Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz and our weekend review.
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you, and we've got a lot of
Speaker 1: major stories that broke this week and we're going to
Speaker 1: cover them all for you. First up, the politics of water. Well,
Speaker 1: it made the California wildfires worse. We'll explain exactly how
Speaker 1: that happened. And now it seems like everybody in office
Speaker 1: out there is pointing the finger at one another. Also,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of talk this past week about
Speaker 1: another issue, and that is the US acquiring Greenland and
Speaker 1: the Panama Canal. How would this work? Is it a crazy,
Speaker 1: brilliant idea. We'll explain that. And finally, the demise of
Speaker 1: the corporate media. Is it fair to say now that
Speaker 1: the media has lost the war, especially after the last
Speaker 1: election outcome? We just had. It's the weekend review and
Speaker 1: it starts right now, all right, And I also think
Speaker 1: it's important for us to talk about the other aspect
Speaker 1: of this, and that is about the water. A Gavin
Speaker 1: News he made this an issue. He was obsessed with
Speaker 1: water and fish and all of this kumbayism, and he
Speaker 1: had press conferences about it. And now that's coming back
Speaker 1: to haunt him as well.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt the water policies have have greatly exacerbated
Speaker 2: the problems with with wildfires and the ability to fight
Speaker 2: the wildfires. And listen, LA right now is facing a
Speaker 2: drought and at the same time, California is dumping massive
Speaker 2: quantities of fresh water into the ocean. They're wasting it.
Speaker 2: Here's here's what Donald Trump said yesterday when he came.
Speaker 2: He was, he was, he was in the Senate. He
Speaker 2: met with with me and all the Republican senators. We
Speaker 2: spent about two hours with him. And what he said
Speaker 2: is he said, he said that Gavin Newssen wanted to
Speaker 2: protect it essentially worthless fish, called a smelt, but didn't
Speaker 2: care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price
Speaker 2: is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor
Speaker 2: allowed beautiful, clean fresh to flow into California. He is
Speaker 2: to blame for this. Now, let's lay out the facts
Speaker 2: that go behind this. So, California's main water hub is
Speaker 2: the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta, and among other things,
Speaker 2: the state of California has been refusing to provide sufficient
Speaker 2: water to California farmers. And as I said, they're dumping
Speaker 2: it in the Pacific Ocean instead. And the reason they're
Speaker 2: doing so is because of because of a fish, a
Speaker 2: fish called the delta smelt. And so Trump, when he
Speaker 2: was president, wanted to divert supply to the farmers, and
Speaker 2: in response, environmental groups argue that it would hurt the
Speaker 2: population of delta smelt, small fish that were once crucial
Speaker 2: to California's ecosystem but has since been rendered effectively extinct.
Speaker 2: Ump first promise, and this is from the New York Post.
Speaker 2: Trump first promised to redeffect redirect California's northern runoffs south
Speaker 2: to benefit farmers when he was running for president in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, and he made good on the promise in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty with a federal memorandum that redirected millions of
Speaker 2: gallons of water he said was otherwise needlessly flushed into
Speaker 2: the ocean. So that's what Trump did in twenty twenty. Well,
Speaker 2: what did Gavin Newsom do? He sued the federal government
Speaker 2: to stop that water from going to California farmers. Days later,
Speaker 2: Newsom's administration sued to block Trump's move, and he succeeded
Speaker 2: in limiting the amount of water that can be pumped
Speaker 2: from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. This is and now
Speaker 2: we're facing the enormous frustration of people in Los Angeles
Speaker 2: when they don't have the sufficient water to fight these
Speaker 2: whys fires. And yet Gavin Newsom continues to fight for
Speaker 2: not directing water anywhere other than fixing these problems.
Speaker 1: You listen to Governor Newsom and bragging about not only
Speaker 1: what you describe, but bragging about tearing down dams to
Speaker 1: save fish because woke activists said you got to do it.
Speaker 1: This is again the consequences of actions. Here is Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom cheering on how brilliant his idea was when he
Speaker 1: did it.
Speaker 3: Largest damn the global projects in US history and one
Speaker 3: of the most significant, if not the most significant water
Speaker 3: restoration projects, bringing back salmon and steelhead into this space.
