Speaker 1: Welcoming as verdict was Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson with you.
Speaker 1: Nice to have you with us today, and Senator We've
Speaker 1: got a lot to talk about, including leaks coming from
Speaker 1: the Democrats, classify leagues to try to give them cover
Speaker 1: on China and the balloons. We'll talk about that. We
Speaker 1: also have talked about an insane federal budget and a
Speaker 1: bunch of wokeness in it. But before we get to that,
Speaker 1: this is gonna be something right up your wheelhouse. Stanford
Speaker 1: Law decided it would be a good idea to bring
Speaker 1: in a judge, a federal judge, to lecture, to talk,
Speaker 1: to educate, to inform students. It didn't go very well
Speaker 1: for the Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, who was basically
Speaker 1: shouted down. Obviously, this was pre organized and pre plan
Speaker 1: to make it where the man virtually couldn't speak. Is
Speaker 1: this part of the problem we have now in America
Speaker 1: that no one that has a different perspective with these
Speaker 1: woke lefties can get anything, even a normal debate anymore.
Speaker 1: It absolutely is. What happened this week at Stanford Law
Speaker 1: School was remarkable. A federal judge, a federal Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals judge in the Fifth Circuit, Judge Kyle Duncan was
Speaker 1: invited by the Federalist Society chapter at Stanford to come speak. Now,
Speaker 1: Kyle Duncan as a judge who was appointed by Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who was confirmed by the Senate. He's been sitting for
Speaker 1: several years now in the Fifth Circuit. It's not uncommon
Speaker 1: for judges to go speak at law schools. That happens
Speaker 1: all the time. What happened this week at Stanford is
Speaker 1: extraordinarily uncommon. In fact, I don't know of it ever
Speaker 1: happening to another judge in history. Which is, when Judge
Speaker 1: Duncan came and had prepared remarks, a group of Stanford
Speaker 1: law students began screaming, began heckling, began shouting him down,
Speaker 1: began cursing, began literally every word or two that he said,
Speaker 1: screaming and stopping the other Stanford law students from hearing
Speaker 1: what Judge Duncan had to say. And unfortunately it got worse.
Speaker 1: You had law students who are shouting down a federal judge,
Speaker 1: and then an administrator showed up, an administrator named Tyn Steinbach,
Speaker 1: who is the school's diversity dean. So she is in
Speaker 1: charge of d EI and she shows up, and Stanford
Speaker 1: Law School claims to have a free speech policy. They
Speaker 1: claim to have a policy that you can't silence a
Speaker 1: speaker just because you disagree with him. So with the
Speaker 1: arrival of the dean, you would think that the dean
Speaker 1: would enforce the school's policies. Well that's not what happened,
Speaker 1: not even close. In fact, even the judge had this
Speaker 1: to say, after the heckling would not stop, and she
Speaker 1: comes in the room and then she decides she wants
Speaker 1: to basically give a speech. And even before he could
Speaker 1: get back to what he was there to do, he
Speaker 1: made the obvious point, which was this, okay, so you've
Speaker 1: invited me to speak here and being hackled NonStop, and
Speaker 1: I'm just asking for administrator. Now you can hear it there.
Speaker 1: He's like, let me get this straight. You asked me
Speaker 1: to come here to speak. I'm being hackled NonStop. You're
Speaker 1: the one that's supposed to be basically putting law and
Speaker 1: order back into this lecture, back into this classroom that's
Speaker 1: supposed to be at a higher level and law school,
Speaker 1: and now you're here basically wanting to give a speech
Speaker 1: to me. Well, he didn't know that at that moment.
Speaker 1: And when she comes in, and there's video of this
Speaker 1: that's online too, so you can watch this whole thing transpire.
Speaker 1: But when she comes in, he doesn't know that she's
Speaker 1: an administrator. He doesn't know that she's a dean, much
Speaker 1: less the d EI dean. But she comes in and
Speaker 1: the mob scream she's an administrator. And what happens next
Speaker 1: is is remarkable because it turned out she had a
Speaker 1: written speech not to the students to tell them shut
Speaker 1: up and us into the judge or leave, which is
Speaker 1: what an administrator should have done, but rather she proceeded
Speaker 1: to lecture and denounce the judge herself as the administrator,
Speaker 1: as the dean. And and this too is remarkable. She
Speaker 1: went on for about six minutes. Let's play about half
Speaker 1: of what she said, because it's really it's it's it
Speaker 1: takes your breath away. I have to write something down
Speaker 1: and I'm so uncomfortable up here, and I don't say
Speaker 1: that for sympathy. I just say I'm deeply, deeply uncomfortable. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm uncomfortable because this event is tearing at the fabric
Speaker 1: of this community that I care about, and I'm here
Speaker 1: and the support. And I don't know, and I have
Speaker 1: to ask myself, and I'm not a cynic to ass
Speaker 1: this is the juice worth the squeeze. So for many
Speaker 1: work here, who's studying here and who live here, your advocacy,
Speaker 1: your opinions from the bench land absolute disenfranchisement of their rights.
