Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / The Opinion of the Court

Transcript

The Opinion of the Court · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: A major win for conservatives at the Supreme Court, a
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: major win for free speech, a major win for the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: First Amendment. And this case has Senator Cruz's name all
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: over it. Literally, his name is on the case. This
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict with
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is brought to you by Jennya Cell. How
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: old does your mirror say you are? You can delay
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: this question by five, ten, even fifteen years with Jennie
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Cell's new ultra retinal serum. You can see it sitting
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: right here on the desk. Here's a testimonial from Marina.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Marina lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: My skin loves it. I have spent more money, she says,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: on creams over the years, enough to pay off my house.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: high with Jennia Cell's new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: This works to hydrate your skin at the cell level.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking likewise.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: We know that you use our face products, our skincare products,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: and it's fun. All's fair in love and war. Now,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: if you go to my uurl that is genu cell
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: percent off genia Cell's new ultra retinal serum. That is
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: fifty percent off. If you go to genueell dot com
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: slash cactus, it's spelled gn ucel dot com slash cactus
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: genu cell dot com slashcactus. Today's episode of Verdict with
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is brought to you by ip vanish. Did
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: you know that browsing online using incognito mode doesn't actually
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: protect your privacy? Without added security, you might as well
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: give all your private data way to hackers, advertisers, your
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Internet service provider, and who knows who else. Ip Vanish
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: helps you securely and privately browse the Internet by encrypting
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent of your data. This means that your
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: private messages, passwords, e l's browsing history, and other information
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: will be completely protected from falling into the wrong hands.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Ip vanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple.
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: Just for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering an insane
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: seventy percent off their annual plan. That's like getting nine
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: months for free. You have to go directly to ip
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: vanish dot com slash cactus to get this seventy percent
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: off discount. Ip Vanish is super easy to use. Just
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: tap one button and you're instantly protected. You won't even
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: know it's on. You can use ip vanish on your computers, tablets,
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: and phones, whether you're at home or in public. Don't
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: go online without using ip vanish. Don't forget. Verdict listeners
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: get seventy percent off the ip vanish annual plan. Just
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: go to ip vanish dot com slash cactus to claim
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: your discount and secure your online life. That's ip va
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: nish dot com slash cactus. This episode, A Verdict with
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: The US national debts is way way way up. And unfortunately,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold can show you how to heade your
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: to get started. All it takes is a short phone
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: four oh one K or your IRA, they make it easy.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two again. The phone
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word cactus three two. Welcome
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz. I am Michael Knowles, Senator.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: This has been a big couple of days for you
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: and for the First Amendment. And for conservatives, especially heading
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: into the midterms, you had a major victory not in
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: the capital, but in another branch of government at the
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Well, that's right, I final lawsuit against the
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: federal government and one a six three victory at the
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: US Supreme Court based on the First Amendment. And what
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: I was challenging is a part of McCain Finegold. Remember
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: McCain Finegold was the big so called campaign finance reform
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: bill that passed twenty some odd years ago, and it's
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: a terrible bill. It has all sorts of terrible provisions.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is struck down a bunch of those provisions.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: Many of the provisions were designed with one thing in mind,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: to protect incumbent politicians. And you think about it, campaign
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: finance laws are written by incumbent politicians and the one
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: thing they can all agree on is they don't want
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: anyone to beat them on election day, and so campaign
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: finance many of these provisions, including the provision I challenge,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: are designed to make it hard for challengers to win.