Speaker 3: That this project could not have happened without extraordinary partnerships
Speaker 3: with tribal nations and of course all partners and the
Speaker 3: North and or he just finished the celebration, or the
Speaker 3: Secretary of the Interior and our tribal council and tribal leaders,
Speaker 3: and I could be more proud as a Californian, and
Speaker 3: I could be more proud as a product because my kids.
Speaker 2: And their great great grand kids.
Speaker 3: Will have the opportunity to see something that well has
Speaker 3: been here since time in memorial and it's about damn
Speaker 3: time thout this time.
Speaker 2: That's not you and me characterizing what he did. That's
Speaker 2: in his own words saying how incredibly proud he is
Speaker 2: of quote the largest damn removal project in US history.
Speaker 2: That's a policy decision he made. Now, what are the
Speaker 2: consequences of this? Give a listen to Gavin Newsom being
Speaker 2: asked about LA not having water in its fire hydrancy.
Speaker 2: Here was his answer during this crisis.
Speaker 1: What is the situation with water? Obviously in the palisage
Speaker 1: ran out last night in the hydrants.
Speaker 4: I fearned the firefighter on this block they left because
Speaker 4: there was no water in the hydrant here.
Speaker 3: The local folks are to figure that out. I mean,
Speaker 3: just when you have a system. But it's not dissimilar
Speaker 3: to what we've seen in other extraordinarily large scale fires,
Speaker 3: whether it be pipe of electricity or whether it just
Speaker 3: be the complete overwhelm of the system. I mean, those
Speaker 3: hydrants are typical for two or three fires, maybe one fire.
Speaker 3: You have something at this scale. But again, that's going
Speaker 3: to be determined by the local.
Speaker 1: Not my problem. It to local people. And he literally
Speaker 1: as he's saying this, threw his hands up in the
Speaker 1: air on national TV, like this is this is this
Speaker 1: is I guess below my pay grade. You ask the
Speaker 1: local officials, not my problem as the governor.
Speaker 2: So local folks are going to figure that out, not
Speaker 2: my job. Without taking any responsibility for his decisions, He's
Speaker 2: literally sued the federal government to block money going to
Speaker 2: Californians and bragged about how proud he is of the
Speaker 2: largest damn removal in US history. And by the way,
Speaker 2: you know, he's also trying to put all the blame
Speaker 2: on local officials. And I agree the local officials had
Speaker 2: policies in place that had a significant consequence. But I'll
Speaker 2: tell you also, so did Gavin Newsom. You know, we
Speaker 2: talked a minute ago about firefighters and Karen Bass slashing
Speaker 2: slashing the budget for the fire department. Well, last year,
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom veto to bill that would have let cal Fire,
Speaker 2: the statewide fire agency, retain seasonal firefighters to help with
Speaker 2: staffing shortages, and his veto forced the layoff of thousands
Speaker 2: of seasonal firefighters. This is from Kate Sanchez, who is
Speaker 2: a California assembly woman, and who goes on to say
Speaker 2: his veto forced the layoff of thousands of seasonal firefighters
Speaker 2: who he never replaced display despite his promises. This is
Speaker 2: negligence of the highest orders. And I want to read
Speaker 2: to you. So this is September twenty second, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: so not very long, just a few months ago. Office
Speaker 2: of the Governor quote to the members of the California
Speaker 2: State Assembly, I am returning Assembly Bill two five three
Speaker 2: eight without my signature. The bill would, among other things,
Speaker 2: require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalFire to
Speaker 2: employ seasonal firefighters through the use of an employment list.
Speaker 2: This bill would also require the Department of Human Resources
Speaker 2: to coordinate with the State Personnel Board and any other
Speaker 2: relevant state agency to take the necessary actions to allow
Speaker 2: CalFire to employ seasonal firefighters for longer than nine months
Speaker 2: in a consecutive twelve month period. Increasing calfire's capacity is
Speaker 2: an important objective, and with the introduction of the sixty
Speaker 2: six hour workweek for firefighters, my administration will need to
Speaker 2: hire more than two thousand new year round firefighters. Note
Speaker 2: that California assembly Woman said he didn't do that significantly
Speaker 2: increasing the department's capacity in the off season. This bill
Speaker 2: is therefore unnecessary, so he veto's hiring more firefighters, just
Speaker 2: like the mayor of Los Angeles did. And I want
Speaker 2: you to to listen to this exchange. Uh, this exchange
Speaker 2: when when when Gavin Newsom is confronted by a woman, uh,
Speaker 2: asking for for for answers about his his disastrous policies.
