Ladies and gentlemen, the following segment of the podcast is presented exclusively by Hillsdale College.

For over 175 years, four purposes have defined Hillsdale's mission, learning character, faith and freedom.

Thank you for listening and my sincere appreciation to our brothers and sisters at Hillsdale for their great sponsorship.

Twitter has put in place a poison pill to try to sabotage Elon Musk's efforts to try to buy the platform,

but still some Republican lawmakers see this bid for Twitter as an antidote to what Republicans think is censorship of conservatives on the platform.

Congressman Jim Banks urging Musk to at least use his influence as a large shareholder to make changes to the platform.

Writing this, I urge you to advocate for revising Twitter's content policy to allow all speech that is both lawful and factually accurate.

Perhibiting true statements is systematic lying and Twitter's dishonesty has seriously damaged the company's image.

That is Hillary Vaughn of Fox Business Solid Report right there.

And so what is Twitter's first move with Elon Musk getting real about bringing free speech to the platform?

We got to do everything we can as a corporation, as a board of directors, not to uphold the judiciary responsibility we have to our shareholders,

not to provide for the original intent to that platform, which was the dissemination of information, the sharing of ideas and conversations.

You know, things I might go along with free speech? No, it is to do everything we possibly can to silence Elon Musk, so we can continue to silence people like you.

The lawsuits will soon be flying because there is no doubt, but what Twitter has done here is a violation of the fiduciary responsibility,

because at a minimum, even if they're going to make the case that, hey, you know, our share price is worth more than Musk offered to not even take his offer seriously before putting in, as Hillary called it, the poison pill, preventing Elon or anybody from being able to acquire a majority stake.

It shows what they're all about. And by the I'm not just talking about the board of directors at Twitter.

For a long time, you've had many people that have wondered, how is it that a CNN can go on with just a few hundred thousand viewers a day?

Are they losing a ton of money? The answer is yes. Yes, they are.

But they're owned by low corporations that view that as I don't know a political contribution of sorts.

They'll use it as a loss within their operation because they're down for the cause and they believe in it.

And so news operations been corrupted for decades at this point, just getting worse with time within the construct often of the public marketplace,

where you have these boards that are supposed to be creating as much value for their shareholders as possible.

...