Carnivore Radio News - 5-28-25 Biden Cover Up and more- Ep 332

The Biden cover up, the fall of education and more news, commentary and analysis.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Do you want more success, more growth, more results than
It's time for the Boundless Success Accelerator from the Modern
Observer Group. This isn't your average coaching program. It's where
top performers come to dominate. Weekly group sessions, on demand coaching,
a community that's got your back, and a powerpack library

(00:23):
of tools to supercharge your business and career. No more excuses,
no more waiting, Get in, level up and start building
the life you've been dreaming about. Visit us at modernobserver
dot com slash Boundless Success to join today. Let's get
you to the next level.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
Welcome to another edition of Carnivore. Bite him your host
Jeff Sherman, along with doctor Eric Lopkin. A lot going
on in the news, and we're going to focus on
a major issue involving the political landscape. But before we do,
let's let's look and sample some of the more let's
just say, less heavy things in the news. Some are heavy,

(01:30):
some are not. The Jesse small Lett, he just settled
a case. They can't tell you exactly what the settlement
was for, but he's still claiming that it was he
was set up talk about during this time, is not
Trump de rangement but it's a derangement career over as well.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
Correct, it's definitely derangement. There's no I don't think there's
anybody with half a brain that still believes he was attacked,
especially when his attackers came out and said he paid
them to do it. You know, this is not something
that that attackers tend to do.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
No, No, it didn't happen often. And it is interesting.
It's real quick because we're gonna talk about the media
a little later. But he was on ABC Good Morning,
the weekly show that's you know, good Morning ABC, whatever
it's called, and a puffball interview, no no, no probing,
discussion or questions. The interviewer, I forgot her name. She's

(02:29):
worked for ESPN. Oh, I'm so she almost started crying.
I'm so sorry for you, Jesse. It goes to show
you and we'll talk about, you know, what's going on
with the with the Biden situation. But we basically have
a press that's a sleep in this at the switch
when it's not part of Trump's arrangement.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
I think it's more than just being asleep at the switch.
It goes back to how they're being educated. They're not
being taught in journalism class us, how to do journalism,
what the job of a journalist is. I think that

(03:08):
they're basically being trained to be social media influencers, and
that's what they think they are. Now.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
You know, it's interesting, it's real quick. I know you
went to a school for journalism, but we've also done
trustural radio in the podcasts for a number of years,
and I find it interesting to your point. I fully
support what you just said because I've heard I've seen
many interviews and there's a question and then there's the answer,
but the follow up is thank you very much for

(03:37):
being on the show. Now, no like and how did
you arrive? I mean basic simple questions, you know, unlock
further information or the truth. It's devoid in today's media.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
Yeah, there's no follow up, there's no point to these interviews.
The reporters today do not understand how to get a story, unless,
of course, it's a gotcha story. That because unfortunately, thanks
to Woodward and Bernstein, every reporter seems to think their

(04:11):
job is to get the president, and it's like, no,
your job is to uncover the truth, and they seem
to have not been taught that or how to do that.

Speaker 2 (04:24):
I think you bring an excellent point up. I think
it did start with Watergate, that it went from even
handed journalism and always shipped a little bit to the left.
But you know, Walter Cronkin, I mean you go any
I suggest anyone in our audience go to YouTube and
just look at it. You know, e Lecture Results nineteen
eighty an NBC bra It's shocking how down the middle

(04:47):
it is. Okay, what's the point. I think it became
activism journalism and heavily favored to the left after it
was Gotcha, got the Republican, get the conservative journalism journalism.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
It's not that that's when it happened. It's that that's
when it became obvious. That's that's when people started looking
up to that kind of journalism. Journalism unfortunately, has been
like that for god knows how long. William Randolph Hurst
basically said, they'll they'll believe what I tell them to believe.

(05:25):
And Joseph Pulettzer actually created the Pulitzer Prizes to make
up for the fact that he was publishing all of
this bullshit under the guise of journalism.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
I agree with that. Hurst, yes, basically somewhat responsible for
the Spanish American War also on and so forth. But
I think I think he actually could have been conservative. Yes,
there's always been yellow journalism, but I now it's so
slanted to the left it cannot help but being but
be traced to how they're educated. It's activism journalism, and

(06:03):
you know, you look at the difference.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
The difference was back then you had different media outlets
with different viewpoints and you could look and see, you know,
what was going on because the reporters were actually trained
to do journalism, and so even though the publisher would

(06:25):
want a slant, the journalists still provided all of the facts.
And you know, it was the editorial pages that you
know went off the rails. Now they don't even know
how to do a story, so it's all slant.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
I agree. I think what you're the model you just
articulated seems like it's in a time warp. I mean,
they wouldn't even recognize it at this point. You know,
we did talk about Jesse Smolette about the end of
a career. I think another end would be Camy. In
the eighty six forty seven he went on Colbert, which

(07:03):
is unwatchable, trying to rehabilitate. He just didn't know that
any six mints often because his wife was in the
restaurant business. So your thoughts is he pretty much well
it was over anyway, but not good. Okay, okay, just
one thing before you say yeah, forget about it. The rest,
just the complete lack of judgment disqualifies him from anything else.

Speaker 1 (07:28):
The former head of the FBI does not recognize a
threat when he sees it. That That's what his story
comes down to. So either he is a complete liar
and knew what exactly what this meant, or this is

(07:49):
the most monumental stupid person on the face of the
planet and should never have been allowed in the FBI.

Speaker 2 (07:57):
Possibly both. Yes, there you go. Yes, he's done. I
think he could be. I don't think he He's gonna
get into trouble that he it was a regular civilian.
They could be in real deep shit. That's a threat
against the president. Everyone knows what eighty six means. Yes,
it's awesome.

