Everyone. Welcome back to Underreported Stories. We're gonna cover the news that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News fail to report on or don't report on enough. And, today, I wanna start off the show by talking about a huge story in the media, certainly no underreported story, the allegations against Pete Hegseth. I wanna address his interview with Megyn Kelly.
And if you are one of those people that is just here for the underreported stories and not the hot takes, kinda, beginning section, feel free to use the chapters feature and skip forward to those stories. Now, no part of me, like, enjoys being controversial about this. I just feel like we've entered a very tribal phase of Pete Hegseth's nomination, where for merely titling this episode, positing that Pete Hegseth has done something wrong, I have committed some sort of sin against MAGA World.
But, typically, when that kind of tribalism starts coming into play, this is when I do my best analysis, and when I kind of become more of a useful person on the Internet. So, I got it right with Matt Gaetz. So, if you just hear me out, and if you disagree with me after you've heard my opinion, please feel free to roast me. I can handle it. I really don't care. But just hear me out, because I wanna go through these allegations.
I wanna go through some telltale signs that kinda stick out as red flags for me, and then address how I still believe that Pete Hegseth should get nominated for this position. But just how we can be a little bit more nuanced in the conversation about it. So, first of all, if you have any pro like, pre thought out ideas of Pete Hegseth, feel free to drop them. I'd love to see how you kinda change your opinion, if you change your opinion, after you hear my thoughts on this. So let's start out.
I have allegations written out in front of me. There are, I guess, 3 slash 4 big ones I want to address. Let's start with the allegations that Pete Hegseth cheated on his wife. Now, I pulled this up before, but let me pull it up again. There are accusation oh, you know what? I think I'm yeah. There they are. Okay. One second. Pulling these little bad boys up. So this I pulled from Wikipedia, because the media is making it out like pig Pete Hegseth having infidelity problems is like a new thing.
So little background on his personal life. In 2,004, he married his first wife who was his high school girlfriend. They divorced in 2009. He admitted to having 5 affairs. In 2010, he married his second wife. They had 3 sons. 7 years into this his marriage, he had a daughter with a Fox News executive producer who he divorced his second wife, and this woman became his third wife. He has a ton of kids, and he's been married to the woman that he had an affair with now.
This idea that the mainstream media has got, like, gotcha, gotcha, Pete, over these allegations, these are not new allegations. So I very much find those to be not credible, pretty silly accusations to just be lobbing around left and right as if this isn't something that we've already known. 2nd is the drinking problem allegations. Now what I found to be very hypocritical from the media is that the drinking problem allegations against Pete Hegseth is that he was, like, on set drinking.
Some of the videos that people will show are him having a glass of whiskey with veterans. Congratulations. Like, that's not that's not problematic in the slightest of my opinion. But there are insiders allegedly talking about what they would see Pete Hegseth act like behind the scenes, where he would, allegedly have copious amounts of alcohol behind the scenes. Now, this to me was the lowest of all the accusations. I think everyone's kind of like, it's icky that he cheated on his wife.
Is it disqualifying? I don't think so. Is it icky? For sure. When it came to the drinking problem, this I saw is, like, the lowest bar, mostly because this man is a veteran. And I think that is very, sadly synonymous with having severe PTSD is having some sort of addiction in some way shape or form. And a lot of veterans, ultimately turn to drinking. And it's incredibly sad. We should be doing more for our veterans so that this is not a problem.
But I just feel like if we had if conservatives had said this about a liberal nominee that there was a drinking problem going on with a veteran, every mainstream muse news outlet would have been like, this is just them being so the right being so insensitive about a problem that affects millions of veterans, etcetera, etcetera.
And so I I grant the grace in this, Where I initially saw a red flag that took me by surprise, as again, I am not somebody that is anti MAGA or anti Pete sack Pete Hegseth by any stretch of the imagination, is this one line he said in his interview with Megyn Kelly. Now, the accusations were lobbed against him from somebody who used to work inside Fox News that he would, quote, drink on set.
Now, it was very unclear from those allegations whether he was drinking in excessive amount, or the mainstream or someone admitted a Fox News insider admitted that he did drink on set, but it wasn't to a problematic level. And then the mainstream media twisted that insider's conversation and spun it off like that. But my red flag gets raised anytime I hear a media company, right, left, or center, or an individual use the line that it's a lazy, jealous, low level staffer who got fired.
That is the person who did it. That's why they did it. Every time you hear someone say that, I have just noticed from my experience in in conservative media, and just media in general, that that is a telltale sign that what has been said is based in some sort of truth. They're obfuscating telling you what happened. And let's say in this scenario again, these are allegations and I I don't find them to be discrediting allegations.
