Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Thirty One: Targeted For Extinction

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Thirty One: Targeted For Extinction · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome to episode number one hundred and thirty one of the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:05
  My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. Trump
• 0:08
  wins South Carolina as expected, but Haley still isn't dropping out. The mainstream
• 0:14
  media blacks out coverage of a Georgia student murdered by an illegal immigrant. The
• 0:20
  rollout of Google's Gemini AI is extremely telling and more examples of wokeness and college
• 0:28
  sports that you probably won't hear about anywhere else. I'm known as the Dutch
• 0:33
  Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and email marketing specialist that also
• 0:39
  happens to be a big fan of John Zigler and the Death of Journalism.
• 0:43
  Do you need help reaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the
• 0:48
  right messaging and confated message and the best channels for your business. Please visit
• 0:53
  my website, the Dutchdigitalmarketingman dot com and let me help you tell your story
• 0:59
  the website it is the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. If you want to
• 1:03
  grow your business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com.
• 1:08
  And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. This is our last week
• 1:14
  here on The Death of Journalism podcast, where we are providing you with free
• 1:19
  episodes that will end with the end of the month of February, so we
• 1:23
  have this episode and one more before we go to a new paid subscription model
• 1:30
  in March. If you want to be part of the new version of the
• 1:34
  podcast, please make sure to email our executive producer, Mike Agavino at Agoago
• 1:41
  Ago TDJ at gmail dot com. That's a g O TDJ at gmail dot
• 1:49
  com. We do have a special episode planned depending on what happens in the
• 1:53
  news for the last free episode of the podcast, which will be released later
• 1:59
  on this week. We begin this episode of the podcast with the results in
• 2:04
  the South Carolina primary, where Donald Trump has yet again won. This time
• 2:09
  he won with about a sixty forty victory over Nikki Haley. It was sixty
• 2:15
  ish forty ish, which was less impressive for Trump than what I had predicted.
• 2:21
  In fact, this is almost exactly what happened in New Hampshire. I
• 2:24
  overestimated that Trump's percentage of the vote total in New Hampshire by several points,
• 2:31
  and I did so again in South Carolina, and for similar reasons, because
• 2:37
  in both situations it wasn't like Trump's vote didn't turn out, it's that the
• 2:44
  anti Trump vote came out in massive numbers, even more so than I expected.
• 2:52
  And so we have a remarkably similar situation where Trump wins handily and certainly
• 2:59
  by more than enough to make sure he has clinched the nomination, and he's
• 3:02
  going to win every single primary from here on out. Barn An inconceivably large
• 3:09
  Black Swan event, so we know that he's going to be the nominee,
• 3:14
  as I've been predicting since September, and there's no chance of Haley winning any
• 3:21
  primaries. However, there are still some potential canaries in the coal mine here
• 3:27
  if you're a Trump fan or want him to win in November, because while
• 3:31
  he's getting his vote out, and I will be the first to acknowledge,
• 3:36
  his turnout so far in this primary season has been very, very good.
• 3:42
  I mean, he had a huge turnout in New Hampshire, a huge turnout
• 3:46
  in South Carolina, and that's why he won. But as I always say
• 3:50
  about Trump, he is a turnout machine in both directions. He caused a
• 3:57
  massive Haley turnout in New hamp I'm sure, and a rather large right Frankly,
• 4:02
  historically large for a loser turn out for Haley in South Carolina. Now,
• 4:08
  obviously, South Carolina is the state where Haley was a two term governor,
• 4:13
  and so it's understood that if she was going to do well anywhere,
• 4:16
  that's where she was going to be able to do decently well, especially given
• 4:20
  the rules of the primary. And of course, Trump fans are claiming that
• 4:25
  this was a situation where Democrats voted in large numbers that try to make Trump
• 4:30
  look bad. That narrative is bullshit. The exit polls indicate that at most
• 4:35
  five percent of voters were quote unquote Democrats, and there's a very good chance
• 4:41
  that a good percentage of those who knows We don't know for sure, but
• 4:45
  the sample is so small it almost doesn't matter. But even if Haley overwhelmingly
• 4:50
  won that five percent group of voters, it would not have impacted the results
• 4:56
  all that much. So this is Trump fans trying to make it excuse for
• 5:00
  their cult leader. I am continually unimpressed by how well Trump is doing in
• 5:08
  comparison to his opponents in each of these three contests so far. Let's review.
• 5:15
  So, yes, he's the only person that's ever won all these and
• 5:19
  that's something that Trump fans cry all the time. Hey, look, it's
• 5:25
  historic. No one's ever won all these races before, and he's winning by
• 5:29
  large margins. He's awesome. Yeah, but no former president has ever run
• 5:34
  in a primary before, so we have nothing to compare this to. This
• 5:41
  is the third time Trump is going to be the Republican presidential nominee. He's
• 5:46
  a former president. He has not just one hundred percent name recognition, he
• 5:51
  has a cult following. He has the entire conservative media industrial complex, if
• 5:59
  not totally on his side, at least afraid to criticize him. So we're
• 6:02
  talking about truly unique circumstances. No one has ever had all these advantages.
• 6:10
  And in South Carolina he had already been anointed as the nominee. So despite
• 6:15
  all of these advantages, he barely gets over fifty percent. In Iowa.
• 6:20
  He doesn't overperform, but he underperforms the polling. In New Hampshire most of
• 6:28
  the night wasn't even winning by double digits, barely squeaked out an over double
• 6:31
  digit victory over you know, not particularly popular Nikki Haley in New Hampshire where
• 6:38
  she has no natural roots. And then in South Carolina, after he is
• 6:43
  already the nominee. He only wins sixty forty and so for the second consecutive
• 6:49
  time in Iowa that it was basically exactly as the polls predicted. In New
• 6:54
  Hampshire, I think he underperformed the polls because you have to understand that ve
• 6:59
  Fay Obama Swami got out right before New Hampshire, and obviously Ron De Santis
• 7:03
  did as well, and so those voters were either going to vote for Trump
• 7:09
  or they weren't going to vote, and that did not cause a significant increase
• 7:15
  in Trump's percentage. So in my view, he underperformed the polls in New
• 7:18
  Hampshire, and he slightly underperformed the polls in South Carolina. Now, Trump
• 7:25
  fans object when I say that, saying, well, zig, he was
• 7:28
  only winning the real clear Politics averaged by twenty three and a half points going
• 7:31
  in, and he won by about twenty points, So that's you know,
• 7:34
  three and a half points. Well, first of all, three and a
• 7:38
  half points is pretty big. I mean if you extrapolate, which you can't
• 7:42
  do based upon this one result. But in theory, if there is something
• 7:46
  happening in the polling where Trump is underperforming by even three points that could easily
• 7:53
  be the difference between winning and losing significant states against Joe Biden in the November
• 7:59
  ELA, but I personally think it could underline could we don't know yet,
• 8:05
  it could be more significant than three points, because having studied this for most
• 8:11
  of my life, going back, you know, to the to the eighties.
• 8:16
  In my experience, in my interpretation, someone in Trump's position generally gets
• 8:24
  a bump from people realizing he's gonna be the victor. That increases his voter's
• 8:31
  enthusiasm. A lot of people want to jump on the bandwagon, they want
• 8:35
  to be part of a winner, and normally it depresses the vote of the
• 8:41
  opponent, so that it would be natural for Trump to be overperforming the polls.
• 8:48
  But the opposite, not dramatically, but the opposite seems to be happening
• 8:54
  for Nikki ahiy to get the level of turnout that she did. I mean,
• 8:58
  she got more vote losing in twenty twenty four than Trump did winning in
• 9:03
  twenty sixteen. And so there's a number of things to conclude about this number.
• 9:11
  One, I think positively this shows that the never Trump contingent of the
• 9:16
  Republican Party, while certainly defeated at least still has a pulse. It's at
• 9:22
  least somewhat relevant, and it could be very relevant in a general election if
• 9:28
  those voters don't come home to Donald Trump. And you know, the easiest
• 9:33
  way to get them to come home is you choose NICKI Haley as your vice
• 9:35
  presidential nominee. But it's pretty clear that's not going to happen. You know,
• 9:39
  the more obvious it is that it should happen. You know, it's
• 9:43
  pretty obvious that it's not going to happen, despite the fact that Trump has
• 9:46
  said, we lose the country unless he wins. Trump's ego is going to
• 9:52
  get in the way and he's not going to do everything it takes to win
• 9:56
  if you want to win. The obvious choice for vice president right now is
• 9:58
  nick Haley, but she's basically disqualified herself because she's turned herself into a rhino
• 10:09
  in the minds of MAGA supporters, and now Trump is attacking her more,
• 10:13
  and she's been attacking Trump more and saying that she's not even positive who she
• 10:18
  would endorse or support in a general election, and she's seemingly flirting with the
• 10:24
  idea of running as a no labels candidate, which I'm not convinced there's a
• 10:28
  media narrative out there that that's what she's doing. And I was confused in
• 10:33
  the last couple of episodes as to what her strategy is, and so a
• 10:37
  lot of people, I think, are also uncertain about that, and they're
• 10:41
  trying to come up with something that makes sense. I'm not sure the no
• 10:45
  labels theory makes a lot of sense either, mainly because there are sore loser
• 10:52
  laws on the books now there are people who think that those sore loser laws
• 10:56
  can be gotten around. In other words, you can't who's a primary election
• 11:01
  in a state and then run in the general election, and so there's a
• 11:05
  wide disparity of opinion about how viable that is. And I'm not an expert
• 11:09
  in this area, but there's no question it would be a hurdle. And
• 11:16
  you know, her big money groups have already announced two of her biggest sources
• 11:20
  of money, including you know, one of the Koch brothers, has already
• 11:24
  announced they're not going to funder her primary campaign anymore. And so I don't
• 11:31
  think that the no labels avenue makes a ton of sense here. Logistically,
• 11:37
  I think there are issues. I think if she did run under no labels.
• 11:41
  Depending on who her running mate would be, she would probably throw the
• 11:46
  election to Joe Biden. And you know, I don't see how that's going
• 11:48
  to help her going forward. And so I'm not convinced that we know what
• 11:54
  Nicki Haley's motivation is. But the fact that Nicki Hanley got that many votes
• 12:00
  and essentially forty percent against the presumptive Republican nominee with all those advantages that I've
• 12:07
  already talked about is quite extraordinary. Now, what does it really mean.
• 12:13
  I don't think anybody knows yet. I mean, look, I think back
• 12:18
  to two thousand and eight and the Obama Hillary Clinton battle, where people forget
• 12:24
  that even after Obama was the appointed nominee, Hillary Clinton cleaned his clock in
• 12:28
  a lot of states, there was still a massive resistance to Barack Obama because
• 12:33
  there was a thought within the Democratic Party that a guy named Barack Husain Obama
• 12:37
  with no experience was not electable. Well, they underestimated how much the media
• 12:41
  was going to carry his water in a general election and destroy John McCain and
• 12:46
  Sarah Palin on his behalf. But Barack Obama ended up winning that election fairly
• 12:52
  easily. So you know, this doesn't necessarily mean that Trump can't win,
• 12:58
  although I would say that in the Obama Hillary Clinton battle it was kind of
• 13:01
  like which flavor of ice cream do you like better? That's what Democrats we're
• 13:07
  battling over. For all intensive purposes. Here, the divisions between the voters
• 13:11
  are a lot more stark, a lot more dramatic, and there are still
• 13:16
  a lot of people in my category. Now, I think it's much less
• 13:20
  than forty percent. I've been saying it's about twenty percent of Republicans in most
• 13:24
  states that are in the anti Trump never Trump category. And are those people
• 13:31
  gonna be willing and able to pull the lever for Trump against Joe Biden.
• 13:35
  I mean, obviously Biden's about as bad an other as the other option could
• 13:39
  possibly get at this point, especially with his declining health and mental acuity.
• 13:46
  But there are still people that are gonna have a very difficult time voting for
• 13:50
  Trump regardless, and this result shows that. So it's not gonna have any
• 13:54
  influence at all over Trump being the nominee. He's gonna crush Haley on Super
• 14:01
  Tuesday, the first Tuesday in March. It's going to all end up being
• 14:05
  in the seventy thirty eighty twenty range wouldn't shock me if from here on out
• 14:11
  she never reaches forty percent in any state again. She might not even reach
• 14:16
  thirty five percent in any state going forward. And I think she will probably
• 14:20
  drop out after Super Tuesday because at that point it will become embarrassing and Trump's
• 14:28
  delegate number might even be close to clinching. At that point, you all
• 14:33
  intensive purposes, You'll be the nominee after Super Tuesday, and she just won't
• 14:39
  have any money to keep going forward, and it'll just be, you know,
• 14:41
  looking more and more ridiculous. She will look smaller and smaller. Frankly,
• 14:46
  I was amazed how much coverage the South Carolina primary got. I mean
• 14:50
  CNN. I don't know what was going on at CNN with the contracts they
• 14:56
  must have with their so called stars, but they forced some of their biggest
• 15:00
  names on a Saturday to sit around for five hours, five hours to talk
• 15:07
  about nothing. I mean it, literally, you could have wrapped this thing
• 15:09
  up in fifteen minutes a half hour tops, and instead these people, Anderson
• 15:16
  Cooper and John King and Jake Tapper and all their big commentators were basically there
• 15:22
  all night long. On a Saturday to talk about absolutely nothing. So that
• 15:28
  kind of coverage is not going to happen. Certainly after Super Tuesday and Super
• 15:31
  Tuesday they will do that kind of coverage because there'll be so many results to
• 15:37
  talk about. And by the way, you know, there are those who
• 15:39
  claim, well, this is bad for Trump. That was one of the
• 15:43
  narratives coming out of CNN and other liberal media outlets that somehow it's bad for
• 15:50
  Trump for Haley to keep going and to make him look bad. And I
• 15:54
  question that because it's kind of like a boxing sparring part. Okay, yeah,
• 16:02
  you might get hit in the gut every once in a while, but
• 16:03
  they can't really harm you, and you get to win, so and winning
• 16:11
  matters. Winning makes you look strong. So instead of this thing being over,
• 16:17
  like you never even hear about what's going on in the Democratic primaries anymore,
• 16:21
  because everyone knows Biden's gonna win by ninety percent, it doesn't get any
• 16:25
  coverage at all. But because Haley stays in, Trump gets a victory.
• 16:30
  It's a win, a win, a win after win after win after win,
• 16:33
  and then he looks like a winner, which is exactly his brand to
• 16:37
  begin with. And it's particularly helpful when in court he keeps having loss after
• 16:41
  loss after loss. So I don't think necessarily that in the big picture,
• 16:48
  it's bad for Trump to have an opponent and to keep having victories, and
• 16:53
  that's gonna happen through Super Tuesday, and then at that point I think Nikki
• 16:59
  Haley pretty much hash to get out. We'll see whether or not she goes
• 17:03
  for this no labels situation. But the no labels circumstance is a classic case
• 17:10
  that sounds so good in principle, but in practice just doesn't work because as
• 17:18
  soon as you pick names, as soon as No Labels picks names, they're
• 17:22
  not no labels anymore. Because there are no qualified, large figure celebrities who
• 17:32
  are capable of being presidential candidates who are either or not either Republican or Democrat.
