Speaker 1: Welcoming as verdict of Senator tab CRUs been Ferguson with
Speaker 1: you and Senator You and I were chatting before the
Speaker 1: show that it's been one half of a week for
Speaker 1: the corrupt media and they've just been stepping in it
Speaker 1: all week long. Well listen, it's it's one of the
Speaker 1: most dangerous aspects in our democracy today is that we
Speaker 1: no longer have a free and independent media. We no
Speaker 1: longer have a media that engages in actual journalism. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that's hyperbole. You know, there was a
Speaker 1: time when people in the media viewed their mission as
Speaker 1: reporting both sides, as reporting the facts and letting you decide.
Speaker 1: There was a time when journalists were trained to focus
Speaker 1: on the facts, the who, what, where, when, why, and
Speaker 1: not focus on editorializing. That no longer is the mission
Speaker 1: of the corporate media. The corporate media today, they have
Speaker 1: embraced their view as propagandists. They have embraced their view
Speaker 1: as partisans, and in fact, when it comes to partisans,
Speaker 1: I think the corporate media are the most vicious leftists
Speaker 1: there are. They will criticize the Democrat Party for one
Speaker 1: thing and one thing only, and that's not being leftist.
Speaker 1: Enough there. They view their job as drive them to
Speaker 1: the left, and they also are the attack dogs. And
Speaker 1: I got to say, when they're engaged in attacks, their
Speaker 1: bigotry comes out, their ignorance comes out there, desp despising
Speaker 1: of anyone who is an a leftist comes out, and
Speaker 1: it really the double standard is profound. Yeah, you look
Speaker 1: at this week and just one of those perfect examples
Speaker 1: is what happened with Don Lemon. And to be clear,
Speaker 1: before we play this, if a Republican, if AMES servative
Speaker 1: would have said this on TV, I have no doubt
Speaker 1: that they would have been fired. In fact, I can
Speaker 1: even say if I was at CNN, and I was
Speaker 1: there for seven years, if I would have said what
Speaker 1: I'm about to play for you, I would have immediately
Speaker 1: been shown the door. And yet Don Lemon gets to
Speaker 1: come back without an apology. Take a listen, it's all
Speaker 1: to talk about age makes me uncomfortable. I think that
Speaker 1: I think it's the wrong road to go down. She says, people,
Speaker 1: you know, politicians are something and not in their prime.
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley isn't in her prime. Sorry, when a woman
Speaker 1: is considered being a prime in our twenties and thirties
Speaker 1: and maybe forties. That's not, according to me, prime for
Speaker 1: what it depends. I mean, it's just like prime. If
Speaker 1: you look it up, it'll if you look if you google,
Speaker 1: when is a woman in her prime, it'll say twenties,
Speaker 1: thirties and forties. I don't I agree with that, So
Speaker 1: I think she has to be careful about saying that.
Speaker 1: You know, politicians aren't in their prime. You can qualifier
Speaker 1: talking out prime for like child about that. Dan. Facts
Speaker 1: are Google and everybody at home, when is a woman
Speaker 1: in her prime? It says twenties, thirties and forties. And
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, Nicki Haley should be careful about saying
Speaker 1: that politicians are not in their prime and they need
Speaker 1: to be in their prime when they serve, because she
Speaker 1: wouldn't be in her prime according to Google or whatever
Speaker 1: it is. Now. I love it because they're even mocking
Speaker 1: him on the set. They can't believe he's actually saying this.
Speaker 1: They're they're obviously trying to protect him in a sense.
Speaker 1: But then he doesn't even have to apologize and Ernie
Speaker 1: gets his job back. Right. Well, look, his comments there
Speaker 1: are drippingly misogynistic. You know, Joe Biden is what one
Speaker 1: hundred and forty two years old, and according to him,
Speaker 1: apparently Biden is in his prime. But but he's willing
Speaker 1: to suggest that that once a woman hits her forties,
Speaker 1: by her fifties, she's over the hill, just you know,
Speaker 1: put her out to pasture. And it's there's a reason
Speaker 1: he's willing to say say that because he doesn't consider
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley a woman. It's the point we made on
Speaker 1: the pod we just did with Wesley Hunt. Don Lemon
Speaker 1: does not consider Wesley Hunt to be a black man.
Speaker 1: Don Lemon does not consider me to be hispanic. If
Speaker 1: you dare to be conservative, the left erases you from
Speaker 1: whatever victim class they want to put and they put
Speaker 1: everyone in victim classes, but they define it. You're only
Speaker 1: black if you're a leftist, as Joe Biden said, if
Speaker 1: you're not voting for Joe Biden, you ain't black. I mean,
Speaker 1: what a bigoted thing to say. Don Lemon, I promise
Speaker 1: you despises Clarence Thomas. Why because he dares as a
Speaker 1: black man to be a conservative. And Don Lemon not
Speaker 1: only despises Nicki Haley, but he views her with a
Speaker 1: particular If it were just a white guy, fine, he
Speaker 1: could live with that. Old, fat, bald white guys are
Speaker 1: the one group they think are allowed to be conservatives.
Speaker 1: But if you're a woman, you're a traitor. And so
Speaker 1: his comments reveal the particular contempt, you know, the differential
Speaker 1: of how the left treats Clarence Thomas versus how they
Speaker 1: treated antonin Scalia. Antonin Scalia was a strong conservative, was brilliant,
Speaker 1: and the left didn't like him, but they didn't react.