But in the allegations, let's say Pete Hegseth showed up really hungover, borderline still drunk to work the next day, And a staff member saw it and saw it repeatedly. And this was going on for like 2 or 3 months. And finally Pete got his life together after a really difficult time in his life, and this behavior stopped. He very easily could have admitted, oh, you know, this was like a a given time period of my life. I was going through a lot of things. This, this, this, and this happened.
I addressed it this, this, and this way. When there are so many allegations being lobbed at you, I don't know how much you want to admit, or whether it's strategic to admit it.
But at the end of the day, I just know from working in this space for so long, that the what they believe what media elites on the right believe is the best way to go about this is to just call the person who's probably saying something factual, because they're signed into an NDA and so they can't say it publicly, is they'll just blame the staff member who's too scared to come forward as lazy jealous, and unable to make it in this sphere.
I can't go too much into depth as to why I believe this, but I I just know it to be the experience I have had. And I've seen lots of people get fired who are not lazy, or jealous, or seeking vengeance. They're just telling the truth, but there's a lot of NDAs and a lot of disclosures that go about that. I'm not talking about myself, I really am talking about other people in this scenario.
So that really just struck me as a red flag, and so that that is what opened my eyes to, okay, let let's just double check all of the allegations. So go back, double check. Cool with the idea I don't mean cool with the idea that he cheated on his wife. I understand he cheated on his wives multiple times. I don't find that to be disqualifying from public office. I understand he might have had drinks. There might have been a temporary drinking problem on set. Again, these are allegations.
I don't know. Now I'm kind of like, okay. Maybe it's possibility. Does that change the way I see him? It sounds like an issue that was dealt with in the past. Okay? Then the third thing, again, another issue I see dealt with in the past is this email from his mother that came up. Now, if you read this email, it's an email that was somehow obtained from an inside source within the Hegseth family of an email from Pete Hegseth's mom to himself. The mom sent it in rage.
It was very much set in private, and it was about how Pete has a history of abusing women. Specifically, his I believe it was the second wife. Now, I take such an issue with the way the media has gone about this, because it was done in such an unsavory way. Right? And they had such an issue when it was an unsavory way about Hunter Biden, and the whole media apparatus, then silence that story. We saw nothing like that happened to what happened to Pete Hegseth. Right?
But but when I take away my bias, when I take away the hunter hypocrisy, it's still true that his mom felt that way about him. And she went on on Fox News and said he has changed. And good, good. That's totally fine. People can change. But it was still true. So, I I don't necessarily do I think it was a good way of getting the story? No. Is it still true? Yes. Right?
And I think what's tough here is, like, when you're getting nominated to these position, everything comes out about your personal life. It is a risk you take. And so part of me feels bad for him, and I I get where people are coming from with this this is an an assassination on his character. It might be an assassination on his current character, but it it was part of his character.
And again, I I take sympathy to this, because the things I did when I was 17 are awful, and I would never do them now that I'm 27 years old. I've learned a lot. I would never do that. But I think that's what I'm the point I'm trying to get at, and it leads me up to these allegations about sexual assault and whatnot that we need to get into.
That the reason why Pete Hegseth is controversial on Capitol Hill, or controversial in the media, or just it's it's difficult to wrap your head around, is because good people can do bad things. Like, no one is a linear line. There aren't just good people and they do all good things, or bad people and they do all bad things. I think Pete Hegseth is, generally speaking, a very good person, a very qualified person for this role who has done bad things.
And it is okay to be conservative to look at those bad things and go, fuck that was bad. That wasn't cool, man. And that's where I wanna get into this whole sexual alice assault allegations thing. Because from a legal perspective, I went through this. I listened to his conversation on Megyn Kelly. And what I love about Megyn is she's got such a lawyer brain, so you can really hear it from a legal perspective. This cannot be proven in a court of law. Right?
Take away your opinions, take away your perspectives, your biases. This cannot be proven in a court of law. Therefore, when it comes to Pete Hegseth being nominated, he cannot be disqualified for something that cannot be proven in the court of law. I'm a 100% on board with you, with anybody that agrees with that. Okay? However, just because something cannot be proven in court does not mean it did not happen.
And I really hate this idea of going after the woman who probably I believe she took an NDA, and she cannot speak about this, because you can make an argument for both sides. Okay? I listened to it, and it it irked me the way it was the conversation was had. Of course, he's just trying to keep his name clean. I get it. I get it. But he has got a history of drinking, of of poor drinking behavior, of cheating. He has a high profile job. Of course, he's gonna deny this.
Of course, he's gonna try and keep her quiet. Of course, this is important to her her career or to his career. Of course. Of course. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Doesn't mean he did do it. I'm just saying there's motivation there. Equally, this woman, consensually sleeping with Pete, is her stepping out on her husband who was allegedly down the hall. She has motivation to lie and play the victim. And I talked to victim's advocates, and I talked to one about this.