Speaker 1: But death lands and it impacts directly. They're people, humans,
Speaker 1: their families and their communities. And I'm uncomfortable and it's
Speaker 1: uncomfortable to say this to you as a person. It's
Speaker 1: uncomfortable to say that for many people here your work
Speaker 1: has caused harm, has has caused harm, and I know
Speaker 1: that must be uncomfortable to here. I know that must
Speaker 1: be Let me please finish, and I want to give
Speaker 1: you space to finish your remarks due Judge Duncan. I'm
Speaker 1: also uncomfortable because many of the people in the room
Speaker 1: here I have come to care for um and in
Speaker 1: my role at this university, my job is to create
Speaker 1: a space of belonging for all people in this institution.
Speaker 1: And that is hard and bessy and not And the
Speaker 1: answers are not black or white, or right or wrong.
Speaker 1: This is actually part of the creation of belonging, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel comfortable, and it doesn't always feel safe,
Speaker 1: but there are always places of safety, and there's always
Speaker 1: an intention from this administration to make sure you all
Speaker 1: can be in a safe where you feel fully you
Speaker 1: can be here learn growing to the amazing advocates and
Speaker 1: lawyers and leaders that you're going to be. I'm also
Speaker 1: uncomfortable because it is my job to say you are
Speaker 1: invited into this space. You are absolutely welcome in this
Speaker 1: space and this space that people learn and again live.
Speaker 1: I really do wholeheartedly welcome you because me and many
Speaker 1: people in this administration do absolutely believe in pree speech.
Speaker 1: We believe that it isn't necessary. We believe that the
Speaker 1: way to address speech that feels a borrent, that feels harmful,
Speaker 1: that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way
Speaker 1: to do that is with more speech and less and
Speaker 1: not to shut you down or censor you, or censor
Speaker 1: the student group that invited you here. That is hard,
Speaker 1: that is uncomfortable, and that is a policy and a
Speaker 1: principle that I think is worthy of defending even in
Speaker 1: this time. Even in this time, and again I still ask,
Speaker 1: is the Jews with the sweets I mean the division
Speaker 1: that is je something so incredible important to say about
Speaker 1: Twitter and guns and COVID that that is worth this
Speaker 1: impact on the division of these people who are set
Speaker 1: next to each other for years, who are going through
Speaker 1: what is the battle of law school together, so that
Speaker 1: they can go on into the world and be advocates.
Speaker 1: So they can go out into the world and be
Speaker 1: advocate center. I mean, she clearly pre planned this and
Speaker 1: knew what she was going to do, which was in
Speaker 1: essence tell off a federal judge. Well, there's so many
Speaker 1: things wrong with this that that it's difficult to know
Speaker 1: where to begin. But maybe the where to begin is
Speaker 1: where she ends, so they can go out into the
Speaker 1: world to be advocates. Noticed she didn't say attorneys. This
Speaker 1: is Stanford Law School. They are trying to train social
Speaker 1: justice warriors. They're trying to train Occupy Wall Street, burn
Speaker 1: it all down, left wing radicals. They're trying to train Antifa.
Speaker 1: They're not trying to train lawyers. Their attorneys present arguments
Speaker 1: in front of judges. I have in my entire life,
Speaker 1: I've been a lawyer roughly half my life. I have
Speaker 1: never seen a federal judge on the left or right
Speaker 1: treated like that. Ever, the idea that at Stanford Law
Speaker 1: law students would think it's appropriate to scream and yell
Speaker 1: and heckel. Can you imagine how people would react if
Speaker 1: Sonia Sotomayor went to a law school and a bunch
Speaker 1: of right wing law students began screaming and yelling and cursing.
Speaker 1: People would lose their minds quite rightly, because that's not
Speaker 1: how a lawyer is trained to deal with a judge.
Speaker 1: If you did that in a courtroom, you would be
Speaker 1: put in handcuffs, you would be held in contempt of court,
Speaker 1: and you would be sent to jail. That's actually how
Speaker 1: our justice system works. You don't get to scream and
Speaker 1: yell at a federal judge in a courtroom. For law
Speaker 1: students to do it on the faculty is disgraceful, and
Speaker 1: by the way, it also the entire week. It was
Speaker 1: preceded by a concerted effort. So when the judge was invited,
Speaker 1: left wing activists put all over Stanford Law School flyers
Speaker 1: with the names and pictures of the students on the
Speaker 1: board of the Federalist Society at Stanford, along with the
Speaker 1: words you should be ashamed, with ashamed and bright red
Speaker 1: sort of Halloween looking dripping letters. This is deliberately targeting
Speaker 1: those students. This is threatening those students. This is using
Speaker 1: threats of force. This is if it happened on the
Speaker 1: other foot, if a conservative put up a list with
Speaker 1: pictures and names of nine liberal students and said you
Speaker 1: should be ashamed for advocating for whatever left wing cause
Speaker 1: you're advocating, I guarantee you the law school would discipline,
Speaker 1: if not expel, any students who did that. And to
Speaker 1: see this happening to a judge is astonishing. You mentioned
Speaker 1: that this group that was bringing them in is a
Speaker 1: group that a lot of people may have heard of.
