Speaker 1: Welcome in is verdict with Center Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you. It's so nice to have you with us
Speaker 1: on this Monday morning, and Center Harvard sure is making
Speaker 1: you proud right now.
Speaker 2: It really is extraordinary. President Trump has publicly announced that
Speaker 2: the administration is going to end Harvard's tax exempt status.
Speaker 2: This administration is going to war with the nation's oldest
Speaker 2: and most prestigious university. The stakes are massive. They're tens
Speaker 2: of billions of dollars. The stakes are cana University getting
Speaker 2: federal funds discriminate based on race? Can they promote anti Semitism?
Speaker 2: The establishment will roar back mightily. It's going to be
Speaker 2: a serious legal fight. We're going to break down what's
Speaker 2: likely to play out, what the basis is of what
Speaker 2: the administration is doing, and what the risks are of
Speaker 2: what the administration is doing. We're also going to break
Speaker 2: down a really amazing story we've covered previously elon derangement
Speaker 2: syndrome and how it's led to domestic terrorism fire bombing
Speaker 2: of Tesla factories. Well, we now see a story where
Speaker 2: elon derangement syndrome is merging with just out of control
Speaker 2: wokeness and one of these domestic terrorists that fire bombed
Speaker 2: a Tesla dealership has been released from federal custody. Why
Speaker 2: is that because the terrorist is transgender and the judge ruled, well,
Speaker 2: the the the gender transition treatment was more important than
Speaker 2: punishing domestic terrorists, so you got to let them out
Speaker 2: of jail. It really is astonishing. We're gonna walk you
Speaker 2: through those facts as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1: It is amazing to see what you can get you
Speaker 1: to jail if I ever get arrested. I'm just letting
Speaker 1: you guys know I'm gonna identify as a chick, So
Speaker 1: just want to get that on the record.
Speaker 3: You can use it America, and.
Speaker 2: I, for one find I, for one, find that very plausible. Ben.
Speaker 3: I think you.
Speaker 2: Look cute, cute and tennis skirts.
Speaker 3: Just wait, if you ever get arrested. I'm just saying
Speaker 3: there's a good chance you'll do it too. If this
Speaker 3: is how the system's.
Speaker 1: Gonna Martina Ferguson, that's right, Martina Ferguson, I love it.
Speaker 1: I want to take a moment and tell you about
Speaker 1: our friends over at Patriot Mobile. You've heard me talk
Speaker 1: about Patriot Mobile for a while. So the question is
Speaker 1: why haven't you switched the only Christian conservative wireless provider
Speaker 1: in the country where every time I make a call
Speaker 1: or send a text pay my bill, I know I'm
Speaker 1: actually fighting for what I believe in. You may not
Speaker 1: realize this, but Big Mobile gives big donations to hardcore
Speaker 1: leftist radical causes, including organizations that pay for abortions. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly why I want you to switch to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: They are the real deal and you also get cutting
Speaker 1: edge technology. Switching has never been easier. There's no store visits,
Speaker 1: there's no hassles. You keep your number, keep your phone
Speaker 1: you have now, or upgrade to a new one. Plus,
Speaker 1: they are on all of the three major US networks.
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 1: You get the best nationwide coverage you can get. They
Speaker 1: also have a second number option as well. You can
Speaker 1: put a different number on the same phone. It's like
Speaker 1: carrying two phones in one. They've got unlimited data plans,
Speaker 1: mobile hot spots, international roaming, Internet on the go devices,
Speaker 1: and even home internet backup for you. Plus, when you
Speaker 1: pay your bill, you're standing up for what you believe in,
Speaker 1: as they give about five percent of your bill to
Speaker 1: organizations that support our first and our Second Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: the rights of unborn children. And they stand with our military,
Speaker 1: our veterans, our wounded warriors, and our first responders. So
Speaker 1: I want to give you a free month of service
Speaker 1: right now. Go to Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: That's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, or call them
Speaker 1: nine to seven to two Patriot right now. Use the
Speaker 1: promo code verdict to get a free month of service
Speaker 1: nine seven to two Patriot or Patriot mobile dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict and get that free month of service with
Speaker 1: the promo code verdict right now. All right, Senator, So
Speaker 1: let's get into this issue with Harvard. Donald Trump calls
Speaker 1: to remove Harvard's tax exempt status. Let's explain exactly why
Speaker 1: he's saying that and what made this all become such
Speaker 1: a big deal so quickly.
