Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you. It's really nice to have you with us
Speaker 1: on this Wednesday morning. And Senator, we've got two big
Speaker 1: topics to discuss today, including something in the Senate that
Speaker 1: got a little spicy between you and Cory Booker.
Speaker 2: Well, it did so yesterday I charity hearing that was
Speaker 2: examining the abuse of power from individual district court judges
Speaker 2: who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and the
Speaker 2: Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of lawfair.
Speaker 2: This is in the last four years, we saw Democrat
Speaker 2: prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That that was
Speaker 2: they were doing everything they could to stop the voters
Speaker 2: from re electing President Trump.
Speaker 3: That failed.
Speaker 2: Now during the Trump presidency, we are seeing lawfair unfold.
Speaker 2: We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day.
Speaker 2: We are seeing left wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day,
Speaker 2: and they are seeking out radical left wing judges who've
Speaker 2: been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have
Speaker 2: seen is we have seen over forty nationwide injunctions against
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of
Speaker 2: just how egregious this is. In the first one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty years of our nation's history, Ben, do you
Speaker 2: know how many nationwide injunctions were issued.
Speaker 1: I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to
Speaker 1: forty it's not going to be a lot.
Speaker 2: The number would be zero. So the first one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty years of our nation's history, there was not
Speaker 2: a single nationwide injunction that was issued. Now, how about
Speaker 2: the twentieth century, the twentieth century, the entire hundred years
Speaker 2: from nineteen hundred to nineteen ninety nine, there have been
Speaker 2: more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the
Speaker 2: first five months than there were in the entire twentieth century.
Speaker 2: There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump
Speaker 2: than there have been during the George W. Bush presidency,
Speaker 2: plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency
Speaker 2: all combined. This is an assault. You have left wing judges,
Speaker 2: individual radical district judges who are issuing injunctions, trying to
Speaker 2: set aside the policies of the president and trying to
Speaker 2: set aside the will of the American voters. And it
Speaker 2: is an assault in democracy, and I got to say
Speaker 2: Democrats not only are okay with it, they're enthusiastically cheering
Speaker 2: it on.
Speaker 1: It really is shocking, and the level of I think
Speaker 1: attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear. It is
Speaker 1: these judges are saying, we're going to take away the
Speaker 1: power of the presidency. The danger there is aspect of
Speaker 1: that precedent is also something that I would hope that
Speaker 1: many people that maybe consider themselves to be moderate or
Speaker 1: liberal would be concerned about, because that's not how this
Speaker 1: country is supposed to work now.
Speaker 2: It should not be an individual district judge having the
Speaker 2: ability to set aside the policies of the United States government,
Speaker 2: the president of the United States, and the policies that
Speaker 2: the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest
Speaker 2: issue in this last election was the voters were sick
Speaker 2: and tired of the open borders we saw for four
Speaker 2: years the invasion of twelve million illegal immigrants, and they
Speaker 2: wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists,
Speaker 2: child molesters, violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is doing. And we are seeing the Democrats who are
Speaker 2: suing over and over again and they're getting radical left
Speaker 2: wing judges to issue orders saying stop deport in criminals
Speaker 2: and it's lawless. By the way, federal immigration law gives
Speaker 2: enormous power to the president to deport illegal immigrants, and
Speaker 2: these radical judges they don't care. And I will tell
Speaker 2: you as we were discussing this in this hearing, So
Speaker 2: the Democrats all showed up for this hearing and they
Speaker 2: were loaded for bear, and they were all attacking President Trump.
Speaker 2: That was no surprise. And they were saying that the
Speaker 2: President is horribly saying mean, mean things about judges. And
Speaker 2: mind you, these are judges who are dramatically abusing their power.
Speaker 2: And yet the Democrats were all pretending to be horrified
Speaker 2: that the President would criticize judges. Now, I want to
Speaker 2: play for you in exchange I had I was talking
Speaker 2: about the hypocrisy of Democrats who are claiming to be
Speaker 2: defending judges. And yet when Joe Biden was president and
Speaker 2: you had violent mobs protesting outside the homes of Supreme
Speaker 2: Court justices, the Democrats said not a word. They were
Speaker 2: not bothered at all that the Biden Justice Department refused
Speaker 2: to enforce the criminal law that makes it a crime
Speaker 2: to protest and outside the home of a justice and
Speaker 2: to threaten the justice's families as they were. And there
Speaker 2: was an exchange. So Corey Booker, he's a Democrat on
Speaker 2: the Judiciary Committee. Corey wants to run for president. He
Speaker 2: wants to run as the great Liberal hope. And Corey
Speaker 2: decided to engage with me and attack me on this issue.
