Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Ted CRU's weekend Review. Ben Ferguson
Speaker 2: with you, and here are the stories that we talked
Speaker 2: about this week that you may have missed. First up,
Speaker 2: Katar spending serious money to hire pr firms in America
Speaker 2: to cover for them. We expose it all. Also, Senator
Speaker 2: Cruz talks about his new book and it's an incredible
Speaker 2: interview that he has done over hours with Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court Justice. So what is the book about.
Speaker 2: We'll explain it. And finally, law school students decided to
Speaker 2: not allow a fellow lawyer to actually speak on campus
Speaker 2: should they have the chance to actually even become lawyers
Speaker 2: or ever sit on a bench as a judge. We'll
Speaker 2: break that down for you as well. It's the weekend
Speaker 2: Review and it starts right now. I want to move
Speaker 2: to Katar real quick, and that is another big story here.
Speaker 2: Katar is a country that's very interesting how they spend
Speaker 2: their money. They certainly do it to influence our opinion
Speaker 2: of them as a name. That is something that's very
Speaker 2: important to them. And they spend millions and millions and
Speaker 2: millions of dollars on our universities trying to gain favor,
Speaker 2: to have people think of them in a positive light.
Speaker 2: Qatar is now hiring pr firms, big ones in DC
Speaker 2: to help cover and to whitewash them right now with
Speaker 2: their supportive terrorist activities in the Middle East. Let's just
Speaker 2: expose that for everybody right now so you understand. And plus,
Speaker 2: Guitar has been interesting because it also deals with our
Speaker 2: friend guy by the Navi, Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look, Qatar is the number one foreign funder of
Speaker 1: US universities.
Speaker 2: And to get more than China, by the way, which
Speaker 2: is something that is a point that a massive asterisk,
Speaker 2: because China's also tried to buy a significant amount of
Speaker 2: influence in the US and our universities as well. And
Speaker 2: think about the size of China and compare it to Qatar,
Speaker 2: And that tells you just how important Guitar believes getting
Speaker 2: the minds of our kids and our colleges to look
Speaker 2: at them in some way a positive way.
Speaker 1: Let's give give you a sense of the scope. The
Speaker 1: number one foreign donor to US university's is Cutter between
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty six and two thousand and five. What do
Speaker 1: you think they've given.
Speaker 2: I want to say billions?
Speaker 1: Is that too much, seven point seven billion with a
Speaker 1: bre you go, yeah, you know how much they gave
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five?
Speaker 2: How much?
Speaker 1: Over one billion? Yeah, they are flooding cash. Number two
Speaker 1: is China. Where do you think China is?
Speaker 2: I'm going to guess a little bit below them, but
Speaker 2: definitely close to a billion.
Speaker 1: Well, in terms of the overall twenty five I'll give
Speaker 1: you the twenty five numbers in a second. In terms
Speaker 1: of the window eighty six to present, the total is
Speaker 1: six point four billion.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: The next ones or Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Germany
Speaker 1: and Canada. Now what about this last year? The most
Speaker 1: recent disclosures from twenty twenty five and identify cutter over
Speaker 1: one point one billion, the United Kingdom over six hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty three million, China over five hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: eight million, Switzerland over four hundred and fifty one million,
Speaker 1: Japan over three hundred and seventy four million, Germany over
Speaker 1: two hundred and ninety two million, and Saudi Arabia over
Speaker 1: two hundred eighty five million. The top university recipients of
Speaker 1: those foreign funds in twenty twenty five are Carnegie Mellon
Speaker 1: almost a billion dollars, MIT almost a billion dollars, Stanford
Speaker 1: over seven hundred and seventy five million, and Harvard University
Speaker 1: over three hundred and twenty four million. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the entire window from nineteen eighty six to
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty five, Harvard University is disclosed
Speaker 1: that it has received more money from counterparties located in
Speaker 1: countries of concern, which are countries that are enemies of
Speaker 1: America than any other institution of higher education, totaling over
Speaker 1: six hundred and ten million dollars, and Harvard is followed
Speaker 1: by MIT four hundred and ninety million, n YU four
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty two million, Stanford four hundred and eighteen million,
Speaker 1: and Yale University over four hundred million.