Speaker 2: Well, Harvard is the oldest university of Ameria, was founded
Speaker 2: in sixteen thirty six. It is the wealthiest university in America.
Speaker 2: It has a fifty three billion dollar endowment, and for
Speaker 2: a long time it's been the most prestigious university in America.
Speaker 2: And I think President Trump is exactly right going after
Speaker 2: Harvard because it is it is the birthplace of woke.
Speaker 2: As you know my last book, Unwoke, How to Defeat
Speaker 2: Cultural Marxism in America, I describe colleges and universities, and
Speaker 2: especially Harvard, as the Wuhan lab of the woke virus.
Speaker 2: It's where it was invented, it's where it mutated, and
Speaker 2: it's where it's spread. Now going after Harvard and denying
Speaker 2: them their tax Execs exempt status, what does that mean?
Speaker 2: If they're five oh one C three status is revoked,
Speaker 2: it means Harvard pays taxes just like a for profit institution.
Speaker 2: It also means contributions to Harvard are no longer tax deductible,
Speaker 2: So if you give money to Harvard, you can't deduct
Speaker 2: them from your taxes. Both of those are a huge,
Speaker 2: huge deal. If that happens. If the Trump administrations follows through,
Speaker 2: Harvard will litigate, They will go to court, and this
Speaker 2: will be a battle that will go to the US
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. And on one level, the Trump administration's legal
Speaker 2: arguments are very strong, But at another level, it's an
Speaker 2: uphill fight given who the Supreme Court is. So we're
Speaker 2: going to break down both pieces of that. Why is
Speaker 2: the legal argument strong? Well, i'll tell you the case
Speaker 2: that would be front and center if this goes to
Speaker 2: the court is a case called Bob Jones University versus
Speaker 2: United States, and it was decided by the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty three. And what happened in nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: three is the IRS revoked the five OZHO one C
Speaker 2: three status of Bob Jones University because Bob Jones University
Speaker 2: had a policy that prohibited interracial dating. There was another school,
Speaker 2: Goldsborough Christian Schools, that had a racially discriminatory admissions policy,
Speaker 2: and likewise, the IRS revoked Goldsborough's five O one C
Speaker 2: three exception. That case went all the way to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled eight to one
Speaker 2: that the IRS could revoke the five oh one C
Speaker 2: three exception, and they did so by concluding that it
Speaker 2: was contrary to public policy to promote racial discrimination. Was
Speaker 2: contrary to public policy objectives in the United States, and
Speaker 2: that will be the basis. It was eight to one.
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion. There was only
Speaker 2: one discent. The dissent was William Renquist who wrote a
Speaker 2: dissent and said, look, under the terms of five oh
Speaker 2: one C three, under the statute. They don't specify whether
Speaker 2: the purposes are good or bad, and so we shouldn't
Speaker 2: allow them to do that. But eight justices said, well,
Speaker 2: yes we should, and that's what we do. That will
Speaker 2: be the basis. Now under that case, Harvard has a
Speaker 2: real difficult time, and it has a real difficult time
Speaker 2: because it has for a long time openly and brazenly
Speaker 2: discriminated based on race, and it is also openly and
Speaker 2: brazenly created an environment that that discriminates against Jewish students
Speaker 2: and promotes anti Semitism. Both of those are huge, huge
Speaker 2: factual problems. And the facts, particularly at Harvard, that there
Speaker 2: was just a scathing report on anti Semitism that that
Speaker 2: walk through the incredible pattern of anti semitism, that that
Speaker 2: Harvard has promoted, welcomed, and used to persecute Jewish students,
Speaker 2: and that on the face of it, is contrary to
Speaker 2: federal civil rights laws. And so the Trump administration's legal
Speaker 2: argument on the merits is quite strong.
