YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz and our weekend review.
Ben Ferguson with you, and we've got a lot of
major stories that broke this week and we're going to
cover them all for you. First up, the politics of water. Well,
it made the California wildfires worse. We'll explain exactly how
that happened. And now it seems like everybody in office
(00:20):
out there is pointing the finger at one another. Also,
there's been a lot of talk this past week about
another issue, and that is the US acquiring Greenland and
the Panama Canal. How would this work? Is it a crazy,
brilliant idea. We'll explain that. And finally, the demise of
the corporate media. Is it fair to say now that
(00:43):
the media has lost the war, especially after the last
election outcome? We just had. It's the weekend review and
it starts right now, all right, And I also think
it's important for us to talk about the other aspect
of this, and that is about the water. A Gavin
News he made this an issue. He was obsessed with
(01:03):
water and fish and all of this kumbayism, and he
had press conferences about it. And now that's coming back
to haunt him as well.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
There's no doubt the water policies have have greatly exacerbated
the problems with with wildfires and the ability to fight
the wildfires. And listen, LA right now is facing a
drought and at the same time, California is dumping massive
quantities of fresh water into the ocean. They're wasting it.
(01:35):
Here's here's what Donald Trump said yesterday when he came.
He was, he was, he was in the Senate. He
met with with me and all the Republican senators. We
spent about two hours with him. And what he said
is he said, he said that Gavin Newssen wanted to
protect it essentially worthless fish, called a smelt, but didn't
care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price
is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor
(01:58):
allowed beautiful, clean fresh to flow into California. He is
to blame for this. Now, let's lay out the facts
that go behind this. So, California's main water hub is
the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta, and among other things,
the state of California has been refusing to provide sufficient
(02:19):
water to California farmers. And as I said, they're dumping
it in the Pacific Ocean instead. And the reason they're
doing so is because of because of a fish, a
fish called the delta smelt. And so Trump, when he
was president, wanted to divert supply to the farmers, and
(02:46):
in response, environmental groups argue that it would hurt the
population of delta smelt, small fish that were once crucial
to California's ecosystem but has since been rendered effectively extinct.
Ump first promise, and this is from the New York Post.
Trump first promised to redeffect redirect California's northern runoffs south
(03:07):
to benefit farmers when he was running for president in
twenty sixteen, and he made good on the promise in
twenty twenty with a federal memorandum that redirected millions of
gallons of water he said was otherwise needlessly flushed into
the ocean. So that's what Trump did in twenty twenty. Well,
what did Gavin Newsom do? He sued the federal government
(03:29):
to stop that water from going to California farmers. Days later,
Newsom's administration sued to block Trump's move, and he succeeded
in limiting the amount of water that can be pumped
from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. This is and now
we're facing the enormous frustration of people in Los Angeles
(03:55):
when they don't have the sufficient water to fight these
whys fires. And yet Gavin Newsom continues to fight for
not directing water anywhere other than fixing these problems.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
You listen to Governor Newsom and bragging about not only
what you describe, but bragging about tearing down dams to
save fish because woke activists said you got to do it.
This is again the consequences of actions. Here is Gavin
Newsom cheering on how brilliant his idea was when he
(04:36):
did it.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Largest damn the global projects in US history and one
of the most significant, if not the most significant water
restoration projects, bringing back salmon and steelhead into this space.
That this project could not have happened without extraordinary partnerships
with tribal nations and of course all partners and the
(04:58):
North and or he just finished the celebration, or the
Secretary of the Interior and our tribal council and tribal leaders,
and I could be more proud as a Californian, and
I could be more proud as a product because my kids.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And their great great grand kids.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Will have the opportunity to see something that well has
been here since time in memorial and it's about damn
time thout this time.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
That's not you and me characterizing what he did. That's
in his own words saying how incredibly proud he is
of quote the largest damn removal project in US history.
That's a policy decision he made. Now, what are the
consequences of this? Give a listen to Gavin Newsom being
(05:43):
asked about LA not having water in its fire hydrancy.
Here was his answer during this crisis.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
What is the situation with water? Obviously in the palisage
ran out last night in the hydrants.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
I fearned the firefighter on this block they left because
there was no water in the hydrant here.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
The local folks are to figure that out. I mean,
just when you have a system. But it's not dissimilar
to what we've seen in other extraordinarily large scale fires,
whether it be pipe of electricity or whether it just
be the complete overwhelm of the system. I mean, those
hydrants are typical for two or three fires, maybe one fire.
You have something at this scale. But again, that's going
to be determined by the local.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Not my problem. It to local people. And he literally
as he's saying this, threw his hands up in the
air on national TV, like this is this is this
is I guess below my pay grade. You ask the
local officials, not my problem as the governor.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
So local folks are going to figure that out, not
my job. Without taking any responsibility for his decisions, He's
literally sued the federal government to block money going to
Californians and bragged about how proud he is of the
largest damn removal in US history. And by the way,
(06:54):
you know, he's also trying to put all the blame
on local officials. And I agree the local officials had
policies in place that had a significant consequence. But I'll
tell you also, so did Gavin Newsom. You know, we
talked a minute ago about firefighters and Karen Bass slashing
slashing the budget for the fire department. Well, last year,
(07:20):
Gavin Newsom veto to bill that would have let cal Fire,
the statewide fire agency, retain seasonal firefighters to help with
staffing shortages, and his veto forced the layoff of thousands
of seasonal firefighters. This is from Kate Sanchez, who is
(07:40):
a California assembly woman, and who goes on to say
his veto forced the layoff of thousands of seasonal firefighters
who he never replaced display despite his promises. This is
negligence of the highest orders. And I want to read
to you. So this is September twenty second, twenty twenty four,
so not very long, just a few months ago. Office
(08:03):
of the Governor quote to the members of the California
State Assembly, I am returning Assembly Bill two five three
eight without my signature. The bill would, among other things,
require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalFire to
employ seasonal firefighters through the use of an employment list.
This bill would also require the Department of Human Resources
(08:24):
to coordinate with the State Personnel Board and any other
relevant state agency to take the necessary actions to allow
CalFire to employ seasonal firefighters for longer than nine months
in a consecutive twelve month period. Increasing calfire's capacity is
an important objective, and with the introduction of the sixty
six hour workweek for firefighters, my administration will need to
(08:44):
hire more than two thousand new year round firefighters. Note
that California assembly Woman said he didn't do that significantly
increasing the department's capacity in the off season. This bill
is therefore unnecessary, so he veto's hiring more firefighters, just
(09:06):
like the mayor of Los Angeles did. And I want
you to to listen to this exchange. Uh, this exchange
when when when Gavin Newsom is confronted by a woman, uh,
asking for for for answers about his his disastrous policies.
