there's no question that it understandably
• 1:13:36
  help facilitate all sorts of conspiracy theories. Because if they're able to facilitate and
• 1:13:44
  get away with COVID for almost three years, then all this other stuff,
• 1:13:49
  all these other things that seem crazy at the time no longer seem as nuts.
• 1:13:57
  I get it, I understand it. I don't believe that COVID was
• 1:14:01
  a massive conspiracy. There were elements of conspiracy. There were elements of conspiracy,
• 1:14:06
  and we're learning more about that to this day. How there are elements
• 1:14:12
  of conspiracy. In fact, with regard to the lab leak theory, we
• 1:14:17
  now have messages from scientists who were publicly saying that the lab leak theory was
• 1:14:27
  a conspiracy and that was not true, that it was the wet market theory,
• 1:14:31
  that this naturally came from a Wuhan wet market, and that it was
• 1:14:36
  not from a lab that they were privately conspiring on how to full the New
• 1:14:43
  York Times and other media outlets into believing that the lab leak theory was obviously
• 1:14:49
  bullshit. That's a conspiracy. That's a small conspiracy that eventually has been found
• 1:14:57
  out. Now because the media has no real incentive to highlight that, most
• 1:15:00
  of the American public aren't going to know about it. But that's the way
• 1:15:04
  a conspiracy works. There's a self interest and then in today's day and age,
• 1:15:10
  there's a documentation of it that eventually comes out again. Because conspiracies are
• 1:15:15
  exceedingly hard to pull off, especially in this electronic, modern media age.
• 1:15:20
  And so it's understandable why people have come to the conclusion that post COVID,
• 1:15:27
  almost anything is believable. That doesn't make it true. And as far as
• 1:15:31
  COVID is concerned, it's hysterical that we're now seeing a new push. It's
• 1:15:39
  not going to work. A new push by numerous media outlets. I've seen
• 1:15:43
  it on CNN and on Apple News, and even Trump's former surgeon general,
• 1:15:49
  who turned out to be a complete fraud. He's on Twitter saying we're heading
• 1:15:55
  for a new COVID surge. This somehows a narrative that has come out of
• 1:15:59
  nowhere. I mean nowhere. I honestly don't even understand where it's coming from.
• 1:16:05
  Because I watched the data. I don't watch it as closely as I
• 1:16:09
  used to, but I just relooked at it this morning in preparation for the
• 1:16:13
  podcast. There's not a shred of evidence anywhere in the United States that we're
• 1:16:16
  heading for a new COVID surge. Cases are the lowest they have literally ever
• 1:16:21
  been. Deaths are the lowest they've literally ever been. I see no sign
• 1:16:26
  anywhere so called COVID surge, and at this point COVID is a cold and
• 1:16:31
  yet they're still trying. I mean, this is like, I don't know,
• 1:16:34
  it's probably a bad analogy, but this is like it's you know,
• 1:16:38
  it's training camp for NFL teams. This is like if Brett Farr started putting
• 1:16:43
  out rumors he was going to come back to play with the Packers. Now
• 1:16:45
  that Aaron Rodgers has gone after having retired so many times, now that he's
• 1:16:49
  in his fifties, I mean, it's over. This is this is this
• 1:16:54
  is ridiculous, and yet CNN is saying prepare for a new Sir and Apple
• 1:17:00
  News, and as I said, Trump's surgeon general, who he should pay
• 1:17:04
  a massive price for but unfortunately has not. Are all trying to claim this,
• 1:17:09
  and I don't even I don't understand where it's coming from. I'm not
• 1:17:12
  even sure I really understand the motivation, because it's not gonna work. Even
• 1:17:15
  as much of a pessimist as I am. There's no evidence of it,
• 1:17:18
  and it's not going to work. And by the way, with regard to
• 1:17:21
  COVID censorship, it's not just the lab leak theory and the science is trying
• 1:17:27
  to fool. The New York Times we also have a Wall Street Journal news
• 1:17:31
  story involving Facebook, where Facebook removed content related to COVID nineteen in response to
• 1:17:41
  pressure from the Biden administration, including posts claiming that the virus was man made
• 1:17:46
  in a lab, and especially with regard to the efficacy of vaccines. So
• 1:17:53
  here we have, I mean, this is a blatant theoretical violation of the
• 1:17:57
  First Amendment, the Biden administration coercing Facebook, which went along with it.
