Podcast appearances and mentions of benjamin ginsberg

We celebrate the 30th anniversary of the St. Louis Jewish Film Festival, highlighting an impressive lineup of films from March 30th to April 8th at B&B Theaters in Creve Coeur. Hosts Arnold Stricker and Mark Langston discuss the festival with John Wilson, the Director of Cultural Arts at the Jewish Community Center of St. Louis, and Wendy Sachs, director of the documentary 'October 8th.' The discussion moves into the significance of the film, which addresses the surge of anti-Semitism following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Wendy shares her personal journey and the challenges faced in creating the documentary, shedding light on the coordinated efforts behind the rise of anti-Semitism and the importance of education and awareness. John and Wendy emphasize the importance of using the festival and films like 'October 8' to educate the public, provoke meaningful conversations, and foster community engagement. The festival aims to provide a diverse cinematic experience that is both informative and entertaining, covering themes from historical to contemporary issues, comedy, and more.[00:00] Introduction to the St. Louis Jewish Film Festival[00:33] Meet the Hosts and Today's Special Guest[01:01] Return to Civility: A Thoughtful Reminder[02:14] Introducing John Wilson: Festival Director[02:57] Wendy Sachs: A Multi-Hyphenate Talent[04:41] The Making of 'October 8th': Wendy's Journey[07:05] Challenges in Hollywood: The Struggle for Distribution[11:27] The Coordinated Effort Behind Campus Activism[13:37] Festival Highlights and Thematic Films[18:56] Wendy Sachs on Selecting Documentary Participants[21:36] Exploring Modern Anti-Semitism[24:39] Introduction to the St. Louis Jewish Film Festival[25:51] Highlighting Key Films and Themes[30:13] Personal Reflections and Impact[35:18] Call to Action and Education[38:36] Conclusion and FarewellTakeaways: The St. Louis Jewish Film Festival is celebrating its 30th anniversary with an exciting lineup of films that promise to stir up some serious conversation. Wendy Sachs, director of the documentary 'October 8th', shares her journey creating a film that tackles the rise of antisemitism in America, sparked by recent events. John Wilson, the festival director, emphasizes the importance of community engagement through cinema, aiming for viewers to leave with new perspectives and a sense of connection. The film festival features a variety of films, from serious documentaries to light-hearted comedies, ensuring there's something for everyone to enjoy and discuss. October 8 | Official Website | March 14 2025Wendy SachsSt. Louis Jewish Film Festival - St. Louis JCCLinks referenced in this episode:stljewishfilmfestival.orgoctober8film.comjccstl.comdredscottlives.orgEpisode with Benjamin Ginsberg on The New Anti-Semitism: The Left, the Right, and the JewsThis is Season 8! For more episodes, go to

Tuesday, January 14, 2025 Hoover Institution | Stanford University The Hoover Institution Center for Revitalizing American Institutions webinar series features speakers who are developing innovative ideas, conducting groundbreaking research, and taking important actions to improve trust and efficacy in American institutions. Speaker expertise and topics span governmental institutions, civic organizations and practice, and the role of public opinion and culture in shaping our democracy. The webinar series builds awareness about how we can individually and collectively revitalize American institutions to ensure our country's democracy delivers on its promise. The fourth session discusses Restoring Trust in American Elections: Challenges and Opportunities with Benjamin Ginsberg, Justin Grimmer, and Brandice Canes-Wrone on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, from 10:00 - 11:00 am PT. Public faith in the reliability of American elections has been eroding for decades with both political parties voicing concerns at times since the 1980s. Democrats have often pointed to issues like voter suppression and systemic inequities, while many Republicans have embraced claims of widespread fraud. Since 2016, and particularly following the 2020 election, polls have shown a more precipitous drop in the public's trust in elections. These divisions have raised critical questions: Are election results reliable? Is distrust in elections now an enduring feature of American political campaigns and does that impact the democracy? Are we destined to cycle through accusations of fraud and suppression with every contested result?  What have we learned from the 2024 election process? 

A relevant discussion about the current state of antisemitism in the United States with Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg, a renowned political scientist and author. We explore the rise of antisemitism on the political left and the changing dynamics of Jewish support in America. Dr. Ginsberg shares his perspectives on contemporary anti-Israel sentiment, the historical context of antisemitism, and the challenges Jewish students face on college campuses. The conversation touches upon the importance of understanding Jewish history and rethinking political alliances. This discussion provides fresh insights into the complexities of antisemitism today and highlights the need for informed dialogue and education.[00:00] Introduction and Today's Hot Topic[02:05] Welcoming Dr. Benjamin GinsbergThe New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right, and The Jews St. Louis Jewish Book Festival[03:52] The New American Antisemitism[06:42] Historical Context and Shifts[10:29] Intersectionality and Campus Politics[25:07] Evangelical Christians and Jewish Alliances[32:41] Advice for Jewish Students[33:13] Book Overview: Anti-Semitism Today[34:55] Encouraging Open-Mindedness[40:25] The Complexity of Middle Eastern Conflicts[44:44] National Days and Fun Facts[49:50] Closing Remarks and CreditsUnited Nations-Call for elimination of Israel – HRC 16th session – NGO statement (WUPJ)Showpass-tickets to Benjamin GinsbergSt. Louis Jewish Book Festival - St. Louis JCCThis is Season 7! For more episodes, go to stlintune.com#antisemitism #Zionists #ChristianZionists #Jewishhistory #jccstl #middleeasternconflicts #adviceforJewishstudents

Margaret Hoover sits down with Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer (R), Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D), and veteran GOP election attorney Benjamin Ginsberg for a bipartisan discussion of the facts about elections and voting in America. After a screening of “Counting the Vote” at the 92nd Street Y in New York, the experts talk about preparations for the 2024 election and legal and logistical challenges that may emerge in the weeks ahead. They also comment on litigation already underway over noncitizens voting, overseas voters, and voter roll maintenance. Benson and Richer address their efforts to correct misinformation spread by Elon Musk and the threats they have faced for defending election integrity. Ginsberg also assesses the legality of Musk's PAC giving away $1 million a day to swing state voters. The guests lay out their concerns about potential chaos and violence surrounding the vote count and whether they see reasons for hope. They also answer questions from the audience and explain how to effectively engage with election skeptics. Support for “Firing Line for Margaret Hoover” is provided by Robert Granieri, Henry & Vanessa Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and Al & Kathy Hubbard. Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. 

Chris and Amy begin this Thursday talk about great broadcasters. Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies and Author of The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right and the Jews joins Chris and Amy to talk about the rise of Anti-Semitism in America and the Jewish Book Festival in November. CBS Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett joins to discuss the election as we enter the final month. Finally, Did you see this.

Guests on the Chris and Amy Show include; Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies and Author of The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right and the Jews joins Chris and Amy to talk about the rise of Anti-Semitism in America and the Jewish Book Festival in November. Major Garrett, CBS Chief Washington Correspondent talks about the election. Byron Clemens, retired teacher, Officer of the Missouri Chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, early childhood literacy expert joins to talk about Amendment 5; Casino money used for early childhood literacy programs. Bernie Miklasz, KMOX Sports Contributor discusses MLB Postseason, Blues hockey and Mizzou football.

Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Johns Hopkins Center for Advanced Governmental Studies and Author of The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right and the Jews joins Chris and Amy to talk about the rise of Anti-Semitism in America and the Jewish Book Festival in November.

In Episode 220 of the CounterVortex podcast, Bill Weinberg discusses two new books on the related themes of the Jewish Question and the Question of Palestine. One, The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, the Right, and the Jews by Benjamin Ginsberg, is dangerously deluded. The other, The No-State Solution: A Jewish Manifesto by Daniel Boyarin, begins to move the discussion in the right direction. Weinberg goes further, calling for pan-Semitic unity between Jews and Arabs in repudiation of racism, imperialism and colonialism in all forms—including both Zionism and anti-Semitism. Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/countervortex Production by Chris Rywalt We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly podcast via Patreon -- or $2 for our new special offer! We now have 60 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 61!

Is anti-Semitism finding a new home on the political left amidst the ongoing Middle East conflict? Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg, professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, joins Brian Nichols to discuss this alarming trend and how an unexpected alliance with the evangelical right could help combat it. But the conversation takes an intriguing turn as Brian challenges some of Dr. Ginsberg's assertions, leading to a thought-provoking exchange. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart In this eye-opening episode, Dr. Ginsberg delves into the history of anti-Semitism's migration from the right to the left, explaining how events like the 1967 Israel-Arab War and the influx of Muslim immigrants to Western Europe played a crucial role in this shift. He also addresses the concerning rise of "anti-Zionism" on college campuses and its supposed close ties to anti-Semitism. However, Brian questions whether "anti-Zionism" always equates to anti-Semitism, citing the example of libertarians who oppose foreign aid on principle rather than prejudice. The discussion heats up as Brian and Dr. Ginsberg explore the challenges faced by libertarians in navigating foreign policy issues, particularly when it comes to supporting allies like Israel and Ukraine. They debate the importance of political realism and the need to balance non-interventionist principles with the realities of a global society. Brian argues that current foreign policy decisions may be a response to the unintended consequences of past actions, while Dr. Ginsberg maintains that support for allies is crucial in the face of threats. The conversation also touches on the state of education in the United States, with Dr. Ginsberg highlighting the lack of historical knowledge among students and the prevalence of magical thinking in a post-truth society. Brian pushes back, suggesting that the idealism of libertarians could be a positive force in shaping a more peaceful future, but Dr. Ginsberg emphasizes the need for a more balanced approach to teaching American history, one that acknowledges both the country's flaws and its aspirations. As the discussion draws to a close, Dr. Ginsberg offers his insights on the potential long-term consequences of America's current foreign policy decisions and the hope for a future where reason and rationality prevail. This episode of The Brian Nichols Show is a must-watch for anyone interested in the complex intersection of politics, history, and ideology. Be sure to grab a copy of Dr. Ginsberg's book, "The New American Anti-Semitism: The Left, The Right, and The Jews," to further explore this critical issue. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

John J. Miller is joined by Benjamin Ginsberg to discuss his new book, 'The New American Anti-Semitism.'