(09:30):
Give a listen to this exchange.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Governor, you got a second governor, Governor, I live here.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Governor, that was my daughter's school.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Governor.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Please tell me what you're gonna do.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
But I'm not gonna hurt of my promise.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
I'm literally talking to the President right now to specifically
answer the question of what we can do.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
For you and your daughter.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
Can I hear it?
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Can I hear your call?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Because I don't believe it.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
I'm sorry, there's literally I've tried five times. That's why
I'm walking around to make.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
That is the president of taking your call because it's.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Not going through.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
Why I have to get cell service.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
Let's get it, let's get it. I want to be
here when you call the President.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
I appreciate I'm doing that. Right now, and it's to
immediately get reimbursements, individual assistance, and to help you'd with
the devis looking fore yar. I'm so sorry, especially for
your daughter. I have four kids.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Everyone who went to school there, they lost their homes.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
They lost two homes because they were living in one
and building another.
Speaker 7 (10:27):
Ever, please tell me, tell me what are you going
to do with the president.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
Right now, we're getting we're getting the resources to help rebuild.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Why is there no water in the hydrants? Governor?
Speaker 3 (10:37):
That's all?
Speaker 5 (10:38):
Literally?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Is it going to be different next time?
Speaker 5 (10:40):
It has to be has to be of course, what.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Are you going to do to fill the hydrants?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I would fill them up personally.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
You know that.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I literally I.
Speaker 6 (10:48):
Would fill up the hydrants myself.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
But would you do that?
Speaker 5 (10:52):
I would do whatever I can, But you're not.
Speaker 8 (10:55):
I see the Do you know there's water dripping over there?
Speaker 6 (10:57):
Governor? There's water coming out there?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
You can use it.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
I'm going to make the call to address everything I
can right now, including making sure you.
Speaker 8 (11:07):
Make sure you can I have an opportunity to at
least tell people what you're.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Doing, what you're saying you're doing.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Can somebody have a contact.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Can I have your contact right now?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Nothing like ducking into your suv and then saying, oh,
I got to take a phone call with the president.
You move on, lady. I hear what you're saying, but
you move on. One of the most shocking parts that
exchange this center was the fact that both people involved,
the lady who lived there, her child's school has burned
to the ground, and Gavin Newsom are both admitting there
will be a next time. And if you know that
(11:41):
this is the next time, and you know that you
deal with these fires, why did you make all these decisions?
Speaker 2 (11:47):
And it's over and over again, repeated decisions, and he's
accepting no responsibility. He was warned about the consequences of
those decisions, and yet he doesn't change them. The mayor
was warned, and she doesn't change them. And and look,
his first reaction when the woman comes up is to
lie to her, Oh, I'm on the phone with the
(12:08):
president right now. And I gotta give the woman credit.
It's you know, it's it's you know, the old trick,
pretending to be on a phone call. And she's like, great,
can I listen. He's like, oh, well, I'm not actually
on the phone. But but but I'm trying like it
is a horrific natural disaster, a horrific crisis. Although I
say natural disaster. We're getting also multiple reports of summer
(12:30):
all of these fires having having originated from arson. We
don't know the full details of that. And and so
it may turn out that that that that that that
these fires are not entirely natural in their origin. That
we will find out more, hopefully in the days ahead.
Uh And and but but regardless, better forest management and
(12:52):
mitigation could reduce the risks of these fires, and yet
the politicians and California refuse to do it. Investing in firefighters,
putting the priority of doing their job, and putting sufficient
resources there could make a real difference, And yet the
politicians actively refuse to do so. Both the mayor and
(13:16):
the governor and ensuring their sufficient water could make a
real difference in fighting these forest fires. And yet the
elected politicians repeatedly refused to do so and brag about
how proud they are of these policies. I hope, I
(13:37):
hope on the federal government that this prompts a serious
reconsideration of the policies of what are allowed on federal
forest lands. I know President Trump wants to see that happen,
and we will see whether our Democrat colleagues in Congress
are willing to work to get that done or if
they will continue to double down on the same failed
(14:01):
policies that are endangering people's lives and costing people's lives.
And I just want to close where we started. Listen,
we are praying for the people of California who are
living through hell right now. We are praying for the
firefighters and police officers and first responders, and by the way,
just ordinary citizens and churches and charities who are coming
together and helping each other. And I will say, you know,
(14:25):
in the wake of any disaster, you see people come
together and help each other. And that's an amazing, powerful thing.
But at the same time, we need to ask, are
there policies that caused this disaster or made it worse?
And are their policy changes that can reduce the risk
(14:45):
of another tragedy like this in the future. And sadly,
the answer to those questions is unquestionably yes. And I
think for that reason, a whole lot of people in
California are understandably andjustifiably furious right now now.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. Is
this one of those things that would come down to
a vote and they would vote on it. How does
this actually work? I mean, is there a purchase price?
Speaker 7 (15:17):
Is that?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
I mean, we explain to people the reality of this
moves forward, what it.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Looks, so all in all likelihood, there would be a
purchase price paid to Denmark, because Denmark has controlled Denmark
governs Greenland right now, and so it would be a
purchase price like the Louisiana purchase, like buying Alaska. And
there's a long history of countries buying territories one from
the other, and so that you'd have to go and
(15:43):
negotiate it. We saw this week Donald Trump Junior flew
to Greenland and and went there and and reported back,
reported back that he had a tremendous reception, that people
were cheering him on, that they were wearing Maga hats.
You know, I've heard multiple reports that the locals can't
stand Denmark, that they're treated as second class citizens by
(16:05):
the Danes, and and that you know, if you're a
young Greenlander the opportunity to become an American. That's a
big deal in terms of your future. If Greenland becomes
an American territory, the investment from the United States that
goes into Greenland is suddenly very significant, and so that
(16:30):
could well be appealing. Now, now, I would think there
would be a real likelihood that you'd probably have a
referendum of Greenlanders if they want to do it. It's
not clear that you would, but I think there's a
reasonable chance of that, and so you'd have both Denmark
and Greenland to contend with. But I will say from
America's perspective, there would be enormous advantages to Greenland becoming
(16:54):
an American territory. And I will say just this week,
interestingly enough, On Fetterman, Democrat senator from Pennsylvania, he was
on Fox News and and he was he brought up Greenland.
It was very interesting. I want you want you to
listen to what John Fetterman had to say on this topic.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Like, there's a lot of talk about Greenland, for example, now,
and I know a lot of there's a lot of
freak outs, you know, and of course I would never
support taking it by force, but I do think it's
I do think it's a responsible conversation if they were
open to acquiring it, and you know, whether they're just
buying it out right, I mean, if anyone think that's bonkers,
it's like, well, well remember the Louisiana purchase. I think
(17:35):
Alaska is pretty pretty a great deal too, fifty million dollars.