Speaker 2: Give a listen to this exchange.
Speaker 1: Governor, you got a second governor, Governor, I live here.
Speaker 3: Governor, that was my daughter's school.
Speaker 2: Governor.
Speaker 4: Please tell me what you're gonna do.
Speaker 1: But I'm not gonna hurt of my promise.
Speaker 5: I'm literally talking to the President right now to specifically
Speaker 5: answer the question of what we can do.
Speaker 3: For you and your daughter.
Speaker 6: Can I hear it?
Speaker 1: Can I hear your call?
Speaker 2: Because I don't believe it.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, there's literally I've tried five times. That's why
Speaker 5: I'm walking around to make.
Speaker 1: That is the president of taking your call because it's.
Speaker 3: Not going through.
Speaker 5: Why I have to get cell service.
Speaker 4: Let's get it, let's get it. I want to be
Speaker 4: here when you call the President.
Speaker 5: I appreciate I'm doing that. Right now, and it's to
Speaker 5: immediately get reimbursements, individual assistance, and to help you'd with
Speaker 5: the devis looking fore yar. I'm so sorry, especially for
Speaker 5: your daughter. I have four kids.
Speaker 4: Everyone who went to school there, they lost their homes.
Speaker 1: They lost two homes because they were living in one
Speaker 1: and building another.
Speaker 7: Ever, please tell me, tell me what are you going
Speaker 7: to do with the president.
Speaker 5: Right now, we're getting we're getting the resources to help rebuild.
Speaker 1: Why is there no water in the hydrants? Governor?
Speaker 3: That's all?
Speaker 5: Literally?
Speaker 3: Is it going to be different next time?
Speaker 5: It has to be has to be of course, what.
Speaker 1: Are you going to do to fill the hydrants?
Speaker 2: I would fill them up personally.
Speaker 1: You know that.
Speaker 2: I literally I.
Speaker 6: Would fill up the hydrants myself.
Speaker 1: But would you do that?
Speaker 5: I would do whatever I can, But you're not.
Speaker 8: I see the Do you know there's water dripping over there?
Speaker 6: Governor? There's water coming out there?
Speaker 2: You can use it.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: I'm going to make the call to address everything I
Speaker 5: can right now, including making sure you.
Speaker 8: Make sure you can I have an opportunity to at
Speaker 8: least tell people what you're.
Speaker 1: Doing, what you're saying you're doing.
Speaker 3: Can somebody have a contact.
Speaker 4: Can I have your contact right now?
Speaker 1: Nothing like ducking into your suv and then saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I got to take a phone call with the president.
Speaker 1: You move on, lady. I hear what you're saying, but
Speaker 1: you move on. One of the most shocking parts that
Speaker 1: exchange this center was the fact that both people involved,
Speaker 1: the lady who lived there, her child's school has burned
Speaker 1: to the ground, and Gavin Newsom are both admitting there
Speaker 1: will be a next time. And if you know that
Speaker 1: this is the next time, and you know that you
Speaker 1: deal with these fires, why did you make all these decisions?
Speaker 2: And it's over and over again, repeated decisions, and he's
Speaker 2: accepting no responsibility. He was warned about the consequences of
Speaker 2: those decisions, and yet he doesn't change them. The mayor
Speaker 2: was warned, and she doesn't change them. And and look,
Speaker 2: his first reaction when the woman comes up is to
Speaker 2: lie to her, Oh, I'm on the phone with the
Speaker 2: president right now. And I gotta give the woman credit.
Speaker 2: It's you know, it's it's you know, the old trick,
Speaker 2: pretending to be on a phone call. And she's like, great,
Speaker 2: can I listen. He's like, oh, well, I'm not actually
Speaker 2: on the phone. But but but I'm trying like it
Speaker 2: is a horrific natural disaster, a horrific crisis. Although I
Speaker 2: say natural disaster. We're getting also multiple reports of summer
Speaker 2: all of these fires having having originated from arson. We
Speaker 2: don't know the full details of that. And and so
Speaker 2: it may turn out that that that that that that
Speaker 2: these fires are not entirely natural in their origin. That
Speaker 2: we will find out more, hopefully in the days ahead.
