Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / FOUR New Injunctions Against Trump, as Dems' Lawfare Continues plus Nike Funding Transgender Research & Dems in Chaos Nationwide

Transcript

FOUR New Injunctions Against Trump, as Dems' Lawfare Continues plus Nike Funding Transgender Research & Dems in Chaos Nationwide · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome in is Verdica Center. Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you.
0:03
Speaker 1: It's nice to have you with us on this Friday morning.
0:05
Speaker 1: And Senator, we've got some big stories to talk about today.
0:08
Speaker 2: Today we're going to talk about several issues. We're going
0:11
Speaker 2: to talk about the ongoing lawfare that is being waged
0:15
Speaker 2: against President Trump and the Trump administration. This is the
0:18
Speaker 2: strategy of the Democrats to use the courts to sue, sue, sue,
0:23
Speaker 2: and sadly, they're finding radical district judges willing to enjoin
0:27
Speaker 2: the president over and over and over again. Four lawsuits,
0:32
Speaker 2: four district court losses in the past twenty four hours.
0:35
Speaker 2: We're going to break them down so you understand what happened. Next,
0:39
Speaker 2: we're going to talk about the radical transgender ideology that
0:43
Speaker 2: the left continues to embrace and sadly, a great many
0:46
Speaker 2: in corporate America do as well. Tennis legend Martina Navertilova
0:50
Speaker 2: has called out Nike for funding transgender research for undermining women.
0:57
Speaker 2: We're going to talk about that and how it reflects
0:59
Speaker 2: just how radical the left continues to be. And finally,
1:03
Speaker 2: we're going to talk about how the Democrat Party in
1:05
Speaker 2: Washington is breaking down how the media is losing their
1:09
Speaker 2: mind CNN, MSNBC. They are ringing the alarm bells that
1:13
Speaker 2: the Democrats extreme policies are so out of touch with
1:17
Speaker 2: the American people that they're losing support every single day.
1:22
Speaker 2: And yet the Democrats hatred of Donald Trump is so
1:25
Speaker 2: great they can't pull back from the radical policy positions,
1:30
Speaker 2: all of them.
1:30
Speaker 3: We're going to break down in today's show.
1:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you mentioned that last story, which in a
1:34
Speaker 1: very interesting way, is going to connect with this first story.
1:38
Speaker 1: It is being celebrated by the left of the media
1:41
Speaker 1: that these judges I describe them as activist judges are saying,
1:45
Speaker 1: watch this. We're going to get involved and we're going
1:48
Speaker 1: to stop Donald Trump and what he's doing. The man
1:51
Speaker 1: that he has from the voters. He was elected president
1:53
Speaker 1: the United States of America an agenda that is overwhelmingly
1:56
Speaker 1: popular with the majority of Americans, and we're going to
1:59
Speaker 1: just what he's doing. And this is another example of lawfare.
2:03
Speaker 1: The fact that there are though four that have come
2:06
Speaker 1: down in a twenty four hour period. I got to
2:09
Speaker 1: ask the question, and there's so many listening that are
2:12
Speaker 1: going to want to know this center, which is is
2:14
Speaker 1: this not orchestrated. I mean, when you have four in
2:17
Speaker 1: a row, is that a coincidence? Is that how the
2:19
Speaker 1: court systems work? Or is this a orchestrated, clear effort
2:24
Speaker 1: they wanted a major SmackDown on the president's agenda.
2:27
Speaker 2: Well, it's orchestrated by the plaintiffs, but not the courts themselves.
2:32
Speaker 2: But this is going to be the pattern we're going
2:33
Speaker 2: to see. The last four years, we saw the left
2:36
Speaker 2: wage law fair against Donald Trump by indicting him, not once,
2:39
Speaker 2: not twice, not three times, four different times. We saw
2:43
Speaker 2: Democrats going to court to try to throw Donald Trump
2:46
Speaker 2: off the ballot because they were terrified the voters were
2:49
Speaker 2: going to elect him, which of course they did. That's
2:51
Speaker 2: the same reason they indicted him, because they were terrified
2:54
Speaker 2: voters were going to elect him, which of course they did.
2:57
Speaker 2: Now now that President Trump is back in this is
3:00
Speaker 2: the next phase of their lawfare, and every single day
3:04
Speaker 2: of the Trump administration, we are going to see blue
3:08
Speaker 2: state attorneys general and left wing activist groups filing lawsuits.
3:12
Speaker 2: And they are filing them. They are seeking out extreme
3:15
Speaker 2: left wing judges. They're going to blue jurisdictions, particularly blue
3:19
Speaker 2: to jurisdictions where they are confident they will get radicals
3:22
Speaker 2: and robes, and so far the pattern is having considerable success.
3:26
Speaker 2: Now I am hopeful that on appeal the Courts of
3:29
Speaker 2: Appeals or the Supreme Court are going to reverse this.
3:32
Speaker 2: But this is their strategy to try to stop the
3:35
Speaker 2: agenda that the American people elected President Trump to implement.
3:39
Speaker 2: So let's start with the first one. The first one
3:41
Speaker 2: is a case called League of Women Voters Election Fund
3:44
Speaker 2: versus Trump, and it deals with election integrity. Now, election
3:48
Speaker 2: integrity is an issue that has widespread support among the voters.
3:53
Speaker 2: Voters want our elections to be secure, and if you
3:58
Speaker 2: look at the United States, the United States law concerning
4:00
Speaker 2: election integrity are far behind many other nations. So for example,
4:07
Speaker 2: India and Brazil are tying voter identification to a biometric database.