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: In particular, what this provision said is, if you're a
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: candidate for office, let's say Michael Knowles decides to run
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: for Senate in the state of Tennessee, and you're a
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: first time candidate. You don't have a lot of name
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: I d but you've saved some money and you decide,
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: let's say you're a small business owner, and you decide
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: to put five hundred thousand dollars into the campaign to
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: loan your campaign five hundred thousand dollars to jump started,
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: to run your first ads, to get started. Well, what
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: McCain fine Gold provided is if you loan your campaign
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: five hundred thousand dollars on campaign day, you were capped
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: on what you could pay yourself back at two hundred
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars, and everything beyond that was essentially
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: a gift to the taxpayers. So if you loan your
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: campaign five hundred thousand dollars, you're out two hundred and
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars. You can pay yourself back to fifty
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: but not a penny beyond that with money raised after
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: election day. The purpose of it was real simple. They
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: didn't want people loaning themselves money to run against incumbents,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: and so I saw this as a practical matter when
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: I first ran for senate. So I ran for Senate
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: in twenty twelve, my opponent, David Duhurst, worth over two
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: hundred million dollars, a gazillionaire. He put over thirty million
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: dollars zone money and just wrote a massive check. I'm
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: sitting I don't have thirty million dollars. I've got no name,
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: I d no one's ever heard of me. I'd never
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: run like, I'd never been elected office. This was the
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: last thing I was elected to was student council. So
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: I'm running this, this grassroots campaign, and the week before
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: the primary campaign manager comes to me and says, okay,
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: the only way you can survive is if you liquidate
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: all of your quod net worth and drop it into
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: the campaign and alone. And so Heidi and I we'd
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: worked a number of years. We had one point two
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: million dollars in savings, and I went by the way.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: I went to Heidi and said, sweetheart, what do you
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: think about putting our whole liquid net worth into the campaign.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: I don't advise this conversation. This is a dangerous conversation
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: to have with your spouse. Astonishingly, Heidi and second said, yes,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: do it. We did. That got us into the runoff,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: which ended up getting me into the Senate. This law
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: was designed to say you can't pay yourself back. So
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: I filed a lawsuit challenging this provision of McCain fine Gold,
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: saying it's unconstitutional, saying it restricts political speech. We won
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: in a three judge district court and won unanimously, and
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: then it went to the US Supreme Court, was argued
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: earlier this year, and just this week we won six three.
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts wrote a terrific opinion said this was
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: clearly designed to stifle political speech, to stop challengers from
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: taking on incumbents, to benefit career politicians, and so they
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: struck the law down, the result of which is it's
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: now easier for challengers to run for office and for
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: challengers to take on and beat career politicians. Well, it's
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: a great win. I'm glad that given the amount of
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: money you had donated to your own campaign to really
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: just to test this law, presumably you'll get back something
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: like ten thousand dollars these days in the Biden economy,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: I think that'll pretty much just buy you a nice
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: steak dinner, but I hope you enjoy it to celebrate.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: What I'm really interested in is what does this mean,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: practically for candidates who are running right now in the
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two midterms, how do you think it's going
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: to affect the landscape? So it has a big impact.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: I got to tell you, in the Senate and in
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: the House, I cannot tell you how many current Senators
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: and current House members have come up to me said
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: thank you, thank you, Like like I have I loaned
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: my campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars or maybe even
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: a million dollars or more, and I've never been able
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: to repay myself. Like the level of gratitude among Republicans,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: but even among Democrats. They can't admit it because their
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: side is a big fan of stifling the free speech,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: but they're grateful. And you know, it's amazing. The corrupt
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: corporate media the way they cover this, Like the headlines
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: from all of the media is like, now it's legal
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: to bribes senators. I saw that headline. It's like, well, no,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: the contributions to pay back the loan or under the
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: same contribution limits of twenty nine hundred dollars a person,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: same limit applies. So the idea is eighty six contributions
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: at twenty nine hundred a piece, adds up to two
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So eighty six contributions were
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: just fine to pay yourself back, but the eighty seven
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: was clearly corruption. It was all a croc. By the way,
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: it's interesting if you look at the debate on the
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: Senate floor, both Pete Domenici and Kay Bailey Hutcheson, my
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: predecessor on the Senate floor, they were very candid why
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: they wanted this provision. They said, look, we don't want
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: someone to run against us and loan their campaign a
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: million bucks or five million bucks. They might beat us.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: And it's interesting some of the coverage where they say, well, gosh,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: this is benefiting the candidates because they can put the
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: money in their own bank account. The descent says you
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: can take the money and use it to buy a
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: car or join a country club. And this is the
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: classic classic leftist like the ultimate definition of evil is
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: joining a country club. I'm not a member of a
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: country club, but it's how the left defines it. The
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: one thing they seem to be omitting is it's your
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: damn money. Like this is not that that's the funny thing.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: It's like, all right, you start out with in the
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: hypothetical five hundred thousand you had it to begin with,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: you loaned it to the campaign that pays you back.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: You got the same damn money you started with. None
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: of these leftists and the media acknowledge that at all. Now,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: speaking of money flying around the Capitol, there is a