• 17:40
  It's not possible. I mean, Joe Mansion, Democrat from West Virginia,
• 17:45
  was maybe the only possibility that made any sense there, and he talked
• 17:49
  about maybe having Mitt Romney as his VP. And since Mitt Romney's been basically
• 17:55
  excommunicated from the Republican Party, which is amazing, since he was thirty six
• 17:59
  hours being president. In the minds of the conservative media, back in twenty
• 18:03
  twelve he was gonna be the next Reagan, and now he's been excommunicated.
• 18:06
  But if you had Mansion Romney, okay, maybe that might work. I
• 18:11
  still don't think that's remotely a winning ticket, even with two terrible candidates between
• 18:17
  Trump and Biden. But who are you gonna stick Hanley with? So as
• 18:22
  soon as you actually try to turn that theoretical idea into practice, I think
• 18:30
  it automatically falls apart because you're gonna piss off one side or the other,
• 18:34
  and you're gonna probably appeal to nobody. Yes, there's a huge swath of
• 18:41
  voters in the middle that are extremely distressed by the two choices, but there's
• 18:47
  not enough who are gonna automatically glob onto whatever other option there is. I
• 18:52
  mean, heck, the other option right now appears to be RFK Junior,
• 18:56
  assumingly assuming he gets on the ballot, which is still a big if in
• 19:00
  a lot of major states. But he's no bargain either. At least these
• 19:04
  two guys have been president before. RFK Junior has never held elected office.
• 19:08
  He's a freaking nut job. Former heroin addict, first White committed suicide.
• 19:15
  He was a massive conspiracy theorist. He's an environmental wacko. So I mean,
• 19:22
  I am, in no way, shape or form someone who thinks that
• 19:25
  RK Junior is a rational choice, although bizarre least a lot of the Santa
• 19:29
  supporters are flirting at least online with the RK Junior option simply because of the
• 19:36
  COVID issue, which I just don't agree with, because I think he's even
• 19:37
  a fraud to a large degree when it comes to COVID contrarianism. So the
• 19:44
  bottom line on South Carolina is Trump won. It was not that impressive percentage
• 19:49
  wise. Yes, he's getting out his vote, but he's also turning out
• 19:55
  negative vote against him, even in a Republican prime. And that's probably the
• 20:02
  number one thing that I wish. There's so many that are in this category,
• 20:07
  but the number one thing I wish that Trump supporters understood about the politics
• 20:12
  of Donald Trump is what a negative turnout machine he is. Joe Biden didn't
• 20:21
  get eighty one million votes in twenty twenty. Eighty one million people voted against
• 20:25
  Donald Trump, and that has an impact all the way down the ballot.
• 20:30
  And I think that having Trump on the ballot this year is almost a deadlock
• 20:37
  certainty to mean that the Democratic Party is going to retake the House of Representatives,
• 20:41
  and it may mean they hang on to the Senate or at least have
• 20:45
  a fifty to fifty tie in the Senate, which means they essentially control it
• 20:49
  if Biden wins reelection. So you know, that's the many, many frustrating
• 20:56
  elements of the Donald Trump phenomenon. As someone like me who is a print
• 21:00
  the Conservative, that one hurts more than anything because most Trump fans don't even
• 21:06
  understand it, and I've seen it for myself on social media thousands of times.
• 21:11
  They really don't get this. They think it's voter fraud. No,
• 21:14
  it's not voter fraud. It's that people are voting for anybody against Donald Trump,
• 21:21
  even Republicans voting for Milk Toastick, Mickey Haley against Donald Trump. But
• 21:26
  you know, the nomination process is over. I am continually unimpressed by how
• 21:33
  well Trump is doing with regard to mitigating his opposition, and I do think
• 21:37
  that's relevant come November now as far as potentially good news on the legal front
• 21:45
  for Donald Trump. Frankly, I don't think this has got enough attention,
• 21:49
  maybe because you know the media is using as an excuse that there's not been
• 21:55
  any sort of decision made by the court yet on this. But the latest
• 21:59
  and the Fanny Willis Nathan Wade controversy is really stunning. It's not that shocking,
• 22:07
  but it should be considered a bombshell in the media. And you probably
• 22:11
  have not heard about this. You might have if you're an avid newswatcher,
• 22:15
  especially on social media, but obviously a week and a half ago there was
• 22:21
  this very dramatic court hearing where Fanny Willis, the County DA in Georgia that's
• 22:30
  bringing the charges against Donald Trump and others, and the person she hired as
• 22:34
  the special prosecutor for the case, Nathan Wade. They testified on live national
• 22:41
  television very dramatically about whether or not they had a romantic relationship, which they
• 22:48
  admit to they're having or have had had recently a romantic relationship, But did
• 22:52
  they have a romantic relationship before Nathan Wade was hired as special prosecutor And if
• 23:00
  they did, well, that's one a massive conflict of interest and it's also
• 23:03
  an indication that they lied to the court, maybe committed perjury and had you
• 23:08
  know, all sorts of potential violations including by the way, campaign finance violations,
• 23:14
  IRS violations, misuse of funds violations. I mean all sorts of potential
• 23:18
  problems here for Fanny Willis and Nathan Wade. And in my opinion, it
• 23:23
  was obvious that they were lying. It was obvious to me and the most
• 23:29
  rational people who watched that that their relationship absolutely had started romantically before Wade was
• 23:37
  hired as the sprescial prosecutor. And I also did not understand why so many
• 23:41
  people were giving them the benefit of the doubt on the funding issue, where
• 23:45
  they were hiding behind the idea that she only uses cash, which you know
• 23:51
  that could be partially true, but that is no way, shape or form,
• 23:53
  especially when they're lying in other areas, or clearly lying in other areas,
• 23:57
  How you still give them the doubt with regard to the cash. I
• 24:02
  have no idea, And I thought there was a lot of soft bigotry of
• 24:06
  low expectations in the entire story. And you know, Fanny Willis was playing
• 24:11
  the black card, she was playing the gender card. She's been going into
• 24:15
  black churches in Atlanta doing the same thing. Although I did see one video
• 24:18
  there was where there was some pushback from a black male pastor in Atlanta,
• 24:23
  which I thought was fantastic. But for all intents and purposes, Fanny Willis
• 24:30
  is essentially daring her critics to go after her because they will be labeled in
• 24:37
  her mind as racist or sexist or both. And to me, that's the
• 24:41
  last bashion of scoundrels. You know, you know, if you don't have
• 24:45
  the facts on your side, the law is not on your side, you
• 24:48
  claim racism or sexism. And that was consistent with someone who was caught and
• 24:52
  had no other choice, and they were lying. Well, it appears very
• 24:59
  much as if when the lawyers were questioning Fanny Willis and Nathan Wade about their
• 25:04
  relationship, that they had more information, more evidence than was then in the
• 25:11
  public record. And what I mean by that is we now know, based
• 25:17
  upon court filings, that they have the cell phone records for Fanny Willis and
• 25:22
  Nathan Wade, and Nathan Wade's cell phone was at Fanny Willis's place at least
• 25:30
  thirty five times before he was hired as special prosecutor, so way before this
• 25:40
  case was ever a thing. Nathan Wade was at Fanny Willis's residence thirty five
• 25:48
  times. Based upon his cell phone records, and on at least two occasions
• 25:55
  the cell phone was there, you guessed it overnight. Now that's about as
• 26:03
  good evidence as you're going to possibly get. I mean, that's game set
• 26:07
  match in a rational world as far as what they testified to when you go
• 26:12
  back, now that you have that information that the cell phone records exist,
• 26:18
  and they clearly contradict the idea that there was no relationship between Fanny Willis and
• 26:22
  Nathan Wade prior to him being hired as a special prosecutor in the Trump case.
• 26:29
  Now that you know that, when you look go back and look at
• 26:32
  their testimony, it's pretty hilarious. I'd urge you to do so yourself if
• 26:36
  you can find it online. Fanny Willis was a bit more vague, seem
• 26:41
  to me as if she had a better idea that they might have some evidence
• 26:45
  or cell phone records. And so I'm not a hundred percent sure based upon
• 26:49
  what I've seen, that they're going to get her for clear perjury because she
• 26:55
  was purposely very very vague. Nathan Wade was trying to be vague, but
• 27:00
  he wasn't quite as vague. He said that at most he was at Fanny
• 27:07
  Willis's place ten times. Now, the difference between at most ten times and
• 27:11
  thirty five times, including at least two overnight visits, is significant, especially
• 27:17
  when Nathan Wade's excuse for why he would ever go there was to talk in
• 27:22
  person about some documents that she had sent him. As if anybody in this
• 27:27
  day and age goes to somebody's house to discuss a document that they got sent,
• 27:33
  I mean, it's ludicrous on its face. It didn't happen that way.
• 27:37
  So I don't know whether or not they're going to be able to get
• 27:38
  Fanny Willis on perjury. They might be able to get Nathan Wade. But
• 27:45
  if the core issue here is whether or not they lied to the court and
• 27:51
  whether or not they actually were involved in a romantic relationship before they said they
• 27:55
  were and before this decision was made to make Nathan Wade prosecutor, then it's
• 28:02
  really hard to see how they stay on this case. I mean, and
• 28:07
  I'm kind of amazed. There's been a lot else going on in the news
• 28:11
  over the last several days, but this is not, to this moment gotten
• 28:15
  nearly as much attention as it should. Now. Maybe if when that decision
• 28:19
  is made by the court, it will get more attention, but it's hard
• 28:25
  for me to understand how they stay on this case, and if they do
• 28:29
  stay on this case, to me, the credibility of the case, at
• 28:32
  least in the minds of Trump people and potential jurors that are even remotely Trump
• 28:37
  friendly, is shot. It's completely shot. And I also gotta believe I
• 28:42
  have to believe that this is yet another data point in a prediction that I've
• 28:48
  already made that, barring conviction of a felony or a massive black swan,
• 28:56
  Trump is gonna win Georgia. I just cannot possible believe that this level of
• 29:02
  embarrassment for Trump's enemies and how they went after him in such a dramatic way
• 29:07
  and to have it blow up in their faces like this. He's already been
• 29:10
  winning every single poll in Georgia for many months. I just don't see how
• 29:15
  Joe Biden beats Donald Trump in Georgia. And then if you add in the
• 29:19
  story I'm going to get to a little bit later on involving the Georgia student
• 29:23
  killed by an illegal immigrant, where liberals are pretending that didn't happen. I
• 29:27
  gotta believe at this point that Trump is a heavy, heavy favorite. As
• 29:32
  I've already said, I've predicted he's gonna win in the state of Georgia,
• 29:36
  which is critical because that's one of the top six states that will determine who
• 29:40
  is the next president of the United States. So the Fanny willis Nathan Wade
• 29:44
  revelations not shocking yet should be considered a bombshell. So far, the media
• 29:49
  has not responded in kind. Will see whether or not that changes. Within
• 29:55
  the topic of Trump's legal troubles, I have been a extremely outraged by the
• 30:03
  most recent developments, specifically, among other things, the civil verdict and the
• 30:10
  civil fraud case in New York City involving Donald Trump and a four hundred and
• 30:15
  sixty four million dollar judgment against him. Essentially when you include you know,
• 30:21
  penalties and interest in what have you. And I'm a big believer I say
• 30:26
  this many many times that if you wait long enough, the truth will come
• 30:30
  out. And usually the truth comes out after a big decision, whether that's
• 30:37
  a firing, a divorce, or a court case, or you know,
• 30:41
  someone after someone dies. You know, there's all sorts of big life events
• 30:48
  where afterwards you find out, oh, okay, that's what was really happening,
• 30:55
  and court cases are are pretty good example of that. I mean,
• 30:57
  I think we already found out when it came to Governor Hochal of New York
• 31:02
  trying to calm the fears of other, you know, real estate moguls in
• 31:08
  New York that we're not going to go after you like we went after Donald
• 31:11
  Trump. Don't worry if you're not Donald Trump, you got nothing to worry
• 31:15
  about, even though what we went after Trump for is standard operating procedure when
• 31:19
  it comes to big time real estate ventures and how they deal with banks.
• 31:23
  Don't worry if you're not Donald Trump, We're not going to go after you.
• 31:27
  Well, that was an aha moment. Okay, so you're acknowledging them.
• 31:30
  The media ignored this in the mainstream, in the left, you know,
• 31:34
  they didn't make a big deal out of it. But to me,
• 31:37
  that was an Aha moment. Oh So you're saying you did go after Donald
• 31:41
  Trump because of the politics of it. So there's already a clear public record
• 31:47
  that the Governor of New York is essentially acknowledged that this, acknowledging that,
• 31:52
  yes, this was a politically motivated prosecution where we essentially stole somebody's property,
• 32:00
  and not a little bit of property, almost half a billion dollars in property.
• 32:06
  We just stole it because we don't like them. Now I hate Donald
• 32:08
  Trump, but that outrages me and frankly scares the crap out of me for
• 32:14
  the implications of that, because they might think, they may have rationalized in
• 32:19
  their mind that this is a very isolated situation, doesn't really create a precedent.
• 32:22
  It's just for Donald Trump. By the way, that's outrageous on its
• 32:27
  face. It goes against almost everything we're supposed to stand for. It means
• 32:31
  literally in the constitution that they were not supposed to do this kind of thing,
• 32:37
  and so that would be obscene enough, but that it wasn't just Governor
• 32:43
  hokel In the last few days, Letitia James, the New York Attorney General
• 32:47
  who was behind this case, a black female who promised to go after Donald
• 32:52
  Trump in her campaign, she tweeted the following this is all she tweeted.
• 33:00
  She tweeted the number four hundred and sixty four point six million dollars all the
• 33:07
  way down to the pennies'. That was the entire tweet. That tweet as
• 33:13
  of this taping, has twenty million views. Here she was spiking the football
• 33:21
  virtue signaling looking for love from liberal Twitter users simply by bragging but not saying
• 33:30
  anything else, just posting the amount of money, like, Hey, look
• 33:36
  at me, Look what I did. I stole four hundred and sixty four
• 33:40
  million dollars from a guy you hate. Give me some love. That's exactly
• 33:46
  what it was. Of course, no blowback on the left at all.
• 33:52
  Some people on the right, Megan Kelly in particular, I think, was
• 33:54
  rightfully outraged by this, calling it gross. It's absolutely gross, but it's
• 34:01
  also telling about what the motivations really were here and how it was not based
• 34:07
  in any semblance of right or wrong or what the law was intended to be.
• 34:14
  And as far as that number is concerned, I read a little bit
• 34:17
  about what Trump would have to do to appeal that judgment, and the bond
• 34:24
  that he would have to put up and the interest that he would have to
• 34:28
  pay on that is so utterly insane. And I'm somebody who has been for
• 34:34
  many, many years saying that Trump is not cash rich, that his wealth
• 34:39
  is not nearly as large as he claims it to be. But even if
• 34:45
  that's not true, a half billion dollars is what he would basically have to
• 34:52
  raise as a bond on this just to appeal. So for those who say,
• 34:57
  well, you know, this is one of those judgments that will eventually
• 35:00
  get reduced on appeal, and he's got lots of money, it's no big
• 35:04
  deal. This is a big stinking deal for Donald Trump. I don't know
• 35:09
  how he does this. I mean, he's going to have to sell something.
• 35:15
  And this is a terrible time in the commercial real estate world to be
• 35:17
  selling anything, especially in New York. And so it's really hard for me
• 35:25
  to have sympathy for empathy with Donald Trump, but I do when it comes
• 35:31
  to this particular situation. And of course it's only strengthening his support in the
• 35:37
  Republican Party or hardening his support within the pro Trump elements of the Republican Party.