4:14
Speaker 2: The United States, in contrast, largely relies on self attestation
4:18
Speaker 2: for citizenship. Germany and Canada both require the use of
4:23
Speaker 2: paper ballots counted in public by local officials. America, on
4:28
Speaker 2: the other hand, we have a patchwork of voting methods
4:32
Speaker 2: that lead to serious chain of custody problems. Other countries,
4:36
Speaker 2: like Denmark and Sweden, they limit mail in voting to
4:40
Speaker 2: those unable to vote in person, and they don't count
4:44
Speaker 2: late arriving votes regardless of the day of the postmark. Nonetheless,
4:48
Speaker 2: many American elections, particularly those in blue states, feature mass
4:52
Speaker 2: voting by mail, with many Democrat officials accepting ballots without
4:57
Speaker 2: postmarks or those received after election day. Now, what does
5:02
Speaker 2: federal law say about this? Multiple federal laws make it
5:06
Speaker 2: clear that only American citizens are prohibited to vote in
5:10
Speaker 2: federal elections, and yet we see, particularly in Blue states,
5:14
Speaker 2: that requirement, that legal federal requirement being violated.
5:18
Speaker 3: Well.
5:18
Speaker 2: On March twenty fifth of this year, President Trump issued
5:21
Speaker 2: an executive order that was called Preserving and Protecting the
5:24
Speaker 2: Integrity of American Elections, and it is focused on requiring
5:29
Speaker 2: proof of citizenship to register to vote. Almost instantaneously, a
5:33
Speaker 2: group of left wing organizations sued President Trump, and they
5:37
Speaker 2: sued him in the District to Columbia Court and in
5:40
Speaker 2: a liberal judge, Judge Colleen Kollarcotelli, who was appointed by
5:45
Speaker 2: Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction and block the Trump
5:49
Speaker 2: administration from implementing the executive order from requiring proof of citizenship.
5:55
Speaker 2: Her reasoning, I've got to say, makes very little sense.
5:58
Speaker 2: Her reasoning. She says, well, the power to regulate elections
6:03
Speaker 2: is given to Congress and given to the states, not
6:06
Speaker 2: the president. Well, she ignores the fact that Congress has legislated.
6:12
Speaker 2: Congress has passed legislation making clear that only American citizens
6:18
Speaker 2: can vote in federal elections. And so once Congress has
6:21
Speaker 2: acted the constitution, Article two of the Constitution gives the
6:26
Speaker 2: president a duty to quote take care that the laws
6:29
Speaker 2: be faithfully executed. That's what the President is doing. And
6:33
Speaker 2: yet to left wing activists, they don't want the president
6:38
Speaker 2: to enforce federal law. And so this appeal will go
6:41
Speaker 2: to the d C Circuit. It's going to matter immensely
6:45
Speaker 2: what the panel of judges are that are on the
6:47
Speaker 2: d C Circuit. But this is one example, and we're
6:50
Speaker 2: going to go through several more of how left wing
6:54
Speaker 2: groups are going to wage war against the president implementing
6:57
Speaker 2: what the American people elected him to implement.
7:00
Speaker 1: They're all filed in very liberal courts and for a
7:03
Speaker 1: liberal judges that had no problem saying, yep, I want
7:05
Speaker 1: to be a part of this law.
7:06
Speaker 4: Fair.
7:07
Speaker 2: The first one was filed in DC. The second one
7:10
Speaker 2: was filed in San Francisco, and it deals with Trump's
7:13
Speaker 2: executive orders to cut off funding to sanctuary cities, to
7:16
Speaker 2: cities that defy federal immigration law. Again, this is the
7:21
Speaker 2: president seeking to enforce federal law. And yet the plaintiffs
7:25
Speaker 2: went and sought out a judge, Judge William Morrick, he's
7:27
Speaker 2: an Obama appointee in San Francisco, who granted an injunction
7:31
Speaker 2: against enforcing those executive orders. Now, I got to say,
7:34
Speaker 2: the Planetfts were not surprised with this because this is
7:37
Speaker 2: the same district judge who granted the order against the
7:41
Speaker 2: exact same thing in the first Trump administration. So they
7:44
Speaker 2: went back to the same judge. They said, hey, would
7:46
Speaker 2: you do it again? And by the way, in the
7:48
Speaker 2: first Trump administration that went up on appeal to the
7:51
Speaker 2: Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is consistently the most left
7:54
Speaker 2: wing court of appeals in the country. In the Ninth
7:56
Speaker 2: Circuit upheld that order stopping the first Trump administration's order
8:01
Speaker 2: against funding sanctuary cities, and sadly the Supreme Court did
8:05
Speaker 2: not take that appeal. You've got to assume this case
8:08
Speaker 2: will get appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth
8:10
Speaker 2: Circuit presumably will do the same thing it did last time,
8:13
Speaker 2: and what we've got to hope for here is this
8:15
Speaker 2: time the Supreme Court will take the case in reverse
8:18
Speaker 2: it the third case.
8:19
Speaker 3: The third case deals.