Speaker 2: By the way, translation, our universities are for sale to
Speaker 2: the people that hate America the.
Speaker 1: Most they are and the list of those universities that
Speaker 1: receive the most money from the countries that hate us
Speaker 1: are almost exactly the list of the universities that had
Speaker 1: the worst anti Semitic protest. I mean, Cutter knows what
Speaker 1: it's getting. Seven point seven million dollars ain't cheap. And
Speaker 1: you know what is is fascinating on this also is
Speaker 1: you look at all the countries that invest real money,
Speaker 1: and if you look at that, the number one is Cutter, who,
Speaker 1: among other things, fund from US. Do you know who
Speaker 1: is what country is not on the top seventy countries?
Speaker 2: What is that?
Speaker 1: Israel? Yeah, And I just want to say, for all
Speaker 1: the knuckleheads online or it's like, oh, Israel runs everything,
Speaker 1: Israel's paying for everything. Israel's the money bags.
Speaker 2: They're buying influence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it actually is really funny if you look at
Speaker 1: the list of countries, I'm just going to read it
Speaker 1: in descending order because I'm going to show you all
Speaker 1: the countries that put more money in US universities than
Speaker 1: Israel does. Cutter, England, China, Saudi Arabia, Bermuda, Canada, Bermuda,
Speaker 1: Hong Kong, Japan, Switzerland, India, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, France, Singapore, Australia, Kuwait, Denmark,
Speaker 1: the Netherlands, Brazil, Sweden, South Korea, Spain, Norway, Thailand. Is
Speaker 1: there is Israel. I'm sorry, I misspoke. Israel falls right
Speaker 1: below Thailand and below even Bermuda. There you go, that's
Speaker 1: where they fall. And I separately jumped online on AI
Speaker 1: to ask, you know, just how where does Israel rank
Speaker 1: as a foreign funder of US universities? And the answer
Speaker 1: from Google AI Israel is not a top tier foreign
Speaker 1: funder of US universities by volume. Well, Middle Eastern nations
Speaker 1: like Cutter in Saudi Arabia have donated billions. Israel's contributed
Speaker 1: significantly less, with estimates of roughly three hundred million in
Speaker 1: donations over the past twenty five years, often focused on
Speaker 1: specific research or academic partnerships. And so it just just
Speaker 1: worth underscoring because if you live in the twisted world
Speaker 1: of Twitter yeah and Twitter comments, you think Israel's pay
Speaker 1: for everything? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think they'd be ten x Qatar or
Speaker 2: any other country.
Speaker 1: So there's a reason Cutter has hired these two Washington
Speaker 1: PR firms. So one of the firms, it's the Qatar Foundation,
Speaker 1: a state run nonprofit that Doha uses to pedal influence
Speaker 1: at American higher education, hired the Washington Media Group at
Speaker 1: a rate of forty thousand per month. So good business
Speaker 1: to be a lobbyist to provide quote strategic communications support
Speaker 1: that enhance public understanding of its long standing academic partnerships
Speaker 1: with US universities located in Education City, Cutter. According to
Speaker 1: the firm's March thirtieth federal disclosion registering it as a
Speaker 1: foreign agent. The Washington Media Group describes itself as quote,
Speaker 1: a female and minority owned company that crafts solutions to
Speaker 1: high profile crises and protects and repairs reputations. Its CEO
Speaker 1: and president and the agent listed on the contract with
Speaker 1: the Cutter Foundation is a woman named Crystal Patterson, who
Speaker 1: has a long history of running digital strategy and communication
Speaker 1: for Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and former Rep.