• 35:44
  And as far as you know the law is concerned, Democrats, liberals
• 35:46
  and the media are such a bunch of freaking hypocrites when it comes to this
• 35:51
  entire issue, especially when they say, well, we're just trying to save
• 35:54
  democracy and the rule of law, and here we sign ultaneously have their candidate
• 36:00
  Joe Biden bragging about defying the Supreme Court on student loan forgiveness bragging he held
• 36:13
  in an event last week here in southern California where he was bragging about how
• 36:17
  the Supreme Court ruling, which I told you was going to be meaningless at
• 36:23
  the time, and largely because you know, the Supreme Court works so slowly
• 36:30
  and they're so naive that it's incredibly easy for a Democratic president to run and
• 36:39
  runs around them because by the time they're able to revisit the issue, it's
• 36:45
  too late. You can't undo it. You can't get the genie out of
• 36:50
  a bottle. And this student loan forgiveness situation is a perfect example. So
• 36:54
  we went through the process. The Supreme Court said, no, you can't
• 36:58
  do this. Nancy Pelosi is on record saying the president doesn't have the authority
• 37:04
  to do this. And yet after the Supreme Court decision, Biden on multiple
• 37:09
  occasions has proactively forgiven billions of dollars of student loans. Whatever happened to preserving
• 37:21
  democracy, whatever happened to the rule of law. I mean, this is
• 37:23
  what Democrats keep telling us is the big problem with Donald Trump, that oh
• 37:28
  my gosh, you know, we're gonna lose the Republic if Donald Trump is
• 37:32
  somehow returned to the White House. Well, if you don't recognize the authority
• 37:38
  of the Supreme Court, you openly defy it. You brag, you brag
• 37:44
  about how the Supreme Court couldn't stop you in an election year where you're clearly
• 37:50
  trying to buy votes. That's what the prime motivation of this is. This
• 37:54
  is the prime motivation is to try to gin up some enthusiasm among young liberals
• 38:00
  for Joe Biden, because generally the people who are having their loans forgiven are
• 38:07
  already far more likely to be Liberals than they are to be conservatives. They're
• 38:13
  younger, they've gone to some semblance of college, and so that's a demographic
• 38:20
  that's right now much more liberal than they are in favor of Donald Trump.
• 38:24
  So this is a way of paying off people who are very likely his voters.
• 38:30
  And it's not just outrageous because the defiance of the Supreme Court. How
• 38:37
  is it? And Republicans should be criticized for not doing a better job of
• 38:42
  messaging on this, and part of it because they don't have any money to
• 38:45
  get around the mainstream media blockade on this issue. But to me, how
• 38:52
  do you not have a messaging campaign of if you ever did pay off a
• 38:57
  student loan. You should be enraged by this. Or if you never took
• 39:04
  a student loan, if you decided you couldn't afford to go to college,
• 39:08
  so therefore you didn't take a student loan, those people should be enraged.
• 39:15
  We are all being forced to pay off loans that provided essentially zero benefit to
• 39:23
  society. Where these people made a promise to pay back the money they were
• 39:30
  given a in large many cases not entirely a full or at least partial ride
• 39:37
  to a college education under the idea that they would pay that back, and
• 39:44
  now they don't have to pay it back, so they get a massive benefit.
• 39:49
  Biden keeps calling it I've given them the freedom. Well no, no,
• 39:53
  if you gave them freedom, the people paying for that freedom are those
• 39:59
  that did pay pay off their loans and those that never took loans to begin
• 40:02
  with. This isn't free money. This is having to come either directly or
• 40:07
  indirectly from somewhere. Not to mention, it sets a horrendous precedent. Why
• 40:14
  would anybody pay back their loans in the future if you just if you believe
• 40:21
  it's gonna be forgiven eventually. I mean, this is completely outrageous on so
• 40:28
  many levels, and yet doesn't get nearly the coverage that it deserves. And
• 40:32
  there's no coverage. I mean, where's the outrage in the main street news
• 40:37
  media regarding you know, Joe Biden even just defying the Supreme Court. Forget
• 40:43
  about the issue itself, and frankly, to me, the issue itself is
• 40:45
  insane. But we've just we've lost the plot when it comes to you know,
• 40:52
  and this is one of the many things that COVID did. When you
• 40:54
  start handing people checks to stay home and do nothing, the sanctity of forgiving
• 41:01
  loans and just pretending as if money grows on trees is completely gone. The
• 41:07
  floodgates are open. We've left the gravitational pull of the rational earth, as
• 41:14
  I often say, because you know, once you get beyond having to pay
• 41:19
  your debts, then what else is left? What else matters? Nothing matters.
• 41:25
  At that point, all bets are off. And Biden's bragging about this
• 41:32
  with no media accountability whatsoever. And frankly, even Trump, to my knowledge,
• 41:37
  isn't trying to make a huge deal out of this. I got to
• 41:42
  believe that there has to be if you're just from a political standpoint, there
• 41:46
  has to be a segment of Biden friendly voters who did pay off their loans
• 41:54
  that have got to be pissed off about this, and you know, Trump
• 41:58
  and Republicans are either willing or unable to take advantage of that. Now,
• 42:01
  another story that at least indirectly, if not directly, involves media bias towards
• 42:08
  Joe Biden is something I talked about previously involving the firing I guess you would
• 42:15
  call it of Catherine Herridge at CBS News. Now. A couple episodes ago
• 42:20
  on the podcast, I expressed that this made no sense to me that you
• 42:24
  know, here we have Paramount. Just a couple of days out of the
• 42:28
  super Bowl, where CBS and Paramount made, you know, insane's amounts of
• 42:31
  money. They laid off eight hundred workers from Paramount, about twenty from CBS
• 42:37
  News, one of which was Catherine Herridge. And Catherine Herridge is a very
• 42:43
  good reporter. She was a national security reporter for CBS News. This is
• 42:49
  obviously an extremely important area where there's a lot going on. It's obviously an
• 42:52
  election year and Harriage had done a lot of work on Biden related issues,
• 42:59
  some of which was rather not particularly friendly to Joe Biden specifically, when it
• 43:05
  came to Hunter Biden and so her firing, I said, well, this
• 43:10
  makes no sense from an editorial standpoint, and it's going to feed all sorts
• 43:15
  of conspiracy theories because here you have one of your very few fair reporters when
• 43:21
  it comes to dealing with Joe Biden being fired at the beginning of a presidential
• 43:27
  election year. Well, that was bad enough, but now we have found
• 43:30
  out that as part of her firing, CBS confiscated all of her work materials
• 43:38
  and confidential sources as well. Now, as far as I can tell,
• 43:45
  this is unprecedented. This has caused actually a pretty good amount of outrage within
• 43:51
  the media. Herridge's own union SAG after a union that I guess I'm still
• 43:58
  technically part of, which is certainly not a conservative entity at all. They
• 44:02
  came out very strongly in support of Harriage and said that this is beyond the
• 44:08
  pale, This is unprecedented. As far as we know, this is wrong.
• 44:13
  As of this taping, I have no sign that this has been corrected.
• 44:17
  But my gosh, even as anti conspiracy oriented as I am, even
• 44:24
  I can't really go, you know, push back against those on the Trump
• 44:29
  side who are going to say that this is all part of an anti Trump
• 44:31
  conspiracy. I'm not saying it is, but how do you possibly argue against
• 44:36
  that? I mean, you take out your one of your best reporters who's
• 44:40
  not pro Biden. She's fair and tough, and not only do you take
• 44:45
  her out, but you take over her confidential source materials, which is in
• 44:52
  a front to the entire concept of journalism. I mean, talk about journalism
• 44:55
  being dead the name of this podcast, I mean this, this is this
• 45:00
  is Soviet level stuff, and I have not heard any rational explanation for how
• 45:07
  this makes any sense. Now, is it theoretically possible that there's more to
• 45:13
  the heritage story than we currently know? I guess so. My gut doesn't
• 45:19
  tell me that's the case. But that's about the only scenario that would make
• 45:23
  any sense at all here that would justify what CBS has done. Is there
• 45:29
  some sort of scandal that Harriage is involved in that we are completely in the
• 45:35
  dark about. Again, I don't believe that, but that's about what it
• 45:37
  would take for me to go, oh, okay, you know, maybe
• 45:43
  this makes some level of sense and isn't part of some sort of pro Biden
• 45:47
  quote unquote conspiracy. However, even that theory doesn't add up right now for
• 45:54
  me, because if that was the case, especially after the back that occurred
• 46:01
  when CBS took over her confidential source material, we would see a leak.
• 46:07
  We would see some sort of a leak destroying Catherine Herridge's reputation or at least
• 46:15
  implying that there was something else going on that resulted in her firing from CBS,
• 46:22
  and that has not happened. I'm a big believer that often what does
• 46:27
  not happen is at least as significant as what does happen. And if there
• 46:32
  was something even tiny that justified any of this, CBS would make sure that
• 46:39
  that got out there into the bloodstream of the narrative. And that has not
• 46:45
  happened, and I find that very telling. So this is a story that
• 46:49
  I hope does not go away. My guess is herriage now though it's probably
• 46:52
  gonna end up on Fox Newschanel because she's gonna have so much street cred when
• 46:58
  it comes to Trump's supporters, and you know, generally that's the way this
• 47:00
  thing works now anyway, if you have a reputation at a mainstream network and
• 47:06
  you know, you get fired for not being liberal enough. You know,
• 47:08
  Fox News Channel will will almost inherently hire you. But this is definitely a
• 47:14
  story to keep an eye on. One other thing, regarding Joe Biden and
• 47:20
  the situation involving the twenty twenty four election, I have to mention that Gavin
• 47:24
  Newsom made yet another appearance on a national talk show on behalf of Joe Biden.
• 47:30
  He was on NBC's Meet the Press. He also bylated CNN and Jake
• 47:35
  Tapper. My first question here is why is Gavin Newsom everywhere but Joe Biden
• 47:40
  is nowhere? I mean, shouldn't that be rather telling? And I want
• 47:46
  to make something clear. I am not, and never have been, in
• 47:50
  the camp of people who believes that Gavin Newsom is going to replace Joe Biden
• 47:54
  on the Democratic ticket. In fact, I now think that the evidence is
• 48:00
  compiling rather quickly that something very very different from that is what is actually happening.
• 48:06
  So I am not building the case that Newsom is going to try to
• 48:10
  take over the Democratic nomination. I've never believed that. I've never believed Newsom
• 48:15
  would be a better candidate again, especially against Trump, than Biden would.
• 48:21
  And there are numerous polls that indicate that Newsom does far worse in the swing
• 48:27
  states against Trump than Biden does. It was just recently a poll out in
• 48:30
  North Carolina, where Biden is still very competitive, and Newsom gets his clock
• 48:36
  cleaned in North Carolina by Donald Trump. So this has never made any sense
• 48:42
  to me. And obviously I despise Gavin Newsom as much as any public figure
• 48:46
  that I have disdained for. You know, my daughters call him governor Poosom,
• 48:51
  largely because of his response to COVID. But I just find it amazing
• 48:55
  that no one is really pointing out that Newsom is willing and able to go
• 49:01
  on every talk show that we'll have him nationally, CNN, you know,
• 49:06
  and NBC's Meet the Press. He you know, even debated Ron DeSantis and
• 49:09
  got his butt kicked on Fox News Channel in an event hosted by Sean Hannity.
• 49:15
  We seemingly have forgotten about that. That did Desanta's no good at all
• 49:19
  in the Republican primary process, which is just incredibly depressing. But Newsom is
• 49:23
  willing and able to do this. Biden is not. Biden would never go
• 49:29
  on even a liberal show like Meet the Press or you know, do an
• 49:34
  interview with CNN's Jake Tapper in a live situation. It would never happen,
• 49:38
  largely because of his declining mental acuity. But it's what Newsom said. And
• 49:45
  I want to play one clip in particular that I found to be significant,
• 49:50
  and before I play the clip, I want to provide this context and give
• 49:52
  you a little heads up as to where I'm kind of heading with all this.
• 49:57
  See, you have to understand, it's becoming very clear the Gavin Newsom
• 50:02
  has a perverse, a uniquely perverse self interest when it comes to this twenty
• 50:09
  twenty four election. It is too late now for him to replace Joe Biden.
• 50:15
  I don't think he was ever going to replace Joe Biden. But Joe
• 50:17
  Biden doesn't want to leave the stage. And that's ninety percent of this equation.
• 50:25
  If Joe Biden doesn't want to leave the stage, unless he's physically totally
• 50:30
  incapacitated, you can't get rid of him as a sitting president. So that
• 50:37
  was the first thing blocking any theoretical path that Newsom had. All right,
• 50:40
  but it's now clearly too late, even just logistically. A lot of people
• 50:45
  aren't understanding this lawrence. O'Donnell on MSNBC did a long diatribic trying to explain
• 50:52
  this to his liberal audience, and he was largely correct. It's too late.
• 50:57
  You just logistically, unless Biden based dies, you cannot do it.
• 51:02
  So Newsome, It's obvious he wants to be president. I've never denied that,
• 51:07
  but if you look at his self interest here, it is clearly perverse
• 51:15
  because what's his most logical path, Well, his most logical path is not
• 51:22
  for Joe Biden to beat Donald Trump. I would argue his most logical path
• 51:30
  is for Joe Biden to lose to Donald Trump. And you're probably thinking,
• 51:36
  well, why would that be zigg He could just take over for Biden,
• 51:39
  and you know Biden would well, no, because if Biden wins reelection,
• 51:45
  two things are gonna One of two things are going to happen. Either Biden
• 51:51
  somehow serves out his second term, which would be comical and dangerous given his
• 51:58
  current mental condition, and it's not going to get any better, It's only
• 52:00
  gonna get worse in the next couple of years, or as I've been predicting
• 52:04
  for many, many months, he somehow gets through to January twenty twenty seven,
• 52:09
  he resigns from office and now Kamala Harris is the first female president,
• 52:15
  and she can actually run for two more terms. And if that doesn't happen,
• 52:21
  if somehow Biden gets through a second term, Harris is an eight year
• 52:27
  vice president with the possibility of being the first female president. I mean,
• 52:35
  I know she's terrible, but that's gonna be very very very very difficult to
• 52:40
  beat if you're a Democrat in twenty twenty eight. But if Biden loses,
• 52:50
  if Biden loses to Trump, Harris is sidelined. Harris isn't vice president for
• 52:57
  the next four years. She's unemployed. Well he's still governor of California,
• 53:04
  and she is perceived as a failed vice president. She was unpopular and they
• 53:08
  couldn't even beat Donald Trump the second time around. So if you're Newsome,
• 53:15
  you don't really want Biden to win reelection, if you are as power hungry
• 53:22
  as he appears to be. And I believe that you actually want Biden to
• 53:27
  lose because it gets rid of Harris. And if there's no Harris, if
• 53:34
  Harris is sidelined, then I gotta believe Newsom is in fact a significant favorite
• 53:40
  to be the twenty twenty eight Democratic presidential nominee who knows maybe we somehow get
• 53:45
  that rematch of Newsom DeSantis in twenty twenty eight. But you know, we're
• 53:51
  getting ahead of ourselves. The bottom line here is I am now very confident
• 53:57
  that Newsom, despite his protestations, this may be a classic situation of us
• 54:04
  to protest too much. This is as passive aggressive as you can get.