Speaker 1 (08:17):
The idea that he just happened to come across it
also has no credibility.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Oh yeah, happens all the time. Yes, uh, you know,
I got one on the beach. I was walking in
Jersey when I was visiting my friend and it gave
me directions to the exact bar that him and I
were looking for. It just happened on the beach, the
shells just in Main Street. There happens all the time
now speaking careers, well, I don't think he ever had

(08:45):
a career, but maybe life that is over. It's already over,
but it was just gonna get worse. Uh. Cash Patel
is looking to re look at the White House cocaine incident,
and it's been obviously in the news last couple of days.
But I saw the thing. It was Laura Ingram show.
I saw the tape and I think we even talked.

(09:06):
I know you talked about it during on Carnivore Bites
whatever a couple of years ago. You see him on
the balcony for the July fourth that is Hunter, the
July fourth celebration. He is coked out. Sorry, he's not
so I think again it's not going well for Uncle Joe.
I think it's not going to go well because I

(09:26):
think they are gonna relook at it, and I see
there's I think a good chance is they'll pin it
on Hunter.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
Well, it's not just the cocaine. What Cash Fttel is
doing is going after all of the open cases from
the last few years. So there's yes, there's the cocaine
in the White House, there is the Supreme Court leak
about the Dobbs decision. There were a few other cases

(09:57):
also in this Now these are all open case. What
all Cash Betel is saying is that they are now
going to double redouble their efforts to solving these cases
because they feel under the previous administration they fell by
the wayside. So this is something it's not it's not political.

(10:20):
They're not going after Hunter Biden. They are trying to
close out all of their open cases from the last
few years. And quite frankly, nobody should have any problem
with that because you want cases closed.

Speaker 2 (10:37):
Yes, I would agree, but I'd like you're and I'm
sure our listeners would as well. You're a very smart guy.
How do you think, good reader of in great intuition,
how do you think it is under the Delaware roof,
under the Biden residency? Life with Hunter or with Hunters
with Joe and the Doctor can't be going well because

(11:02):
I've never seen shit hitting the fan like it is
now usually. Even Jimmy Carter, he said he had a
failed presidency, but there was no no one was going
after him. He went off into the sunset, he rebuilt
his image and blah blah blah. The rest is this
is just a total just like his administration, a total disaster.

(11:25):
Auto pens and it's just unbelievable. And even said that
Uncle Joe might be broke.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, there was talk about that even while he was
president because of the legal bills and the fact that
the Biden crime family had been outed, so nobody wanted
to give the money anymore. There was a lot of
talk about the fact that he was leaving the White House,

(11:52):
you know, almost destitute. The fact of the matter is
there is no Biden influence anymore, so there's nothing for
the Biden family to sell. They are effectively out of business.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
So you mean indic one thing real quick. I'm that
also for you can go like Carter left underwater the
White House. He did said he was due to various factors,
but he resurrected his career to the point that he
did speaking engagements. He did many things right. Gerald Ford

(12:27):
did the same thing. There is no speaking engagements unless
it's a carnival for Uncle Joe, So there is no
revenue in the field.

Speaker 1 (12:38):
In all fairness, carter Ford, Nixon, All of these past
presidents that did speaking engagements left the White House capable
of doing speaking engagements. You'll notice, you know, Ronald Reagan
did not do speaking engagements when he left the White

(12:58):
House because the dementia had already kicked in. Biden's in
that Biden's in that position. The idea that he can
write a book, do a speech, it's it's beyond him now.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
And I'm sorry, I disagree he could write a book
like I'm older than you, but our books in first
grade were flip c flip runs.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
Actually I don't. I don't at this point, I don't
even think he could focus enough to do something like that.
It takes him. It takes him quite a while to
be able to make a public appearance. So far, every
public appearance he's made since leaving office has been botched.

(13:43):
And again, it takes you know, days and days of
rest just to get him to do half an hour
of talking.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
So I think.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Any you know, any books or anything that come out
with his name on them, they're obviously ghost written.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
And again, speaking of people and people's demise, we have
two things to queue you up. On we talked about it.
I think a couple of weeks ago, AOC is now
clobbering Chucky in the polls over twenty percent. If they primary,
she would win decisively. And I also has totally unrelated

(14:22):
but the slap saw scene around the world, Macron getting
slapped by his much older wife. Let's take AOC first doctrine. Well,
I think ravitalization of the party.

Speaker 1 (14:35):
There's the radicalization of the party. But honestly, any polls
regarding AOC and Chuck Schumer are completely irrelevant. Chuck Schumer
isn't up for reelection until twenty twenty nine. The idea
that there's any poll that could be done today that
will have any kind of relevance in four years is ridiculous. Plus,

(15:01):
AOC keeps shooting off her mouth. There's no way she's
going to be able to maintain what she's doing now
for four years. She's got to do.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
Let me well, let me interject something on that, because
I disagree respectfully on that. Because with the normal and
we'll talk more about the state of the Democratic Party,
which will be our focus on this podcast today's podcast.
But I think with the crazy Democratic Party, I think
it might elevate her. The crazier you are, the better

(15:32):
it'll again like a rock concert, The louder you are,
the more people like it.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Yeah, but again we're talking four years. She has to
go through her own reelection next year, and we don't
even know how that's going to go because her poll
ratings in her own district, which are the only ones
that matter for Congress, are not good. You have people

(15:58):
coming out die hard Democrats saying they can't vote for her.
They've got to get her out because since since AOC
took office, crime in New York City is up twenty percent,
crime in her home district is up seventy percent. She

(16:21):
doesn't care about the people that she's actually supposed to
be representing.

Speaker 2 (16:27):
So you get carolet.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
She could be doing really well in polls of the
wacko left from across the country, but all that's gonna
matter are the folks back home, and she's not doing
well there. On top of that, not only does she
have to run for reelection of herself, she's been talking
about running for president in twenty twenty eight. Well, guess

(16:50):
what if she gets her ass handed to her in
twenty twenty eight, which while she may do well in
a wacko primary, there's no way she's going to be
able to sway independence across the country to vote for
her in a general election. So she will do maybe

(17:10):
as well as Kamala did at best.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
So once she, I would say, it would be in
the same league as McGovern Yeah, seventy two when he wants.