Speaker 1: Tim Ryan. She worked for the left wing Center for
Speaker 1: American Progress, focusing on quote, immigration and diversity policy. According
Speaker 1: to her bio, in other words, immigration let in more
Speaker 1: anti American Islamists who hate America, so then they can
Speaker 1: destroy America like sadly they're destroying many of the countries
Speaker 1: of Europe. She also is a graduate of Northwestern University,
Speaker 1: which boasts a campus in Doha in Cutter that holds
Speaker 1: a contract with Cutter forbidding its students and faculty from
Speaker 1: criticizing the Katari regime. Let me repeat that Northwestern has
Speaker 1: a campus and Cutter that holds a contract with Cutter
Speaker 1: forbidding its students and faculties from criticizing the Katari regime.
Speaker 2: It makes sense. That's money well spent right there.
Speaker 1: Look, you can't bite the hand that feeds you. The
Speaker 1: Cutter Foundation also retained the law firm Venable at a
Speaker 1: monthly rate of twenty five thousand dollars for government relations
Speaker 1: services quote pertaining to the public profile of the foundation.
Speaker 1: Thenable will quote help ensure that members of Congress and
Speaker 1: the Administration have an accurate understanding of Cutter foundation support
Speaker 1: for education and it's work with US universities. You know what,
Speaker 1: the fact that they're freaking out and hiring lobbyists is
Speaker 1: a good thing because people are onto them. By the way,
Speaker 1: these are the same guys that host the leadership of
Speaker 1: Hamas in Cutter. They live like billionaires, they live like kings.
Speaker 1: They fund Al Jazeera. They're spreading Islamus propaganda, They're supporting
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood. They're spreading anti American garbage, they're spreading
Speaker 1: anti Semitic garbage. They're funding these violent radicals on campuses,
Speaker 1: these communists on campus. By the way, and I will say,
Speaker 1: you know what, Cutter also funded what's the head spies
Speaker 1: spying on me. It's been publicly reported they hired spies.
Speaker 2: They look they wanted to know what you were doing, sir.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got to say, my life's pretty boring. So
Speaker 1: you know, if you want to see me at home
Speaker 1: at at at what time? Is it midnight?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's it's one in the morning, service one
Speaker 2: in the morning. I hired me for fifty grand I
Speaker 2: would have told him what you were doing at one
Speaker 2: in the morning doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, it's it's really exciting. There is you know,
Speaker 1: Heidi and the girls are sound asleep, and I'm in
Speaker 1: the room sadly not too far from the cat litter
Speaker 1: for for our cats that that that that Carolina doors,
Speaker 1: so that their spies I think are pretty bored right now.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Last week Clarence Thomas gave a speech at the University
Speaker 1: of Texas and the speech was positively magisterial. In fact,
Speaker 1: I texted Justice Thomas and I told him thank you
Speaker 1: that that was an important speech.
Speaker 3: It was beautifully done.
Speaker 1: I want to play a minute of the speech so
Speaker 1: you can hear. Because this was this really sort of
Speaker 1: encapsulates who he is. I was proud of UT for
Speaker 1: inviting him. I think the student body, those in attendance
Speaker 1: were enraptured. Give a listen. Listen to what Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: said last week in a speech at UT.
Speaker 3: There isn't a single judge I know who does hard
Speaker 3: things because they get joy out of it. They do
Speaker 3: hard things because they signed up to do hard things.
Speaker 3: And they may not agree with it, and it may
Speaker 3: be difficult, they may think it's not a great law.
Speaker 3: But their job as Article three judges is to enforce
Speaker 3: the law, to interpret it, and to apply it to
Speaker 3: that particular case. When I first became a judge, judge
Speaker 3: Larry Siverman, who's unfortunately passed away, said, ask yourself before
Speaker 3: each case, what is my role in this case as
Speaker 3: a judge? Notice how that limits you, not as a person,
Speaker 3: not as a Catholic, not as a policy maker, not
Speaker 3: as a husband, as a judge. And that is early
Speaker 3: on that required more.