I think it was. It was recorded, it was it
was referred to as as Seward's folly, and now that
was Alaska. Now, so I mean, you know, open having
all kinds of conversations as well. And now I don't
think we it's not helpful to freak out. But some
things might work out, some may not. But that's part
(17:57):
of ongoing dialogue. But he hasn't even taken office in
two weeks, and you know, we really need to pace
ourselves if we're going to freak out over every less
tweet or every less conversation or press conference.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
I love this demeanor there. It's like, well, should be
having this conversation. There's nothing wrong with it. Now the conversation.
A lot of people listening are going to say, a center,
what are we thirty five trillion in debt? How can
we afford to buy Greenland. So how does the economics
of that work.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Well, look, I don't know what a purchase price would be.
We'd have to see, But I do think the mineral
reserves there are significant, and the national security and geopolitical
advantages are significant, and so we invest in policies that
make a difference, that make America safer and make America
more prosperous. And it is certainly possible and in fact
(18:51):
even likely, that Greenland would do that. Now, again, I
don't know what the price would be. It's something that
would have to be pursued. But it's interesting since Trump
starts to talking about this. You've seen Greenlanders talking about
wanting independence, wanting to be their own country, And from
Denmark's perspective, they may be sitting there going, well, wait
(19:12):
a second, America could buy Greenland from US and we
could get a crap ton of money, or Greenland could
just declare their independence and they leave US and we
get nothing. And so the incentives for Denmark may have
changed because Trump is bringing this up and bringing it
up in a context that it's driving real conversation. But
(19:32):
I think we should lean in and pursue this, pursue
this with Denmark and Greenland, because I think there are
major advantages to the United States if we were to
succeed in this, and I think this is a this
is a serious possibility.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
It's a serious possibility, all right. So with that serious possibility,
let's move to the third. You know, Panama, big story, Panama,
the Panama Canal. Donald Trump making it very clear we're
being taken advantage of.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Well, that's right, and look you look at Panama and
the Panama Canal. Jimmy Carter. Number one, America built the
Panama Canal. We lost many American lives building it. We
invested major money building the Panama Canal. Teddy Roosevelt is
one of the most significant things he did as president.
Jimmy Carter gave it away, gave it to Panama, and
(20:26):
it was egregious of you know, this week is Jimmy
Carter's funeral, and when we did did our remembrance of
Jimmy Carter, I tried to find positive things to say
about him, not to speak ill of someone who had
just passed, but I will say Jimmy Carter is giving
away the Panama Canal was one of the most egregious
foreign policy mistakes in the history of our country. It
(20:47):
was horrific. It undermined the safety and security and economic
vitality of America. It made no sense. Now, can it
be undone? I don't know. I think I think the
likelihood of us getting the Panama Canal back is significantly
lower than the likelihood of US acquiring Greenland. It's not
(21:10):
nearly as low as the likelihood of Canada joining America.
As I said, I don't think that is at all possible.
I think that was purely a troll. I think Greenland
is quite possible, And I put Panama somewhere in the middle.
And Trump's argument is important on this, which is which
is that when when Jimmy Carter gave it away, Panama
entered into an agreement with the United States, a legal agreement.
(21:33):
And and I could tell you I and my team
right now are examining the contours of that agreement to
see exactly what Panama committed to. But Trump's argument is
that Panama has broken the terms of that agreement, that
they are not living up to, they are violating that agreement,
and in particular that they have have have essentially sold
(21:55):
significant parts of the Panama Canal to China, that Chinese
companies now control both ends of the Panama Canal and
they've seeded control to China. That's incredibly harmful. And Trump
is also arguing that Panama charges American ships egregious prices,
and and look, we need to dig in more to
(22:18):
the facts behind that, but that is a legal argument.
I'll tell you what I think Trump is really doing
is negotiating on price. And I think the outcome of
this is going to be that America gets much more
favorable prices. And it may also be a significant diminution
of China's involvement in the Panama Canal. Both of those
are very likely. But I want you to listen to
(22:39):
what Trump had to say about Panama and mar Lago
earlier day.
Speaker 9 (22:44):
The deal was that, you know, they have to treat
us fairly. They don't treat us fairly. They charge more
for our ships than they charge for ships of other countries.
They charge more for our navy than they charge for
navies of other countries. They laugh at us because they
think we're stupid. But we're not stupid anymore. So the
Panama Canal is under discussion with them right now. They
(23:06):
violated every aspect of the agreement, and it's they morally
violated it also, and they want our help because it's
leaking and not in good repair, and they want us
to give three billion dollars to help fix it. I said, well,
why don't you get the money from China, because China's
basically taking it over. China's at both ends of the
(23:29):
Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
China's running the Panama Canal. And he says, they laugh
at us because they think we're stupid. We're not stupid
anymore when you hear the basics. They're charging us more
in our navy more than others. Now they want us
to give them a bunch of money to fix the thing.
He's got points that aren't political.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
They're just no, those are serious, and I think we're
going to see a significant change. I believe in the
conduct of Panama concerning the Panama Canal. Will it result
in the canal coming back to America. I don't know,
uh that that that is a difficult hurdle to clear,
but I am very glad President Trump is leading in
on this issue. It's incredibly important and China's growing influence
(24:12):
over the Panama Canal is just stupid. It is unacceptable.
And and and and that's that's leadership that, frankly, can
you imagine in a billion years Joe Biden or Kamala
Harris making these points you can at all because they
don't defend America. They're they're celebrating. Uh and I'm sure
(24:32):
they cheered on when it happened. Jimmy Carter is giving
it away to begin with, and and and and it's
it's the opposite of America first. Where where where Biden
and Harris are? It's America last. And I'm very glad
we're going to have a president that again puts our
country first. As before.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number three.
The week you may have missed, we really saw the
demise of the corporate media. I call it the state
sponsored media. And for decades we have seen the media,
(25:11):
especially the big ABC, NBC, CBS's, the CNN's, MSNBC's be
able and so much of print to control the narrative
and the mindset of so many voters and sway elections
towards the left into Democrats. I hope that we have
just witnessed the true demise of the media and their
(25:34):
influence and their corruption, because so many times we've just
seen how biased they are, whether it was COVID and
that issue, whether it was the issue with Hunter Biden
in the laptop. We have now seen where there's a
lot of Americans that aren't getting their news from not
just not trust them, they're not even watching anymore, they're
(25:55):
not even reading these newspapers anymore, and they're turning to
podcasts just like this show and podcast center had a
massive impact on the twenty twenty four election at the local, state,
and national level, and that is good for everyone.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Well, and that's the final that's prediction number ten, that
there's no doubt that we are seeing across the media
landscape a disintermediation, that the mediators, those who had a
monopoly on communicating with the public, are losing that monopoly.