• 1:18:01
  I'm sure very gladly because Facebook is superliberal that they removed content from Facebook that
• 1:18:09
  not only was legitimate, turned out, it appears to have been true,
• 1:18:15
  both regarding the lab league theory as well as the lack of ecopacy of the
• 1:18:20
  vaccines. And this is an Wall Street Journal exclusive. But does the rest
• 1:18:25
  of the media pick it up. Of course not, because it does not
• 1:18:29
  fit their agenda. And that's all that really seems to matter anymore. The
• 1:18:34
  media can ignore, either directly or indirectly, or in totality or in most
• 1:18:40
  part, almost anything that's inconvenient for them, and this is why it never
• 1:18:45
  gains traction in the mainstream of America. And I mean, it's just it's
• 1:18:50
  an incredibly frustrating cycle. But when the media becomes that invested, then even
• 1:18:57
  when the truth comes out, as it always does avenge, it doesn't seem
• 1:19:01
  to matter. And you know, I have said numerous times I've been focusing
• 1:19:08
  on this a lot recently that it is abundantly obvious that the success that the
• 1:19:14
  media and the left establishment had with COVID is something they learned a lot from,
• 1:19:19
  especially if ron de Sanders is not the Republican presidential nominee. They learned
• 1:19:24
  what they can get away with, and they're not going to just forget that.
• 1:19:30
  They're going to use that information and they're going to use that information in
• 1:19:33
  any way they can, and specifically with regard to climate change global warming,
• 1:19:40
  and man, oh man, I can't believe that I missed maybe the most
• 1:19:45
  blatant proof of my own theory that occurred back on July twenty first. So
• 1:19:51
  I don't know how I missed this for the last episode of the podcast.
• 1:19:55
  But I've been saying I said this, by the way, early on in
• 1:19:58
  covid us that tweeted this dozens of times, that covid is basically a test
• 1:20:03
  run for climate change lockdowns, And the evidence, especially recently, that I'm
• 1:20:12
  right about the intent here is overwhelming. I talked recently about the La Times
• 1:20:16
  putting out an article about how, you know, gee, rolling blackouts wouldn't
• 1:20:20
  be a bad idea if it's solved climate change, would it, which is
• 1:20:24
  just insane on so many different levels. But here the New York Times paper
• 1:20:29
  of record on the front page. I thought, I actually thought this was
• 1:20:34
  fake. I thought this was fake. But the New York Times on its
• 1:20:41
  front page on July twenty first, top left hand quarter headline hotter Europe poses
• 1:20:49
  a threat to older adults. Okay, that's fine, subheadline extreme temperatures are
• 1:21:00
  the new COVID. Extreme temperatures are the new COVID. Bump, bump,
• 1:21:09
  bum. I mean, right there, front page New York Times, extreme
• 1:21:15
  temperatures are the new COVID. They could not be more obvious about what they
• 1:21:23
  are doing here, folks. And again, I don't think it's conspiratorial.
• 1:21:27
  I think they really see this as their calling. They believe at the heart
• 1:21:33
  of all this, they believe that human activity is responsible for all things that
• 1:21:40
  are bad, and if we alter human activity, if we restrict it,
• 1:21:45
  then we can mitigate everything that is bad, which is just ludicrous, especially
• 1:21:53
  when it comes to the climate of the globe. And as far as all
• 1:22:00
  these stories that are out there. You know, we've seen this summer.
• 1:22:03
  Oh my god, it's so hot, this summer, hotest July of all
• 1:22:06
  time. I have no confidence in that at all. I mean for a
• 1:22:11
  bunch of different reasons, one of which is the way we've taken global temperature
• 1:22:15
  radically changed in the last forty five years because of satellite technology. So we're
• 1:22:20
  comparing apples to oranges. But anything that fits their agenda, and everyone's on
• 1:22:26
  the same team here, whether it's the quote unquote climate scientists or the media,
• 1:22:30
  they're all on the same team, and so I am inherently distrustful.
• 1:22:34
  I also don't know how they could gather all this data this quickly. I
• 1:22:38
  mean the month just ended, and before the month even ended, we were
• 1:22:41
  being told the July would be the hottest month on record. But here's the
• 1:22:45
  bottom line, the bottom line on this changing of global warming to climate change,
• 1:22:48
  even though it's still always global warming, and that is when you have
• 1:22:53
  a globe this large, you have literally thousands of micro climates they've been on
• 1:23:00
  how you define them in this globe. So statistically, something weird or unusual
• 1:23:05
  is going to happen or bad, It's going to be happening at any given
• 1:23:09
  time in multiple microclimates. It's just the law of averages. And now that
• 1:23:15
  we have the technology to be able to chart everything that's happening and get video
• 1:23:19
  of anything bad it's happening throughout the world instantaneously, then all of a sudden,
• 1:23:25
  climate change is literally impossible to combat as an narrative because there's going to
• 1:23:31
  be alleged evidence of it almost at all times somewhere on this vast globe.