Speaker 2: Discipline, more discipline. Yeah, that's a great way of putting
Speaker 2: that from Krarence Thomas are and you said earlier being
Speaker 2: a kid in the audience at UT getting to hear
Speaker 2: this conversation truly an incredible moment.
Speaker 1: And I will say when he's talking about being a
Speaker 1: judge and more discipline, a lot of what I talk
Speaker 1: about in the book is his approach to being a
Speaker 1: judge and it's very much Look his grandfather, he was
Speaker 1: raised by his grandfather. His grandfather worked him hard, yea.
Speaker 1: He worked. He worked delivering fuel oil, he worked on
Speaker 1: the farm, he helped build their home on the farm.
Speaker 1: He worked his fingers literally bloody. His grandfather during the
Speaker 1: bitter cold of the winter, would not let Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: wear gloves because he thought gloves made you soft. He
Speaker 1: wanted to make him a strong and tough and discipline.
Speaker 1: And part of what Clarence Stemas does, yes.
Speaker 2: The school of hard knocks mentality behind a lot of
Speaker 2: great men. They had really tough people in their life
Speaker 2: that made them into great men.
Speaker 1: And that's an example of that well. And Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: had enormous expectations on him and his approach to being
Speaker 1: a justice. There are a lot of justices who use
Speaker 1: much more high falut and rhetoric. You look at Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas opinions. They're plain spoken, they're very matter of fact
Speaker 1: that they are designed so they can be read by
Speaker 1: every man, so they can and look, he was growing
Speaker 1: up in Georgia with a lot of poor African Americans
Speaker 1: surrounding them, many of whom were illiterate. His grandparents who
Speaker 1: raised him were almost functionally illiterate. They had very limited
Speaker 1: reading skills. And so he tries to write his opinions
Speaker 1: in a way that they are accessible, they're straightforward, and
Speaker 1: he approaches each opinion. I use the analogy in the book.
Speaker 1: It's like a carpenter. It's like someone building a home.
Speaker 1: He lays the foundation, he frames the house. He does
Speaker 1: it peace after peace, trying to get to the truth.
Speaker 1: And the title of the book, going further. If you
Speaker 1: look at thirty plus years of Clarence Thomas's time on
Speaker 1: the Court, his consistent theme is we should go further.
Speaker 1: That's a quote from his dissent in the term limits case.
Speaker 1: But it is a theme that other great conservative justices
Speaker 1: would say, let's do X, and he would say, no,
Speaker 1: let's go further. And his focus is let's get back
Speaker 1: to the original understanding of the Constitution. Let's go all
Speaker 1: the way and the impact he has had has changed
Speaker 1: law profoundly. And I want you to listen to him
Speaker 1: again at ut last week talking about the importance of
Speaker 1: the Constitution but also the importance of the Declaration of Independence,
Speaker 1: and I think Clarence Thomas emphasizes and highlights the Declaration
Speaker 1: more than any other. Justice Here, give a listen.
Speaker 3: None of our rights come from the government. All of
Speaker 3: the government's authority comes from our consent, and the structure
Speaker 3: and limited role of government is to assure that it
Speaker 3: does not exceed the authority to which we have consented
Speaker 3: or intrude on our natural rights. The Constitution is the
Speaker 3: means of government. It is the declaration that announces the
Speaker 3: ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting
Speaker 3: our natural rights and our liberties from concentrated power and
Speaker 3: excessive democracy. Our Constitution creates a separation of powers and
Speaker 3: federalism truly for the first time in modern history, to
Speaker 3: prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens
Speaker 3: our natural rights.
Speaker 2: He takes his time, and that's one of the things
Speaker 2: he doesn't wing it.
