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
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 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 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.
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. 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 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 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 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 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
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 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.
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 did it.
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 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.
And their great great grand kids.
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.
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 asked about LA not having water in its fire hydrancy. Here was his answer during this crisis.
What is the situation with water? Obviously in the palisage ran out last night in the hydrants.
I fearned the firefighter on this block they left because there was no water in the hydrant here.
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.
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.
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, 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, 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 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 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 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
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 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.
Give a listen to this exchange.
Governor, you got a second governor, Governor, I live here.
Governor, that was my daughter's school.
Governor.
Please tell me what you're gonna do.
But I'm not gonna hurt of my promise.
I'm literally talking to the President right now to specifically answer the question of what we can do.
For you and your daughter.
Can I hear it?
Can I hear your call?
Because I don't believe it.
I'm sorry, there's literally I've tried five times. That's why I'm walking around to make.
That is the president of taking your call because it's.
Not going through.
Why I have to get cell service.
Let's get it, let's get it. I want to be here when you call the President.
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.
Everyone who went to school there, they lost their homes.
They lost two homes because they were living in one and building another.
Ever, please tell me, tell me what are you going to do with the president.
Right now, we're getting we're getting the resources to help rebuild.
Why is there no water in the hydrants? Governor?
That's all?
Literally?
Is it going to be different next time?
It has to be has to be of course, what.
Are you going to do to fill the hydrants?
I would fill them up personally.
You know that.
I literally I.
Would fill up the hydrants myself.
But would you do that?
I would do whatever I can, But you're not.
I see the Do you know there's water dripping over there?
Governor? There's water coming out there?
You can use it.
I appreciate it.
I'm going to make the call to address everything I can right now, including making sure you.
Make sure you can I have an opportunity to at least tell people what you're.
Doing, what you're saying you're doing.
Can somebody have a contact.
Can I have your contact right now?
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 this is the next time, and you know that you deal with these fires, why did you make all these decisions?
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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.
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?
Is that?
I mean, we explain to people the reality of this moves forward, what it.
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
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 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 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 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 what Trump had to say about Panama and mar Lago earlier day.
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 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 Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal.
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.
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 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 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.
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, 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 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 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.
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, 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
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 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 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 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, 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,
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.
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 real platform with a real audience. And we're gaining that now through podcasts and other venues.
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 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 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 we do is under fire.
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.
Not the media.
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.
You don't do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work.
Yeah, come on.
So, first of all, I've got to say extraordinary content.
It needed to be said.
It continues to need to be said when all of.
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 are if social media people lying every day, every hour, every.
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 do matters.
It matters, It matters. I love the self righteousness there right.
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 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.
Now.
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 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 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 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.
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. Take a listen we're.
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, I think the president will have ample authority to act
come January twenty. Let me talk to you.
That was a prediction that you're now saying we should watch this very carefully.
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.
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.