Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Hollywood Has a Predilection for Minors and Communists

Transcript

Hollywood Has a Predilection for Minors and Communists · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Just when you think Hollywood can't sink any lower, one
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: of the biggest studios in town pushes pedophilia, and another
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: huge Hollywood studio sucks up to one of the worst
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: regimes on Earth. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, joined
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: as ever by the Senator. I do want to get
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: to Cutie's. I do want to get to Mulan, But
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: first there is some breaking legal news, and I guess
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking about the legality of everything. Actually,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: two bits of news that involve you, Senator. One is
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: your new book, your upcoming book, One Vote Away, How
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: a single Supreme Court Seat can Change History, that is
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: coming out in about three weeks. And then related to that,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: you have been added to the shortlist to the President's
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: shortlist for the Supreme Court. So I have to ask you,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: will you be that one seat that can change history? No,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: I'm not gonna be. I'm very happy where I am.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Come on, you're not gonna do it, but it matters immensely.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: I don't want the job, but but but I do
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: care a great deal about who gets it. And and
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: that book that's a book I've been working on really
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: since this spring. I spent the spring and summer during
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Lockdown writing it. And actually the copy you're holding is
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: the first hard copy I've actually seen that it is
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: like a physical, real book. We literally just got that
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: a few minutes ago. October sixth is when it's going
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: to be released, although it's on Amazon now for pre order.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: It's also if you go to one votaway dot com
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: that'll connect you to Amazon, you can pre order it there.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: And what the book does is it really goes through
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: all of the fundamental constitutional liberties that are hanging in
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: the balance at the court. And each chapter in the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: book is a different constitutional liberty. So there's a chapter
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: on free speech, there's a chapter on religious liberty. There's
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: a chapter on the Second Amendment. There's a chapter on
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: US sovereignty. There's a chapter on politics and elections that
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: talks in depth about Bush versus Gore, something that could
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: well be highly relevant in another two months as we
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: see Democrats in all likelihood litigating the results of this election.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Could you could have Bush versus score at times fifty
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: all over the place and multiple jurisdictions, And what the
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: book tries to do is just It tells the inside
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: stories of the major landmark cases, many of which I
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: helped litigate it. So I was I was in the
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: middle of a lot of these cases, and so Bush
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: versus Gore. I was a young lawyer as part of
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: George W. Bush's legal team. So I tell the inside stories.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: And you know, it's designed to be interesting, to be accessible.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: You don't have to be a lawyer to read it.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: It's designed to really tell you, all right, what's what's
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: going on in these cases, what's going on at the court.
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Why do I as an American care about Supreme Court nominations?
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: And what stunning and most people don't realize is just
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: how many of our fundamental liberties are hanging by a
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: single vote, either positive or negative. In some cases, one
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: additional conservative vote would make a really positive difference. In
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: a whole lot of other instances, one additional liberal vote.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: We have four radical leftist justices on the Court. One more,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: I think would be devastating, And I don't think it's
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: too much of an overstatement to say that that may
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: well be the single most important issue in this twenty
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: twenty election. This is the problem, and it's why I
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: like the idea of you senator on the Supreme Court,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: because you know, we've had a lot of conservatives go
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: squishy once they get onto the Court. But of course
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: we also need you in the Senate. We all should
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: need you in the political fights. I like being in
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the political fight. Yeah, I like being and the court's
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the wrong place to do that. If I were a justice,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: i'd stay out of political fights. I'd stay out of
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: policy fights. A principal judge doesn't engage in that. You
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: simply follow the law. That's what I do if I
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: were a justice, I don't want to do that. Yeah,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: I want to be right in the middle of the fight.
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: And I gotta tell you, I look at the Senate,
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: I look at the political scene. We need fighters right now.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: I think what we're doing on this podcast, I hope
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: makes a difference, engaging on issues that matter. And so
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: I hope to be part of nominating and confirming two, three, four,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: five great principled constitutionalist justices. But I don't want to
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: be one of them myself, all right, So I will
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: stop for now pressuring you to accept a potential Supreme
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: Court nomination. I do want to get to one of
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: those fights that you're involved in now, which is this
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: issue of Cuties. Cuties is this French movie that sexualizes
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: eleven year old girls and it's now on Netflix. Netflix
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: is promoting this thing like crazy. The poster is nauseating,
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: the movie is nauseating. You came out very strongly and
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: called for a Justice Apartment investigation into whether this is
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: what child pornography or exploitation. Can you can you lay
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: down the legal aspect of this? So last week I
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: wrote a letter to Attorney General Barr into the Department
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: of Justice, asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Netflix has violated any of the criminal laws prohibiting the
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: distribution of child pornography. And you know, it's an interesting thing.