8:21
Speaker 2: With DEI, and in fact, the third and fourth cases
8:25
Speaker 2: both deal with DEI. The Department of Education published a
8:30
Speaker 2: Dear Colleague letter reminding Title six funding recipients that they
8:34
Speaker 2: have to comply with anti discrimination law. And it made
8:39
Speaker 2: clear that Title six and the Equal Protection Clause of
8:42
Speaker 2: the Constitution bind the recipients. And if you're getting federal law,
8:46
Speaker 2: you got to comply. If you're getting federal money, you
8:48
Speaker 2: got to comply with federal law. Well, there were two
8:50
Speaker 2: lawsuits that were filed. One that was filed in Maryland,
8:54
Speaker 2: and in Maryland they were in front of Judge Stephanie Gallagher,
8:57
Speaker 2: who was a Trump appointee. Although I would know Maryland
9:01
Speaker 2: is a state with two Democrat senators, and the way
9:03
Speaker 2: it works with district judges is the senators have an
9:06
Speaker 2: enormous say, so even though this judge was appointed by Trump,
9:09
Speaker 2: she almost certainly was put forward by the Democrat senators
9:13
Speaker 2: in Maryland. Judge Gallagher issued an injunction saying that the
9:18
Speaker 2: letter that was giving guidance to the recipients of federal
9:21
Speaker 2: funds that constituted a federal rule, a final federal action,
9:25
Speaker 2: and that it was arbitrary and capricious and violated federal law. Likewise,
9:31
Speaker 2: in New Hampshire, in both lawsuits, the Maryland and New
9:35
Speaker 2: Hampshire lawsuit, it was the Teachers Union, the National Education
9:39
Speaker 2: Association UH, and the American Federation Teachers that filed a lawsuit,
9:44
Speaker 2: and and in New Hampshire UH, the judge there likewise
9:49
Speaker 2: issued an order UH in joining. In this case, it
9:52
Speaker 2: was Judge Landia McCaffrey and Obama appointee who granted the
9:57
Speaker 2: order and and and said that that it was vague,
10:01
Speaker 2: the Department of Education's instructions were vague because you couldn't
10:05
Speaker 2: figure out what a DEI program is, and so issued
10:11
Speaker 2: at in junction. You know, it's amazing everybody knows what
10:13
Speaker 2: a DEI program is. And then what the Department Education
10:16
Speaker 2: is saying is if you discriminate based on race, that
10:21
Speaker 2: is illegal, and we're not going to send you money
10:24
Speaker 2: if you are violating federal law. By the way, that's
10:27
Speaker 2: the same thing the Sanctuary Cities executive order said. And
10:31
Speaker 2: yet four district judges for injunctions all the latest development
10:37
Speaker 2: in the battle of law fair. And I will say
10:41
Speaker 2: what we've got a hope for is number one, the
10:43
Speaker 2: courts of Appeals stepping in and reversing these decisions. But
10:46
Speaker 2: number two, ultimately the Supreme Court stepping in and saying
10:50
Speaker 2: enough is enough. The President has the authority and in
10:53
Speaker 2: fact the responsibility to enforce federal law.
10:57
Speaker 1: So let's go through a couple different scenarios here. Number one,
11:01
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that some of these judges know that a
11:05
Speaker 1: SmackDown is going to come from this, right like, they're
11:08
Speaker 1: not dumb, so it's law fair, but they know this
11:11
Speaker 1: is going to be a fight. They seem to be
11:14
Speaker 1: okay with that, and they don't care that that may
11:17
Speaker 1: be coming. Is that because this is the new plan
11:21
Speaker 1: of Hey, as long as you can delay and then
11:24
Speaker 1: delay a little bit more, and then delay a little
11:26
Speaker 1: bit more and hold him up and the Trump agenda up,
11:30
Speaker 1: then that's still success and a weird way to them.
11:33
Speaker 2: Well, let me say, sadly, they don't know they're going
11:35
Speaker 2: to get a SmackDown. Number one, there are a lot
11:38
Speaker 2: of liberal Court of Appeals judges. You looked at the
11:42
Speaker 2: San Francisco judge that enjoined the President's sanctuary cities executive order.
11:47
Speaker 2: That judge knows the appeal goes to the Ninth Circuit,
11:50
Speaker 2: which is an extreme left wing court, and so that judge,
11:54
Speaker 2: I'm sure, is expecting the Ninth Circuit will agree with him,
11:57
Speaker 2: and you do have a final backstop of the Supreme
12:00
Speaker 2: But the Supreme Court takes a tiny fraction of the
12:03
Speaker 2: cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. And so listen,
12:06
Speaker 2: I think what the left wing litigants are gambling is
12:10
Speaker 2: they sue on everything. They're going to win a number
12:13
Speaker 2: of these cases. Some may get overturned on appeal, but
12:16
Speaker 2: some will not. And their approach, I think is flood
12:20
Speaker 2: the zone. It's the exact same thing they did when
12:23
Speaker 2: they indicted Trump over and over and over again. Not
12:26
Speaker 2: just once, they kept doing it over and over again, saying, Okay,
12:29
Speaker 2: if the New York case doesn't stick, we'll bring the
12:31
Speaker 2: DC one. All right, If the DC one doesn't stick,
12:33
Speaker 2: we'll bring the Georgia one. They're doing the same thing here.
12:37
Speaker 2: They know many, if not most, will be overturned, but
12:41
Speaker 2: they're gambling, and it's probably a right gamble that not
12:44
Speaker 2: all of them will be overturned. And so every single
12:47
Speaker 2: one of the policy matters that the president is implementing.
12:51
Speaker 2: And to be clear, the President campaigned on these issues.
12:54
Speaker 2: He promised the American people this is what he'd do.
12:57
Speaker 2: And the Democrats they don't want democracy, the will of
13:02
Speaker 2: the voters to be honored, and so they're using the
13:05
Speaker 2: courts to attack ultimately the will of the voters.
13:08
Speaker 1: So final question on this, and there's precedent right in
13:11
Speaker 1: the courts in theory.
13:12
Speaker 5: We hear a lot about that.