And I just the more I thought about it, the more I was, like, I can grasp my head around the idea that he did do it, and I can grasp my head around the idea that he didn't do it. I don't know what happened. It doesn't stand up in a court of law, so I don't think it has any conversation or any the point is moot when it comes to his nomination. However, I don't need to smear this woman who probably has been silenced and cannot speak about this to advocate for his nomination. Right?
I don't I don't need to do that in order to say it, if that makes sense. So my point in having this conversation was, we don't need to call this woman, like, a whore and a liar and all these awful things, because we advocate for Pete's nomination. Also, there was a question that was asked, you know, like, did you do this? He's never gonna say yes, you. He's like, what sort of question is asking him point blank did he do that? No. No one's ever gonna say, yeah, I didn't. I assaulted a woman.
Like, come on. That's never gonna happen. And so my whole point in saying all of this is is not to say you should disqualify him. I have no problem with him being in this position. I personally think we live in a world where if you have a morally corrupt family life, that should not preclude you from doing your job very well. Accusations of getting too drunk at a Fox News, what was it? A Fox News Christmas party? Come on. Oh, my gosh.
If that's it, I'm never being elected to office because I was, like, too drunk at an influencer or something a couple weeks ago. Like, that's just the world we live in. We, in an ideal world, yes, this would be disqualifying. But come on, this is reality. And logically logically speaking, there is nothing concrete against this man. The media are going to destroy anyone they can get. So, yes, if they can get Pete Hegseth, they're gonna try and get Pete Hegseth.
I do not think we should let them get Pete Hegseth, but I think we can do that while acknowledging that he's, a, not a perfect person, b, not worthy of every, like, us being, like, we have to be accepting of everything he did, and c, we don't need to slander this woman because there are motivations on both sides. So I hope you can see that. I just wanna be a little bit more nuanced about the conversation. Harper has joined the chat now. That is my puppy, if anybody is new to the show.
My final point about Pete before we move on, because we do have stories to get to and they're good. I have some good stories for you guys today. My final point is, I keep hearing this is basically Brett Kavanaugh 2.0. And this is my only take where I'm like, absolutely not. Do not say that. Because Brett Kavanaugh I'm so sorry. Again, like, I've made my point that I like Pete Hegseth. I don't need to prove my loyalty to this cause. But Brett Kavanaugh is a very sweet man.
And what became so outrageous and so hard to believe about the accusations lobbed against him was that his character was virtually unstained outside of this blip that somebody probably made up. Right? When it comes to accusations against a man who has stepped out on his wives multiple times, it is much easier to believe, and, again, I don't think it should be disqualifying. It's just a lot easier to believe. So I think it's very different from Kavanaugh.
The difference between what's happening now with Pete is you can you can believe it or you could not believe it. It is more believable. Kavanaugh was so outrageously stupid and so obviously a political stunt. This is also a political stunt, but not to the degree that we saw with Brett Kavanaugh. You're talking about a man who had a virtually unstained past, who was painted out to be some sort of serial assaulter. It's just abject insanity.
And again, I'm not saying that that disqualify or sorry, that that, makes Pete Hegseth guilty because he's not as clean or chaste as Brett Kavanaugh. I'm just saying I don't like the comparison. Kavanaugh was just literally a different level that I don't know if you could top. Truly. I would believe accusations about Mitt Romney before I would believe accusations about Brett Kavanaugh. That just never made sense to me. Anyway, that was good. Let me know if you guys disagree.
Again, my point was not to disqualify Pete Hegseth, merely to bring some nuance to the conversation, but we have stories to get to. So let's get into it. Here's our docket for today. The top OnlyFans model earner claims that she is a virgin as well as a Christian. Do we believe her? I don't know. Let's get into it.
The Biden administration also unknowingly admitted that transing minors is the modern day eating disorder, like I've been saying for so long, And, we're seeing some unlikely unlikely characters turn MAGA, including Cenk Uygur and Eric Adams. You don't know those names? I'll let you know. So, without further ado, let's get into the 5 underreported stories that you need to know. Today's show is brought to you by Based, my merch line.
If you didn't know this already, I'm an independent creator, and the best way to support this show is by purchasing my merch line that represents your views. Instead of just asking you guys for donations to fund my independent journalism, my business partner and I created a line of merch called Based Apparel. Based means you are the opposite of woke. It means you're based in logic, you're based in truth, you're based in facts. You get it.