• 54:08
  Newsom is pretending to be Biden's biggest cheerleader. Oh Man, Biden is awesome.
• 54:15
  In fact, his age is actually a benefit. His age and experience
• 54:21
  is why he's kicking ass in the White House. This is literally the things.
• 54:25
  This is the primary argument that Newsom is making on Biden's behalf. He's
• 54:31
  literally said his age is a benefit, it's a positive Joe Biden is I
• 54:39
  am in awe of Joe Biden. If these are all almost direct quotes from
• 54:44
  Gavin Newsom, well this if you look up the definition of passive aggressive of
• 54:47
  the dictionary, this may be it because by pretending to be Biden's biggest cheerleader,
• 54:55
  he is able to throw people off the scent. So what I just
• 55:00
  told you, which is that in reality he doesn't really want Biden to win,
• 55:05
  because if Biden wins, Harris blocks Newsome from the presidency forever. There's
• 55:10
  no path for Gavin Newsome if Joe Biden gets re elected. None. I
• 55:19
  mean, you know, he's still a pretty young man, so it's hard
• 55:21
  to say none. But for a very very long time, it is very
• 55:25
  difficult to see how Newsom overcomes that hurdle. So in that context, I
• 55:32
  want you to listen to what happens when the host of Meet the Press,
• 55:36
  Kristen Welker, asks Newsome about the issue of the debates between Trump and Biden.
• 55:45
  Now, this is something that I've been harping on for a long time.
• 55:47
  I predicted many months ago that Trump would never debate in the Republican primary,
• 55:52
  and that because of that, there would be no debates in the general
• 55:54
  election. I've shifted that opinion slightly because I don't see how the Biden people
• 56:00
  get away with not doing debates when they're losing in the polls, and the
• 56:06
  narrative that Biden is losing it mentally has now been accepted as legitimate, even
• 56:12
  within the mainstream media. So I don't know how you get away with that
• 56:15
  and still win the election. So I've put a caveat on there that the
• 56:21
  Biden team may be so desperate that they may agree to some semblance of debates.
• 56:27
  Now I've joked that they're going to agree to five fifteen minute debates at
• 56:30
  eleven AM and say, hey, we were willing to debate. I just
• 56:36
  don't see how Joe Biden can get through a live two hour debate in the
• 56:39
  late evening. I just don't see how that can happen without there being multiple
• 56:45
  embarrassing moments. Now, of course, expectations for him will be exceedingly low,
• 56:51
  and I think he's going to benefit from those low expectations that the State
• 56:53
  of the Union address coming up, but that the State of the Union address
• 56:58
  is different. It's on tell a prompter. He gets breaks for people cheering
• 57:01
  him. You know, he's got his friends right there with him. He
• 57:07
  can get through the State of the Union address. Maybe he can't get through
• 57:09
  a debate with Donald Trump for two hours with no teleprompter. And so the
• 57:17
  question I thought from Welker was was quite interesting. It felt to me as
• 57:22
  if she was trying to nail down a major Biden surrogate on Okay, is
• 57:29
  Biden going to debate because they know this is going to be an issue.
• 57:31
  Trump has said he wants the debate right here, right now. Funny how
• 57:36
  all of a sudden Trump has changed his view on debates because he doesn't have
• 57:39
  to face Ron DeSantis. But I digress. So Trump says, let's debate
• 57:44
  right here, right now, and Welker asks Newsome whether or not that's a
• 57:49
  good idea for Biden, essentially, and Newsom hems and hawes. Welker,
• 57:53
  to her credit, tries to nail him down, and eventually new some Essentially
• 58:00
  he says, yes, Biden should debate and will debate, and he'll do
• 58:05
  great in those debates. And here's what that sounded like on NBC. Trump
• 58:07
  says he's ready to debate Biden right now. Should President Biden debates, he
• 58:13
  does. But should President Biden debate j Trump in the prior debates? I
• 58:15
  look forward him and this is a pure, one hundred percent, pure projection
• 58:21
  on a guy who refused to debate in his own primary. Back to my
• 58:23
  point, weakness masquerading as strength. Now I take away from that is one
• 58:30
  Newsom is essentially now on record saying that Biden not only should debate, but
• 58:35
  will debate. Now, of course, we don't live in a world anymore
• 58:37
  where that's a gotcha moment in a prior world, I don't know, ten
• 58:43
  twenty years ago, if you said that on Meet the Press and it turned
• 58:47
  out to Biden dodge debates, that would come back to haunt both Biden and
• 58:52
  Newsom. But we don't live in that world. People don't seem to care
• 58:55
  about it anymore. The media won't hold him accountable, will probably go down
• 58:58
  the memory hole. Although I did feel as if Welker was trying to get
• 59:04
  Newsome on the record, and she essentially did get Newsome on the record,
• 59:08
  and Newsom, you know, with Newsom, I'm never quite sure what his
• 59:13
  motivation is because I don't consider him to be that bright. Is it possible
• 59:16
  that he wasn't prepared for the question, he didn't get the memo. As
• 59:21
  far as what the liberal narrative should be here, the liberal narrative, if
• 59:25
  you're Joe Biden's supporters, should be Donald Trump is not qualified to be given
• 59:31
  that platform. He's an insurrectionist, and you know, it would not be
• 59:37
  doing the country any good to give him that kind of a platform. Something
• 59:40
  along those lines that would play well with liberal voters. It wouldn't, you
• 59:45
  know, make create a situation where Biden was obligated to debate Trump instead.
• 59:51
  You know, Newsom didn't go down that direction, and he essentially, you
• 59:57
  know, made it very much more difficult for Biden to back out. And
• 1:00:01
  that does that mean Biden's not gonna back out? No, But I found
• 1:00:07
  Newsom's answer to be interesting and it's certainly consistent. I'm not saying this proves
• 1:00:13
  it in any way, shape or form. It's certainly consistent with my theory
• 1:00:16
  that in a weird way, Newsom may actually be sabotaging Joe Biden. Because
• 1:00:22
  if you were gonna try to sabotage Joe Biden, that's the kind of thing
• 1:00:28
  you would be doing. And in fact, you might even go further,
• 1:00:30
  and you might raise expectations for Joe Biden in such a debate. Oh,
• 1:00:35
  He's gonna be awesome. He'll kick Trump's ass. So I would I asked
• 1:00:39
  this all the time, what would Trump do differently if he if he really
• 1:00:43
  was a Democratic plant or asset, which I don't believe he is, because
• 1:00:46
  I don't think Democrats are that smart and it's hard to come up with many
• 1:00:50
  things outside of the Supreme Court. Well, if Newsom really was trying to
• 1:00:54
  sabotage Joe Biden. I'm not sure his answer there would have been all that
• 1:00:59
  different. Now, again, it's always hard to tell how smart is Newsome
• 1:01:04
  really. He's definitely a snake and conniving. I don't think he's an idiot,
• 1:01:08
  that's for sure, but I'm not sure he's a genius either. But
• 1:01:13
  the point of this all is one that answer I found to be significant,
• 1:01:17
  and two you must start looking at Gavin Newsom as someone who has a very
• 1:01:22
  clear, perverse self interest when it comes to the Biden campaign. His presidential
• 1:01:30
  path is effectively blocked if Joe Biden beats Donald Trump. Now, is it
• 1:01:37
  possible that there's been a news event that will further Trump's chances of beating Biden,
• 1:01:44
  specifically in Georgia, And I'm referring to the tragic situation where a Georgia
• 1:01:52
  University of Georgia student Lake and Riley was brutally murdered while jogging in This was
• 1:02:00
  just a few days ago, and this has created quite a bit of news,
• 1:02:05
  mostly on the right wing. There's been some mainstream media coverage of it,
• 1:02:09
  but by and large, the mainstream media coverage of it has been an
• 1:02:14
  abomination. It has been absolutely a joke and a real telling look at how
• 1:02:20
  much bias there is, especially when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.
• 1:02:27
  And before I get into the specifics of this situation, I'm a big
• 1:02:31
  believer, especially living here in southern California, that the issue of language is
• 1:02:37
  one of the ways that liberals and especially the media have been most effective in
• 1:02:45
  negating issues that would be very problematic for Democrats and for liberals. They effectively
• 1:02:52
  have made it verboden to call illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. Now this has happened
• 1:03:01
  nationwide, but it started here in California. I mean, you used to
• 1:03:07
  routinely say illegal aliens. Then it was illegal immigrants. Then it's undocumented immigrants,
• 1:03:15
  then it's undocumented workers, I mean, and then there's all sorts of
• 1:03:20
  other even more benign descriptions that liberals have come up with to describe illegal immigrants.
• 1:03:27
  I mean that, to me is a phrase that everybody ought to agree
• 1:03:30
  to. They are immigrants who are here illegally. There's nothing racist about this.
• 1:03:37
  This is like calling people wetbacks. But somehow, in the liberal mindset
• 1:03:42
  and the media mindset, even illegal immigrant is effectively a racist term. And
• 1:03:47
  this is a weapon that liberals use extremely effectively to try to basically skirt around
• 1:03:55
  the truth of a situation and to keep people who aren't very partisan and who
• 1:04:01
  aren't really paying much attention in the dark as to what's really going on and
• 1:04:08
  boil boy. I would love to know. I would love to know what
• 1:04:13
  percentage of people in the country are even aware of the Lake and Riley situation.
• 1:04:18
  And then those who are aware, how many of them know that the
• 1:04:24
  person who murdered her was an illegal immigrant. That would be a fascinating number
• 1:04:31
  to know. And you could do this if you wanted to, but my
• 1:04:34
  guess is no polster will have the guts or the inclination to actually do it.
• 1:04:41
  But the media, especially on the left, has done everything they possibly
• 1:04:45
  can to pretend that her murderer was not an illegal immigrant from Venezuela who had
• 1:04:55
  numerous run ins with the law. There were numerous opportunities to get him out
• 1:05:00
  of the country and it didn't happen, And they're not referring to him as
• 1:05:05
  an illegal immigrant. Some are even referring to him as an Athens resident,
• 1:05:13
  an Athens resident Athens, Georgia, because I guess that's where he was living,
• 1:05:17
  not an illegal immigrant from Venezuela and Athens resident. There's been also the
• 1:05:26
  narrative because this is like the last bacheon of scoundrels when it comes to the
• 1:05:30
  media. Whenever the liberal media knows they got nothing else, that they're caught
• 1:05:36
  red handed, that they're boxed in a corner, the last thing they always
• 1:05:41
  go to is the republican's pounce narrative. And the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a
• 1:05:47
  liberal paper in Atlanta, Georgia, they actually had a headline new Top Georgia
• 1:05:55
  Republicans quickly tied the killing of a student on the University of campus to President
• 1:06:00
  Joe Biden's immigration policies, decrying what they see as lacks border controls after a
• 1:06:06
  suspect from Venezuela was charged with murder. Now, that was actually one of
• 1:06:12
  the better mainstream media descriptions of what occurred, but of course they're emphasizing the
• 1:06:18
  Republicans pounced. Georgia Republicans tied the killing of a student as if they're trying
• 1:06:25
  to take political advantage of this. Well, what about Democratic Georgia Democrats.
• 1:06:33
  Why aren't they decrying the policies that caused this student to die? To be
• 1:06:40
  murdered, this white female being murdered while jogging by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela.
• 1:06:48
  And by the way, the Associated Press probably got the prize for the
• 1:06:51
  worst coverage of this, where they literally focused on the fact that this was
• 1:06:59
  an issue that was causing fear in quote unquote solo athletes, that this murder
• 1:07:06
  raised the issue of women fearing running alone, an article that never mentions that
• 1:07:14
  the murder was an illegal immigrant, and then most bizarrely references another jogging murder
• 1:07:20
  from twenty eighteen that was also committed by an illegal immigrant, but that's not
• 1:07:28
  mentioned there either, And that's the Associated Press. Now this should be obvious
• 1:07:34
  to any thinking person, but I just want to mention it for the record.
• 1:07:39
  There's this idea on the left, and I see this happen all the
• 1:07:43
  time in the media, even among people who are not far left in the
• 1:07:47
  media. Chris Cuomo on News Nation had a similar viewpoint than I'm about to
• 1:07:56
  describe here. And in the liberal mindset, they don't even been accept this
• 1:08:00
  idea that it's relevant that a perpetrator of a crime is an illegal immigrant,
• 1:08:08
  because in their minds they cite studies or data that somehow illegal immigrants are no
• 1:08:16
  more likely to commit crimes or violent crimes than citizens of the United States,
• 1:08:25
  and so therefore it's not relevant when an illegal immigrant commits a crime, even
• 1:08:31
  as heinous as murdering someone they had no connection to appears to have just been
• 1:08:35
  a random murder of a female college student at the University of Georgia. Well,
• 1:08:44
  to me, this is bizarre thinking. I honestly do not understand what
• 1:08:49
  the logic of this is, and I really do believe that there are liberals
• 1:08:54
  who think this. They're not just using this as some sort of, you
• 1:08:58
  know, last ditch political gambit that somehow, oh no, we're just going
• 1:09:03
  to pretend that illegal immigrants don't commit any more crimes, you know, from
• 1:09:10
  a percentage basis, than citizens do, and that therefore this is the best
• 1:09:15
  weapon we have at our disposal to try to diffuse this issue. My sense
• 1:09:19
  is they really think that this makes it irrelevant. Now I have no way
• 1:09:26
  of knowing, because nor do I believe any studies or data indicating that illegal
• 1:09:32
  immigrants commit violent crimes or any sort of crimes less often than citizens do.
• 1:09:40
  I don't know how you could possibly find reliable data on that because of the
• 1:09:44
  nature of being an illegal immigrant. But let's pretend, just for shits and
• 1:09:48
  giggles, just for the sake of argument, that Okay, there's no more
• 1:09:55
  likelihood of someone committing serious crimes if they are an illegali immigrant as opposed to
• 1:10:00
  them being a citizen of the United States or a legal resident of the United
• 1:10:05
  States. Let's just pretend that I don't believe that, and I certainly don't
• 1:10:09
  believe that's ever been proven. But let's just pretend that there's no difference when
• 1:10:14
  it comes to the likelihood of committing serious crimes. That still doesn't change the
• 1:10:18
  issue, because if we didn't have this particular illegal immigrant in the country,
• 1:10:27
  then Lincoln Riley would still be alive. That's not in dispute. This is
• 1:10:34
  not a situation where she would have been in the name danger if this illegal
• 1:10:41
  immigrant from Venezuela had not come across her path and decided, for whatever bizarre
• 1:10:45
  reason, to murder her. I mean, my literally, my eleven and
• 1:10:51
  six year old daughters would have zero problem understanding this, and inherently, I
• 1:10:59
  mean, one of the reasons I don't buy the premise is these are people
• 1:11:01
  that are already willing and able to break the law to come here. This
• 1:11:05
  particular guy had all sorts of run ins with the law. So how it
• 1:11:10
  is that you could possibly argue that he was less likely to commit a serious
• 1:11:15
  crime than a citizens of the United States is just beyond my comprehension. But
• 1:11:20
  it's just basic math. If you have a lot of people who are in
• 1:11:26
  a country illegally, regardless of whether or not they're good people or bad people.
• 1:11:30
  I'm not saying that all illegal immigrants are bad people. Unfortunately, because
• 1:11:35
  you know Donald Trump, that gets to be the perception of the Republican or
• 1:11:41
  the conservative position on illegal immigration, and it's not. But inherently, you're
• 1:11:45
  gonna have a lot of bad people coming in, especially when they're totally unvetted,
• 1:11:51
  and inevitably that's going to cause harm, damage, crime, murder.