Speaker 2: And he and I went back and forth. And I
Speaker 2: want to play this entire exchange. It's a little bit extended,
Speaker 2: but this exchange was striking because he jumped in and
Speaker 2: he's like, no, no, no, I'm going to fight you
Speaker 2: on this point. And I've got to say, I don't
Speaker 2: want to be a spoiler here, but I don't think
Speaker 2: it went well for Corey. Give a listen.
Speaker 1: It did not.
Speaker 3: Here it is indulge me for a moment.
Speaker 2: We indulge you every moment.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that active generosity. It's just something you said
Speaker 3: that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed.
Speaker 3: And you're welcome. But when Judge Errol was killed in
Speaker 3: New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate, they're outpouring
Speaker 3: of support, their outpouring of concern. They're willing to work
Speaker 3: together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary. It shows the
Speaker 3: truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery
Speaker 3: rhetoric that you were selling, we're really by parties working bipartisanship.
Speaker 3: Cornin and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about, got
Speaker 3: together and actually passed a bill to better protect our
Speaker 3: Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours.
Speaker 3: You know, Gorsich and I disagree on a lot of stuff.
Speaker 3: I knew his wife before he did. We studied together
Speaker 3: at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there
Speaker 3: were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I
Speaker 3: remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons.
Speaker 3: I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman, are more than once
Speaker 3: condemning those attacks on Republican appointed jurists. To say things
Speaker 3: like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and
Speaker 3: feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true.
Speaker 3: It's just plain not true. And I think you know that.
Speaker 3: But we can pull from the record from my colleagues
Speaker 3: in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it. There's a
Speaker 3: lot of substantive things to say here, but to think
Speaker 3: that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being
Speaker 3: threatened was not in existence. I think that's unfair and
Speaker 3: really concerns me that you would say that in the
Speaker 3: way that you did. Well.
Speaker 2: I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note,
Speaker 2: as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things, and
Speaker 2: it is existing Federal law eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh
Speaker 2: seven that makes it a crime to protest at a
Speaker 2: judge's home. And the law provides whoever, with the intent
Speaker 2: of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,
Speaker 2: or with the intent or of influencing any judge, duror witness,
Speaker 2: or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets
Speaker 2: or parades in or near a building housing a court
Speaker 2: of the United States, inter near a building or residence
Speaker 2: occupied or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer,
Speaker 2: or with such intent uses any sound, truck or similar device,
Speaker 2: or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any
Speaker 2: such building or residence, shall be fined under this title
Speaker 2: or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That
Speaker 2: is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry
Speaker 2: mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices homes, and in
Speaker 2: the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody.
Speaker 2: We had the Attorney General sitting at that table, and
Speaker 2: multiple Republican senators asked him, why are you not enforcing
Speaker 2: the law. What they are doing is a crime. And
Speaker 2: my friend in New Jersey said, it is a lie
Speaker 2: to say we the Democrats condone this. I would challenge
Speaker 2: my friend find a single Democrat senator on this committee
Speaker 2: holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law.
Speaker 2: I was here at those hearings, and I do not
Speaker 2: recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General,
Speaker 2: you should arrest these people who are violating the law.
Speaker 2: You should protect the judges. I agree that there was
Speaker 2: general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator
Speaker 2: that I ever saw in this committee was willing to
Speaker 2: hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding
Speaker 2: the federal criminal law. Because the Biden administration agreed with
Speaker 2: the protesters and I think wanted those justices haurrassed at
Speaker 2: their home.
Speaker 3: I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you
Speaker 3: made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in
Speaker 3: the face of protests as Supreme Court justices homes again,
Speaker 3: we joined together in a bi parisan way not only
Speaker 3: to condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round
Speaker 3: the clock security protection literally days was introduced May fifth
Speaker 3: past the Senate bi partisan fashion on May night. So
Speaker 3: if you're saying that we didn't criticize them.
Speaker 2: And arrest a single person on who are now changing
Speaker 2: the that is?
Speaker 3: That is what I say again. I'll I'll pull the record.
Speaker 3: It's arrest even one again.
Speaker 2: The answer is not my.
Speaker 3: Point to you. Who is the accusation that the Democrats
Speaker 3: on this committee do not care about the safety of
Speaker 3: federal judges. I did not interrupt you, sir. I would
Speaker 3: appreciate if you let me finish. I am sick and
Speaker 3: tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which
Speaker 3: is one of the reasons why we have such divisions
Speaker 3: in this country. The attacks we see from the President
Speaker 3: of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges
Speaker 3: through is to what we should be talking about. That
Speaker 3: puts people in danger. I'm simply taking issue with the
Speaker 3: claim that you made at the top that people on
Speaker 3: the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about
Speaker 3: the safety and the security of judges and said nothing.
