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