If you want to see more of our work & engage with great people, join our Substack community, where we write multiple essays per week.

Welcome to the Adam's Archive, where each episode is a journey into the depths of intriguing topics. Join your host, Austin Adams, as he unravels conspiracies, explores controversial legacies, and dives into groundbreaking events that shape our world. From the dark secrets behind historical figures to the revolutionary moves by institutions like the FAA, each episode promises a captivating exploration. In today's episode, we peel back the layers surrounding Martin Luther King's assassination, exposing alleged conspiracies involving the FBI, CIA, and the military. We then shift gears to examine the debated values and controversies surrounding King's legacy. Brace yourself for a revelation as we unveil the FAA's bold move in recruiting diverse talents, exploring the impact on the aviation industry. But that's not all—tune in as we reveal the winner of the Iowa caucus and discuss the potential global concerns raised by influential figures about Trump's 2024 election prospects. With in-depth analysis, exclusive revelations, and compelling storytelling, the Adam's Archive is your gateway to the most explosive topics of our time. Don't miss out on the visual experience—head over to our YouTube channel, where Austin's charismatic presence accompanies each episode, providing a comprehensive view of the articles and videos discussed. So, whether you're on the go or settling in, join us at the Adam's Archive, where every episode takes you deeper into the stories that matter. Don't forget to leave a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, and remember, the longer you're here, the deeper we get. Let's dive in!   All Links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com/   ----more----  Full Transcription:   Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adam's Archive. My name is Austin Adams and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we're going to be doing a deep dive in the theme of today, which is actually Martin Luther King Day.  You're not listening to it on Martin Luther King Day, but I digress. It got me interested in the topic and I learned a little bit more about it. So now I want to share my findings with you. Which is the fact that Martin, Martin, Martin, Martin Luther King was actually, allegedly, not really allegedly, but allegedly, assassinated by the FBI in cahoots with the CIA and  The military intelligence and the reason that this came about was because of a 1999 trial by somebody who is a whistleblower who said that he worked with the mob and was paid 100,  000  to hire a hitman for this job by those same individuals who moved all the moving pieces around. To make it happen.  So we'll discuss that. We'll dive deep into the situation. We'll also have a conversation about Martin Luther King in general. There's been some controversial conversations about his values and things like that. So we'll talk about that. And when it comes to some current events, we're also going to discuss this, which is the fact that the FAA  is actively now recruiting people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. As a part of a diversity and inclusion plan.  Don't worry. We'll talk about it. After that, we will talk about the next thing, which is the fact that, uh, the caucus is going on tonight in Iowa. So we'll just briefly super briefly touch on that because I believe we already have a winner and  we will also discuss the world economic forum coming out and saying that the idea that Trump could potentially win the 2024 election is.  And I quote,  and this actually came from, I believe, somebody, the, the, uh, head of BlackRock,  uh, a woman there that was at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, said that it was a great concern, quote, unquote, if Trump won the election.  Now, all of that and more, make sure you stick around, because the longer you're here, the deeper we get. Alright, so, before you do that, uh, go ahead and  Leave a review,  Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you're at, go ahead and click the five stars. If you're on Spotify or Apple podcasts, if you haven't watched the episodes before all of the stuff that I'm talking about here with you on the podcast is also available on YouTube, just with my beautiful face and all the articles and videos that we're watching up on the screen for you. So if you're working, whatever you got going on, you're cleaning up the house, whatever you're doing. Put on YouTube, man, I'll be right there waiting for you. And you'll actually be able to see everything that we're discussing all the articles and everything there. All right. So without further ado, let's jump into it.   The Adams archive.  All right, let's jump into it. The very first thing that we're going to discuss today is going to be that the FAA came out and said, And you're hearing this correct. The FAA said that they were going to start doing diversity hires for people who are severely and mentally incapable.  That seems like the absolute worst idea in the world. If there was any job that you would do, and I can actually speak to this, uh, and I'll get into more detail on that for you. But if there's any job that you shouldn't be able to do, this should probably be on the list. So here's this article. It comes from the post millennial and it says Biden's FAA is actively recruiting people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities as a part of diversity and inclusion plan.  Yeah. If you're terrified.  Because when I was in the, the FAA certification process right when I was going through air traffic control school to be in the Air Force when I was in the Air Force, um,  we wouldn't even when you went in and you got your FAA certification, you got this little pink card that showed that you were an air traffic controller. You had to go through all these tests. The tests were quite difficult, by the way, so I'm not sure like my class of  air traffic controllers from tech school at Uh, Biloxi, Mississippi did essentially, we had 24 people or 27 people or so when we started and by the end of it, eight of us graduated. So it's, it's not like this is easy stuff. And then you go to your actual base and then even a larger amount of people wash out at their base, depending on what base you go to. Now, when it comes to the FAA, allowing severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities to be a part of this organization and these types of jobs, we're talking about. People who have your lives in their hands at all times, when you talk about air traffic controllers and pilots, you need to be mentally sharp, you need to be mentally capable, you need to be able to make split second decisions that are going to choose life or death for hundreds of people at a time. And here's how I would explain air traffic control. You know, some people, everybody thinks it's like the person with the cone sitting down on the runway. No.  The air traffic controller either has one of two jobs. One's in a tower, one's in a radar facility. And if you're in the tower, you're basically working air traffic within maybe five miles around your base. And if you're working in a radar facility, like I did, you work potentially up to 20, 30, even larger. Distances than that. So you're controlling. So when, when you're doing a radar facility, you see a screen when you're in tower, it's a little bit different and you use different tools, but when you're in the radar facility, you see basically a screen and it looks like a video game. And there's little triangles on there with little, you know, letters and numbers.  Next to them. And each one of those triangles could represent anywhere from two to 250 people. And your job as an air traffic controller is to,  is to look and observe the altitude of the aircraft that you're looking at, check their, uh, the altitude, their speed, and then you're supposed to create.  Patterns. There's already generally pre created patterns, but you're, you're supposed to keep them within the air traffic patterns, tell them when there's traffic, give them the, the distance, the speed, the altitude of the traffic. And, and at the same time, you know, there were certain times in the air traffic facility when one person would be working upwards of 20 to 25 different planes at a single given time. So you can imagine what that looks like when you're trying to maintain and track 25 small triangles and make sure that they don't hit each other, because if those triangles touch each other,  you could have killed 500 people.  Now, when we're talking about the FAA allowing severely intellectually and  psychiatrically disabled individuals into the FAA, we're also talking about pilots.  Now, I don't know about you, but I just watched a recent Netflix movie and it's the most. It's like the highest net, the highest watched Netflix movie right now. Pretty sure it's like Sons of Snow or something like that and essentially what happened is back in the 1970s there was a pilot, a perfectly capable, unmentally handicapped, or severely intellectually disabled individual,  a perfectly healthy individual,  who was a pilot, who was the co pilot, and he hadn't really driven this plane through the area that they were in through these mountains and During the 70s, this, this plane was commissioned through the, the military to ride these like rugby players and their families all over to go play a match.  And when they did that, the co pilot was  maintaining the aircraft and was lost just by 40 miles. And 40 miles seems like a really long distance, but when you're going 300, 400 miles per hour  It's not. And so  you could do that in 25 minutes, 20 minutes of just going the wrong direction, you're 40 miles off off path. And so when what happened was this guy  lowered his altitude and did so so much that he hit the tail end of the plane on the back of a cliff,  broke the plane in half, it ripped the wings off of the plane and stranded these 27 people in this Horrific, mountainous, frigid, freezing area. And those people were there for 80, 81 days. They survived in the climate where the temperatures would drop 80 degrees in one hour.  It's a little graphic movie, so I'll give you that.  Parental discretion. Don't watch this with the kids, and don't watch it if you don't have a or if you're a little queasy when it comes to, I don't know, cannibalism, because it's kind of a theme throughout it all, but this is a real story that happened. And the only reason that these guys survived, a certain amount of them, survived was because of their, both their heroic acts, and The fact that they ended up cannibalizing each other and the story is truly amazing and in a testament to humanity and how certain individuals in that situation can step up into leadership roles and  to, uh, you know, work alongside other people to delegate tasks and all these amazing things that they did together. It's actually a really interesting case study on like almost, uh, uh, the, the antithesis of Lord of the Flies. And I think that's partially because a small portion of these individuals actually happened to be teammates prior to this. So they were already on their own side. They were all wearing a Jersey together. They had some camaraderie. And so I think that's a, that's a big piece of it. But I also think that when you're in that situation, there's always going to be several leaders who step up and decide that they're going to speak for the group and that they're the ones that are most capable to lead them out of a terrible situation.  And you really find the character out of an individual when they're in a situation like that, and whether they step up or they look around the room to meet the eyes of somebody who's going to,  and there's different people for different roles in life. And that's not to say that any one person is less than the other, but I do think that there is a certain gene within.  A man or a woman that makes them more capable leaders than others. And when you're in a situation that is literally life and death, you want to make sure that you have a capable leader.  In this specific instance, they actually had the captain of their team that helped. Uh, take on that initial leadership role that they all kind of looked to throughout this film. Now, it's truly an incredible film, and I know I'm getting off on a tangent here, but you should go watch it. Don't blame me, because I already warned you about the cannibalism stuff. All right, guys, like, don't, don't be messaging me, getting all mad at me for, but it's, it's a great movie, and, and it's definitely worth the watch, and it'll make you queasy for, you know, a few scenes, but. It's worth it. It's interesting.  And so, when you have somebody who's a co pilot and for 10 minutes looked the wrong direction and wasn't following the right, you know, path.  Like, I don't know how many people were on the original plane, but it was probably at least 70 people died as a result of this tiny little mistake.  This isn't a cab driver, and even then, you probably shouldn't be a cab driver if you have severe intellectual disabilities.  So when it comes to the FAA, the standards are high for a reason. Hi for a reason, and it's for your safety. So when you have Boeing with their 757s that came out flaunting in a video where all of their engineers are now women  walking through a trade show in slow motion thinking they're all cool. Meanwhile, they should have been in the back of a hangar with a screwdriver screwing on the  windows or the door that fell off of the The airplane like every single piece of aviation has to be handled with extreme care from the mechanics that are working on a plane, obviously, to the FAA or traffic controllers that are maintaining your traffic and giving telling people where to go and how to get there and how to get there safely to the pilots that are actually sitting in that cockpit, making sure that you and your family land. Without dying, that's a pretty important role, don't you think? And I don't think that that's somebody that I want to have severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. And when we go back to my time in the Air Force, when I was an air traffic controller, you wouldn't, if you were feeling any sort of anxiety, or depression, or any lingering mental health issue at all, you would never, never go speak with a therapist. It was a death sentence for your career.  An absolute death sentence for your career. If you went to speak to a therapist, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, you would not be able, they would immediately strip you of, of your, your duties. You wouldn't be allowed to go do your job because now you're, you're at a risk and they can't risk having somebody with a medical history of any mental health issues or  physical disabilities or intellectual disabilities because.  You can kill people, not even just like one or two. You kill lots of people in air traffic or as a pilot. And all of those decisions that you have to make are split second decisions. So,  this is absolutely crazy to me. But let's, let's go ahead and watch this here.  Or I'll read it for you. Which says, The Federal Aviation Administration places a priority on hiring people with severe intellectual disabilities as a part of the Diversity and Inclusion Initiative.  According to its website, the FAA claims individuals with targeted or severe disabilities are the most underrepresented segment of the federal workforce.  Under its People with Disabilities program, the agency says, it actively recruits, hires, promotes, retains, and develops and advances people with disabilities. The FAA targets the following disabilities as a matter of policy. Hearing. Vision, missing extremities, God, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, and dwarfism. Could you imagine if you go to get into your plane and as you're boarding Delta flight, you see a blind, deaf  dwarf with one arm sitting there ready to fly your plane?  That doesn't sound like a good idea at all.  