Speaker 1: They don't necessarily know what they do, and a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans obviously have not gone to law school. I
Speaker 1: want you to kind of explain the Federal Society. I
Speaker 1: want you to explain how law school works with speakers
Speaker 1: that come in. Before I get that, I want to
Speaker 1: tell you real quick about our friends that guests the
Speaker 1: precious metals. You know what's been happening in the headlines
Speaker 1: in the economy, you know what's been happening with interest rates,
Speaker 1: and if you've been saving for retirement for a long time,
Speaker 1: you know how important it is to protect your assets. Well,
Speaker 1: you can protect some of your assets by putting some
Speaker 1: of your money with a gold IRA. I'm excited to
Speaker 1: tell you about a company I trust and I use,
Speaker 1: August of Precious Metals. They're different because they even tell
Speaker 1: you if a gold Ira isn't your answer. There's no
Speaker 1: pressure with August of Precious Medals, just the facts about
Speaker 1: how it could work for you and your retirement. Now,
Speaker 1: if you have an IRA or a four one K,
Speaker 1: and you've saved more than a hundred thousand dollars, and
Speaker 1: you know how crazy economy is, and you know how
Speaker 1: important it is to protect your assets, especially if you're
Speaker 1: close to retirement, because there is no time to make
Speaker 1: up losses, call August of Precious Medals. Not only will
Speaker 1: you get their free guide, but you will also get
Speaker 1: a web conference. Now, the web conference is amazing. I've
Speaker 1: done it, and you'll sit down and chat with someone
Speaker 1: one on one about your goals. Call them eight seven
Speaker 1: seven four the number four Gold Ira eight seven seven
Speaker 1: the number four Gold Ira or online augusta Precious Medals
Speaker 1: dot com. Use my name Ben and you will actually
Speaker 1: get fees for up to ten years for free augusta
Speaker 1: Precious Medals dot Com center. You mentioned this group. Tell
Speaker 1: a little bit of background on the group and how
Speaker 1: law school works. Bringing in judges and bringing in famous
Speaker 1: lawyers is a part of law school. Bring in speakers
Speaker 1: is a part of law school. That's very normal. Has
Speaker 1: been going on for decades and decades and decades. So
Speaker 1: the Federalist Society is a group that was formed in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty two, so it's forty one years old, and
Speaker 1: it was formed by a group of students from Yale
Speaker 1: and Harvard and University of Chicago Law school. And it
Speaker 1: was formed with the idea of challenging the left wing
Speaker 1: orthodoxy that was the prevailing view of the faculty and
Speaker 1: many of the students in law schools. And it was
Speaker 1: initially formed by students and some law professors. And some
Speaker 1: of the early mentors and founding figure of the Federalist
Speaker 1: Society include Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Robert Bourke. The
Speaker 1: Federalist Society now has chapters all over the country. It
Speaker 1: has chapters at more than two hundred law schools, and
Speaker 1: its lawyers division has more than seventy thousand practicing lawyers
Speaker 1: all over the country. And so in law schools. They
Speaker 1: regularly host events. They host a national conference for law students,
Speaker 1: the Lawyers Conventions, they're in cities all across the country.
Speaker 1: They regularly host events as well. They bring in speakers,
Speaker 1: they have debates. There's also every year a National Lawyers
Speaker 1: Convention in Washington, that is that thousands of conservative and
Speaker 1: liberty or and or libertarian lawyers come to I've been
Speaker 1: a member of the Federalist Society for thirty one years.
Speaker 1: I joined when I was a one l in law
Speaker 1: school in nineteen ninety two, so it was just ten
Speaker 1: years old at the time, and I've been to dozens
Speaker 1: of national conventions. One of the things that's interesting about
Speaker 1: the Federalist Society is they often have debates. They invite
Speaker 1: lots of liberals. Liberals attend, liberal law professors attend, liberal
Speaker 1: judges attend. I've seen many left wing judges. I've seen
Speaker 1: Antonin Scalia and Steve Bryer debate at a Federalist Society convention.
Speaker 1: And you know what happens at a federalst Society convention.