Speaker 3: You said we were silent after people's houses were protested.
Speaker 3: That is a patent lie, sir. We were not silent.
Speaker 3: We took action. We've joined in a bipartisan way to
Speaker 3: protect those judges, as was done in a bipartisan way
Speaker 3: to protect a New Jersey judge after their horrific attack
Speaker 3: at their home. So I see you now trying to
Speaker 3: shift the debate to whether we talk to an attorney general.
Speaker 3: I'm simply taking issue with this accusation that somehow we
Speaker 3: Democrats are so bad because we don't call out threats
Speaker 3: to college to our judicial colleagues, and that is wrong.
Speaker 3: You could change the argument now that you want, but
Speaker 3: what you said was patently not true and was in
Speaker 3: fact a patent lie.
Speaker 2: So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from
Speaker 2: New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent lie,
Speaker 2: and says he's doing so in defense of lowering the rhetoric.
Speaker 2: There is some irony to doing those two together. I'll
Speaker 2: point out that in the entire course of those remarks,
Speaker 2: Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made,
Speaker 2: which is the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted
Speaker 2: zero people for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat
Speaker 2: senator on this committee was silent about it. And this
Speaker 2: was an ongoing pattern four months. And I would note
Speaker 2: also that the Senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls
Speaker 2: about language threatening judges, and yet I do not recall
Speaker 2: a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word
Speaker 2: when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices
Speaker 2: by name Gorsitchen Kavanaugh, and he said, you have unleashed
Speaker 2: the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And not
Speaker 2: a single Democrat senator had a word to say about this,
Speaker 2: And so their outrage is selective. And I will give
Speaker 2: my colleague from New Jersey a chance to just answer
Speaker 2: a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden Justice Department
Speaker 2: have enforced the criminal law against protesting at a justice's home,
Speaker 2: Yes or no.
Speaker 3: So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next
Speaker 3: day and you holding that standard for him, and not
Speaker 3: for your president, who you actually rightfully describe when you
Speaker 3: were running against him in a primary. I would love
Speaker 3: to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about
Speaker 3: the danger of our president and his rhetoric. But now
Speaker 3: you are failing in fact blind to the very things
Speaker 3: you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump
Speaker 3: would know an apology if it hit him in the head,
Speaker 3: never set apologizing. So again, you are very very sir,
Speaker 3: very very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your
Speaker 3: criticisms of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 2: So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer
Speaker 2: the question and did not tell us whether the criminal
Speaker 2: law should be enforced, because he knows the answer is yes,
Speaker 2: and he knows that the Biden Department of Justice was
Speaker 2: being wildly political and partisan in refusing to enforce the
Speaker 2: law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court justice's rulings.
Speaker 1: That was one very entertaining back and forth center. I
Speaker 1: wish there was actually more of this in the Senate
Speaker 1: because it's a great moment where you can see two
Speaker 1: very different viewpoints, two very different ways of looking at this,
Speaker 1: and like you said, it did not go well for
Speaker 1: Corey Booker, but I actually love that there's this type
Speaker 1: of grand debate.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we need to have this engagement. We need to
Speaker 2: have this engagement on ideas, and it's striking the Democrats.
Speaker 2: They claim they support democracy, but yet when it comes
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump, they want a single unelected district judge
Speaker 2: striking down every policy he implements. And they don't care
Speaker 2: that the American people voted for it. They want power.
Speaker 2: And look, in the course of this hearing, there were
Speaker 2: a couple of points I made that no Democrat had
Speaker 2: a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed
Speaker 2: over and over again before radical left wing judges. Of
Speaker 2: the forty plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against
Speaker 2: the Trump administration, thirty five of them have been in five jurisdictions,
Speaker 2: five left wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these left wing
Speaker 2: judges because they know that they'll rule for them, and
Speaker 2: the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just violating
Speaker 2: the law. Well, you know what, if that were true,
Speaker 2: you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not.
Speaker 2: The Democrat attorneys general, the left wing interest groups are
Speaker 2: going to seek out the radicals because they know the
Speaker 2: radicals will rule for them, and we're not seeing Democrat
Speaker 2: senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say, give
Speaker 2: any explanation as to why one radical judge should be
Speaker 2: able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President
Speaker 2: of the United States, who was elected by the American
Speaker 2: people to secure the borders, to bring us back to
Speaker 2: common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important,
Speaker 2: and I got to say, I think Corey Booker listen,
Speaker 2: Corey is running for president of the United States. That's
Speaker 2: not complicated. He's going to run in twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 2: and he's running in the left lane of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 2: So he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren, he's going
Speaker 2: to take on AOC and he's going to argue, I
Speaker 2: am liberal Democrat here mirror. But at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you got
Speaker 2: a problem of you actually got to address the substance,
Speaker 2: and I think today we did and it was not
Speaker 2: the outcome he was hoping for.