Speaker 1 (17:21):
Once she gets her ass handed to her in a yo.
If she tries to do that, Schumer's not going to
care what she has to say on the Senate side.
And again four years from now, Schumer's no spring chicken.
There's no guarantee he's even gonna run again.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
Okay, but the reason I really brought it up is
not that I really give a shit about Chuck Schumer
or AOC. It's a good litanus test to where the
Democratic mindset and orientation is crockets the the uh. Let's
say Omar who basically had no comment about the killing

(18:06):
of two Jewish kids, the young people at the Jewish museum. Yeah,
so I think it is a litanus syst to how
crazy the Democratic Party is. And again six years ago,
four years ago, Lopkin, we would do it for effect
or not say this is no effect, they're crazy, it

(18:27):
should be nowhere near leadership.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
Well that's part of the problem, right there, is they
have no leadership, They have no direction, they have no
agenda in terms of policy anymore. Everything is focused on
Trump derangement syndrome. So everything is we have to stop Trump,
we have to stop Trump. Well guess what come twenty

(18:55):
twenty eight, that's not going to work because Trump's not
going to be on the ballot. And yes, they will
try to whoever gets the Republican nomination, they will try
to paint them as Trump's successor. But most, especially independent
and centrist voters are going to be looking at them going, yeah,

(19:18):
you're campaigning against Trump. He's not. This person is no,
there's no reason to think hold on.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
There's no reason to think Trump might not be popular.
I kind of say this for our focused segment. But
his insider advantage. Your very reparable firm has him at
fifty five percent approval, and rats Mutant, Brass Mutant, they're
very conservative but very reliable. Fifty percent say that the

(19:49):
country's going in the right direction almost thirty years high.
So there's no guarantee that Orange Man is going to
still be bad. I think that shits vaiting. Quite frankly, well,
it is.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
We saw that last year in the twenty twenty four election,
the populace came out. I mean, let's not forget in
twenty sixteen, Trump won the electoral but did not win
the popular vote. In twenty twenty four, he won the
popular vote, and every district in America shifted red, even

(20:29):
ones where Democrats won, they won by smaller margins than
they ever had before. So again, yeah, the Democrats are
focused on the wackos that they're calling their base, but
that's going to cost them elections in the long run,
because these folks are not going to be able to

(20:50):
carry national races.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
I agree. What do you think of McCrone? He slapped
scene all around the world. It's not that it's really
newsworthy or really even or maybe if our listeners give
a shit. But the only thing I thought about it
is a globalist, fake politician. I enjoyed him getting slapped
also at anti Israeli anti semi.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
But honestly, I seem to remember him getting slapped a
couple of times, and it's the same thing happened to
the Italian Prime minister a few years ago. I think
this is just yo, European men being European men, and
the wives are going, oh, hell no, it's slapping.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Him pretty much, probably a metaphors for the Democratic Party
again in our focused segment, but we had to do
in a very serious note. The DC killing at the
Jewish Museum shows you the degree of anti Semitism. There
was someone, a Jewish person who was at the museum

(21:52):
during the shooting, and he was interviewed was holessly by CNN,
who had the agenda to conflate, you know, protesters with
the shooter. He goes, yes, I can. The same look
that was in his eye was in the protester's eyes.
And I think it's a bigger picture of these students,

(22:15):
so called students, being indoctrinated by radical Islamic psychos at
these so called elitist institution where Victor Hansen is someone
I really love, brilliant guys said they've long abandoned their
position as elite institutions due to DEI and other factors,
but they're essentially places like Harvard are active breeding, not passive,

(22:41):
active breeding grounds for anti Semitism. And what do you
think is going to happen when you've had twenty years
of anti Semitism, anti Israeli rhetoric.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Well, I mean you're putting together parallels, you know, based
on a look whatever, The links actually go a lot deeper. Okay.
The person that pulled the trigger, Elias Rodriguez, has been
linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Now, this

(23:15):
is a group that made a lot of headlines on
October seventh, right after the attacks, because they praised the
terror attacks and said it was about time. But this
is also this same group has been linked to funding
these protests. So this is not a coincidence. It's not
a matter of oh, they had the same look in

(23:37):
their eye. They're working for the same organizations, and let's
not let's talk.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
Let me just interject one thing. I agree with you.
But when I say, look, it's not just a cosmetic observation, right,
it's the indoctrination, the mindset. I think it's one and
the same, and it's dangerous to the point that Alan Dershowitz,
a long time associate employee, alumni alumn of Harvard, is

(24:11):
basically he went he's basically not really welcome there anymore.
And close to the same museum in DC he'd had
special security because now is a Jew, a prominent Jew,
and a pro Israel Jew. He's essentially has a target

(24:31):
on his back in the United States. Scary.

Speaker 1 (24:35):
Well, you know, you're saying he's not welcome on the
Harvard campus. That's putting it mildly. I saw an interview
with him just this morning where he was talking about
the fact that he has effectively been banned from the
Harvard campus for the past twelve years.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
So banned.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Yes, they don't want him ram of speech, right, they don't.
These institutions don't believe in freedom of speech unless you
agree with them. How many times have we seen over
the past decade conservative commentators, conservative speakers schedule events at

(25:16):
these institutions, only to be pulled at the last minute,
be told it's not safe for them to be there.
You know, let's face back.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
I am a.