• 1:23:40
  And there's no way to defeat that. I mean, now the fact to
• 1:23:43
  me that they had to change from global warming. Climate change should have ended
• 1:23:45
  the whole thing, but it didn't. It was actually brilliant. It was
• 1:23:49
  a brilliant marketing campaign. And the media bought in hook line and sinker because
• 1:23:55
  it fits their agenda and because they're a bunch of fricking morons. But there
• 1:23:58
  are a couple of specific stores under this category that I want to reference.
• 1:24:03
  We have a story that the golf stream is about to collapse and could spark
• 1:24:10
  global chaos. Headlines saying by twenty twenty five, oh my god, it's
• 1:24:16
  barely over a year from now, the golf stream could collapse. And by
• 1:24:21
  the way, if the golf stream did collapse, I can see where that
• 1:24:25
  would actually be a narrative where we would have real potential catastrophe with regard to
• 1:24:30
  our climate. Who knows exactly how would all play out, but that would
• 1:24:32
  be very, very significant. And this made headlines because it's from a study
• 1:24:38
  from respected experts. Right the science scientists are telling us that the golf stream
• 1:24:45
  could collapse by twenty twenty five, Oh my god, run for the hills.
• 1:24:48
  Then when you read the story you realize that, well, you know
• 1:24:54
  this target date for the catastrophe is a lot more vague than the headline indicated,
• 1:25:02
  because it could happen by twenty twenty five, but the scientists also say
• 1:25:08
  it might not happen until twenty ninety five, so we've got a window here
• 1:25:15
  of seventy years. Seventy years. Now that's important, not just because you
• 1:25:25
  know, seventy years is a long time. For now most of us are
• 1:25:27
  going to be dead, so we don't really care as much unless you really
• 1:25:30
  care about your children or your grandchildren. But we don't really seem to care
• 1:25:32
  about them anymore, unfortunately, based upon the way we view the rest of
• 1:25:36
  the world. But that's another story for another day. But here's the real
• 1:25:40
  reason why the seventy year thing is so significant, because it's one of my
• 1:25:45
  pet peeves. Whenever these studies come out that invariably, not only is their
• 1:25:50
  vagueness with regard to when this is going to happen, but the doomsday date
• 1:25:57
  is always far enough away one where no one will remember the bad prediction,
• 1:26:01
  and two there will be no accountability because anyone who made the prediction will be
• 1:26:05
  dead or the very least retired well twenty twenty five and twenty ninety five pretty
• 1:26:15
  much encapsulates the perfect media friendly prediction from a led scientist. I mean,
• 1:26:24
  you could not craft in a lab, which is probably exactly how this happened.
• 1:26:28
  A more perfect time frame to suit the media narrative here, because twenty
• 1:26:33
  twenty five is close enough to where that's urgency, that's urgency, that's a
• 1:26:39
  news story. Oh my god, this could happen real soon. And twenty
• 1:26:44
  ninety five provides ultimate, complete and total plausible deniability because you can never be
• 1:26:50
  wrong. You can never be wrong if you predict something is going to happen
• 1:26:55
  by twenty ninety five, because no one will remember and you will be dead
• 1:27:00
  if it never actually happens. And by the way, there have been scientists
• 1:27:04
  experts who have come out and said, yeah, actually we're not in any
• 1:27:09
  real danger of the Gulf stream collapsing. So another typical story of hysteria and
• 1:27:15
  the reality just simply doesn't match it. I was also very interested to see
• 1:27:21
  a story in the Washington Post very similar to the one that occurred in the
• 1:27:26
  La Times that talked about rolling blackouts being good for fighting climate change. The
• 1:27:31
  Washington Post had a headline vicious cycle heat waves ramp up US burning of fossil
• 1:27:40
  fuels, and their tweets said as temperatures have swored, so as natural gas
• 1:27:45
  consumption burned for the electricity needed to run air conditioners. The United States this
• 1:27:51
  week has twice broken in summertime record for daily gas consumption, and it could
• 1:27:56
  break it again later this week. I don't know if it actually did,
• 1:27:59
  probably because these projections never seem to actually come to fruition. But this vicious
• 1:28:03
  cycle concept is something that I wanted to reference because this is hilarious and this
• 1:28:10
  just shows the absolute bankrupt mindset of these people. So they think that using
• 1:28:15
  air conditioning when it's hot actually facilitates This is the implication with vicious cycle and
• 1:28:21
  quotes in the headline, facilitates future heat waves because by using so much air
• 1:28:30
  conditioning we are in electricity, we're using fossil fuels, and more fossil fuels
• 1:28:35
  makes it hotter. No evidence of that, by the way, because even
• 1:28:39
  an al Gore's movie, temperature increase is always preceded preceded increase in CO two.