Speaker 1: I've never seen a crowd of either law students or
Speaker 1: lawyers treat a liberal judge disrespectfully. I've never. I've never
Speaker 1: seen it. I can't imagine that it would happen. The
Speaker 1: left has tried to make the Federalist Society a badge
Speaker 1: of shame. In fact, you'll see in the Senate Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee when a judge is nominated that Democrats will last,
Speaker 1: are you a member of the Federalist Society? And they
Speaker 1: treat it like you know, it's very Joe McCarthy, are
Speaker 1: you now or have you ever been a member of
Speaker 1: the Communist Party. I frequently go back and forth with
Speaker 1: Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the liberals on the Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 1: about the Federalist Society. But in this instance, the behavior
Speaker 1: of the left wing activists was shameful at the outset,
Speaker 1: attacking the students in the Federalist Society, trying to make
Speaker 1: them pariahs, trying to shame them, trying to trying to
Speaker 1: force them to cancel the event, and they were pushing
Speaker 1: for them to cancel. Do not bring this judge to campus.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you. I've spoken that many Federalist Society events
Speaker 1: across the country at left wing universities, and this pattern
Speaker 1: has been growing. Look, we saw about a year ago
Speaker 1: something similar happened at Yale Law School. There was a lawyer,
Speaker 1: Kristen Wagoner, who came to speak and came to speak
Speaker 1: about a religious liberty case that she'd argued at the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court and that she'd won and she'd prevailed,
Speaker 1: and she was talking about that case, and the same
Speaker 1: sort of things happened, which is a group of left
Speaker 1: wing students yelled, screen harassed, and shut down the speech,
Speaker 1: prevented her from speaking. It was shameful for Yale. It
Speaker 1: also similarly happened at University of California Hastings when a
Speaker 1: libertarian law professor named Ilios Shapiro Elio as a friend
Speaker 1: of mine, a terrific law professor. Again, left wing activists
Speaker 1: screamed and yelled and shut down his speech. So they've
Speaker 1: done this before to lawyers and professors, to my knowledge,
Speaker 1: they've never done it before to a judge. And there
Speaker 1: are lots of questions that this raises, one of which
Speaker 1: is what's Stanford going to do about it? Now? The
Speaker 1: president at Stanford, the dean of the law school have
Speaker 1: already apologized in writing, They apologized to Judge Duncan, they
Speaker 1: apologized publicly. That was the right thing to do. I'm
Speaker 1: glad they apologize. That's that's more than many institutions do.
Speaker 1: But the obvious question is what consequences are the students
Speaker 1: going to face. Look, we know who those students were.
Speaker 1: They're videos of them. Any student that is shouting down
Speaker 1: a federal judge. And by the way, they weren't just
Speaker 1: just shouting down, they were yelling profane and explicit language
Speaker 1: to the judge in including one man, a gay man,
Speaker 1: who described in profane terms that he had sexual relations
Speaker 1: with other men, and he said, I know where the
Speaker 1: prostate is, and and he demands of the judge why
Speaker 1: he can't find a particular part of a woman's genitalia,
Speaker 1: Like what the hell? Yeah, welcome, welcome to diversity at
Speaker 1: law school in Stanford, one of the top ones in
Speaker 1: the country. And this is a law student screaming profane
Speaker 1: expletives at a sitting Federal Court of Appeals judge. As
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned, every student there who engaged in
Speaker 1: this conduct should face discipline, nary action. And the big
Speaker 1: question is what's going to happen to this dean. And
Speaker 1: I guarantee if Stanford's going to say, well, we apologized,
Speaker 1: look this dean, what she did was premeditated. Stanford claims
Speaker 1: to have a free speech policy. Not only did she
Speaker 1: not enforce the policy, she effectively joined the mob. Her
Speaker 1: speech was disgraceful as well. And I got to say
Speaker 1: the whole you know you are causing pain, and I feel,
Speaker 1: I know it feels uncomfortable to hear me say this.
Speaker 1: It's the entire lingo of the left where they sound
Speaker 1: like like a combination of mister Rogers and a therapist,
Speaker 1: and they're just like, oh, oh, I'm so sensitive and
Speaker 1: my feelings are hurt. And then I got to say,
Speaker 1: my head explodes when I see all these lefties snapping.
Speaker 1: That's the way so many left wing activists like to
Speaker 1: like to applaud on campus as they go. And it's
Speaker 1: and they also hissed like snakes that when they don't
Speaker 1: like something, they when they like it, they snap. And
Speaker 1: let me say, right now, this dean should be fired.