Speaker 1 (25:28):
Huge proponent of freedom of speech. I have spent decades
fighting for freedom of speech. Attacking people is not freedom
of speech. Firebombing is not freedom of speech. This is
what's going on. And they seem to think that violent

(25:52):
action is covered under freedom of speech. It's not. You
can say whatever you want, and even that has limits.
You know, the famous limit that everybody knows you can't
yell fire in a crowded theater unless there's actually a fire. Well,
this is not about freedom of speech. This is about harassment.

(26:16):
This is about vandalism. This is about criminal behavior, and
that's where the difference lies. Now, going back to the
shooter Rodriguez, not only has he been tied to the
people who are paying for these protests, but his father

(26:38):
was at Trump's address to the Joint Session of Congress
as a guest of Representative hayesus Garcia, who is the
Democratic Representative of Illinois. So his family has ties to
the Democratic Party.

Speaker 2 (26:58):
Does this shock mean anyway, Yes, We've talked about that before,
and how the ideo secrecy is, to put it mildly,
of Jewish voters actually still adhering to the Democratic ideology
is just bizarre. Yes, I do think though it is
interesting because I think sometimes payback's a bitch, just as

(27:20):
a neutral observer, and I'm just being as honest as
I can. And we talked about this before on our
podcast that if I was in a hiring position like
I'm talking about, you know, a director of a division,
I would rather have people from good schools. Okay, good schools,

(27:42):
and I would I would not be all that enamored
with the Ivy League from what I've seen, I think
these people are ill prepared for real jobs. I really
don't want them in my company. Not because of anti Semitism,
that's obviously a factor. I don't think you're gonna get
along with regular people. I think they're entitled. I don't

(28:03):
think they know shit, and I don't want them. I'd
rather have someone from a university of whatever, it's some school,
some state school, that you get a smart person who's
normal your thoughts.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
Well as someone who is in a position to hire. Generally,
I don't even look at resumes that come from the
so called Ivy League anymore, because these are entitled individuals who,
because they overpaid for a lackluster education, they're demand They're

(28:38):
making salary demands that are completely out of touch with
their abilities. And that's something that people seem to forget.
When you go get a job, this is a trade.
You are being paid for what you bring to the table.

(28:59):
The fact that you have hundreds of thousands of dollars
in student loans is not the employer's problem. You are
not going to get a salary that's going to cover
all of that just because you need it. You have
to prove that you can be of value to the employer.

(29:21):
And the people in the IVY leagues are not being
taught that. They're not being in fact, even in some
state schools, they're not being prepared anymore for the real workplace.

Speaker 2 (29:35):
Well, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoah, you're telling me the woman
that I think graduated or got a scholarship at Yukon,
who is illiterate, wasn't prepared for the real world.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
Exactly, this is what's going on. I would I would rather.
I would rather hire somebody right out of a two
year college who is hungry, who wants to earn money,
who wants to do a good job because they want
to get ahead, they want to help their family, they

(30:08):
want to help their community. I don't care what degree
they have. And quite frankly, the one thing that's going
to get a resume a quick trip to the circular
file if it crosses my desk is an m b ah.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah. No. Nbas have taken companies that were totally viable
and have destroyed them. And I have a friend who's
a pretty big guy high up in an advertising agency.
I love what he said. He goes be weary of
the unintended kent consequences of an NBA. They could make
painting a fence into a multi multi week pro problem

(30:58):
with several meetings and spreadsheets. Yes, worthless, Yes, I absolutely world.

Speaker 1 (31:04):
Before I started my business, when I worked in corporate,
I had in several different positions. MBA is working beneath me.
And the first thing I had to do with each
of them is to retrain them to forget everything they
learned in their MBA courses so that they could get

(31:27):
along the way work really actually happens.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
And I think that was, you know, years ago. I
would have to my conjecture would be that it's much
worse now in terms of relevant skills versus what they've
actually been taught. I think it's huge. And what do
you think of Trump basically pulling no contracts for Harvard
and other Ivy League schools, And he suggested throwing that

(31:55):
money to trade schools, and as he said, skills can
actually help America, not a month he.

Speaker 1 (32:04):
Should be doing that. We need to put more money
into trade schools. There is right now a shortage of welders. Okay,
now you would think this is you know, this is
a relatively straightforward skill. You don't need four years of
training to be able to do it. You can learn

(32:25):
it in You know, there are numerous two year programs
that train people to do welding. Now, how important is welding.
Our entire defense of this country depends on welders. To
build planes, to build submarines, to build tanks. Everything we

(32:47):
build depends on welders. Right now, the defense industry has
a shortage of two hundred and thirty thousand welders. These
are open positions right now that they can't fill.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
May reject one thought, one question, what do you think
the shortages of marketing managers?

Speaker 1 (33:11):
None? There is no shortage of marketing managers.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
I'm just throwing out they all right, good one, there's
no There's also.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
There's also no shortage of social media influencers. There's also
no short you know, no shortage of actors. Yeah, that's all.

Speaker 2 (33:31):
It's history majors, right.

Speaker 1 (33:34):
It's only the the jobs that actually need to be
done to ensure the survival of our country that we
have a shortage of.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
But looking at the individual, okay, because this is really interesting,
I think a young person is really has an amazing
opportunity because I do believe in education, and I think
a school adjusting to the new realities also has a
major opportunity. And I would propose a strategy for a

(34:08):
higher a school of higher education would be to combine
some I don't know what you want to call general education,
some skills, some real skills. So you get a degree
from X y Z College with a certificate in welding,
and I'm not really making it up. So I think
you would be so employable because people would think, wow,

(34:31):
an educated person, see of a two years you know,
to two year degree, so you got you know, reading,
you know, some skills in other pertinent areas, and then
you come out as a certified as a welder, a
lot better prospects than getting out with an undergraduate degree
in marketing.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
Not only are you not kidding about that, you're actually
describing a program that exists there as a community college
program to train people in advanced manufacturing techniques. You graduate
with a certificate and an associates degree, and the salaries