Speaker 1: You know, you had one magazine that that portrayed Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas as an uncle Tom, basically shining the shoes of
Speaker 1: antonin Scalia. That's bigoted and racist. But they are rather
Speaker 1: contempt is their feeling. And so after he made these comments,
Speaker 1: CNN realized, oh, he stepped at it. Now, you're right, Ben,
Speaker 1: if you'd said the exact same thing, if you read
Speaker 1: his words on air, they would have fired you, probably
Speaker 1: before you were finished speaking. Yeah, But for Don Levin,
Speaker 1: because he's a leftist and because he was attacking a Republican,
Speaker 1: all is fine and good. So he put out a tweet.
Speaker 1: I want to read the tweet he made. The reference
Speaker 1: I made to a woman's prime this morning was inartful
Speaker 1: and irrelevant, as colleagues and loved ones have pointed out,
Speaker 1: and I regret it. A woman's age doesn't define her,
Speaker 1: either personally or professionally. I have countless women in my
Speaker 1: life who prove that every day. Now, this statement is
Speaker 1: several things. I'll tell you what. It is not an apology.
Speaker 1: Nowhere in there are the words I'm sorry. Nowhere in
Speaker 1: the words are I'm a bumbling left wing, hypocritical, misogynist jackass,
Speaker 1: which is what he should have said. You know what.
Speaker 1: He also doesn't say that what he said was wrong.
Speaker 1: What he says is it's inartful. In other words, may
Speaker 1: have been true in his mind, but he didn't express
Speaker 1: it quite as artfully as elegantly as he might have.
Speaker 1: And he said and irrelevant now relevant doesn't mean wrong either.
Speaker 1: It just means well, I shouldn't have pointed it out
Speaker 1: because I don't know. It's not relevant because people criticize me.
Speaker 1: And he goes on, he says and I regret it.
Speaker 1: He doesn't say I'm sorry, He doesn't apologize to Nicky Hayley,
Speaker 1: to women, doesn't apologie. And then he says, a woman's
Speaker 1: age doesn't define her, either personally or professionally. Well, he
Speaker 1: still isn't disagreeing with his assinine statement. Look, my wife
Speaker 1: Heidi turned fifty last year. Heidi Cruz is absolutely in
Speaker 1: her prime. In fact, Heidi is going to run a
Speaker 1: marathon next month to celebrate turning fifty. Margaret Thatcher, who
Speaker 1: last I checked, wasn't in her twenties or thirties or
Speaker 1: four and she was in her prime. Unbelievable leader. You
Speaker 1: want to talk about a woman who bestrode the earth
Speaker 1: like a colossus, who, along with Reagan and Pope John Paul,
Speaker 1: changed the course of human history. But you know what,
Speaker 1: Don Lemon doesn't think she was in her prime because
Speaker 1: she's not a woman. Why because she's conservative and you
Speaker 1: don't count as a woman for leftists. And then the
Speaker 1: amazing thing is what a CNN do They take him
Speaker 1: off the air for two days and then back on
Speaker 1: air because it's a double standard that only applies to
Speaker 1: one political side of the aisle. There was something that
Speaker 1: I laugh about because I woke up this morning to
Speaker 1: a text from a former colleague of mine at CNN
Speaker 1: and it said, please check Don Lemon's Twitter And at
Speaker 1: four thirty five am, he took so much heat from
Speaker 1: the tweet that you just read that. He then put
Speaker 1: out a new tweet and this is what it said.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the opportunity to be back on CNN this
Speaker 1: morning today, to my network, my colleagues, and are incredible audience.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I've heard you, I'm learning from you, and
Speaker 1: I'm committed to doing better. See you soon. Yet he
Speaker 1: still can't bring himself to actually apologize to the person
Speaker 1: he originally offended. So even the like, okay, let me
Speaker 1: be cleared, let me be clear, Ben, it's not just
Speaker 1: Nicky Haley who he did insult her by saying she's
Speaker 1: not in her prime, but he insulted every woman in
Speaker 1: her fifties and her sixties and her seventies. What an
Speaker 1: asinine statement. By the way, under the Constitution, the minimum
Speaker 1: age to be president of the United States is thirty five.