I am immediately grabbing my luggage and turning right around and exiting the plane. Because that's,  I'm not trying to be ableist or whatever the fuck you want to call it, but there are certain qualities that, that make you capable of flying a plane and being deaf, blind, missing extremities,  or being deaf. Paralyzed seemed to fall under the category of the things that you wouldn't want from your pilot,  I would say. Now, the FAA told Fox News that it seeked qualified candidates from as many sources as possible, all of whom must meet rigorous qualifications that, of course, will vary by position. Its website reveals that those with disabilities or those who have veteran status can be hired via non competitive or on the spot process as long as a manager files the proper paperwork, thus giving them preferential treatment in the hiring process. The aviation industry has received further scrutiny from the public in the wake of Alaska Airlines door plug being blown off the sides of its two month old Boeing 737 9 Max aircraft, causing it to make an emergency landing.  In a post on X, tech mogul Elon Musk asked, do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritize DEI hiring over your safety? He added,  it's actually happening. People will die due to DEI.  And I wholeheartedly believe we should just switch those. It's D I E, guys. When it comes to the FAA, at least, it's D I E. It's no longer D E I.  So he posted that on X and then, uh,  goes on to talk about how Boeing had that situation that occurred as well.  Now, they go into a whole history of Boeing's DEI program, uh, which is just as concerning as we see it all actually playing out now with the 737's door falling off mid flight. Flight, could you imagine and the people that were supposed to be sitting in the the aircraft next to that door that fell off I'm pretty sure like missed the flight or something like that  Now it says the Alaska Airlines situation came on the heels of a shocking report in December Which showed that there was 19 instances where planes nearly crashed into each other at the airports in the first in the first 10 months of 2023 Wow. This was the highest number since 2016. The report noted that the FAA had struggled to hire more air traffic controllers, and as the number of flights a day has gone up, the number of fully certified air traffic controllers is down 1, 000 people from 10 years ago. And that's when I was an air traffic controller. It was literally  2013, 2014. Yeah. So interesting. Wow. Didn't know they were in that much dire difficulty that they'd hire somebody who's completely paralyzed to be an air traffic controller. The bar is  Sticky tape on the ground.  All right, and that leads us to our next conversation here,  which comes out of, and I guess let's do this two ways. We could do one of two ways. We can start with the caucus, or we can start with the World Economic Forum. You choose. I'll wait.  Oh, you said you wanted to start with the World Economic Forum? Perfect, let's do that. So it says, from the post millennial, the potential 2024 Trump win of great concern to Davos elites at annual World Economic Forum meeting. So, every year, if you didn't know, A bunch of multi billionaires of all these corporations across the world that all come together to conspire on how to control you, on how to eliminate your freedoms, on how to put you into a tinier and tinier box every year, and strip you of the ability to transport yourself from point A to point B, and figure out a way to continue to siphon money off of you, so they can pay it to themselves.  Oh, and also, you know, take every single power, uh, advantage that they can over the general public. They meet. In the, I think it's like the Swiss Alps in Switzerland and at Davos and all these people get together and they conspire together and they have these fancy looking meetings and then, you know, Klaus Schwab walks up there in his Star Wars attire and talks about how you're going to eat the bugs and you're going to, uh, Oh, nothing's I'm be happy with it. Like all of that stuff, right? That's the World Economic Forum, if you didn't know. Sure you did, because you're listening to me. But, if you didn't know, there you go. Now,  the World Economic Forum leaders, specifically from BlackRock, said that Trump becoming president is of great concern for them, when it comes to their annual World Economic Forum meeting. And that's again comes from the post millennial, which says in 2024 GOP front runners, Donald Trump's potential return to the white house was of great concern to one elite and stoked fears and others at the earlier work  at the yearly world economic forum meeting. In Davos, Switzerland, going to the into the Iowa caucuses, Trump is far ahead of primary competition in recent polls, the potential for him to become president of the United States against burden nervous discussions, thousands of miles away from the elite meeting. You know, we've been there before and we survived it. So we'll see what it means. BlackRock Vice Chairman Philip Hildebrand said, according to Bloomberg.  Certainly for a Europe, from a European perspective, from a kind of globalist, Atlanticist perspective, it's of course a great concern. You hear that, that word? Globalist, right? European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde. Thought that Trump going back to his office, it was obviously a threat in an interview this week before the elite meeting that she attends regularly.  The video's in, uh, French, so I won't play it for you unless you speak French, in which case go find it and listen to it yourself and then you can tell all of us what it says. The former Swiss National Bank president also shared Lagarde's fears of Trump returning to office. Former Vice President Al Gore did not think it was a foregone conclusion that Trump would get elected. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion, he said. Yeah, well, thank you. I've Been through the process. I've run four national campaigns over the years and seen it from that perspective. I've seen a lot of surprises over the years. The yearly elite meetup started this week and goes until January 19th.  And as always, I do cover that in length as well, every year. So I'm sure we will be doing that  also this week. All right. Now, just because they just said that I would love to share with you that the Iowa caucus has been called  and Donald Trump  took just 34 minutes.  To win the election  or the caucus, whatever. Um, so let's go ahead and read a little bit about that here.  And that is. Interesting to me because it was such a landslide that Donald Trump won in Iowa.  He won by 75 percent of votes within the first 30 minutes. Now this is supposed to get dragged out a little bit, but basically everybody's already calling it because they're saying that there was so many people. And I'm sure we have even more of a  definitive. Statistic now,  but there were so many people that voted for Trump out of the generalized first election counting that was happening within the first 35 minutes that they just went, eh, guess it's Trump, which is scaring the shit out of a lot of people, especially if you're in Switzerland right now. Uh, so that's cool. What I found to be interesting was that following Donald Trump, at least at the time that I'm reading this was  Nikki Haley,  Nikki Haley. Surprised me by being in that position.  And I guess she's kind of like the GOP, you know, the, if you want to use the word neocons or the, you know, the establishment conservatives, she's. Literally the face of it. She used to run, she used to work at like the NATO or UN side of things. And, you know, all of that deeply entrenched in the swamp. And it surprises me that she's in second place at all, because everything that's come out of her mouth is just warmongering bullshit. Next up after her right now is Ron DeSantis.  Now, what's even more interesting than that to me is the fact that Vivek Ramaswamy is in fourth place behind DeSantis and Nikki Haley.  For how convincing his speech is, it doesn't seem to be helping him much in the polls. There was a big spat this week and last between Donald Trump and Vivek, and I guess I said Vivek, but I'm pretty sure it's Vivek after I called him out a few times, but it's Vivek and In that spat, uh, Donald Trump basically said that Vivek is trying to go out and say that, Oh, he's, you know, there was a picture that came out of Vivek next to four individuals, uh, younger looking guys who were saying that, you know, Save Trump, choose Vivek. Which is basically the idea behind that is the fact that Trump's not gonna be able to get near the White House, and they would never let that, so you should choose me because I'm the next best option. Now, I don't disagree with the sentiment of some of that.  But, that pissed off a lot of Trump voters, and it also pissed off Trump,  which Made Trump respond to him  and basically just obliterate the vague fairly quickly I would be really interested to see them on a debate stage together. I don't know if we will which is super sad to me  Because it would be I don't know That's what democracy is is hearing two people stand up there and have an argument about their belief system so that we can decide Who's full of shit and who seems to be telling the truth?  Now, the real answer is, they're all full of shit, none of them are telling the truth, but at least we get to feel like we partake in the process. At least we get to feel like we heard them speak from their own mouth and have some sort of verbal combat with the other individual that we're deciding between. And I think that's important. But it's telling, as we go into all of these debates, that there has been no Democratic debates at all.  There has been no debates with Donald Trump in them.  There has been no Joe Biden speaking out about what's going to happen. Now that's a super interesting one because we still have no idea who's even going to be the front runner.  I believe there's more and more whispers now that it could be Michelle Obama, however, which would make for a very,  very interesting election. I think that might be one of the only ways that you would see  Trump have a difficult time winning.  And specifically, and only because of perception. It's like, Oprah,  Michelle Obama,  I don't know, who else? The Rock,  Mark Cuban. Like, those would be like the four people that I could see even giving Trump a hard time, potentially, if they actually showed up and  debated him.  Now.  There you have it. There's your update on both Trump and the caucus. And I think that we will be seeing these landslides pretty consistently as the  time goes on in the conservative party because Trump's just trounced absolutely destroyed the vague. And that to me is the only possible individual that It could have gone toe to toe with him in any way, shape, or form. So now it's like almost a race for second, which is what everybody's saying about this. It's like, yeah,  we're watching this only specifically because we want to see who comes in second place. And, and hopefully, you know, honestly, I would rather have a vague than DeSantis or Nikki Haley. And, and I'm, I'm not against. DeSantis, his presence throughout this election cycle has just been absolutely atrocious. It was sitting on the debate stage getting just pummeled, pummeled by Gavin Newsom in their debate. Just watching that was so difficult. I just prayed. That Vivek gets the same opportunity. And again, I'm not a Vivek supporter. In that way, I have a lot of  questions about Vivek and his sincerity. And, uh, there was actually even more news about Vivek that came out this week in his snaky little ways. Which is the fact that one of the companies that he owned,  the one that made him much of his money, was a pharmaceutical company, right? We know that. But also, what ended up happening was he basically bought the rights to a dead pharmaceutical drug that lost all of its clinical trials, never went into the third phase of trials, and then,  basically, this was for dementia, purchased the drug,  and I think this was under Roivint, And purchased the drug and then put it back through trials. Only this time there was one difference in the way that he put it through trials. He put his mother on the team that was conducting the trials. Lo and behold, after a few rounds of. Running these scientific trials,  suddenly there's this amazing breakthrough in the dementia world and this medication could have gone and been an amazing thing. The stock jumps up to almost 200 per share from almost nothing.  Then,  as it goes through the third round of trials, the stock plummets because it doesn't pass the third rounds of clinical trials.  What we call that is a pump and dump the I there was their entire idea was to purchase this pharmaceutical drug make it appear through Scientific swindling which is basically all sciences today anyways, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals over literally anything  and then Pump up the stock by putting out some some PR information sending your son on a PR  Trip to go to speak on all of the best talk shows and you know his Silvery slick little tongue.  And then as soon as right before you're supposed to go through that third round of clinical trials, you drop all your shares  and that leaves all of the money,  all of the money that's lost to the individuals that don't drop it in time. And that's exactly what they did. So he's just a pump and dump little schemer.  So  thought that was interesting. Something I learned this week as well.  All right.  So, those are your main topics today, but there was one last thing that I think will segue us into the Martin Luther King conversation.  And this actually is interesting because it comes from Robert Kennedy Jr. at a speech at Hillsdale College, in which  he calls out another situation where the powers that be attempted to  assassinate individuals who didn't fall in line, which perfectly segues us into our conversation about Martin Luther King. So,  here's the video,  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaking at Hillsdale College. And this is actually interesting because JFK is, you know, um, is actually the one who allowed, uh, the FBI to conduct its wiretapping on Martin Luther King. Now there's a reason behind that, that he was trying to basically allegedly expose. The fact that  Martin Luther King wasn't a communist and all these claims and that a lot of that, but we'll get to that in a minute. But it is just funny that we're speaking to his nephew or watching his nephew speak about the topic that he was the one who, you know, allowed the wiretapping. Anyways, here we go. Watch here as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. drops an absolute bombshell about the federal government and  well, just watch because it's pretty wild.  Then  in 2001,  in June,  the CIA sponsors the first of its pandemic simulations.  It simulates a biological attack on Washington, D. C. by Saddam Hussein.  This is in June, 2001.  That simulation got, got international press,  and a lot of the CIA people like Judith Miller from the New York Times was promoting it, going around doing all the talk shows.  It, uh, it triggered two Senate hearings, one by Joe Biden's committee.  And that hearing was in September 2001.  What happened in September 2001? The 9 11. So that hearing was going on during 9 11. As soon as 9 11 happened,  the neocons, which were working on all this stuff with the CIA,  Pulled out the Patriot Act, a 350 page statute from a shelf where it had been waiting for a while.  And in one week said, we want to pass this in a week. There's only one member of Congress who read it, which was Dennis Kucinich.  And he went crazy. And said, you have no idea this is the end of American democracy if you do this.  It allows the CIA to spy on Americans.  One of the things the Patriot Act did  is it did not get rid of the Geneva Convention  or the Bioweapons Treaty, but it said no federal official can be prosecuted for violating those two statutes. So it reopened the bioweapons arms race globally.  And  when the,  a week after, when the Patriot Act was being debated,  and it was being held up by two senators,  There was an anthrax attack on the U. S. Capitol. It was blamed on Saddam Hussein, and although the neocons all said, see, we were right in the pandemic simulation, Saddam Hussein attacked us.  