(35:16):
for these kids who generally leave with little or no
debt whatsoever, because community college is very affordable with a
little bit of overtime, you can be making one hundred
thousand dollars a year in your first year out of college. Yes,
that's the start. That's the start.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
Now let me ask you another question, doctor Lotin. I agree,
great point, and I think schools that don't try to
go in that direction will soon go the way of
t Rex. You know, so you have, oh you know
that situation. Okay. I wonder if when you look at
it further on down, are these schools a bli it

(36:00):
is or is it part of the whole getting student
loans and there's no reason to change, Like if you're
getting your fix, why change? Why go off? Heroin? I
think it's a little no real market driven, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
I think it's a little from column A, a little
from column B. Most of these institutions changing direction is
like changing the direction of a battleship. It's a slow
and plotting process, and most of them go, well, what
we're doing now is working, so why bother. But the
other part of it is they have become addicted to

(36:39):
charging ridiculous amounts of money for tuition. So you're not
going to get somebody paying one hundred and twenty five
thousand dollars a year to get a degree in welding.
So they keep making up, they keep making up these programs,
and in fact, despite the fact that hiring of MBA's

(37:04):
is decreasing, the number of MBA programs is actually increasing
because they can convince people that, oh, the MBA is
a great degree to have and it's worth every dollar,
and they can charge more money for it.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
I just happened. I hate to break it to them.
The nineteen eighties are over. There you go. But I
do think it's also and I like your opinion on this.
I think the whole stick of college. I remember I
was in the library, just had to do some stuff,
and these two younger people were talking. They went to
Vassor went to this and that's I mean, you tell

(37:44):
me they went there, right, And then just stick to myself.
You're making like thirty grand and you went to I mean,
obviously maybe it's not really dovetailing, is it. What is
my question? My question is I think the prestige, the
inherent prestige that has been with us for or seventy
years easily, Oh, where'd you go to school? I didn't
go to school. You're out of the cocktail party. I

(38:07):
think that train left the station. I would like your thoughts.
Do you think it's true that no one gives a
shit where you went to school? No one gives a shit.
You got a degree in art history, and no one
really gives a shit. It's just there's no real prestige anymore.

Speaker 1 (38:23):
Nore's there's no prestige left. And in fact, when somebody says, oh,
I went to such and such a college, they're more
likely to be met with the question, wow, how much
in debt are you rather than any kind of appreciation

(38:43):
or being impressed. And this has been going on for
a while. You started seeing it with gen Y because
gen Y took a look at the millennials. Now these
are the folks that truly overpaid for college and got
nothing for it, and they're looking at him going, wow,
I do not want to be in that position now

(39:05):
gen Z is going into college or I think some
of them, the older part of the generation starting to
come out of college, they have absolutely no desire to
be in debt for the rest of their lives. For
a piece of paper. If college paper.

Speaker 2 (39:24):
Is great, No, a piece of paper is great. I
saw a great YouTube video, was a comical piece a
college graduate in nineteen sixty five, Come on, sit down, Johnny,
what can we do for you? Now? It's you know,
then foot fast forward twenty twenty four and it's like, hey,
could you mind coming back tomorrow. I'm kind of busy.

(39:44):
I'm on the phone basically supplying to man. There was
a time when that piece of paper was basically a
turn key to a life, at least of middle class existence.
I don't think there's any guarantee, and that's why it's
lost much of its relevant.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
There's no guarantee of that at all anymore. But again
it is supply and demand. College graduates now are a
dime a dozen. Yeah, it doesn't matter which college they
went to. The piece of paper does not mean anything anymore.
And people are also starting to realize that they were

(40:24):
wrong headed about the college education. Remember, if you go
back to the fifties and certainly earlier than that, the
college education was your key off the farm. We had
a huge agricultural base in this country, and people wanted

(40:45):
to get off the farm. It was farming is hard work,
so they encouraged their kids to go to college so
that they had more options rather than just being on
a farm. The way they were.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
Well, now, popill right.

Speaker 1 (41:05):
The GI Bill was a big help to that. But
now people are starting to realize, wait a minute, you
know what, we need farmers. Nobody, especially post COVID people
started realizing we need farmers, we need construction people, we
need electricians. We don't need a marketing person, we don't

(41:27):
need an MBA. The only need that that colleges fill
right now are engineers, doctors, and scientific researchers. That's it.

Speaker 2 (41:44):
And I think that's really going to be the attrition
in colleges. If you're not focused and you're not prime
in that all these business schools and liberal check please
that it's not viable. It's not viable.

Speaker 1 (41:59):
If you are not going to college for a STEM career,
your piece of paper is worthless.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
Thank you very much. And just to reitererate again being
someone that is hiring and you know in always looking
with the marketplaces. Just to reiterate that we were not
being flippant, Doctor lockin correct that a degree in marketing
that about fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.
Is that accurate?

Speaker 1 (42:28):
Yes, it is. The fact of the matter is there's
too many of them around, you know, especially in play
in things like marketing English degrees. You know these were
these were degrees that people took because they didn't want
to do math. Well, guess what businesses need people that
can do math? People need one. Businesses need one who

(42:53):
can communicate, which they're not being taught in English and
marketing classes anymore. When I took marketing classes in when
I was in college, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth,
we were taught how to communicate. We had to be
able to define who our audience was, understand their needs,

(43:15):
and speak to them in a language they could relate to.
This is not being done anymore. People are basically being
taught how to be social media influencers. And you know what,
that's another industry that could go by the wayside and
no one will miss them.