Head over to based in logic dot com to check out our latest apparel. My favorite, my personal favorite right now is the conspiracy theorist hat. And remember, when you buy merch, you are directly supporting me and this show. And when you do your apparel, please be sure to tag me on Instagram, so I can repost you. Like I teed up in the docket, the biggest OnlyFans creator is reportedly a virgin and Christian. Her name is Sophie Raine. She is now the biggest OF star earning 43 $1,000,000 a year.
And she said recently in an interview that she is a virgin, and none of her content, which, you know, you have to be behind a paywall in order to see, but none of her content is what I would call fully engaging. You know what I mean. I don't need to explain that to you. So I wanna pull up part of the interview where she talks about relationships and see some of these pictures.
And I'm gonna kinda let you guys decide for yourselves whether you think this woman is actually a virgin slash Christian. So New York Post being, like, goofy saying she's chasing fame. This girl is allegedly a virgin. Now, again, I don't struggle to believe that she's a virgin. I'll get to that maybe later. But let's just take a look at some of these pictures of a woman who proclaims to be Christian. So you've this one, if you're in the listening audience, she's sticking her booty out.
This one, she's got her boobs out. This one, she's pulling down her panties and her or whatever, her swimsuit. This one she's got her arms against the door and sticking her butt out. And I guess she did an interview on what show was this? It was some YouTube show, and she said that she was she's having a difficult time meeting guys. Sorry. I'm trying to find this. She said, I'm a Christian. I know it seems odd, but I don't do anything else with anyone on my OnlyFans. It's just me.
One unnamed fan is so smitten with the virtuous vixen. He showed up $4,700,000 on her content, and she's got one of the most popular TikToks ever, sagging more than 96,000,000 views. But she said she's waiting for the right person to spend the rest of her life with. While she's had no trouble paying her bills, obviously, she made $43,000,000, her career has not been conducive to meeting the man of her dreams. I'm shocked. Not. Her job makes dating difficult.
New York Post says, she previously told Jam Press expressing her frustration with suitors who are quote, just trying to date me for my body not who I am. As a person, now I feel apathetic for that because that's I mean, obviously, men are just dating me for my I can't even say that without laughing. Absolutely not. You are putting yourself out there as a figure for whom men are lusting after your body. I can't imagine why that would be the case.
But she said she's, quote, still a virgin, and this was, you know, her clapping back at someone who called OnlyFans models, prostitutes. So there's that. Now, I don't struggle to believe that she believes in God, if that makes sense. And I'm gonna be, I don't know, controversial in saying, I actually applauded her for a remaining of if it's true, I applaud her for remaining a virgin. Not only at 20, but in the corn industry.
Because let's be honest, if you're Christian or you go to a church and you're in your twenties, you know that there are a lot more religious looking people on the outside than someone like Sophie Rain. They're not virgins. And we are in Christianity, like, that is a standard that God holds people to, to keep their virginity until marriage.
And so, while her lifestyle might not look correct to a lot of religious affiliated people, the way that she lives it out, at least in this one scenario of what God deems sin is not wrong. So we'll give her that. Now my problem here is obviously that outside of that one area, she's earning money from the devil while proclaiming love for God. And that really reminded me of that passage in Matthew 6 21 talking about how where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
And if your heart is fully in loving the Lord, I'm sorry. There's, like, no world and no way you could earn $43,000,000 by showing your body, by doing things that are lustful, and creating lust in men, and so sinful without feeling an insane amount of guilt. And maybe she does feel an insane amount of guilt, and she's not talking about it.
But I'm just saying, you can't proclaim yourself to be Christian, and then stick up for what you are doing, because it's not it's not virtuous by any stretch of the means. And, again, I'm not trying to be like that judgy Christian bitch or whatever, because I just said the word bitch and I'm Christian. But I don't think that my critique is out of pocket because this is not behavior that's glorifying Christ. Again, not saying is someone like, you should not do this.
But at the same time, like, I don't think it's out of pocket to condemn that. And also, let me say that the article about the New York Post, they read the whole thing through before we came on the show. I was reading it and I was like, oh my gosh. My heart goes out to this girl. She came from this whole lifestyle of poverty, and now she's $43,000,000 I couldn't even imagine. She lives this insane lifestyle for, given what she does, relatively minimal work. And I'm just like, wow.
That's insanely crazy. Of course, your life is flipped upside down. And then move with that. She's talking about how difficult it is to date because from the work that she's chosen to get out of one bad scenario, she's now put herself in a different bad scenario. Although it's not financial, it's a different type of stress where she's looking for dating life, looking for a man to marry, and it's like she's by doing what she's doing, she's corrupted her future dating life.