And we used that as a justification to go to war against Saddam Hussein. And within two days, we passed the Patriot Act. Who got the anthrax? Two Senate offices.  Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy,  the two senators who were blocking the Patriot Act. The FBI did a one year investigation.  They said this anthrax was unique. It was Ames anthrax and there's only one place in the world it could have come from, Fort Dietrich, the CIA lab.  Damn.  Bomb. Shell. dropped by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. there. That is absolutely insane. Now, if you grew up in the area, the era that I did, or even after you remember being terrified of anthrax, you remember hearing about how, Oh, somebody could just send you a letter and all of a sudden you're dead on the ground, dad.  But now come to find out that that entire scare, the entire anthrax scare that we recall that's sifted and that's, that's seared into our memory was because two senators held out on the Patriot Act  because they said it would end democracy.  And as a result of saying those things and deciding not to approve it, they had of all of the senators that were there, those are the only two.  Individuals who received the letters with the anthrax in it as a threat saying pass this or else  and as he just said in the very end there, the fact that not only  were they targeted, that was obviously blatantly clear why they were doing it, but also the only way,  the only way That that could have, or the only place that that specific type of anthrax could have come from was Fort Detrick  with this CIA.  This is what you have to realize, is when you're dealing with these organizations, especially, you know, and I say especially back then, and that could still be perfectly well the case. That nothing has changed, and they're still absolutely conducting this type of thing. They're probably just a little smarter about it, and the documents are classified for another 30 years, right? Because every 30 years, you're going to go, Oh, that was in the 1990s. That was in the early 2000s. They wouldn't do that to us now,  guys,  right? They, they wouldn't do that to us now, as all the senators are in a room, looking at each other,  hire a specific, uh,  a specific  intern to open up all your mail, right? Like, it's so crazy to see that the lengths that they went to, you know, To go to combat anybody, anybody.  going against their wishes. And even that's interesting what he said about the fact that they had a 350 page bill already written for exactly this type of situation. And then they utilize that emergency situation to pass whatever bills they wanted.  And they could have put anything in there. And what he said is that there was only one person who read the damn thing. Because how do you get a week to sift through 350 legal pages,  which is a nightmare. But that's your job. How isn't it that everybody read through those? How is it that they didn't come with, if I'm in that position, I'm coming, I'm taking all of those documents, I'm going home, and I'm putting a flashlight down on it with a highlighter.  And then I'm, I'm taking those and writing notes into a journal, and making, writing down my thoughts, and then coming back to the table and going, here's what's wrong with this, here's why you shouldn't pass this, and make an actual argument. But that's not what these senators do. They are told, here's the package, you pass it.  Now when anybody has a brain in these positions, you know, we talked about Madison Cawthorne a couple days ago, or a couple episodes ago, where he spoke out against some things that were happening, and guess what? With a 95 percent  general re election cycle for a senator, he didn't, he was one of the 5%. And he was super popular among the people. Um, so,  if you don't do what they say, you're not They're going to make you do what they say, whether it's through blackmail, like we talked about yesterday with or yesterday, we talked about it last episode. It seems like yesterday on Friday. Um, we talked about Epstein blackmail, right? We talked about now, even physical threats like anthrax,  or even what we'll see from here from Truman's, uh,  FBI here is the fact that  they sent Martin Luther King a letter  and they sent Martin Luther King a letter basically saying kill yourself And if you don't somebody else will do it for you within 34 days, and it won't be as pleasant  That's an actual letter, and actually, I'm sorry, that was Hoover,  um, that sent, that sent that letter, uh, but  terrifying what these organizations are, are willing to do  to hold their power and to make their decisions be unquestionable, right? You can't, you can't say anything back against these organizations or else,  well, or else what?  Well, or else we'll kill you with anthrax.  Don't even read it.  Because if you do, your moral compass will get in the way. Just pass it. That's all we need you to do. That's why you're in your position. It's because we paid for you to be here. Now pass the bill.  Right? That's all they want you to do. They don't want you to think. You're not there to represent the American people. You're there to represent the globalists, like we talked about with the World Economic Forum. You're there to represent the lobbyists.  And you're there to represent the people that gave you your money to get there. Not the people who voted for you quote unquote  To be in your position. No, because that's not how you really got there. You got there because you had a 25 million dollar donation from BlackRock  And I found this to be interesting too and this is a side note while I'm waiting for some other things to pull up here, which is the fact that  George Soros has traditionally gone after local level officials because the cost to lobby people into positions of power in Washington is so much more than it is to do it locally. If he wants a DA in, in,  I don't know, Chicago,  he can get one there.  If he wants a  judge in Des Moines, Iowa,  he can get one there at a much lower cost than actually trying to get somebody into a presidential position and get something somebody into a Senate position. It's much easier  for you to get somebody into a local run. Then you are  into a national one.  So this leads me to where this all started,  which is the fact that on Martin Luther King day,  the FBI posted on their Twitter account, which is quite ironic. First of all, but let's go ahead and read what they had to say. The FBI posted on January 15th of 2024, this MLK day, the FBI honors one of the most prominent leaders of the civil rights movement and reaffirms its commitment to Dr. King's legacy of fairness and equal justice for all.  Well, guess what? That got hit with a community note and I will share it with you because it's absolutely hilarious and I'm so glad that this exists. Here it is. Let me go ahead and share it on the screen for you here. So here's the tweet  from the FBI  and here is the  Community note, which says the FBI engaged in surveillance of King attempted to discredit him and use manipulation tactics to influence him to stop organizing. King's family believed the FBI was responsible for his death.  Praise the community notes gods that this got posted because in one community note on X, they absolutely obliterated  the FBI absolutely obliterated them.  This, this has to go down as the single greatest community note in Twitter X history is the fact that the FBI got community noted as being the potential perpetrator of Martin Luther King's death.  Directly under their tweet. Now I would love to go look at the comments of that because that has 3. 7 million views,  but this leads us into our next conversation.  Did the FBI  assassinate Martin Luther King?  Well, by the end of this, hopefully you have your answer because I know mine.  So let's begin this at the very beginning of the situation. I'll give you a brief breakdown and then we'll walk through some of the pieces that we pick up along the way.  Alright, so, I have some of this written down, so bear with me, but I wanted to organize this in a way that was easy to understand the totality of this situation, because once you get into the details, whether it's JFK's assassination, whether it's Martin Luther King's assassination, whether it's Bobby Kennedy's assassination, whether it's  John Lennon, all of these become so  complex and confiscated because that's the goal. All they need to do is create enough enough doubt around the situation that they can just continue doing their job.  So  here  we go  tonight. We're peeling back the layers of a story that quite frankly, the mainstream media is too timid to touch.  The assassination of Martin Luther King jr. Now. You all know the official story, the one that's been neatly packaged and sold to us by the FBI for years. But what if I told you there's another side to that story? One that's been shrouded in government secrets and mystery.  First, let's set the scene. Martin Luther King, the face of the civil rights movement. A man who is no stranger to the specter of death. In 1958, he survived a near fatal stabbing. In 1963, post JFK's assassination, he eerily predicts a similar fate for himself.  This isn't just a footnote in history, it's a chilling prelude to what's to come.  Now fast forward to 1968, King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference comrades are in Memphis, Tennessee, advocating for the rights of sanitation workers. It's a noble cause, but it turns out to be King's last.  On April 4th, at the Lorraine Motel Room. Room 306, a room that practically had King's name on it. His life is tragically cut short by a sniper's bullet.  The FBI story? James Earl Ray, a convicted criminal, acted alone. Sound familiar?  But,  let's not be so quick to swallow the narrative.  Ray is captured, and the stories we're fed  is that he's a lone, racist gunman.  But hold on!  Ray soon recants his confession, reclaiming that he was just a pawn in a larger game orchestrated by a shadowy figure named Raul.  This is where the plot thickens.  Consider this. The King family, not satisfied with the official account, starts digging deeper. They uncover enough anomalies and inconsistencies to file a lawsuit against Lloyd Jowers and various government entities, alleging a sprawling conspiracy behind King's assassination.  And in a stunning turn of events, they win the case.  Testimonies during the trial implicate not just Jowers, but also the FBI, the CIA, the U. S. Army, and even elements of the mafia.  Now let's talk about the evidence.  The rifle that was supposedly linked to Ray  to the linked Ray to the crime scene was never conclusively matched to the bullet that killed King.  So, the bullet that was lodged in King's head when he died was not a match to the specific rifle that James Earl Ray allegedly used.  Now, then there's the mystery pattern of deaths and intimidations. Witnesses, key figures, anyone who dared to challenge the official narrative met with untimely and suspicious ends.  Also sounds familiar to JFK's now doesn't it?  Is this just a series of coincidences or does it point to a desperate attempt to silence the truth?  Ray's own story, frankly, is riddled with holes. Here's a man with a limited understanding of firearms. A low military marksmanship score suddenly pegged as a mastermind, capable of executing one of the most significant assassinations in American history.  We start to ask some more questions. Then there's the hasty manner in which Ray was pinned as the lone assassin almost immediately. Authorities find him in case closed.  But  the discrepancies are glaring. Questions about the ballistic evidence, the rush to judgment, the odd sequence of events post assassination. Is a jigsaw puzzle with far too many missing pieces.  Now consider the broader context. This is the 1960s, a time of turmoil, of government distrust of agencies known for court, for covert operations and dirty tricks, the King's family lawsuit. And the subsequent verdict didn't just raise eyebrows. They blew the lid off the official story, suggesting that Martin Luther King's. Junior's assassination was not the act of a lone, hate driven gunman, but the outcome of a deep rooted, multi layered government conspiracy.  So let's dive deeper. Ray's narrative of being manipulated by Raul presents a picture of a man who was unknowingly set up to be the Fall Guy in an assassination that was part of a larger and darker agenda. This Raul character, who remains shrouded in mystery, is said to have directed Ray's actions, including the purchase of the alleged Murder Weapon.  It begs the question, was Rey just a pawn in a much more complex game of high stakes political chess?  And let's not just gloss over the rapid response that was given in conclusion by authorities. Almost immediately after King's assassination, the focus narrows on Rey, with little exploration into any alternative leads. or motives. The evidence, such as the mismatched ballistics, Ray's lack of fingerprints in the alleged sniper's nest, and his dubious claim from escape from prison paints a picture of convenient scapegoating rather than a thorough investigation.  The mainstream media also ignores the broader climate of the time, a period rife  with political assassinations. Civil unrest and a deep mistrust of government agencies  in this context, the idea of a government linked conspiracy doesn't seem so far fetched, does it?  The King family, meanwhile, steadily, steadfastly, maintained that Ray was not the true assassin. They contended that his role was merely a diversion, a cover for a larger conspiracy involving government agencies and other powerful entities.  Their victory in the civil trial against Lloyd Jowers and various government entities was just a win, wasn't just a win in court, it was a public declaration that the truth about King's assassination was far more complex than the world was led to believe.  Now, let's talk about the aftermath. Before we do that, I do want to discuss one thing. Who was this Jowers fellow?  Lloyd Jowers  was an individual who was connected with the mafia, who alleged During this court hearing that he was given a 100, 000  to hire a hit man  to kill Martin Luther King.  He was told at the time that he was given that money that there would be no police presence around. They told him the exact place for him to be in. And when you look deeper and deeper into the situation with Martin Luther King, there's a ton of questions around this. First of all being they moved. Martin Luther King Jr. from his existing hotel room into another one, one with a balcony view.  Interesting.  Also,  within this time,  there was government assets on the ground in the area surrounding him.  Not some security force, just random government assets on the ground. Similar to what we would say, I don't know, February 7th? Is that what they say? Or January 8th? What's that date again?  Hmm.  So, there's more and more questions to be asked here. Right? Now And again, the, the, the connection between the government, the CIA and the mafia is so bizarre during this time. You talk about all of the situation with Jack Ruby when it comes to JFK and the connection there. It just seems consistently a narrative that the CIA was working alongside the mafia to conduct these types of hits.  Let's look at the aftermath of King's assassination and the series of mysterious deaths that followed. Key witness individuals with potentially damaging information suddenly and conveniently  got out of the picture.  It's a pattern that's too consistent to be mere coincidence. It's almost as if someone was tying up loose ends, ensuring the official narrative stayed unchallenged.  Let's not forget the peculiar handling of the crime scene. The swift removal of potential evidence. Like the tree obscure, obstructing the alleged shooters view and the immediate intense focus on Ray as the sole perpetrator.  It's as if the authorities were more interested in closing the case than covering the full story.  This is where the mainstream media often fall short. They don't dig deeper. They question the narrative handed to them, but that's not how we operate here.  