13:14
Speaker 1: Is there any way that the Supreme Court can say
13:17
Speaker 1: stop it and you can't keep doing this over and
13:20
Speaker 1: over again for the next four years, or do they
13:23
Speaker 1: only able to say that basically on one issue or
13:26
Speaker 1: subject or lawsuit at a time.
13:28
Speaker 2: Well, I'll give you some good news about these four
13:30
Speaker 2: district court decisions, which these decisions were not nationwide injunctions.
13:36
Speaker 2: We've talked about on this show before, the phenomenon of
13:39
Speaker 2: nationwide injunctions.
13:40
Speaker 3: We've seen.
13:41
Speaker 2: A nationwide injunction is even more egregious, where you prevent
13:45
Speaker 2: the president from enforcing the law, or prevent the cabinet
13:48
Speaker 2: agency from enforcing the law against anybody anywhere in the country.
13:52
Speaker 2: They didn't do that here. What they did here is
13:55
Speaker 2: they issued an injunction only with respect to the parties
13:58
Speaker 2: who were suing the same suary cities case. That case
14:02
Speaker 2: was brought by sixteen left wing cities, and so that
14:05
Speaker 2: injunction applies to protect those sixteen cities, but nobody else.
14:09
Speaker 2: That's at least a good sign. That being said, this
14:12
Speaker 2: battle will keep going over and over again. And I'll
14:15
Speaker 2: tell you one of the things this underscores is why
14:18
Speaker 2: good principal judges matter so much, and why the President
14:22
Speaker 2: and the Senate need to keep putting strong Court of
14:24
Speaker 2: Appeals judges on the bench to overturn this kind of nonsense.
14:29
Speaker 1: All right, Senator, I want to move to this other
14:31
Speaker 1: big issue, and that deals with some really shocking news
14:36
Speaker 1: from a woman. And if you don't know her background,
14:39
Speaker 1: I think it's important to take a moment so people
14:40
Speaker 1: understand who Martine and Avatolova is. She is the most
14:44
Speaker 1: decorated woman in women's tennis history. The number of Grand
14:49
Speaker 1: Slams that she has won is just incredible. She was
14:52
Speaker 1: one of the very first athletes to ever come out
14:55
Speaker 1: as being gay. She has been a huge advocate in
14:59
Speaker 1: her care for LGBTQ community. But then she stood up
15:04
Speaker 1: to them on men and women's sports and they started
15:08
Speaker 1: to attack her, and she said, I'm not backing down.
15:10
Speaker 1: There is a difference between men and women. It is
15:13
Speaker 1: wrong to allow men to compete with women. She even lost,
15:17
Speaker 1: like she was kicked off of boards and different things
15:20
Speaker 1: that happened in the in the community that she was in.
15:22
Speaker 1: And she I think she was shocked by the intolerance
15:26
Speaker 1: of of of all of these different radical extremist groups
15:30
Speaker 1: that went after her because she said there is a difference.
15:33
Speaker 5: Well, now she's not backing down again.
15:36
Speaker 1: She is blasting a major company, Nike, over a shocking
15:42
Speaker 1: report that they were actually doing research and in transathlete
15:49
Speaker 1: research at Nike, and she's like, what are you doing.
15:53
Speaker 2: Well, let me say, first of all, you just said
15:55
Speaker 2: a minute ago Martine and Nabertelovra, she said, you said
15:58
Speaker 2: she won a lot of major Nobody knows how many.
16:02
Speaker 2: I will say, Ben, there's this thing called the Google
16:05
Speaker 2: that you know, you have a phone, you can type
16:07
Speaker 2: it in. You actually just have to do Martina in
16:11
Speaker 2: and it comes right up the stats and right from
16:15
Speaker 2: the Google. It told me one of the most successful
16:17
Speaker 2: tennis players of all time. She was ranked as the
16:19
Speaker 2: world number one in women's singles for how many weeks?
16:22
Speaker 2: How many weeks do you think you're the tennis player
16:24
Speaker 2: you played tennis at all?
16:24
Speaker 3: Miss?
16:25
Speaker 5: Oh, it's going to be hundreds.
16:26
Speaker 3: I know that, three hundred and thirty two weeks.
16:29
Speaker 5: Bam, there you go.
16:31
Speaker 2: And she won one hundred and sixty seven top level
16:35
Speaker 2: single titles, one hundred and seventy seven doubles titles and
16:39
Speaker 2: including an Open era record of fifty nine major titles,
16:43
Speaker 2: eighteen and singles, thirteen in women's doubles, ten and mixed doubles.
16:47
Speaker 2: And how many Wimbledon singles titles do you think she won?
16:51
Speaker 5: In Wimbledon singles titles? I know this. Hold on, it's
16:54
Speaker 5: a trivia question for me.
16:56
Speaker 3: You can't use the nine.
16:57
Speaker 5: It's nine. No, No, it's nine. I'm pretty sure it's nine.
17:00
Speaker 2: Look at that, Sam Benjamin, Okay, you're a tennis guy.
17:05
Speaker 3: It is nine. And I didn't know that, but that
17:08
Speaker 3: if Wikipedia is right, then it is nine.
17:10
Speaker 1: So so, and here's here's another tidbit for you. The
17:14
Speaker 1: French opens coming up. And and do you know me?
17:16
Speaker 5: She won?
17:16
Speaker 3: There no idea, she won two. I didn't read it
17:20
Speaker 3: that far in Wikipedia.
17:21
Speaker 1: No, no, no, So she won two there, but that was
17:23
Speaker 1: like her hardest service to win on clay.
17:26
Speaker 5: She does not like clay, and it was Cio clay.
17:29
Speaker 2: You should be impressed that I knew the French Open
17:31
Speaker 2: was clay.