Speaker 1: So I guess in Don Lemon's world there is a
Speaker 1: fifteen year one window when a woman in her prime
Speaker 1: is allowed to be president between thirty five and forty
Speaker 1: nine and a half. And what an assinine proposition. And
Speaker 1: mind you, Joe Biden, they don't think anything of it.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, I guarantee you Don Lemon never said, you
Speaker 1: know what, Hillary Clinton wasn't in her forties when she
Speaker 1: ran for president. It's an absolute double standard. No, it
Speaker 1: certainly is. And by the way, Don Lemon wasn't the
Speaker 1: only one to step in it this week. Andrea Mitchell
Speaker 1: had her own big oops moment. I'm going to tell
Speaker 1: you about that in a second, but first one to
Speaker 1: tell you about Patriot Mobile. Many of you have actually
Speaker 1: reached out. It's cool when we start to hear from
Speaker 1: you with it. Make the switch to Patriot Mobile, the
Speaker 1: only conservative Christian cell phone coming to us. One of
Speaker 1: that was a small business owner send a message to
Speaker 1: me saying, Ben, they're awesome. Thanks for telling me about
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. Now, what happens with Patriot Mobile is what
Speaker 1: you're gonna love. You get the same cell phone service
Speaker 1: you have right now, the same coverage. You keep your
Speaker 1: same cell phone number. If you want to, you can
Speaker 1: nine percent of the time keep your same cell phone
Speaker 1: that you have in your hand, or you can upgrade
Speaker 1: to a new one. Except when you pay your bill,
Speaker 1: you're actually fighting for what you believe in because they
Speaker 1: take a portion of your bill every month at Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: and they stand up for a first and second Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: They support causes like standing up for unborn children and
Speaker 1: helping with adoptions. So when you use your phone, when
Speaker 1: you send a text message, and when you pay your bill,
Speaker 1: you're actually supporting the values that you believe in many
Speaker 1: times you'll actually save money. And if you've got a
Speaker 1: business or a small business, check out Patriot Mobile because
Speaker 1: they have a business division that can help you switch
Speaker 1: all those lines over as well. Go online to Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict or call them eight seven eight. Patriot used
Speaker 1: a promo code Verdict for the best deals of the
Speaker 1: day eight seven eight. Patriot Senator Andrea Mitchell also got
Speaker 1: herself in a lot of hot water this week when
Speaker 1: she did the only way I can describe is basically
Speaker 1: a hit on Governor Rhnda Santists trying to imply the
Speaker 1: some sort of extreme clansmen racists. And she had an interview,
Speaker 1: an NBC exclusive with Vice President Harris and here's what
Speaker 1: was said. And the only problem with what was said
Speaker 1: is it wasn't true. Let me ask you, what does
Speaker 1: Governor Rhnda Santis not know a black about black history
Speaker 1: and the black experience when he says that slavery and
Speaker 1: the aftermath of slavery should not be taught to Florida
Speaker 1: school children. I don't know what he knows and what
Speaker 1: he doesn't know, but I know this. Any push to
Speaker 1: censor America's teachers and tell them what they should be
Speaker 1: teaching in the best interests of our children in partnership
Speaker 1: with the parents of America is I think wrongheaded. The
Speaker 1: people who know our children best are their parents and
Speaker 1: their teachers in terms of the time they spend, in
Speaker 1: the investment they've placed in the brains and capacity of
Speaker 1: our children, who are our nation's future. And it should
Speaker 1: not be some politician saying what should be taught in
Speaker 1: our classrooms. And I mean this story. The problem with
Speaker 1: it is it's not true, Senator, as you pointed out,
Speaker 1: So there are lots of problems with it. Number One,
Speaker 1: Andrea Mitchell is the question is incredibly ignorant. Like what
Speaker 1: she's saying, it's not even just a little bit not true.
Speaker 1: It's a total blatant lie. But it is a blatant
Speaker 1: lie based on her assumptions that all Republicans are ignorant
Speaker 1: philistines who don't want history taught in any way. Who
Speaker 1: don't want who don't want slavery or the aftermath of
Speaker 1: slavery taught? Now, of course, Florida schools teach about slavery
Speaker 1: and the aftermath of slavery. And by the way, you
Speaker 1: want to talk about who wants to cover up history Andrea,
Speaker 1: Who was it that signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that was Abraham Lincoln. That was the first Republican president.
Speaker 1: Who was it that founded the ku Klux Klan? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: those were Democrat politicians. Who was it that wrote the
Speaker 1: Jim Crow Laws? Oh yeah, those were Democrat politicians. Who
Speaker 1: was it that eulogized an exalted Cyclops of the ku
Speaker 1: Klux Klan Robert Byrd, Oh yeah, that was Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: the sitting Democrat president of the United States. You want
Speaker 1: to talk about who doesn't want to deal with slavery
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of slavery, it is Andrew Mitchell, who's
Speaker 1: never reported on any of those facts. The absurdity of
Speaker 1: saying that Republicans, in this case Rohn de Santis don't
Speaker 1: want the fact of slavery taught is deliberately ignorant, and
Speaker 1: it's based on the same assumption. Look, what she is
Speaker 1: doing and what Don Lemon did are the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: They have contempt for anyone who isn't a leftist, and
Speaker 1: they assume these ridiculous caricatures. So for example, Ben, I'll
Speaker 1: go back to twenty twenty one where Andrea Mitchell again
Speaker 1: tweets out I had commented about the Trump impeachment trial,
Speaker 1: the second trial, and I said it was as Shakespeare
Speaker 1: put it, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
Speaker 1: Now Andrew Mitchell jumps on Twitter and she tweets the
Speaker 1: following Ted Cruz says, impeachment trial is like Shakespeare, full
Speaker 1: of sound and fury, signifying nothing. No, that's Faulkner. Now
Speaker 1: that's her response. Now she I actually little a little
Speaker 1: bit of time elapsed because Twitter was really wonderful in that,
Speaker 1: and that everyone piled on and pointed out that no,
Speaker 1: you fool, that is in fact from William Shakespeare, from Macbeth.
Speaker 1: Life is a tale tool told by an idiot, full
Speaker 1: of sound and fury and signifying nothing. And Faulkner when
Speaker 1: he wrote the sound and the fury was quoting from Shakespeare.
Speaker 1: So Mitchell, finally, when the entire world padded on her
Speaker 1: how ridiculous she was. She sends out this this sort
Speaker 1: of apology tweet. I clearly studied too much American literature
Speaker 1: and not enough Macbeth. My apologies to Senator Cruz. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I don't care about the fact that she gets this wrong,
Speaker 1: but it reveals a mindset, which is listen, you can
Speaker 1: disagree with me. You think you can think I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm probably wrong about a lot of things in life.