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: vote that just occurred. I think that seems to have
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: divided the right, the Republicans, the Conservatives, and it's this
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: vote over funding for Ukraine. And you voted for the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: funding in Ukraine. There is a lot of confusion about
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: what this funding is for, what's included in the bill.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: So what do you have to say about that? Yeah, look,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: so we just had a vote on forty billion dollars
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: in additional funding for Ukraine, and there are a lot
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: of folks, a lot of grassroots activists, probably a lot
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: of viewers of this pod, who are skeptical of that funding.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: I think the vote for the funding was the right
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: thing to do. I voted yes. I think there were
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: a total of eleven no votes, So it was a
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: relatively small group of Republicans that voted no, but it
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: was most of the Conservatives. And look, if you ask
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: a grassroots activist, I was up in Pennsylvania campaigning on
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Thursday and Friday, and the activists there, they're like, all right,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: forty billion dollars sounds like a ton of money. Anything
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: going to something in a foreign country sounds like a
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: waste of money. We got chaos in our southern border
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: and people are pissed off. How come these jerks want
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: secure the southern border and yet they want to send
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: money overseas and then people are frustrated at all the
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: other things like inflation and the baby formula shortage and
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: everything else. They're like, focus on at home, not abroad.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: I understand all the sentiments. Here's why I voted yes
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine. It is in America's national security
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: interest for Vladimir Putin to lose. If Russia wins, it's
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: bad for America. Now, as you know, we shouldn't have
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: been in this war. This war is unnecessary. Biden's weakness
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: caused it. Biden's waiving the sanctions on Nordstream too caused
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: this war. We talked a lot on this podcast about
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Nordstream two, the sanctions legislation that I wrote that stopped
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: that pipeline, that prevented the war. Until Joe Bidenate came in,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: waived the sanctions surrendered to Putin and caused the invasion.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: That being said, if Putin succeeds, it hurts America. It
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: is bad for America. Putin wants to reassemble the old
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: Soviet Union. We want our enemies to be weaker. We
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: don't want our enemies to be stronger. If Putin conquers Ukraine,
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: he will be stronger. He will have more of a
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: stranglehold over energy. That's bad for America. We've seen energy
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: prices skyrocketing. Putin controlling Ukraine gives him more of a
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: stranglehold over our energy prices, and that is we will
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: end up spending much more battling against Putin. If he wins,
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: then if we provide Ukraine the weapons to beat him,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: of the forty billion, nine billion of it is replenishing
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: US military stocks. So in other words, it's it's replenishing
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: stingers and javelins and weapons that the American military has
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: that have been given to Ukraine. And our stocks are depleted.
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: And I don't know of anyone rational that can argue
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: against those nine trillion that we obviously should be have
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: the weapons necessary to defend ourselves. A total of twenty
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: four billion. Of this amount is military aid to Ukraine.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: So it's bullets, it's missiles, it's stingers, it's javelins, it's
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: the weapons that Ukraine is using to win victories and
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: defeating putin in battles ongoing. That's good for America to
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: have the Ukrainians defeating Russia. There's an additional portion of this,
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: it's about four and a half billion dollars that is
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: focused in particular on food aid. And one of the
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: consequences of this war. You know, Ukraine is called the
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: bread basket of Europe, grows enormous quantities of grain. This
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: war has shut down that food production and that the
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: projections are that we could be facing massive famines throughout Africa,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: throughout Egypt, throughout the developing world as a consequence of this.
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: I think providing some funding to prevent mass starvation and
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: mass famine makes sense. Now, there's also in this bill
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: about eight billion dollars that goes to the government of
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: Ukraine for economic assistance. I think that's crap. I would
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: delete that. I think it is almost certain a lot
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: of that is almost certain to go to waste. I
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: think some of it will go to corruption. You know,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: some of that who knows, could end up in some
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: oligarch's yacht in the Baltic Sea. That's possible. It's also
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: the consequence of having a bill that is drafted by Democrats,
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: that's drafted by Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: So I'm faced with a binary decision. I don't like
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: that eight billion. I would cut that waste, I would
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: get rid of it. But I think it would be
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: a mistake. I don't think it would be the responsible decision,
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: particularly when Ukraine is beating Russia, to say, Okay, we're
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: going to cut off your bullets and cut off your
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: missiles and put you in a position where the inevitable
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: result is putin wins. That's bad for America, putin wins,
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: and I don't want our enemies getting stronger because that
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: ends up hurting us. Well, I think I think this
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: is the strongest argument for the bill. I know a
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: lot of conservatives roll their eyes when the arguments for
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: funding the war in Ukraine are that Ukraine is this thriving,
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: wonderful democracy, and you know, in the abstract, we need
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: to defend you know, this flourishing republic, when in fact
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: it's obviously a lot of corruption. Probably some of that
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: money is going to go to that corruption. But I
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: like the way you're putting it. You're saying, Look, it's
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: a simple question. What is better for America. Is it
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: better for America at Vladimir Putin run Ukraine or for
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: Zalinski and the rest of these guys to run Ukraine.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: One of the frustrating things is I think a lot
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: of the Republicans defending this, you were pretty kind a
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: second ago. I think they're eye bleedingly horrible. And how
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: they defend this, and they get up and say things
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: like we must protect democracy, we must protect international norms.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: That's all hogwash, that's the kind of garbage, John Kerry says.