17:32
Speaker 1: Exactly, and so she was the one that completed the
17:35
Speaker 1: Grand Slam because she won the Australian Open, I want
17:37
Speaker 1: to say three or four times, French Open twice, Wimbledon nine,
17:40
Speaker 1: and I think she won the US Open.
17:41
Speaker 5: I want to say it was four or five times.
17:44
Speaker 5: It was incredible.
17:45
Speaker 1: But here's a tidbit about her, and this is the
17:47
Speaker 1: this should impress everybody because when she was in the
17:51
Speaker 1: middle of all this winning, she was stripped of her
17:55
Speaker 1: citizenship when she was seventeen or eighteen and asked the
17:59
Speaker 1: United States for political asylum. And so not only was
18:03
Speaker 1: she winning, but she was in the middle of Jessicovakia
18:06
Speaker 1: when it happened.
18:07
Speaker 5: She was a chess citizen and all of this was
18:10
Speaker 5: going on.
18:11
Speaker 1: So you talk about a woman that was incredible and
18:15
Speaker 1: focused and was able to pull all this off. It
18:19
Speaker 1: tells you about how big of a leader she was,
18:22
Speaker 1: and I think that is saying we should just remind
18:24
Speaker 1: people of when you talk about her leading on this
18:27
Speaker 1: issue and coming out and then yet saying it's wrong
18:30
Speaker 1: for men to play in women's sports, like she's always
18:33
Speaker 1: been a leader on these types of issues.
18:35
Speaker 3: Well and end. Listen, I will say Martina and avertslower.
18:38
Speaker 2: She's not a conservative, she's not a person of the right,
18:41
Speaker 2: but she is one of the greatest women athletes to
18:44
Speaker 2: have ever lived, and she's shown real courage saying, look,
18:47
Speaker 2: if men compete in women's sports, men have significant physiological advantages,
18:53
Speaker 2: and it's not fair, it's not right. I mean, she recognized,
18:56
Speaker 2: even as one of the greatest women to have ever played,
18:58
Speaker 2: that if she was playing again against Pete Sampras, if
19:01
Speaker 2: she was playing against you know, any of the top
19:05
Speaker 2: male players, that that it would not be fair and
19:09
Speaker 2: she would not stand a chance. And that that's the
19:12
Speaker 2: simple reality. How much faster so you played Division one tennis,
19:16
Speaker 2: How much faster does does a male college player hit
19:21
Speaker 2: a serve as compared to a top level female college player.
19:26
Speaker 1: When I was when I was playing college, if you
19:28
Speaker 1: were a women at one of the top women in
19:31
Speaker 1: college hitting.
19:31
Speaker 5: A big serve, you were probably.
19:33
Speaker 1: One hundred to one hundred and three four five miles
19:36
Speaker 1: an hour, and that would be like less than one
19:39
Speaker 1: percent of women in college at that time doing that men.
19:42
Speaker 5: So that's on the.
19:42
Speaker 2: Top level, top level, the fastest serves women are hitting.
19:46
Speaker 3: Now, how about how about I.
19:47
Speaker 1: Mean a lot of them were probably eighty to eighty five.
19:50
Speaker 1: Eighty six miles an hour would probably been the average then,
19:53
Speaker 1: and men the average was probably one hundred and five
19:57
Speaker 1: to one hundred and ten was the average.
19:59
Speaker 5: I means, significant kid difference.
20:01
Speaker 3: And how about the top level, the very best.
20:03
Speaker 1: Top top So the fast serve I ever hit in
20:06
Speaker 1: my life I think was one. I want to say
20:08
Speaker 1: it was one twenty five, one twenty six.
20:11
Speaker 5: Yeah.
20:12
Speaker 3: That's not a tennis ball, that's a bullet.
20:14
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean it did. I mean there's a huge difference.
20:16
Speaker 1: You had that extra thirty miles on top of what
20:18
Speaker 1: like where the women were the men?
20:19
Speaker 2: It's night and day, Okay, And I'm going to say this,
20:21
Speaker 2: I don't mean to be disrespectful. I mean, you were
20:23
Speaker 2: a good college tennis player, but you weren't one of
20:26
Speaker 2: the very top men in the country.
20:27
Speaker 1: Correct, Yeah, no, yeah, one hundred percent. I mean the
20:29
Speaker 1: guys that were hitting the big serves. I remember one
20:32
Speaker 1: time practicing with Andy Roddick and and Andy was hitting
20:35
Speaker 1: one thirty seven, one forties.
20:37
Speaker 6: Wow.
20:38
Speaker 1: John Isner, buddy of mine. He's he I think he
20:40
Speaker 1: has the fastest serve on record, he was. I want
20:43
Speaker 1: to say it was one forty seven. Uh, if I
20:46
Speaker 1: remember correctly, I mean it's it's it's there's there's no woman, it's.
20:49
Speaker 3: Given percent more.
20:50
Speaker 2: One forty seven is fifty percent more than you said,
20:53
Speaker 2: like the top women college athletes would be serving about
20:56
Speaker 2: one hundred or one hundred and two, correct. I mean
20:59
Speaker 2: that's that's why Martina Naberzelov has been so clear saying
21:02
Speaker 2: this is wildly Unfairwell, what she did this week is
21:05
Speaker 2: she called out Nike, and this is a bizarre story.