Speaker 2 (43:35):
Now for our focused focus subject, just to give you
some background, we have the Biden scandal that is started
out like a aha kind of a thing and now it's
as Jade Tapper said, and you read the book so
you can articulate it even further. It's bigger than Watergate,

(43:56):
which I solely agree with. You have the cancer cover up,
you have the Dems baying consultants twenty million dollars plus
for information on how to relate to men and having
focus groups where they you know, were associations they what

(44:19):
do you associate Republicans with? If you're looking at animals
and they're all predatory animals, dominant animals, alpha animals like lions, tigers,
and what do you think of Democrats? Slugs, you know, whatever,
you know, basically passive animals, and then just a couple
other things. Is last thing is and you look at

(44:40):
what's going on. We talked about the wrong track high
I mean wrong track, right track. It's the highest been
positively with Trump in office, over fifty or about fifty
percent right now, right track highest in twenty nine years
has approval rating by some measures or fifty five percent.
What is a situation with the Democratic Party, especially when

(45:04):
you have Psicho's leading the ship or steering the ship,
and you also have initiatives that just came out like
boycotting July fourth and the parade I mean women's in sports.
It's you know, defending eighty twenty propositions. It's really not
just hyperbole. It doesn't look good for the Democrats.

Speaker 1 (45:27):
No, it doesn't look good for the Democrats and there's
a couple of things that fed into this, and you
know just I mean, you brought in a lot of things.
So to start off with that survey that the New
York Times reported was absolutely amazing. This was this was
not even a survey of the general public. This was

(45:50):
a survey of registered Democrats. And they said, by the way,
they they identified the Democratic Party as snails, tortoises, and sloths.
Was the other was the other one that they that
they identified. Meanwhile, they identified the Republican Party with lions, tigers,

(46:14):
and sharks. So yeah, that's that's one hell of a
difference in the image of the core Democrat because I.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
Mean, interject one other thing about that is when you
think about it, just think about marketing and Nike. When
you have the sloths and the passive, that's old, like
it is a old people. You associate those type of
attributes sharks, tigers, that's youth. Am I not correct?

Speaker 1 (46:42):
Well, it's not. It's not just youth.

Speaker 2 (46:45):
It is you. It's it's no, it's you. It's no, no,
it's youth. No, but you it's not old. It's not
only youth, but it is associated with youth flaws, These
docile are o retired. And I think that's really indicative
of where the parties are because the Democrats have all

(47:08):
the woodstock generation and the Republicans are increasingly building up
steam with younger people.

Speaker 1 (47:17):
Yeah, the Republicans are building up steam with younger people,
but they have no shortage of octagenarians on the Republican
side either. The difference is not about age. It's about
getting things done. Nobody wants to play for a sports
team called the Sloths. They want to be on that,

(47:40):
you know, they want to be on the Sharks, they
want to be on the Tigers. You know. Well, maybe
not the Detroit Tigers, but that's another story. But it's
about active activity, it's about aggression, it's about focus. That's
how people that's how people view the different parties. At

(48:04):
the fact of the matter is the Democrats completely did
this to themselves. The Biden cover up was only part
of the problem, but it was a major part. But
there was another problem that went along that Democrats have
started talking about just over the past few weeks. And

(48:26):
obviously Jake Tapper did not talk about this in the book,
because nobody started talking about this until well after the
book had been finished and sent to the publisher. The
Democrats have not held a legitimate primary since two thousand
and eight. That was the last time the voters chose

(48:52):
who was going to represent the Democrats for president?

Speaker 2 (48:58):
Are they trying to protect themselves from themselves? They are
given their constituency, you'd get a psycho like Sanders or
like Warned, would lose every state over bye.

Speaker 1 (49:12):
Which honestly wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing to happen
to them, because.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
At least therapeutic, at least right, at.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
Least that way they could go, well, look, we did
what you wanted and you cost us everything. So now
the grownups are going to enter the room and we're
going to do things right. But the Democrats have this theory,
and I heard a number of people talk about it previously,

(49:42):
and Tapper talks about the DNC doing this in the book.
They said, well, Biden decided he was going to run
for reelection, so since he's the incumbent, we're not going
to have a primary. When did that happen? Tech Kennedy primary,
Jimmy Carter because Carter wasn't doing well, Mitt Romney primary,

(50:05):
George H. W. Bush when he was the incumbent.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
Well, well, actually, Reagan primaried fordy.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
Yes, that was the other Reagan. Yes, Reagan primaried Ford
when he was the incumbent. If a president is seriously
doing a good job, he can survive a primary challenge,
might even help him. Right, if he's not doing a
good job, he doesn't deserve to survive a primary challenge.

(50:38):
The idea that the president should say, no, we're not
having a primary, and a lot of them are going, well,
you know Trump didn't have a primary in twenty twenty. Well,
first of all, you had COVID and you did have
a couple people running against him. But the fact of
the matter is he was doing such a good job.

(50:59):
The Republicans didn't want to run against him.

Speaker 2 (51:02):
It wasn't that's happened before. It happened with Clinton back
in ninety four, one ninety six. I'm sorry no one
primaried him because he was doing such a great job.
That is correct. And also, you look at twenty twenty,
I mean twenty twenty four, twenty twenty three, I should
say Trump was primary by many people. Yes, But the

(51:27):
real situation is, though I don't see it correcting itself
in the New Yar terms, I think until they get
their head handed to them. I think it's going I
think the twenty and Tapper is right in others for
the twenty twenty sixth election, I see this, this scandal,

(51:50):
not just the craziness of the Democratic Party. This scandal
is going to play very pervasively in the midterms.

Speaker 1 (51:59):
Yes it will.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
How can you trust a party that lied to you?

Speaker 1 (52:04):
Well, not not just that because they didn't they didn't
all lie, they were all complicit in one way or another,
but base based on the information in Original Sin, which
was Jake Tapper's book, you had different groups of Democrats

(52:24):
doing different things that all resulted in the major Biden
cover up. You had what they were they're calling the
Pullet Bureau. These were the people that were actively covering
up Biden's failures. And let's be clear, despite the fact
that at the beginning of the book, Jake Tapper said

(52:47):
the majority of the cover up and you know, and
Biden's decline happened between twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four,
his own reporting in the book said people started seeing
signs of it in twenty fifteen. This is one of
the reasons. This is one of the reasons did not.