They're losing that control. And listen, the part of the
reason they're losing that monopoly is because they've been so dishonest,
(26:35):
they've been such partisan propagandists that they don't report on news,
they simply advocate for the left wing of the Democrat Party.
That they have utterly destroyed the trust they had with
the American people, and the corporate media has been exposed
as liars. We have seen the rise the democratization of media.
We've seen the rise of podcasts. I think this podcast
(26:56):
has had a significant impact on the public discourse. I
think other podcasts. We saw Donald Trump go on multiple
podcasts in the election and go right around the corporate media,
goes straight to the American people. We see the impact
of people like Joe Rogan, which is enormously impactful going
straight to the American people. And the prediction that we
made is that we were going to see more and
(27:17):
more democratization, both from podcasts and also from Twitter and
x and just speaking the truth right around the so
called gatekeepers. So I want you to listen to this prediction.
This prediction was in August of twenty twenty four. Give
a listen. Why do you and I do the podcast
often at eleven o'clock at night or midnight or even
(27:38):
one or two in the morning. Why do we do
it three days a week? We do it because if
your only source of news is the corporate media, if
you only watch CNN or MSNBC or ABCNBCCBS, you do
not know what is happening. They are lying to you.
And the reason this podcast we've got roughly a million
unique listeners is because people thind it valuable. We give
(28:01):
you facts that CNN will never air. We play the
full segment of what Elon and Trump said about here
Shima and Nagasaki instead of their dishonestly edited snippet that
was designed to mislead you and lie to you. And
this podcast goes right around the corporate media, and in fact,
(28:25):
just about every podcast we put out drives stories in
the corporate media. That is going to accelerate. People are
going to podcast, people are going to social media, people
are going to x. Elon's buying Twitter remains I think
the single most important step for free speech in decades,
(28:45):
and I think that's only going to accelerate. And you're
going to see a panic as the corporate media they
want a monopoly on what we know, what we hear,
what we understand, and they're losing their monopoly. So I
predict more and more frantic panic, but also more and
more power to the people, which is a very good thing. Center.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
I mean, it's this is a I really do believe
a major turning point, and I think there is proof
and the outcome of the election that we just saw.
And it's not that I want to have a conservative
media just have a monopoly. I just want honest journalism
and those that are telling the truth to have a
(29:27):
real platform with a real audience. And we're gaining that
now through podcasts and other venues.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
As we mentioned, Yeah, that's exactly right, and we're seeing that.
Look these ten predictions that we've gone through on this
podcast and Wednesday's podcast. If you got all your news
from CNN, you would have heard zero of these ten predictions.
If you got all your news from the New York Times,
you would have heard zero of these predictions. And so
(29:55):
it's why people tune into Verdict, because you learn things
and you know things that you cannot get through the
corporate media that this is one of the very few
avenues that is putting out the facts. And that prediction.
We saw the massive impact of podcasts and an X
on the twenty twenty four election, but also the prediction
(30:16):
that I made about about the panic from the media.
I want you to listen. This is in November twenty
twenty five, after the election to Axio CEO Jim Vanda
Hide just completely losing his mind over Elon Musk saying
to everyone on X you are the media. Give a
listen to to to Jim Vanda high losing it. Thing
(30:37):
we do is under fire.
Speaker 8 (30:40):
Elon Musk s it's on Twitter every day or X Today,
saying like we are the media, you are the media.
My message to Elon Musk is both, you're.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Not the media.
Speaker 8 (30:52):
You having you having a blue check mark, a Twitter
handle in three hundred words of cleverness doesn't make you
a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
You don't do that by having an opinion. You do
it by doing the hard work.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
Yeah, come on.
Speaker 6 (31:15):
So, first of all, I've got to say extraordinary content.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
It needed to be said.
Speaker 7 (31:24):
It continues to need to be said when all of.
Speaker 6 (31:27):
The garbage is flying around on social media, lying about reporters,
lying about the hard work they do, lying about the
hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down
about not only their alternative set of facts, but alternative
set of facts about what people like you do, or
(31:47):
are if social media people lying every day, every hour, every.
Speaker 7 (31:54):
Minute about the news. What you do matters, What the
news New York Times does matters, What the Wall Street
Journal does matters, What Jonathan Lemir does matters, What the
Financial Times does matters, What NBC News and MSNBC reporters
(32:15):
do matters.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
It matters, It matters. I love the self righteousness there right.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Well and yes, and then that kicked in at the
end morning Joe to to to Joe Scarborough and Mika
losing their minds, also echoing Jim Vanda high and just yes, yes, yes,
he's exactly right. And listen. The corporate media they hate democracy,
They hate the democratization of communication. They hate the rise
(32:45):
of podcasts. They hate that people can talk directly to
the voters. They hate the ability to get the truth
and and this is destroying their monopoly.
Speaker 8 (32:56):
Now.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Big part of the reason so many people turn to
podcasts is the corporate media lies. They lied deliberately, and
when they had a monopoly, their lies were pretty effective.
But people are turning elsewhere. Look mourning Joe, mourning Joe.
During the week that Trump that Joe Scarboro and Mika
(33:20):
went down to meet with Morning Joe. Do you know
how many viewers Morning Joe averaged every day? How many
they averaged six hundred ninety one thousand total viewers during
the week that Joe and Mika went to meet with Trump,
six hundred ninety one thousand. We have about a million. So, Joe,
it ought to concern you that you've got an entire
corporate bureaucracy. You've got millions of dollars that are broadcasting
(33:43):
your show into every television set in America, and yet
Verdict is getting substantially more listeners than you are. And
the reason is simple. The corporate media. They lie to you.
They are so partisan, they are so brazen, they are
willing to lie, and they are horrified that they're Our
ability to lie is checked by the ability of you
(34:04):
and me and others to speak the truth. That's the
power of podcast, and I think that's that's the power
of Verdict.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Finally, let's end with a prediction to watch center. Not
that long ago, you predicted that the US will sanction
the ICC for the egregious move to arrest Benjaminett and Yahoo,
and that that prediction I want to play for people.
(34:32):
Take a listen we're.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Going to predict we will take up the legislation to
sanction the ICC, and we will do it early next
year when we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president.
I don't even know that we'll need that legislation though,
because I expect the Trump administration to act unilatterally. I
think there's ample authority under the law for them to act.
Even if the Democrats filibuster legislation to sanction the ICC,
(34:57):
I think the president will have ample authority to act
come January twenty. Let me talk to you.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
That was a prediction that you're now saying we should
watch this very carefully.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah, I think that's gonna happen in twenty twenty five,
and we'll all see it. And you know what happens
in twenty twenty five, Verdict will come back and point
out exactly as we predicted, it came to pass.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each
day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz and our weekend review.