• 1:28:47
  But okay, fine, but in their mindset, if you use too
• 1:28:51
  much air conditioning, you're going to create further heat waves because you're using so
• 1:28:58
  much fossil fuel. This is absurd. There's no evidence or logic to back
• 1:29:02
  this up. But it's similar to the faulty logic the people like John Carrey
• 1:29:09
  have used with the food supply. In fact, I think John Carrey's analogy
• 1:29:15
  or analysis that we've previously talked about. I think it was a couple of
• 1:29:18
  months ago on this podcast where Carrey has stated in speeches that we need to
• 1:29:24
  cut down on agriculture and food creation because food creation creates too much carbon gas,
• 1:29:33
  too much carbon gas, and so food creation will increase the temperature,
• 1:29:42
  which will then, in his mind, cause more people to starve because increasing
• 1:29:46
  temperatures will cut down on the ability for us to feed ourselves. So wait
• 1:29:51
  a minute, do you want to cut down on food creation so that people
• 1:29:58
  don't starve in the future because of the temperature increasing because of the alleged cost
• 1:30:03
  on carbon emissions of our food creative You just can't make this bullshit up yet
• 1:30:11
  these people are very serious about it. So air conditioning causes further heat waves,
• 1:30:15
  and growing food causes there to be less food in the future because it
• 1:30:20
  increases the temperature. With no evidence or logic to back this up, and
• 1:30:27
  so these people would rather have people die in the short run by not using
• 1:30:33
  air conditioning under the guise of trying to fix this problem which may or may
• 1:30:39
  not actually even exist and over which we probably have very little, if any
• 1:30:43
  control. And it's insane. But it's so much like COVID, and it's
• 1:30:48
  obviously where they're heading, and they're using this as a political weapon, and
• 1:30:53
  I think they think that it's being successful. And the best evidence that it's
• 1:30:58
  being successful occur in a clip in an interview that Vice President Kamala Harris just
• 1:31:03
  did where with glee. I mean, there's a gleam in her eye.
• 1:31:10
  I wish you could see this. There's a gleam in her eye. She
• 1:31:13
  is excited about this, She is happy, She is proud that they have
• 1:31:17
  successfully scared the crap out of younger people when it comes to climate hysteria.
• 1:31:25
  And let's you know, think about this. Logically, younger people are by
• 1:31:29
  far the easiest to boondoggle when it comes to something like climate change because they
• 1:31:36
  haven't lived very long. Right One, they're stupid, and their brains aren't
• 1:31:42
  even fully developed. They don't really understand the world. They certainly don't understand
• 1:31:46
  the media dynamic and the incentive structure of the so called experts, and they
• 1:31:50
  just lived through COVID where you know, most of them have been brainwashed into
• 1:31:55
  believing that somehow the science was right there. So they're trusting of sciences.
• 1:32:00
  And they haven't lived long enough to remember, you know, a super hot
• 1:32:03
  summer or a super cold winner or whatever, or a mild winner. What
• 1:32:09
  I mean there's they don't have as much experience, enough data in their own
• 1:32:14
  life to go back and go, wait a minute, I remember, you
• 1:32:16
  know, back when I was ten years old, you know, this exact
• 1:32:20
  same thing happened, and no one called the climate change or global warming men.
• 1:32:25
  So they're much more susceptible to this bogus median narrative. And Kamala Harris,
• 1:32:30
  with a glean in her eye, talked about how she's being told that
• 1:32:35
  so many young people are suffering from climate anxiety because they are fearing for our
• 1:32:42
  future, that we're going to be destroyed because of climate change, global warming.