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: So this movie is all about eleven year old girls
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: and the actresses, as I understand it, are eleven year
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: old girls who are dancing suggestively, dancing like strippers, engaged
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: in sexually explicit conduct on screen, and Netflix, a US company,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: is promoting it and pushing it. And that's not okay.
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Sexually exploiting. Look, I'm the dad of two little girls.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Abusing kids is not okay. And just because net Flix
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: is now one of the Hollywood elite. Everyone treats it
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: as perfectly fine to take out to produce a movie
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: and distribute a movie where kids are being sexually exploited,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: and that is a federal crime to sexually exploit children. Well,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: here's what Netflix is saying. Netflix says this is completely misunderstood.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: A lot of prominent left wingers are saying this too.
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: That's completely being misunderstood by right wingers who haven't seen
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: the movie. And this puts conservatives in a terrible box
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: because from everything we know about the movie, we don't
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: want to watch it, right, But then you're told that, well,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: if you haven't watched it, and you can't have an
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: opinion on it. I had no intention of watching this movie,
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: but you know, I work for a news outlet. I
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: was told by my editor that I had to watch
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: the movie. I had said, I don't want to watch
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: this as disgusting. I don't want to. They said, no,
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: you have to watch it to give a review of it.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: So I was on vacation for a week. I was
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: there with my wife and two of our friends. So
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: we say, okay, put the movie on. It is as
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: bad as they say. It is true that one of
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the messages of the movie, perhaps is that it's bad
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: to sexually exploit kids. The problem is in conveying possibly
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: that message the movie sexually exploits kids. I mean, there
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: are moments you have to look away. My friends fiance
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: when we were watching this, stormed out of the room
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: in tears. It was that nauseating. How do we fight that? So, look,
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: I haven't watched the movie. I'm not I don't bring
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: much the movie, and I get and it's an odd
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: thing that the sort of twitter world of the blue
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: check bark journalists that are all defending kitty porn. Yea,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: you know, the law matters, and there actually is. So
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: my letter to Attorney General bar explicitly cites the federal statue.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: And let me tell you what the federal statute provides.
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: So it's eighteen USC. Section twenty two fifty two, and
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: it says that any person who knowingly transports or ships
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce,
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: any visual piction, if the producing of such visual depiction
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit content.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: So this is the question, because when I watch it,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: I mean, the one good thing I can say about
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: the movie is they're not nude, right, but it is
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: licentious if there is no question, it is exploitative. So,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: and the statute doesn't require that they may nude. It
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: prohibits distributing materials that have children engaging in sexually explicit content.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Is the language of the statute, and the punishment under
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: the statute for violating it is that you'll be fine
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: under this titled and imprisoned not less than five years
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: and not more than twenty years. But here's something interesting, Michael.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: There's actually an aggravator in the statute that says if
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: the child or children in question have not attained twelve
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: years of age, that the punishment is actually increased to
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: a minimum of ten years in a maximum of twenty years.
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: So in this case, we know there are eleven year
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: old children. There's no dispute about that. I haven't seen
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: the movie. I don't know if the depictions satisfy the
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: requirements of the statute for sexually explicit conduct. But you
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: know what, it's not my job as a US senator
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: to investigate that. It is the Department of Justice's job.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: So I asked them, look, I don't know if this
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: violates the law or not, there's certainly a prima facial case.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: We know their children. The ads they're putting out are
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: explicitly sexual on the face of it. And you know,
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: there was one one professor who tweeted back at me
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: and said, well, you know, Cruz doesn't understand this is
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: a French film. And definitely, well it was kind of
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: interesting a because my letter explicitly references that it's a
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: French film. So the professor, and this says something about
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: the state of our academy hadn't bothered to read my
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: letter but instead was happy to criticize it. Of course.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: But number two, it actually the child pornography laws in
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: the US don't give you a blank pass if it
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: happens to be produced overseas. It doesn't matter where child
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: porn is produced. If you're distributing it, it is a felony.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: And by the way, Netflix is a multi billion dollar corporation.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: These guys are getting rich. This is a major for
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: profit endeavor. And you know, one of the people who
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: has been completely silenced on this is Barack Obama, and
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: who has a deal with Netflix, and not a small deal,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, according to the public reporting, he's been paid
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: what fifty million dollars from Netflix, So he is literally
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: making tens of millions of dollars and is completely silent
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: on is he okay with a company that is distributing
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: at a minimum sexual exploitation of children. That's kind of
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: the bare minimum. And there are a couple of reasons. Look,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: it is a reasonable question to say, all right, what
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: is permissible? What is art? What is free speech? What
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: is pornography? That those can be complicated questions, but and
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: listen on the question of free speech and sexual conduct.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: What consenting adults do is their business. You know, consenting
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: adults want to do something, knock yourself out. You got
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: a right to do whatever you want. Well, on this
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: issue of consenting adults. Actually, this ties in with another
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: very very creepy thing that's going on now being pushed
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: by Democrats in California. It's called Spey five. We have
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: an newsom just signed it into law. This basically says
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: that if a twenty four year old man has sex
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: with a fourteen year old boy, he does not have
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: to register as a sex offender. What is going on,
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: I mean, what is that about? And how is that legal?