She's corrupted the possibility of her future family, and she's doing it all for lustful wants, and things that are again treasures of of earth and not of heaven. So I look at that, I'm like, oh my gosh. Of course, my heart breaks for this situation. I feel really bad for her. And I I'm gonna be honest, I kinda do believe she might be a Christian. I don't or sorry, a virgin. I don't really know. I can't don't wanna confirm or deny. But let me know, do you believe that she's actually a Christian?
That part, very up in the air. Let me know in the comments how you're feeling about that. Alright. Let's move on to our next story. The Supreme Court is battling it out over the medical necessity of gender affirming care. That is a huge Supreme Court case. There's part of me that wants to dedicate a whole show just to talking about that, because it's so wild. But as that gender affirming care fight is going on, which is covered very well in the mainstream media, so I'm not here to do that.
What I wanna talk about is as that is happening, the Biden administration, behind closed doors, is quietly dishing out 1,000,000 of dollars to an organization that believes gender affirmation. So, telling a boy that they're a girl or telling a girl that they're a boy, can fix eating disorders. Now, when I saw this, I was like, oh, my god. This is so telling of what we've already known. Okay? So taxpayers, by the way, us, we are giving $5,000,000 to develop this is so funny.
Promoting resilience, p r, to improve disordered eating, IDE. Pride. We're giving promoting resilience to improve disordered eating. It's it's a gay group. I mean, it's not even it's sorry. I mean, gay seem like to be like bad. Pride. It's an LGBTQ nonsense group. Okay? That claims that if you would just be nicer to kids about their gender, they won't have eating disorders. And the research for this group literally claims that.
That identify or identity related stress is an underlying motivator to eating disorders. So if we just let kids be whatever gender they wanna be, they won't have EDs. Okay. Let's go through this article a little bit more trying to understand. I really do. Because this is what bothers me. I really wanna understand the difference between gender identity dysphoria and body dysphoria.
If you don't believe that you're in the same body, you have body dysphoria, which is a form of an eating disorder, because you're trying to change the way you it's all the same thing. It's all the same thing. And I've been saying this for so long. And I was always told that that is a bad answer that we cannot compare somebody's identity with body dysphoria, but they're doing it for us. They're they're doing it for us. K. A couple more details on this.
So Biden and Harris administration, like I said, granting 1,000,000 of dollars. It's through the NIH, so the organization doctor Fauci used to run National Institutes of Health. They awarded Auburn University and San Diego State University Professors with this $5,000,000 grant to develop and provide the pride treatment. Again, the whole thing like I said, identity related stress is the underlying motivator for an eating disorder.
And if we would just affirm and support individuals who have gender identity and body dysphoria, then we'll be able to cure their eating disorders. It says, even when available, many LGBTQIA plus people across the country feel uncomfortable accessing treatment for fear of discrimination or lack of understanding. Actually, I don't know if you guys saw this video. Maybe we'll have to react to it sometime. But there's a video of a biological boy who identifies as a girl on CNN, I believe.
Such a sad clip. This little kid is like 6 years old probably. Maybe older. Maybe like 8 or 9. Saying that the they're fearful of walking down the street one day because they're just gonna get pew pewed. I'm like, oh my gosh. That is child abuse. Like, the way that the LGBTQ community and I don't say that as, like, gay people. I mean, like, the cult of LGBT. They have so changed people's entire psyche about their sexuality to be, like, you must be afraid for your life if you identify this way.
And so I'm, like, if maybe if we just stopped lying to people that they're gonna get pew pewed every single time that or because they walk down the street and they identify differently, maybe we stop lying to people about that. They wouldn't be so afraid to get the health care that they clearly so desperately need. And so this went on to say that the the lab is aiming to improve any disorder treatment for traditionally underserved populations.
Okay. I don't have a problem with that, but that's not what's happening here. It's happening to people who have body dysphoria existing, and the fact that they have some sort of gender dysphoria. They have an existing dysphoria, and then they are saying that if we just affirm the dysphoria, that will make the dysphoria better? It goes on to say, minority stressors such as internalized homophobia and sexual orientation concealment, are like the criteria for borderline personality.
I it was just like the weirdest thing going through this and trying to figure it out. Because I don't understand what the goal here is. It's just to affirm more. But I thought the whole thing was we shouldn't affirm body dysphoria, but we're we're gonna affirm this type of body dysphoria, but not the anorexia. And if we just we affirm the dysphoria we'll stop the other dysphoria. Who gets to decide what dysphoria is bad? Why isn't all dysphoria bad?
How do people not see that the problem here is the affirmation? We recognize that eating disorders are not healthy and we should not affirm them. So why would affirming a child's or another delusion and then another delusion that ultimately ends up in medicalizing a child with an edie. Like, how would that help the child further? I really wanna wrap my mind around it and I can't. You're just further lying to a kid that's already being lied to.