21:08
Speaker 2: It is a story published in The New York Times
21:11
Speaker 2: that laid out evidence that Nike is financing a study
21:14
Speaker 2: of trans athletes and a study of trans athletes that
21:20
Speaker 2: was called out online on x by women's sportswear company
21:25
Speaker 2: executive Jennifer Say, who went on social media and said,
21:29
Speaker 2: I'm still stunned by this. Nike is funding a study
21:33
Speaker 2: that disfigured young boys to understand if they can be
21:37
Speaker 2: physically impaired enough to compete with girls without significant quote
21:43
Speaker 2: retained male advantage. Why is a sneaker brand doing medical
21:48
Speaker 2: experiments on children? And Martina and Abergelova retweeted that she said,
21:55
Speaker 2: Joanna Harper is going too far as is Nike, needless
21:59
Speaker 2: to say, and she calls out Nike, same company that
22:03
Speaker 2: doctor Allison Felix for being pregnant. So she left and
22:06
Speaker 2: formed her own company. Sayese, so thanks for nothing, Nike,
22:11
Speaker 2: And I got to say, look, there are a lot
22:13
Speaker 2: of issues where the left has completely.
22:17
Speaker 3: Left the American people behind.
22:18
Speaker 2: Sanctuary cities, embracing voter fraud, open borders, supporting illegal immigrants
22:25
Speaker 2: and gang members, and wanting more gang members brought to
22:27
Speaker 2: this country. All of those are extreme. But I don't
22:30
Speaker 2: know that there is an issue that is more out
22:33
Speaker 2: of the mainstream and yet more required by elected Democrats
22:38
Speaker 2: then demanding that men compete against and in women's sports
22:43
Speaker 2: and boys compete in girls sports.
22:46
Speaker 3: And it is.
22:48
Speaker 2: It was a major issue in twenty twenty four in
22:51
Speaker 2: the election. President Trump used the issue. I used the
22:53
Speaker 2: issue in my reelection campaign, and I got to say,
22:56
Speaker 2: Senate races across the country use the issue, and the
22:59
Speaker 2: American people said, enough is enough, and what's interesting?
23:02
Speaker 4: All right?
23:03
Speaker 2: So in my reelection, when I was running ads against
23:07
Speaker 2: my opponent because he had voted repeatedly in favor of
23:10
Speaker 2: men competing women's sports, the reporters thought, oh, well, Cruise
23:15
Speaker 2: is competing to the crazy right wing kooks, and they
23:18
Speaker 2: wrote articles like that, and I actually laughed at them
23:23
Speaker 2: because we had done focus groups and in fact, we
23:25
Speaker 2: had done focus groups of undecided moderate women in Houston
23:31
Speaker 2: and Dallas and we tested like thirty different messages on them.
23:35
Speaker 2: You know, the number one message with undecided moderate women
23:39
Speaker 2: in Houston and Dallas, what was that? Boys and girls sports?
23:43
Speaker 5: There you go.
23:44
Speaker 2: And the reporters didn't get it. They're like, oh, these
23:47
Speaker 2: are crazy right wingers. I'm like, no, No, these are
23:49
Speaker 2: soccer moms. These are soccer moms that are really pissed off.
23:52
Speaker 2: And they don't want their daughter playing soccer with some
23:56
Speaker 2: dude who's going to kick them and get a concussion.
23:58
Speaker 2: They don't want their daughter playing volley ball with some
24:00
Speaker 2: dude that's going to spike the ball on her. They
24:03
Speaker 2: don't want you know, they watched the Olympics and saw
24:06
Speaker 2: two guys beating the hell out of women boxers, and
24:10
Speaker 2: they said enough is enough. And what is amazing is,
24:14
Speaker 2: even though the left is so far out of step,
24:17
Speaker 2: Nike's continuing to double down and fund this extreme research.
24:21
Speaker 2: And we had to vote a month and a half
24:24
Speaker 2: ago in the Senate on stopping boys from competing in girls' sports.
24:30
Speaker 2: Do you know how many Democrats voted in favor of
24:32
Speaker 2: protecting girls in women's sports.
24:34
Speaker 1: I'm going to guess they voted as a party, and
24:36
Speaker 1: none of them said, we're going to be saying.
24:38
Speaker 3: Today absolutely correct. Zero. And this was after the November election.
24:42
Speaker 2: If you live in a blue state and you happen
24:44
Speaker 2: to have a Democrat senator who pretends to be moderate,
24:47
Speaker 2: which a lot of them do, know that your senator
24:50
Speaker 2: likewise voted for boys to compete against your daughters, for
24:54
Speaker 2: men to compete against women. And that's fundamentally unfair. And
24:58
Speaker 2: if you don't believe me, listen to the eight Martina
25:00
Speaker 2: and Averchlova Center.
25:01
Speaker 1: By the way, we were talking a moment ago about
25:03
Speaker 1: fastest serves ever in history.
25:05
Speaker 5: I just want to give people the fastest.
25:06
Speaker 1: So Sam Groth had the fastest serve at a challenger
25:10
Speaker 1: event one hundred and sixty three point seven miles an
25:12
Speaker 1: hour and the fastest recorded serve at an ATP tour,
25:17
Speaker 1: So that's its senior. The highest level can get event
25:19
Speaker 1: in tennis was by my good friend John Isner. We
25:22
Speaker 1: went to one of his last matches to watch actually
25:25
Speaker 1: in Houston. One hundred and fifty seven miles an hour.
25:29
Speaker 1: So if you think there's a difference but not a
25:30
Speaker 1: difference between men and women in sports, yeah, just look
25:33
Speaker 1: at those numbers. You will never find a woman that
25:35
Speaker 1: has ever hit anywhere close to that.
25:37
Speaker 3: There is in difference.
25:38
Speaker 2: And Ben, let me say, I'm proud of you that
25:41
Speaker 2: even in the course of the show you figured out
25:43
Speaker 2: how to use the Google.