Speaker 1: You look at the illegal arguments here, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people that are going to just be angry
Speaker 1: about the story itself and the fact that your reward
Speaker 1: people for going after Jewish students I mean, how is
Speaker 1: this not an award to the student by saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we're sanctioning what you did. We know you're taking a
Speaker 1: bag wrap, but hey, here's a bunch of money for
Speaker 1: you to go ahead and say we're behind you. That
Speaker 1: seems to be what the university is saying. Otherwise, why
Speaker 1: on earth would you give this cash?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Look, and there are twin issues here. The Trump
Speaker 2: administration has already cut two billion dollars frozen two billion
Speaker 2: dollars in direct federal funds that it was sending to Harvard.
Speaker 2: That's a big deal. The five oh one C three
Speaker 2: status is an even bigger deal. And so both of those.
Speaker 2: The basic principle is, if if a university is violating
Speaker 2: federal civil rights law, if they're discriminating base on race,
Speaker 2: if they are discriminating against Jewish students, if they're discriminating
Speaker 2: against Anglo students, if they're discriminating against Asian students, all
Speaker 2: of which Harvard has been doing, why should the federal
Speaker 2: government be giving them money? And why should they get
Speaker 2: a special benefit of to the tax laws. Now, why
Speaker 2: is it that I say this is an uphill fight?
Speaker 2: Because the Supreme Court is an institution that is elite,
Speaker 2: and that is very much birthed of the establishment. Let
Speaker 2: me ask you, Ben, of the nine Supreme Court justices,
Speaker 2: how many of them do you think went to Ivy
Speaker 2: League schools.
Speaker 3: I'm going to go with eight of the nine, you
Speaker 3: would be correct.
Speaker 2: Eight. How many went to Harvard Law School?
Speaker 1: Because I finally got one right? Because this is what
Speaker 1: you doing this show? If you're new and I.
Speaker 3: Know to ask.
Speaker 1: He likes to haze me every episode with something he
Speaker 1: knows I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2: To, and I just well, you just got it right
Speaker 2: in this moment.
Speaker 1: Eight out of eight, and I'm one for a thousand
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 2: Well, let's keep going. How many do you think went
Speaker 2: to Harvard Law School.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna go with seven out of nine.
Speaker 2: Four four went to Harvard Law School, four went to
Speaker 2: Yale Law School. Of the eight justices, of the eight
Speaker 2: justices for or went to Harvard Law School, four went
Speaker 2: to Yale Law School. Of the eighteen degrees they have
Speaker 2: college degrees and law degrees. Of the eighteen degrees, how
Speaker 2: many of them do you think are Ivy League degrees.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna guess nine out of.
Speaker 2: Nine, fifteen, fifteen out of eighteen. The only one that
Speaker 2: doesn't have an IVY League Okay, yeah, the only one
Speaker 2: that doesn't have an IVY League degree is Amy Cony Barrett,
Speaker 2: who went to Rhodes College in Notre Dame. But if
Speaker 2: you look at it, this is an institution that is steeped,
Speaker 2: steeped in Harvard, and the institution in fact, Elana Kagan
Speaker 2: was the former dean of the Harvard Law School. And
Speaker 2: so I think they are going to be highly resistant
Speaker 2: to the notion that Harvard's five oh one C three
Speaker 2: status can be revoked. And I will tell you they're
Speaker 2: also going to be concerned about the slippery slope of
Speaker 2: what happens with the next administration.