And I think this really illustrates what people like myself, people like Riley Gaines, and the big activist names in this movement have been saying all the time. That this is a social phenomenon just like EVs are, that is then propagated by an industry making money off of sick kids. And so when I'm I say all that say, you know, like the supreme court ruling, whether you agree with it or whether we don't, like I really hope that it ultimately stops or scares the profiteering off of this.
Because that's what's happening. People are making a shit ton of money off of pushing this crap. In my frank opinion, I do think that the state of Tennessee is gonna want gonna win it. It looks really good. The lawyers that they've put in place for this are rock solid. The lawyers that the Human Right Center and all these left wing organizations have put up there, they're spewing nonsense and they have to admit that their facts don't aren't really facts. They're just opinions.
I really do think that the Supreme Court is going to uphold this law. But if we're gonna be praying for anything, Sophie Rain, and for the Supreme Court to do what is right and just. Anyway, let's move on to our 3rd story. There's a big switch up happening in the Big Apple. Yeah? Eric Adams, he's the mayor of New York City. He announced he wants illegal immigrants who commit crimes deported from New York City immediately. No pending trial, no waiting on your conviction.
You commit the crime, you're caught doing it, you're out. Interesting. Now, when I saw this, I was like, k. Fascinating logic here. Because I thought if you're an illegal immigrant, and you're in here illegally, that's that's illegal. That's it in and of itself a crime. So I don't really get the logic of we're gonna wait for the illegal immigrant who committed a crime to commit another crime. That part doesn't the math ain't mathing for me there. But we're talking about New York City.
So at least we're moving a big city in the right direction. Right? I gotta take the wins or we can take the wins. Because I'm looking at it from the lens of okay. We have New York City saying we're gonna deport people from our cities who commit crimes outside of the crime of being an illegal immigrant. Right? Whereas, you have Los Angeles in comparison that just announced it's a sanctuary city, and they're not gonna work with federal immigration enforcement. And I'm like, alright. You know what?
We're gonna take our wins when we take our wins. Right? At least New York City isn't following in LA steps. Right? Now, I'm I'm cool with that. My question is the intention of Eric Adams in this scenario. So I'm cool with the idea that he wants to work with law enforcement, improve the city, especially for the Americans who live in the city, not just for, like, the illegal immigrants living in the city. But do we actually think Eric Adams can hold the line on this?
Do we actually think he can hold up to the scrutiny from the left over this? Now, I like to get to motivations because I like to be logical and I like to understand. And I think, yes. I think Eric Adams is a very calculated, very selfish individual, and he will do anything to ensure that he does not go to jail, even flip flopping on an issue that maybe he doesn't feel 100% on. And I think that could go both ways.
I actually think again, maybe I'm just full of hot takes, and you guys are gonna hate me and never watch this show again. But I genuinely think Eric Adams has got a a cop brain. I actually think he believes what he's saying here. I think he was being a chameleon under the Biden administration to not get too much flack from the Biden administration and not then get, like, a lot of heat from the Biden administration. He was trying to just keep himself clean.
Even though I actually think he kind of agrees more with the Trump administration than he does with the Biden administration, but he lives in New York City. That's just my take. Other people I think are gonna see him more of a as a grifter, and I'm totally fine with that. I don't give a shit what Eric Adams thinks. I actually just do think that he is somewhat more conservative. Conservatives.
He's somewhat more tough on crime than he's been under his tenure in the Biden administration, because he didn't wanna piss off the leftists. Anyway, there are 2 other not other, but just 2 motivations that I think are interesting, and I want to know where you guys believe Eric Adams falls. Now there's definitely the grifter category. So you can drop a comment and say, I think Adams is a total grifter, you know. He's a tactical politician, he's a chameleon, or whatever.
And he's gonna just change his ideas with the administration, push the policies that the administration are doing. So pushing, allowing these immigrants to do whatever they want under the Biden administration, deporting them under the Trump administration, and just keeping in the good graces of whatever administration is there. In this case, you know, for his political sake kissing Trump's ass because he's under federal and guest investigation. Right?
Or you go for the more understanding, empathetic version of this is that crime is finally so out of hand in New York City that Eric Adams, like, hit his head, saw the light, and he's finally waking up. So let me know where you guys stand in the comments. Again, I think I have like a mix of both of like, he's kinda always been more conservative in his values, or more tough on crime, sorry, in his values.
He's just such a nanny that he has to like bow down to the Biden administration, which ultimately never even worked out for him because he's still under investigation with the Biden administration. So he just should have pulled all the punches the whole time.
Also, as I was getting ready to come on the show, I was swiping through and looking for, looking for more information about Eric Adams and, like, see his exact tweets, and he actually put a comment out saying that he's in favor of Daniel Penney. I don't know if you guys know who this guy is. He is a huge trial right now.