Speaker 1: He understood putting on a show speaks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's these words are deliberate, and you can tell
Speaker 2: that he has just an incredible amount of passion and
Speaker 2: care for this country. And I also think when you
Speaker 2: get a little bit older, you probably are thinking about
Speaker 2: your legacy and what you're leaving behind. And he clearly
Speaker 2: speaks that way to those students, going, Hey, I'm not
Speaker 2: always going to be here being a shepherd. Somebody else
Speaker 2: is going to have to step forward and do this,
Speaker 2: and it may take a lot of people to accomplish
Speaker 2: what he's done in his lifetime.
Speaker 1: Well, and I'll tell you again. In that ut speech,
Speaker 1: he contrasts the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the
Speaker 1: principles of the Constitution, the immutable principles upon which our
Speaker 1: country was founded. He contrasts them with progressivism. And progressivism
Speaker 1: I think has been a poison that that that has
Speaker 1: led the United States a very dangerous direction. Listened to justice,
Speaker 1: Thomas draw in that.
Speaker 3: Contrast, progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the
Speaker 3: Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It
Speaker 3: holds that our rights and our dignities come not from
Speaker 3: God but from government. It requires of the people a
Speaker 3: subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premise on the
Speaker 3: transcendent origin of our rights.
Speaker 2: Wow. I mean wow, what else can you say besides wow?
Speaker 1: And by the way, you might say, well, gosh, is
Speaker 1: progressivism really at war with the principles of the Declaration
Speaker 1: of Independence. You may remember last year at a Senate
Speaker 1: Formulations committee when Tim Kaine, Democrat from Virginia, was questioning
Speaker 1: a nominee to the State Department of President Trump nominated
Speaker 1: the State Department who had written in his testimony that
Speaker 1: our rights come from God, not government. And Tim kin
Speaker 1: got outraged and he said, that is a radical statement.
Speaker 1: That is a dangerous statement. That is an extreme statement.
Speaker 1: That is the kind of thing theocratic societies like a
Speaker 1: Rand build believe. We don't believe that God doesn't give
Speaker 1: us our rights. Government does. And I walked in right
Speaker 1: as Tim Kaine was saying this, and I had a
Speaker 1: whole line of questioning that I had planned to go
Speaker 1: down on the hearing, and I threw it all in
Speaker 1: the trash, and I spoke shortly after Tim Kaine, and
Speaker 1: I said, you know, Tim Kaine said, the idea that
Speaker 1: our rights come from God is a radical and dangerous
Speaker 1: and extreme idea. And he's right, it is. It also
Speaker 1: happens to be the founding principle upon which our nation
Speaker 1: was created. And I said, listen, if you don't believe me,
Speaker 1: maybe you're inclined. You're politically left of center, and you
Speaker 1: may be inclined not to believe me. If you don't,
Speaker 1: maybe you might believe another Virginian who wrote, we hold
Speaker 1: these rights. We hold these truths to be self evident,
Speaker 1: that all men are created equal, and that they are
Speaker 1: endowed by their creator, not by government, not by the DNC,
Speaker 1: but by God Almighty, with certain unelienable rights. That among
Speaker 1: these are life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. That was,
Speaker 1: of course Thomas Jefferson. That was in the declaration. That's
Speaker 1: what justice Thomas is referring. And part of what was
Speaker 1: so disturbing about Tim Kaine, so cavalierly dismissing the idea
Speaker 1: that our rights come from God and instead insisting they
Speaker 1: come from government. Is Tim Kaine and the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is not some crazy radical. He's not Bernie Sanders, he's
Speaker 1: not Elizabeth Warren. He was Hillary Clinton's vice presidential nominee.
Speaker 1: He is about as mainstream a Democrat as you can find.
Speaker 1: And it really shows how progressivism has suffused the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party and I got to say at ut last week
Speaker 1: also Justice Thomas talked about the need to engage and
Speaker 1: engage in the fight for truth. Here give a listen.
Speaker 3: I think if we don't stand up and take ownership
Speaker 3: of our country and take responsible for it, we are
Speaker 3: slowly letting others control how we think and what we think.