Speaker 1: All right, So center, here's the question that I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people listening are going to want me
Speaker 1: to ask, and that is it sounds like this would
Speaker 1: be much of an uphill battle for the president. I
Speaker 1: think he probably knows that, as staff does. But is
Speaker 1: this also as much about sending a message to other
Speaker 1: universities that if you think that we're going to turn
Speaker 1: a blind eye to this, you're wrong and we're going.
Speaker 3: To be watching you closely.
Speaker 2: Of course it is. Look, Harvard is the big Kahuna,
Speaker 2: And so going after Harvard is meant to send a
Speaker 2: message to every other school that violating the civil Rights law.
Speaker 2: Discriminating base on race, discriminating against students on their skin color,
Speaker 2: on their race, on their religion, is contrary to federal law,
Speaker 2: and there will be real consequences you look. For example,
Speaker 2: Harvard just released a scathing report on anti Semitism on campus,
Speaker 2: and it found that politicized instruction in four Harvard schools
Speaker 2: had quote mainstreamed and normalized what many Jewish and Israeli
Speaker 2: students experience as anti semitism. Schools were the Graduate School
Speaker 2: of Education, the thh Chan School of Public Health, the
Speaker 2: Divinity School because of course, if you're studying divinity, you're
Speaker 2: going to be a racist, and the Medical School, all
Speaker 2: of which have been targeted by the Trump administration for
Speaker 2: quote egregious records of anti Semitism or other bias. And
Speaker 2: the report concluded that at those schools, Jewish students and
Speaker 2: Israeli students were routinely ostracized and subject to instruction quote
Speaker 2: that effectively made a specific view on the Israel Hamas
Speaker 2: conflict a litmus test for full classroom participation. And let
Speaker 2: me give you one example that's just an amazing thing.
Speaker 2: A required school course in the School of Education taught
Speaker 2: something called the Pyramid of White Supremacy. And this document
Speaker 2: is really it's a chart. You look at it on
Speaker 2: Twitter or online, it'll blow your mind. But it's a
Speaker 2: pyramid of white supremacy. And here are all the things
Speaker 2: that it's describing as white supremacy. At the top is
Speaker 2: the KKK. Okay, we're agreed. KKK very bad. I'm against lynching, terrible,
Speaker 2: I'm against burning crosses, very very bad, racial slurs, jokes, terrible,
Speaker 2: hate crimes, terrible, anti semitism, kind of interesting, bombing black churches,
Speaker 2: Japanese incarceration, Operation Wetback. Now Operation Wetback was an Eisenhower
Speaker 2: federal government program deporting illegal aliens, so that is now
Speaker 2: white supremacy to deport illegal aliens. And the Muslim Ban,
Speaker 2: which was President Trump's policy in the first term. That
Speaker 2: was restricting immigration from countries with high percentages of radical
Speaker 2: Islamic terrorism. All right, So that's the first part of
Speaker 2: the triangle. You could agree with some of it, you
Speaker 2: can dis agree with some of it, but then it
Speaker 2: starts to get really looney. You know what, The next
Speaker 2: one listed is what is that? The Anti Defamation League,
Speaker 2: the ADL. The Anti Defamation League exists to fight against
Speaker 2: anti Semites. So the Anti Defamation League is, according to
Speaker 2: these radicals, an example of white supremacy. What's the next one?
Speaker 2: All lives matter? So if you say all lives matter,
Speaker 2: that's white supremacy. See, you know what the next one is.
Speaker 2: You're gonna love the next one.
Speaker 3: What's that one?
Speaker 2: Maga?
Speaker 3: Well, of course you got to add that one to
Speaker 3: the list. That just make.
Speaker 2: America great again? Is white supremacy. This was Harvard's teaching.
