Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict to his Senator Ted Cruz, ben
Speaker 1: ferguson with you on this day after Thanksgiving, Senator, a
Speaker 1: lot of people driving home today seeing gas prices hit
Speaker 1: these numbers that they're not liking, even though the administration
Speaker 1: when you believe this is really low right now. And
Speaker 1: then there's another question, and that is when do we
Speaker 1: start putting oil back into our strategic petroleum reserves. The
Speaker 1: Biden Energy advisor was asked about this and his answer
Speaker 1: was pretty shocking. Take a list of us injury. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: so a couple of things. Number one, China lockdowns, yeah,
Speaker 1: and the FED raising rates and trying to orchestrate maybe
Speaker 1: a slowdown at least whether it's our assessment or not.
Speaker 1: Those aren't the greatest ways to lower the price of all.
Speaker 1: Plus we've been, you know, tapping the spr which a
Speaker 1: lot of people criticize, especially if we're down below eighty dollars.
Speaker 1: We're not the day we're back up, but definitely time
Speaker 1: to end that when you start buying, when you start
Speaker 1: buying back the oil to try to replenish that, what
Speaker 1: kind of price would we be talking about now? Before
Speaker 1: the White House respond center, let's just set the stage
Speaker 1: here on the strategical reserves so people understand the abuse here.
Speaker 1: The president decided he's got a problem. Democrats were screaming
Speaker 1: about the problem if the price was too high an
Speaker 1: election day, they thought they would lose obviously the House,
Speaker 1: and it would be a red wave. They decided to
Speaker 1: take the strategical reserves and dump million, then two million
Speaker 1: barrels a day into the marketplace to artificially lower the price.
Speaker 1: You heard CNBC say, a lot of people think this
Speaker 1: was not how the strategical resources supposed to be used.
Speaker 1: This is a terrible decision, that this was playing politics.
Speaker 1: But not only that. Now to replenish that oil, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a very high price. Well, as you're driving
Speaker 1: home from Thanksgiving today, I will say there's good news
Speaker 1: and bad news. The good news is that gas prices
Speaker 1: went down a little bit over the last few months.
Speaker 1: The bad news is gas prices are going way way
Speaker 1: up over the next two years. In fact, it may
Speaker 1: be that the price you paid to fill up your
Speaker 1: tank today it might end up being the lowest price
Speaker 1: you pay for the next couple of years. Why is that,
Speaker 1: Because the policies of the Biden administration have waged a
Speaker 1: relentless war on US oil and gas production. They want
Speaker 1: gas prices to go up. They want gas prices not
Speaker 1: just to be five six seven dollars a gallon, which
Speaker 1: is how high it got on the West Coast. They
Speaker 1: want it to be eight nine ten dollars a gallon.
Speaker 1: Because what they want to do is they want to
Speaker 1: make it so painful for you to fill your tank
Speaker 1: that you sell your suv, you sell your minivan, you
Speaker 1: sell your truck, and you buy a little Prius and
Speaker 1: zip along. And their view is the more burden they
Speaker 1: put on you, they'll force you to comply. Now, the
Speaker 1: Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established to protect our national security
Speaker 1: interests so that if we're at a time of war
Speaker 1: and our supply of oil gets cut off, And it
Speaker 1: was also established at a time when we were very
Speaker 1: energy dependent and needed in port oil that our enemies
Speaker 1: couldn't cut off oil and cripple our economy. So it's
Speaker 1: there for national security to protect us. Now, the spr
Speaker 1: Strategic Petroleum Reserve in some ways should be renamed the
Speaker 1: Strategic Political Reserve because Joe Biden has used it simply
Speaker 1: as a political fund. So moving into the election, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that they want higher gas prices. There's one
Speaker 1: time that they don't want higher gas prices, and that
Speaker 1: is election day. And so Biden has released millions and
Speaker 1: millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Speaker 1: in order to try to lower gasoline prices. It was
Speaker 1: purely election day campaigning. By the way, we know it's
Speaker 1: election day campaigning because we know that when Biden was
Speaker 1: talking to the Saudis and asking them to delay restricting output,
Speaker 1: his request was, could you just delay it till l
Speaker 1: after election day? So we're past election day now he's
Speaker 1: perfectly fine with gas prices going up. And the degree
Speaker 1: to which they politically manipulated this is stunning. Now here's
Speaker 1: something on top of all of this. Biden is now
Speaker 1: talking about refilling the spr when oil hits seventy five
Speaker 1: dollars a barrel. Yeah, let's play that for people so
Speaker 1: that they can hear the White House as energy advisor
Speaker 1: telling the world what price he needs to start buying
Speaker 1: oil again to replenish what we just put out in
Speaker 1: the market to artificially decrease the price of a gallon
Speaker 1: of gas to pump so that they could get reelected
Speaker 1: on election day in the midterms, so we agree with you. Look,
Speaker 1: we've been tapping the SPR, and I don't think there's
Speaker 1: much criticism today for what we've done. That was a
Speaker 1: critical part. The releases from the SPR are critical part
Speaker 1: of bringing prices down when we did them. Just imagine
Speaker 1: if we had not increased supplied by a million barrels
Speaker 1: a day. But today we have to we have to
Speaker 1: be really opportunistic and look at the market and where
Speaker 1: it is to see if it makes sense to do
Speaker 1: continued SPR releases. The President would like to replenish the
Speaker 1: SPR and full of what we release, an additional one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty to two hundred million barrels. And I
Speaker 1: think when prices start reaching towards that seventy dollars mark,
Speaker 1: that's when we're probably going to be looking at somewhere
Speaker 1: around that range of seventy seventy two seventy three, or
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit below that we'll look to immediately
Speaker 1: begin to increase and to repurchase oil into the SPR.