Speaker 3: I think the beauty of going to school is that
Speaker 3: you learn how to think for yourselves. You develop the
Speaker 3: discipline to think things through you. If you think it's
Speaker 3: losing confidence, then you get up and you participate. You
Speaker 3: don't sit on the sidelines. You think that the that
Speaker 3: the state is being run and inconsistent with how you feel,
Speaker 3: and you get up and you participate. You prepare yourself.
Speaker 3: If you think that the medical profession is not right,
Speaker 3: when you become a doctor or be a medical person
Speaker 3: and you deal with that. I think we need to
Speaker 3: take ownership of our country.
Speaker 2: It's our country, it's our country, and man, you know,
Speaker 2: one of the things he said there that was interesting
Speaker 2: is he said, you know, you go to school to learn,
Speaker 2: you know, to figure out what you believe in, what
Speaker 2: you think, and those of things. I think the last
Speaker 2: and to learn how to think and learn how to think.
Speaker 2: They think, No, No, you come here so we can indoctrinate you, yep,
Speaker 2: and tell you what to think, and tell you what
Speaker 2: to say, and tell you what to protest, and tell
Speaker 2: you what how to act. That is the difference between
Speaker 2: conservatism and liberalism on a college campus.
Speaker 1: Well, let me say this. If you're a young person,
Speaker 1: maybe you're in high school, maybe you're in college. Maybe
Speaker 1: you're a young professional. Maybe you're not that young anymore.
Speaker 3: Maybe you're in.
Speaker 1: Your thirties, or your forties, or your fifties, or maybe
Speaker 1: your sixties, seventy eighty, maybe you're in your nineties. If
Speaker 1: you want a hero, I think you could do a
Speaker 1: lot worse than Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 2: That's a great I'm putting it.
Speaker 1: He is someone. Look, I spent the better part of
Speaker 1: a year writing this book. There's a lot of things
Speaker 1: to devote my time to. The reason I wrote this
Speaker 1: book is I believe this book needed to be written.
Speaker 1: His story needed to be told. His autobiography is great,
Speaker 1: but it was written a long time ago, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people today haven't read it. And his jurisprudence.
Speaker 1: There have been other other books that have been written
Speaker 1: that have been academic discussions of his jurisprudence, and if
Speaker 1: you're a federal judge, if you're a law professor, that
Speaker 1: can be useful. But there's very little in terms of
Speaker 1: if you're just an American who cares about our country,
Speaker 1: who cares about truth, there's very little that explains what
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas has stood for, what he said when he's
Speaker 1: argued on the court. And this book I've tried to
Speaker 1: do so in a way that it's fun, that is interesting,
Speaker 1: that's telling inside stories. And so again, the website is
Speaker 1: Goingfurther dot Com, Going Further dot Com. I'd encourage you
Speaker 1: if you're listening to this podcast right now, if you're
Speaker 1: watching on YouTube, just click over on your phone to
Speaker 1: Going Further dot Com. Pre order a copy, and you know,
Speaker 1: you may even think about this. Will be August. If
Speaker 1: you have if you have a child, if you have
Speaker 1: a grandchild, if you have relative, you have a friend,
Speaker 1: Birthday's coming up, Christmas is coming up. This book I
Speaker 1: wrote because I want people to read it. I want
Speaker 1: people to read it because I think Clarence Thomas's life,
Speaker 1: his journey, his principles, his commitment to truth, and his courage.
Speaker 1: As before.