Speaker 1: It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments
Speaker 1: that I'll be interested to see when this audio and
Speaker 1: video comes back to haunt him down the road when
Speaker 1: that president run you mentioned, because I think he thought
Speaker 1: he was about to have a moment and it's not
Speaker 1: the moment he probably was hoping for if you go
Speaker 1: back and look at that tape. I want to also
Speaker 1: get to this other big issue, and that is out
Speaker 1: in Colorado and the tear attack there. We've got a
Speaker 1: significant update on this individual and also real concerns and
Speaker 1: honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat
Speaker 1: of other terrorists that may be in this country that
Speaker 1: were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration.
Speaker 2: Well, it turns out that four years of open borders
Speaker 2: allowing over twelve million people to come into this country illegally,
Speaker 2: that was a really bad point. And even worse, look,
Speaker 2: there were ten million people who were apprehended by the
Speaker 2: Biden administration. They let them go. That is problematic on
Speaker 2: many many fronts, But the most disturbing number is two million.
Speaker 2: They're roughly two million god aways. Those are people that
Speaker 2: crossed the border. We know cross the border, but yet
Speaker 2: they escaped detection. And those god aways are much much
Speaker 2: more likely to be criminals. They're much more likely to
Speaker 2: be murders, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, gang members. And if
Speaker 2: you look at this, this radical who attacked and fire
Speaker 2: bombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado, this was
Speaker 2: a guy who never should have been in this country
Speaker 2: to begin with. He came in on a tourist fe
Speaker 2: SA he overstated, and this was a radical Islamist. And
Speaker 2: I want to read to you a tweet from Bill Malusion. Now,
Speaker 2: regular listeners of this podcast know Bill Malusian is the
Speaker 2: best reporter in America. He reports for Fox News and
Speaker 2: he's been detailing what's going on at the border. Here's
Speaker 2: what Bill Malusion tweeted, breaking new details on Colorado terror
Speaker 2: attack suspect as Fedes charged him with federal hate crime,
Speaker 2: according to federal court filings obtained by Fox News, Egyptian
Speaker 2: illegal alien Mohammed Solomon admitted in an interview that he
Speaker 2: wanted to kill all quote Zionist people, and he had
Speaker 2: been planning the attack for a year, and that he
Speaker 2: would conduct the attack again if he could. He allegedly
Speaker 2: told investigators that he waited to carry out the attack
Speaker 2: until his daughter graduated high school, and that he specifically
Speaker 2: targeted the quote Zionist group in Boulder after learning about
Speaker 2: them from an online search. It was premeditated, as he
Speaker 2: allegedly admitted he knew they would gather on Sunday at
Speaker 2: one pm, he arrived and waited for them. Additionally, investigators
Speaker 2: found a black container with fourteen more molotov cocktails near
Speaker 2: the spot he was arrested in. Inside his vehicle, investigators
Speaker 2: found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine, and USAID. This
Speaker 2: man was admitted into the country via a tourist visa
Speaker 2: during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed an asylum request,
Speaker 2: and was granted work authorization by the Biden administration, which
Speaker 2: expired at the end of March of this year. So understand,
Speaker 2: this guy came into this country, he overstayed his visa,
Speaker 2: and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look a radical
Speaker 2: Islamic terrorist. We want you to stay. It was not
Speaker 2: hard to figure out from his social media who this
Speaker 2: guy was. But the Biden administration, they were not focused
Speaker 2: on defending this nation. They were not focused on stopping
Speaker 2: terrorists from coming into this country. Instead, they made a
Speaker 2: political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben, why
Speaker 2: would Democrats open up the borders. It clearly hurt them
Speaker 2: in the flat last election. Why would they do this?
Speaker 2: And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed
Speaker 2: twelve million illegal immigrants, they said, listen, every one of
Speaker 2: these we think are going to vote for Democrats. We
Speaker 2: want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally.
Speaker 2: The rest of them, they believed, if they stayed in power,
Speaker 2: they'd grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if
Speaker 2: they have to bring in Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who were
Speaker 2: murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that.
Speaker 1: This is the part that I really think we do
Speaker 1: need to make it clear, not just now but in
Speaker 1: the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to this
Speaker 1: in your comments there. Their plan they knew was going
Speaker 1: to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint. They
Speaker 1: were willing to play Russian Roulette with that open border.