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: I guess because obviously the fourteen year old is not
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: a consenting adult. Well, today's Democratic Party, and this was
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: pushed by the Democratic supermajorities and the californ on your legislature.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: It was signed by the Democratic governor of California. To
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: the best of my knowledge, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: have been utterly silent on it. If they said anything
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: on it, I certainly haven't seen it. But but it
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: it is normalizing child abuse. And what it's saying. Listen,
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: a twenty four year old having sex with a fourteen
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: year old is not okay. And under the law, fourteen
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: year olds young children are not permissibly allowed to consent.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: You have two adults, they can consent to whatever they want,
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: but children don't by definition, don't have the legal ability
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: to consent. And the problem is the Left that they're normalizing.
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: It's why you see the media. They don't want to
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: be critical of this Netflix movie because it suggests there
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: are any standards or lines that can't be crossed. But
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: when you produce a movie like like this Cuties movie
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: number one, it okay, you gotta think repedophile in America, Yes,
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: he is going to watch this movie, that this is titilation,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: that that will encourage and drive more pedophilia. But it
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: also we know of at least some children who were
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: directly harmed by this movie. And those are the child actresses,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: the eleven year olds who are being asked by their producer,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: asked by the director to engage in sexually explicit conduct.
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: And and under the law there is no First Amendment
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: right to film kitty porn, to distribute kitty porn. That
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: when you're abusing a child, the usual responses is that
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: you're prosecuted and locked up in jail, and that's designed
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: to protect kids. But here's what they say, right, They'll say, well,
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: it's not pornography. It might be sexually explicit, it might
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: be exploitative, but it's not. It doesn't rise to the
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: level of pornography. And the federal statute is not a
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: pornography statute. So so so in actually this is not
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: something I talk about in the book One Vote Away.
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: But look, the Supreme Court for years engaged in the
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: world of what is pornography, what is obscene, and what
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: is not. I can't define it, but I know it
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: when I see it. That was Potter Stewart's famous test
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: for it, which which is I can't define it, but
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: I know it when I see it, um, and uh,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: you know, they're they're great stories. I think Bob Woodward
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: talks about it in The Brethren, where where they used
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: to have in the seventies they would have airings of
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: of porn movies that had been challenged on whether they
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: were obscene or not, and the court would have to
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: watch it to figure out and it would be I
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: think in a basement, um they would they would air them.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: But but the I think it's Woodward tells the story
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: of like the clerks would be sitting in the back
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: going I see it. Yep, that's it, I say, I
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: know it, I know it, and that's definitely it. As
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: I recalled, I don't I hope I'm not telling tales
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: at a school here. Did did you watch a porn
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: movie once with Sandra day O'Connor. I did. It's It's
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: one of the things I talk about it in the
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: book the book as well, and it says awkward. You know, look,
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: you're twenty six years old and you're with a woman
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: in her seventies watching like graphic depicting. You're like, wow, okay,
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: this is really awkward, but you know it was even
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: I'm sure weirder and more awkward. William Renquest and Sandra
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: Day O'Connor dated, that's right, in law school. They were
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: They were classmates at Stanford. He was number one in
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: the class, she was number three. I've always said, you know,
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: I wonder what happened to the poor, poor Schelove who
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: was number two. He's got to feel like a total loser,
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: gotten by history. But not only did they date, so
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: Renquist actually proposed marriage to O'Connor in law school. Now
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: she turned him down. She married, She was Sandra Day.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: She married John O'Connor, and it ended up for fifty years.