25:44
Speaker 3: That was well done.
25:45
Speaker 5: I try, you know, I'm a quick learner here.
25:48
Speaker 1: All right, let's turn to the Democratic Party in disarray
25:53
Speaker 1: and it's a real thing right now and CNN is
25:57
Speaker 1: saying it, so don't trust us. CNN have a freak
26:01
Speaker 1: out moment on TV with new polling data and here
26:04
Speaker 1: is what they said.
26:06
Speaker 4: Yeah, this I think is a revolt, a revolt that
26:09
Speaker 4: is going on within the Democratic Party right now. Democrats
26:12
Speaker 4: and their leaders, I mean, take a look nationally, Hello
26:15
Speaker 4: Democrats on dem leaders in Congress the belief that they
26:19
Speaker 4: will do the right thing when it comes to the economy.
26:21
Speaker 4: Last year, at this time, eighty percent believe that the
26:23
Speaker 4: Democratic leaders in Congress would do the right thing when
26:26
Speaker 4: it comes to the economy.
26:26
Speaker 5: And keep in mind this as Democrats.
26:28
Speaker 4: Look at where we are now, that number has been
26:30
Speaker 4: slashed in half to just thirty nine percent. Holy Toledo.
26:34
Speaker 5: That is the lowest number.
26:36
Speaker 4: By far in Gallup polling. The lowest previous was just
26:39
Speaker 4: sixty percent, which is twenty one points higher than this.
26:42
Speaker 4: Democrats hate, hate, hate, hate what they're congressional leaders in
26:47
Speaker 4: Washington are doing right now on the key issue of
26:49
Speaker 4: the day, the economy, and their confidence has fallen through
26:52
Speaker 4: the floor. Mister Berman, all right, Chuck Schumer is the
26:55
Speaker 4: Senate Democratic leader right now.
26:57
Speaker 7: How we're feelings about him, particularly in New York.
26:59
Speaker 5: Yeah, let's go to the state of New York.
27:01
Speaker 4: It's what's always on my mind. Right We're in the
27:04
Speaker 4: state of New York right now. New York Democrats on
27:06
Speaker 4: Chuck Schumer view him favorably.
27:09
Speaker 3: In December of twenty.
27:10
Speaker 4: Twenty four, that was just a few months ago, it
27:12
Speaker 4: was seventy three percent. Look at where that number has
27:15
Speaker 4: fallen to in just a few months. It is now
27:17
Speaker 4: down to just fifty two percent. That is the lowest
27:20
Speaker 4: I could ever find and see on a college on
27:22
Speaker 4: how democrats in Chuck Schumer's home state knew him. And
27:25
Speaker 4: keep in mind, if you're thinking about a primary challenge,
27:27
Speaker 4: it would be a few years away. But Alexandio Costio
27:30
Speaker 4: Cortes's favorable rating among Democrats is considerably higher in the sixties,
27:34
Speaker 4: so he is doing quite poorly.
27:36
Speaker 5: In his own home state of New York.
27:38
Speaker 4: I never thought i'd see the day in which just
27:39
Speaker 4: fifty two percent of New York Democrats with view Chuck
27:42
Speaker 4: Schumer favorably.
27:43
Speaker 5: It's almost unfathomable.
27:44
Speaker 1: It's almost unfathomable. Now here's the takeaway for me Center.
27:49
Speaker 1: The fact that AOC has a higher approval rating than
27:53
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer means a Democratic party is dead. The socialist
27:58
Speaker 1: Marxists and Communists have taken get it over and now
28:02
Speaker 1: they're out with these old guys. We also saw one
28:04
Speaker 1: of your colleagues, Dick Durbin, hanging it up, saying I'm
28:07
Speaker 1: out of here, I'm not running for reelection.
28:10
Speaker 2: Well, what is stunning about that is a couple of things.
28:13
Speaker 2: Number One, as they're relaying poll numbers that show Democrats
28:17
Speaker 2: unhappy with the Democrat leadership in Congress. The reason they're
28:21
Speaker 2: unhappy is they think Chuck Schumer is not crazy enough.
28:26
Speaker 2: They think Akeem Jeffries is not crazy enough. The problem
28:31
Speaker 2: and end. Listen, We're in a very polarized society. Both
28:34
Speaker 2: both sides are pulling further and further apart. But people
28:37
Speaker 2: that identify as partisan Democrats, they hate Donald Trump. And
28:42
Speaker 2: I'm not quite sure what they want Chuck Schumer to
28:45
Speaker 2: be doing. Maybe lighting himself on fire on the Senate floor,
28:48
Speaker 2: running around naked, screaming at the top of his lungs.
28:51
Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, maybe they just want him
28:54
Speaker 2: to join AOC and Bernie Sanders on their Fight the
28:57
Speaker 2: Oligarchy tour. Oh to be clear, they're flying around in
29:00
Speaker 2: private jets to fight the oligarchy, which actually may symbolize
29:06
Speaker 2: today's Democrat Party more than anything else. They could do
29:09
Speaker 2: to get off their private jet and stand up and
29:11
Speaker 2: say fight the oligarchy. And by the way, George Soros,
29:14
Speaker 2: thanks for the money. But the Democrats want their elected
29:19
Speaker 2: leaders to be even more crazy that. And this is
29:22
Speaker 2: after four years of absolute shambles of the Obama administration.
29:26
Speaker 2: And what's striking also about that clip you played is CNN,
29:31
Speaker 2: which is a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party, is
29:34
Speaker 2: panicking that they can't believe it. They are terrified. The
29:38
Speaker 2: media is in desiray. You mentioned Dick Durbin, Democrat Cenater
29:43
Speaker 2: from Illinois, announced he was not running for reelection. Look,
29:46
Speaker 2: Dick Durbin is the number two Democrat in the entire Senate.