Speaker 1: And that's because we need to have an SPR that
Speaker 1: is full than it is today for national secure and
Speaker 1: economic emergencies in the future. We still have four hundred
Speaker 1: million barrels. That's a lot of barrels. We still can
Speaker 1: manage any emergency. But looking into the future, when prices
Speaker 1: come down into that seventy dollars range, we're going to
Speaker 1: look to be buyers in the market. It's weird to
Speaker 1: tell people your price, isn't it. I mean, if this
Speaker 1: is about national securities he just mentioned, and not politics,
Speaker 1: doesn't that seem odd for the White House to just
Speaker 1: throw this out there of like, here's our price. So
Speaker 1: it is weird. But you need to understand Democrats don't
Speaker 1: care about national security. It's not a priority for them.
Speaker 1: This is purely politics. I have to admit. My favorite
Speaker 1: part of his answers he says, well, no one's criticizing us, now, No,
Speaker 1: that's not accurate. Everyone knows you're obviously playing politics, trying
Speaker 1: to engage in electioneering to lower gas prices, not on
Speaker 1: an ongoing basis, but for a brief moment in time,
Speaker 1: right when people go to the polls. You know they're
Speaker 1: ready to stop now because election day is over, So
Speaker 1: let's get those gas prices up. That's what democrats want.
Speaker 1: They want you to pay more, and you know it's interesting.
Speaker 1: So the price he gave was seventy seventy two seventy three.
Speaker 1: He's gone a little cheaper than Biden was with the Saudis.
Speaker 1: When Biden was desperately negotiating with the Saudis several months ago,
Speaker 1: he told the Saudis, if you don't announce that you're
Speaker 1: restricting output, I will promise to fill the spr at
Speaker 1: seventy five dollars. That was the price he promised them.
Speaker 1: Because they claimed, well, we're going to do this because
Speaker 1: we're concerned that the price will fall too low. And
Speaker 1: he said, well, I'll give you a price floor at
Speaker 1: seventy five I promised to buy and the Saudis told
Speaker 1: him to go pound sand because what Democrats have done
Speaker 1: on foreign policy has alienated all of our friends and
Speaker 1: allies and empowered our enemies. And so Saudi Arabia is
Speaker 1: a very important ally to America. But the Biden administration
Speaker 1: hates the Saudis because they're in bed with Iran. Iran
Speaker 1: is led by a theocratic lunatic who regularly chants death
Speaker 1: to America and death to Israel. And the Biden administration's
Speaker 1: response to that as they want to send them hundreds
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars and facilitate the Aetola getting nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: And the chief counterpoint to Iran as Saudi Arabia. And
Speaker 1: so the Biden administration is undermined and insulted the Saudis
Speaker 1: at every turn. So when they asked them, they said
Speaker 1: they'd set up a price floor, the Saudis said pounds.
Speaker 1: And now here's the interesting thing, Ben that that shows
Speaker 1: that that Democrats don't really care about national security and
Speaker 1: they don't care about the taxpayers either. So you just
Speaker 1: heard Biden's energy advisor admit that the two hundred million
Speaker 1: barrels of oil that they've released in order to try
Speaker 1: to buy gas prices down right before election day, that
Speaker 1: it makes us more vulnerable. He said, we need to
Speaker 1: fill it. Under Biden, were at the lowest level in decades.
Speaker 1: But here's the amazing thing that Democrats almost never address.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, which was just two years ago, oil
Speaker 1: was a lot cheaper. It was twenty four dollars a barrel.
Speaker 1: Twenty four dollars a barrel. So Donald Trump issued an
Speaker 1: order to fill the spr to full capacity. Now that
Speaker 1: order made a lot of sense. At twenty four dollars
Speaker 1: a barrel. That made a ton of sense. And you
Speaker 1: know what happened. Democrats in Congress blocked it. They said, no,
Speaker 1: do not fill the spr at twenty four dollars a barrel.
Speaker 1: So now Democrats are saying fill it at seventy or
Speaker 1: seventy five dollars a barrel. They don't care about the taxpayers.