I'm assuming if you watch this show, you have some inkling of an idea of who Daniel Penney is, but he is a former marine who put a a black man, Jordan Neely, in a choke hold after Jordan Neely was harassing people on the subway in New York City. And, unfortunately, that very legal choke hold ultimately suffocate or I don't know. Actually, there might have been drugs in in Jordan Neely's system. Like, it's so up in the air, but it's a trial.
It's an ongoing trial, and the jury has the case right now. And it anyway, Eric Adams said that he was in favor of Daniel Penney is the whole thing I was trying to say. So, again, I think that maybe when I cut like, the combination of the now we're magically gonna get rid of illegal immigrants, and now I'm gonna be in favor of Daniel Penney. That I'm like oh, you smell that? I'm catching wafts of grifter, you know.
But I'm also, like, very much living for the based takes that are coming out of him. Anyway, speaking of grifter, let's get into our next story, which is how do I put this? To grift or not grift? That is the question for left wing commentator, Senk Wiger. If you live in the right wing kind of echo chamber, not that that's a bad thing, you might not know who Senk Wieger is. But he is kind of like how do I put this? Like a like a left wing Ben Shapiro.
Or actually, maybe it's more say more fair to say, like, a left wing Jeremy Boring, who's like the CEO of Daily Wire. Kinda. If Jeremy had his own show. If Jeremy Jeremy and Ben had like a baby. I don't know. That's sort of stupid. But like, if they were one person, it would be Cinque Uygur on the left. I feel like that's a fair comparison, but let me know if anybody has suggestions for better comparisons. Perhaps maybe like a Charlie Kirk of sorts. I don't know. But it no. I don't know.
Anyway, he's the CEO. He's the founder of this group called the The Young Turks, which is kind of like Turning Point and Daily Wire combined. And he put out and not that they're doing good work like Turning Point and Daily Wire. I'm just saying, like, he's kinda like got a weird infrastructure on the left. And he put out this whole tweet thread again, while being very much a part of the anti Trump movement since Trump came on the scene.
And he put out this whole tweet thread about how he's magically optimistic about the MAGA movement and Trump's next administration. This has gotten 6,600,000 views, and yet you don't see this anywhere on mainstream media, even though it's wildly fascinating. So this guy put out this tweet saying, I've been trying to figure out why I'm more optimistic now than I was before the election, even though I was so against the guy who won. I know now. Okay. Again, let me just remind you.
It's not that he's just against Trump now. He's been against, like, every good thing, good pure work of conservatism for, like, the longest time. He says, MAGA is not my mortal enemy, and neither is the extreme left. Okay. Well, the extreme left is my mortal enemies. I don't think we're on the same page here. My mortal enemy is the establishment, and they have been defeated. Now, I can empathize with that. I think we can agree on that that our mortal enemy is the establishment.
However, I also feel my mortal enemy is the extreme left as well. Like, I have 2. I think that's okay. Because just because the extreme left is not as popular as the establishment, does not mean it will not those ideologies will not inevitably become the establishment on the left. And that frightens me, because they're wackadoodle. Okay? It's not even that I'm afraid of their ideas. I could probably debate them in my sleep. I just they're so crazy. I don't think I could live under that.
That's I can tolerate and live under left wing under Democrats as you just did for the last 4 years. I'm not saying that to be like, I like democrat. I'm just saying like, we just did it. It sucked balls, but we could get through it. I actually don't think I could live under, like, the far left regime. That would be a bridge too far. It would scare me. Right? But Cenk is saying that because the establishment is defeated, he feels more optimistic.
It's not just that the establishment candidate lost, it's that their media is mortally it's that their media is mortally wounded. The source of their strength was not insipid politicians like McConnell and Joe Biden. The source of their strength was the propaganda machine, the mainstream media. Now online media is strong enough that their oppressive monopoly on the American mind has been broken. Now we're in the jungle. They hate that. I love it.
This uncontrolled marketplace of ideas is where I'm home. I'd rather be in the populous woods than in this in an establishment prison. Now, again, I really empathize with this, because based take, the mainstream media is freaking evil. They lie to you. They want you to think a certain way. I could even say that about, like, the Pete Hegset stuff.
Like, there is a, an online right not even online, but there's, like, a right wing movement of mainstream media that wants you to believe that there's you should you don't have to say anything wrong about the guy. Just bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep. I just sounded like I was saying bleep, bleep, bleep. But you know what I mean? And it's okay to have, like, some nuance to the conversation. Fuck. Is that so bad? No. It's okay to have nuance about everything.