• 1:32:46
  And here's Kamala Harris talking about that. So you look at for example
• 1:32:50
  of young voters. I've been traveling the country meeting with our young leaders who
• 1:32:55
  in particular talking to me about the climate crisis. They turned me onto a
• 1:33:00
  term I had not heard before. I said, tell me how you all
• 1:33:02
  are thinking about the climate crisis, and they shared with me a term climate
• 1:33:08
  anxiety. They're concerned about their future in almost a doomsday fear about what might
• 1:33:18
  be within a couple of decades of now. They are concerned about whether they
• 1:33:24
  should have children, whether they should or not even try to buy a home,
• 1:33:27
  because what does the future hold for that prospect. Well, gee,
• 1:33:30
  I wonder why young people are suffering from climate anxiety when they're being bombarded with
• 1:33:36
  bullshit by liberals who are trying to use this issue as a political weapon and
• 1:33:43
  apparently doing so very very successfully, at least among younger demographics. And I'm
• 1:33:49
  telling you, Harris is thrilled by this. We should be embarrassed. We
• 1:33:54
  should be outraged that if this is true, and I'm give her the benefits
• 1:34:00
  it out here, that this is actually true, that there are young people
• 1:34:01
  who are suffering from climate anxiety. If this is true with all the other
• 1:34:04
  things you have to worry about when you're a young person, especially in this
• 1:34:08
  day and age, that we're adding to that in a way that may impact
• 1:34:13
  negatively mental health that's a scandal because it's all hysteria, it's all bullshit,
• 1:34:19
  and the left loves it. They love it from a political standpoint because it
• 1:34:25
  helps younger people who are already very much predisposed of voting Democrat, continue to
• 1:34:30
  go in that direction. But it also helps set up them to be in
• 1:34:33
  total control as they look at the future and they go, this is a
• 1:34:40
  weapon through which we can control people's lives, just like we did during COVID,
• 1:34:45
  which was the ultimate, the ultimate utopia in the minds of woke liberals,
• 1:34:53
  where government literally got to control what you were allowed to do on a
• 1:34:57
  day to day basis. That's what a want and it's not even really a
• 1:35:02
  conspiracy. It's just these nut jobs pursuing their own desires. It's almost sexual.
• 1:35:12
  These are This is why you get Hoa's folks, it's the same concept.
• 1:35:17
  There are certain human beings who want to be able to run other people's
• 1:35:21
  lives, and now they're called Democrats, and now after COVID, they realize
• 1:35:27
  they can get away with almost anything, at least in most of the country,
• 1:35:30
  especially in the Blue States. That's why Rond de Sanders was so damn
• 1:35:33
  important. Without him doing what he did in Florida, we'd still be living
• 1:35:36
  under the COVID tyranny, at least in the Blue States. And unfortunately,
• 1:35:41
  too many people are so enamored with Trump that that's gotten lost or forgotten,
• 1:35:45
  and no one on the right is willing to tell that story in full.
• 1:35:49
  So there's Kamal Harris really articulating what should be a scandal and doing so with
• 1:35:57
  glee because she realizes that they have been successful, at least with a certain
• 1:36:01
  demographic. Doesn't matter that they're making people's lives worse, or that it's based,
• 1:36:05
  you know, in a lie, doesn't matter because it's good for them.
• 1:36:10
  And as far as the reality of the situation, you know, with
• 1:36:15
  regard to what's happening with the temperature, there's been talk about the temperature of
• 1:36:19
  the sea in certain areas is higher than it's ever been. Again, I
• 1:36:24
  questioned the taking of the temperature and how the data has changed. But NASA
• 1:36:30
  just came out with a story that should be making big news that, oh,
• 1:36:33
  by the way, you know, and the South Pacific in January of
• 1:36:39
  twenty twenty two, there was a massive, unprecedented volcano undersea volcano that went
• 1:36:45
  off, and that this may be impacting not just the temperature of the sea,
• 1:36:53
  but also theoretically weather patterns and making things hotter, and that has nothing
• 1:36:58
  to do with global warming or climate change. And I actually think this makes
• 1:37:03
  a lot of sense because the idea that the air temperature getting hotter would impact
• 1:37:13
  in a significant way over a short period of time the temperature of the seas
• 1:37:18
  seems highly unlikely to me. I mean, again, I'm not an expert
• 1:37:25
  in this area, but I'm just using common sense. It would seem to
• 1:37:28
  me that the air temperature would have to increase really dramatically for it to have
• 1:37:32
  any impact on the temperature of the sea, given I mean, the heat
• 1:37:38
  capacity of water is off the charts, and obviously the volume of the seas
• 1:37:44
  is almost infinite, so the amount of caloric energy that would have to be
• 1:37:49
  created the chains the temperature of the seas is just mind blowing, and so
• 1:37:57
  that never made any sense to me. But an underground volcano, it's unprecedented.