• 1:11:58
  And that's what happened here. And this particular crime would not have occurred if
• 1:12:03
  this illegal immigrant from Venezuela was not here, period and of sentence. So
• 1:12:10
  there's no way around that in a logical world if you're a liberal. But
• 1:12:15
  they still try. I don't get it, but they still try. And
• 1:12:20
  this whole issue is really very telling. Now the political impact of this.
• 1:12:27
  I have to believe. Now this is very a very small part of the
• 1:12:31
  significance of this story. Obviously, you know, the murder of a young
• 1:12:36
  college student is way more important than this, especially right now. But this
• 1:12:41
  is another data point when it comes to Biden's problems in Georgia. I mean,
• 1:12:45
  Georgia Governor Camp, who's no fan of Donald Trump, wrote a letter
• 1:12:51
  to Biden about this, has been outspoken on social media about this, and
• 1:12:58
  I gotta believe that this is an issue that resonates in the state of Georgia
• 1:13:01
  and is going to further facilitate the idea that Trump is going to end up
• 1:13:05
  winning Georgia, something I predicted a couple months ago at this point is going
• 1:13:11
  to happen, barring a black swan or a criminal conviction. But this whole
• 1:13:15
  story really exposes the news media as a bunch of liberal frauds. And there's
• 1:13:21
  a story somewhat similar that's going on in Oklahoma where it appears as if the
• 1:13:30
  mainstream news media has bought into a completely bogus narrative involving a biological girl who
• 1:13:41
  ended up dead twenty four hours after an incident in the girl's bathroom in an
• 1:13:46
  Oklahoma school. Now this biological girl, she identifies as non binary, and
• 1:13:56
  she was involved in this episode, and the media narrative was essentially, oh
• 1:14:01
  my gosh, we have a trans person who ends up dead just after an
• 1:14:10
  incident that they referred to as bullying in a Oklahoma school. So aha,
• 1:14:16
  they add up in their minds, this is two plus two equals four.
• 1:14:21
  Obviously, this was a situation where she was murdered. The biological female was
• 1:14:28
  murdered, or at least her death was caused by these anti trans bullies in
• 1:14:35
  Oklahoma, one of the most conservative states in the country. Kamala Harris jumped
• 1:14:43
  all over this narrative, just like she did with Jesse Smollette. I mean,
• 1:14:47
  she was one of the worst when it came to the initial reaction to
• 1:14:51
  Jesse Smalllette. She bought in, hook line and sinker to that story.
• 1:14:56
  Well, this entire narrative, which in the media's mind is the only way
• 1:15:00
  to look at this story. How else could you possibly have a trans person
• 1:15:05
  end up dead right after an incident of bullying or a fight that breaks out
• 1:15:11
  in a girl's bathroom in an Oklahoma school. There's no other way to look
• 1:15:16
  at this story than aha, this was a person who was killed because they
• 1:15:21
  are trans, and those bullies and transphobes in Oklahoma they killed this person.
• 1:15:30
  That was effectively the narrative. I mean, this even got into the Washington
• 1:15:35
  Post when there I guess you would call it. I don't even know what
• 1:15:41
  she is, a reporter or a columnist, Taylor Lorenz, who I have
• 1:15:44
  no idea how she's allowed to write serious news articles because she's as much of
• 1:15:48
  a left wing nut as there possibly is in the mainstream news meetea. But
• 1:15:54
  she did an article after she interviewed the woman who runs the libs of TikTok
• 1:16:01
  Twitter account and TikTok account, which is a very very popular account among conservatives,
• 1:16:08
  a woman by the name of Chia or Chaya. And in the article
• 1:16:13
  that she wrote after this interview with Chaya from Libs of TikTok, she effectively
• 1:16:18
  blamed Chaya, who is on some sort of library board in California, for
• 1:16:27
  the death of this trans person in Oklahoma. I mean, I mean only
• 1:16:32
  stretch batman, but that's literally like in the second or third paragraph of the
• 1:16:38
  article in the Washington Post, effectively blaming this conservative commentator for this death.
• 1:16:47
  Well simultaneously to this, the entire media narrative was crumbling because emerged publicly a
• 1:16:59
  very law police interview that the biological girl who would end up dying the next
• 1:17:03
  day did from the hospital with her mother right there, and she was in
• 1:17:11
  perfectly fine shape. She was taken to the hospital for precautionary reasons. The
• 1:17:15
  entire narrative that she knew the people she got in this fight with for a
• 1:17:21
  long time and experienced extended bullying turned out not to be true. It appears
• 1:17:27
  from her own testimony that the nature of the fight was completely misreported, that
• 1:17:34
  it was not that big of a deal. She even seemed to acknowledge that
• 1:17:39
  she played a significant role in starting whatever altercation there was. There's zero proof
• 1:17:46
  for evidence that she was in any physical danger after this episode that was way
• 1:17:54
  overblown in the girl's room of this Oklahoma school, and we now know that
• 1:18:00
  the medical examiner has said that there's no evidence of trauma having caused her death
• 1:18:08
  the next day. Now we don't know why she died. There's all sorts
• 1:18:12
  of speculation as to what might have happened, as to what may have actually
• 1:18:17
  caused her death. But the idea that she died even indirectly because of alleged
• 1:18:25
  trans anti trans bullying in an Oklahoma school is just false. I mean,
• 1:18:30
  there's a mountain of evidence now that isn't he not even not only is not
• 1:18:35
  consistent with that narrative, that contradicts that narrative. And my guess is we're
• 1:18:41
  going to find out that her death had absolutely positively nothing to do with this.
• 1:18:45
  But that didn't stop the liberal media and the Vice President of the United
• 1:18:47
  States from jumping all over this for political reasons and creating a totally false narrative.
• 1:18:58
  Now do I know exactly what happened, No, I don't, but
• 1:19:01
  this feels a lot a lot like the way liberals responded to the police deaths
• 1:19:08
  following January sixth. I mean, they continually tell you that there were police
• 1:19:13
  officers that were killed on January sixth, and that's just not true. There
• 1:19:17
  were a few police officers who died weirdly in the aftermat of January sixth,
• 1:19:24
  and maybe some of them died indirectly because of things that happened on January sixth,
• 1:19:30
  But nobody was killed or murdered except for Ashley Babbitt, who was a
• 1:19:36
  pro Trump demonstrator who was killed while unarmed by a black police officer shot to
• 1:19:44
  death. I mean, so you know this is very reminiscent of that,
• 1:19:48
  where in the media's mind they can't see any other narrative. Aha. Plus
• 1:19:56
  they know this might work well for them. They can turn her into a
• 1:19:59
  martyrer or they into a martyr. I believe her pronoun was they, so
• 1:20:02
  that they can tell they can turn they into a into a martyr for their
• 1:20:08
  own political purposes. But the narrative has fallen apart now to the point where
• 1:20:12
  my guess is this story will will drop off the radar and we're probably never
• 1:20:16
  even going to find out, at least not in the mainstream news media,
• 1:20:19
  what actually happened here. By the ways, as far as that Taylor Lorenz
• 1:20:26
  interview with the chea from the libs of TikTok account, I have to say,
• 1:20:30
  if you get a chance, if you're on social media, check out
• 1:20:33
  the libs of TikTok account for the photograph of the two of them outside.
• 1:20:41
  I guess this was either just before or just after their interview together. I
• 1:20:45
  mean their interview. It really wasn't an interview. It was just a very
• 1:20:47
  bizarre conversation where two people are talking right past each other because they have absolutely
• 1:20:54
  nothing in common, and they both clearly have agendas. But Taylor Lorenz,
• 1:21:00
  the liberal reporter slash commentator for the Washington Post, shows up outside in a
• 1:21:06
  full on mask, full on mask. You could not possibly make this up
• 1:21:13
  as far as every liberal stereotype imaginable. So she's in a full on mask.
• 1:21:18
  Meanwhile, Cheya is of course not in a mask, and she's wearing
• 1:21:23
  a T shirt that hats on it a photo of Taylor Lorenz crying, a
• 1:21:30
  meme, an internet meme of Taylor Lorenz crying. So I tweeted out that
• 1:21:35
  photo and I said, put it in a museum, because this really shows
• 1:21:41
  you everything you need to know about the broken nature of the news media and
• 1:21:45
  how utterly divided we are as a nation. Where Taylor Lorenz outside for some
• 1:21:51
  reason in February of twenty twenty four, is still wearing full on, full
• 1:21:58
  not a little light man. She's doing an interview where she has to be
• 1:22:01
  heard and understood, and she's outside and she's wearing a heavy duty mask while
• 1:22:08
  she is wearing a T shirt mocking her. It wasn't even one hundred percent
• 1:22:13
  clear that Lorenz even recognized that or realized that one other note on masks.
• 1:22:18
  I had to just throw this in here because again here we are in February
• 1:22:21
  twenty twenty four and rolling Stone. This is not made up, This is
• 1:22:27
  not exaggerated, This is not a parody. Rolling Stone has an article out
• 1:22:31
  just from a couple of days ago where they tweeted the following N ninety five
• 1:22:39
  masks versus k N ninety five masks, which face coverings should we be wearing
• 1:22:46
  right now? It's an entire article it rolling Stone a debate over which form
• 1:22:56
  of masks people they we should be wearing right now. This after years of
• 1:23:03
  real world evidence showing they do absolutely positively nothing, and after we got rid
• 1:23:11
  of mandates where there was absolutely positively no negative impact of getting rid of mandates
• 1:23:18
  none. The case against masks from a substantive standpoint, from a scientific basis,
• 1:23:25
  from a data perspective, could not possibly be stronger. And yet liberals,
• 1:23:30
  like a religion, are still holding on to this belief to the point
• 1:23:34
  where they're debating which mask we should be wearing right now. That is a
• 1:23:42
  mental illness, that is a religion, and in a rational world, that
• 1:23:45
  would discredit huge portions of the left, specifically in the liberal media. Now
• 1:23:53
  there's no bigger player in the media, and I am actually at fault for
• 1:23:58
  not talking about them. Are more often than I do than Google. Google
• 1:24:03
  basically runs the world, and while you don't think of it as a media
• 1:24:09
  outlet, it has a massive influence over the way people get their news,
• 1:24:15
  especially if they do searches on Google looking for things in the past, because
• 1:24:19
  Google can control which searches are visible and which are not. Now, I
• 1:24:26
  will say that while I've seen signs of bias when it comes to Google searches,
• 1:24:31
  I've never felt like Google searches where I shouldn't say never, I usually
• 1:24:38
  don't feel as if Google searches are overtly, dramatically liberally biased. That was
• 1:24:45
  different when it came to COVID and I just reference masks. I mean,
• 1:24:49
  masks are absolutely an issue over which Google clearly diminishes, if not sens anti
• 1:25:00
  mask and also anti vaccine mandate material. There's no question about that. When
• 1:25:08
  it came to issues related to COVID, one hundred percent, Google was onboard
• 1:25:15
  with the censorship of the counter narrative. I think maybe the most dramatic example
• 1:25:19
  of this, and I talked about this at the time. I haven't done
• 1:25:24
  this recently, so I don't know what would happen if you google this now,
• 1:25:27
  but for an extended period of time during the pandemic, I would google
• 1:25:33
  what is the average age of COVID death in America or something like that,
• 1:25:41
  or even worldwide. And normally you google any question, no matter how mundane,
• 1:25:47
  you're gonna get some semblance of an answer. They never gave you that
• 1:25:53
  answer. And that was not by coincidence, that was not by accident,
• 1:25:58
  because that, to me was the number one fact, especially at the beginning
• 1:26:02
  of the pandemic, when we were making all sorts of these very very key
• 1:26:06
  decisions. And I would like to believe, and still do to this day,
• 1:26:12
  believe that if every American knew that the average age of death buyer with
• 1:26:19
  COVID in America was at the beginning about seventy eight, and then it eventually
• 1:26:25
  got to close to eighty, but somewhere in the late seventies, if every
• 1:26:30
  American had known that, I really believe that the reaction to the pandemic and
• 1:26:35
  the panic and all the restrictions would have been different and would not have lasted
• 1:26:41
  nearly as long as it did. That there would have been some significant pushback,
• 1:26:45
  and Google played a huge role in that. So I want to make
• 1:26:49
  clear I'm not naive here. When it came to COVID, Google was a
• 1:26:54
  major, major factor, a huge player, and absolutely censored the counter narrative
• 1:27:01
  in a very significant way. But there's no question that nothing they have done
• 1:27:09
  was as obvious, as dramatic, and frankly as hilarious as what has come
• 1:27:15
  out in the last few days regarding Google's Gemini artificial intelligence. So Google released
• 1:27:23
  this Gemini AI, and it's all anyone's been talking about on social media,
• 1:27:29
  especially on the right, over the last several days, and for good reason,
• 1:27:33
  because the bias showed here by Google in the results that occurred when people
• 1:27:42
  put in prompts into the AI, the Gemini AI device that they have created
• 1:27:48
  were beyond insane. This wasn't just anti white bias. I mean, there
• 1:27:57
  were all sorts of problems, but the races you've got by far the most
• 1:28:00
  attention, understandably, so this wasn't just anti white bias. This was an
• 1:28:08
  extinction level event for white people. And I'm not exaggerating. I mean this
• 1:28:15
  was comical where no matter what people did, they could not create results that
• 1:28:21
  included white people. No matter how hard they tried, white people did not
• 1:28:29
  exist. Whether it was founding fathers or whatever, it didn't matter. There
• 1:28:35
  were no white people. Now, this is funny on one level, it's
• 1:28:44
  obviously also very very significant on another. But it also wasn't just limited to
• 1:28:50
  the issue of race. And it was so bad that I hate whenever I'm
• 1:28:58
  forced to be semi op the mystic, but it was so bad that I
• 1:29:03
  actually think that there was a positive element to this. And someone who agrees
• 1:29:09
  with me was Elon Musk, who has been as outraged as anybody about the
• 1:29:14
  situation involving Google's Gemini AI, but he tweeted something over the weekend that sounded
• 1:29:20
  almost word for word like my reaction. He tweeted, I'm glad that Google
• 1:29:28
  overplayed their hand with their AI image generation as it made their insane, racist,
• 1:29:34
  anti civilization programming clear to all. And I agree with that. By
• 1:29:42
  the way, as of this taping, that tweet has been seen, or
• 1:29:45
  at least has forty four million impressions. I don't think forty four million people
• 1:29:50
  saw it, but forty four million impressions of that tweet from Elon Musk,
• 1:29:57
  and it jives with my thinking in a couple of significant ways. One,
• 1:30:01
  I'm a big believer. I've said this continually throughout my career that the great
• 1:30:08
  vulnerability of liberals, especially in the virtue signaling age, is that they will
• 1:30:14
  always, always, and I mean always, overplay their hand, always overplay
• 1:30:19
  their hand, which is exactly what Elon Musk says there. So they can't
• 1:30:27
  control themselves. They don't have impulse control. They especially don't have impulse control
• 1:30:32
  when there's nobody in the room willing and able to raise their hand and say,
• 1:30:40
  hey, do you think this might not be a great idea to eliminate
• 1:30:45
  white people from the results. When people are prompted to create images on this
• 1:30:54
  new Gemini AI device that we've created, there's maybe that not a great idea.