We look at the facts, the inconsistencies, and we ask the tough questions. So, let's look at some more of these details here,   november 1964,  after their earlier efforts to discredit Martin Luther King Jr. are unsuccessful, the FBI prepares to send Dr. King an anonymous package containing a document that will come to be known as  the poison pen letter.  FBI  intelligence chief Bill Sullivan himself takes some plain unmarked paper.  And pretending to be an American Negro,  types out an anonymous threatening letter. addressed simply King.  The letter began by calling Dr. King a fraud and warned that the demise of his reputation among the public was fast approaching.  The package also contained an audio tape, a compilation of FBI surveillance allegedly of King engaging in multiple extramarital affairs.  The document's ominous closing, according to some scholars, Suggested that Dr. King was given a deadline of 34 days to take his own life  or suffer the humiliation of the tape's release.  The interpretation of this by the people that investigated the FBI later and by just about everybody who has gone through these records believes that they intended for him to commit suicide.  The FBI sent the package anonymously to Dr. King on November 21st, 1964,  but it went unopened for over a month because King was in Oslo, Norway, accepting the Nobel Prize.  The first person to eventually open Sullivan's threatening package long after Christmas is Mrs. King.  King and his associates. When they listen,  there you go. So.  The FBI went to blackmail, that is blackmail, blackmailed Martin Luther King Jr. to try to get him to commit suicide  in order to escape  the humiliation of his own infidelity. And we talked about honeypot schemes when it came to Jeffrey Epstein in our last episode, and it seems to be the case here. All they did was, you know, potentially, had somebody go and show a lot of interest into him that was very attractive for lots of money.  Had them sleep with her, him sleep with her, and then recorded the transaction that was occurring. And now they have blackmail to get him to do whatever they want. Now, obviously, it's probably not a fair exchange to either die or suffer humiliation of being an adulterer.  But,  they thought it was enough. And so  And they're still doing this today, right? We saw that with the Anthrax, like they would even go further lengths than this to get their way. And their way has not changed, whether it was back then or today. They're still doing the same things, guaranteed. Maybe it's changed technologically in the fashions that they're doing it in.  This is the same old tactics, it's the same old company that has been doing this since their inception in 1947. And  I think the FBI is obviously a different time than the CIA, so I'm thinking CIA there. But same difference. Right?  So,  that goes into the next conversation, which is surrounding  who was James Earl Ray?  And why do we think he's innocent? So let's bring up that and we'll discuss that video, because here it is.  This is actually from the trial, which occurred that we were discussing this entire time. And he, let's go ahead and here we go. Let's watch it. Item of evidence to with the rifle that allegedly a comparison was conducted of the bullet material removed from Dr. King with the 12 test bullets that could be adequately analyzed. This comparison revealed that the gross and unique characteristic signature left on the 12 test bullets by the James Earl Ray rifle was not present on the death bullet.  There you have it. If you were to say Mr. Hathaway, what are your recommendations here today? I would say I continue on, try, uh, attempt the um, cleaning. It may or may not help. And secondly, I would attempt to get those FBI tests to see  the earlier tests compared to the test of 30 years later.  This is them conducting the testing for the ballistics to match when they fire the rifle.  Which forensic science in the 90s and earlier was such horseshit. And I'm  speaking about things that sucked then and suck now. I'm sure it's not. I'm sure it's much better now than it was. But just seeing these guys sit in the lab and be like, well, there's no scratchies on here. And so there's scratchies on that one. He must have killed him.  You see them now  be stopping them at different points. I'm  going to just take it up to slightly higher.  That's what we're going to be working  on. There you go. So that was just the forensic science surrounding it. Let's see if there's any other conclusion. There you go. Yeah. As you can see, we can get much better. But,  you have to make  your own evaluation on that. Of course, I think there's other ways  you might  come to,  you know, the same conclusion on it. Different, different ways. All right, so there you have it.  There's the video of the ballistics and forensic science surrounding the rifle, not matching either. And then to top it all off, let's finish out with this video here from 1977, listening to James Earl Ray himself. So you heard, uh, you heard the news on, on the radio, is that the way you heard it?  So you were driving, you left at that gas station at 2nd and Linden. What, about 6 or?  I don't have any way of knowing, I think it was around that time, but I don't even know if it's Linden, I know the approximate area it is.  I've seen the map on the inquirer. And you were going back to, uh, to pick up this man that you say is Raul? No, I was just waiting the car back. So you heard all this confusion, turned and flipped on the radio, they said Dr. King's been shot.  Uh, at that, did you think you were set up at that point?  Uh, no, I was headed towards, toward New Orleans when I had the radio on. I used to keep the radio on. I think, uh,  I didn't,  I have too strong feelings about the, the shooting.  When, when you met Raoul, you,  did you, you didn't know any other name for him? That's the name that he said was his, and that, that's all you ever knew? Yeah, I never did. And you met him where? Canada. Up in Canada. And, uh, and you just met in a saloon, or?  It was a saloon in a waterfront area of Montreal.  You never became good friends, then?  No, I wasn't good friends. Just business. These were all aliases, I assume.  You don't think Raoul was a real name at all, then?  No, I've got some pretty good information. Papers in there saying there's Raul, San Diego or something, New Orleans, supposed to be, uh, him, but I don't have  the FBI, that's material from the FBI files, but I don't have no, uh,  nothing to substantiate that.  So you think their mind was made up when they got you? Well, it had to be made up, uh, they couldn't, uh,  Um,  well I don't know what, if there was any penalty for, uh, extraditing someone fraudulently or not, but  So there's his discussion around who the figure was that was Raul that helped to set him up that gave him the money to purchase the hitman and basically set up the whole scheme for him. That was the liaison between him and either the organized crime organizations and the FBI.  So that's.  That's the story in a nutshell, right? There's lots of little minute details. There's documentaries that have been done on this, that you can go check out yourself, but I wanted to give you that higher level. There was a lot of moving pieces, a lot of things that, that came up that changed, uh, that caused, uh, Martin Luther King to find himself in that situation in that time, that was the strings being pulled  by these organizations. So I had a few of them written down from some of my research on this, and it starts like this, This.  So, the FBI wiretapped and spied on Martin Luther King. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover tried to blackmail Martin Luther King, and the FBI covered up his death and investigated themselves. In a 1999 civil trial, they determined the FBI was involved in his assassination. Sure, we talked about that. Then they created a federal holiday,  um, in his name. Right? What is it besides that?  Let's look at some of these here. The King family friend and attorney, William F. Pepper, won the civil trial, which found that the U. S. government agencies were guilty of being part of a conspiracy that resulted in the wrongful death and assassination of Dr. King. The damning positive evidence, or body of evidence, presented to the jury, During this trial suggests that US governmental complicity, which the jury obviously found extremely credible and included testimony about the following. The US 111th military intelligence group were at Dr. King's location during the assassination. The 20th special forces group had eight, had an eight man sniper team at the assassination location that  Usual Memphis police special bodyguards were advised that they weren't needed on the day of the assassination.  Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King.  Just an hour before the assassination  military intelligence set up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view of dr. King's balcony dr. King's room was changed from a secure first floor room to an exposed balcony room.  Memphis police ordered ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported. As the source of shooting cut down on their bush or cut down on their bushes that would have hit a sniper. So Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting to cut down the bushes. That would have hit a sniper along with sanitizing a crime scene. Police abandoned investigative procedure to interview a witness who lived by the scene of the shooting. The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not a match to the bullet that killed Dr. King and was not. Cited to accurately shoot  so there's some additional evidence from this trial that came out  and obviously that's pretty damning  and It goes right alongside the situation, you know You talk about John Lennon being assassinated this way for speaking out against the the war machine you talk about JFK  you talk about all of these  People that were speaking out to power finding themselves in the same situation  Now here's an interesting thread, and this will be fairly quick. Um, and it comes from somebody on Axe. So again, take it with a grain of salt. But it says that born in 1929, Michael King was the son of a black preacher known as Daddy King. In 1935, Daddy King renamed himself after Protestant reformer Martin Luther, subsequently changing Michael's name to Martin Luther King Jr., none of which was legalized in court.  Hmm. So his real name was not Michael. It was Martin Luther King Jr.  Uh, interesting.  Um, there's a, uh, Martin Luther King Jr. Was a n notorious plagiarizer, so that I've typed up a few examples below. However, there are many such cases.  Uh, the first public sermon that King gave in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church was plagiarized from a hully by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Foste entitled, life is What You Make It. Uh,  the first book that King wrote, Stride Toward Freedom, was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed according to documentation released and assembled by sympathetic King scholars. Four senior editors to the papers to Martin Luther King Jr. stated that Martin's writings were at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary, judged retroactively by standards of academic scholarship, are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism.  We get the point.  Uh, As long as it's not the I Have a Dream speech, right?  King's Ph. D.  dissertation, A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wyman, contains more than 50 complete sentences plagiarized. from the PhD dissertation by Dr. Jack Boozer. According to the Martin Luther King papers, an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center of Nonviolent Social Change, whose staff includes Widow Coretta, in King's dissertation, only 49 percent of  sentences in the section on tillage contained five or more words that were King's own.  Okay, so Plagiarizer, right? Probably many people back then when they're going through school. Probably many people today using ChatGPT. This says that there's a article that says, Trained, Handled, and Surrounded by Jewish Bolsheviks. And it points to a old newspaper article. I can't exactly make out the, the, let's see if I can get in here.  The Augustus Courier, the Augusta Courier, um, from August, uh, and from Augusta, Georgia. Um, it says Martin Luther King at Communist Training School.  Uh, the  article says, let's see,  yeah, we'll move on from that, but interesting. I've talked about a few examples of the Communist infiltration of King's movement below. Most notable is the fact that every move I'm okay. Made was dictated and approved by the Jewish handler, Stanley Levinson, who referred to King as a slow thinker and refused to let him act alone.  Interesting. In fact, the entirety of the civil rights movement was largely orchestrated and funded  By Jews, what?  Many examples of this can be found in Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace, I will list a few below. Hmm,  I mean,  I'll take it at face value, I guess, but I'd just, I'd have to do more research to substantiate that. Examples of the Jewishness of the Civil Rights Movement found in Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace. Jewish organizations worked closely with civil rights groups during the 1960s in their struggles. On behalf of voting rights and for the desegregation of public facilities and accommodations, Jewish contributors provided a substantial share of the funding for such civil rights groups as such as the NAACP and CORE. Jewish attorneys were at the forefront of the legal offensive against the American apartheid system and Stanley Levinson, a longtime official and fundraiser of the American Jewish Congress, became Martin Luther King's chief aide and advisor, having previously served as a major fundraiser for Bayard Rustin.  Interesting. Jack Greenberg, head of the NAACP legal defense, was the most important civil rights attorney in the United States. And,  let's see,  uh, Jewish individuals were, I mean, okay, I don't see, okay, what does that have to do with anything? Um, because remember, diversity is such a blessing to America, it had to be enforced at gunpoint by the 101st Airpoint Division in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the forced racial integration of high schools in 1957.  Uh, I mean,  yeah, but it still should be done, right? Like, what? Um, Martin Luther King Jr. was also a well known sexual degenerate. Evidence was made available to the public when Trump instructed the National Archives to release documents pertaining to JFK's assassination.  And again, not wholeheartedly buying much of this, although this is obviously true. The FBI documents that were unsealed. Um, but I'm not sure if it goes into detail on the sexual deviancy of him. Uh, it says he typed up some of the Information regarding King's degeneracy below. Evidence was also provided that King frequently used grant money to pay for alcohol, drugs, and prostitutes. Uh, worth noting that the man most responsible for the FBI probe in the MLK  was an assistant director, William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal and says, I, that initially I was 100 percent for King because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader. Um, okay, not seeing the sexual deviancy.  Uh, in February 1968, while running a workshop on urban leadership in Miami, King hired prostitutes with funds from the Ford Foundation. He then engaged in binge drinking and group sex acts, which the FBI describes as deviating from the normal. Okay. The FBI relates how King participated in another drunken sex orgy in Washington, D. C. back in 1964. The sex acts were both natural and unnatural. Not sure what that means. According to the FBI and were performed for the entertainment of onlook.  In 1960 this was a pattern for King who according to the FBI has Continued to carry on such sexual aberrations secretly while holding himself out to the public view as a moral leader and religious conviction I mean, that's fair The FBI documents reveal that King had a sired a baby girl out of wedlock with a wife of a prominent Dentist in Los Angeles,  uh, King was known to participate in orgies, especially those involv