• 1:38:04
  You could obviously see that's how the temperature of the seawater could be altered,
• 1:38:11
  and there's been speculation that that might even be why there's less ice forming
• 1:38:15
  an Antarctica, because it's not happening from above, It's happening from below,
• 1:38:21
  So that makes sense to me. But of course that's not going to fit
• 1:38:26
  the media agenda. So you probably haven't heard about that, but that came
• 1:38:30
  from NASA. You probably also haven't heard about the fact that a Nobel Prize
• 1:38:33
  winner for physics from twenty twenty two is in the process of being canceled because
• 1:38:40
  he's a contrarian on climate change. The Daily Skeptic The Daily Skeptic reporting the
• 1:38:45
  headline the joint winner of the twenty twenty two Nobel Prize for Physics, doctor
• 1:38:50
  John F. Klausser, dared to say there is no climate crisis. Now
• 1:38:56
  he's being canceled. He has been disinvited to a major speech, and then
• 1:39:00
  of course that has created a contasion, and now other speech and other situations
• 1:39:08
  in his life are being canceled as well. He's an older guy, so
• 1:39:12
  he probably doesn't care that much, at least hopefully not. But this all
• 1:39:15
  occurred because of an address that he gave where he lampooned the politicization of science
• 1:39:23
  in general and specifically with regard to climate change and how that it's not based
• 1:39:30
  in good science. And he ended by saying the following, And this is
• 1:39:34
  to fellow scientists, beware, if you're doing good science, it may lead
• 1:39:41
  you into politically incorrect areas. If you're a good scientist, you will follow
• 1:39:47
  them. I have several I won't have time to discuss, but I can
• 1:39:54
  confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not does
• 1:40:02
  not cause extreme weather events. Thank you, And that was what he said.
• 1:40:12
  But I would say thank you to doctor John F. Klauser as well,
• 1:40:15
  because he's one of the few of any credibility that has had the guts
• 1:40:19
  to say that. And you know, his cancelization, the attempted cancelization of
• 1:40:26
  doctor John Klauser, is really proof of how this whole scam happens and why
• 1:40:30
  there is the alleged unanimity among the so called experts, and why the science
• 1:40:36
  is allegedly settled. Because if you dare to go against the herd on this,
• 1:40:42
  you will be run over. I've talked about this on many different stories.
• 1:40:46
  Once the story becomes toxic enough, no one in the so called expert
• 1:40:50
  class, and it's happened with COVID wants to be a contrarian because even if
• 1:40:56
  you're right, you will suffer because of it. You will get over by
• 1:41:00
  the herd. And that's why the science is settled. Because nobody who's in
• 1:41:05
  the club wants to get kicked out of the club. Except this guy has
• 1:41:10
  enough character incredibility, and I guess he's old enough where he doesn't care where.
• 1:41:15
  He has told the truth and he's been punished for it, therefore proving
• 1:41:19
  what I've been saying all along that this is fake unanimity, this is fake
• 1:41:26
  consensus. It's not based in real science. It's based in politics. And
• 1:41:34
  so don't forget that. Do not forget that, because it's incredibly important to
• 1:41:39
  understand what's really going on here. Since this is the Death of Journalism podcast,
• 1:41:44
  I felt like I want to at least mention one of the strangest things
• 1:41:48
  I've ever seen coming out of the New York Times, and quite possibly the
• 1:41:53
  best example of how the business model is totally and completely broken. I don't
• 1:41:58
  know for sure this is what's happened in this story I'm about to tell you
• 1:42:01
  about, but I've talked a lot about the broken business model and how now
• 1:42:06
  commercials often make them their way into mainstream news media under the guise of news
• 1:42:14
  stories, but generally they're not on topics like this one in the New York
• 1:42:18
  Times. And this has all the makings of a literal commercial The New York
• 1:42:24
  Times did for I'm not making this up. Female vibrators, and specifically one
• 1:42:32
  vibrator in particular. This is a real tweet from the New York Times,
• 1:42:38
  the paper of record, that I could not discern from being any different than
• 1:42:45
  a commercial for this product. The tweet they put out after one hundred and
• 1:42:49
  fifty hours of research and testing, well, that must have been interesting.