Speaker 2: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 2: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
Speaker 2: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 2: I want to get back to the big story number
Speaker 2: three of the week. You may have missed. There was
Speaker 2: a very interesting flashpoint that happened that was underreported or
Speaker 2: just not even touched at UCLA with a con conservative
Speaker 2: speaker that was coming to the law school. And I
Speaker 2: want to be clear, I have no problem with protests
Speaker 2: on college campuses. I think it's great that's outside. Disrupting
Speaker 2: and silencing a conservative speaker or a liberal speaker in
Speaker 2: the venue, that is completely different. UCLA did nothing to
Speaker 2: in essence, stop this from happening, silencing a conservative speaker,
Speaker 2: and it's now gone viral on YouTube and on x
Speaker 2: thank goodness, on social media. I want to get your
Speaker 2: reaction to this because it was pre planned and UCLA
Speaker 2: they didn't do enough to stop it at all.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, everyone has a right to protest, you have
Speaker 1: a right to speak, But what you don't have a
Speaker 1: right to do is engage in what's called the Heckler's veto.
Speaker 1: You don't have a right to silence a speaker you
Speaker 1: disagree with, and that's what the left does. The left
Speaker 1: is terrified of opposing views. They do this frequently. So
Speaker 1: what happened. UCLA Law School invited a lawyer from the
Speaker 1: Department Homeland Security to come talk the Federalist society at
Speaker 1: the law school did leftists came and deliberately disrupted the event.
Speaker 1: And I got to say, this reminded me of an
Speaker 1: event that happened a couple of years ago at Stanford
Speaker 1: Law School, another California law school, where Kyle Duncan, who
Speaker 1: was a federal appellate judge from the Fifth Circuit, spoke
Speaker 1: and you had law students who screamed and yelled and
Speaker 1: said that they hoped that his daughters were raped. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was really twisted. And I got to say, look,
Speaker 1: I'm a lawyer, I'm a law school graduate, member of
Speaker 1: the bar. Any lawyer, if you remember the bar, you
Speaker 1: number one have to pass a character and fitness test.
Speaker 1: And if you're in front of a judge, I got
Speaker 1: to tell you, if you're a lawyer and you scream
Speaker 1: and curse at the judge and say you hope that
Speaker 1: his daughter was raped, you will be held in contempt
Speaker 1: and go to jail like that is not compatible with
Speaker 1: actually being a lawyer. And so if you disagree with
Speaker 1: the views some speakers saying, you can protest outside, you
Speaker 1: can express your own views, but you don't have the
Speaker 1: right to engage in in shouting them down, attacking, silencing them,
Speaker 1: preventing others from listening to those messages. Now, I mentioned
Speaker 1: just a minute ago my brand new book Going Further,
Speaker 1: the incomparable Clarence Thomas. By the way, you can order
Speaker 1: that book at Goingfurther dot com Gooingfurther dot com. The
Speaker 1: book I wrote before that was entitled Unwoke, How to
Speaker 1: Defeat Cultural Marxism in America. And I mentioned that because
Speaker 1: when I talk about college and universities, I talk at
Speaker 1: length about what happened at Stanford. What happened at Stanford
Speaker 1: with this federal judge that was screamed and denounced by
Speaker 1: law students. Well, you know what happened. A couple things happened.
Speaker 1: Number One at Stanford. When this happened, the administrator from
Speaker 1: Stanford Law School came in. Now, she could have said,
Speaker 1: all right, enough, you don't get to silence the speaker.
Speaker 1: You can express your own views, but you don't get
Speaker 1: to prevent the students from hearing the views of this
Speaker 1: federal judge. She didn't do that. Instead, she gave this long,
Speaker 1: pre written speech agreeing with the hecklers and protesters and
Speaker 1: attacking the judge and saying the juice is not worth
Speaker 1: the squeeze. Now, amazingly, Stanford Law School fired her because
Speaker 1: of what she did there, and not only that. I
Speaker 1: wrote a letter. I wrote a letter to the Chief
Speaker 1: Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, and I said, look,
Speaker 1: these are law students that want to be lawyers, some
Speaker 1: of them maybe want to be lawyers in Texas. Part
Speaker 1: of being a lawyer is character and fitness, the ability
Speaker 1: to appear in a court and not scream and yell
Speaker 1: and curse at a judge. These law students have demonstrated
Speaker 1: their unwilling to do so. And I called on the
Speaker 1: Texas Supreme Court to inquire of any graduates of Stanford
Speaker 1: Law School of the relevant time period, did you participate
Speaker 1: in screaming and cursing and shouting down a federal judge?