Speaker 1: If it is not a firing offense for a dean
Speaker 1: of a law school to side with students who are attacking, insulting,
Speaker 1: cursing at a federal judge, to side with the mob
Speaker 1: against the a federal judge against an invited speaker, then
Speaker 1: I don't know what would be a fireable offense. But
Speaker 1: I'm going to predict right now, Stanford won't firer because
Speaker 1: DI diversity, equity, and inclusion is more important to them
Speaker 1: than the actual mission of training lawyers. And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you this, Stanford's going to have an interesting question because
Speaker 1: every one of those law students, presumably when they graduate,
Speaker 1: is going to take the bar, and the state bar
Speaker 1: is going to have to assess the student's character and
Speaker 1: fitness to practice law. And I got to tell you,
Speaker 1: if if you're sitting on a state bar and you're
Speaker 1: seeing that as a law student, this person screen and
Speaker 1: yells and curses at federal judges, I don't know a
Speaker 1: whole lot of state bars that would say you have
Speaker 1: the character and fitness to be an attorney, You have
Speaker 1: the character and fitness to appear in federal court in
Speaker 1: front of a federal judge when you don't have the
Speaker 1: decency to actually behave like a lawyer and engage in
Speaker 1: a respectful conversation. You can ask carsh questions, you can
Speaker 1: disagree with the judge's opinion, but screaming and cursing and
Speaker 1: yelling and trying to deny your fellow students the right
Speaker 1: to hear a speaker they came to hear that is
Speaker 1: not remotely consistent with the obligations of being a member
Speaker 1: of the bar. You said something earlier, at the very beginning,
Speaker 1: and you said, it's clear that Stanford and the way
Speaker 1: that the Dean talked about this is they're basically trying
Speaker 1: not to graduate lawyers, they're trying to graduate activists. And
Speaker 1: you can connect this directly to what's happening right now
Speaker 1: in Washington with the Biden budget. It's an activist budget.
Speaker 1: You don't have to take my word for it or
Speaker 1: your word for it, Senator. It's in the budget. The
Speaker 1: words the activists, woke words are in the budget. Before
Speaker 1: we go through that, I want to tell people about
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile real quick. Patriot Mobile is the only Christian
Speaker 1: conservative cell phone company in the US. And if you're
Speaker 1: sick and tired of woke companies that you pay money
Speaker 1: to every month and then they actually go against your values,
Speaker 1: you've got an option now in the cell phone industry.
Speaker 1: You can actually switch to Patriot Mobile. And it's easy.
Speaker 1: You can keep your same cell phone number, you can
Speaker 1: keep your same cell phone or switch to a new phone.
Speaker 1: Maybe you want to upgrade. You can do that. The
Speaker 1: other great thing about Patriot Mobile is when you pay
Speaker 1: your bill every month, they take a portion of that
Speaker 1: bill and they give it back to conservative causes and
Speaker 1: organizations that actually stand for what we believe in. We're
Speaker 1: talking about First and Second Amendment right organizations, standing up
Speaker 1: for the rights of unborn children, and even helping people
Speaker 1: with adoptions. If you're ready to have a company stand
Speaker 1: with you and what you believe in, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a cell phone anyway you might as will support what
Speaker 1: you believe in. When you pay your bill, call him
Speaker 1: age seven eighth Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot age
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot. Use a promo verdict you'll get the
Speaker 1: best deals of the day. Patriotmobile dot com slash Verdict
Speaker 1: now center. You kind of went on a really blunt
Speaker 1: I would I would call it a tirade, and I
Speaker 1: mean that in a positive way. In Congress this past
Speaker 1: week talking about Biden's budget. The budget that he has
Speaker 1: put together, that the Democrats have put together is not
Speaker 1: an actual budget. It's a massive increase of government spending,
Speaker 1: but with a whole hell of a lot of wokeness
Speaker 1: in it that has nothing to do with an actual budget. Well,
Speaker 1: this past week, Biden rolled out what he calls his budget,
Speaker 1: and it is a left wing manifesto. It is extreme.
Speaker 1: He proposed just for fiscal year twenty twenty four, six
Speaker 1: point nine trillion dollars in spending, almost seven trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in spending, and under the budget that he laid out,
Speaker 1: he is proposing that the national debt should exceed fifty
Speaker 1: trillion dollars by the year twenty thirty three, which would
Speaker 1: be a debt to GDP ratio higher than the record
Speaker 1: we set right after World War Two. That's what he's
Speaker 1: proposing on the front end now. Amazingly enough, despite having
Speaker 1: fifty trillion in debt, he also is proposing four point
Speaker 1: seven trillion in new taxes. A lot of those taxes
Speaker 1: are targeted at oil and gas, at energy exploration, because
Speaker 1: he wants the price of the gas pump to go higher,
Speaker 1: because the Green New Deal is much more important to
Speaker 1: him than actually working families who are having a hard
Speaker 1: time making ends meet, who are having a hard time
Speaker 1: fill their pump. If you look at what is in
Speaker 1: this budget, he would increase the business tax rate to
Speaker 1: twenty eight percent, which the Tax Foundation has estimated would
Speaker 1: kill one hundred and fifty nine thousand jobs, shrink the
Speaker 1: economy by seven hundred and twenty billion dollars, and would
Speaker 1: have the United States have a higher business tax rate
Speaker 1: than communist China. But that is there. Can you say
Speaker 1: that again? I think people really need to understand and
Speaker 1: realize why they're doing what you just said, having a
Speaker 1: higher corporate tax rate than China, and that's to basically
Speaker 1: make our government, I would say, communist socialists, however you
Speaker 1: want to describe it, but make sure that you just
Speaker 1: can't really succeed to a certain level of success in
Speaker 1: America any longer they want to, They want to tamper success.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to tell you what they're doing. This
Speaker 1: is a socialist budget. This is a budget to bankrupt America.