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: And so one of the problems is some of the
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: people who voted with me are saying things that I
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: think are imbecilic, and I hate their justifications. It's not
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: why I support the military a you know, it used
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: to be all Republicans were agreed, we support a strong military,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: we stand up to our enemies. But let me give
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: you what I think is the single best argument for
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: this aid package. Listen, Rush is a very real danger.
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: Putin is a very real danger, but there's a bigger danger,
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: and that's China. Communist China is watching this. She is
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: watching this, as you remember, And I said this on
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: the podcast when Joe Biden surrendered to the Taliban and
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: had the disastrous failure in Afghanistan. I said at the time,
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: the chances of Putin invading Ukraine have just risen tenfold.
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: And I said, the chances of China invading Taiwan have
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: risen tenfold because they've looked at the man in the
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: Oval office. They've taken the measure of the man. Well,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: right now, she is watching what happens in Ukraine and
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: if Putin wins, and even more importantly, if Putin wins,
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: because America lost the stomach for supporting our allies decided,
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: you know what, even though the Ukrainians are heroically defeating
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: the Russians, even while outmanned little old Grandmother's throwing Molotov cocktails,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: the Americans were so feckless we said, sorry, we're cutting
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: off your bullets and missiles. Good luck winning a war,
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: you know, with no bullets. I think the chances of
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: China invading Taiwan. Skyrocket dramatically and you want to talk
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: about profoundly dangerous. One of the reasons we don't want
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: China to invade Taiwan. If they invade Taiwan, it gives
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: communist China a stranglehold on semiconductors produced worldwide. Vast percentage
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: of the semiconductors produced in the world are produced in Taiwan.
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: It literally puts US in a position where we're dependent
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: on China for essential electronics. And they're one of two
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: outcomes in that. Either one they sell us chips that
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: they put spywear on to monitor everyone, and that's the
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: best case scenario. Best case scenario is China now has
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: spywear everywhere. Worst case scenario as they say, screw you,
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: no more chips for you. You know, it's like the
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: soup Nazi and Seinfeld. No soup for you, no chips
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: for you. That is a terrible outcome. And I believe look,
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: she is watching this. At the outset of this Ukraine war,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: the Biden administration told Congress repeatedly said this war is
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: going to be over in two three days. Russia is
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: going to roll in conquered Ukraine. It's all going to
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: be over. Nothing to see here turned out the entire
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: Biden admin was spectactularly wrong. Every day this war drags on,
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: every Russian casualty, every dollar that the Russians pour down
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: a rat hole in this war A hurts Russia and Putin,
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: which is good for America, but b I think increases
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: the deterrence on China of further military aggression. So I
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: don't want America to project so much weakness that we
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: invite China to be aggressive an invader neighbors. And by
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: the way, invite Venezuela to do the same thing, Invite
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: North Korea to do the same thing, Invite a Rand
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: to do the same thing. There are a lot of
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: bad guys in the world. Yeah, that's a much stronger
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: argument than some of your colleagues. And I think if you,
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: if you just view foreign policy not just but primarily
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: view it through what is in the national interest of
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: the United States, that that's a reasonable way to approach
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: this question. And people's eyes won't glaze over in the
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: way that they do when you hear the peons to
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: you know, democracy in the abstract, which in reality often
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: doesn't really exist. Now, speaking of democracy, speaking of the
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: will of the people, we get questions on this show, Senator.
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: We get questions all the time from our listeners, and
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: we never get to more than one or two of
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: them per show. So I've got a lightning round of
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: questions for you from the mail back from our great listeners.
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: Our listeners, of course, can join the Verdict Plus community.
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: They can subscribe on Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play, YouTube,
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: my Space, I don't know. You can subscribe wherever leave
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: a five star review. Let's get to the first question.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: I think probably the most pressing question. This is from Jonathan.