Speaker 2: I'm going to just go through some of the more
Speaker 2: of these illegal aliens. That's white supremacy. Thugs read a redlining,
Speaker 2: Whussein Obama, Confederate symbols, life after hate, CVE, welfare queens,
Speaker 2: the war on drugs. If you're opposed to illegal drugs,
Speaker 2: that's white reverse racism, anti affirmative action, anti BDS. So
Speaker 2: if you are opposed to boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning Israel,
Speaker 2: then you're a bigot, black identity extremist community policeman. All right,
Speaker 2: you know what else is white supremacy?
Speaker 1: I can't wait, like King Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: or Ted Cruz.
Speaker 3: I'll go with one of those three.
Speaker 2: Well, those are all clearly on their charter. They don't
Speaker 2: specify it. Although MAGA was up right up top color blindness. Now,
Speaker 2: mind you, that is literally what doctor Martin Luther King
Speaker 2: said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that we
Speaker 2: want a nation where people can be judged by the
Speaker 2: content of their character and not the color of their skin.
Speaker 2: But according to these radicals, Martin Luther King is apparently
Speaker 2: a white supremacist.
Speaker 1: This is like a food pyramid for hating conservatives, isn't.
Speaker 3: It It is.
Speaker 2: I'm going to give you some other examples. Mass incarceration,
Speaker 2: tsa random searches, police apologists. So if you defend the police,
Speaker 2: you're a white supremacist. US military rescue operations, stop in
Speaker 2: fit frisk, the myth of meritocracy. Understand, if you believe
Speaker 2: in merit these lunatics say that is racist English only
Speaker 2: the school to prison pipeline, victim blaming anti Kaepernick, So
Speaker 2: if you don't like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during
Speaker 2: the national anthem, you are a white supremacist. Columbus Day,
Speaker 2: mind you, it is a federal holiday, but never mind that,
Speaker 2: And then it gets to the bottom of the pyramid
Speaker 2: and it lists things like settler colonialism, slavery, Wall Street,
Speaker 2: the Great Recession, corporate interests, the stock market, greed, NAFTA.
Speaker 3: Did you know?
Speaker 2: NAFTA is white supremacy. According to the start outsourcing, McCarthy
Speaker 2: is a migrant workers manifest destiny, the very settlement of America.
Speaker 2: Oil pipelines are white supremacy. The war on terror, and
Speaker 2: the corporate media are all white supremacy. This is whack
Speaker 2: of doodle stuff. And this is taught in a required
Speaker 2: course in the Harvard Education School.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about the mindset of Harvard for a second.
Speaker 1: In these other universities, it does seem pretty clear that
Speaker 1: they believe that they're never going to be touched, and
Speaker 1: even if they are, their endowments are so big that
Speaker 1: they think they're probably going to be just fine and
Speaker 1: liberals will continue to give. Does that not go back
Speaker 1: to the point the presidents bring up, which is why
Speaker 1: the hell are we giving all of these places this money.
Speaker 3: They're fine on their own.
Speaker 1: They're acting like they don't need us, that they are
Speaker 1: hardcore against conservative and others that don't basically go with
Speaker 1: this pyramid of hate of conservative ideals. So let's just
Speaker 1: decouple and say you guys, do you and we'll keep
Speaker 1: our tax towers.
Speaker 3: Well, look, there's real value to that.
Speaker 2: I will say that there is research money that is
Speaker 2: spent in colleges and universities that is worthwhile, that is useful.
Speaker 2: There's scientific research. There's research, say at medical schools, where
Speaker 2: you're trying to research the cure for cancer, you're trying
Speaker 2: to research a cure for Alzheimer's, you're trying to cure
Speaker 2: deadly diseases. There is scientific research that the Department of
Speaker 2: Defense pays for, for example, that is developing high tech
Speaker 2: lasers or other equipment that has significant defense needs. And
Speaker 2: so there is a role for scientific research. And much
Speaker 2: of the scientific research that happens in our nation happens
Speaker 2: in research universities. All of that would be fine if,
Speaker 2: and this is a big if universities were not flagrantly
Speaker 2: violating federal civil rights laws. Let me give you more.