Speaker 1: And they were warned and they saw the people that
Speaker 1: were on the terrorists watch list center and they didn't
Speaker 1: care because it was their overall plan to flood the
Speaker 1: country with the legal immigrants and fundamentally changes country. They
Speaker 1: knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists,
Speaker 1: some of them on the terrorists watch lists at the
Speaker 1: time to get into this country, and they still continued
Speaker 1: to have the open border policy because they basically said, Hey,
Speaker 1: it's part of our bigger plan, and there's going to
Speaker 1: be collateral damage from.
Speaker 2: This, so be it and listen when I say this,
Speaker 2: this sounds harsh, and you sort of think of a
Speaker 2: listener who's not terribly political and they're like, wait, the
Speaker 2: Democrats couldn't really want more terrorists in this country. But
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, that was the inevitable
Speaker 2: consequence of the policies they put in place. When you
Speaker 2: allow twelve million people to cross the border illegally, and
Speaker 2: by the way, the Biden Border Control the border patrol,
Speaker 2: they instructed their agents be on the lookout for hesbela
Speaker 2: Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jehad terrorists coming across this border. Look,
Speaker 2: we have radical Zealots who have declared Jahad and America
Speaker 2: who have demanded of their terrorists murder as many Americans
Speaker 2: as you can and murder as many Jews and Israelis
Speaker 2: as you can. And in the face of those very
Speaker 2: real and clear national security threats, the fact that the
Speaker 2: Biden administration and the Democrats, it wasn't just Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: it wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was every single Democrat
Speaker 2: in the Senate. It was every single Democrat in the House.
Speaker 2: Because they voted in favor of open borders over and
Speaker 2: over and over again, they knew that some of the
Speaker 2: people coming were just like this radical and listen, I've
Speaker 2: reintroduced this week legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as
Speaker 2: a terrorist organization. The Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 1: This is something you've been sounding the alarm on for
Speaker 1: quite some time. I want to be very clear about that.
Speaker 2: So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than
Speaker 2: a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It
Speaker 2: is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt,
Speaker 2: it is in cutter it is all across the Middle East.
Speaker 2: And the Muslim Brotherhood openly aggressively they support hamas they
Speaker 2: support Hesbela. They are a terrorist organization and by the way,
Speaker 2: to be clear, in Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look,
Speaker 2: we had Mohammed Morsey who was the leader of e
Speaker 2: who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now now thankfully Mohammed
Speaker 2: Morsey was defeated and he was defeated by Alcesi, who
Speaker 2: is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, look if you
Speaker 2: look at the Arabs who are dealing with this, the
Speaker 2: Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadis, they believe in using violence,
Speaker 2: using murder to force people to embrace their radical Islamus view.
Speaker 2: And yet these are these are the radicals that are fighting,
Speaker 2: that that are murdering Israelis, and that are murdering Americans.
Speaker 2: And and this is exactly the radicals that this lunatic
Speaker 2: in Boulder, Colorado was embracing, and that Joe Biden, the
Speaker 2: Democrats were letting endo this country.
Speaker 1: Final question on the on the the designate of Muslim
Speaker 1: Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to
Speaker 1: be the moment where you think there's a decent, there's
Speaker 1: a chance that this can become reality, or there's still
Speaker 1: going to be Democrats at all costs that say we
Speaker 1: are going to defend this.
Speaker 2: So I hope so so right now today, the Muslim
Speaker 2: Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 2: they're designated in the United Arab Emirates, They're designated in Egypt,
Speaker 2: in Syria and Bahrain. But the United States has yet
Speaker 2: to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When
Speaker 2: you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jahad,
Speaker 2: the murdering of innocence, they are a terrorist organization. And
Speaker 2: so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term
Speaker 2: for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated. We did not succeed.
Speaker 2: I think we will succeed this administration. I think President
Speaker 2: Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: keep pressing designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
Speaker 2: because because that is who they are, and we saw
Speaker 2: the horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 1: It's an incredible story and it's a sad one. It's
Speaker 1: also one that we must keep following and keep fighting
Speaker 1: to protect American citizens. And we're gonna keep keeping you
Speaker 1: updated on this story moving forward here on VERDIC. I
Speaker 1: promise you that don't forget. We do this show Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday, so make sure you hit that subscribe
Speaker 1: or auto download button so that you do not miss
Speaker 1: an episode. Please write it to five star review. It
Speaker 1: helps us reach new listeners more than you can imagine.
Speaker 1: So if you've not done that, please do that and
Speaker 1: share this wherever you are, like I said on media
Speaker 1: and the CINA, and I will see you back here
Speaker 1: Friday morning.