An interview and discussion with Dr. Michael Cunningham of the University of Louisville's Communications Department and President of the U of L AAUP (American Association of University Professors) Chapter on what is driving the rising costs of higher education in the US today. Of special interest is the book "The Fall of the Faculty" (2011) by Benjamin Ginsberg. Just why is college so expensive?

June 13: The committee showed never-before-seen video testimony of President Trump's campaign manager, William Stepien, and former Attorney General William Barr refuting the former president's claims of voter fraud. Witnesses: Chris Stirewalt, former Fox News Political Editor, Benjamin Ginsberg, Election Attorney, Bjay Pak, former US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia and Al Schmidt, former City Commissioner of Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump convinced about a third of the country that the 2020 election was rigged - this is commonly referred to as the “Big Lie.” It sure seems like a problem to Sarah. Ben Ginsberg, former legal counsel to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, joins Sarah to listen to both MAGA voters and swing voters talk about the Big Lie. We cover how MAGA voters think the election was stolen, how swing voters talk to their MAGA family members, and what Ben thinks might be done about all of the mistrust in our elections.

Donald Trump was merely the most recent—and will surely not be the last—in a long line of United States presidents who expanded the powers of the office and did not hesitate to act unilaterally when so doing served their purposes.  Steve talks with Benjamin Ginsberg author of The Imperial Presidency and American Politics: Governance by [...]