Ben Ferguson with you, and we've got a lot of
major stories that broke this week and we're going to
cover them all for you. First up, the politics of water. Well,
it made the California wildfires worse. We'll explain exactly how
that happened. And now it seems like everybody in office
(00:20):
out there is pointing the finger at one another. Also,
there's been a lot of talk this past week about
another issue, and that is the US acquiring Greenland and
the Panama Canal. How would this work? Is it a crazy,
brilliant idea. We'll explain that. And finally, the demise of
the corporate media. Is it fair to say now that
(00:43):
the media has lost the war, especially after the last
election outcome? We just had. It's the weekend review and
it starts right now, all right, And I also think
it's important for us to talk about the other aspect
of this, and that is about the water. A Gavin
News he made this an issue. He was obsessed with
(01:03):
water and fish and all of this kumbayism, and he
had press conferences about it. And now that's coming back
to haunt him as well.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
There's no doubt the water policies have have greatly exacerbated
the problems with with wildfires and the ability to fight
the wildfires. And listen, LA right now is facing a
drought and at the same time, California is dumping massive
quantities of fresh water into the ocean. They're wasting it.
(01:35):
Here's here's what Donald Trump said yesterday when he came.
He was, he was, he was in the Senate. He
met with with me and all the Republican senators. We
spent about two hours with him. And what he said
is he said, he said that Gavin Newssen wanted to
protect it essentially worthless fish, called a smelt, but didn't
care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price
is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor
(01:58):
allowed beautiful, clean fresh to flow into California. He is
to blame for this. Now, let's lay out the facts
that go behind this. So, California's main water hub is
the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta, and among other things,
the state of California has been refusing to provide sufficient
(02:19):
water to California farmers. And as I said, they're dumping
it in the Pacific Ocean instead. And the reason they're
doing so is because of because of a fish, a
fish called the delta smelt. And so Trump, when he
was president, wanted to divert supply to the farmers, and
(02:46):
in response, environmental groups argue that it would hurt the
population of delta smelt, small fish that were once crucial
to California's ecosystem but has since been rendered effectively extinct.
Ump first promise, and this is from the New York Post.
Trump first promised to redeffect redirect California's northern runoffs south
(03:07):
to benefit farmers when he was running for president in
twenty sixteen, and he made good on the promise in
twenty twenty with a federal memorandum that redirected millions of
gallons of water he said was otherwise needlessly flushed into
the ocean. So that's what Trump did in twenty twenty. Well,
what did Gavin Newsom do? He sued the federal government
(03:29):
to stop that water from going to California farmers. Days later,
Newsom's administration sued to block Trump's move, and he succeeded
in limiting the amount of water that can be pumped
from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. This is and now
we're facing the enormous frustration of people in Los Angeles
(03:55):
when they don't have the sufficient water to fight these
whys fires. And yet Gavin Newsom continues to fight for
not directing water anywhere other than fixing these problems.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
You listen to Governor Newsom and bragging about not only
what you describe, but bragging about tearing down dams to
save fish because woke activists said you got to do it.
This is again the consequences of actions. Here is Gavin
Newsom cheering on how brilliant his idea was when he
(04:36):
did it.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Largest damn the global projects in US history and one
of the most significant, if not the most significant water
restoration projects, bringing back salmon and steelhead into this space.
That this project could not have happened without extraordinary partnerships
with tribal nations and of course all partners and the
(04:58):
North and or he just finished the celebration, or the
Secretary of the Interior and our tribal council and tribal leaders,
and I could be more proud as a Californian, and
I could be more proud as a product because my kids.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And their great great grand kids.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Will have the opportunity to see something that well has
been here since time in memorial and it's about damn
time thout this time.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
That's not you and me characterizing what he did. That's
in his own words saying how incredibly proud he is
of quote the largest damn removal project in US history.
That's a policy decision he made. Now, what are the
consequences of this? Give a listen to Gavin Newsom being
(05:43):
asked about LA not having water in its fire hydrancy.
Here was his answer during this crisis.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
What is the situation with water? Obviously in the palisage
ran out last night in the hydrants.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
I fearned the firefighter on this block they left because
there was no water in the hydrant here.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
The local folks are to figure that out. I mean,
just when you have a system. But it's not dissimilar
to what we've seen in other extraordinarily large scale fires,
whether it be pipe of electricity or whether it just
be the complete overwhelm of the system. I mean, those
hydrants are typical for two or three fires, maybe one fire.
You have something at this scale. But again, that's going
to be determined by the local.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Not my problem. It to local people. And he literally
as he's saying this, threw his hands up in the
air on national TV, like this is this is this
is I guess below my pay grade. You ask the
local officials, not my problem as the governor.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
So local folks are going to figure that out, not
my job. Without taking any responsibility for his decisions, He's
literally sued the federal government to block money going to
Californians and bragged about how proud he is of the
largest damn removal in US history. And by the way,
(06:54):
you know, he's also trying to put all the blame
on local officials. And I agree the local officials had
policies in place that had a significant consequence. But I'll
tell you also, so did Gavin Newsom. You know, we
talked a minute ago about firefighters and Karen Bass slashing
slashing the budget for the fire department. Well, last year,
(07:20):
Gavin Newsom veto to bill that would have let cal Fire,
the statewide fire agency, retain seasonal firefighters to help with
staffing shortages, and his veto forced the layoff of thousands
of seasonal firefighters. This is from Kate Sanchez, who is
(07:40):
a California assembly woman, and who goes on to say
his veto forced the layoff of thousands of seasonal firefighters
who he never replaced display despite his promises. This is
negligence of the highest orders. And I want to read
to you. So this is September twenty second, twenty twenty four,
so not very long, just a few months ago. Office
(08:03):
of the Governor quote to the members of the California
State Assembly, I am returning Assembly Bill two five three
eight without my signature. The bill would, among other things,
require the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalFire to
employ seasonal firefighters through the use of an employment list.
This bill would also require the Department of Human Resources
(08:24):
to coordinate with the State Personnel Board and any other
relevant state agency to take the necessary actions to allow
CalFire to employ seasonal firefighters for longer than nine months
in a consecutive twelve month period. Increasing calfire's capacity is
an important objective, and with the introduction of the sixty
six hour workweek for firefighters, my administration will need to
(08:44):
hire more than two thousand new year round firefighters. Note
that California assembly Woman said he didn't do that significantly
increasing the department's capacity in the off season. This bill
is therefore unnecessary, so he veto's hiring more firefighters, just
(09:06):
like the mayor of Los Angeles did. And I want
you to to listen to this exchange. Uh, this exchange
when when when Gavin Newsom is confronted by a woman, uh,
asking for for for answers about his his disastrous policies.