Speaker 1: Certainly my wife and daughters would tell you I am.
Speaker 1: But Mitchell, among all the criticisms, I think it would
Speaker 1: be difficult to make the case that I'm in a
Speaker 1: literate imbecile. I might be misguided, I might be mistaken.
Speaker 1: But but I did manage to pass the third grade.
Speaker 1: And but to Andrea Mitchell's mind, any Republican is an oath,
Speaker 1: is a bigot is an So the sort of her
Speaker 1: ignorant dripping no, that's fuckner. No, my dear, I actually
Speaker 1: have studied literature, and it shows a mindset. And by
Speaker 1: the way, let's go back to Kamala Harris's answer. After
Speaker 1: you see Mitchell's dripping condescension for the state of Florida,
Speaker 1: and notice, by the way, her total loving question for
Speaker 1: Kamala what does Ron de Santis not understand about the
Speaker 1: black experience? Good job, Andrea cutting question, way to put
Speaker 1: put Kamala on defensive, like, please attack one of the
Speaker 1: leading Republican opponents to Joe Biden. Yeah, shooting fish in
Speaker 1: the barrel. And this is what the media does when
Speaker 1: they have these soft interviews. And I love how they
Speaker 1: put up their exclusive right like it's a really big
Speaker 1: get for for Andrew Mitchell with the Vice president and
Speaker 1: then you just hand them these questions when there's real
Speaker 1: pressing matters. This is what they give them. Well and
Speaker 1: being given the please attack the Republican, of course, Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is more than happy to oblige because look, Andrea
Speaker 1: Mitchell is a leftist. The interview would not have proceeded
Speaker 1: differently if they had the press secretary for the Joe
Speaker 1: Biden for President campaign conducting it. The press secretary would
Speaker 1: ask the same questions Andrea Mitchell would because they both
Speaker 1: have the same objective, which is to get the Democrats reelected.
Speaker 1: Now you look at Kamala's response, where Kamala's like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know what he knows or doesn't know. Silly ignorant,
Speaker 1: bigoted Republican. But what I know is nobody should censor teachers.
Speaker 1: Now let me pause for a second and say that
Speaker 1: that actually is an answer. On one level, that sounds well,
Speaker 1: censorship is bad, so gosh, nobody should censor teachers. That
Speaker 1: sounds great. And she says no politician should decide what's
Speaker 1: taught in school. Well, what she's not acknowledging is that
Speaker 1: every public school sets curriculum, and curriculum is set, so
Speaker 1: for example, you choose, are we going to teach arithmetic?
Speaker 1: Are we going to teach history? Are we going to
Speaker 1: teach English? What are the topics that we want to
Speaker 1: set for students to learn in our schools? And the
Speaker 1: irity is when she says no politician should decide what's
Speaker 1: being taught. Kamala Harris adamantly wants. What happened here is
Speaker 1: Rhonda Santis declined to have Florida schools teach the curriculum
Speaker 1: for the so called AP course in African American Studies.
Speaker 1: That was a hard leftist critical race theory narrative about
Speaker 1: how America's fundamentally and irredeemably racist. It cited numerous Marxist
Speaker 1: authors pushing critical race theory, dividing us on race, indoctrinating,
Speaker 1: And this is one of the things that so often
Speaker 1: today's left does. They're criticizing is what they are trying
Speaker 1: to do. They want teachers to indoctrinate, and Kamala throws
Speaker 1: in teachers and parents. Well, to be honest, she doesn't
Speaker 1: believe in parents because Kamala and Biden and the Democrats
Speaker 1: they don't want parents to have a say. If you
Speaker 1: ask parents, should we be teaching critical race theory in schools,
Speaker 1: the overwhelming majority of parents say no. And by the way, Democrats,
Speaker 1: when it come to critical race theory, they give incoherent answers.
Speaker 1: On one level, they say it's not being taught, it's
Speaker 1: only a college level class. On the other level, they say,
Speaker 1: if you don't teach it, you're a racing slavery from school. Well,
Speaker 1: those are both false statements, but it shows the hard
Speaker 1: ideology of today's Democrat politicians and also the blatant partisanship
Speaker 1: of today's corporate media. And Mitchell did have to come
Speaker 1: out after she was hammered for lying and give a
Speaker 1: quasi apology at the very end of her show, as
Speaker 1: she described as a PostScript, here is the again fake
Speaker 1: apology from another member of the liberal media, and a PostScript.
Speaker 1: In my interview last Friday with Vice President Harris, I
Speaker 1: was imprecise in summarizing Governors to Santas's position about teaching
Speaker 1: slavery in schools. Governor to Santas is not opposed to
Speaker 1: teaching the fact of slavery in schools, but he has
Speaker 1: opposed the teaching of an African American studies curriculum, as
Speaker 1: well as the use of some authors and source materials
Speaker 1: that historians and teachers say makes it all but impossible
Speaker 1: for students to understand the broader historic and political context
Speaker 1: behind slavery and it's aftermath in the years since. So
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, but I'm still right. Is that the new
Speaker 1: apology of the left when you screw up this big Well,
Speaker 1: she just gave Don Lemon's apology. She said it was inartful. No,
Speaker 1: it was false. It was a blatant lie. It was
Speaker 1: an ignorant lie. You're still not correcting the lie. And
Speaker 1: in fact, she says he's opposed to teaching an African
Speaker 1: American studies curriculum because she says, historians say this is
Speaker 1: necessary to understand it, really, which historians. Those would be
Speaker 1: the Marxists that are pushing critical race theory, which I
Speaker 1: don't know that Mitchell claims this, but I'm certain she
Speaker 1: does claim that it's not being taught in schools, except
Speaker 1: now she says it's essential to understand slavery. Once again,
Speaker 1: it's not an apology, it's a non apology because she
Speaker 1: flat outled. She flat out led on air, and she
Speaker 1: didn't care to even bother to know what the facts are.