Speaker 1: And if you did, we're not going to admit you
Speaker 1: as a member of the Texas Bar because that's not
Speaker 1: how lawyers are allowed to behave in front of judges,
Speaker 1: and the Texas Supreme Court did exactly that. They said,
Speaker 1: because the law schools are not enforcing the rules, are
Speaker 1: not protecting free speech, we the state of Texas, are
Speaker 1: going to do So. I got to say, as I
Speaker 1: look at what happened at u c l A, that
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense here and I want you
Speaker 1: to listen. Listen to these students when the lawyer from
Speaker 1: the Apartment of Homeland Security began speaking.
Speaker 4: Today speaker is brought to us by the U c
Speaker 4: l A Chapter of the Federal Society.
Speaker 5: First of all, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: My parents have.
Speaker 5: A lot of very well most of the time. Finally,
Speaker 5: you're anyone who is coming in is paying for this,
Speaker 5: and they typically don't have them ask for it.
Speaker 6: So typically what happens is they will basically agree the
Speaker 6: cartels will help them enter and then they maybe their
Speaker 6: final destination of the responsible pay off the dead at
Speaker 6: the time.
Speaker 5: I mean, so when you're, you know, an a situation
Speaker 5: where you're.
Speaker 2: Working, you look at this and and some of these
Speaker 2: that are up there. Just so people on radio and
Speaker 2: listening on the podcast, they're holding up signs. Some of
Speaker 2: these kids after doing with f bombs and other things
Speaker 2: in the face of this speaker. And these are not
Speaker 2: these are not just random kids. These are people that
Speaker 2: are in law school.
Speaker 1: And they're playing their phones. They're holding up their phones
Speaker 1: and making noises to shut down the speaker. So the
Speaker 1: noises you heard there are are they're holding up their phones.
Speaker 1: And they did this throughout the speech. And and this
Speaker 1: is an example if you disagree with the speaker, although
Speaker 1: I point out they don't even know if they disagree
Speaker 1: with the speaker because they didn't actually listen to what
Speaker 1: he had to say.
Speaker 3: But if you.
Speaker 2: Disagree with this, poverty was paying for part of this?
Speaker 1: You know that's not a crazy question.
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean, seriously, this is the type of
Speaker 2: sting they would sponsor and pay for.
Speaker 1: Look, the amazing thing about leftists is they're so angry
Speaker 1: and they're not willing to actually confront substance. So all right,
Speaker 1: let's say you're a UCLA liberal and you don't like
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's immigration policy. Okay, yeah, you could lay
Speaker 1: out your view of why you think you should have
Speaker 1: a different policy, but you don't see anyone there confronting
Speaker 1: was twelve million people invading this country over the four
Speaker 1: years of Biden. A good thing was the Biden administration
Speaker 1: releasing thousands of murderers and rapists and child molesters and
Speaker 1: drunk drivers and gang bangers. A good thing. They don't
Speaker 1: address that because those are actual facts. Those are actual
Speaker 1: facts that resulted in Americans being murdered, being assaulted, and
Speaker 1: women being raped and children being raped. They don't want
Speaker 1: to engage in that. I'm perfectly fine if these leftists
Speaker 1: want to go have a protest outside and say we
Speaker 1: love open borders invade our country, which sadly seems to
Speaker 1: be the view of the leftist, but they're not actually
Speaker 1: engaging in ideas. They're trying to use oppression. If you
Speaker 1: disagree with someone, respond with reason and logic, don't respond
Speaker 1: with bullying and force and essentially trying to stifle free speech.
Speaker 1: And where the hell was the administration of UCLA. Why
Speaker 1: was there no administrator there saying no, you don't get
Speaker 1: to shut this event down just because you disagree.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 2: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict, or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.