Speaker 2: This report at Harvard, at the Divinity School, Jewish students
Speaker 2: were subject to quote the embrace of a pedagogy of desionization,
Speaker 2: in which instructors attribute to Jews to great sins, first
Speaker 2: in the levant the establishment of the state of Israel
Speaker 2: and the Palestinian Nakba, and second in the United States
Speaker 2: participation in white supremacy. So the Harvard Divinity School teaches
Speaker 2: Jews the existence of the State of Israel is racist,
Speaker 2: and Jews also they teach are white supremacist. That is
Speaker 2: flagrantly in violation of federal civil rights laws. And sadly
Speaker 2: it is it is something that Harvard openly and brains.
Speaker 1: As they fight this final question, is there an opportunity
Speaker 1: through this legal challenge for us to even be able
Speaker 1: to find out more about what Harvard is doing? Is
Speaker 1: that part of what could happen in the upside here
Speaker 1: is Hey, we get to ask more questions, we get
Speaker 1: to see more behind the books, we get to see
Speaker 1: more of the propaganda that we were talking about right now.
Speaker 2: That is absolutely right, and I'm going to say the
Speaker 2: facts are going to get worse and worse as they
Speaker 2: come out. Harvard doesn't want people to know the facts. So,
Speaker 2: for example, there were a whole series of stories that
Speaker 2: came out about the Harvard Law Review. Now, now, what
Speaker 2: is the Harvard Law Review. The Harvard Law Review is
Speaker 2: a legal journal that's at Harvard Law School that has
Speaker 2: eighty students who are student editors, and getting on the
Speaker 2: Law Review is incredibly prestigious. It is incredibly difficult to do.
Speaker 2: Typical Harvard Law School classes about five hundred and sixty people,
Speaker 2: so you have about forty people out of five sixty
Speaker 2: that make it on the class make it on the
Speaker 2: Law Review. When I was there, I was on the
Speaker 2: Law Review. When I was there, roughly half of the
Speaker 2: editors on the Law Review made it from a combination
Speaker 2: of grades and a week long, incredibly arduous writing competition.
Speaker 2: Another roughly half made it from purely the writing competition.
Speaker 2: But when I say roughly half, at the time it
Speaker 2: was thirty two where grades in writing, thirty two were
Speaker 2: just writing and then eight were reserved for affirmative action.
Speaker 2: That's when I was there. Now, by all appearances, it
Speaker 2: has gotten much worse. It was brazen then, It was
Speaker 2: racially discriminatory then, but it is now much worse. The
Speaker 2: Harvard Law Review now uses race explicitly to number one
Speaker 2: select their editors. And by the way, becoming an editor
Speaker 2: at the Law Review increases your chances of getting a
Speaker 2: judicial clerkship dramatically increases your chances of getting a Supreme
Speaker 2: Court clerkship dramatically, increases your chances of getting hired by
Speaker 2: a big, prestigious law firm that pays lots of money,
Speaker 2: increases your chances of becoming a professor at a prestigious
Speaker 2: university dramatically. So the Law Review is a major gateway
Speaker 2: to elite success in the legal world, and the Harvard
Speaker 2: Law Review now in writing, they are quite open in
Speaker 2: saying that that they will discriminate for editors based on race,
Speaker 2: and they will also discriminate on the articles they pick. So,
Speaker 2: for example, in a twenty twenty four memo, one journal
Speaker 2: article argue that the fact that the author was quote
Speaker 2: not from an underrepresented background was a negative when it
Speaker 2: came to evaluating the piece for publication. There is a
Speaker 2: quote holistic Review Committee which now selects nearly half the
Speaker 2: student editors and has made the inclusion of quote underrepresented
Speaker 2: groups its first priority. Violates Title six.
Speaker 1: So to be clear, you're saying there's a chance now
Speaker 1: now that if you were at Harvard you wouldn't get picked.
Speaker 1: Is that what you're telling me?