Speaker 2: Uh And and but but regardless, better forest management and
Speaker 2: mitigation could reduce the risks of these fires, and yet
Speaker 2: the politicians and California refuse to do it. Investing in firefighters,
Speaker 2: putting the priority of doing their job, and putting sufficient
Speaker 2: resources there could make a real difference, And yet the
Speaker 2: politicians actively refuse to do so. Both the mayor and
Speaker 2: the governor and ensuring their sufficient water could make a
Speaker 2: real difference in fighting these forest fires. And yet the
Speaker 2: elected politicians repeatedly refused to do so and brag about
Speaker 2: how proud they are of these policies. I hope, I
Speaker 2: hope on the federal government that this prompts a serious
Speaker 2: reconsideration of the policies of what are allowed on federal
Speaker 2: forest lands. I know President Trump wants to see that happen,
Speaker 2: and we will see whether our Democrat colleagues in Congress
Speaker 2: are willing to work to get that done or if
Speaker 2: they will continue to double down on the same failed
Speaker 2: policies that are endangering people's lives and costing people's lives.
Speaker 2: And I just want to close where we started. Listen,
Speaker 2: we are praying for the people of California who are
Speaker 2: living through hell right now. We are praying for the
Speaker 2: firefighters and police officers and first responders, and by the way,
Speaker 2: just ordinary citizens and churches and charities who are coming
Speaker 2: together and helping each other. And I will say, you know,
Speaker 2: in the wake of any disaster, you see people come
Speaker 2: together and help each other. And that's an amazing, powerful thing.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, we need to ask, are
Speaker 2: there policies that caused this disaster or made it worse?
Speaker 2: And are their policy changes that can reduce the risk
Speaker 2: of another tragedy like this in the future. And sadly,
Speaker 2: the answer to those questions is unquestionably yes. And I
Speaker 2: think for that reason, a whole lot of people in
Speaker 2: California are understandably andjustifiably furious right now now.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. Is
Speaker 1: this one of those things that would come down to
Speaker 1: a vote and they would vote on it. How does
Speaker 1: this actually work? I mean, is there a purchase price?
Speaker 7: Is that?
Speaker 1: I mean, we explain to people the reality of this
Speaker 1: moves forward, what it.
Speaker 2: Looks, so all in all likelihood, there would be a
Speaker 2: purchase price paid to Denmark, because Denmark has controlled Denmark
Speaker 2: governs Greenland right now, and so it would be a
Speaker 2: purchase price like the Louisiana purchase, like buying Alaska. And
Speaker 2: there's a long history of countries buying territories one from
Speaker 2: the other, and so that you'd have to go and
Speaker 2: negotiate it. We saw this week Donald Trump Junior flew
Speaker 2: to Greenland and and went there and and reported back,
Speaker 2: reported back that he had a tremendous reception, that people
Speaker 2: were cheering him on, that they were wearing Maga hats.
Speaker 2: You know, I've heard multiple reports that the locals can't
Speaker 2: stand Denmark, that they're treated as second class citizens by
Speaker 2: the Danes, and and that you know, if you're a
Speaker 2: young Greenlander the opportunity to become an American. That's a
Speaker 2: big deal in terms of your future. If Greenland becomes
Speaker 2: an American territory, the investment from the United States that
Speaker 2: goes into Greenland is suddenly very significant, and so that
Speaker 2: could well be appealing. Now, now, I would think there
Speaker 2: would be a real likelihood that you'd probably have a
Speaker 2: referendum of Greenlanders if they want to do it. It's
Speaker 2: not clear that you would, but I think there's a
Speaker 2: reasonable chance of that, and so you'd have both Denmark
Speaker 2: and Greenland to contend with. But I will say from
Speaker 2: America's perspective, there would be enormous advantages to Greenland becoming
Speaker 2: an American territory. And I will say just this week,
Speaker 2: interestingly enough, On Fetterman, Democrat senator from Pennsylvania, he was
Speaker 2: on Fox News and and he was he brought up Greenland.
Speaker 2: It was very interesting. I want you want you to
Speaker 2: listen to what John Fetterman had to say on this topic.
Speaker 4: Like, there's a lot of talk about Greenland, for example, now,
Speaker 4: and I know a lot of there's a lot of
Speaker 4: freak outs, you know, and of course I would never
Speaker 4: support taking it by force, but I do think it's
Speaker 4: I do think it's a responsible conversation if they were
Speaker 4: open to acquiring it, and you know, whether they're just
Speaker 4: buying it out right, I mean, if anyone think that's bonkers,
Speaker 4: it's like, well, well remember the Louisiana purchase. I think
Speaker 4: Alaska is pretty pretty a great deal too, fifty million dollars.