Speaker 1: And look, this is very similar to the earlier controversy
Speaker 1: in Florida where the media and I don't know Mitchell
Speaker 1: said anything about it, but I bet you did, where
Speaker 1: they attack the Florida law as they don't say gay law. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it never said that anywhere in there at all.
Speaker 1: What the Florida law essentially said, I said, if you
Speaker 1: want to call it something, the right thing to call
Speaker 1: it is, don't say sex. It prohibited teaching about sexuality
Speaker 1: four grades pre K, kindergarten, first, second and third grade,
Speaker 1: so third graders in below don't say sex. And by
Speaker 1: the way, look, I'm a parent, you're a parent. I
Speaker 1: don't want my kindergartner being taught about gay sex or
Speaker 1: straight sex like I want my kindergartner playing with blocks,
Speaker 1: and I would be deeply dismayed to have the teacher
Speaker 1: getting into sex and sexuality with five year olds. Most
Speaker 1: parents agree with that, By the way, a large majority
Speaker 1: of Florida parents agree with that. And let's be clear,
Speaker 1: the Florida law by fourth grade fourth grade, hey have
Speaker 1: at it, you know apparently you know, play Debbie does
Speaker 1: Dallas and getting anything you want, but wait until they
Speaker 1: get to fourth grade. And so the media was deliberately
Speaker 1: dishonest about that law, just like they're being deliberately dishonest
Speaker 1: saying don't teach about slavery is like don't say gay.
Speaker 1: That is not, in fact what is happening. But remember
Speaker 1: we started this podcast with the premise the media has
Speaker 1: abandoned its mission of actually being journalists and reporting facts.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine Walter Cronkite saying what don Lemon said.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine Walter Cronkite asking that profoundly ignorant and
Speaker 1: dishonest question that Andrea Mitchell said. Can you imagine Tim
Speaker 1: Russert doing that? They're used Can you imagine Ted Copple
Speaker 1: doing that? They're used to be actual journalists who cared
Speaker 1: about getting it right, who cared about not engaging in
Speaker 1: political advocacy, And the Don Lemons of the world and
Speaker 1: the Andrea ChEls of the world have utterly abandoned any
Speaker 1: pretense at journalism. Yeah. Another example of this is in
Speaker 1: the New York Times. We've got new intel on the
Speaker 1: fallout of when one of your colleagues was asked to
Speaker 1: write an op ed and it was total chaos that
Speaker 1: this was given to a sitting US senator. Before I
Speaker 1: tell you that story, I want to talk about our
Speaker 1: good friends. Over to Gusts of Precious Medals. If you've
Speaker 1: been working hard and preparing for retirement, you know right
Speaker 1: now more than it probably any other time, you want
Speaker 1: to protect what you've saved. That is where august of
Speaker 1: Precious Metals comes in. They want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about your retirement and protecting your hard earned assets. They
Speaker 1: do this by using gold and silver. Augustus Precious Medals
Speaker 1: is all about protecting iras and four oh one ks
Speaker 1: in this crazy economy. It is so important the closer
Speaker 1: you get to the actual retirement years because they're less
Speaker 1: time or no time to make up your losses. So
Speaker 1: if you've saved one hundred thousand dollars or more. You
Speaker 1: should take a look at their free guide or sign
Speaker 1: up for their web conference. Both of them are filled
Speaker 1: with economic insights and a gold Ira info for your
Speaker 1: peace of mind. They also do a web conference. I
Speaker 1: have done this. I use Augusta Precious Metals. They have
Speaker 1: helped me diversify and that's another reason why I want
Speaker 1: you to call them eight seven seven four gold Ira
Speaker 1: a conservative company Age seven seven for the number four
Speaker 1: gold IRA or visit Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's
Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Metals dot com. Say I sent you, and
Speaker 1: they'll pay your fees for up to ten years. Augusta
Speaker 1: Precious Metals dot Com center. There was another story this
Speaker 1: week that really pulled back the curtain behind the initial
Speaker 1: freakout over Tom Cotton riding. An op ed at The
Speaker 1: New York Times set the stage for everybody. They may
Speaker 1: have forgotten this story, and then we'll get in the
Speaker 1: nitty gritty of the total anarchy that happened at the
Speaker 1: idea the thought of a sitting uf senor writing an
Speaker 1: OpEd the New York Times. So this was in the
Speaker 1: summer of twenty twenty, and you'll recall there were Antifa
Speaker 1: and Black Lives Matter riots all over the city, all
Speaker 1: over the country. Rather, there were American cities on fire,
Speaker 1: there were riots, there were stores being looted, there were
Speaker 1: police cars being firebombed, there police officers being murdered. And
Speaker 1: during all of this time, Tom Cotton, my colleague, Republican
Speaker 1: senator from Arkansas, wrote an op ed, and in the
Speaker 1: op ed he advocated that the president should send in
Speaker 1: the National Guard to quell the unrest, and he submitted
Speaker 1: the op ed to the New York Times. I don't
Speaker 1: believe they solicited it. I think he just submitted it
Speaker 1: and the New York Times made the decision to publish it. Now. Personally,
Speaker 1: I actually didn't agree with Tom's up ed. I didn't
Speaker 1: think that was the right solution to send in the
Speaker 1: National Guard. I thought it should be handled as a
Speaker 1: law enforcement matter. I think they should have send in
Speaker 1: police officers and arrested the riders and put them in jail.