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know, and you don't know, So
Speaker 2: I say that what's interesting about it is you genuinely
Speaker 2: don't know. Is one of the things that they're very
Speaker 2: clever in how they discriminate because you don't know on
Speaker 2: what basis you were admitted. I had the grades to
Speaker 2: get in on grades, and I think I did well
Speaker 2: in the writing competition, but I have no idea which
Speaker 2: of the slots I was in, because nobody does. They
Speaker 2: don't tell you. They just announced the forty editors that
Speaker 2: have gotten in, so I don't know. But I'll tell
Speaker 2: you a story I've told before. So what I was
Speaker 2: on the law review. There were a number of conservative editors,
Speaker 2: and we made a run at ending affirmative action in
Speaker 2: the law of you. And I have to admit I
Speaker 2: sat back there was we were all eighty of us
Speaker 2: were gathered in a classroom and we were debating this,
Speaker 2: and there were some other students that were really kind
Speaker 2: of leading the charge, some other conservatives. I agreed with them,
Speaker 2: but I also could count votes, and out of the
Speaker 2: eighty students, there were maybe eight or ten of us
Speaker 2: that were conservatives. We were a tiny minority. So I
Speaker 2: was like, look, we ain't going to win the vote,
Speaker 2: but all right, this is fine, Let's have the debate.
Speaker 2: So we're having the debate, and I was sitting in
Speaker 2: the back. It was fairly quiet, and I remember this
Speaker 2: one supercilious liberal stood up and said, if we eliminate
Speaker 2: affirmative action, the Harvard Law Review will be nothing but
Speaker 2: white men. And I have to admit I was kind
Speaker 2: of a little bit checked out in the back of
Speaker 2: the room and I heard that, and that pissed me off.
Speaker 2: And I said, you know what, you want to understand
Speaker 2: why affirmative action is so insidious. The arrogance of that
Speaker 2: imbecile just showed it. His belief, as an enlightened leftist
Speaker 2: is that if merit were the only criterion, only white
Speaker 2: men would get in, that no one who is African
Speaker 2: American would get in. Who is Hispanic? And let's be clear,
Speaker 2: I'm Hispanic. He's sitting there. And in fact I told him,
Speaker 2: I said, all right, hey guy, you want to pull
Speaker 2: your transcript out in my transcript and drop him on
Speaker 2: the table right there, Let's see what pure merit produces.
Speaker 2: But there was something even more dripping in his leftist condescension,
Speaker 2: which is, at the time, the Harvard affirmative Action program
Speaker 2: did not include gender, so there was not affirmative action
Speaker 2: for women. And I said to all the women editors,
Speaker 2: do you hear what he just said to you? He
Speaker 2: believes if it's pure merit, no women would make it.
Speaker 2: And by the way, historically all the women editors who
Speaker 2: are liberals voted against adding gender to affirmative action because
Speaker 2: they recognized that if it was added to it that
Speaker 2: that people it would devalue what they had accomplished. But
Speaker 2: it showed just the absolute arrogance of the left when
Speaker 2: it comes to embracing racism, because at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, they that they look down on the poor,
Speaker 2: benighted people that will only succeed in life with their beneficence.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the price for that beneficence is
Speaker 2: for them to be loyal and obedient for the rest
Speaker 2: of their lives. I mean, that is the very explicit
Speaker 2: left wing charter the affirmative action.
Speaker 1: Is based on, which brings us to another story where
Speaker 1: this stuff started on college campuses and now it's made
Speaker 1: our way into courtrooms. The Tesla Arson suspect one of them.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of mo out there, right, but
Speaker 1: this one specifically, and we'll get to the story of
Speaker 1: what happened here in a second, but has been quote
Speaker 1: released because of gender transition, would be at risk if
Speaker 1: they didn't release. So if you're going to jail, just
Speaker 1: say you're doing a gender transition and apparently then the
Speaker 1: law cannot hold you accountable for your terrorist actions.