Speaker 1: This is a budget to kill jobs. This is a
Speaker 1: budget to create even more inflation. For example, let's just
Speaker 1: work a look at a simple word camp The word
Speaker 1: equity appears in the Biden budget sixty three times, the
Speaker 1: word climate one hundred and forty eight times, the words
Speaker 1: environmental justice they appear twenty five times. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: how about issues that Americans actually care about, the word
Speaker 1: inflation is mentioned just ten times, police officers mentioned four times,
Speaker 1: parents mentioned three times, gas prices three times, fentanyl just
Speaker 1: two times. This is a left wing budget and it
Speaker 1: doesn't address the real problems, like we have the worst
Speaker 1: illegal immigration in our nation's history. You don't how many
Speaker 1: new border patrol agents are funded. Are in this budget.
Speaker 1: I'm going to guess not that many. Knowing how much
Speaker 1: they love an open budget, open border, I should say
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty. Wow. Mind you, the budget not
Speaker 1: only funds eighty seven thousand new IRS agent, it puts
Speaker 1: even more money into the IRS. Because their objective is
Speaker 1: a federal government to harass and go after the American
Speaker 1: people in small businesses. They're perfectly fine with open borders.
Speaker 1: They're perfectly fine with fentanol flooding across the border. Here's
Speaker 1: the good news this left wing budget. The chances of
Speaker 1: it passing into law are zero percent. There's no chance
Speaker 1: this budget will pass. And by the way, the Biden
Speaker 1: White House knows this. They know that a Republican House
Speaker 1: of Representatives would never pass this radical budget. So why
Speaker 1: did they propose it. What's interesting is because they know
Speaker 1: it won't pass. This is a political document this is
Speaker 1: they're telling you, this is what we believe in. And
Speaker 1: what becomes clear is what they believe in is climate,
Speaker 1: justice and equity and everything except actually securing the border,
Speaker 1: acting our homes, protecting our families, growing the economy, creating jobs,
Speaker 1: lowering inflation, having gas prices be affordable. None of those
Speaker 1: do they care about. This is instead I am activist.
Speaker 1: Hear me, roar that is this budget? How much of
Speaker 1: this center could make it? And you did say you
Speaker 1: think there's zero percent chances budget will be passed, but
Speaker 1: a budget will have to be passed. So is this
Speaker 1: start out on the most extreme and then you you
Speaker 1: negotiate down to a significant chunk of this extremism showing
Speaker 1: up in the budget. Well, it'll depend on the back
Speaker 1: and forth between the House and the Senate. The Republican
Speaker 1: House is going to have very different priorities. Unfortunately, we
Speaker 1: have a Democrat Senate. So my guess is that some
Speaker 1: of the Democrats in the Senate think Biden's budgets should
Speaker 1: be even bigger, He should spend even more. For example,
Speaker 1: one of their talking points that the White House is
Speaker 1: bragging about as they say, well, we increase defense spending
Speaker 1: three percent now, of course, inflation is between six and
Speaker 1: eight percent, so that is in real terms a cut
Speaker 1: of between three and five percent to defense. But that's
Speaker 1: their talking point. Where we end up at the end
Speaker 1: of the day is going to be a result of
Speaker 1: the negotiations between the House and Senate and the White House.
Speaker 1: It's going to go back and forth. And the two
Speaker 1: pivotal leverage points where the fight is really going to
Speaker 1: be fought out are going to be the debt ceiling
Speaker 1: and are going to be September thirtieth, the expiration of
Speaker 1: federal funding. Those are going to be the two battles.