Speaker 4: I think it was. It was recorded, it was it
Speaker 4: was referred to as as Seward's folly, and now that
Speaker 4: was Alaska. Now, so I mean, you know, open having
Speaker 4: all kinds of conversations as well. And now I don't
Speaker 4: think we it's not helpful to freak out. But some
Speaker 4: things might work out, some may not. But that's part
Speaker 4: of ongoing dialogue. But he hasn't even taken office in
Speaker 4: two weeks, and you know, we really need to pace
Speaker 4: ourselves if we're going to freak out over every less
Speaker 4: tweet or every less conversation or press conference.
Speaker 1: I love this demeanor there. It's like, well, should be
Speaker 1: having this conversation. There's nothing wrong with it. Now the conversation.
Speaker 1: A lot of people listening are going to say, a center,
Speaker 1: what are we thirty five trillion in debt? How can
Speaker 1: we afford to buy Greenland. So how does the economics
Speaker 1: of that work.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I don't know what a purchase price would be.
Speaker 2: We'd have to see, But I do think the mineral
Speaker 2: reserves there are significant, and the national security and geopolitical
Speaker 2: advantages are significant, and so we invest in policies that
Speaker 2: make a difference, that make America safer and make America
Speaker 2: more prosperous. And it is certainly possible and in fact
Speaker 2: even likely, that Greenland would do that. Now, again, I
Speaker 2: don't know what the price would be. It's something that
Speaker 2: would have to be pursued. But it's interesting since Trump
Speaker 2: starts to talking about this. You've seen Greenlanders talking about
Speaker 2: wanting independence, wanting to be their own country, And from
Speaker 2: Denmark's perspective, they may be sitting there going, well, wait
Speaker 2: a second, America could buy Greenland from US and we
Speaker 2: could get a crap ton of money, or Greenland could
Speaker 2: just declare their independence and they leave US and we
Speaker 2: get nothing. And so the incentives for Denmark may have
Speaker 2: changed because Trump is bringing this up and bringing it
Speaker 2: up in a context that it's driving real conversation. But
Speaker 2: I think we should lean in and pursue this, pursue
Speaker 2: this with Denmark and Greenland, because I think there are
Speaker 2: major advantages to the United States if we were to
Speaker 2: succeed in this, and I think this is a this
Speaker 2: is a serious possibility.
Speaker 1: It's a serious possibility, all right. So with that serious possibility,
Speaker 1: let's move to the third. You know, Panama, big story, Panama,
Speaker 1: the Panama Canal. Donald Trump making it very clear we're
Speaker 1: being taken advantage of.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, and look you look at Panama and
Speaker 2: the Panama Canal. Jimmy Carter. Number one, America built the
Speaker 2: Panama Canal. We lost many American lives building it. We
Speaker 2: invested major money building the Panama Canal. Teddy Roosevelt is
Speaker 2: one of the most significant things he did as president.
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter gave it away, gave it to Panama, and
Speaker 2: it was egregious of you know, this week is Jimmy
Speaker 2: Carter's funeral, and when we did did our remembrance of
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter, I tried to find positive things to say
Speaker 2: about him, not to speak ill of someone who had
Speaker 2: just passed, but I will say Jimmy Carter is giving
Speaker 2: away the Panama Canal was one of the most egregious
Speaker 2: foreign policy mistakes in the history of our country. It
Speaker 2: was horrific. It undermined the safety and security and economic
Speaker 2: vitality of America. It made no sense. Now, can it
Speaker 2: be undone? I don't know. I think I think the
Speaker 2: likelihood of us getting the Panama Canal back is significantly
Speaker 2: lower than the likelihood of US acquiring Greenland. It's not
Speaker 2: nearly as low as the likelihood of Canada joining America.
Speaker 2: As I said, I don't think that is at all possible.
Speaker 2: I think that was purely a troll. I think Greenland
Speaker 2: is quite possible, And I put Panama somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 2: And Trump's argument is important on this, which is which
Speaker 2: is that when when Jimmy Carter gave it away, Panama
Speaker 2: entered into an agreement with the United States, a legal agreement.