• 1:31:00
  There's no one in the room willing to do that because why Well,
• 1:31:05
  because everybody in the room is very liberal, and nobody wants to be seen
• 1:31:13
  as the conservative in the group or be seen as somehow defending white people or
• 1:31:19
  especially white males. That's inherently bad. There's no reward in it for you.
• 1:31:27
  It's a lot like what I talked about in the last episode of the
• 1:31:30
  podcast, with what happened with the BAFT Awards in the UK, where when
• 1:31:35
  Oppenheimer won the award and they allowed this unknown black kid twenty one years old
• 1:31:42
  to stand up on the stage with the star, the producer and the director,
• 1:31:47
  and nobody said a word because even though everyone knew he didn't belong to
• 1:31:53
  everyone was terrified of saying anything because they might get be painted as a racist
• 1:31:59
  and be kicked out the club. Well, similarly, I think that's probably
• 1:32:02
  what happened here with Google and Gemini AI. We all know, we know
• 1:32:09
  from all sorts of data points, including who which candidates Google employees give their
• 1:32:15
  money to. It's overwhelming, as it is throughout all of big tech,
• 1:32:20
  it's overwhelming. Into the ninety some percentile, it's two democrats. Very very
• 1:32:30
  few Google employees are going to be open and willing to be seen as anything
• 1:32:36
  other than liberal. It's not good for you socially, it's not good for
• 1:32:41
  you career wise. And so with no pushback and no impulse control and this
• 1:32:49
  never ending desire to signal one's virtue, of course this is going to get
• 1:32:56
  out of hand. Of course, this is going to get out of control.
• 1:32:59
  Although even I am stunned as to how out of control it. God,
• 1:33:01
  but I'm glad I got this out of control because now there's no debate
• 1:33:05
  about it. I mean even Google and Musk has said he's talked to him
• 1:33:11
  top Google executive who was embarrassed by this, and claims that it's going to
• 1:33:15
  be fixed. Who knows if that's the case. But it's so over the
• 1:33:19
  top, it's so clear cut that it's been exposed. It's not even a
• 1:33:25
  debate. Anybody can see it's it's so obvious. It's literally comical. It's
• 1:33:31
  literally comical. And it wasn't just about the images that are created, you
• 1:33:36
  know, eliminating white people or having political bias. It goes way beyond that.
• 1:33:42
  The prompts And this is this is not my Arab expertise, but I've've
• 1:33:46
  done a little bit of research on this, and it seems as if it
• 1:33:50
  seems as if it's not just the way that the prompts are being interpreted.
• 1:34:00
  There's evidence from experts in this field. I'm not one of them, but
• 1:34:03
  it seems credible to me that it's not just the way that the prompts are
• 1:34:08
  being interpreted. It's that the program itself is changing the prompt to create a
• 1:34:15
  situation that eliminates anything remotely conservative or white or white male. And so it
• 1:34:25
  almost doesn't even matter what the prompt is. The program itself is altering the
• 1:34:31
  prompt to eliminate all results that are anything other than this ultimate fantasy for the
• 1:34:42
  woe liberal, where white males have been eliminated, conservatives have been eliminated.
• 1:34:45
  And it's again not just when it comes to images. People have been posting
• 1:34:51
  all over social media their own examples of not just bias, not even just
• 1:34:59
  extreme by, but outright hilarity and absurdity when it comes to comparing different people
• 1:35:08
  based upon their ideologies. I've seen all sorts of posts that exposed this.
• 1:35:15
  One particular user on Twitter compared what happened when they asked for the Gemini AI
• 1:35:25
  device to create a poem in the style of a liberal or a conservative,
• 1:35:31
  and time and time again, when they asked for the liberal the poem in
• 1:35:38
  the style of a particular well known liberal, they got a very nice response.
• 1:35:44
  When they plugged in the conservative, oftentimes it was they weren't even allowed
• 1:35:49
  to get any response at all, because the Gemini AI rejected the idea of
• 1:35:57
  even providing a response for someone who is a conservative under the guise of the
• 1:36:03
  content being too hateful, and this happened time and time again, not even
• 1:36:09
  with particularly controversial conservatives. Interestingly, they plugged in Elon Musk and they were
• 1:36:16
  gemini AI was happy to give a nice response for Elon Musk, which made
• 1:36:20
  people speculate that maybe the program was created before Musk purchased Twitter and suddenly became
• 1:36:27
  a liberal pariah and a conservative hero. But there's all sorts of examples of
• 1:36:34
  this. And then you know, other people put in the comparison between Hitler
• 1:36:40
  and conservatives, including myself. I'm gonna get to that momentarily because I didn't
• 1:36:45
  do it. Someone did it and send send it to me. But you
• 1:36:49
  know, someone compared at gemini AI compare which is more dangerous, libertarianism or
• 1:36:55
  Stalinism, and it could not come up with a response. It basically said
• 1:37:01
  that both were about equal when it comes to their level of evil Libertarianism and
• 1:37:09
  Stalinism. Maybe the funniest example involved someone who asked gemini Ai whether or not
• 1:37:17
  it would be okay to miss gender Caitlyn Jenner formerly known as Bruce Jenner nineteen
• 1:37:25
  seventy six to Kathleen Olympic champion and a hero of my youth, miss gendering
• 1:37:31
  Caitlyn Jenner would it be okay to do that if it stopped a nuclear holocaust?
• 1:37:39
  And gemini AI was uncertain and said it was never okay to misgender Caitlyn
• 1:37:46
  Jenner, And then, hilariously, to Caitlyn Jenner's credit, Caitlyn Jenner came
• 1:37:55
  forward and said it would be okay to misgender me if it stopped a nuclear
• 1:37:58
  holocaust. So even Caitlin Jenner disagrees with gemini AI when it comes to such
• 1:38:08
  a ridiculous situation as that. I mean, these things are funny, but
• 1:38:12
  they're very very serious given the power that Google has in general. I mean,
• 1:38:17
  the same people that created these algorithms these programs are creating the algorithms for
• 1:38:27
  the searches that you do on Google, which has an enormous impact on how
• 1:38:31
  people get their information. Now, I mentioned that many people are doing the
• 1:38:35
  ultimate. Okay, Compare this particular person, a conservative to Hitler, who
• 1:38:41
  is worse? And somebody on Twitter. I don't even know this person,
• 1:38:45
  but they sent it to me this morning. They plugged in. Okay,
• 1:38:48
  you know who is worse? John Zigler or Adolf Hitler, and this is
• 1:38:54
  what they wrote about me, And in determining that they really couldn't say who
• 1:39:00
  was worse for humanity, Adolf Hitler or John Zigler, gemini AI wrote,
• 1:39:06
  John Zigler known for controversial and offensive statements, primarily targeting specific groups of people
• 1:39:15
  based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics.
• 1:39:24
  These statements have been widely condemned as promoting hate speech and discrimination. While Ziggler's
• 1:39:31
  words undoubtedly cause harm through spreading hate and intolerance, it's crucial to recognize the
• 1:39:41
  quote vastly different scale and intent compared to Hitler's actions. Hitler's actions directly resulted
• 1:39:49
  in the quote systematic extermination of millions of people, while Ziggler's rhetoric, despite
• 1:39:57
  its harmful nature, primarily targets individually individuals verbally. Therefore, it's inappropriate quote
• 1:40:05
  unquote to claim one caused quote unquote more harm than the other. Both individuals
• 1:40:15
  Adoff Hitler and John Ziggler have caused significant harm, but in fundamentally different ways.
• 1:40:21
  So it's a rather vague and ambiguous response from Gemini AI as to which
• 1:40:29
  is worse for humanity? Which has caused more harm Adolf Hitler or John Ziggler.
• 1:40:35
  Now, putting aside the moral ambiguity there, which is frankly absurd and
• 1:40:42
  hilarious, there's the blatant inaccuracy of the description of me. Of course,
• 1:40:47
  no examples are given here, and I doubt I doubt that this Gemini AI
• 1:40:54
  function even did any real research on me other than I'm a controversial conservative,
• 1:41:02
  contrarian libertarian. That's all they probably know. And it's already within the AI
• 1:41:12
  algorithm set in stone that anybody who is described that way or perceived that way
• 1:41:18
  is inherently hateful. And my god, I gotta say, you know,
• 1:41:24
  I've been Prussian about a lot over the last couple of decades as to where
• 1:41:27
  things were gonna head. But I was way out of front, out in
• 1:41:30
  front twenty years ago, screaming and yelling about the entire issue of hate crime
• 1:41:35
  legislation and how that was going to transform to hate speech, and that hate
• 1:41:41
  speech was gonna drive a stake through the heart of free speech, because then
• 1:41:45
  you're gonna have liberals determining what hate is, and they're gonna describe anything they
• 1:41:49
  disagree with or anything that makes them look bad as quote unquote hate and my
• 1:41:55
  god, that has happened exactly as I feared, exactly as I predicted,
• 1:42:00
  only probably more dramatically and even more quickly. But that's that the key to
• 1:42:04
  all this. They are connecting all conservative thought, all liberal criticism as hate
• 1:42:13
  and hate speech, and they are this AI function is not going to engage
• 1:42:17
  in hate. They're using that one word that's really the key to this whole
• 1:42:23
  thing, hate, And who's determining that it's hate? Liberals? So they've
• 1:42:28
  just decided that anything that makes them look bad, anything they disagree with,
• 1:42:32
  that's hate, and therefore it should be banned. And therefore anyone who is
• 1:42:40
  described within this AI algorithm as fitting their description, they are hateful. And
• 1:42:46
  therefore we can't say for sure whether or not they are more harmful to society
• 1:42:53
  than Adolf Hitler. We can't say for sure. And this again not an
• 1:42:57
  isolated situation. There's numerous examples of what is happening when people are plugging in
• 1:43:04
  different suggestions into the prompt for Gemini AI. It's unbelievable. But the silver
• 1:43:13
  lining here is is that it's so obvious that maybe there's enough backlash to where
• 1:43:18
  this gets fixed, or if you want to be the pessimist. Maybe they
• 1:43:23
  have set the bar so unbelievably low that even when they raise it slightly and
• 1:43:29
  that becomes acceptable because we've become desensitized, that it will still be so liberally
• 1:43:34
  biased that they will have achieved their goal. There's been a lot of speculation
• 1:43:40
  as to how much of this was on purpose, how much of this was
• 1:43:42
  a mistake. I am generally in the camp of incompetence and fear ruling the
• 1:43:48
  day, and I really do believe that most of this happened. Maybe there
• 1:43:53
  was some strategy to it, but mostly this happened because liberals have no impulse
• 1:43:59
  control. They were allowed to run amuck here. They created their own fantasy
• 1:44:02
  world. There was no one in the room that was willing or able to
• 1:44:06
  say, hey, win a minute, wait a minute, what the hell
• 1:44:09
  are we doing here? There was nobody, And that to me is you
• 1:44:15
  know how this kind of thing happens. It's a very dangerous situation when you
• 1:44:19
  get group think, especially among liberals, who are always going to overplay their
• 1:44:26
  hand, always, always, always, and this virtue signaling, I mean,
• 1:44:30
  it's almost sexual for these people. There's nothing stopping them. And you
• 1:44:34
  know, this was exposed here, and I hope people were paying attention.
• 1:44:39
  Of course, this has not gotten nearly the coverage that it deserves in the
• 1:44:42
  mainstream news media. It's a great example of where even when the left exposes
• 1:44:46
  themselves, the media never takes a hammer to them and never make sure that
• 1:44:51
  the general public really gets the message. I mean, my god, how
• 1:44:57
  many people are completely unaware that this is even happened. How many white people
• 1:45:00
  are still blissfully going along thinking that you know, it's a conspiracy theory that
• 1:45:08
  white people, especially white men, are being targeted for destruction, people who
• 1:45:12
  are not necessarily liberals. I mean, that is the key demographic for this
• 1:45:17
  coming election and maybe for the future of this country. There are so many
• 1:45:23
  nonpartisan white people, and I would like to think there are people of other
• 1:45:28
  races as well who would be offended by this, but specifically white people because
• 1:45:31
  they're the ones that don't even understand they and their descendants are being targeted,
• 1:45:39
  targeted by the establishment left for literal extinction. That's another thing. Elon Musk
• 1:45:45
  tweeted, you know that what was six months ago was a conspiracy theory is
• 1:45:51
  now the truth. I mean, this ultimate, this is the ultimate proof
• 1:45:55
  of this but my guess is that there are many men people who would be
• 1:46:00
  horrified if they knew about this, who have no clue it's even happened.
• 1:46:04
  And this is where the news media still has impact. They can still keep
• 1:46:09
  stories like this from having real reach into the people that really matter, especially
• 1:46:15
  when it comes to elections. That's still the power that the mainstream media has.
• 1:46:20
  It's diminishing greatly, especially in the age of social media. I mean,
• 1:46:26
  before Elon Musk took over Twitter, far fewer people would know about what
• 1:46:30
  happened with Gemini AI than they do now. I mean, my gosh,
• 1:46:33
  every time Elon Musk tweets about it, tens of millions of impressions, if
• 1:46:40
  not more so, are created. And I don't know how many people that
• 1:46:43
  is, but it's in the millions of people are exposed to this, and
• 1:46:45
  then they theoretically tell people in their sphere. But the reality is there's a
• 1:46:51
  lot of Americans who have no idea how powerful Google is and that Google's real
• 1:46:58
  agenda has now been dissed in a very dramatic way. And of course this
• 1:47:02
  is this is not just in theory. This is happening in the real world.
• 1:47:05
  I mean, we just had Harvard University, allegedly our most prestigious university,
• 1:47:11
  hire a DEI president who had to be forced to resign because of a
• 1:47:16
  plagiarism scandal. By the way, there's more plagiarism scandals at Harvard involving the
• 1:47:23
  director of DEI plagiarizing stuff. You know, one of the people that was
• 1:47:29
  put into the prompt for the Gemini AI is Christopher Ruffo, who is integral
• 1:47:34
  in exposing that story, and he was considered by Gemini AI to basically be
• 1:47:40
  a Hitler like character, I guess because of his hateful exposing of what Harvard
• 1:47:47
  did regarding you know, Claudine Gay and now even more recently, what's happening
• 1:47:54
  with other people at Harvard. All sorts of a Harvard big wigs being accused
• 1:48:00
  credibly of plagiarism and including the director of DEI, which is rather ironic.
• 1:48:04
  There's a new report out by the Harvard paper, the Crimson indicating the Clauding
• 1:48:11
  Gay. I know this is not shocking, but it's still worth Mentioning was
• 1:48:15
  not remotely the most qualified person being considered to be Harvard's next president when she
• 1:48:20
  was selected. Clearly, not just because she was adi selection herself, but
• 1:48:28
  because of her work on the issue of DEI. I mean, this is
• 1:48:30
  in the DNADI, is in the DNA of every element of elite woke academia,
• 1:48:39
  and it's exposing itself in ways it should be scandalous and discrediting, but
• 1:48:45
  unfortunately, to a large swath of the population, it's not because the mainstream
• 1:48:49
  news media is not telling the story in as dramatic a way as is warranted.