Speaker 1: But I didn't think that. I was not persuaded that
Speaker 1: the National Guard was the right avenue for stopping the riots.
Speaker 1: I think the riots should have been stopped using law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Be that as it may, it was a perfectly reasonable
Speaker 1: point of view, and because the New York Times dared
Speaker 1: to acknowledge it exists, there was a meltdown in the newsroom.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that's happened in journalism is
Speaker 1: there are lots of twenty somethings who were basically kids.
Speaker 1: They've come out of universities that were woke a little sanctuaries,
Speaker 1: and they're now working. They're working at places like The
Speaker 1: New York Times, and they have very fragile sensitivities, and
Speaker 1: they freaked out. They freaked out and demanded that the
Speaker 1: editor of the editorial page be fired. Now, who was
Speaker 1: the editor of the editorial page? Guy named James Bennett.
Speaker 1: James Bennett is a down the road left wing Democrat partisan.
Speaker 1: He is unquestionably Democrat. The chances that James Bennett agreed
Speaker 1: with Tom Cotton's op ed I can quantify they were
Speaker 1: zero point zero zero percent. He did not agree with it.
Speaker 1: By the way, James Bennett's brother, Michael Bennett, is a
Speaker 1: sitting Democrat senator from the state of Colorado. He's a
Speaker 1: Democrat through and through well. The children on the New
Speaker 1: York Times staff revolted, and what happened the weak need
Speaker 1: ownership at The New York Times promptly responded by firing Bennett.
Speaker 1: Why for acknowledge for daring to publish the op ed?
Speaker 1: Don't mind you. Nobody would have minded if The New
Speaker 1: York Times wrote an editorial next to the op ed
Speaker 1: and said, we disagree emphatically with the views advocated by
Speaker 1: Senator Cotton. This is a terrible view and it's wrong.
Speaker 1: That's they're right, But the children didn't want that. They
Speaker 1: didn't want even the fact that someone had a different
Speaker 1: view acknowledged. And then there's a new book coming out
Speaker 1: that quotes someone named Charlie Wartzel, who I've never heard of,
Speaker 1: but he is apparently a tech writer. He's a white guy, which, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: in the modern leftist order of things, races is preeminent
Speaker 1: to everything. But this fellow Charlie Wartzel, the tech writer
Speaker 1: started to cry because quote and this is from the
Speaker 1: new book that came out, none of his friends wanted
Speaker 1: to talk to him anymore because he worked for this horrible,
Speaker 1: evil newspaper that would print this op ed. Now, first
Speaker 1: of all, okay, the reporter started to cry, are you serious?
Speaker 1: Are there any journalist left at the New York Times
Speaker 1: the idea you think of hard scrabble journalists. Can you
Speaker 1: imagine Woodward and Bernstein weep being of, oh, you very
Speaker 1: scary thing you publish. My friends won't talk to me.
Speaker 1: I mean, this sounds like a seventh grader throwing a fit.
Speaker 1: I'm reminded of the great movie A League of their Own,
Speaker 1: where where Tom Hanks goes. There's no crying in baseball.
Speaker 1: If you had real journalists, there should be no crying
Speaker 1: among journalists. Look, if JFK is shot, you can cry.
Speaker 1: If Martin Luther King is shot, you can cry. If
Speaker 1: the Challenger Space Shuttle blows up, you can cry. But
Speaker 1: if you read scary words that frighten you and your
Speaker 1: censorious friends are mad at you, a real journalist doesn't
Speaker 1: cry and complain fire the bad man. It is indicative
Speaker 1: of just how broken today's corporate journalist is. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: so people understand this as well. The reason why Tom
Speaker 1: Cotton's letter, I think was probably published is he's a
Speaker 1: former guy that enlisted in the United States Army, and
Speaker 1: so he had a unique perspective on the National Guard.
Speaker 1: Whether you agree with him or not, what he was
Speaker 1: saying in his op ed, it was it completely made
Speaker 1: sense for his op ed to be published based on
Speaker 1: his service in the military, so people also know this
Speaker 1: inside baseball. Back in June two thousand and six, while
Speaker 1: he was stationed Iraq, he actually gained a lot of
Speaker 1: public attention for writing an open letter to the editors
Speaker 1: of the New York Times. So it's not the first
Speaker 1: time he'd written a letter. It's not the first time
Speaker 1: he'd submitted it to The New York Times either, and
Speaker 1: yet he does it, they print it, and then it's
Speaker 1: off with their head. Anyone that actually helped allow this
Speaker 1: to see the light of day, look, it is an
Speaker 1: example of how these are no longer journalists. The fact
Speaker 1: that Republicans exist should not be a triggering event for
Speaker 1: real nalists and these little children that throw fit. By
Speaker 1: the way, the New York Times is a hard partisan
Speaker 1: indoctrination like like, I don't actually understand the value of
Speaker 1: having an editorial page that only carries one view. I
Speaker 1: guess their diversity of opinion, as they have Bolsheviks and Mensheviks,
Speaker 1: but they almost never run views from any conservative, from
Speaker 1: any Republican that The New York Times has to have
Speaker 1: to ask you this, how many times have you submitted
Speaker 1: op eds over I mean your career. It's ten plush
Speaker 1: years in the Senate. But how many times have you
Speaker 1: even ever gotten a chance to submit and knew that?