(09:30):
Give a listen to this exchange.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Governor, you got a second governor, Governor, I live here.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Governor, that was my daughter's school.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Governor.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Please tell me what you're gonna do.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
But I'm not gonna hurt of my promise.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
I'm literally talking to the President right now to specifically
answer the question of what we can do.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
For you and your daughter.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
Can I hear it?
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Can I hear your call?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Because I don't believe it.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
I'm sorry, there's literally I've tried five times. That's why
I'm walking around to make.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
That is the president of taking your call because it's.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Not going through.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
Why I have to get cell service.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
Let's get it, let's get it. I want to be
here when you call the President.
Speaker 5 (10:07):
I appreciate I'm doing that. Right now, and it's to
immediately get reimbursements, individual assistance, and to help you'd with
the devis looking fore yar. I'm so sorry, especially for
your daughter. I have four kids.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Everyone who went to school there, they lost their homes.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
They lost two homes because they were living in one
and building another.
Speaker 7 (10:27):
Ever, please tell me, tell me what are you going
to do with the president.
Speaker 5 (10:30):
Right now, we're getting we're getting the resources to help rebuild.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Why is there no water in the hydrants? Governor?
Speaker 3 (10:37):
That's all?
Speaker 5 (10:38):
Literally?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Is it going to be different next time?
Speaker 5 (10:40):
It has to be has to be of course, what.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Are you going to do to fill the hydrants?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I would fill them up personally.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
You know that.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
I literally I.
Speaker 6 (10:48):
Would fill up the hydrants myself.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
But would you do that?
Speaker 5 (10:52):
I would do whatever I can, But you're not.
Speaker 8 (10:55):
I see the Do you know there's water dripping over there?
Speaker 6 (10:57):
Governor? There's water coming out there?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
You can use it.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
I'm going to make the call to address everything I
can right now, including making sure you.
Speaker 8 (11:07):
Make sure you can I have an opportunity to at
least tell people what you're.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Doing, what you're saying you're doing.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Can somebody have a contact.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Can I have your contact right now?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Nothing like ducking into your suv and then saying, oh,
I got to take a phone call with the president.
You move on, lady. I hear what you're saying, but
you move on. One of the most shocking parts that
exchange this center was the fact that both people involved,
the lady who lived there, her child's school has burned
to the ground, and Gavin Newsom are both admitting there
will be a next time. And if you know that
(11:41):
this is the next time, and you know that you
deal with these fires, why did you make all these decisions?
Speaker 2 (11:47):
And it's over and over again, repeated decisions, and he's
accepting no responsibility. He was warned about the consequences of
those decisions, and yet he doesn't change them. The mayor
was warned, and she doesn't change them. And and look,
his first reaction when the woman comes up is to
lie to her, Oh, I'm on the phone with the
(12:08):
president right now. And I gotta give the woman credit.
It's you know, it's it's you know, the old trick,
pretending to be on a phone call. And she's like, great,
can I listen. He's like, oh, well, I'm not actually
on the phone. But but but I'm trying like it
is a horrific natural disaster, a horrific crisis. Although I
say natural disaster. We're getting also multiple reports of summer
(12:30):
all of these fires having having originated from arson. We
don't know the full details of that. And and so
it may turn out that that that that that that
these fires are not entirely natural in their origin. That
we will find out more, hopefully in the days ahead.
Uh And and but but regardless, better forest management and
(12:52):
mitigation could reduce the risks of these fires, and yet
the politicians and California refuse to do it. Investing in firefighters,
putting the priority of doing their job, and putting sufficient
resources there could make a real difference, And yet the
politicians actively refuse to do so. Both the mayor and
(13:16):
the governor and ensuring their sufficient water could make a
real difference in fighting these forest fires. And yet the
elected politicians repeatedly refused to do so and brag about
how proud they are of these policies. I hope, I
(13:37):
hope on the federal government that this prompts a serious
reconsideration of the policies of what are allowed on federal
forest lands. I know President Trump wants to see that happen,
and we will see whether our Democrat colleagues in Congress
are willing to work to get that done or if
they will continue to double down on the same failed
(14:01):
policies that are endangering people's lives and costing people's lives.
And I just want to close where we started. Listen,
we are praying for the people of California who are
living through hell right now. We are praying for the
firefighters and police officers and first responders, and by the way,
just ordinary citizens and churches and charities who are coming
together and helping each other. And I will say, you know,
(14:25):
in the wake of any disaster, you see people come
together and help each other. And that's an amazing, powerful thing.
But at the same time, we need to ask, are
there policies that caused this disaster or made it worse?
And are their policy changes that can reduce the risk
(14:45):
of another tragedy like this in the future. And sadly,
the answer to those questions is unquestionably yes. And I
think for that reason, a whole lot of people in
California are understandably andjustifiably furious right now now.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. Is
this one of those things that would come down to
a vote and they would vote on it. How does
this actually work? I mean, is there a purchase price?
Speaker 7 (15:17):
Is that?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
I mean, we explain to people the reality of this
moves forward, what it.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Looks, so all in all likelihood, there would be a
purchase price paid to Denmark, because Denmark has controlled Denmark
governs Greenland right now, and so it would be a
purchase price like the Louisiana purchase, like buying Alaska. And
there's a long history of countries buying territories one from
the other, and so that you'd have to go and
(15:43):
negotiate it. We saw this week Donald Trump Junior flew
to Greenland and and went there and and reported back,
reported back that he had a tremendous reception, that people
were cheering him on, that they were wearing Maga hats.
You know, I've heard multiple reports that the locals can't
stand Denmark, that they're treated as second class citizens by
(16:05):
the Danes, and and that you know, if you're a
young Greenlander the opportunity to become an American. That's a
big deal in terms of your future. If Greenland becomes
an American territory, the investment from the United States that
goes into Greenland is suddenly very significant, and so that
(16:30):
could well be appealing. Now, now, I would think there
would be a real likelihood that you'd probably have a
referendum of Greenlanders if they want to do it. It's
not clear that you would, but I think there's a
reasonable chance of that, and so you'd have both Denmark
and Greenland to contend with. But I will say from
America's perspective, there would be enormous advantages to Greenland becoming
(16:54):
an American territory. And I will say just this week,
interestingly enough, On Fetterman, Democrat senator from Pennsylvania, he was
on Fox News and and he was he brought up Greenland.
It was very interesting. I want you want you to
listen to what John Fetterman had to say on this topic.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Like, there's a lot of talk about Greenland, for example, now,
and I know a lot of there's a lot of
freak outs, you know, and of course I would never
support taking it by force, but I do think it's
I do think it's a responsible conversation if they were
open to acquiring it, and you know, whether they're just
buying it out right, I mean, if anyone think that's bonkers,
it's like, well, well remember the Louisiana purchase. I think
(17:35):
Alaska is pretty pretty a great deal too, fifty million dollars.