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: Justice O'Connor and her husband and the Chief and his
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: wife were good friends. They socialized together. But imagine for
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: a second you're in your seventies and your eighties and
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: you're standing in a room with a woman you dated
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: fifty years earlier, and there's porn on the screen. That
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: was a weird and awkward moment, and you know it
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: when you see it, And I think this is this
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: is the key here because regardless, and by the way,
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: I'm glad the Supreme Court is out of the business
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: of assessing whether a particular film is or is an
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: obscene that that that sort of amorphous judgment, Uh, didn't
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: make any sense for the court to be in And
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: I think this the First Amendment protects a lot of speech,
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: but what it doesn't protect is abusing kids. That that
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: that kids are aligned, that that is just qualitatively different
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: from adults. Right, and and even even if even if
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: the Netflix argument is right, that this doesn't rise to
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: the level of pornography. Actually, frankly, I mean, who know
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: the parts that I shut my eyes to. Who knows?
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: But it doesn't seem that it does. It's it's degenerate filth.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: It is exploitative, and I think it meets the criteria
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: that the test of the statute is whether it's a
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: visual depiction that involves the use of a minor engaging
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: and sexually explicit conduct. Yeah. So, look, they could do
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: a documentary on child abuse, on child trafficking that would
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: actually be quite valuable a lot of kids. You know,
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: one of the many problems with child porn is many
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: of the kids are trafficked. They they're kept against their wishes.
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: Not only can they not consent, but but in far
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: too many instances, These are kids who are kidnapped and
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: trafficked and forced to engage in these acts. And I
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: think the Department of Justice should investigate whether this violates
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: the law. But I think it speaks volumes that Hollywood
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: thinks it's it's immune from the law, that that that
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: that the standards that applied everyone else Hollywood is exempt from.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: There is something going on here, you know, there is
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: something in common with the promotion of this movie Cuties
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: with SP one forty five. I remember when when and
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: let me stop for a second on SPE one forty five. Yeah.
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: So the argument that the California Democrats give in the legislature,
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: as they say, this is a gay rights issue, and
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: because it's already the case that if it's a heterosexual
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: relationship twenty four to fourteen, then the offender doesn't need
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: to register. It's whether someone registers as a sex offender.
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: And as I understand at California law, if it's heterosexual
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: says they don't have when this law said if it
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: is homosexual, they don't have to. My view is, okay,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: the first law is a little bit crazy. Well, if
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: you want to address that and have have parody, Okay,
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: how about if you abuse a child, you register. Yeah,
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: this did remind me of an issue that hit Bernie Sanders,
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: your colleague in the Senate, back in twenty sixteen and
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty, which is he wrote some very odd essays
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: in the late nineteen sixties early nineteen seventies. In nineteen
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: sixty nine, he wrote an essay called the Revolution is
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: Life Versus Death something to that effect, in which he
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: implies that we should normalize child sexual behavior. And it
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: wasn't just Bernie who said this. This goes all the
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: way back to a strange figure named Wilhelm Reich on
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: the left who in the nineteen thirties he developed this
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: theory of the universe that the whole life force is
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: something called an orgon and war cancer disease, it's all caused.
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: I feel embarrassing in saying this in front of us senator,
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: It's caused by people not having enough orgasms. Seriously, this
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: is what he said, and basically you needed something called
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: an organ accumulator. Woody Allen later parodied this as the orgasmatron.
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: Very prominent leftists owned these weird boxes that Norman Mailer
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: had one, JD. Salinger had one, and this very kookie
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: theory pervaded some leftist thought, radical thought all the way
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: up through the nineteen seventies, and that's what Bernie Sanders
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: was writing about. And frankly, I think it's what we're
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: seeing today. Can I ask you a question, Michael here,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: what the hell do you guys study at Yale? But like,
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't know this mandatory curriculum. Who this
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: schmuck Schmidt whatever his name is. I'm not familiar with
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: his writing professor. Yeah, well, okay, whatever it? Uh, yeah, okay,
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: that's weird stuff, yam. In the remaining couple of minutes
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: we have, we we've touched on Hollywood and the left
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: broadly in all this kind of creepy sex issue. But
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: let's not forget about the creepy a totalitarian issue. Because
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: while you've got Netflix, you know, not just hosting this
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: this creepy movie, but but promoting it, you've simultaneously got
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: Disney coming out and thanking the Chinese government, groveling to
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: the Chinese government even as they say that they might
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: not be able to work in Georgia because Georgia passes
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: a pro life law. Yeah. So this is the movie Mulan,
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: which which Disney filmed and did a live action version
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: of the animated film, and they filmed it in the
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: region in China where the Wagers are are held in
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: concentration camps, where they're being tortured, where where they're being murdered,
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: and we're talking most estimates are more than a million weekers.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Wagers are are an ethnic and religious minority in China.