Speaker 2: And and I could tell you I and my team
Speaker 2: right now are examining the contours of that agreement to
Speaker 2: see exactly what Panama committed to. But Trump's argument is
Speaker 2: that Panama has broken the terms of that agreement, that
Speaker 2: they are not living up to, they are violating that agreement,
Speaker 2: and in particular that they have have have essentially sold
Speaker 2: significant parts of the Panama Canal to China, that Chinese
Speaker 2: companies now control both ends of the Panama Canal and
Speaker 2: they've seeded control to China. That's incredibly harmful. And Trump
Speaker 2: is also arguing that Panama charges American ships egregious prices,
Speaker 2: and and look, we need to dig in more to
Speaker 2: the facts behind that, but that is a legal argument.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you what I think Trump is really doing
Speaker 2: is negotiating on price. And I think the outcome of
Speaker 2: this is going to be that America gets much more
Speaker 2: favorable prices. And it may also be a significant diminution
Speaker 2: of China's involvement in the Panama Canal. Both of those
Speaker 2: are very likely. But I want you to listen to
Speaker 2: what Trump had to say about Panama and mar Lago
Speaker 2: earlier day.
Speaker 9: The deal was that, you know, they have to treat
Speaker 9: us fairly. They don't treat us fairly. They charge more
Speaker 9: for our ships than they charge for ships of other countries.
Speaker 9: They charge more for our navy than they charge for
Speaker 9: navies of other countries. They laugh at us because they
Speaker 9: think we're stupid. But we're not stupid anymore. So the
Speaker 9: Panama Canal is under discussion with them right now. They
Speaker 9: violated every aspect of the agreement, and it's they morally
Speaker 9: violated it also, and they want our help because it's
Speaker 9: leaking and not in good repair, and they want us
Speaker 9: to give three billion dollars to help fix it. I said, well,
Speaker 9: why don't you get the money from China, because China's
Speaker 9: basically taking it over. China's at both ends of the
Speaker 9: Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal.
Speaker 1: China's running the Panama Canal. And he says, they laugh
Speaker 1: at us because they think we're stupid. We're not stupid
Speaker 1: anymore when you hear the basics. They're charging us more
Speaker 1: in our navy more than others. Now they want us
Speaker 1: to give them a bunch of money to fix the thing.
Speaker 1: He's got points that aren't political.
Speaker 2: They're just no, those are serious, and I think we're
Speaker 2: going to see a significant change. I believe in the
Speaker 2: conduct of Panama concerning the Panama Canal. Will it result
Speaker 2: in the canal coming back to America. I don't know,
Speaker 2: uh that that that is a difficult hurdle to clear,
Speaker 2: but I am very glad President Trump is leading in
Speaker 2: on this issue. It's incredibly important and China's growing influence
Speaker 2: over the Panama Canal is just stupid. It is unacceptable.
Speaker 2: And and and and that's that's leadership that, frankly, can
Speaker 2: you imagine in a billion years Joe Biden or Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris making these points you can at all because they
Speaker 2: don't defend America. They're they're celebrating. Uh and I'm sure
Speaker 2: they cheered on when it happened. Jimmy Carter is giving
Speaker 2: it away to begin with, and and and and it's
Speaker 2: it's the opposite of America first. Where where where Biden
Speaker 2: and Harris are? It's America last. And I'm very glad
Speaker 2: we're going to have a president that again puts our
Speaker 2: country first. As before.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
Speaker 1: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number three.
Speaker 1: The week you may have missed, we really saw the
Speaker 1: demise of the corporate media. I call it the state
Speaker 1: sponsored media. And for decades we have seen the media,
Speaker 1: especially the big ABC, NBC, CBS's, the CNN's, MSNBC's be
Speaker 1: able and so much of print to control the narrative
Speaker 1: and the mindset of so many voters and sway elections
Speaker 1: towards the left into Democrats. I hope that we have
Speaker 1: just witnessed the true demise of the media and their
Speaker 1: influence and their corruption, because so many times we've just
Speaker 1: seen how biased they are, whether it was COVID and
Speaker 1: that issue, whether it was the issue with Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: in the laptop. We have now seen where there's a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans that aren't getting their news from not
Speaker 1: just not trust them, they're not even watching anymore, they're
Speaker 1: not even reading these newspapers anymore, and they're turning to
Speaker 1: podcasts just like this show and podcast center had a
Speaker 1: massive impact on the twenty twenty four election at the local, state,
Speaker 1: and national level, and that is good for everyone.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's the final that's prediction number ten, that
Speaker 2: there's no doubt that we are seeing across the media
Speaker 2: landscape a disintermediation, that the mediators, those who had a
Speaker 2: monopoly on communicating with the public, are losing that monopoly.