• 1:48:56
  Now, similarly, we've seen in the sports world, especially in the
• 1:49:00
  college sports world, all sorts of wokeness that get some attention on the right
• 1:49:08
  and drives me crazy. But there's several stories I want to just briefly mention
• 1:49:12
  at the end of this episode of the podcast, mainly because I don't think
• 1:49:15
  even on the conservative right they're getting enough attention, and I find them to
• 1:49:20
  be interesting and telling, and so I'm just going to go through them rather
• 1:49:25
  quickly. The first deals with a clip I want to play from an ESPN
• 1:49:30
  broadcast of an ACC basketball game. Now, it's important to point out February
• 1:49:35
  is Black History Month, and I'm sure that played a role in why ESPN
• 1:49:40
  decided to do this. But ESPN, while doing this ACC basketball game,
• 1:49:45
  they put up a graphic and it's got some attention online. They put up
• 1:49:49
  a graphic that listed quote unquote coaches head coaches for ACC basketball Men's This is
• 1:49:58
  men's ACC basketball coach, which is who happened to be black? Which is
• 1:50:02
  a very strange way of phrasing this, but that's what the graphic said.
• 1:50:06
  So when I play this clip for you, the first portion of the clip
• 1:50:11
  has on the screen this graphic showing I think it was nine schools in the
• 1:50:16
  ACC, a premier college basketball conference that currently have quote unquote black coaches.
• 1:50:24
  Who gets to decide that, I don't know, but that's how it's being
• 1:50:27
  defined. Nine black coaches, and the graphic says they happen to be black,
• 1:50:30
  which is weird phrasing. But listen to the way that the announcers deal
• 1:50:38
  with this issue. And what's funny about this to me is in a weird
• 1:50:43
  way, they're trying to pretend to not be that liberal about it. They're
• 1:50:48
  trying to woke about it. They're trying to say, hey, we're getting
• 1:50:53
  close to the point where we don't have to talk about this anymore, and
• 1:50:57
  it's just going to be natural for there to be black coaches but also keep
• 1:51:01
  in mind, this is one of my pet peas when it comes to this
• 1:51:04
  whole issue is not only do I hate equity, the idea of equity of
• 1:51:10
  outcome instead of equality of opportunity. I really hate fake equity where the percentages
• 1:51:17
  used to determine what is equity are completely wrong and nonsensical. Because you're gonna
• 1:51:26
  hear the number sixty percent. So sixty percent of ACC basketball teams on the
• 1:51:33
  men's side are coached by people who quote unquote happen to be black, but
• 1:51:40
  only thirty percent of the population as a whole is black. Now, it
• 1:51:45
  might be slightly higher than that in ACC states because it's in the South,
• 1:51:49
  but it's not dramatically higher. So the number sixty percent is in my view,
• 1:51:58
  being misused. But before I explained why, here is that clip on
• 1:52:02
  ESPN. If you are led by coaches who are black, that figure is
• 1:52:06
  the most by number and percentage of any Power five conference, truly giving the
• 1:52:12
  ACC the opportunity for making history. As always, we've talked about this before,
• 1:52:18
  and that number continues to rise and rise. It absolutely does, and
• 1:52:21
  we'll get to a point as to where we're not concerned about the color of
• 1:52:25
  the coaches. Skin is simply about the fact that these are very good basketball
• 1:52:29
  coaches leading great basketball programs. OBIU and I did a game at North Carolina
• 1:52:33
  on Martin Luther King's birthday weekend, and we had two black coaches, Hubert
• 1:52:38
  Davis and Red Archery from Syracuse. And the best thing about that, it's
• 1:52:42
  hard thing, in my opinion, was the fact that you didn't even recognize
• 1:52:45
  the fact that there's two black coaches until I mentioned it to you. Indeed,
• 1:52:49
  kind of about time, you know, Yeah, and it really is
• 1:52:51
  about time. But you know, one of the things I've always loved about
• 1:52:54
  this conference is that we've always been at the forefront of diversity inclusion the ACC
• 1:52:59
  by having six of his head coaches who just happened to be black. But
• 1:53:03
  the more that we don't talk about it and the more that has becomes commonplace,
• 1:53:08
  I think, is where we're getting to, where Martin Luther King's dream
• 1:53:11
  actually going here here now in the liberal mind, in the ESPN mind,
• 1:53:16
  sixty percent is progress but not really good enough. And why is it not
• 1:53:23
  good enough? Well, I guess because they're looking at the players on the
• 1:53:29
  floor and they're saying, well, isn't that more like seventy or eighty percent
• 1:53:34
  of the players are depending on how you define these things quote unquote black,
• 1:53:41
  And therefore it's not really equity, as if equity has already been accepted as
• 1:53:46
  something that should be pursued and, by the way, should be pursued in
• 1:53:49
  the name of Martin Luther King, which is exactly the opposite of what Martin
• 1:53:55
  Lucuther King's stated philosophy was. I mean he wanted a color blind society.
• 1:53:59
  I mean, you know, Martin Luther King, based upon what he said,
• 1:54:01
  would have woned a situation where the best people got the jobs. And
• 1:54:05
  if it turned out that that meant that thirty percent of acc coaches were black,
• 1:54:11
  great, If that fifteen percent, great. If it turns out to
• 1:54:15
  be eighty percent, great for whatever reason. But it wouldn't be based upon
• 1:54:20
  an arbitrary evaluation of a number, and it certainly wouldn't have been based upon
• 1:54:26
  a number that makes no sense, because the fundamental false premise here is that
• 1:54:31
  there's somehow a correlation or causation between players and coaches. I've talked about this
• 1:54:39
  before, but it bears repeating because nobody, even on the right ever makes
• 1:54:44
  this point, the number for equity should not be sixty percent or seventy percent
• 1:54:50
  or eighty percent. Now, yes, playing the sport matters when it comes
• 1:54:56
  to being a coach, so I'm not suggesting that there's zero correlation, but
• 1:55:00
  it is not a direct correlation or causation. And in fact, many times
• 1:55:06
  star players make the worst coaches imaginable, and if they're really a star player,
• 1:55:12
  they have no interest in being a coach. That's why Dion Sanders is
• 1:55:15
  getting so much attention at the University of Colorado, because no superstar athlete,
• 1:55:19
  black or white, ever becomes a coach, especially in the modern era,
• 1:55:24
  because they don't need to. They have much as much money as they could
• 1:55:26
  possibly ever spend, so they don't need to put up with all the bullshit.
• 1:55:30
  So you generally it's not the great player that becomes a coach anyway,
• 1:55:34
  And becoming a head coach takes a lot of time and effort. You got
• 1:55:39
  to go, you know, into the minor league, so to speak,
• 1:55:43
  and work your butt off and get lucky and be good, and that takes
• 1:55:45
  time, by the way, And one of the other elements of this percentage
• 1:55:49
  issue that never gets talked about is you can't determine this based upon what the
• 1:55:55
  percentages of black players is today. You have to go back twenty thirty years
• 1:56:00
  and say, Okay, what was it then, because that's the pool of
• 1:56:03
  people who would now be head coaches today. But that's way beyond the intellectual
• 1:56:10
  capability of most morons in the media and certainly at ESPN. But I found
• 1:56:15
  that clip to be strange, one because of the verbiage being used, but
• 1:56:19
  also telling because it goes to the heart of this issue of equity, which
• 1:56:25
  I think is at the foundation of one of our major threats to America going
• 1:56:30
  forward, the changing of the equality of opportunity to equity of outcome. And
• 1:56:35
  we're seeing it in every aspect of life, even in areas where the equity.
• 1:56:41
  It's one thing to enforce equity, but it's a totally different thing to
• 1:56:45
  enforce it based upon a false premise, which is what's happening when it comes
• 1:56:48
  to coaching in sports. Another issue related to college sports now, I have
• 1:56:55
  been someone who's been outspoken that the entire nil and unlimited transfer issues and radical
• 1:57:02
  realignment were destroying the essence of collewood sports. And I've talked a lot in
• 1:57:08
  the past about why I believe that, and that it's opened up a Pandora's
• 1:57:13
  box, especially name, image and likeness, that this was a loophole through
• 1:57:17
  which you could drive a metaphorical mac truck, and that people were being very
• 1:57:21
  naive about the implications of this. I think I've been vindicated in that.
• 1:57:27
  In fact, even I've been surprised by how dramatic and how quickly things have
• 1:57:30
  changed because of NIL money. Well, one of the things that the NIL
• 1:57:35
  rules has allowed to occur is the re emergence of an extremely popular video game
• 1:57:44
  from EA Sports. Now, I don't think people fully understand how popular video
• 1:57:48
  games are. I don't play video games. At one point, when I
• 1:57:53
  was younger, I played a lot of THESEEA Sports games and enjoyed them.
• 1:57:57
  But I've not done this in many, many years, no plans to do
• 1:58:00
  so in the future. But for even a lot of middle aged males,
• 1:58:05
  and a lot and hugely among college age males, playing these sports video games
• 1:58:12
  is huge. I mean, the numbers are massive, and after many years
• 1:58:16
  of a hiatus, EA Sports has announced that they're coming out this year with
• 1:58:20
  their college football game, which they've not done in like a decade, and
• 1:58:25
  people are very excited about this. Now, this is really where the heart
• 1:58:29
  of the whole NIL thing started. This was really the law how the lawsuit
• 1:58:33
  began. A UCLA basketball player by the name of Ed O'Bannon really began this
• 1:58:39
  whole thing because EA Sports would do these college games and they would have a
• 1:58:45
  player represented by their number but not their name, and they would take on
• 1:58:50
  the qualities of that player, and if you played the video game, you
• 1:58:56
  were essentially able to become that player, and not without merit. Ed O'Bannon
• 1:59:02
  and others said, well, wait a minute, shouldn't we be paid something
• 1:59:05
  for this? And that's really how this whole NIL thing began. And now
• 1:59:12
  that nil is legal, EA is coming out and saying, look, we're
• 1:59:15
  going to have all the players and all the teams you know, involved in
• 1:59:19
  this video game, and as compensation, we're going to give each player who
• 1:59:27
  opts in to having their name, image, and likeness used in this game,
• 1:59:31
  we're going to give them six hundred dollars and a copy of the game
• 1:59:34
  itself. Now, to the vast majority of college football players, this is
• 1:59:42
  fantastic. They get six hundred dollars for nothing. They get to be in
• 1:59:46
  a video game. That all their friends are going to play, and they
• 1:59:49
  get a copy of that video game for their own keepsake or use, so
• 1:59:54
  what have you. So this is going to be a no brainer. So
• 1:59:57
  the vast majority of college football players are going to immediately opt in. They're
• 2:00:01
  going to get their six hundred dollars and their video game. However, and
• 2:00:05
  the main reason I'm mentioning this now, other than it's an interesting story with
• 2:00:10
  regard to the impact of NIL, is that I'm going to make a prediction.
• 2:00:15
  I'm going to predict that this is not going to turn out as well
• 2:00:17
  as everybody is expecting or hoping. I could be wrong about this. I
• 2:00:21
  don't feel one hundred percent about it, but I have a strong inclination that
• 2:00:26
  there's going to be problems here because they're going to be top players who will
• 2:00:30
  not opt in. They're going to be top players that are going to say
• 2:00:34
  no, I'm worth a lot more than six hundred dollars and a copy of
• 2:00:40
  the game, and that if enough of these players opt out, especially if
• 2:00:45
  the word gets out that they're opting out, this is going to cause a
• 2:00:48
  major problem. Now, how it's all going to work out, I don't
• 2:00:53
  know. I really don't, but I do believe we're going to see opt
• 2:00:57
  outs because a lot of these players have been left to believe that their value
• 2:01:01
  is a lot more than it really is. And frankly, I actually think
• 2:01:05
  that this whole issue kind of exposes that I'm right on the general value of
• 2:01:13
  a college athlete. It's my view that very, very very few college athletes
• 2:01:17
  actually create monetary value. It's the school, it's the school's brand, it's
• 2:01:26
  the uniform, it's the stadium, it's the alumni, it's the heritage,
• 2:01:30
  the legacy. That's why people care about a particular college team. Unless you're
• 2:01:36
  a superstar, and I mean a real superstar, it doesn't really create that
• 2:01:42
  much monetary value, by the way, especially in an era where you may
• 2:01:45
  only be at that school for one year, then you might transfer to another
• 2:01:48
  one, or you might go pro immediately. So there's really very little identity
• 2:01:55
  and connection between the player and the school, and which I think further reduces
• 2:02:00
  their monetary value. But to me, the way EA is handling this is
• 2:02:05
  consistent with my whole theory. They're basically saying, look, you're really not
• 2:02:11
  worth much. We're going to be nice about this. We're gonna give you
• 2:02:14
  six hundred dollars and a copy of the game, and some people are saying,
• 2:02:17
  well, that's just not enough. Well, I predict that there's going
• 2:02:20
  to be problems here, so keep an eye on this. And there's really
• 2:02:25
  not that much time. That's the other part of this. They got to
• 2:02:28
  figure this out pretty fast because the game is supposed to come out in the
• 2:02:30
  summertime, and you know, how they're able to do this, you know,
• 2:02:33
  in such a short period of time, is beyond my comprehension. But
• 2:02:38
  that's the situation. Another college athletic issue that I found interesting over the weekend
• 2:02:44
  occurred at a Duke Wake Forest basketball game. And it's possibly you heard about
• 2:02:49
  this, but I wanted to mention it for a couple of different reasons.
• 2:02:54
  There was a Duke basketball player by the name of Kyle Philipowski who was injured
• 2:03:00
  after Duke lost the game. After Duke lost the game at wake Forest and
• 2:03:04
  wake Forest's fans stormed the court. So the game ends, the crowd storms
• 2:03:12
  the court, and as the Duke player was getting off the court, he
• 2:03:15
  got injured. Now it does not appear as of this taping that the injury
• 2:03:19
  is particularly serious. It should also be pointed out, and I think this
• 2:03:25
  is relevant that there's an angle of the incident that indicates that this might have
• 2:03:31
  been Philipowski's fault. That it looked to me and many other people as if
• 2:03:38
  he tripped one of the fans who was storming the court, and he may
• 2:03:43
  have done it on purpose, and that that's what caused his lagger foot injury.
• 2:03:49
  There's some ambiguity to that, but this is not an open and shut
• 2:03:54
  question as to who was actually a fault. But the reason why I'm mentioning
• 2:03:58
  this is that the Due coach, as well as many in the media,
• 2:04:01
  immediately use this as Aha, my gosh, we must ban court storming because
• 2:04:11
  one guy got a little bit hurt and oh, by the way, it
• 2:04:15
  might have been his fault, and so we must ban this. Well,
• 2:04:18
  to me, this is very consistent with the entire liberal, woke academic ideology
• 2:04:25
  that you can never be too safe. We must ban anything where anything bad
• 2:04:29
  ever happens, no matter why it really happened or who was really at fault,
• 2:04:33
  and so therefore we just got to ban everything. And my initial reaction
• 2:04:39
  is, Okay, why don't we just ban fans period? Now I'm not
• 2:04:42
  actually a big fan of the court storming. I think it actually happens too
• 2:04:45
  often. Sometimes it happens in games that don't really deserve it, and so
• 2:04:50
  you know, maybe there should be some I don't think it should be a
• 2:04:54
  law or a rule, but you know, frankly schools ought to be shamed
• 2:04:58
  and they're not doing it when it it's really not warranted. But I'm somebody
• 2:05:01
  who had a direct experience in court storming many many years ago in the mid
• 2:05:08
  nineties that was quite frightening. I was a television sportscaster in North Carolina Saint
• 2:05:14
  Conference. Only this was at NC State back in Reynolds Coliseum days, and
• 2:05:20
  I think they must have been playing North Carolina. So NC State beats North
• 2:05:25
  Carolina and I'm on look, I'm court side, waiting to get postgame reaction,
• 2:05:31
  and there is a massive court storming, massive court storming, and I
• 2:05:38
  have to say, and I don't scare easily. I was about as frightened
• 2:05:42
  as I've ever been. Now, part of the reason I was frightened was
• 2:05:46
  one, this was a situation I've never been in before. But two,
• 2:05:49
  this is important to point out, and this is not relevant today because this
• 2:05:54
  would not happen today, but our technology. I was working for a Fox
• 2:05:58
  affiliate in Raleigh, North Caro. Our technology was still in the olden days.