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: They're Muslims, and the Chinese government viciously persecutes the um.
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: So Disney goes in films presumably right next to the
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: concentration camps and the police agency the and when I
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: say police agency, I mean the Communist Party stormtroopers, police
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: state who are abusing and torturing the weakers. Disney thanks them.
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: I mean it truly is so. I just joined a
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: group of I think it's twenty other senators, bipartisan group,
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: in writing a letter to the CEO of Disney asking
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: a whole series of questions about why they were filming
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: in China, what concessions they had to make to make
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: to the Chinese government, what they knew about about the
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: torture and murder of the Wagers, and why they are
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: thanking the Titalitarian government engaged in that torture and murder,
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: and we also asked for what communications they had about them.
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: And look, we'll see how does he responds. But it's
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: not complicated. The answer is because of money. I mean, look,
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: we saw a similar story with the NBA that had
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: a basketball camp in this same region and they actually
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: had weager teenagers, fourteen and fifteen year old boys being
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: physically abused. NBA coaches knew about it, the NBA knew
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: about it, and they were just fine. And whether it's
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: Disney or the NBA, you've got a lot of American
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: companies that, in pursuit of the almighty dollar, are more
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: than happy to kiss up to jack booted thugs in
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: the Communist Party in China. Well, then, just to play
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: Devil's advocate one more time in the last minute or
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: so that we have left, what the left is doing
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: right now is saying, on the issue of cuties and
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: on the issue of Mulan, that conservatives or hypocrites, because
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: conservatives we talk a good game on free speech, but
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: then you know, we don't like the sexually explicit movie,
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: and we don't like Disney, a private company, doing what
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: it wants to do in the pursuit of the dollar.
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: So are we hypocrites or not? Well, no, the laws
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: should apply and the standards should apply fairly and even
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: lead everyone. So in the world of child exploitation and
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: porn should be that is a uniform standard. It doesn't
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: matter where your politics are, you're not allowed to engage
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: in child exploitation and porn um. When it comes to
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: doing business with China, look, I mean there are number one,
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: their US sanctions against certain Chinese entities that Disney needs
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: to be sure it hasn't violated US sanctions law because
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: that can have real and crushing financial implications. But look,
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: there is an element. There are lots of people in
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: the media, There are lots of people in the academy
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: that will be apologists for the Chinese communists. You know what,
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: they got a First Amendment right to do it. I
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: will happily defend their right to speak out. But you
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: know what I will also would do happily condemned the
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: garbage they're saying. Free speech doesn't mean you're immunized from
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: being criticized for what you say. I means you still
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: get to say things. You're going to say things, and
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: the rest of us get to say, why are you
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: supporting and praising and apologizing for and condoning jackbooted thugs,
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: and why are you making money on it? By the way,
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: it's the same point I've raised about Barack Obama. Why
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: is Barack Obama making fifty million dollars for Netflix when
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: they are distributing materials that are exploiting children? And now
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: that he can make the money from Netflix, But people
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: are entitled to ask that question about what you're choosing
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: to support, and in particular whether it violates the federal
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: criminal laws, as in this instance it may well have.
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: At the same time that these studios are removing Gone
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: with the Wind, one of the most celebrated movies in
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: American history, removing cop shows because it's politically incorrect. Now
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: from streaming platforms, they're promoting cuties and they're promoting peons
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: to the Chinese government. That is a major cultural problem.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: And I don't think there's anything hypocritical about about raising it.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: But but you know that they do have new standards
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: for the Academy Awards now and they have explicit racial
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: quotas now that you have to have um a percentage
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: of disadvantaged populations to be eligible for Best Pictures. So
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: so I don't know if if if like they're going
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: to have to go back and and remake the Godfather movies.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: Apparently too many Italians. You and I are both you
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: have more Italian blood than I have, but we both
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: have some Italian Apparently too any Italians and the Godfather,
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: so you need to, like, I'm not even sure what
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: they're going to do to make it comply. Are we
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: sufficiently persecuted? I mean that's a question too. Can we
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: maybe win an Oscar? I I mean, these are this
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: brave new political world is really raising a lot of questions,
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: and maybe, Senator, and one of these episodes we can
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: do it live from the Academy Awards hopefully, UM, as
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: long as you promised never never to pose as as
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: as Oscar that I can promise you. I think that
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: would be exploitative, an explicit. Nobody wants to see that either. Indeed,
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: that is our show, Senator, Thank you very much. On
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: Michael Knowls, this is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: dedicated to supporting conservative causes organizations and candidates across the country.
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack plans
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: the Republican Party across the nation.