Speaker 1: I expect both will be epic battles. I believe if
Speaker 1: Republicans stand firm, we can make real progress. But we'll
Speaker 1: see a if Republicans stand firm and be what Democrats
Speaker 1: do in response. Yeah, this budget, as you said, seeing
Speaker 1: how the sausage is going to be made will be
Speaker 1: very very interesting. I want to move on to one
Speaker 1: other issue, Senator, and that is one where a Biden
Speaker 1: official apparently classified info about the Trump Air Chinese by
Speaker 1: balloons to deflect criticism of the Biden administration. Centers are
Speaker 1: now saying and accusing this of happening. Before I get
Speaker 1: your thoughts on that, though, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about Chalk. If you're a real American man and you
Speaker 1: want to maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterrum levels up
Speaker 1: to twenty percent over ninety days, you can actually do
Speaker 1: it with the Chalk Male Vitality Stack. Now, if you're
Speaker 1: a guy and you just feel like you've lost a
Speaker 1: little bit of that edge, you're getting a little bit older,
Speaker 1: and you don't feel like yourself anymore, you can fight
Speaker 1: back again that war on masculinity, and you can do
Speaker 1: it with Chalkhoq. They are here to help real men
Speaker 1: just like you and I maximize our testosterrum levels by
Speaker 1: boosting them up to twenty percent over ninety days. If
Speaker 1: you are ready to get that feeling back, then you
Speaker 1: need to check out Chalk. Go online tochoq dot com
Speaker 1: use the promo code Ben for thirty five percent off
Speaker 1: any Chalk subscription for life, Plus you can cancel Anytimehoq
Speaker 1: dot Com promo code Ben for thirty five percent off center.
Speaker 1: This last story is one that should be making really
Speaker 1: big headlines. It's not. And that's the fact that apparently
Speaker 1: Biden officials lead classified info about the Trump Air Chinese
Speaker 1: by balloons just to deflect criticism from Joe Biden's administration. Well,
Speaker 1: this is another illustration of what happens when the woke,
Speaker 1: angry children at Stanford Law School grow up and get
Speaker 1: jobs in the Defense Department. In this instance, remember back
Speaker 1: to the Chinese by balloon, and we talked quite a
Speaker 1: bit on the podcast about the Chinese by balloon at
Speaker 1: the time, and when the news broke, Remember the Chinese
Speaker 1: five balloon initially crossed over American airspace in Alaska. The
Speaker 1: Biden administration did nothing. It then went over Canadian airspace,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration did nothing. It then crossed over into
Speaker 1: American airspace again, crossing in Idaho and Montana. And what
Speaker 1: happened is it happened to be a remarkably clear day
Speaker 1: and a couple of Montana guys looking up in the
Speaker 1: sky saw the damn thing, and they took pictures of it,
Speaker 1: and they put it on the internet, and reporters covered it,
Speaker 1: and suddenly people are like, what the heck is that
Speaker 1: in the air. And as you'll recall, for eight days
Speaker 1: the Biden administration allowed the spy balloon to traverse the
Speaker 1: entire continental United States conducting espionage over sensitive military installations,
Speaker 1: and they did nothing until its mission was complete, and
Speaker 1: then they shot it down over the Atlantic. Now, if
Speaker 1: you recall, when this was unfolding, Biden was getting a
Speaker 1: lot of heat. Why are you so weak? Why are
Speaker 1: you so impotent? Why are you allowing the Chinese to
Speaker 1: spy on us? And about midway through that process, suddenly
Speaker 1: there were stories everywhere that says said, oh, well, Trump
Speaker 1: did the same thing. The Chinese spied on us during
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and Trump did nothing as well, And
Speaker 1: that was a story. The Biden flacks, they flacked hard.
Speaker 1: They're like, look, look, look, see Trump did it too. Haha.
Speaker 1: Our guy's not weak. And what we now know. So,
Speaker 1: there was a letter that was sent by two of
Speaker 1: my colleagues, Roger Wicker and Marco Rubio, which the letter
Speaker 1: alleges that the under Secretary of Defense for policy a
Speaker 1: guy named Colin Call, who is a left wing activist.
Speaker 1: He is a hard partisan. He's someone who has a
Speaker 1: long history of misusing classified information and being willing to
Speaker 1: leak it for political and partisan purposes. What the Wicker
Speaker 1: Rubio alleges is that it was Colin Call who is
Speaker 1: the one that put out there that it had happened
Speaker 1: under the Trump administration. But what we also know now
Speaker 1: is that when Called told that to reporters, he omitted
Speaker 1: one really critical fact, which is the Trump administration didn't
Speaker 1: know about Trump didn't know about it. You know, remember
Speaker 1: afterwards there were lots of folks. Mike Pompeo went on
Speaker 1: TV and said, I don't know what they're talking about,
Speaker 1: that I don't know anything about this. The head of
Speaker 1: the Director of Natural Intelligence under Trump said, I don't
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about. Colin Call knew that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration was unaware of these Chinese balloons. They omitted
Speaker 1: that detail because they wanted to say Biden's not weak.