Speaker 1: Or is it a waste of time? I guess a
Speaker 1: better way of putting it, like, you know they're gonna
Speaker 1: say no to you? Or have you ever had success
Speaker 1: of writing an op ed that has actually been published
Speaker 1: in a liberal newspaper? So I've yes, I've written over
Speaker 1: the last ten years at least dozens, probably hunt of
Speaker 1: op eds. So I like writing op eds. I like
Speaker 1: communicating the same reason I do the podcast, same reason
Speaker 1: I write books. I think one of the real responsibilities
Speaker 1: of doing this job is to use the pulpit and
Speaker 1: try to persuade. I've had a lot of op eds
Speaker 1: published in the Wall Street Journal. I've had a lot
Speaker 1: of op eds published in the Houston Chronicle, in the
Speaker 1: Dallas Morning News, have had a lot of op eds
Speaker 1: published in USA Today, have had opeds published in the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. I don't remember. I think the New York
Speaker 1: Times may have published one op ed of mine. I
Speaker 1: don't remember for sure. We submit a lot to the
Speaker 1: New York Times, and they fairly routinely turned me down.
Speaker 1: Now I will tell you what I'm using time when
Speaker 1: when I did make the New York Times editorial pages,
Speaker 1: so they bashed me repeatedly. But one of their left
Speaker 1: leaning editorialists, a guy named Frank Bruney, who had written
Speaker 1: written in The New York Times bashing me over and
Speaker 1: over again. He retired from the New York Times. I
Speaker 1: decided to stop writing, and his farewell column was published
Speaker 1: on June seventeenth, twenty twenty one. And it's a fairly
Speaker 1: remarkable column. And I just pulled it up on my
Speaker 1: phone a second ago. I want to just read you
Speaker 1: the beginning of it. The title of his column is
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise, I'm sorry, And here's how the column begins.
Speaker 1: I owe Ted Cruise an apology, though really it's the
Speaker 1: readers to whom I should say I'm sorry. One day
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen, when I had a column doing hours
Speaker 1: and couldn't settle on a topic, I took the easy
Speaker 1: root of unloading on Cruise, who was one of the
Speaker 1: many unappealing contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. He was
Speaker 1: fair game for rebuke, no question there. But did I
Speaker 1: illuminate his dark character, enlighten my readers, or advance any
Speaker 1: worthwhile cause by comparing him repeatedly to the unstoppable entity
Speaker 1: in the horror movie. It follows, No, I just swam
Speaker 1: with the snide tide. I did that too often, many
Speaker 1: columns do, And he goes on to talk about how,
Speaker 1: basically in the columns he just wrote hard leftist drivel
Speaker 1: because it was easier to propagandize with all of the
Speaker 1: assumptions of one political side, versus actually being a real
Speaker 1: objective commentator, which sadly the New York Times and much
Speaker 1: of the corporate media has abandoned as a vision for
Speaker 1: what they will do. Yeah, well, you figured it right
Speaker 1: on his last one, though, right, I mean, just you
Speaker 1: do your whole career being a sell out, and you're like, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe I should have done it a little differently. You
Speaker 1: can't make that up. I want to go. I did
Speaker 1: kind of like that. His twenty fifteen column compared me
Speaker 1: to an evil, malevolent, demonic spirit. I have joked more
Speaker 1: than once. I've made this promise on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: I've said, listen, if the New York Times ever starts
Speaker 1: praising me, I'm they have to resign. Right then and there,
Speaker 1: and so you know, calling me Beelzebub is probably part
Speaker 1: of the course for the Times. Yeah, and you know what,
Speaker 1: it's not the worst thing someone's ever said. That's what
Speaker 1: I always revived me that I can't believe so and
Speaker 1: so said something about you, Mike. Trust me, it's not
Speaker 1: the worst thing that's ever been said. Just get my
Speaker 1: name right, that's all I care about. You do that,
Speaker 1: and I'm happy to move on one last thing. And
Speaker 1: the media is freaking out over this, and the lefties
Speaker 1: are just losing it. There was a headline also in
Speaker 1: the New York Times, an opinion piece by Brett Stevens,
Speaker 1: and the headline reads, the mask mandates did nothing period?
Speaker 1: Will any lessons be learned? Question mark? Before we get
Speaker 1: into this article, we want to tell you about our
Speaker 1: friends over at Chalk. All right, if you are a
Speaker 1: man and you feel like you've got a little bit older,
Speaker 1: you feel like you've lost a little bit of your
Speaker 1: strength and vitality, and you don't want to be, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of a woke liberal. You don't want to be
Speaker 1: weakness and placent, then you need to check out Chalk.
Speaker 1: The problem is in this country, men's at outs from
Speaker 1: levels are actually off the cliff. Historically, they're in an
Speaker 1: all time low. Thankfully, the patriots at Chalk Choq are
Speaker 1: here to help real American men take back their right
Speaker 1: to proudly maximize their masculinity by boosting to stops from
Speaker 1: levels up twenty percent over ninety days. Now, my buddy
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly, he turned me onto this. It is like, Ben,
Speaker 1: you gotta try Chalk, and I was like, all right, fine,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do it. I've been telling you about Chalk
Speaker 1: and I've been using it now for about three weeks.