I think it was. It was recorded, it was it
was referred to as as Seward's folly, and now that
was Alaska. Now, so I mean, you know, open having
all kinds of conversations as well. And now I don't
think we it's not helpful to freak out. But some
things might work out, some may not. But that's part
(17:57):
of ongoing dialogue. But he hasn't even taken office in
two weeks, and you know, we really need to pace
ourselves if we're going to freak out over every less
tweet or every less conversation or press conference.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
I love this demeanor there. It's like, well, should be
having this conversation. There's nothing wrong with it. Now the conversation.
A lot of people listening are going to say, a center,
what are we thirty five trillion in debt? How can
we afford to buy Greenland. So how does the economics
of that work.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Well, look, I don't know what a purchase price would be.
We'd have to see, But I do think the mineral
reserves there are significant, and the national security and geopolitical
advantages are significant, and so we invest in policies that
make a difference, that make America safer and make America
more prosperous. And it is certainly possible and in fact
(18:51):
even likely, that Greenland would do that. Now, again, I
don't know what the price would be. It's something that
would have to be pursued. But it's interesting since Trump
starts to talking about this. You've seen Greenlanders talking about
wanting independence, wanting to be their own country, And from
Denmark's perspective, they may be sitting there going, well, wait
(19:12):
a second, America could buy Greenland from US and we
could get a crap ton of money, or Greenland could
just declare their independence and they leave US and we
get nothing. And so the incentives for Denmark may have
changed because Trump is bringing this up and bringing it
up in a context that it's driving real conversation. But
(19:32):
I think we should lean in and pursue this, pursue
this with Denmark and Greenland, because I think there are
major advantages to the United States if we were to
succeed in this, and I think this is a this
is a serious possibility.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
It's a serious possibility, all right. So with that serious possibility,
let's move to the third. You know, Panama, big story, Panama,
the Panama Canal. Donald Trump making it very clear we're
being taken advantage of.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Well, that's right, and look you look at Panama and
the Panama Canal. Jimmy Carter. Number one, America built the
Panama Canal. We lost many American lives building it. We
invested major money building the Panama Canal. Teddy Roosevelt is
one of the most significant things he did as president.
Jimmy Carter gave it away, gave it to Panama, and
(20:26):
it was egregious of you know, this week is Jimmy
Carter's funeral, and when we did did our remembrance of
Jimmy Carter, I tried to find positive things to say
about him, not to speak ill of someone who had
just passed, but I will say Jimmy Carter is giving
away the Panama Canal was one of the most egregious
foreign policy mistakes in the history of our country. It
(20:47):
was horrific. It undermined the safety and security and economic
vitality of America. It made no sense. Now, can it
be undone? I don't know. I think I think the
likelihood of us getting the Panama Canal back is significantly
lower than the likelihood of US acquiring Greenland. It's not
(21:10):
nearly as low as the likelihood of Canada joining America.
As I said, I don't think that is at all possible.
I think that was purely a troll. I think Greenland
is quite possible, And I put Panama somewhere in the middle.
And Trump's argument is important on this, which is which
is that when when Jimmy Carter gave it away, Panama
entered into an agreement with the United States, a legal agreement.
(21:33):
And and I could tell you I and my team
right now are examining the contours of that agreement to
see exactly what Panama committed to. But Trump's argument is
that Panama has broken the terms of that agreement, that
they are not living up to, they are violating that agreement,
and in particular that they have have have essentially sold
(21:55):
significant parts of the Panama Canal to China, that Chinese
companies now control both ends of the Panama Canal and
they've seeded control to China. That's incredibly harmful. And Trump
is also arguing that Panama charges American ships egregious prices,
and and look, we need to dig in more to
(22:18):
the facts behind that, but that is a legal argument.
I'll tell you what I think Trump is really doing
is negotiating on price. And I think the outcome of
this is going to be that America gets much more
favorable prices. And it may also be a significant diminution
of China's involvement in the Panama Canal. Both of those
are very likely. But I want you to listen to
(22:39):
what Trump had to say about Panama and mar Lago
earlier day.
Speaker 9 (22:44):
The deal was that, you know, they have to treat
us fairly. They don't treat us fairly. They charge more
for our ships than they charge for ships of other countries.
They charge more for our navy than they charge for
navies of other countries. They laugh at us because they
think we're stupid. But we're not stupid anymore. So the
Panama Canal is under discussion with them right now. They
(23:06):
violated every aspect of the agreement, and it's they morally
violated it also, and they want our help because it's
leaking and not in good repair, and they want us
to give three billion dollars to help fix it. I said, well,
why don't you get the money from China, because China's
basically taking it over. China's at both ends of the
(23:29):
Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
China's running the Panama Canal. And he says, they laugh
at us because they think we're stupid. We're not stupid
anymore when you hear the basics. They're charging us more
in our navy more than others. Now they want us
to give them a bunch of money to fix the thing.
He's got points that aren't political.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
They're just no, those are serious, and I think we're
going to see a significant change. I believe in the
conduct of Panama concerning the Panama Canal. Will it result
in the canal coming back to America. I don't know,
uh that that that is a difficult hurdle to clear,
but I am very glad President Trump is leading in
on this issue. It's incredibly important and China's growing influence
(24:12):
over the Panama Canal is just stupid. It is unacceptable.
And and and and that's that's leadership that, frankly, can
you imagine in a billion years Joe Biden or Kamala
Harris making these points you can at all because they
don't defend America. They're they're celebrating. Uh and I'm sure
(24:32):
they cheered on when it happened. Jimmy Carter is giving
it away to begin with, and and and and it's
it's the opposite of America first. Where where where Biden
and Harris are? It's America last. And I'm very glad
we're going to have a president that again puts our
country first. As before.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number three.
The week you may have missed, we really saw the
demise of the corporate media. I call it the state
sponsored media. And for decades we have seen the media,
(25:11):
especially the big ABC, NBC, CBS's, the CNN's, MSNBC's be
able and so much of print to control the narrative
and the mindset of so many voters and sway elections
towards the left into Democrats. I hope that we have
just witnessed the true demise of the media and their
(25:34):
influence and their corruption, because so many times we've just
seen how biased they are, whether it was COVID and
that issue, whether it was the issue with Hunter Biden
in the laptop. We have now seen where there's a
lot of Americans that aren't getting their news from not
just not trust them, they're not even watching anymore, they're
(25:55):
not even reading these newspapers anymore, and they're turning to
podcasts just like this show and podcast center had a
massive impact on the twenty twenty four election at the local, state,
and national level, and that is good for everyone.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Well, and that's the final that's prediction number ten, that
there's no doubt that we are seeing across the media
landscape a disintermediation, that the mediators, those who had a
monopoly on communicating with the public, are losing that monopoly.