Speaker 1: Trump did the same thing. Well, you know what, you
Speaker 1: can't shoot down a balloon that you're not aware at
Speaker 1: the time it's there. And so he deliberately either leaked
Speaker 1: or potentially declassified the documents. So Colin Call has a
Speaker 1: history of doing both of playing fast and loose with
Speaker 1: classified documents, but in this case doing it in a
Speaker 1: very misleading way. Because the story ran everywhere. This happened
Speaker 1: three times under Trump, and he did nothing without including
Speaker 1: the really critical fact that they were unaware of it
Speaker 1: at the time, and the government only found out later.
Speaker 1: This is a big deal, and there's a reason every
Speaker 1: single Republican in the Senate voted against confirming Colin Call
Speaker 1: because he's a partisan activist rather than someone taking seriously
Speaker 1: the job of defending this nation. And look, this goes
Speaker 1: right back to where the podcast started. In law school,
Speaker 1: whether you're on the left or right, you're training to
Speaker 1: become an attorney, a member of the bar. You're training
Speaker 1: to acquire skills. You're training to learn how to think
Speaker 1: like a lawyer. You're training to be able to represent
Speaker 1: a client in front of a judge, even a judge
Speaker 1: you disagree with, even a judge who may rule against
Speaker 1: your client, even if in look in a capital murder case,
Speaker 1: it could be a judge who might sentence your clients
Speaker 1: to death. You have a very serious responsibility as an advocate,
Speaker 1: as a member of the bar. Those Stanford Law students
Speaker 1: are demonstrating their unfit to carry that responsibility in the
Speaker 1: defense department. Like Wise, if you're charged with defending this
Speaker 1: nation from our enemies, it is a grave and serious responsibility.
Speaker 1: And this is another example where you put hardcore partisans
Speaker 1: into their those positions, they elevate their partisanship above the
Speaker 1: seriousness of their responsibility, and in this instance, leak classified
Speaker 1: information and do so affirmatively, misleadingly. I feel like I
Speaker 1: asked you this question far too often. Will he get
Speaker 1: in trouble for this or leaking this? It's still a
Speaker 1: hard court no, because the same people are in charge
Speaker 1: of the deep state, the Biden White House wants him
Speaker 1: to do this. I suspect the Biden white House was
Speaker 1: celebrating this is These are the same people that wrote
Speaker 1: the Biden budget. These are hard partisans that Biden has
Speaker 1: populated this administration with. And so I suspect they were
Speaker 1: giving him high fives because when all the the news
Speaker 1: began covering oh Trump did the same thing, suddenly their
Speaker 1: prr PR crisis, they had a reprieve from it. And
Speaker 1: look we talked about on the pod how the entire
Speaker 1: Chinese spy balloon the Biden White House didn't treat as
Speaker 1: a national security matter, didn't treat as an espionage matter.
Speaker 1: It treated as a public relations matter. It treated as
Speaker 1: a communications endeavor. It's why, after Biden's weakness was exposed
Speaker 1: by allowing the spy balloon to complete its mission. He
Speaker 1: shot down three random things in the sky that we
Speaker 1: still don't know what they are. You know, we think
Speaker 1: one of them was like a high school science project
Speaker 1: that he sent a four hundred thousand dollars missile to
Speaker 1: shoot down a twelve dollars balloon. But the purpose wasn't
Speaker 1: to take it out. The purpose was to have a
Speaker 1: press release. See tough van Biden him shoot thing down.
Speaker 1: These are not people who are serious about protecting America.
Speaker 1: These are partisans engaged in public relations who believe in violence.
Speaker 1: Look when the Stanford Law students are screaming down the judge,
Speaker 1: that's no different than the rioters and protesters that show
Speaker 1: up at the homes of justices, screaming and threatening their families.
Speaker 1: And Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, refuses to enforce the
Speaker 1: law and prosecute them even though it's a federal crime.
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland agrees with them, and Biden agrees with them,
Speaker 1: and you can see what it is. And those screaming
Speaker 1: students at Stanford Law School couldn't. I couldn't agree with
Speaker 1: you more, Senator, always a pleasure. I'm going to get
Speaker 1: to do one bonus thing here I'm trying to get
Speaker 1: the senator in a golf a little bit. A Texan
Speaker 1: has won the fifth Major the Players, But the fool
Speaker 1: story is Center this real quick is Scottie Scheffler, a Texan.
Speaker 1: His eighty eight year old grandmother walked every single hole
Speaker 1: with him this week, all seventy two holes. At eighty
Speaker 1: eight years old. He's bringing back the players to Texas.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a cool note to end on
Speaker 1: age is just a number. Clearly this grandmother and she's
Speaker 1: been following him all week. I love stories. When you
Speaker 1: see him like this, that's spectacular and a good thing
Speaker 1: to feel good story, no doubt about it. Don't forget.
Speaker 1: We do this show three days a week. Hit that
Speaker 1: subscribe or auto download button so that you get this
Speaker 1: show each and every day that we publish The Center. Now,
Speaker 1: we'll see you back here in a couple of days.