Speaker 1: I can tell you this it works. I'm taking the
Speaker 1: Mail Vitality Stack and you can try this as well.
Speaker 1: You can maximize your masculinity. To you today, go to
Speaker 1: chalk dot com choq dot com use code Ben and
Speaker 1: you'll get thirty five percent off your Chalk subscription for
Speaker 1: life that choq dot com use code Ben for thirty
Speaker 1: five percent off. Subscriptions are canceable at any time, so
Speaker 1: give it a shot. Chalk q dot com center that
Speaker 1: this opinion piece in The New York Times by Brett
Speaker 1: Stephen was awesome just because the pictures and if you
Speaker 1: look at the pictures, it's all these disgusting masks that
Speaker 1: are on the ground that polluted the country and really
Speaker 1: the world because of the obsession with masks. And now
Speaker 1: we're finding out that the most rigorous and this is
Speaker 1: from this op ed and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies
Speaker 1: conducted on the efficiency of mask for reducing the spread
Speaker 1: of respiratory illnesses including COVID nineteen. It was publishedly last month,
Speaker 1: not a lot of hoop law, and the consensus was
Speaker 1: clear this was basically a total waste of time. There
Speaker 1: was no evidence quote that they mask make any difference,
Speaker 1: is what was said full stop in this and the
Speaker 1: man the left is freaking out over the fact the
Speaker 1: New York Times allowed this to even be published. Well,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right, and I'll tell you that the up
Speaker 1: ed continues after the authors of this story says there's
Speaker 1: just no evidence that they masks make any difference, full stop.
Speaker 1: The OpEd goes on from there to say, but wait,
Speaker 1: hold on, what about ND ninety five masks is opposed
Speaker 1: to lower quality surgical masker or cloth masks, makes no difference,
Speaker 1: none of it, said Jefferson. What about the studies that
Speaker 1: initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates. They were convinced
Speaker 1: by non randomized studies, flawed observational studies. What about the
Speaker 1: utility of masks in conjunction with other preventive measures such
Speaker 1: as hand hygiene and physical distancing or air filtration. There
Speaker 1: is no evidence that many of these things make any difference,
Speaker 1: and the op ed continues, these observations don't just come
Speaker 1: from anywhere. Jefferson and eleven colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane,
Speaker 1: a British nonprofit is widely considered the gold standard for
Speaker 1: its reviews of healthcare data. The conclusion were based on
Speaker 1: seventy eight randomized controlled trial, six of them done during
Speaker 1: the COVID pandemic, with a total of six hundred ten
Speaker 1: eight hundred and seventy two participants in multiple countries, and
Speaker 1: they track what has been widely observed in the United States.
Speaker 1: States with mask mandate mandates fared no better against COVID
Speaker 1: than those without. Now, look, you and I were saying
Speaker 1: this a year ago, We were saying this two years ago.
Speaker 1: The data were there then, by the way, Fauci said
Speaker 1: it two years ago until he decided it was politically
Speaker 1: more advantageous to flip and order people to wear masks,
Speaker 1: And you are right. It's stunning the Times publish this.
Speaker 1: I do wonder if there is a newsroom of crying
Speaker 1: children screaming that somebody else be fired for daring to
Speaker 1: publish this. But also, more broadly, there's the accountability. Where's
Speaker 1: Faucci being held accountable? Where's Joe Biden being held accountable?
Speaker 1: Right now today the Biden administration is litigating in federal
Speaker 1: court to have the authority to reinstate the mask mandate
Speaker 1: on airplanes. Now, if this is right, that the data
Speaker 1: show they have zero efficacy, who's going to stand up
Speaker 1: and say I was wrong? Have you heard Joe Biden
Speaker 1: say that Chuck Schumer or Fauci or anyone. These people
Speaker 1: that wrecked our economy, that destroyed millions of children's education,
Speaker 1: that destroyed businesses, that did trillions of dollars of damage.
Speaker 1: These people that decreed that elderly would die alone and
Speaker 1: not have their children and grandchildren able to hold their hands,
Speaker 1: have to date born zero responsibility. And even worse, they
Speaker 1: try to gaslight the American people. You have Randy Garden saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we didn't want to shut down schools. It was Republicans
Speaker 1: who shut down schools. It's the absolute brazen hutzpah of
Speaker 1: just inverting reality. And yet you know what, our corporate media,
Speaker 1: the double Standard, liked Don Lemon, everyone who got up
Speaker 1: and lied to you for year after year after year
Speaker 1: liked Don Lemon. Will be back on air, like Andrea Mitchell,
Speaker 1: be back on air, because if you were lying in
Speaker 1: pursuit of leftist ideology, truth and falsity don't matter. Integrity
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, standards don't matter. If you are a propagandist,
Speaker 1: if you work at Pravda, which sadly too many of
Speaker 1: our journalists believe they do, then all that matters is
Speaker 1: your politics, and journalism is dead. I couldn't have said
Speaker 1: it better myself, Senator. It was a fun show today
Speaker 1: just to look at this terrible week for the left
Speaker 1: and getting busted over and over again all across a spectrum.
Speaker 1: Don't forget we do the show three days a week.
Speaker 1: Make sure you hit that subscriber auto download button. Please
Speaker 1: write us a five star review as well. It helped
Speaker 1: us reach more people on the charts, and we will
Speaker 1: see you back here in a couple of days.