Donald Trump was merely the most recent—and will surely not be the last—in a long line of United States presidents who expanded the powers of the office and did not hesitate to act unilaterally when so doing served their purposes.  Steve talks with Benjamin Ginsberg author of The Imperial Presidency and American Politics: Governance by [...]

Center Co-Directors Bob Shrum and Mike Murphy are joined by attorneys and redistricting experts Benjamin Ginsberg and Michael Li, former CA Assemblymember Gloria Molina, and USC Professor Christian Grose to examine the challenges of redistricting across the country and its implications for the 2022 midterm elections. Featuring: Robert Shrum - Director, Center for the Political Future; Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics, USC Dornsife Mike Murphy- Co-Director, Center for the Political Future; MSNBC Political Analyst Benjamin Ginsberg - Election Lawyer; Former National Counsel for Bush-Cheney Presidential Campaigns Christian Grose - Associate Professor of Political Science and Policy, USC Dornsife & Sol Price School of Public Policy Michael Li - Senior Counsel for Democracy Program, NYU Brennan Center for Justice Gloria Molina - Fall '21 Fellow, Center for the Political Future; Former CA Assemblywoman; LA County Supervisor

Center Co-Directors Bob Shrum and Mike Murphy are joined by attorneys and redistricting experts Benjamin Ginsberg and Michael Li, former CA Assemblymember Gloria Molina, and USC Professor Christian Grose to examine the challenges of redistricting across the country and its implications for the 2022 midterm elections. Featuring: Robert Shrum - Director, Center for the Political Future; Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics, USC Dornsife Mike Murphy- Co-Director, Center for the Political Future; MSNBC Political Analyst Benjamin Ginsberg - Election Lawyer; Former National Counsel for Bush-Cheney Presidential Campaigns Christian Grose - Associate Professor of Political Science and Policy, USC Dornsife & Sol Price School of Public Policy Michael Li - Senior Counsel for Democracy Program, NYU Brennan Center for Justice Gloria Molina - Fall '21 Fellow, Center for the Political Future; Former CA Assemblywoman; LA County Supervisor

In this episode, we talk to Dr. Marlon Cummings about meeting students' individual needs by recognizing their cultural spaces. Dr. Cummings discusses ownership of our strengths and recognition of our weaknesses as we develop into culturally-responsive leaders. Referenced in this podcast are:  https://www.amazon.com/FOCUS-Elevating-Essentials-Radically-Learning/dp/1416611304 (Focus by Mike Schmoker) https://www.amazon.com/White-Architects-Black-Education-1865-1954/dp/080774042X (The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power by William Henry Watkins) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty (The Fall of the Faculty by Benjamin Ginsberg) https://ilprincipals.org/ (Illinois Principals association)

You would think that most people would agree that we should try to make voting secure and accessible, that we should have confidence in the results and that we should make it possible for as many people as possible to cast a ballot.But Republicans increasingly are seeking to make it harder to vote. There has been a rush in state legislatures to crack down on mail-in voting, to restrict early voting, to make it harder to register to vote, and to make it easier for state officials to remove people from the voting rolls.The GOP is basing much of this on the fiction that the 2020 election was rigged or that there was wide-scale cheating. That, of course, was the lie that former President Trump told over and over last year before and after the election, which ultimately led to the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.Last year all of Trump's lies created a backlash among Republican experts on voting and elections, who were compelled to set the record straight."The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there’s no proof of widespread fraud. At most, there are isolated incidents — by both Democrats and Republicans. Elections are not rigged,” wrote Benjamin Ginsberg, who for more than 20 years was one of the GOP’s fiercest election attorneys and led attempts to root out cheating.Yuval Levin is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He's the editor of National Affairs magazine. He is widely respected in serious Republican circles and talks regularly to a lot of members of Congress. And he tells me in this conversation about how he's mobilizing the division of AEI that he oversees to push the GOP to stop making it harder to vote."Republicans are at risk, and more than risk, of confirming the Democratic caricature that Republicans just don't want people to vote because they're afraid they would lose. That's what it sounds like. And, increasingly, that's what it is. And that's dangerous, and wrong," Yuval said. But he also said he thinks "Democrats are at risk of confirming the caricature that they think about election reform in a cynical partisan way, as a means of enabling themselves to win more elections."Yuval is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He's the editor of National Affairs magazine. He is widely respected in serious Republican circles and talks regularly to a lot of members of Congress. And he tells me in this conversatino about how he's mobilizing the divisino of AEI that he oversees to push the GOP to stop making it harder to vote."Republicans are at risk, and more than risk, of confirming the Democratic caricature that Republicans just don't want people to vote because they're afraid they would lose. That's what it sounds like. And, increasingly, that's what it is. And that's dangerous, and wrong," Yuval said. But he also said he thinks "Democrats are at risk of confirming the caricature that they think about election reform in a cynical partisan way, as a means of enabling themselves to win more elections."Outro music: "Martin Was a Man, a Real Man" by Oliver Nelson Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/thelonggame. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a Republican election lawyer who helped lead the 2000 Florida GOP recount legal strategy, joins The Post to discuss the today’s electoral college vote and ways to strengthen the country’s election system.

President Trump is trying to block the transition of power and his refusal to accept the election results poses a danger to the country. In this week's episode, Nia-Malika Henderson and David Chalian discuss the impact of an undermined presidential transition and the challenges President-elect Biden will face as he begins to lead the nation. Plus, top Republican election lawyer and CNN contributor Benjamin Ginsberg joins to discuss Trump’s baseless legal battle.     To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

President Trump refuses to concede his electoral defeat, and his campaign is launching an all-out legal campaign to challenge the results. So far, efforts have gained little traction in the courts. Benjamin Ginsberg, a Republican election lawyer whose career spans decades and includes work on the landmark Bush v. Gore dispute after the 2000 election, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

President Trump refuses to concede his electoral defeat, and his campaign is launching an all-out legal campaign to challenge the results. So far, efforts have gained little traction in the courts. Benjamin Ginsberg, a Republican election lawyer whose career spans decades and includes work on the landmark Bush v. Gore dispute after the 2000 election, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

We’ve always said that this series was about so much more than this election. As we’ve shown in the first four episodes, the voting issues of our past — and how we respond to them — pave the way forward, shaping future elections, including the history-making moment we are living in today. But now that we’re face-to-face with the 2020 presidential race, it’s time to start diving into it. On this episode of Turnout with Katie Couric, Katie sorts through some of the week’s big election stories. Then, an interview with newly retired top GOP election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg about his blunt and public rebuke of President Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud. Ginsberg talks about the inherent difference between Republican and Democratic election policy, the impact of the 2000 Florida recount, and why Democrats’ worst fears about what could happen after November 3 may be unfounded.  Read Benjamin Ginsberg’s Washington Post op-eds: Republicans have insufficient evidence to call elections ‘rigged’ and ‘fraudulent’ How Trump’s evidence-free attacks on elections damage the Republican party Stream Recount on Amazon Prime, HBO Max, or HULU.