• 1:42:56
  One hundred and fifty hours of research and testing. Wirecutter testers that's part of
• 1:43:01
  The New York Times believe they have found the five best clitoral vibrators. No
• 1:43:10
  toy offers the level of power and intensity as the widely beloved magic wand.
• 1:43:18
  And then in the tweet is a photo of a female hand with candles right
• 1:43:25
  next to We have to see this, believe this with candles being let right
• 1:43:31
  next to the clintoral vibrator, the magic wand Now forget about the subject matter.
• 1:43:39
  I mean, look, it's I think that's a legitimate subject matter.
• 1:43:42
  I guess it's very important to many women. Even though it's a funny subject
• 1:43:46
  matter, but that's a commercial. The New York Times did a commercial for
• 1:43:53
  a female vibrator and they were mocked for it, and they should have been,
• 1:43:58
  but it seems to me as if they probably also got directly paid for
• 1:44:01
  it. Although I'd like to hear more about one hundred and fifty hours of
• 1:44:04
  research and testing that went into determining which was the best female fight reador one
• 1:44:11
  last story somewhat related since it's definitely female focus. In episode number seventy six,
• 1:44:17
  I talked about my family trip to go see the Barbie movie, and
• 1:44:21
  I predicted at the time. By the way, if you haven't heard my
• 1:44:25
  review of the Barbie movie, it's probably one of the more nuanced Barbie reviews
• 1:44:29
  you're ever going to hear, especially if from were conservative. I wasn't thumbs
• 1:44:31
  up or thumbs down on the movie itself, of my wife and my two
• 1:44:34
  daughters were definitely in the thumbs up category, and I did predict that the
• 1:44:40
  conservatives who were saying that the Barbie movie would fall off a cliff at the
• 1:44:45
  box office after a successful first weekend because it was such a terrible movie.
• 1:44:48
  I did say that those people were wrong, and I believe I've already been
• 1:44:53
  vindicated because there was no falling off of the cliff when it came to the
• 1:44:58
  Barbie movie. It was not just a one week and wonder that was based
• 1:45:00
  in a massive marketing campaign. As of this taping, in less than two
• 1:45:05
  weeks, internationally, the Barbie Movie has made over seven hundred and seventy five
• 1:45:13
  million dollars. About half of that was from domestic audiences, over three hundred
• 1:45:20
  and fifty million dollars domestically here in the United States, which by the way,
• 1:45:26
  is over twice what Mission Impossible latest incarnation of Mission Impossible has made with
• 1:45:33
  one less week of being out in public. So Barbie is more than doubled
• 1:45:39
  Mission Impossible in less time. And now you say what you want about Barbie.
• 1:45:45
  There's definitely woke elements of it, and there's definitely anti mail elements of
• 1:45:49
  it, and I have other issues with it, but there's no question that
• 1:45:54
  it is exceedingly popular. It's going to make well over a billion dollars internationally.
• 1:45:59
  I don't know what up with domestically. I do find it fascinating that
• 1:46:01
  at least half of not a little bit more than half of the business is
• 1:46:05
  international business. When you consider that Barbie is an American icon. I find
• 1:46:12
  that interesting, but there's no question that the movie is a huge financial success.