Speaker 2: They're losing that control. And listen, the part of the
Speaker 2: reason they're losing that monopoly is because they've been so dishonest,
Speaker 2: they've been such partisan propagandists that they don't report on news,
Speaker 2: they simply advocate for the left wing of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 2: That they have utterly destroyed the trust they had with
Speaker 2: the American people, and the corporate media has been exposed
Speaker 2: as liars. We have seen the rise the democratization of media.
Speaker 2: We've seen the rise of podcasts. I think this podcast
Speaker 2: has had a significant impact on the public discourse. I
Speaker 2: think other podcasts. We saw Donald Trump go on multiple
Speaker 2: podcasts in the election and go right around the corporate media,
Speaker 2: goes straight to the American people. We see the impact
Speaker 2: of people like Joe Rogan, which is enormously impactful going
Speaker 2: straight to the American people. And the prediction that we
Speaker 2: made is that we were going to see more and
Speaker 2: more democratization, both from podcasts and also from Twitter and
Speaker 2: x and just speaking the truth right around the so
Speaker 2: called gatekeepers. So I want you to listen to this prediction.
Speaker 2: This prediction was in August of twenty twenty four. Give
Speaker 2: a listen. Why do you and I do the podcast
Speaker 2: often at eleven o'clock at night or midnight or even
Speaker 2: one or two in the morning. Why do we do
Speaker 2: it three days a week? We do it because if
Speaker 2: your only source of news is the corporate media, if
Speaker 2: you only watch CNN or MSNBC or ABCNBCCBS, you do
Speaker 2: not know what is happening. They are lying to you.
Speaker 2: And the reason this podcast we've got roughly a million
Speaker 2: unique listeners is because people thind it valuable. We give
Speaker 2: you facts that CNN will never air. We play the
Speaker 2: full segment of what Elon and Trump said about here
Speaker 2: Shima and Nagasaki instead of their dishonestly edited snippet that
Speaker 2: was designed to mislead you and lie to you. And
Speaker 2: this podcast goes right around the corporate media, and in fact,
Speaker 2: just about every podcast we put out drives stories in
Speaker 2: the corporate media. That is going to accelerate. People are
Speaker 2: going to podcast, people are going to social media, people
Speaker 2: are going to x. Elon's buying Twitter remains I think
Speaker 2: the single most important step for free speech in decades,
Speaker 2: and I think that's only going to accelerate. And you're
Speaker 2: going to see a panic as the corporate media they
Speaker 2: want a monopoly on what we know, what we hear,
Speaker 2: what we understand, and they're losing their monopoly. So I
Speaker 2: predict more and more frantic panic, but also more and
Speaker 2: more power to the people, which is a very good thing. Center.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's this is a I really do believe
Speaker 1: a major turning point, and I think there is proof
Speaker 1: and the outcome of the election that we just saw.
Speaker 1: And it's not that I want to have a conservative
Speaker 1: media just have a monopoly. I just want honest journalism
Speaker 1: and those that are telling the truth to have a
Speaker 1: real platform with a real audience. And we're gaining that
Speaker 1: now through podcasts and other venues.
Speaker 2: As we mentioned, Yeah, that's exactly right, and we're seeing that.
Speaker 2: Look these ten predictions that we've gone through on this
Speaker 2: podcast and Wednesday's podcast. If you got all your news
Speaker 2: from CNN, you would have heard zero of these ten predictions.
Speaker 2: If you got all your news from the New York Times,
Speaker 2: you would have heard zero of these predictions. And so
Speaker 2: it's why people tune into Verdict, because you learn things
Speaker 2: and you know things that you cannot get through the
Speaker 2: corporate media that this is one of the very few
Speaker 2: avenues that is putting out the facts. And that prediction.
Speaker 2: We saw the massive impact of podcasts and an X
Speaker 2: on the twenty twenty four election, but also the prediction
Speaker 2: that I made about about the panic from the media.
Speaker 2: I want you to listen. This is in November twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five, after the election to Axio CEO Jim Vanda
Speaker 2: Hide just completely losing his mind over Elon Musk saying
Speaker 2: to everyone on X you are the media. Give a
Speaker 2: listen to to to Jim Vanda high losing it. Thing
Speaker 2: we do is under fire.