• 2:06:02
  This would have been in nineteen ninety five, and my microphone was attached
• 2:06:12
  to our camera. We had a cameraman, and my microphone was attached by
• 2:06:16
  a rather heavy cord. Now today they have wireless mics, and they've had
• 2:06:20
  them for many years. But because I was holding onto my mic and there
• 2:06:26
  was a heavy cord attached to the camera and we were in the midst of
• 2:06:30
  this massive court storming, I was not just afraid for my own situation because
• 2:06:36
  it was much easier to knock me over and knock my cameraman over, but
• 2:06:41
  it was also much more likely that someone could get themselves somehow wrapped up in
• 2:06:46
  the cord, maybe even choke who knows. I mean, it just felt
• 2:06:50
  like it was a very dangerous situation in fact, and I've often thought about
• 2:06:56
  this from a cultural standpoint, about how much we've changed. That night,
• 2:07:00
  after everything had calmed down, I did a live shot from NC State's arena,
• 2:07:06
  and I talked about the court storming and how I thought it was rather
• 2:07:12
  frightening, and I referenced it in terms of it being like a WHO concert,
• 2:07:17
  and I said so in a what I remember to be a rather joking
• 2:07:20
  fashion. I didn't make you a complete joke out of it, but it
• 2:07:25
  was definitely supposed to get a chuckle that this felt like a Who concert.
• 2:07:28
  Now, for younger people, you may not know what I was even referring
• 2:07:31
  to, but a couple of decades prior to that, there had been a
• 2:07:34
  tragic event at a Who concert where people would storm to get seats that were
• 2:07:40
  unassigned, and I believe a couple of people died. And it's always I've
• 2:07:44
  always thought, isn't that weird. I didn't get in trouble for that.
• 2:07:46
  I got in trouble for lots of things in my public broadcasting career, my
• 2:07:50
  commercial broadcasting career that I didn't deserve to get in trouble for. I probably
• 2:07:55
  deserved to get in trouble for that because I was probably an inappropriate joke.
• 2:08:00
  No one felt like it was inappropriate at the time, and I remember the
• 2:08:03
  anchor chuckled at this, but that's what it felt like. I mean,
• 2:08:09
  it was a good description because it felt really dangerous. Now, that was
• 2:08:13
  a pretty unique situation. But other than being an interesting story, it provides
• 2:08:18
  context here because I'm not somebody who's huge in the court storming, but I
• 2:08:22
  hate the idea that we must ban everything immediately because one person had something bad
• 2:08:28
  happened to them and it might have even been their fault. And so that's
• 2:08:33
  why I wanted to mention that another thing that is not going to be talked
• 2:08:39
  about in conservative media at all, and it's going to seem incredibly small.
• 2:08:43
  It's going to seem incredibly small. I almost feel a little weird about mentioning
• 2:08:48
  it, But what the heck. We're running out of episodes of the free
• 2:08:52
  edition of the podcast. And I have a take on this that I don't
• 2:08:54
  think anybody else does, or very few people do anyway. But the NCAA
• 2:08:58
  has change the rules of volleyball, and you're probably thinking, Zi, what
• 2:09:03
  could possibly be the cultural significance of this, And I think there is some
• 2:09:09
  And I am not a volleyball person. I don't claim to be an expert
• 2:09:11
  of volleyball, but looking into this, I find this to be important.
• 2:09:16
  So basically, what they have done is they have changed the rules for setting
• 2:09:22
  in volleyball, where until now setting was a very difficult thing to do under
• 2:09:31
  the rules that it was a very difficult skill to get where you could set
• 2:09:37
  the ball without violating the rules by doing what's called doubling, where basically you
• 2:09:43
  have to have both hands on the ball at exactly the same time and they
• 2:09:48
  go off the ball at the same time. It's a little bit like I
• 2:09:50
  guess the throw in rule when it comes to soccer, although not really.
• 2:09:56
  And it's one of those situations where if you strictly enforce the rule, it's
• 2:10:01
  very difficult to do properly, and it's a skill, and there are many,
• 2:10:05
  many volleyball players who have spent their lives trying to get this skill because
• 2:10:11
  it's not easy to set the ball properly within the rules of volleyball as they
• 2:10:18
  previously were. Well, now all of a sudden, the NCAA has said,
• 2:10:22
  yeah, you know that whole thing about not doubling, Yeah, go
• 2:10:26
  ahead, don't worry about it. It's not a big deal now. My
• 2:10:33
  understanding, again not as a volleyball person, is that the primary motivation for
• 2:10:37
  this was that they're having a difficult time from an officiating standpoint, which I
• 2:10:43
  can kind of understand, although I don't like the idea of well, this
• 2:10:46
  is a challenge, so we're just going to give up on it. But
• 2:10:50
  the real world effect of this is that there are thousands and thousands of people
• 2:10:56
  who have lived huge portions of their lives creating the ability to properly set the
• 2:11:01
  ball that have now had all that time and effort wasted and it's just gone
• 2:11:07
  out the window because we're just going to lower the standards. You know what,
• 2:11:11
  this is difficult, so fuck it. It's difficult to officiate, it's
• 2:11:15
  difficult to do, so we're just gonna drop that whole element of the sport.
• 2:11:20
  And I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's right. And
• 2:11:22
  I think that's an indication of a larger phenomenon in our culture that we're just
• 2:11:28
  lowering standards all over the place and anything that's difficult we just say, screw
• 2:11:33
  it, let's just not do it anymore. I mean, as a golfer,
• 2:11:37
  the best analogy I can come up with is this is like if the
• 2:11:39
  NCAA suddenly decided, you know what, any putt inside of four feet you're
• 2:11:45
  probably gonna make it anyway, so just pick it up. It's good.
• 2:11:48
  Well, there's lots and lots of golfers who have spent a ridiculous number of
• 2:11:54
  hours in effort making sure they never miss a put inside of four feet.
• 2:11:58
  So they've been practicing putts of that length forever and ever, and now all
• 2:12:03
  of a sudden, that part of the game is eliminated. You're just going
• 2:12:05
  to give those putts. Well, it's a very similar situation. I mean,
• 2:12:11
  if you were in that category, you would be outraged, and it
• 2:12:13
  would be an indication that we've just given up. And then it's too difficult
• 2:12:18
  or too much of pain in the ass, just screw it. We're just
• 2:12:22
  going to change the rules to make everything easier. And I do think it's
• 2:12:26
  indicative of a larger reality, and that's why I mentioned it. By the
• 2:12:30
  way, speaking of golf, I would be remiss if I didn't at least
• 2:12:33
  mention that Tiger Woods's son, Charlie, who I made a prediction about late
• 2:12:39
  last year. And I'm sure I pissed a lot of people off when I
• 2:12:43
  said that I did not believe Charlie Woods was going to become a great golfer.
• 2:12:48
  He was fourteen of the time, he's now fifteen, and I said,
• 2:12:52
  look, no one, nobody would is more of a fan of Charlie
• 2:12:58
  Woods and what Charlie could theoretically be than me. I mean, no one
• 2:13:01
  would be happier and the planet if Charlie Woods became anything close to his father.
• 2:13:07
  But I just don't see it. And I'm sure people are like,
• 2:13:09
  zick, how could you possibly say this at fourteen and he's not even fully
• 2:13:13
  grown, and you know you're not being fair to the kid, And I'm
• 2:13:18
  like, look, I get it. However, there's a couple of things.
• 2:13:22
  People who aren't golfers and competitively like I am, don't seem to understand
• 2:13:26
  here. This isn't golf the way that your dad or your grandfather played it
• 2:13:31
  anymore. People are not hitting their prime in golf at thirty or thirty five,
• 2:13:37
  which they used to prime in your golf years is now twenty four,
• 2:13:41
  twenty five, twenty six. I think the golf media is incredibly slow to
• 2:13:46
  pick up on that. That means that if you're fourteen or fifteen, you're
• 2:13:50
  pretty time close. You're within a decade or less when you're going to be
• 2:13:54
  at your prime peak of playing golf. And then you also have to consider
• 2:14:01
  Charlie Woods has been playing golf on television for years already. And obviously he's
• 2:14:07
  played in very high profile situations involving his father, probably you know, more
• 2:14:13
  so in private than in public. He's played on his college or not his
• 2:14:16
  college, his high school golf team. They actually won the state championship in
• 2:14:18
  Florida, but they had a stacked team beside just him, and so you
• 2:14:26
  know. And I've also looked specifically at his game, and this gets into
• 2:14:28
  two technical stuff regarding golf. But his iron swing is too steep, he
• 2:14:35
  can't control his trajectory or his spin, and he's nowhere near as good a
• 2:14:39
  putter as he should be at fourteen or fifteen. I've played a lot with
• 2:14:43
  teenage kids in a lot of different ways, and especially in this day and
• 2:14:48
  age, when they're fearless, they're generally great putters. And I believe that
• 2:14:54
  putters are generally born, not made. And if he's not a great putter
• 2:14:58
  at fourteen or fifteen, he's never going to be a great putter. He's
• 2:15:01
  not gonna have his dad's magic. And that's something that really can't be taught
• 2:15:05
  or can you can be improved, but you're never going to become a great
• 2:15:09
  putter. In my opinion if you're not a great putter at fourteen or fifteen,
• 2:15:13
  and frankly, from what I've seeing, he's a very mediocre at best
• 2:15:18
  putter, and so that was my prediction late last year. Well, last
• 2:15:22
  week Charlie tried for the first time ever to qualify for a PGA Tour event.
• 2:15:28
  Now there was no expectation, but anybody knew anything that he was ever
• 2:15:31
  gonna make it, because it's an incredibly difficult process. If you're not a
• 2:15:35
  PGA Tour member, you got to go through a pre qualifier, which means
• 2:15:39
  you got to shoot under par then and then you've got to go to a
• 2:15:41
  second qualifier four days later. That's called a Monday qualifier, where they only
• 2:15:46
  take four out of one hundred and twenty or whatever guys are playing in that
• 2:15:50
  particular day, which means you're gonna have to shoot six or seven under usually
• 2:15:54
  to have a shot on a PGA Tour qualifier on a tough golf course.
• 2:15:58
  So there was no chance that Charlie was going to qualify for this PGA Tour
• 2:16:01
  event. But I get why he went to the pre qualifier. It's good
• 2:16:05
  experience and I'm sure that was well intentioned. As to why Charlie would do
• 2:16:11
  this, But it turned out to be a disaster in every possible way.
• 2:16:16
  Almost one, he shot eighty six, which I guess was fourteen over par,
• 2:16:22
  and he did have a twelve on one hole apart four, so that
• 2:16:26
  distorted his score. But eighty six is terrible. I mean, there is
• 2:16:31
  I doubt very seriously that there are many people on tour today who shot eighty
• 2:16:37
  six at the age of fifteen in their first PGA Tour qualifying round. Now
• 2:16:41
  it's only one round of golf. You can't tell anything from one round of
• 2:16:43
  golf. I want to make that clear. No one knows that more than
• 2:16:46
  I do. But this was not a good indication. And what was even
• 2:16:52
  more kind of depressing than that was that the event itself apparently turned into a
• 2:16:58
  bit of a fiasca go because there were so many people that showed up to
• 2:17:01
  watch him, and they didn't really understand the etiquette, and the tournament wasn't
• 2:17:05
  really designed for this. There's no gallery ropes, there weren't any officials,
• 2:17:11
  and you know, Charlie was being accosted and being asked for autographs and stuff
• 2:17:16
  like that, and it just apparently was a very bad experience for everyone involved,
• 2:17:22
  which makes me wonder whether or not he's going to try to do it
• 2:17:24
  again, or whether or it's even possible for that to happen. But the
• 2:17:28
  first reviews were terrible for Charlie Woods putting his toe in the water a professional
• 2:17:35
  golf Now, does that mean he's never going to become a professional golfer.
• 2:17:37
  No. I still believe he's going to play golf at Stanford. That was
• 2:17:41
  my prediction, that he'll play golf at Stanford, and then somewhere in his
• 2:17:43
  junior or senior year, he'll he'll get injured or something will happen. He'll
• 2:17:48
  suddenly not be on the team anymore, and then he'll go off and do
• 2:17:52
  whatever he wants in life, because he's gonna have a good life, folks,
• 2:17:56
  there's no question about that. I just don't see how he going to
• 2:18:00
  turn into a major champion golfer. Nobody would happy be happier than me.
• 2:18:05
  Nobody would be happier than me. But so far, at least based upon
• 2:18:07
  what happened last week, that seems to be a long shot. By the
• 2:18:11
  way. Interesting league, since there's always a johns Zickler connection. Charlie Woods
• 2:18:16
  was paired with a guy by the name of Olan Brown Junior, who I
• 2:18:20
  happened to know a bit because he and I were members of the same club
• 2:18:24
  until fairly recently here in southern California. And I think he's a great guy.
• 2:18:28
  And apparently he got along fantastically with Charlie Woods and was very very helpful
• 2:18:33
  to Charlie Woods. So Charlie was lucky to play with Olin Brown Junior.
• 2:18:37
  But Olin Brown Junior is a guy who can't get on tour. Qualified for
• 2:18:41
  the US Open last year and didn't come close to making the cut, so
• 2:18:45
  he's not a PGA Tour level golfer, although his dad, ironically enough,
• 2:18:50
  was a very successful PGA Tour golfer. But of course, you know,
• 2:18:52
  he did way better than Charlie Woods did. Of course, he's he's an
• 2:18:56
  adult and has played on tour, and Charlie he's only fifteen, so let's
• 2:19:01
  understand that reality. But look, no one would be happier if Charlie Woods
• 2:19:07
  was able to be a very successful golfer. But it doesn't look great based
• 2:19:11
  upon the very very very very early returns. I do believe he will improve
• 2:19:16
  dramatically and that this was likely a Fluke situation, but there's there's some fundamental
• 2:19:22
  problems there that I'm not sure it can be overcome. All right, that'll
• 2:19:26
  do it for this episode of the podcast. We now only have one more
• 2:19:28
  episode left of the free version of this podcast. If you would like to
• 2:19:35
  participate in the paid subscription model that will begin in March, make sure you
• 2:19:39
  email or executive producer Mike Agavino at the following email address, which is a
• 2:19:46
  G O t DJ ag O ag O t DJ. That's a G O
• 2:19:54
  T DJ at gmail dot com and you'll receive an email a link. It'll
• 2:20:01
  be very easy once March comes around for you to be part of the new
• 2:20:03
  version of the podcast. In the next episode, I plan on ending things
• 2:20:09
  with an extensive explanation for why I am so pessimistic about the future of the
• 2:20:16
  United States of America, so you have that to look forward to, I
• 2:20:22
  guess until then, thanks so much for listening. This is the Death of
• 2:20:26
  Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler.