Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Climate Activists Go Rogue, Biden Demands Masks & Big Win Over Terrorists Week In Review

Transcript

Climate Activists Go Rogue, Biden Demands Masks & Big Win Over Terrorists Week In Review · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:01
Speaker 1: Welcome to Verdict Weekend Review. Ben Ferguson with you and
0:04
Speaker 1: each Saturday, we are going to give you some of
0:07
Speaker 1: the best moments of the Verdict podcast with center Ted
0:10
Speaker 1: Cruz from the past week. This week, there are three
0:14
Speaker 1: points that we want to make sure that you hear
0:16
Speaker 1: about that if you missed it, that's where this Weekend
0:19
Speaker 1: Review will come in. Number one, we're gonna be talking
0:22
Speaker 1: about climate change and the new threat of one billion
0:25
Speaker 1: people dying if we don't fix the problem. That's what
0:28
Speaker 1: Democrats are now threatening you with. Also Joe Biden do
0:32
Speaker 1: as I say, not as I do, mandating that others
0:35
Speaker 1: wear masks, but he's already taken his off after he
0:38
Speaker 1: promised he was gonna wear it, and a huge victory
0:41
Speaker 1: because of Verdict listeners. That deals with the issue of
0:46
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. It is the Weekend Review and it
0:49
Speaker 1: starts right now. Climate change has become obviously an election
0:54
Speaker 1: year issue, at least for the Democrats. You can see
0:56
Speaker 1: it over the last couple of weeks. They're kind of
0:58
Speaker 1: testing things, they're pushing things here. But now we're finding
1:03
Speaker 1: out how academia deceives people about climate change. And this
1:09
Speaker 1: is something that I think is not just disingenuous, but
1:13
Speaker 1: it's really disgusting. They put out a new report that
1:16
Speaker 1: has actually come out and they say that there's there's
1:19
Speaker 1: a new prediction that one billion deaths will happen from
1:25
Speaker 1: climate change this century, so you better get on board.
1:29
Speaker 1: Researchers from Canada Australia have published this new study predicting
1:34
Speaker 1: one billion deaths from climate change over the next hundred years,
1:36
Speaker 1: citing a scientific quote consensus.
1:39
Speaker 2: The author's analyze.
1:40
Speaker 1: They say, one hundred and eighty studies on climate change
1:42
Speaker 1: immortality covering on a one thousand ton rules. So this
1:47
Speaker 1: is a new theory which means for every thousand tons
1:50
Speaker 1: of fossil fuels burn, a person dies. Now this article
1:54
Speaker 1: is published and it contends that a future person, a
1:57
Speaker 1: future person is killed every every time humanity burns to
2:01
Speaker 1: a thousand tons of fossil carbon. They say, based on
2:05
Speaker 1: that calculation, that burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon
2:07
Speaker 1: will cause two degrees celsius of global warming or ag W,
2:15
Speaker 1: which in turn they say will cause roughly a billion
2:17
Speaker 1: future premature death spread over a period of very roughly
2:22
Speaker 1: one century. I wish they use this type of logic
2:25
Speaker 1: when they were talking about unborn children that are killed.
2:28
Speaker 1: But of course they'll never do that. But this might
2:30
Speaker 1: be the most ridiculous, fear mongering article. And they say
2:33
Speaker 1: it's a scientific consensus.
2:36
Speaker 3: Now, well, look, there is an enormous problem with the
2:40
Speaker 3: politicization of science, and particularly what it concerns climate change,
2:46
Speaker 3: the dishonesty of science. I'm going to make a radical
2:48
Speaker 3: claim right now. I predict with absolute certainty that seven
2:54
Speaker 3: billion people alive today will die in the next one
2:58
Speaker 3: hundred years of clilimate change. Now, mind you, they are
3:02
Speaker 3: a little over seven billion people alive today, and it
3:06
Speaker 3: is a virtual certainty that all of us will die
3:09
Speaker 3: in the next one hundred years. And whether there was
3:12
Speaker 3: climate change or not, that assertion is unquestionably true.
3:15
Speaker 2: It just is.
3:18
Speaker 3: Utterly disingenuous to claim it's climate change that will cause it.
3:22
Speaker 3: Let me focus on There was an article that came
3:25
Speaker 3: out on September fifth from guy named Patrick Brown. Now,
3:29
Speaker 3: Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and he is
3:38
Speaker 3: the co director of the Climate and Energy Team at
3:40
Speaker 3: the Breakthrough Institute, and he wrote an article in the
3:44
Speaker 3: Free Press that I think is really consequential. I want
3:47
Speaker 3: to just read from you the beginning of the article quote,
3:52
Speaker 3: if you've been reading any news about wildfires this summer,
3:54
Speaker 3: from Canada to Europe to Maui, you will surely get
3:58
Speaker 3: the impression that there are mostly the result of climate change.
4:02
Speaker 3: Here's the ap quote climate change keeps making wild fires
4:06
Speaker 3: and smoke worse. Scientists call it the new abnormal. From
4:10
Speaker 3: PBS News Hour quote wildfires driven by climate change are
4:15
Speaker 3: on the rise. Spain must do more to prepare, experts say,
4:20
Speaker 3: And from The New York Times, how climate changed turn
4:24
Speaker 3: lush Hawaii into a tinder box? And from Bloomberg quote,
4:30
Speaker 3: Maui fires show climate change's ugly reach. Now here's doctor
4:35
Speaker 3: Brown continuing from this quote. I am a climate scientist,
4:41
Speaker 3: and while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires
4:45
Speaker 3: over many parts of the world, it isn't close to
4:48
Speaker 3: the only factor that deserves our sole focus. So why
4:52
Speaker 3: does the press focus so intently on climate change? Is
4:54
Speaker 3: the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just
4:58
Speaker 3: did in an an academic paper about wildfires in Nature,
5:04
Speaker 3: one of the world's most prestigious journals. It fits a
5:09
Speaker 3: simple storyline that rewards the person telling it. The paper
5:14
Speaker 3: I just published, climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth
5:21
Speaker 3: risk in California focuses exclusively on how climate change has
5:25
Speaker 3: affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to
5:31
Speaker 3: quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research
5:35
Speaker 3: because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like
5:38
Speaker 3: Nature and its rival Science want to tell. This matters
5:43
Speaker 3: because it is critically important for scientists to be published
5:46
Speaker 3: in high profile journals. In many ways, they are the
5:49
Speaker 3: gatekeepers for career success in academia, and the editors of
5:54
Speaker 3: these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what
5:58
Speaker 3: they publish and what they reject, that they want climate
6:02
Speaker 3: papers that support certain pre approved narratives, even when those
6:07
Speaker 3: narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.
6:12
Speaker 3: To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about
6:17
Speaker 3: understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving
6:22
Speaker 3: as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about
6:27
Speaker 3: the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be,
6:32
Speaker 3: it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms
6:38
Speaker 3: the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult
6:44
Speaker 3: to achieve. This is a stunning indictment of the machinery
6:54
Speaker 3: and apparatus around quote unquote science today, the journals publish
7:01
Speaker 3: quote unquote research that echoes the pre approved political orthodoxy
7:07
Speaker 3: they want published, and if you don't echo that, they
7:10
Speaker 3: don't publish you. And it is one of the many
7:15
Speaker 3: really corrupt aspects of how science and climate change reporting
7:20
Speaker 3: and academic work is really doing a disservice to the
7:25
Speaker 3: American people.
7:27
Speaker 1: When you look at not only the fact that this
7:29
Speaker 1: is how you get the money. And I do think
7:30
Speaker 1: it's an issue of follow the money as you just
7:32
Speaker 1: describe it. Certainly it's an indoctrination on college campuses and
7:35
Speaker 1: among researchers, and the cash flow is if you believe
7:39
Speaker 1: in this, we will fund you. But when you make
7:42
Speaker 1: these outlateist claims and then you treat them as fact,
7:45
Speaker 1: there's nothing you can do to debate this with them.
7:48
Speaker 1: When you look at what they said here, they said
7:50
Speaker 1: this is a scientific consensus, and the authors say they
7:54
Speaker 1: analyze one hundred and eighty studies, all of them, I'm
7:57
Speaker 1: sure were studies that were funded by radical left and
8:00
Speaker 1: global warming activists, right, those that raise money, etc. But
8:04
Speaker 1: when they come out and say that, you know, we're
8:06
Speaker 1: gonna lose a billion people. You make it sound that bad.
8:12
Speaker 1: Is there any way to overcome that with anything else
8:15
Speaker 1: but this propaganda? And I think that's why they make
8:17
Speaker 1: these outlangeous claims.
8:19
Speaker 3: Well, it's why we need people in colleges and universities
8:24
Speaker 3: and think tanks, in the academic world and in the
8:27
Speaker 3: scientific world to reject politicized science. Let me read a
8:32
Speaker 3: little more from doctor Brown. Doctor Brown says quote. So
8:36
Speaker 3: in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others,
8:40
Speaker 3: I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on
8:43
Speaker 3: extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake that influence is very real.
8:49
Speaker 3: But there are also other factors that can be just
8:52
Speaker 3: as or more important, such as poor forest management and
8:57
Speaker 3: the increasing number of people who start wildfires, either accidentally
9:03
Speaker 3: or purposely. A startling fact, over eighty percent of wildfires
9:09
Speaker 3: in the US are ignited by humans. I want to
9:12
Speaker 3: repeat that sentence because the corporate media will never say it.
9:16
Speaker 3: A startling fact, over eighty percent of wildfires in the
9:23
Speaker 3: US are ignited by humans. Now here's what doctor Brown
9:26
Speaker 3: continues to say. In my paper, we didn't bother to
9:29
Speaker 3: study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors, did
9:34
Speaker 3: I know that including them would make for a more
9:36
Speaker 3: realistic and useful analysis. I did, but I also knew
9:40
Speaker 3: that it would detract from the clean narratives centered on
9:43
Speaker 3: the negative impact of climate change, and thus decrease the
9:46
Speaker 3: odds that the paper would pass Muster with Natures editors
9:50
Speaker 3: and reviewers. This type of framing with the influence of
9:54
Speaker 3: climate change unrealistically considered n isolation is the norm for
10:00
Speaker 3: high profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential
10:05
Speaker 3: Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change
10:10
Speaker 3: impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and
10:14
Speaker 3: damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mentioned that climate
10:18
Speaker 3: change is not the dominant driver for either one of
10:22
Speaker 3: these impacts. Heat related deaths have been declining and crop
10:28
Speaker 3: yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To
10:36
Speaker 3: acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in
10:39
Speaker 3: some areas despite climate change, which the thinking goes, would
10:44
Speaker 3: undermine the motivation for emissions reductions. This is a narrative
10:49
Speaker 3: of so called scientific inquiry scientific journals academic journals that
10:57
Speaker 3: have abandoned the mission of science. Science is about examining
11:02
Speaker 3: evidence following the scientific method beginning with a hypothesis, looking
11:08
Speaker 3: to evidence to disprove that hypothesis, and determining what's happening today.
11:14
Speaker 3: An enormous amount of science is simply politics covered in
11:19
Speaker 3: scientific garb, and in no places that more profound than
11:24
Speaker 3: in the world of climate change, where there are billions
11:27
Speaker 3: of dollars connected to so called scientists telling the preferred
11:31
Speaker 3: political narrative. Facts be damned.
11:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is no longer about facts, certainly an academya
11:38
Speaker 1: where it's supposed to be about that. Now it's about
11:40
Speaker 1: propaganda and indoctrinating people to this while they all find
11:44
Speaker 1: their private jets to climate change events, which I still
11:47
Speaker 1: laugh at the hypocrisy of that. Now, if you want
11:49
Speaker 1: to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go
11:52
Speaker 1: back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week.
11:55
Speaker 1: Now onto story number two, Senator, I also want to
11:59
Speaker 1: deal with COVID. We were talking about the lies and
12:02
Speaker 1: they seem to be coming back. Now the White House
12:05
Speaker 1: now letting everybody know that Joe Biden is going to
12:08
Speaker 1: start wearing a mask indoors this after Joe Biden has
12:12
Speaker 1: come down with COVID. Even though Joe Biden has tested
12:15
Speaker 1: negative for COVID yesterday and the day before the day
12:19
Speaker 1: before that.
12:20
Speaker 4: President Biden tested negative last night for COVID nineteen and
12:23
Speaker 4: tested negative again today. He's not experiencing any symptoms as
12:28
Speaker 4: far as the steps he's taking. Since the President was
12:31
Speaker 4: with the First Lady yesterday. He will be masking while
12:34
Speaker 4: indoors and around people in alignment with CDC guidance, and
12:39
Speaker 4: as has been the practice in the past, the President
12:42
Speaker 4: will remove his mask when sufficiently distanced from others indoors
12:47
Speaker 4: and while outside as well.
12:48
Speaker 1: Now the funny part is Senator. This is said from
12:51
Speaker 1: the punium at the White House. Moments later, the President
12:54
Speaker 1: is on stage and ceremony. He's not the appropriate distance
12:58
Speaker 1: of the White House, says is appropriate from other people,
13:01
Speaker 1: and then he takes his mask off that they just
13:03
Speaker 1: said to everybody's gonna be wearing if he's in closed
13:05
Speaker 1: quarters with a lot of different people. And you add
13:08
Speaker 1: that in with a DC area elementary school Montgomery County,
13:13
Speaker 1: Maryland is now reinstating a mass mandate. And the mass
13:17
Speaker 1: mandate isn't just for those little masks, No, No, n
13:19
Speaker 1: ninety five masks for all their third graders because a
13:23
Speaker 1: few kids tested positive for COVID. They send out a
13:27
Speaker 1: letter telling parents that these masks, these IN ninety five masks.
13:32
Speaker 2: Are going to be mandated in class.
13:34
Speaker 1: These masks, they they have been distributed, and students and
13:37
Speaker 1: staff and identified classes and or activities will be required
13:42
Speaker 1: to mask while in school for at least the next
13:44
Speaker 1: ten days, except of course, while eating and drinking, and
13:48
Speaker 1: the mask will become optional, they claim. After the quote
13:52
Speaker 1: outbreak has dissipated, here it is mass mandates coming back.
13:58
Speaker 3: Look, this is utterly absurd. Mass mandates are wrong. And
14:03
Speaker 3: for the Left, this has become a it's a combination
14:06
Speaker 3: of a number of things. Number one, it's an article
14:08
Speaker 3: of faith. Number two, it's a virtue signal. It shows
14:11
Speaker 3: just how self righteous they think they are. You know,
14:14
Speaker 3: as I was walking down the halls of the Capitol today,
14:17
Speaker 3: one very prominent Democrat senator was walking along with his
14:21
Speaker 3: N ninety five mask, and behind him was his staffer
14:23
Speaker 3: wearing his N ninety five mask. And it shows virtue.
14:27
Speaker 3: But number three, it's about control. And this is all
14:32
Speaker 3: about controlling people. Whether it's mask mandates, whether it's vaccine mandates,
14:36
Speaker 3: whether it's having the four hundred and thirty seventh booster.
14:39
Speaker 3: Enough is enough is enough. This is crap and no
14:43
Speaker 3: look I recognize. And by the way, a year from
14:46
Speaker 3: now we are going to see the most deadly COVID
14:48
Speaker 3: variant ever seen, the election variant. And before the election,
14:52
Speaker 3: it's they're going to need to shut everything down because
14:54
Speaker 3: they want to have mail in balloting for everyone because
14:58
Speaker 3: they think it helps elect demots. Enough is enough is enough.
15:02
Speaker 3: If you want to wear a damn mask, fine, but
15:04
Speaker 3: don't be a hypocrite and don't try to force other
15:07
Speaker 3: people to. And all right, listen. So many of the
15:12
Speaker 3: people who listen to this podcast are conservatives, but some
15:14
Speaker 3: are not. Some are open minded. Someone to hear both sides.
15:17
Speaker 3: So maybe you think, all right, I'm not going to
15:20
Speaker 3: trust crews. I'm not going to trust Ferguson on this.
15:23
Speaker 2: All right.
15:23
Speaker 3: If you don't trust me, listen to CNN Left Wing
15:28
Speaker 3: CNN confronting doctor Fauci this past weekend about his false
15:33
Speaker 3: claims about masks. Give a listen.
15:36
Speaker 5: There is a perception out there by many how many
15:39
Speaker 5: I don't know, that they don't work, and that the
15:42
Speaker 5: data concludes that they didn't work in the first go round.
15:45
Speaker 2: Respond to that on masks. Yeah, well that's not so.
15:50
Speaker 6: I mean, when you're talking about at the population level,
15:53
Speaker 6: that the data are less strong than knowing that if
15:56
Speaker 6: you look on a situation as an individual themselves or
16:01
Speaker 6: protecting them from spreading it, there's no doubt that masks work.
16:05
Speaker 6: Different studies give different percentages of advantage of wearing it,
16:10
Speaker 6: but there's no doubt that the weight of the studies,
16:12
Speaker 6: and there have been many studies indicate the benefit of
16:16
Speaker 6: wearing masks.
16:18
Speaker 5: I'm going to refer to one of them. You've heard
16:20
Speaker 5: about it before. I heard about it from a number
16:22
Speaker 5: of radio callers. Brett Stevens in The Times talked about
16:26
Speaker 5: Cochrane put that on the screen. The most rigorous and
16:28
Speaker 5: comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of
16:32
Speaker 5: masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness, including COVID nineteen,
16:37
Speaker 5: was published last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the
16:40
Speaker 5: Oxford epidemiologist who is the lead author, were unambiguous. There
16:44
Speaker 5: is just no evidence that they masks make any difference,
16:48
Speaker 5: he told the journalist Mayen de Maasi.
16:51
Speaker 2: Full stop. But wait, hold on, what about the N ninety.
16:54
Speaker 5: Five masks As opposed to the lower quality surgical or
16:57
Speaker 5: cloth masks.
16:58
Speaker 2: Makes no difference, none of it.
17:00
Speaker 5: He said, Well, what about the studies that initially persuaded
17:03
Speaker 5: policymakers to impose mass mandates? They were convinced by non
17:07
Speaker 5: randomized studies, flawed observational studies. How do we get beyond
17:11
Speaker 5: that finding of that particular review.
17:15
Speaker 6: Yeah, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at
17:18
Speaker 6: an individual level, for individual, when you're talking about the
17:21
Speaker 6: effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole,
17:27
Speaker 6: the data are less strong. But when you talk about
17:29
Speaker 6: as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting
17:34
Speaker 6: themselves from spreading it to others, there's no doubt that
17:37
Speaker 6: there are many studies that show that there is an advantage.
17:40
Speaker 6: When you took at the broad population level, like the
17:43
Speaker 6: Cockman study, the data are less firm with regard to
17:47
Speaker 6: the effect on the overall pandemic, But we're.
17:50
Speaker 2: Not talking about that.
17:51
Speaker 6: We're talking about an individual's effect on their own safety.
17:56
Speaker 6: That's a bit different than the broad population level.
17:59
Speaker 1: I mean, you hear there and even he's being questioned
18:02
Speaker 1: fauci by a guy who's not conservative at CNN and
18:06
Speaker 1: it's for kind and she's like, well, hold on, I'll
18:08
Speaker 1: read for you what they say. And yet Fauci is
18:10
Speaker 1: still siteing their center saying no, no, these things work.
18:12
Speaker 2: You're somehow still wrong.
18:14
Speaker 3: Well, look two things. Number one, Fauci himself knows what
18:19
Speaker 3: he's saying is wrong. And if you go back to
18:22
Speaker 3: the beginning of COVID February fifth, twenty twenty, Sylvia Burwell,
18:27
Speaker 3: who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services for
18:29
Speaker 3: three years under Barack Obama, emailed Fauci and asks asks
18:34
Speaker 3: if she should wear a mask. And by the way,
18:35
Speaker 3: his whole defense was well individually, it makes sense, just
18:38
Speaker 3: not for society. Here's what Fauci wrote on February fifth
18:42
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty. Quote. Masks are not are really for
18:47
Speaker 3: infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people
18:49
Speaker 3: who are not infected, rather than protecting uninfected people from
18:53
Speaker 3: acquiring infection. Fauci continues, the typical mask you buying the
18:57
Speaker 3: drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus,
19:00
Speaker 3: which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however,
19:04
Speaker 3: provide some slight benefit to keep out gross droplets. If
19:08
Speaker 3: someone costs or sneezes on you, and he added, quote,
19:13
Speaker 3: I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly
19:16
Speaker 3: since you are going to a very low risk location.
19:20
Speaker 3: That's what he said in twenty twenty. Then he decided
19:25
Speaker 3: that it was politically beneficial to mandate that everyone had
19:29
Speaker 3: to wear a mask. And yet now look the second
19:31
Speaker 3: point I'd make, the fact that CNN is turning on
19:35
Speaker 3: this in the height of the pandemic. The words that
19:38
Speaker 3: you just played from CNN, they would not utter. There
19:40
Speaker 3: was no brooking descent from whatever Saint Fauci said. Whatever
19:47
Speaker 3: the mandate was, mask today, not mask tomorrow, mass the
19:50
Speaker 3: next day, you couldn't disagree. The fact that even CNN
19:54
Speaker 3: is turning, I think is significant. I think if the
19:56
Speaker 3: Biden administration tries another round of shutdown and mask mandates,
20:01
Speaker 3: I think a lot of the country is going to
20:03
Speaker 3: say no, and hell no. I'll tell you the state
20:05
Speaker 3: of Texas has zero interest in shutting down.
20:08
Speaker 5: And I.
20:12
Speaker 3: Think you're going to see resistance not just in Texas
20:15
Speaker 3: but all over the country.
20:16
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think you're right.
20:17
Speaker 1: And the other thing that worries many people is this
20:19
Speaker 1: the president and this idea that we could go back
20:22
Speaker 1: into some sort of government shutdown There was that awkward
20:25
Speaker 1: interview that he did with Kamala Harris, far away from
20:28
Speaker 1: the social distancing back in the early days of COVID
20:31
Speaker 1: and his administration, sitting next to you know, far away
20:34
Speaker 1: from David Muiror's interviewing them in a weird triangle, and
20:37
Speaker 1: he said he would have no problem if the scientist
20:39
Speaker 1: told him to shut down our entire economy.
20:42
Speaker 7: I would be prepared to do what ever it takes
20:43
Speaker 7: to save lives, because we cannot get the country moving
20:48
Speaker 7: until we control the virus. That is the fundamental flaw
20:52
Speaker 7: of this administration thinking to begin with. In order to
20:55
Speaker 7: keep the country running and moving and the economy growing
20:59
Speaker 7: and people employed, you have to fix the virus.
21:03
Speaker 2: You have to deal with the virus.
21:04
Speaker 3: So if the scientists say shut it down.
21:06
Speaker 2: I would shut it down.
21:07
Speaker 7: I would listen to the scientist.
21:11
Speaker 1: I mean, that's apparently still on the table. And if
21:13
Speaker 1: they bring the mass back where I mean, how far
21:16
Speaker 1: away are we from having another fall where they start
21:18
Speaker 1: shutting things down?
21:19
Speaker 2: And what should the American people do?
21:21
Speaker 3: Look, the Democrats want to shut it down. They want
21:26
Speaker 3: to impose mandates. And I got to say, one of
21:28
Speaker 3: the biggest lies of that exchange is I would listen
21:31
Speaker 3: to the scientists. The only scientists that he listens to
21:34
Speaker 3: are the ones who say what he wants to hear.
21:36
Speaker 3: You know, the very last podcast we did, we did
21:38
Speaker 3: a two part episode with an interview with doctor Phil
21:41
Speaker 3: and one of the interesting things look. Doctor Phil has
21:44
Speaker 3: been the number one ranked daytime TV host for a decade,
21:48
Speaker 3: and he talked about how the data are that the
21:52
Speaker 3: school shutdowns from COVID cost many, many more lives than
21:58
Speaker 3: the virus would have cost. Another ords. Listen to the scientists.
22:02
Speaker 3: The Democrats aren't listening to the scientists because if they did,
22:04
Speaker 3: they'd look at the harm from the shutdowns. They look
22:06
Speaker 3: at the harm for businesses shut down. They'd look at
22:08
Speaker 3: the harm from churches shutdown. They'd look at the harm
22:11
Speaker 3: from school shut down, the kids who face learning loss
22:14
Speaker 3: for the rest of their life. They look at the
22:15
Speaker 3: mental health numbers that have gone up. They'd look at
22:18
Speaker 3: the kids who didn't go to school and didn't have
22:21
Speaker 3: physical wellness checks, didn't have mental health checks, didn't have
22:25
Speaker 3: daily food because for low income kids, for many of them,
22:28
Speaker 3: their principal source of food is at school. They didn't
22:31
Speaker 3: have the counselors who could observe whether kids are subject
22:34
Speaker 3: to physical abuse or sexual abuse, because when they shut
22:37
Speaker 3: down schools, they sent them at home and the data.
22:41
Speaker 3: What doctor Phil told us that if you didn't listen
22:43
Speaker 3: to those two podcasts, you got to go back and
22:44
Speaker 3: listen to them. But what doctor Phil said on this
22:46
Speaker 3: podcast was that the data show that many, many more
22:50
Speaker 3: lives were lost because of the shutdowns. But the Democrats
22:54
Speaker 3: don't want to listen to the scientists. They have a
22:56
Speaker 3: political agenda, so they'll cherry pick whatever scientists repeat the
23:01
Speaker 3: politically favored outcome that support the result they want.
23:05
Speaker 1: Anyway, Centaur, last question for you, what do you think
23:08
Speaker 1: states should be doing? Because Texas has banned the mass
23:11
Speaker 1: mandate since COVID restrictions are being imposed in other states.
23:15
Speaker 1: There was a Newsweek headline, this is a ban on
23:16
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen restrictions and imposed a mandate to wear face
23:20
Speaker 1: mask in public spaces when to affect in Texas after
23:23
Speaker 1: a number of institutions across the US reinstaid the policy
23:27
Speaker 1: do to a rise in new infections fueled by the
23:29
Speaker 1: emergence of two.
23:30
Speaker 2: New variants of the virus. Now that's the GISTs of this.
23:34
Speaker 1: But Texas is saying, hey, we're going to stand up
23:37
Speaker 1: to this type of insanity. Do other people need to
23:40
Speaker 1: be calling their legislators and asking for the same thing.
23:43
Speaker 3: Look, absolutely yes, Listen. States need to embrace common sense.
23:47
Speaker 3: States need to defend liberty. States need to defend individual choice.
23:52
Speaker 3: If someone wants to wear a mask, knock yourself out.
23:54
Speaker 3: You can still You know, I flew from Texas to
23:58
Speaker 3: DC today there were still a hand full of people
24:00
Speaker 3: in the airport that choose to wear a mask. Okay,
24:02
Speaker 3: if you want to wear a mask, that's fine, you
24:03
Speaker 3: got an individual choice. You can wear a ski mask
24:07
Speaker 3: if you want. That's your choice. But government shouldn't be
24:10
Speaker 3: forcing people to wear a mask. Airlines shouldn't be forcing
24:14
Speaker 3: people to make wear a mask, airport shouldn't be forcing
24:16
Speaker 3: people to wear a mask. Restaurants shouldn't be forcing people
24:20
Speaker 3: to wear a mask. Nobody should be forcing anyone to
24:22
Speaker 3: wear a mask. And even more so, governors and states
24:26
Speaker 3: need to say not just no, but hell no to
24:29
Speaker 3: the shutdowns. We will look back in the future. Years
24:34
Speaker 3: in the future, we will look back and say, what
24:37
Speaker 3: in the hell did America do? Shutting much of the
24:40
Speaker 3: country down for a year or more. Many parts of
24:43
Speaker 3: the country, almost all Democrat parts of the country, shut
24:47
Speaker 3: businesses down, shut churches down, shut schools down, many schools.
24:52
Speaker 3: Tens of millions of kids were out of school for
24:55
Speaker 3: over a year, and the consequence was cataclysmic. It is,
25:00
Speaker 3: without exaggeration, the most catastrophic public policy decision of our lifetimes.
25:06
Speaker 3: And so states need to say we're not going down
25:10
Speaker 3: that road again. No, we're not gonna do it. Look,
25:13
Speaker 3: you know the school shutdowns were bad. When Randy Weinngarten,
25:15
Speaker 3: the head of one of the big teachers unions, is
25:17
Speaker 3: now suddenly claiming I wasn't for school shutdowns, despite the
25:21
Speaker 3: fact that she fought relentlessly for school shutdowns and caused
25:24
Speaker 3: Democratic politicians to jump on a string when she demanded it.
25:29
Speaker 3: Now even she's running away from it. States need to
25:33
Speaker 3: stand up and say we're not shutting anything down. Look,
25:35
Speaker 3: if there's another public health crisis, and at some point
25:38
Speaker 3: there will be, protect people who are vulnerable, work to
25:42
Speaker 3: provide treatment options, give people advice on how to keep safe,
25:46
Speaker 3: but respect their individual liberty, and don't engage in arbitrary
25:50
Speaker 3: shutdowns and mandates. The mandates are wrong say no to
25:55
Speaker 3: the mandates as before.
25:57
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
25:59
Speaker 1: on this time, you can go back and download the
26:01
Speaker 1: podcasts from early this week to hear the entire thing.
26:05
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
26:07
Speaker 1: three of the week. You may have missed. The listeners
26:10
Speaker 1: did an amazing job of sharing. It was one of
26:13
Speaker 1: the biggest podcasts I think we've ever done together, and
26:17
Speaker 1: it dealt with the issue of nine to eleven. You
26:20
Speaker 1: issued a statement afterwards and that also went viral, and
26:25
Speaker 1: you have a new statement and update I want you
26:27
Speaker 1: to tell you about tonight. This goes back to that
26:29
Speaker 1: letter that the doj or I should say, the d
26:32
Speaker 1: sent out to families victims of nine to eleven, and
26:37
Speaker 1: they were letting them know and a heads up that
26:40
Speaker 1: we were probably going to do a plea deal with
26:42
Speaker 1: Khalead shak Muhammad, and I think it was three or
26:44
Speaker 1: four other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Khalead shake Mohammad. We
26:47
Speaker 1: went through the history of who he is the mastermind
26:49
Speaker 1: of nine to eleven, but also killed many other people
26:51
Speaker 1: and many other attacks around the world, innocent children, women,
26:55
Speaker 1: et cetera. And they were going to do a deal
26:57
Speaker 1: to spare him the death penalty so we could get
27:00
Speaker 1: him out of Gitmo and then close down Getmo. That's
27:02
Speaker 1: the ultimate goal for the DoD and the Biden administration.
27:06
Speaker 1: We now have an update because of the outrage of
27:10
Speaker 1: so many listeners of this show and others and that
27:12
Speaker 1: story going viral.
27:13
Speaker 2: It looks like they're not going to get away with it.
27:16
Speaker 3: That's exactly right, and I would to take a minute
27:19
Speaker 3: to thank the listeners a verdict because I actually think
27:23
Speaker 3: you guys made a real difference in something that matters
27:27
Speaker 3: enormously in this country, which is as we discussed on
27:31
Speaker 3: this podcast, the Biden administration sent out letters to the
27:36
Speaker 3: families of the victims who were murdered on September eleventh
27:40
Speaker 3: and said, hey, we're contemplating a plea deal where Khaled
27:44
Speaker 3: Shigmuhammad and other conspirators behind the mass murder on September
27:49
Speaker 3: eleventh would be spared the death penalty. They'd give it
27:53
Speaker 3: life in prison. They would be exempted from capital punishment.
27:56
Speaker 3: Despite the fact that they committed an active war, despite
27:59
Speaker 3: the fact that they killed nearly three thousand people, We'd
28:03
Speaker 3: spare them. And you know, when they sent this letter.
28:07
Speaker 3: It was initially getting almost no press coverage. No one
28:11
Speaker 3: was covering it, no one was discussing it. ABC didn't
28:14
Speaker 3: discuss it at the six o'clock news, NBC didn't discuss
28:17
Speaker 3: at CBS didn't discuss at CNN didn't discuss at MSNBC
28:20
Speaker 3: didn't discuss it. The entire corporate media ignored it. You
28:25
Speaker 3: and I were so outraged by it that we sat
28:29
Speaker 3: down to do our pod and we actually had three topics.
28:31
Speaker 3: This was topic number one. We had two other topics,
28:34
Speaker 3: and we ended up deciding, you know what, the entire
28:36
Speaker 3: podcast is going to focus on this issue on September eleventh,
28:40
Speaker 3: on the horrific terrorist attack that came after America, on
28:44
Speaker 3: what it meant, and on the outrage listen the Biden
28:48
Speaker 3: administration and we talked about in that podcast. And by
28:51
Speaker 3: the way, you got to go back and listen to
28:52
Speaker 3: that podcast. You can go back and find we did
28:54
Speaker 3: a full podcast on this September eleventh effort of the
28:57
Speaker 3: Biden administration to spare the mastermind of September eleventh, but
29:03
Speaker 3: I believe this is part and parcel of the Biden
29:05
Speaker 3: administration's effort to essentially abolish the federal death penalty, and
29:10
Speaker 3: before Joe Biden leaves the White House, I think he
29:13
Speaker 3: is going to pardon or commute the sentences of every
29:17
Speaker 3: single federal death penalty prisoner, including the racist lunatic who
29:23
Speaker 3: murdered nine African Americans at the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston,
29:29
Speaker 3: South Carolina, including multiple vicious terrorists and murderers. But as
29:39
Speaker 3: a result of this podcast, we focused the entire thirty
29:42
Speaker 3: minutes of the pod on the facts behind it, and
29:45
Speaker 3: we asked you. We said, if you're outraged, pick up
29:48
Speaker 3: the phone, call your house member, call your senator, call
29:51
Speaker 3: the White House, and say do not spare the September
29:55
Speaker 3: eleventh mastermind. Well, we were about the only people shining
30:00
Speaker 3: a light on this, and it ended up people got
30:02
Speaker 3: worked up, which is good. They should have been worked up.
30:04
Speaker 3: We were worked up. It was wrong, it was outrageous,
30:07
Speaker 3: it was astonishing what they're doing. Well, I got to say.
30:10
Speaker 3: On Wednesday, the administration came out and announce that it
30:14
Speaker 3: was not going to accept the Plea deal. And here's
30:18
Speaker 3: what prosecutors said in the filing quote. The Administration declined
30:22
Speaker 3: to declines to accept the terms of the proposed joint
30:25
Speaker 3: Policy principles offered by the accused of the Military Commission's case,
30:30
Speaker 3: United States versus Mohammed at all. And so I think
30:35
Speaker 3: that is a real victory verdict listeners ought to feel
30:38
Speaker 3: proud of.
30:39
Speaker 2: Now.
30:39
Speaker 3: To be clear, the Biden administration gave themselves some wiggle
30:43
Speaker 3: rooms so they may go back and take the deal,
30:46
Speaker 3: but they at least filed a court pleading saying they're
30:50
Speaker 3: rejecting the deal. That's a major victory. It was only
30:53
Speaker 3: the political pressure that came, and that political pressure was
30:56
Speaker 3: generated in very significant respect by the listeners of this podcast.
31:02
Speaker 3: But my view is the bastards that attacked America, that
31:06
Speaker 3: murdered nearly three thousand Americans, they ought to be prosecuted.
31:09
Speaker 3: They ought to be sentenced to death, and they ought
31:11
Speaker 3: to be executed because I think it's a matter of
31:14
Speaker 3: justice that people that committed horrific terrorist attacks on America
31:19
Speaker 3: they should face the ultimate punishment. But the only way
31:23
Speaker 3: we'll be sure that happens is if the American people
31:27
Speaker 3: hold this administration to account and if they're too embarrassed
31:30
Speaker 3: and ashamed to let these guys off.
31:35
Speaker 1: My next question for you is this, is this just
31:38
Speaker 1: a pause and delay strategy, Senator, And do we have
31:42
Speaker 1: to keep monitoring them or does this put this to bed,
31:45
Speaker 1: especially for the victims and the families that were affected
31:49
Speaker 1: by nine to eleven. They got these these you know,
31:52
Speaker 1: I would say horrific letters to the Department of Defense
31:56
Speaker 1: saying that they may spare these guys' lives after these
31:58
Speaker 1: men and did all that they did to kill their
32:02
Speaker 1: family members.
32:03
Speaker 3: Well, we don't know entirely. What we know is that
32:06
Speaker 3: the prisoners not only wanted to be spared the death penalty,
32:09
Speaker 3: but they wanted the Department of Defense to accept a
32:13
Speaker 3: guarantee that they would not serve their sentences in solitary
32:17
Speaker 3: confinement and that would allow them to eat and pray
32:21
Speaker 3: with other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They also wanted a
32:25
Speaker 3: civilian run program to treat brain disorders, to treat sleep disorders,
32:30
Speaker 3: and to treat gastro intestinal damage that they say the
32:34
Speaker 3: CIA caused during investigations. That's the demand the Biden administration
32:40
Speaker 3: turned down. There is a tiny bit of wiggle room
32:44
Speaker 3: that they could come back and say, Okay, we're not
32:47
Speaker 3: going to give you those concessions, but we are going
32:51
Speaker 3: to take the death penalty off the table. And one
32:54
Speaker 3: of the key reasons I think there are two things
32:57
Speaker 3: going on in the Biden administration. One, these left wing
33:02
Speaker 3: radicals or ideologically opposed the death penalty. They don't want
33:06
Speaker 3: anyone executed. Ever, they want to essentially repeal the federal
33:09
Speaker 3: death penalty. Now. They don't want to go through the
33:11
Speaker 3: constitutional process of supporting legislation and Congress trying to get
33:16
Speaker 3: the votes and repealing it as a matter of law.
33:18
Speaker 3: They just want to say, we the executive branch are
33:21
Speaker 3: going to refuse to enforce the death penalty and in fact,
33:25
Speaker 3: are going to commute or pardon anyone convicted of the
33:28
Speaker 3: most egregious offenses in the country. I think a second objective,
33:33
Speaker 3: and again we talked about this at length on the
33:35
Speaker 3: prior pod on this topic, is they want to close
33:39
Speaker 3: Guantanamo and listen. When it comes to foreign policy, the
33:42
Speaker 3: Biden administration is a press release administration. In other words,
33:47
Speaker 3: they don't follow coherent foreign policy objectives. They don't have
33:52
Speaker 3: a strategic vision for defending this nation. Instead, they want
33:57
Speaker 3: a simple press release that lets them at their moral virtue.
34:01
Speaker 3: So in Afghanistan, you know, you ask yourself, why was
34:06
Speaker 3: the surrender to the Taliban the withdrawal from Afghanistan so
34:10
Speaker 3: utterly incompetent such a disaster. A big part of the
34:13
Speaker 3: reason is the Biden White House viewed as hey, we
34:17
Speaker 3: want to be out of there by September eleventh, because
34:20
Speaker 3: then we can show how virtuous we are that we
34:23
Speaker 3: withdrew from the war by September eleventh. The problem is
34:27
Speaker 3: when the military said, Okay, if we leave that early,
34:30
Speaker 3: we need sufficient troops to maintain Bogram Air Force Base
34:33
Speaker 3: and also maintain Kabbal Airport, and the Biden White House said, nope, nope,
34:37
Speaker 3: we don't care. Pull them out abandoned Bogram Air Force Base.
34:40
Speaker 3: We don't need a secure airfield. We haven't evacuated anyone.
34:43
Speaker 3: We haven't evacuated Americans, we haven't evacuated the Afghans who
34:46
Speaker 3: assisted us. But we have a press release to issue,
34:50
Speaker 3: So ignore the national security imperatives. Let's issue our press release.
34:55
Speaker 3: I think in the case of GETMO, their objective is
34:57
Speaker 3: the same. They want to press release, say we are
35:00
Speaker 3: closing GITTMO. In order to do that, they've got to
35:02
Speaker 3: remove the most dangerous terrorists from GITTMO. In order to
35:06
Speaker 3: do that, they have to send them to prisons in
35:09
Speaker 3: the continental United States, and in order to do that,
35:12
Speaker 3: they either have to get a conviction or get a
35:13
Speaker 3: plea deal. And so I think part of the reason
35:15
Speaker 3: they want the plea deal is to shut Gitmo because
35:19
Speaker 3: they get a good press release from it. But I
35:20
Speaker 3: think the listeners of Verdicts and millions of Americans stood
35:25
Speaker 3: up and said no and hell no.
35:28
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with senter
35:32
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
35:34
Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
35:36
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
35:38
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
35:41
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again, Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
35:44
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.