Speaker 8: Elon Musk s it's on Twitter every day or X Today,
Speaker 8: saying like we are the media, you are the media.
Speaker 8: My message to Elon Musk is both, you're.
Speaker 2: Not the media.
Speaker 8: You having you having a blue check mark, a Twitter
Speaker 8: handle in three hundred words of cleverness doesn't make you
Speaker 8: a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter.
Speaker 2: You don't do that by having an opinion. You do
Speaker 2: it by doing the hard work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, come on.
Speaker 6: So, first of all, I've got to say extraordinary content.
Speaker 2: It needed to be said.
Speaker 7: It continues to need to be said when all of.
Speaker 6: The garbage is flying around on social media, lying about reporters,
Speaker 6: lying about the hard work they do, lying about the
Speaker 6: hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down
Speaker 6: about not only their alternative set of facts, but alternative
Speaker 6: set of facts about what people like you do, or
Speaker 6: are if social media people lying every day, every hour, every.
Speaker 7: Minute about the news. What you do matters, What the
Speaker 7: news New York Times does matters, What the Wall Street
Speaker 7: Journal does matters, What Jonathan Lemir does matters, What the
Speaker 7: Financial Times does matters, What NBC News and MSNBC reporters
Speaker 7: do matters.
Speaker 1: It matters, It matters. I love the self righteousness there right.
Speaker 2: Well and yes, and then that kicked in at the
Speaker 2: end morning Joe to to to Joe Scarborough and Mika
Speaker 2: losing their minds, also echoing Jim Vanda high and just yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 2: he's exactly right. And listen. The corporate media they hate democracy,
Speaker 2: They hate the democratization of communication. They hate the rise
Speaker 2: of podcasts. They hate that people can talk directly to
Speaker 2: the voters. They hate the ability to get the truth
Speaker 2: and and this is destroying their monopoly.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 2: Big part of the reason so many people turn to
Speaker 2: podcasts is the corporate media lies. They lied deliberately, and
Speaker 2: when they had a monopoly, their lies were pretty effective.
Speaker 2: But people are turning elsewhere. Look mourning Joe, mourning Joe.
Speaker 2: During the week that Trump that Joe Scarboro and Mika
Speaker 2: went down to meet with Morning Joe. Do you know
Speaker 2: how many viewers Morning Joe averaged every day? How many
Speaker 2: they averaged six hundred ninety one thousand total viewers during
Speaker 2: the week that Joe and Mika went to meet with Trump,
Speaker 2: six hundred ninety one thousand. We have about a million. So, Joe,
Speaker 2: it ought to concern you that you've got an entire
Speaker 2: corporate bureaucracy. You've got millions of dollars that are broadcasting
Speaker 2: your show into every television set in America, and yet
Speaker 2: Verdict is getting substantially more listeners than you are. And
Speaker 2: the reason is simple. The corporate media. They lie to you.
Speaker 2: They are so partisan, they are so brazen, they are
Speaker 2: willing to lie, and they are horrified that they're Our
Speaker 2: ability to lie is checked by the ability of you
Speaker 2: and me and others to speak the truth. That's the
Speaker 2: power of podcast, and I think that's that's the power
Speaker 2: of Verdict.
Speaker 1: Finally, let's end with a prediction to watch center. Not
Speaker 1: that long ago, you predicted that the US will sanction
Speaker 1: the ICC for the egregious move to arrest Benjaminett and Yahoo,
Speaker 1: and that that prediction I want to play for people.
Speaker 1: Take a listen we're.
Speaker 2: Going to predict we will take up the legislation to
Speaker 2: sanction the ICC, and we will do it early next
Speaker 2: year when we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president.
Speaker 2: I don't even know that we'll need that legislation though,
Speaker 2: because I expect the Trump administration to act unilatterally. I
Speaker 2: think there's ample authority under the law for them to act.
Speaker 2: Even if the Democrats filibuster legislation to sanction the ICC,
Speaker 2: I think the president will have ample authority to act
Speaker 2: come January twenty. Let me talk to you.
Speaker 1: That was a prediction that you're now saying we should
Speaker 1: watch this very carefully.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's gonna happen in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: and we'll all see it. And you know what happens
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty five, Verdict will come back and point
Speaker 2: out exactly as we predicted, it came to pass.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.