• 1:46:17
  One other thing that I was going back to listen to my monologue on
• 1:46:24
  the Barbie movie, I happened to mention that my theory on what Mattel was
• 1:46:29
  doing with Barbie. And I don't even know this was a good analogy or
• 1:46:32
  not, but as I was listening to us, thinking, damn, I
• 1:46:34
  can't believe I didn't tell a story that would have been natural for me to
• 1:46:41
  tell while I was referencing this analogy, because when the hell am I ever
• 1:46:45
  going to mention the TV Disney Kids show Hannah Montana again, And I had
• 1:46:50
  made the analogy that Mattel was doing to Barbie basically seemingly killing her off in
• 1:46:55
  some ways to what pop star Miley Cyrus did with her Goody two Shoes character
• 1:47:00
  Hannah Montana from the Disney series. And I was really in tune to Hannah
• 1:47:06
  Montana at the time because I had nieces that were really into her, and
• 1:47:11
  I was friends with two people who were very intimately involved in the show,
• 1:47:15
  including the head writer. I played golf with them, and so we would
• 1:47:18
  talk about what was happening with Miley Cyrus all the time, and how this
• 1:47:23
  was a disaster waiting to happen. And I thought that what Miley Cyrus did
• 1:47:27
  to Hannah Montana, while it was terrible for fans of Hannah Montana, was
• 1:47:30
  a marketing genius because she launched her adult career by basically killing off Hannah Montana
• 1:47:39
  in every way possible. And it seemed like Mattel was kind of doing the
• 1:47:42
  same thing with Barbie Well. I forgot. I don't even know why I
• 1:47:45
  didn't tell the story, and I don't know how great a story it is,
• 1:47:47
  but it's an indication of the strangest of my life. So back in
• 1:47:53
  early two thousand and nine, I did this huge newsmaking interview with Sarah Palin,
• 1:48:00
  the only extensive interview she ever did, about the media coverage of the
• 1:48:04
  two thousand and eight election, and it was the basis from my movie Mediamount
• 1:48:06
  Practice Obama Got elected, which debuted in an interview with Matt Lauer on The
• 1:48:12
  Today Show, and we did a semi nationwide tour of screenings and it was
• 1:48:17
  a very successful conservative documentary about the media coverage of the two thousand and eight
• 1:48:23
  election. Well I don't even remember how I learned to this, but Sarah
• 1:48:28
  Palin's youngest daughter, Willow, was a huge Hannah Montana fan, and so
• 1:48:34
  I thought, okay, let me see what I can do here. And
• 1:48:38
  she was having a birthday, and I went to the head writer of Hannah
• 1:48:44
  Montana, who was obviously very liberal, and I said, here's the situation.
• 1:48:49
  You know. I explained that Willow Palin is a huge fan of Hannah
• 1:48:54
  Montana. Is there anything we can do? And this guy's a very nice
• 1:48:58
  guy, and I'm not sure he would be able to do it today because
• 1:49:01
  post Trump, the political divide is so great. But he went out of
• 1:49:04
  his way to get a whole bunch of Hannah Montana swag, including autographs from
• 1:49:10
  Miley Cyrus and everybody else who was on the cast, so that I could
• 1:49:15
  send it to Willow for her birthday. And I did that very naively,
• 1:49:21
  not understanding how expensive it is to quickly get something shipped from Los Angeles,
• 1:49:28
  California, to Wasilla, Alaska. By my recollection, it probably cost well
• 1:49:33
  over one hundred dollars to FedEx this sannahm Antanas swag to make sure that Willow
• 1:49:41
  got it for her birthday. And the kicker of this was that Sarah Palin
• 1:49:46
  barely even thanked me. Apparently Willow loved it, but it was it was
• 1:49:51
  that was the first indication I had that Sarah Palin had gotten too big for
• 1:49:57
  her breeches, and it was a foreshadow of bad things that were going to
• 1:50:00
  happen in the future. But I thought, wow, this was something that
• 1:50:03
  was really nice. If anyone had ever done this for me, especially given
• 1:50:08
  the timing and where we are in with Cilla Alaska, I might have been
• 1:50:12
  at least proactive with a thank you. I didn't even get a confirmation that
• 1:50:15
  she had gotten until I asked for one, and so that was my first
• 1:50:19
  red flag that the Sarah Sarah Palin situation was not going to end well.
• 1:50:25
  And that turned out, in fact to be the case. So that'll do
• 1:50:29
  it for That's my Hannah Montana Sarah Palin story that you're only going to get
• 1:50:35
  on John Zigler related content and the Death of Journalism podcast again. Programming note
• 1:50:43
  in case you missed it at the beginning of the podcast, this will very
• 1:50:45
  likely be the only episode that we put out this week. We're taking about
• 1:50:49
  a week off. This should be the last time, we take significant time
• 1:50:55
  off, at least for the foreseeable future. We apologize for any inconvenience,
• 1:50:59
  but we will be at next week, probably on our normal Thursday morning release
• 1:51:02
  schedule, with the next episode, episode number seventy eight of the Death of
• 1:51:08
  Journalism podcast. Until then, thanks so much for listening. Please remember to
• 1:51:12
  subscribe, rate, and review this episode, share it on social media.
• 1:51:15
  Just share it on social media, please tag me and I will be happy
• 1:51:18
  to share it with my Twitter followers and Facebook friends. Until next time,
• 1:51:23
  Once again, my name is John Ziegler. This has been episode number seventy
• 1:51:26
  seven of the Death Stub Journalism podcast