It's okay to, like, think critically. It's good. It's so good for your brain. And so I'm I'm on board with that. I'm not on board with you trying to elect politicians for years that have been antithetical to this. You don't think Bernie Sanders is, like, if you elected him, because I think Sank is more of a Bernie Sanders esque character. You think Bernie Sanders was gonna keep the mainstream media, or were gonna shut down the mainstream media and help elevate other people?
No. Like, if you like free speech, and I mean unfettered free speech, not this, we had to put clauses about hate speech and clauses about this. If you like unfettered hates or unfettered speech, no matter what, you have got to be not just against the establishment, but against the UNI party. And you've not been like that, Sank. Like, you have been against this entire movement and against MAGA for so so long. And, like, congrats if you're actually waking up, but I don't.
I actually think that what happened with Cenk is he's, like, very opportunistic, and he has bought into the left wing mainstream media lie that if you don't like Donald Trump, you're gonna get shut down. And that is a lie, by the way. Donald Trump's not gonna shut down the mainstream media. People are gonna wake up and stop watching the mainstream media. That's how they're gonna die. They're gonna kill themselves. Okay? Donald Trump doesn't need to do that for them.
They're doing it all on their own. Right? But I think Sank has bought into that lie, and so he's trying to grift his way out of it by putting out this tweet. I don't buy it for one second but if you disagree or maybe you do buy it please let me know your rationale in the comments. I just I don't and I never will. And, finally, let's get into our last story. California will just simply not let up about affirmative action. It is their bread and butter over there.
Even though slavery was never anything in California, never existed in California, but a new California representative has proposed a bill that would allow public university admissions to prioritize admissions for individuals who are direct descendants of slaves. This coming to us from the Associated Press. The Associated Press saying that lawmakers convene a special session to try to protect the progressive policy of allowing, current discrimination to rectify for past injustices.
What's very you have to be very mindful of is that in 1996, I believe, the State of California yeah. Right here. 1996, the State of California and voters approved a measure that banned the state from giving a preferential treatment to people based on their circumstances.
The proposition which outlawed affirmative action entirely in public university admissions in the state was then upheld again in 2020, and then obviously upheld by the Supreme Court's decision that affirmative action is legal is illegal. Even though schools were trying to really do it under the belt of the individuals, like, the Californian's wishes. And that's exactly what's happening here as well is that, individuals in, this entire, why am I blanking?
In con in state congress are trying to circumvent the status of affirmative action, which is illegal, in order to help a very small minority of people. I mean, I don't have a problem with with helping people who have been disaffected, but black students make up again about 4% of the California State University's system and about 4.7 is at the University of California in 2023. Now, I think the difference between this is that at least this is a targeted affirmative action.
You know, there are these are people who are actually impacted by the consequences of slavery. Perhaps you don't agree. Perhaps we think it's just, like, too far away from what happened in the 1800 early 9 19 100 and all all the consequences of then Jim Crow and everything. Maybe we think it's just, like, too far away and, like, this is actually assisting anyone even those who are direct descendants.
However, I do think in theory, it's better than outright discriminative or outright affirmative action based on skin color. Because there are black people who are here who never were descendants of slaves, never were descendants of people that were discriminated systemically like we were in the 19 100 perhaps. I think that this is at least better targeted at what it's trying at what affirmative action claimed to seek to do.
However, I just am of the mindset that it's not helpful to let somebody into a school based on position and status or skin color or anything like that without them being academically inclined to actually go to the school. And I say that about, legacy admission. I think they bring that up. Legacy admission, long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy at selective colleges has also come on fire. I I'm actually okay with that. Fuck that. I don't care how much money you give to the school.
You can't keep up to the standards of the school. Why you get in the school? I'm actually totally okay with that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone can shed light on that for me, but I I don't find a problem with that. You are not up to snuff. You're not getting in the school. I think that's super simple, super easy to understand. Again, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
And while you're in the comments, if you're a real one and you made it to the end of today's show, will you drop the hand emoji? The con the one that kinda looks like you're swearing an oath or swearing in for an oath. Because in all honesty, I really do think that Pete Hegseth is gonna end up going for a nomination, swearing an oath. I think it is gonna happen. I know people won't like my criticism a 100%, so feel free to give me your feedback.
But, I just like to be honest with you guys, and I had to be honest with you. Anyway, I hope you guys have a great weekend. I'll see you back on the YouTube channel on Monday, and on the podcast on Tuesday. Bye, friends. Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you heard, please be sure to give this video a thumbs up, and leave a comment about how beautiful, stunning, and funny I am.
And if you want more content based on logic, be sure to click over here for more videos and clips of my show. If you have the means to financially support the show, consider purchasing from my merch line, Based Apparel, linked right below. I really appreciate it, and I'll see you back here next time. Bye friends.