(53:10):
He didn't run in twenty sixteen.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
Yes, and it did not start in mid mid mid
semester or mid term for him. Uh. We talked about this,
you know, on the podcast Terrestrial Radio, what have you,
that they had the basement, didn't the basement street at COVID, COVID, COVID.
They didn't the basement strategy because he was Einstein. Hello,

(53:35):
right now, he was out of.

Speaker 1 (53:37):
His mind then.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
But is it to look at the the repercussions of this.
They were willing to jeopardize America, jeopardize the world economically
from a safety perspective, just to maintain power. Every party
wants to maintain power. But there are levels to a

(54:00):
degree of complicity. And I also think that talked about
careers gone by Jill Biden. Usually if a first lady,
charismatic whatever, can write some books, maybe get some time
on you know, news shows and and uh and other
things like that, she's gone.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
No, the the big names in in the cover up,
their careers are done. Jill Biden is one of them.
You'll notice Gobye, every press secretary from a president has
gone into the media except crying Jean Pierre. Nobody will

(54:42):
touch her she's done.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
Point, but how how about her predecessor? I mean, she's
not doing well. I think as this scandal this has,
this is getting more legs, not less. I think she's
gone to the ginger chick.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Yeah, Pisaki is going to have to explain how she
did not see this. Now, Yes, the polit bureau, and
I'll be honest with you, the folks that were actually
behind all of this, according to what Tapper was able
to write about, were not the usual suspects. These were

(55:22):
not people that anybody knew their names. These were close
Biden confidants. These were folks that had worked with him
for years. Now, that's something else that should have been
a clue. Biden's sister ran Biden's campaigns up until twenty twenty,

(55:49):
and in twenty twenty she said, no, this is a
bad idea. I'm not going to be involved in it.
So even his family knew what was going on. Now,
you did have different levels of complicity. You had the
pollet Bureau that was absolutely behind the cover up. Then

(56:12):
you had folks like Schumer at the Pelosi at that
level that they knew what was going on. Oh, but
they knew that confronting Biden about it would tear the
party apart, and they didn't want to lose their power.

(56:32):
Then you've actually got lower level government employees. These aren't
These aren't people with any power. This is just there.
These are the folks doing their job. A number of
them came forward to say they were actually threatened by
the Pollet Bureau that they were going to ruin their

(56:53):
lives if they said anything negative about Biden. Several reporters,
not big name reporters, but several reporters also talked to
Jake Tapper and said they were also threatened that they
would never have access again if they spoke out against Biden.

(57:15):
So this wasn't just a group of Democratic sympathizers saying, oh,
we have to protect the party. These were folks that
were trying to protect their own self interest against a
Biden administration that was doing exactly what they kept accusing
Trump of doing. And honestly, and this surprised me. Do

(57:40):
you know who I ended up feeling sorry for after
reading this book, Merrick Garland. Garland Garland was in over
his head. He should probably should never have been given
the job, but Biden made assurances to him. But if
he took the job, he would not have to deal

(58:03):
with any politics. All he would have to do is
protect the law. And he wasn't in office for more
than a few months when the Biden administration started pressuring
him to protect the Biden name, and he didn't know
what to do or how to handle it.

Speaker 2 (58:27):
Well. A couple very salient questions. Number one, Biden legacy
already week before this really exploded. I think he'll go
down as a footnote and in the bottom ten percent
of presents agree or.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
Not, definitely in the bottom ten percent. And you know,
that's something else that should be mentioned. In the time
period that Tapper mentioned where things got really bad with
Biden from twenty three to twenty four. Not only was
Biden unaware of his own deterioration, which is common for

(59:05):
folks in this situation. It has nothing to do with Biden,
you know himself. This is just what happens. The folks
around him did not tell him what was going on
with the electorate, did not let him see any polls,
did not even let him hear about issues that were

(59:26):
going on. They completely isolated him, so he had he
had no pu I don't I don't think he had
any clue the autopen was even being used.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
And as for using the gate some of his initiatives, Honestly,
that's a legal question that I don't have the answer to,
but I would assume that it would because something that
the Poloit Bureau kept kept falling back on, and they
kept telling Democrats this and it is assuredly one hundred

(01:00:02):
percent false, is that, Oh, when people vote for the president,
they're not just voting for the president, They're voting for
the people around him.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
No, these these were unelected people that were taking power
that did not belong to them, and which is again
completely ironic given the Democrats temper tantrum over Elon Musk,
because Elon Musk didn't actually have any power. He went

(01:00:34):
out found the information and then went to Trump and
said here's what we found, here's a recommendation, and Trump
made the decision because that's his job.

Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
I would agree with one hundred percent as we look
at the ramifications worsen Watergate.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Yes or no again, yes, without a question. I mean
you're you're talking, you're talking about the difference between a party.
Actually I don't even know. Again, I was pretty young
when Watergate happened. But you have the Committee to re

(01:01:18):
elect the President, which which by the way, worst acronym ever.
But you had that group spying on their opposition to
get a leg up in an election. They did, you know,
they didn't try to lie to any courts to get

(01:01:42):
FISA warrants or anything like that. Of course, the fights
of court didn't exist back then. But it was a
whole bunch of dirty tricks to win an election. This
was literally endangering the lives of Americans. And numerous people
in the Biden administration have now come out and said,

(01:02:06):
if you remember the Hillary Clinton commercial campaign commercial, you
know who do you want answering the phone at three am?
Biden was completely incapable of answering a three am emergency.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
I agree. I think it put our country in the world,
like we talked about, in perilous peril's position. And I
also think, though I get back to Ted Cruz, he
said this before this cancer ever broke out, maybe a
year into Biden's administration, and how left he turned. He goes,

(01:02:45):
he's not in charge. You got a bunch of Trotskyites
who went, you know, thirty year old Trotskyites from Harvard
doing there was no one guarding the Henhouse they auto panned, Yes,
go ahead.