29:52
Speaker 2: He is number two only to Schumer, and he's calling
29:54
Speaker 2: it quits. He is also the top the ranking member,
29:58
Speaker 2: the top Democrat on the Senate jud Year Committee. Used
30:00
Speaker 2: to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And
30:03
Speaker 2: so they've got senior Democrats that are saying, get me
30:06
Speaker 2: out of this place.
30:07
Speaker 1: Well, and by the way, he said something that was
30:09
Speaker 1: really interesting, how low the bar has fallen. So Dick
30:13
Speaker 1: Durbin's excuse for why is not running for reelection was
30:16
Speaker 1: in essence, well, I don't want to become Joe Biden.
30:20
Speaker 5: And he put it this way in the interview.
30:22
Speaker 7: Listen, a senator yesterday, after you made your announcement that
30:26
Speaker 7: you would not be seeking reelection, there were a number
30:28
Speaker 7: of Democrats who privately really applauded your choice, saying that
30:31
Speaker 7: it was that it was something the right thing to do,
30:33
Speaker 7: to step aside and perhaps let a younger generation of
30:35
Speaker 7: politicians step to the forefront. We know the idea of
30:39
Speaker 7: democratic elected officials and age has been a hot topic
30:43
Speaker 7: in recent years.
30:44
Speaker 3: Do you hope do you agree.
30:46
Speaker 4: With that thinking?
30:46
Speaker 7: Do you think it is time now for younger politicians,
30:50
Speaker 7: the next generation to come forward?
30:53
Speaker 3: Well?
30:53
Speaker 6: I think this it's more complex. It is not just
30:56
Speaker 6: a question of a number what your age is. Look
30:58
Speaker 6: at Bernie Sanders, for god sake, still drawing thousands and
31:02
Speaker 6: thousands of people out for rallies, and he's a few
31:05
Speaker 6: years older than I am. The bottom line is are
31:08
Speaker 6: you competent? Can you still do the job? That's the
31:10
Speaker 6: question the voter should ask. But should a new generation
31:13
Speaker 6: be interested in public service? You bet. I've spent my
31:17
Speaker 6: time in office trying to encourage younger people to get involved.
31:21
Speaker 8: Senator Durbin, it's Ali vitally. I wonder if I can
31:25
Speaker 8: pick up on something you just said, this idea of
31:27
Speaker 8: are you competent? Are you able to do this job?
31:29
Speaker 8: In the Senate? As you see this push from the
31:31
Speaker 8: grassroots that lamiir is talking about here. Do you think
31:34
Speaker 8: enough of your colleagues are asking themselves those fundamental questions
31:38
Speaker 8: about if they can continue to serve.
31:40
Speaker 6: I think so. I think if you're honest about yourself
31:44
Speaker 6: and your reputation, you want to leave when you can
31:47
Speaker 6: still walk out the front door and not be carried
31:49
Speaker 6: out the back door.
31:50
Speaker 1: I mean, you hear that, and it's basically saying, well,
31:53
Speaker 1: I'm not going to pull at Joe Biden, and other
31:55
Speaker 1: people need to look at this as well. I think
31:58
Speaker 1: clearly knocking Joe Biden in that and what he just
32:00
Speaker 1: said as well.
32:02
Speaker 2: Well, And nobody in that discussion acknowledged that Dick Durbin
32:06
Speaker 2: spent four years lying to the American people saying that
32:10
Speaker 2: Joe Biden was not senile, that he was mentally capable
32:13
Speaker 2: to do the job. By the way, CNN spent four
32:16
Speaker 2: years lying to the American people screaming that it was
32:18
Speaker 2: a conspiracy theory to point out what is obviously true
32:22
Speaker 2: and was obviously true then that Biden's mental capacity was
32:25
Speaker 2: severely diminished. I will say this, and actually it might
32:28
Speaker 2: surprise you. I'm going to say something nice about Durbin
32:32
Speaker 2: So I've served with Durbin for thirteen years on the
32:34
Speaker 2: Senate Judiciary Committee, and I'll tell you what I tell
32:38
Speaker 2: any nominees that are coming before Judiciary, I tell them
32:42
Speaker 2: Durbin is the single most dangerous Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
32:45
Speaker 2: because I think he's the smartest Democrat, and he is
32:49
Speaker 2: radical and extreme, but he's very good at sounding reasonable.
32:54
Speaker 2: There are other Democrats that are radical and extreme, a
32:56
Speaker 2: Sheldon white House and Adam Schiff, but they sound like
32:59
Speaker 2: lunatic when they're ranting. Everyone knows their lunatics. Part of
33:03
Speaker 2: what makes Durbin such a dangerous questioner for Republican nominees
33:08
Speaker 2: or Republican witnesses is he's very good at masking his
33:12
Speaker 2: extreme policies in ways that sound much more reasonable than
33:17
Speaker 2: his colleagues. And so I will say for Democrats, seeing
33:20
Speaker 2: Durbin hang it up is a real loss to them.
33:23
Speaker 5: Yeah, no doubt. Don't forget.
33:25
Speaker 1: We do this show as a podcast, so make sure
33:27
Speaker 1: you download Verdict with Ted Cruz.
33:30
Speaker 5: We do it three days a week. Don't miss an episode.
33:32
Speaker 5: Grab it.
33:33
Speaker 1: We'll see you back here next week and on our
33:36
Speaker 1: podcasts on Monday morning,