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: The Women's March was this weekend. We are seeing women
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: like Amber Heard, Jada Pinkett Smith, Meghan Markle, Kim Kardashian.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: Is it time we start talking about toxic femininity? So look,
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: Jada Pinkett's Peggott Smith. It seems unfair to blame her
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: for the fact that that that Will Smith went and
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: took it, took a swing at someone. So I'm not
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: sure you know he has he has agency, so I'm
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: not going to blame her for that. Um, Amber Heard,
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: I'll confess I haven't watched this trial. I've seen like
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: snippets of it, and it seems a little bit like
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: watching a celebrity car crash. But but I haven't actually
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: watched it. I do not want to confess, Senator, that
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: I've watched this trial. It's riveting. It's riveting. It's the
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: best thing on television right now. I believe you. And
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: Johnny Depp seems like a weird dude. And I know,
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: like if twitters to believe, Amberhard is kind of really
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: bizarre and more in the wrong than people thought. But
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: I don't know that that that that is truly an
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: ignorant statement. Um, Kim Kardashian, she didn't done anything lately.
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: I mean she seems Kim seems fine. She Uh the
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: SNL guy, I don't, I can't, I don't know. I'm
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: team Kanye. I know, what can I say? Uh? I
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: mean Pete david said, all right, how come that dude
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: gets all of these like hot women because of toxic femininity? Senator?
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: That is the evidence that something has gone wrong. Pete
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: Davidson was dating Kate Beckinsdale. I mean, you're talking underworld,
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: You're talking like super hot vampire in black leather trench coat,
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: and you're like, really this an l dude? Like wow? Um?
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: And who was the fourth one. Uh. The fourth one
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: was oh oh, the the former Duchess and future President
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: Megan Markle. I am happily in a Royal free zone.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: I cannot stand their antics. They're sort of they seem
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: left wing as a matter of social virtue, socialist because
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: they've inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, and as best
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: I can tell, trivial and not focused on actually things
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: that matter. Although again I say that with a degree
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: of ignorance. Maybe they're doing wonderful things in charity that
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: I don't know. But everything I see in the headline
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: seems to be inane vanities and trying to prove to
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: leftist that they're as woke as anyone wants them to be.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: I've always been a great defender of Her Majesty the Queen,
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: but I now have a conspiracy theory that actually the
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: whole mexit phenomenon was a plot by the royal family
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: to send this woman and Prince Harry to America to
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: rise through the political ranks to become president, to undo
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: the American Revolution and return the United States to the Commonwealth.
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: I don't I can't prove it yet. You'll be back,
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: You'll you'll be back. I've seen Hamilton, and that's that
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: the That's that's what our predecessors says. That's true. Okay, Well,
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: now that we've covered that important topic. Uh, next question.
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: This one's a bit more trivial from Galen. I would
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: like to know Senator Cruiz's position on civil asset forfeiture,
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: the legalized theft of personal property by the government with
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: no crime alleged. Very good question. Um, I've got real
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: concerns about civil asset forfeiture. I think it is abused
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: with some frequency. UM. I think there is a role
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: for civil asset forfeiture for an asset that was used
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: in carrying out a crime. Um. That's where it's legitimately applied.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: I think it can be abused. The threshold is far
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: less than than than convicting someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: And I think there's been lots of allegations of law
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: enforcement abusing it because they want to seize a bunch
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: of assets even if someone hasn't done anything wrong. I look,
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: my basic view is if you commit a crime, if
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: if you're living on a you know, in a fancy
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: mansion and selling drugs out of the mansion, you can
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: lose the mansion and that that's part of the criminal law,
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: and I think it is an appropriate ancillary to a
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: criminal conviction. But I have long been vocal about the
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: abuse of civil asset forfeiture, and I think it needs
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: to be rained in. There's a question that we've heard
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: a whole lot about with regard to this overruling of
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade. This has become one of the top
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: Democrat talking points. Questions from Pittsburgh, who says, do you
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: believe that interracial marriage would be at risk if Roe v.
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: Wade is overturned? Absolutely not, It's utterly absurd talk. Last podcast,
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: I made fun of the New York Times, which suggested
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: that that if Roe was overturned, that there are several
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: states that would in fact ban in a racial marriage.