Speaker 1 (01:02:59):
Ted Ted Cruz was actually wrong about that. It wasn't
a group of thirty year old Trotskyites. The Trotskyite was
one of this pollet bureau, one of six people who
was a Biden confidante. He was the one. And hang
on because I've got his actual name here if I

(01:03:21):
can find it. Yes, it was ron Klain. He was
the one that was pushing things to the left and
he was the one that was telling these thirty year
olds what to do. So yeah, it wasn't the thirty
year old Trotskyites. It was one of the polit bureau,

(01:03:42):
as they called them.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
So yeah, let me ask you a question. How good
at TV and how what kind of repercussions are going
to happen if there's a strong possibility and when they
have a congressional hearing including the people so you know
that we've just mentioned Plain even they've talked about doctor Jill,

(01:04:06):
the whole list. I think the damage could be unimaginable.

Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
The damage is going to be severe at at best.
And yes, they're going to six possibly.

Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
I do believe that if.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24):
If if Congress works quickly enough. Now here's the thing though,
and a number of Republican congressmen have already said this.
They said Congress is going to especially the Oversight Committee,
is going to be looking into this. However, they said
this point blank. Congress is not good at this. They

(01:04:48):
are not good at investigations. They need to be able
to get just enough evidence so that the Justice Department
can take a look because that's where the investment the
gators are. And that was something else this came out
in the book. Was another factor that was that made

(01:05:09):
this so bad was Biden's doctor. Biden's do Biden's doctor
was a family friend. He saw Biden all of the time,
and because of this, he actually stated, oh, I can
see you know what's going on, so I don't need

(01:05:31):
to have to I don't have to run all of
these tests.

Speaker 2 (01:05:36):
So good idea he was.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
Yeah, he was never given cognitive tests because the doctor
was his friend and he didn't feel it was necessary.
He also came out never got a PSA test, which
is why suddenly he has stage four cancer because it's
been over fifteen years since he got a PSA test.

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Men are good.

Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
Men are supposed to get a PSA test at like forties,
right well, starting at their forties, but they're supposed to
get it every year, two at the most, and he
went fourteen years without having one.

Speaker 2 (01:06:20):
In some ways, I don't like the son of a bitch,
but you got to kind of have some empathy sympathy
for uncle Joe. I mean, when you look at the
final years of his life, A failed president, a disgrace president,
A president. One thing about being president. Obviously we've never

(01:06:41):
been a president. But I can only imagine the accolades,
the opportunities to go places and do things and interact
in certain it's over.

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
It's over, yes, his well, I mean, yes, his legacy
is over. But again, life give Given the events of
the past few years, I don't know that that's going
to affect him any I don't know how much he's
actually aware of anymore. I mean they they prop him

(01:07:16):
up periodically to make an appearance, and those those appearances
are no becoming fewer and fewer because one, every time
he does it, it just brings the story back to the forefront.
Because he can't, you know, can't do it anymore. And
two because his health does not justify him doing this anymore.

(01:07:38):
So at this point, I don't even know how much
he's aware of the damage that has been Now, Jill
is fully aware, she's she's probably miserable because she wanted
to be back in the White House.

Speaker 2 (01:07:53):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
I mean, as far as I can tell, the only
one that didn't want to be back in the White
House was Michelle Obama. She was the only one complaining
how terrible it was to be in the White House.

Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
Let's close on that, because I think that's interest. Let's
close on a lighter note. Have you ever seen a
more self absorbed, entitled, out of touch person than Michelle?
It just boggles the mind. There's people that barely put
bread on the table, had the situations that would blow
your mind, and she's complaining that they had to pay

(01:08:28):
for meals and sometimes she had to actually pick up
a phone. I don't know what's going on with her,
but her old legacy, whatever the legacy, her persona unless
except for the true believers, it's not the nice Michelle
that that shit's over with. No, she's really a bitter,

(01:08:49):
angry piece of shit. If you want my.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
Honest that that ship has sailed her her.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
No, she's a miserable person.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
The nice guy image is gone, and I think you
know I've heard over the last couple of days. There's
a lot of controversy going on about the fact that
schools are not teaching history anymore. Well, for those of
our listeners that remember learning history in in class, I

(01:09:19):
think it all comes down to one statement, and you
could see Michelle actually saying it, let them eat cake.

Speaker 2 (01:09:30):
I love that perfect Well, Doctor Lopkin, a lot to unpack.
I think the story will probably revisit this probably next week,
the whole Biden cover up in the state of the
Democratic Party. It's something that is you're not just we're
not just belaboring a point. I mean, it's it's a
once in a generation occurrence. I've never seen this happen.

(01:09:53):
I wasn't around with the wigs, but it's it's it's
moving towards that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
Yeah, no, this is this is historical, and yes we are.
We are going to keep covering it because new information
keeps coming out about it. The story's not going to
go anywhere, so we do need to keep doing new
commentary and new analysis on it as more comes out,

(01:10:21):
and of course, you know, the more that comes out,
we don't want to just hear what our analysis is.
We want to hear what our listeners have to say
so we want all of you. Go to the Carnivore
Radio Facebook page, message us, go to xvadio dot com
slash connect, send us an email saying what you think

(01:10:45):
of all of this that's going on. You know, what
do you what do you think is the real story
and how do you feel about it? And of course
you can catch every episode off Carnivore Bites at xvadio
dot com, the Carnivore Radio website, Apple Podcasts, app, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible,

(01:11:07):
Amazon Music, and other platforms that respect freedom of speech.

Speaker 2 (01:11:13):
Great show, Doctor Lockin. See you next week.

Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
We'll see you then,