You’ve probably heard that Edwin Starr song “War, What is It Good For?” Well, my guest today makes the provocative argument that war is in fact good for a lot of things. His name is Benjamin Ginsberg. He’s a professor of political science at John Hopkins University and in his book, The Worth of War, he argues that while war certainly is terrible in the death and destruction it wreaks, it also gives rise to many of the political structures, technologies, and conveniences that society benefits from. We begin our conversation discussing how war is what gave rise to many things we take for granted, including nation-states, engineering, leadership strategies, and large-scale organizing. We also discuss many of the life-saving medical advances that have been made thanks to war, including sanitation, vaccinations, trauma surgery, and prosthetics. Professor Ginsberg then makes the case that war is the ultimate test of rationality, as it unsparingly eliminates bad ideas and bad thinking. We then discuss how war has counterintuitively advanced civil liberties, like voting, in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is a thought-provoking conversation that’s going to give you plenty of grist to consider and discuss with your friends. Get the show notes at aom.is/worthofwar.

What would democracy look like if it first existed at the workplace rather than in the woesome consignment of America's party-politics, which renders our dreams for The Golden Square into Squalid Shit-mash? For this episode of The Future Is A Mixtape, Jesse & Matt have a discussion about this paradise where workers actually experience freedom, equity and solidarity with two folks who've jump-started one of the first media co-ops in Southern California: Dan Nowman Niswander, creator, host, and producer of The Nowman Show and Dr. George Kallas, a political analyst and Political Science Professor at Miramar College in San Diego. We'll learn about their chance-encounter and their epiphany to do the mind-meld by creating Arete Media Productions. Principally though, they will discuss why we mislabel democracy in Da Yankeelands, define what co-ops are, and also explain what makes worker-owned co-ops so very visionary in our Age of Workplace Tyranny & DollarDoom. Mentioned In This Episode: When We Recorded This Discussion, It Was Over 100 in Los Angeles But It Was Even Hotter in Record-Breaking San Francisco @ 106 F Erick Olin Wright in Jacobin: “How to Be an Anticapitalist Today” Jim McGuigan's Cool Capitalism How Neoliberalism Ramps Up Status-Games in University Life, and In Doing So, Creates Hierarchies of Abject Misery for the Rest of Us:Mike Rose for Inside Higher Ed: “Who Is Smarter Than Whom?” Benjamin Ginsberg in the Washington Monthly: “Administrators Ate My Tuition” Academic Rankings for Various Teaching Levels of Status Brandon Jordan in The Nation: “Building Student Power Through Participatory Budgeting” Participatory Budgeting Project: What Exactly Is It? Jason Rhode in Paste Magazine: “Kamala Harris Offers No New Hope” David Graeber's Legendary Haiku-Essay on Anarchy: “Are You an Anarchist? The Answer Might Surprise You!” Sherwood Ross in Veterans Today: “U.S. Imperialism Abroad Creating Police State at Home” Douglas Kihn in Truthout: “The US Is Not a Democracy and Never Was” Naked Capitalism: Interview with David Graeber on Democracy in America Does “UC” Stand for the University of California or the University of Capitalism? Lawrence Hunter in Forbes: “Why James Madison Was Wrong About a Large Republic” Ellen Bresler Rockmore in The New York Times: “How Texas Teaches History” Gail Collins in The New York Review of Books: “How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us” James W. Loewen: “Lies My History Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” RT America: Chris Hedges Visits Anderson, Indiana to Hear About Another “Sacrifice Zone” and How the Town Deals with the Loss of Thousands of Union Jobs Peter Richardson in The Los Angeles Times: “Democracy's Prisoner: Eugene V. Debs, the Great War, and the Right to Dissent by Ernest Freeberg” Home of Eugene Debs: Terre Haute, Indiana Biography of Eugene Debs: A Man Who Received a Million Votes for President While Still in Prison To Paraphrase Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Real Duty in Gaining a University Education Is to Ask, ‘Why?' David Graeber on Why Going to University Is About Returning to the Questions You Had as a Child: “Lecture by David Graeber: Resistance In A Time Of Total Bureaucratization / Maagdenhuis Amsterdam” Is the Internet Killing Critical Thinking? If Not, What Is? Nicholas Carr in Wired: “The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires the Brain” Dr. Paul Cartledge in BBC News: “Ancient History in Depth: The Democratic Experiment [in Greece]” Joshua Kurlantzick in The New Republic: “The Great Democracy Meltdown” The Nowman Show: KPFK Presents Richard Wolff at the Musician's Union, Hollywood Democracy at the Work: A 501(c)3 Organization Created by Richard Wolff to Inspire the Growth and Expansion of Unitary Worker Co-Ops. This Non-Profit Educational Organization Was Inspired by Wolff's Book, Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism Matthew Snyder's First Confrontation with Crunchies & Organic Granola: Bellingham, Washington's Community Food Co-Op Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, which details two well-regarded unitary co-ops: Alvarado Street Bakery and Isthmus Engineering Living Utopia (Vivir la Utopia): A Documentary by Juan Gamero Who Interviews 30 Surviving Anarchists and Revolutionaries During the Catalonian Revolution from 1936-39. Barcelona Was an Entire City Made Up of Worker-Controlled Co-Ops as Seen in Manolo Gonzalez's Life in Revolutionary Barcelona Noam Chomsky's On Anarchism Equality of Opportunity Versus Equality of Outcome: Dylan Matthews in Vox: “The Case Against Equality of Opportunity” Matt, Not Michael Dukakis! It Was Vice-President Dan Quayle Who Flunked a Kid By Suggesting the Incorrect Spelling for ‘Potato' as ‘Potatoe' John Quiggen in Jacobin: “John Locke Against Freedom” {“John Locke's classical liberalism isn't a doctrine of freedom. It's a defense of expropriation and enslavement.”} First Nations and the Indigenous Did Not View Land as Personal Property or an Economic Fridge: Woo Hoo! A Lesson Plan for 6th to 8th Grade Students Europe's Diseased Paperwork as Freedom: A Title-to-Land A Historical Guide of Worker Cooperatives: Past, Present and Possible Futures Dan Niswander's Clever Lyrical Reference to Pink Floyd's Song “Brain Damage”: “The lunatic is in the hall./ The lunatics are in my hall./ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more.” Mondragon Company: A Multi-Billion Dollar Cooperative in the Basque Region of Spain, Which Was Created and Conceived as Far Back as 1956 Mondragon's Miracle Backlight: A Documentary About This Gift from the Basque Region Gar Alperovitz's America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, Our Democracy WSDE Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises -- by Richard Wolff Dan Nowman Interviews Matt & Jesse on The Nowman Show With a Later Panel Discussion with George Kallas Feel Free to Contact Jesse & Matt on the Following Spaces & Places: Email Us: thefutureisamixtape@gmail.com Find Us Via Our Website: The Future Is A Mixtape Or Lollygagging on Social Networks: Facebook Twitter Instagram

February 2017 featuring Susan E. Dudley, Peter Van Doren, Benjamin Ginsberg, Kevin Ring, Wade Henderson, Arjun Singh Sethi, Paul R. Pillar See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Johns Hopkins University political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg discusses his book, [What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People]. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How are campaigns wooing unbound delegates? Who keeps a contested convention fair? How will social media change the process? The NPR Politics team puts these questions to leading Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg, who knows everything there is to know about what might happen at a contested GOP convention later this year. This episode: host/campaign reporter Sam Sanders, congressional correspondent Susan Davis, and political editor Domenico Montanaro. Find the team on Twitter @samsanders, @DaviSusan, and @DomenicoNPR, or write the show at nprpolitics@npr.org. More coverage at nprpolitics.org.

Ginsberg discusses the bloated administrations of colleges and universities, how athletic programs are self serving, junk food eating, sport-watching programs and how tenure helps keep things balanced. He also talks on how the U.S. has taken on the attributes of a third world country and believes that Americans should be more cynical.   Key Takeaways: [1:00] Lesson - Higher Education [4:19] Introductions [4:45] Are Senators and Congress responsible for Global Warming?: [5:25] A look at student loan debt [6:11] Classic inflation [6:46] Be a cynic [7:04] Incessant lobbying [8:10] Student loans aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy [8:22] This debt is fraud [9:33] Predatory lending by student loan representatives [10:21] Quality of the education  [11:18] No substitute for a good education [12:14] State school tuitions and costs [14:01] Bennett’s - The leading index of cultural indicators [14:40] The Fall of the faculty [15:37] Cutting back on courses [16:05] The villain in higher ed costs [16:58] Junk food eating athletic programs  [18:14] Tenure [19:33] What universities do best [20:33] The U.S. Government needs an enemy [21:38] Thoughts on Edward Snowden [22:53] The current state of affairs [23:53] Become a citizen and educate yourself [26:50] Organized groups do get what they want [28:06] A turn for the worse [28:56] Contact Mr. Ginsberg   Mentioned In This Episode: Blackboard William Bennett- The leading index of cultural indicators Ohio State University Arizona State University John Hopkins Political Science Dept. 

Benjamin Ginsberg is the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University. The rising cost of education is largely due to the rising cost of college administrations. Employment of academic administrators has increased 60 percent from 1993 to 2009.    Ginsberg has proposed several ideas to curb education costs. He shares them on the podcast. Among his proposals: cutting tenure. He also explains how higher education plans differ from business or military strategies.   Benjamin Ginsberg is a libertarian political scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins University who is notable for his criticism of American politics in which citizens have become "marginalized as political actors" and political parties weakened while state power has grown. His assessment of the futility of voting along with his notion that the public has an illusion of control over government has caused controversy, and sometimes his explanations have been criticized.    Find out more about the Johns Hopkins political science department at www.politicalscience.jhu.edu.