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: Which which what is it? I think I had some
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: sort of long that they were like crazy, moronic, full
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: of crap. I don't even remember. It was a whole
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: string of adjectives making fun of the New York Times
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: because they have this view that only Manhattan could have
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: of tripping contempt for the rest of the country. No,
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: no state wants to ban in a racial marriage. No,
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: there's no risk of that No, there's no risk of
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: the law allowing it. That that that's all an absurd
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: slippery slope. And I can quantify precisely the chances of
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: that happening, and it's zero point zero zero. What about
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: zero point zero zero zero point zero zero zero one?
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: I mean, is are you saying there's a chance now? No? No,
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: not not even the dumb and dumber stand standard. I'm
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: not even saying there's a chance. There is zero chance. Yep.
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: From Kim, Let's be the last question. Why isn't the
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: Biden administration changing course? This, I think is a really
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: good political question. She says, the regime has dismal poll numbers,
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: worsening economics, and are obviously completely incompetent. So, even just
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: from a purely political perspective of self preservation, why isn't
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: the Biden administration changing on anything? So? I don't know
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: for sure, but I do have a theory, which is
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: that the kids are in charge. I think Biden is
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: truly checked out. I think his mental capacity is so
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: diminished that he's not running things. And when I really
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: became convinced of that, oddly enough, was at the State
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: of the Union and the state of the Union. Biden
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: was competent in reading what was on the teleprompter, but
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: any president looking at where things are now, it is
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: not rocket science to recognize that the Democrats are headed
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: to a blood bath in November. At this point, everyone
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: knows this. Republicans know this, Democrats know this. The State
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: of the Union was Biden's best opportunity to try to
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: change course. And by the way, we saw Bill Clinton
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: masterfully use State of the Union addresses to change course
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: and pull the Democrats path out of the gutter, Biden
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: didn't even try. I mean the question that was asked
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: that they're not trying to change course. They're doubling down
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: on crazy ass left wing radical Any principle would say,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: hold on a second, let's not accept that we're headed
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: to a blood bath and losing the House. Let's not
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: accept that we're probably losing the Senate. Let's at least
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: try to hold onto a majority somewhere. They're not doing this,
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: and I think what is happening is you have people
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: like Ron Klaine, the chief of staff that's running it,
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: that they're like you're seeing the movie Doctor Strangelove. They're
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: like the guy with the cowboy hat, riding the bomb down.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: They're just gonna take it all the way down and
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: blow the hell out of it. And if there were
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: a responsible principle running things, they'd at least try to
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: save them. For people who are unfamiliar with the term,
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: when you say principle, you're talking about the guy, the
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: elected guy, the person who's supposed to be in charge,
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: the elected official, and it's just it's fundamentally different. I've
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: been a staffer, but it is fundamentally different when your
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: name is on the ballot, when you are the elected official,
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: when you've got the election certificate. There's just an awareness
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: of Okay, let's think through what the consequences are, what
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: the next steps are. Any president who was aware of
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: his surroundings would at least try to save this. The
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: fact that they're not, I think the children, the staffers
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: are running it, and they're just like, strew it, screw
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: it all the way, let's go on like we don't care,
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: let's ram everything through. And oh well, if we lose
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: the House and Senate Cowboy hats On ride the bomb
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: all the way down, that is very scary. Well really,
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: I guess scary for them, it's wonderful news for conservatives.
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: We don't always get wins, especially when conservatives raut of power,
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: but there have been a lot of wins. Congratulations on
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: your court win, Senator, thank you all right, and before
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: I go, you have more to talk about. We've got
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: our wonderful show the Cloakroom with Liz Wheeler. Liz, what
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: are you guys going to talk about? Hi, Michael High, Senator, Yes,
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: we have a fascinating topic that we're discussing on cloak
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: Room today. So, in the wake of Nina Jenkowitz and
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: the Disinformation Governance Board coming down from the Biden administration,
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: there's this idea on the left that there's limits on
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: free speech, and they always use this phrase you're not
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater as their
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: justification as the precedent that they point to for these
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: limits on free speech. And we are going to examine
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: the actual history of that phrase and whether or not
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: it actually does impose limits on free speech. You can
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: join us on Cloakroom if you go to Verdict with
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot com slash Plus. It's for Verdict Plus
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: subscribers only. Verdict with Tedcruise dot Com slash Plus. If
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: you use my access code, which of course is Cloakroom.
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: You can get your first month free on your annual
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: subscription Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash Plus. Make
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: sure to go check out the Cloakroom. It's going to
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: be a lot of fun. Until next time. I'm Michael Knowles.
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: with Ted Cruise is being brought to you by Jobs,
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: Republican Party across the nation.