They're losing that control. And listen, the part of the
reason they're losing that monopoly is because they've been so dishonest,
(26:35):
they've been such partisan propagandists that they don't report on news,
they simply advocate for the left wing of the Democrat Party.
That they have utterly destroyed the trust they had with
the American people, and the corporate media has been exposed
as liars. We have seen the rise the democratization of media.
We've seen the rise of podcasts. I think this podcast
(26:56):
has had a significant impact on the public discourse. I
think other podcasts. We saw Donald Trump go on multiple
podcasts in the election and go right around the corporate media,
goes straight to the American people. We see the impact
of people like Joe Rogan, which is enormously impactful going
straight to the American people. And the prediction that we
made is that we were going to see more and
(27:17):
more democratization, both from podcasts and also from Twitter and
x and just speaking the truth right around the so
called gatekeepers. So I want you to listen to this prediction.
This prediction was in August of twenty twenty four. Give
a listen. Why do you and I do the podcast
often at eleven o'clock at night or midnight or even
(27:38):
one or two in the morning. Why do we do
it three days a week? We do it because if
your only source of news is the corporate media, if
you only watch CNN or MSNBC or ABCNBCCBS, you do
not know what is happening. They are lying to you.
And the reason this podcast we've got roughly a million
unique listeners is because people thind it valuable. We give
(28:01):
you facts that CNN will never air. We play the
full segment of what Elon and Trump said about here
Shima and Nagasaki instead of their dishonestly edited snippet that
was designed to mislead you and lie to you. And
this podcast goes right around the corporate media, and in fact,
(28:25):
just about every podcast we put out drives stories in
the corporate media. That is going to accelerate. People are
going to podcast, people are going to social media, people
are going to x. Elon's buying Twitter remains I think
the single most important step for free speech in decades,
(28:45):
and I think that's only going to accelerate. And you're
going to see a panic as the corporate media they
want a monopoly on what we know, what we hear,
what we understand, and they're losing their monopoly. So I
predict more and more frantic panic, but also more and
more power to the people, which is a very good thing. Center.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
I mean, it's this is a I really do believe
a major turning point, and I think there is proof
and the outcome of the election that we just saw.
And it's not that I want to have a conservative
media just have a monopoly. I just want honest journalism
and those that are telling the truth to have a
(29:27):
real platform with a real audience. And we're gaining that
now through podcasts and other venues.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
As we mentioned, Yeah, that's exactly right, and we're seeing that.
Look these ten predictions that we've gone through on this
podcast and Wednesday's podcast. If you got all your news
from CNN, you would have heard zero of these ten predictions.
If you got all your news from the New York Times,
you would have heard zero of these predictions. And so
(29:55):
it's why people tune into Verdict, because you learn things
and you know things that you cannot get through the
corporate media that this is one of the very few
avenues that is putting out the facts. And that prediction.
We saw the massive impact of podcasts and an X
on the twenty twenty four election, but also the prediction
(30:16):
that I made about about the panic from the media.
I want you to listen. This is in November twenty
twenty five, after the election to Axio CEO Jim Vanda
Hide just completely losing his mind over Elon Musk saying
to everyone on X you are the media. Give a
listen to to to Jim Vanda high losing it. Thing
(30:37):
we do is under fire.
Speaker 8 (30:40):
Elon Musk s it's on Twitter every day or X Today,
saying like we are the media, you are the media.
My message to Elon Musk is both, you're.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Not the media.
Speaker 8 (30:52):
You having you having a blue check mark, a Twitter
handle in three hundred words of cleverness doesn't make you
a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
You don't do that by having an opinion. You do
it by doing the hard work.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
Yeah, come on.
Speaker 6 (31:15):
So, first of all, I've got to say extraordinary content.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
It needed to be said.
Speaker 7 (31:24):
It continues to need to be said when all of.
Speaker 6 (31:27):
The garbage is flying around on social media, lying about reporters,
lying about the hard work they do, lying about the
hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down
about not only their alternative set of facts, but alternative
set of facts about what people like you do, or
(31:47):
are if social media people lying every day, every hour, every.
Speaker 7 (31:54):
Minute about the news. What you do matters, What the
news New York Times does matters, What the Wall Street
Journal does matters, What Jonathan Lemir does matters, What the
Financial Times does matters, What NBC News and MSNBC reporters
(32:15):
do matters.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
It matters, It matters. I love the self righteousness there right.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Well and yes, and then that kicked in at the
end morning Joe to to to Joe Scarborough and Mika
losing their minds, also echoing Jim Vanda high and just yes, yes, yes,
he's exactly right. And listen. The corporate media they hate democracy,
They hate the democratization of communication. They hate the rise
(32:45):
of podcasts. They hate that people can talk directly to
the voters. They hate the ability to get the truth
and and this is destroying their monopoly.
Speaker 8 (32:56):
Now.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Big part of the reason so many people turn to
podcasts is the corporate media lies. They lied deliberately, and
when they had a monopoly, their lies were pretty effective.
But people are turning elsewhere. Look mourning Joe, mourning Joe.
During the week that Trump that Joe Scarboro and Mika
(33:20):
went down to meet with Morning Joe. Do you know
how many viewers Morning Joe averaged every day? How many
they averaged six hundred ninety one thousand total viewers during
the week that Joe and Mika went to meet with Trump,
six hundred ninety one thousand. We have about a million. So, Joe,
it ought to concern you that you've got an entire
corporate bureaucracy. You've got millions of dollars that are broadcasting
(33:43):
your show into every television set in America, and yet
Verdict is getting substantially more listeners than you are. And
the reason is simple. The corporate media. They lie to you.
They are so partisan, they are so brazen, they are
willing to lie, and they are horrified that they're Our
ability to lie is checked by the ability of you
(34:04):
and me and others to speak the truth. That's the
power of podcast, and I think that's that's the power
of Verdict.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Finally, let's end with a prediction to watch center. Not
that long ago, you predicted that the US will sanction
the ICC for the egregious move to arrest Benjaminett and Yahoo,
and that that prediction I want to play for people.
(34:32):
Take a listen we're.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Going to predict we will take up the legislation to
sanction the ICC, and we will do it early next
year when we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president.
I don't even know that we'll need that legislation though,
because I expect the Trump administration to act unilatterally. I
think there's ample authority under the law for them to act.
Even if the Democrats filibuster legislation to sanction the ICC,
(34:57):
I think the president will have ample authority to act
come January twenty. Let me talk to you.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
That was a prediction that you're now saying we should
watch this very carefully.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah, I think that's gonna happen in twenty twenty five,
and we'll all see it. And you know what happens
in twenty twenty five, Verdict will come back and point
out exactly as we predicted, it came to pass.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each
day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.