Speaker 2: So there's an individual named Owen McIntyre who was on
Speaker 2: spring break in Missouri and he firebombed two Tesla's cyber trucks.
Speaker 2: He threw molotovails, he fire bombed it. He got caught,
Speaker 2: and he was charged charged with domestic terrorism. And then
Speaker 2: what happened is his federal public defender argued that going
Speaker 2: to jail will disrupt his gender affirming medical care, which
Speaker 2: began in March of this year. It is likely to
Speaker 2: be interrupted or terminated entirely if he remains in pre
Speaker 2: trial detention. And the federal magistrate judge bought that argument
Speaker 2: and let him go. And let me say one of
Speaker 2: the craziest things about this story. You and I Ben
Speaker 2: spent twenty minutes trying to figure out if this defendant
Speaker 2: is male or female.
Speaker 1: By the way, and the pride, he's not lying, I
Speaker 1: want to be clear about that. We literally are googling
Speaker 1: everything is a dude is a chick. If we don't
Speaker 1: know what it is like, that's the insanity of the
Speaker 1: where we live.
Speaker 2: And we can't tell. And you and I actually disagree.
Speaker 2: So I think this is a person who was born
Speaker 2: female who has decided that she is a he and
Speaker 2: wants to be a man.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the reason I think that. The reason I think
Speaker 2: that is we've googled it, and every damn story uses
Speaker 2: he he he he he and and given the insane
Speaker 2: Orwellian world we live in, I think if ABC is
Speaker 2: referring to this person as a he and and the
Speaker 2: person is transgender, that that to me means the person
Speaker 2: was born as she. Now your argument is, Ben.
Speaker 3: This is a dude that grew in his hair. It
Speaker 3: looks like a chick.
Speaker 2: Then why does all the media refer to this person
Speaker 2: as a he?
Speaker 1: I actually because I think everybody's lost their damn minds,
Speaker 1: That's what I think, And I think I mean, and
Speaker 1: the fact that we even are at the point where
Speaker 1: we have to have this discussion tells you how insane
Speaker 1: the world is.
Speaker 2: You Literally, every story I clicked on, I googled it
Speaker 2: and clicked on story after story, and there's not one
Speaker 2: that actually describes the facts one way or the other,
Speaker 2: So damned if I know. But either way, look, the
Speaker 2: federal prosecutors argue this person is a domestic terrorist, that
Speaker 2: they're throwing molotov cocktails, and it is. It is woke
Speaker 2: politics taken to the level of insanity, that that to
Speaker 2: get a sex change treatment is now reason to be
Speaker 2: forgiven for domestic terrorism. Allthough, to be fair, it's not forgiven.
Speaker 2: It's released from pre trial attention, but it is still insane.
Speaker 1: Well, but it's it's helping you, right, it's helping you
Speaker 1: not be held accountable for your actions. And it's also
Speaker 1: I think pretty clear that we're saying, if you want
Speaker 1: to not be held accountable for your actions.
Speaker 3: Just claim something that's woke.
Speaker 1: And these radical judges will be like, oh, we totally understand.
Speaker 1: Let's just change the rules for you because you're in
Speaker 1: our you're in our special protected class, and we want
Speaker 1: to see you succeed in your transgenderism, which is not
Speaker 1: supposed to be the job of the court.
Speaker 2: Well, I got to say this, This insanity is a
Speaker 2: big part the reason Donald Trump won in November and
Speaker 2: we got a Republican House, at a Republican Senate because
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people are looking at this
Speaker 2: and saying this stuff is crazy.
Speaker 1: Aim into that, don't forget. We do the show Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscriber auto download button so
Speaker 1: that you do not miss an episode. Please share the
Speaker 1: episode wherever you are on social media because it really
Speaker 1: does help us reach new people. And on those in
Speaker 1: between days, grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I'll
Speaker 1: keep you updown the latest breaking news and the Senate
Speaker 1: and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.