Speaker 1: It is all politics for the Democrats. And it would
Speaker 1: have been three to one just to put it in perspective,
Speaker 1: I mean it literally. The price that they're saying is
Speaker 1: a good price now to fill the strategical reserves. Are saying, which,
Speaker 1: let's just round at seventy five. At twenty four dollars
Speaker 1: a barrel, you could have bought three barrels of oil
Speaker 1: for the same price as one at their quote ideal
Speaker 1: price now. And the only reason why they block Donald
Speaker 1: Trump back then is because of politics. There was no
Speaker 1: other reason to block them except they said Donald Trump
Speaker 1: wants it, so we say no. The White House Press
Speaker 1: Secretary was asked about this, why replenishing the reserves at
Speaker 1: that price is a good deal seventy five dollars a
Speaker 1: barrel now when buying it at twenty four dollars a
Speaker 1: barrel was a bad deal. Just two years ago. And
Speaker 1: she said, well, back in twenty twenty, when Congress was
Speaker 1: debating funding for replenishing the SPR, Democrats blocked as saying
Speaker 1: it was a bailout for quote big oil. Why is
Speaker 1: it good for taxpayers? Now, she says, look, it was
Speaker 1: a different time. It was not the same situation that
Speaker 1: we're in currently. The reserve was close to full capacity
Speaker 1: at the time, so there is no reason to make
Speaker 1: that type of repurchase. That's a response, Ben, that's just stunning.
Speaker 1: And look, she's right, it was a different time. It
Speaker 1: was a time when Democrats were playing politics to oppose
Speaker 1: Trump and Republicans. Now Democrats are playing politics to try
Speaker 1: to manipulate elections. But you know, I just did some
Speaker 1: quick math on the calculator on my iPhone. So the
Speaker 1: difference between seventy five dollars and twenty four dollars a barrel,
Speaker 1: that's fifty one dollars a barrel. Fifty one dollars a
Speaker 1: barrel times two hundred million barrels is one point two
Speaker 1: billion dollars. What the Democrats did is blocked filling the
Speaker 1: SPR at a time when we could have had it
Speaker 1: at record low prices, and as a consequence, now they
Speaker 1: want to spend ten point two billion taxpayer dollars to
Speaker 1: fill it at three times as high a price because
Speaker 1: a their horrible energy policies have driven the price of
Speaker 1: oil and the price of gas to record highs, but
Speaker 1: b because they've also manipulated the spr for politics and it.
Speaker 1: There have been few more revealing moments than when Biden
Speaker 1: asked the Saudis delay your actions until right after election day.
Speaker 1: He didn't even say the end of the year. He said,
Speaker 1: right after election day. So Joe Biden, right now, green
Speaker 1: Light raise its sky high because the Green New Deal
Speaker 1: radicals they want gasoline sky high. That is their intended outcome. Centator.
Speaker 1: I want to go into the media and how they're
Speaker 1: covering this, but before we get to that, I want
Speaker 1: to tell everybody about our amazing sponsor, Patriot Mobile. If
Speaker 1: you've got a cell phone and nine Americans do, how
Speaker 1: would you like to know that with every phone call
Speaker 1: you make, you're supporting conservative causes. Well that's what Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile does. And they use the same cell towers that
Speaker 1: you're on right now, meaning you get the same exact
Speaker 1: coverage that you're getting right now. Patriot Mobile is America's
Speaker 1: only Christian conservative mobile phone provider. They are a force
Speaker 1: for conservative values. Why because they take a portion of
Speaker 1: every bill that you pay, and they find conservative causes,
Speaker 1: candidates and organizations that believe in the sanctity of life,
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, and the Second Amendment, and their winning.
Speaker 1: If you're ready to have your dollars matter when you're
Speaker 1: paying a bill, switch to Patriot Mobile. They can save
Speaker 1: you money over what you're paying right now. They can
Speaker 1: save you and your family money, and they even can
Speaker 1: save your business or small business money because they have
Speaker 1: an entire section of the business that's just dedicated to businesses.
Speaker 1: They offer the same nation wise coverage as all the
Speaker 1: other major carriers, but the difference is you actually get
Speaker 1: to stand up for what you believe in every time
Speaker 1: you pay that bill. So go online to Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: dot com slash verdict, Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: You'll get free activation and other major offers, and you
Speaker 1: can call them nine seven to Patriot. That's nine seven
Speaker 1: to Patriot, use the promo code Verdict. You mentioned the
Speaker 1: prices in this administration, obviously saying wait until right after
Speaker 1: the election to reduce your production. There's also the lingering
Speaker 1: question out there. Yes, we don't have control of the Senate.
Speaker 1: Will there be any type of investigation though, into our
Speaker 1: strategical reserves? Filling that tanker going to this company that
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden based on their at least on the company
Speaker 1: sheets show that he still has ownership in. But even
Speaker 1: if he doesn't have ownership, how is it that when
Speaker 1: our strategical reserves are released, some of that oil was
Speaker 1: going to a company that the Biden family had a
Speaker 1: vested interest in when it was supposed to be lowering
Speaker 1: the price in this country. Is that something that Republicans
Speaker 1: can still look into when we have this new Congress. Well,
Speaker 1: it is, and it's something that I've got a high
Speaker 1: level of confidence the House will look into. If you
Speaker 1: look at what Cohmer said in his press conference and
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan, they are appropriately focusing on evidence of corruption
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden. They're not getting distracted by dj trying
Speaker 1: to trying to focus on Hunter Biden's drug use. They're
Speaker 1: instead focused on was their corruption at the highest level
Speaker 1: of government? And this is obviously part of it that
Speaker 1: if you have official decisions selling millions of barrels of
Speaker 1: oil to a company that directly profits Biden's family that
Speaker 1: raises very serious issues of corruption. I'm confident at the
Speaker 1: House we'll examine that closely. I want to move to
Speaker 1: another issue, and this is one of those when I
Speaker 1: love doing Verdict because we get to go really deep
Speaker 1: into a story that is I think very important and
Speaker 1: it comes from the legal field. You're obviously a lawyer.
Speaker 1: I want to get your opinion on this new piece
Speaker 1: of news that we just got this week that the
Speaker 1: American Bar Association has now voted to end law school's
Speaker 1: l SAT requirements and the year twenty twenty five. This
Speaker 1: doesn't just apply to the l SAT, but to all
Speaker 1: potential admissions testing. It wasn't long ago when they try
Speaker 1: to do this, In November twenty twenty one that they
Speaker 1: started accepting the GRE alongside the SAT, and now it
Speaker 1: looks like they are eradicating all entrance testing altogether. This
Speaker 1: is a rule change that doesn't make any sense to me. Well,
Speaker 1: it does make sense, but not in a way that
Speaker 1: will make you remotely happy or encouraged, which is the
Speaker 1: modern Left are racists. They are dedicated, passionately dedicated to
Speaker 1: discriminating based on race. They believe in racial discrimination. My
Speaker 1: latest book justice corrupted, how the left is weaponized the
Speaker 1: legal system. There's an entire chapter on critical race theory.
Speaker 1: There's an entire chapter on affirmative action. It lays out
Speaker 1: the history of how Democrats believe there is virtue in
Speaker 1: discriminating against oppressors, by which they mean white people, although
Speaker 1: they also, oddly enough, embrace discriminating against Asian Americans who
Speaker 1: are not in their taxonomy oppressors. But they've done too well.
Speaker 1: And if you've done too well, you know, it's like
Speaker 1: Harrison Harrison bergeron that they're going to put weights on you,
Speaker 1: and they're they're going to discriminate against you. And so
Speaker 1: what is this about? And I'll tell you that the
Speaker 1: announcement that the ABA Committee recommended eliminating the requirement of
Speaker 1: the l set is connected to another story that broke
Speaker 1: at the same time, which is Yale Law School announced
Speaker 1: that it was going to stop participating in the US
Speaker 1: News and World Report rankings of law schools. Now, that
Speaker 1: was an odd announcement. Why because Yale Law School has
Speaker 1: been number one in the US News and World Reports
Speaker 1: rankings for years. It's consistently number one over and over
Speaker 1: and over again. Shortly thereafter, Harvard Law School, which is
Speaker 1: often number two in those rankings, announced it was going
Speaker 1: to stop participating as well. Now why are these all connected,
Speaker 1: Because all of the flow from the Supreme Courts case
Speaker 1: that is currently pending challenging affirmative action in law schools.
Speaker 1: And there's a case against Harvard Law School. And there's
Speaker 1: a case against University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, one
Speaker 1: as a private institution, one as a government institution. It's
Speaker 1: challenging their explicit racial discrimination. And Harvard, in Yale and
Speaker 1: lots of schools actively discriminate against Asian Americans because Asian
Speaker 1: Americans and their determination are too successful, they do too
Speaker 1: well academically, and so just like Harvard in the nineteen
Speaker 1: fifties had Jewish quotas because without the quotas, from their
Speaker 1: racist perspective, you'd have too many Jews. Well now from
Speaker 1: their left wing racist perspective, without the racial quotas, you'd
Speaker 1: have too many Asians, So let's discriminate against them. Most observers,
Speaker 1: myself included, believe the Supreme Court is going to rule
Speaker 1: against the universities and is going to rule that is
Speaker 1: the illegal to discriminate based on race, which is going
Speaker 1: to mean their affirmative action policies where they're eagerly and
Speaker 1: aggressively discriminating, are going to be illegal. This decision on
Speaker 1: the l SET is a direct response to that. Why
Speaker 1: is that because part of the reason you can make
Speaker 1: this case that they're discriminating against Asian Americans is you
Speaker 1: look at the l SET scores and the GPAs of
Speaker 1: Asian American applicants and they are substantially higher than many
Speaker 1: of the individuals, in particular Hispanics and African Americans that
Speaker 1: they admit who have lower l sets and lower GPAs,
Speaker 1: but they admit them based on affirmative action. So here's
Speaker 1: what the law schools are trying to do. Get rid
Speaker 1: of the l SAT So you don't have an objective
Speaker 1: score because the entire reason and what does US News
Speaker 1: and World Report have to do with it? Well, in
Speaker 1: the rankings on US News and World Report, they put
Speaker 1: significant weighting I think it's about twenty percent if I
Speaker 1: remember correctly, on the average ELSAT score of your students,
Speaker 1: which means, if let's say Yale suddenly started saying we're
Speaker 1: not taking the l SAT and the average elsat's course,
Speaker 1: so they did badly on that Yale's ranking would drop.
Speaker 1: And you gotta understand, these racist leftists are not actually
Speaker 1: willing to diminish their self declared prestige, So they're pulling
Speaker 1: out of the rankings so that they don't have to
Speaker 1: pay a price for then eliminating the l SAT and
Speaker 1: all of this is designed so they can say, our
Speaker 1: admissions process, no, no, no, no, we don't look at
Speaker 1: objective numbers, We just look at a holistic assessment of
Speaker 1: the total student and wonder of wonder, we end up
Speaker 1: rejecting the same Asian Americans because we don't want too
Speaker 1: many of them, that's their racist view, and we end
Speaker 1: up admitting the other students who we want. This is
Speaker 1: all about affirmative action, and they're running away from any
Speaker 1: objective inditia of merit or academic success. Who are the
Speaker 1: biggest losers here in the biggest winners because you mentioned
Speaker 1: obviously Asian Americans and they're going to basically straight up
Speaker 1: be racist against them. But who else does this hurt
Speaker 1: in the admissions process if they continue to move down
Speaker 1: this path, Well, it hurts people based on merit. So
Speaker 1: one of the things, interestingly enough, these schools are not
Speaker 1: moving away from is legacy preferences. So you have a
Speaker 1: leg up on getting into these schools if daddy went there,
Speaker 1: if mom went there, but if not, Listen, I'm an
Speaker 1: Hispanic guy who went to Princeton Harvard, and mommy and
Speaker 1: daddy didn't go there. I'm not a legacy. I didn't
Speaker 1: come from money. In fact, when I went to college,
Speaker 1: my parents had just gone bankrupt. They were in the
Speaker 1: oil and gas business. We were talking oil and gas.
Speaker 1: It was the eighties oil crater and we lost our home,
Speaker 1: we lost everything. And so I'm a seventeen year old kid,
Speaker 1: the son of a Cuban immigrant, doesn't know anybody, he
Speaker 1: has no connections. But I got in. I got into
Speaker 1: school because I had really good grades in high school
Speaker 1: and I did really well in the SAT, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, is a terrible thing to admit. Ben, you're
Speaker 1: a much cooler guy who played varsity tenants, said, old miss,
Speaker 1: I can promise you. Uh, you go to a bar.
Speaker 1: And as a college kid, the the worst pickup line
Speaker 1: on planet Earth is hey want to see my SAT score. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's not That's just not gonna work, even at Harvard
Speaker 1: and Yale. I'm not now that gives you much it
Speaker 1: just does does not work. But it meant that that
Speaker 1: a kid with no connections with with with no wealth
Speaker 1: could get in. And the same things true when when
Speaker 1: I went to Harvard that that I uh that between
Speaker 1: my grades and my l SAT got in. Um, they
Speaker 1: want to move away from that and they want to
Speaker 1: move away from Merritt. What they want to find also
Speaker 1: are people who are leftists and woke. So so if
Speaker 1: you go and organize, you know, a transgender protest to
Speaker 1: shut down Corporate America, Yale Law School, here you come, baby,
Speaker 1: look like you know, go find Actually we talked about
Speaker 1: this couple of pods ago when we were talking about
Speaker 1: Sam Bankman Freed and the direct message he was saying about,
Speaker 1: we do these woke shibboleths because people will like us.
Speaker 1: Eliminating the l s AT removes one objective differentiator, you know.
Speaker 1: I remember at the time. So, when I was in
Speaker 1: law school, my roommate and best friend in the world
Speaker 1: other than Heidi, who is my best best friend, but
Speaker 1: my best friend to whom I'm not married, is a
Speaker 1: guy named David Panton. David was my roommate in college,
Speaker 1: my roommate in law school, and in law school he
Speaker 1: was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: you may recall, was the first black president of Harvard
Speaker 1: Law of David Panton was the second black president of
Speaker 1: the Harvard Law Review, and David and I were roommates.
Speaker 1: We were debate partners, and it was interesting at the time.
Speaker 1: At the time, the L set was scored on a
Speaker 1: forty eight point scale, so a perfect score was a
Speaker 1: forty eight at the time. It's kind of a weird scoring,
Speaker 1: but that's how they did it at the time. I
Speaker 1: remember reading a stat that nationally there were fewer than
Speaker 1: fifty five zero African Americans who had scored forty or
Speaker 1: above on the L set, which David had done, and
Speaker 1: so I joked, I'm like David, dude, I'm roommates with
Speaker 1: two percent of the African Americans who scored above that line. Now,
Speaker 1: let me say, let me be very clear, I think
Speaker 1: the fact that you don't have more African American and
Speaker 1: Hispanic kids scoring much much higher on those tests is
Speaker 1: a compelling indictment of our K through twelve education system
Speaker 1: in this country that there ought to be. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of really smart, talented minority kids, and many
Speaker 1: of them are trapped in failing schools. It's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons I'm so passionate about school choice, because i
Speaker 1: want to give these kids the chance and opportunities to exceed.
Speaker 1: So that you're seeing hundreds and thousands more African Americans
Speaker 1: and Hispanics scoring really well on these tests. But and
Speaker 1: that is also twenty five years old too, so the
Speaker 1: current stats have changed somewhat. That's what the law schools
Speaker 1: are trying to move away from because rather than address
Speaker 1: the underlying issues, they embrace discrimination. They believe it is
Speaker 1: morally virtuous to discriminate. And as you move away from
Speaker 1: objective indicators of merit, something that people can work hard
Speaker 1: to achieve, you move instead in the subjective, which means
Speaker 1: you move into the political. This enables also Harvard, Yale
Speaker 1: and the other schools to go fill their schools with
Speaker 1: an army of woke leftists, who then will go on
Speaker 1: to all the law firms, will go on to all
Speaker 1: the investment banks, will go on to Corporate America, and
Speaker 1: will continue to populate the commanding heights of our major institutions.
Speaker 1: It's going to be interesting to see center what happens
Speaker 1: with this, because it is, as you said, it's going
Speaker 1: to have a huge impact on people, and it's going
Speaker 1: to have a huge impact on Hugh gets into these
Speaker 1: law schools, and like you said, it's all comes down
Speaker 1: an issue of basically racism for them. They always scream
Speaker 1: everybody else the racist, but look at what they're doing
Speaker 1: right here, and it's a very important thing to keep
Speaker 1: an eye on. I want to move to one of
Speaker 1: the best fails of the week, and this deals with
Speaker 1: CBS News. CBS News Center came out and they announced
Speaker 1: that they were going to pause their activity on Twitter.
Speaker 1: It was moral impaired to them for them to do this.
Speaker 1: They were trying to lead a train, a bandwagon of
Speaker 1: people that we're gonna leave with them. It was virtue
Speaker 1: signaling one oh one. It was a fail. They announced
Speaker 1: that they were pausing their activity on Twitter. How big
Speaker 1: of a screw up was this. CBS returned to Twitter
Speaker 1: after bravely leaving for one day, sixteen hours and thirty
Speaker 1: one minutes, and they came crawling back as no one
Speaker 1: followed them. Here was their big announcement. And Musk has
Speaker 1: called for an emergency meeting for all remaining engineers in
Speaker 1: light of the uncertainty around Twitter. And out of an
Speaker 1: abundance of caution, CBS News is pausing its activity on
Speaker 1: the social media site as it continues to monitor the platform.
Speaker 1: Major Johnson Bigliotti, So, I mean, I love this. They're
Speaker 1: they're like, we're you know, we're gonna, in light of
Speaker 1: Elon Musk running Twitter like a company, right instead of
Speaker 1: instead of having and actually trying to figure out a
Speaker 1: way to make money off of a business that's never
Speaker 1: made money, We're gonna pause because we don't like what
Speaker 1: they're doing. And then they come crawling back. This on
Speaker 1: top of the fact that CBS News also came out
Speaker 1: like they were breaking news more than two years after
Speaker 1: The New York Post broke the news of the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden laptop. CBS News, by the way, reported that the
Speaker 1: laptop now is authentic. It took them more than two
Speaker 1: years to do this. Just days after the second election,
Speaker 1: they did, you know, the second election they missed, right,
Speaker 1: they missed the first one, they missed the second one,
Speaker 1: the midterms, And now they're like, all right, well, now
Speaker 1: that we've gotten through the midterms, now that we got
Speaker 1: through the last presidential we're gonna come out and break
Speaker 1: news that the Hunter Biden laptop is officially authentic. That's
Speaker 1: their line. Well, the corporate media is fundamentally corrupt. They
Speaker 1: are broken, they are damaged and destroyed. So let's focus
Speaker 1: on the substance of what they said. They said, Well,
Speaker 1: in an abundance of caution, we're gonna go off Twitter.
Speaker 1: Now they're not being cautious about there's some engineers that
Speaker 1: are mad. That's not a reason to go off Twitter. Like,
Speaker 1: what do they care if engineers are yelling at each
Speaker 1: other getting fired's They were not protesting the internal management
Speaker 1: policies at Twitter. They were protesting one thing and one
Speaker 1: thing only, which is that Elon Musk has said he's
Speaker 1: going to stop political censorship. And so, for example, he's
Speaker 1: allowed Jordan Peterson back on Twitter. He's allowed the Babylon
Speaker 1: be back on Twitter. He's allowed Donald Trump back on Twitter,
Speaker 1: although as of now Trump hasn't gone back on Twitter,
Speaker 1: but he's allowed back. And the corporate media, they are
Speaker 1: so fundamentally damaged that their view is if you do
Speaker 1: not censor anyone who disagrees with us, we can't handle it.
Speaker 1: We are fragile little snowflakes, and we are going to
Speaker 1: go hide because not only are we propagandists. Not only
Speaker 1: do we tell a corporate story decided by the corporate
Speaker 1: head haunchos that are media offices, but we're not even
Speaker 1: prepared to defend the lies we're telling. And if anyone
Speaker 1: can point out the lies we're telling, we're going to
Speaker 1: curl up at a ball and and and and hide
Speaker 1: in the corner. It truly. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite
Speaker 1: saying such a thing? Can you imagine Ted Coppel, who
Speaker 1: hosted Nightline for years? Can you imagine Tim Russert like like,
Speaker 1: they're used to be journalists, and journalists who were not
Speaker 1: terrified of someone who disagreed with them because they actually
Speaker 1: knew some facts and they could and and I'm not saying,
Speaker 1: by the way, those journalists were not biased. There's been
Speaker 1: journalistic biased for a long time, but journalists didn't used
Speaker 1: to be complete and utter wooses. And I'm sorry the
Speaker 1: corporate media their reaction, they're running away from free speech.
Speaker 1: How does anyone that considers themselves a journalist run screaming
Speaker 1: away from free speech? Now, you noted their quote boy
Speaker 1: Caught lasted just over a day because no one followed them.
Speaker 1: And you know you're you're trying to lead a parade
Speaker 1: and you start marching and swinging your arms wildly and
Speaker 1: you look behind you there ain't no one there, and
Speaker 1: it's like, ohh. And I will say there was a
Speaker 1: tweet I saw online that I retweeted that just made
Speaker 1: me laugh. It said Pete Davidson has had girlfriends that
Speaker 1: lasted longer than CBS News's break from Twitter. And I
Speaker 1: had a lot of fun with that, because that's indisputably true.
Speaker 1: Our friend Jesse waters over at waters World had some
Speaker 1: fun with CBS News finally admitting the Hunter Biden laptop
Speaker 1: story is real. I just want to play this because
Speaker 1: the way that he described it for me was like, Yep,
Speaker 1: spot on guy is shorthand for held by Hunter for
Speaker 1: his father. Wait, CBS, you're telling me Hunters laptop's real
Speaker 1: now and Joe Biden's the big guy. I thought this
Speaker 1: was just one big conspiracy theory. Well, Prime Time reached
Speaker 1: out to Leslie Stall at CBS and asked her if
Speaker 1: she'd be apologizing to the former president for insisting the
Speaker 1: laptop couldn't be verified, and we haven't heard back. I'm
Speaker 1: starting to realize Democrat October surprises are all hoaxes and
Speaker 1: Republican October surprises are all true. You just have to
Speaker 1: wait until after the election to find out. And to
Speaker 1: have a free and fair election, you kind of need
Speaker 1: to know the truth before the election. That way, voters
Speaker 1: can make an honest assessment and not have any regrets.
Speaker 1: But let's look at the bright side. If the media
Speaker 1: didn't bury the laptop, Joe Biden would have never been
Speaker 1: able to give his granddaughter the wedding of her dreams.
Speaker 1: That's true, right, Senator. I mean, at least they got
Speaker 1: to have a great wedding at the White House this week.
Speaker 1: I love how Waters reminds people that it was CBS
Speaker 1: News that attacked Donald Trump and the lead up to
Speaker 1: the presidential election when he brought up the laptop and
Speaker 1: they actually said, oh, you can't verify this laptop is
Speaker 1: we can't verify this. We can't be you can't say that,
Speaker 1: you know, And he was like in Israel and like, no,
Speaker 1: it's not We're not going to allow you to say
Speaker 1: that here. Yet Leslie Stall repeatedly said it can't be verified.
Speaker 1: It can't be verified, It can't be verified. Why because
Speaker 1: she didn't want to verified. She didn't want it to
Speaker 1: be true, it was politically inconvenient. She was a propagandist
Speaker 1: and it was contrary to or propaganda. By the way,
Speaker 1: this is the same Leslie Stall that interviewed the head
Speaker 1: of Iran as he spouted Holocaust denial, and she sat
Speaker 1: there and didn't challenge him because I guess in their
Speaker 1: mind that can't be verified either. I mean they literally
Speaker 1: They're propaganda is such that they're willing to sit there
Speaker 1: with blatantly dishonest anti semitism and broadcast it because the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party supports giving Iran hundreds of billions of dollars
Speaker 1: and allowing them to get nukes, and so therefore the
Speaker 1: corrupt corporate media does. And if you have to have
Speaker 1: a racist, murderer, torturer, anti Semite and give them global coverage,
Speaker 1: well that's just a cost of doing business. The Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden laptop story is a lot of things, but one
Speaker 1: of the things that illustrates is the confluence between all
Speaker 1: of the corrupt institutions that are coming together to deceive
Speaker 1: the American people and to steal elections. So Hunter Biden's
Speaker 1: story breaks evidence, clear evidence of corruption by Joe Biden
Speaker 1: on behalf of Enemies of America, the Chinese communist on
Speaker 1: behalf of Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. It's an
Speaker 1: incredibly inconvenient story because it breaks right before the election.
Speaker 1: So several things happen. Number One, the FBI picks up
Speaker 1: the phone and calls Facebook and says, please suppress this
Speaker 1: story because it's Russian disinformation. It has all the hallmarks
Speaker 1: of Russian disinformation. Now we now know the FBI was lying.
Speaker 1: That was a lie. So the FBI corrupted from within
Speaker 1: the partisans there. They didn't want Joe Biden to lose,
Speaker 1: so they call their buddy a big tech What does
Speaker 1: big tech do? Big Tech, Facebook and Twitter together acting
Speaker 1: in concert, say to the New York Post that dared
Speaker 1: write a story about the hunter Biden laptop, we are
Speaker 1: going to deep platform. Not just your story, We're going
Speaker 1: to take the entire New York Post down. You're no
Speaker 1: longer allowed on social media. You are d platform. They
Speaker 1: involuntarily did to the New York Post what CBS just did,
Speaker 1: and it's little fit for a day. In a few hours. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I will remind people CBS News still not apologize
Speaker 1: for this moment with Donald Trump. I wish you would
Speaker 1: interview Joe Biden, like you interview me, it would be
Speaker 1: so good, you know what I thought? I thought, But
Speaker 1: when I watch him walk out of his store and
Speaker 1: he's walking with a ice cream and the question the
Speaker 1: media asked him, what kind of ice cream? What flavor
Speaker 1: ice cream do you have? And he's in the midst
Speaker 1: of a scandal and he's taking there it is Center.
Speaker 1: He's not in the midst of a scandal. He's not
Speaker 1: in a scandal. Come on, that was October the twenty
Speaker 1: six with a laptop story CBS News and it only
Speaker 1: took them two plus years to now finally admit that
Speaker 1: the story is real. After she laughed in the face
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump, the President Night States America on sixty
Speaker 1: minutes and no comment coming from sixty minutes and no
Speaker 1: comment coming from Leslie Stall. That should tell you everything
Speaker 1: you need to know about the woke corporate media. So
Speaker 1: question what changed? We had an election? We had a
Speaker 1: midterm election, right, And I think this is my prediction Center.
Speaker 1: I think the media is starting to turn on Joe
Speaker 1: Biden because they're useful idiots no longer useful to them.
Speaker 1: They realize they don't want them to run for present
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four. I think they needed to get
Speaker 1: through the midterms. This is only my opinion, but I
Speaker 1: think now you're watching CBS News and others are starting
Speaker 1: to realize they got to take their hands off protecting
Speaker 1: Joe Biden a little bit here and maybe let all
Speaker 1: this come out so they can move on to their
Speaker 1: next kennet. That's my gut. I could be wrong, but
Speaker 1: that's my prediction, so that I think that's a significant
Speaker 1: piece of a Number One, CBS News didn't do this
Speaker 1: till after the midterms elections, but you can do it
Speaker 1: two weeks ago they did. Now. Number two, you're right,
Speaker 1: they're done with Joe Biden. He's not running in twenty
Speaker 1: four and if he even thinks he is, they want
Speaker 1: to push them out because he clearly can't run. But
Speaker 1: number three, you've got a House majority that's getting ready
Speaker 1: to have hearings on these things, and the fact that
Speaker 1: they've been utter complicit liars does kind of look bad
Speaker 1: for them, So they want to get out and report
Speaker 1: on all this stuff. So when the House has hearings,
Speaker 1: they say, oh, this isn't news, this is old news.
Speaker 1: We reported on this, We report on this long time ago.
Speaker 1: Like a whole week ago. In fact, we took out
Speaker 1: the trash, as we call it in politics, we report
Speaker 1: on the story the week of Thanksgiving when a lot
Speaker 1: of people have tuned out, checked out and gone to
Speaker 1: see their family and have kind of walked away from
Speaker 1: politics after the exhaustion of covering it all through the election.
Speaker 1: That's why they're doing it right now during the week
Speaker 1: of Thanksgiving, because this is when the fewest number of
Speaker 1: people are watching them well, and it's worth it explaining
Speaker 1: that phrase, taking out the trash, because people who haven't
Speaker 1: worked in politics or haven't worked in media made not
Speaker 1: understand what it means. Often, if you have bad news,
Speaker 1: what people in politics do is they'll release it on
Speaker 1: a Friday afternoon, and even better a Friday afternoon when
Speaker 1: something else big is going on. So it's out there,
Speaker 1: it's in the public. It just no one sees it
Speaker 1: because it gets buried. And that's the phrase, take it
Speaker 1: out the trash. If you look at you know, it
Speaker 1: would be a funny thing for someone to go compile,
Speaker 1: you know, the top fifty Friday afternoon press releases, because
Speaker 1: I guarantee you there's some doozies and they're on both sides,
Speaker 1: Both these and ours do this. This is not an
Speaker 1: exclusive Democrat failing. But when the media does it, when
Speaker 1: they release it at a time no one's paying attention,
Speaker 1: they're engaged in Cya. They're trying to cover their own
Speaker 1: rear ends by saying, oh, we've covered it. And part
Speaker 1: of the reason you do that is so then when
Speaker 1: the world does focus on whatever the bad news is,
Speaker 1: whatever the scandal is, you say, oh, it's old news
Speaker 1: that's been out there forever. I'll come on. Everyone knows
Speaker 1: that nothing to talk about here. That's what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do. It's amazing, Senator. We're gonna keep covering this story.
Speaker 1: We're gonna keep watching it, and we'll keep exposing it
Speaker 1: as it comes out. For everybody on the road today,
Speaker 1: be safe out there. Makes you subscribe to Verdict. It's free.
Speaker 1: You'll get three episodes every week, automatically tell your family
Speaker 1: and friends about Verdicts, Share this podcast and don't forget right.
Speaker 1: It's a five star review as well, and we will
Speaker 1: see you back here on Monday morning.