Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Center Ted Cruz, the week
Speaker 1: in Review, Ben Ferguson with you, and here are some
Speaker 1: of the big stories that you may have missed that
Speaker 1: we talked about this week. First up, a major victory
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump by immigration judge that has now said
Speaker 1: yes he can deport foreign students who come to America
Speaker 1: and advocate violence against Jews. And up next, Harvard has
Speaker 1: been receiving billions of dollars from US the taxpayers. Well,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is now saying we're cutting off a
Speaker 1: lot of that money. I'll give you the details why
Speaker 1: as well. And finally, the EPA administrator Lee Zelden joined
Speaker 1: us to talk about the California wildfire cleanup that Trump
Speaker 1: inherited and how the Trump administration was able to get
Speaker 1: it done quickly. It's the weekend review and it starts
Speaker 1: right now. I want to move to this other big
Speaker 1: issue also that we mentioned earlier, and it was a
Speaker 1: massive victory for the Trump administration when it came to
Speaker 1: an immigration judge doing a major ruling on deporting students
Speaker 1: that are advocating for the death and destruction of students
Speaker 1: on campus that by the way, are Jewish, are advocating
Speaker 1: their support for terrorists organizations. And this all comes out
Speaker 1: of Columbia University, where it has become a major point
Speaker 1: of all, right, who's going to win this? Is the
Speaker 1: Trump administration going to win this or are the radicals
Speaker 1: on the left going to win? And it was a
Speaker 1: big win for Donald Trump this week.
Speaker 2: Well it was a win. I don't know that it
Speaker 2: was a massive victory because it's clearly right under the law.
Speaker 2: So it was a win that was going to happen,
Speaker 2: but I'm glad it did. And so listen, one of
Speaker 2: the things that President Trump is doing that is exactly
Speaker 2: right is the Trump administration is deporting those who engage
Speaker 2: in anti Israel, anti American protests who are foreign students,
Speaker 2: who are on student visas, who are non American citizens.
Speaker 2: You don't have an entitlement to be here. And look,
Speaker 2: we talked about during the Biden administration when these viciously
Speaker 2: how Israel anti Semitic protests were going on, that the
Speaker 2: Biden administration could do something about it, but they didn't
Speaker 2: want to because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 2: they agree with the pro Hamas protesters, they agree with
Speaker 2: the radicals, and so you didn't see the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice investigating them. You didn't see them following the money.
Speaker 2: You didn't see them trying to do anything really to
Speaker 2: protect the Jewish students on campus who were being targeted
Speaker 2: for harassment and threats of violence. Well, you and I,
Speaker 2: in fact, one of the very first pods we did
Speaker 2: in the new administration, as we interviewed Pam Bondy at
Speaker 2: SEAPAC and in that podcast with with then Attorney General
Speaker 2: Bondi right after she got confirmed, she made clear then
Speaker 2: they're gonna go after these radicals. And I will say
Speaker 2: immigration law gives considerable, considerable flexibility to the administration to
Speaker 2: decide who who that is here on a permissive visa
Speaker 2: can be sent home. And so in this case, you
Speaker 2: had Mahmoud Khalil, who was a Columbia anti Israel protester,
Speaker 2: who who the administration is in the process of deporting,
Speaker 2: and and he is challenging that in court and an
Speaker 2: immigration judge ruled that he can be deported due to
Speaker 2: his involvement in last year's pro Haamas protests at Columbia.
Speaker 2: And this is a judge, Judge Jamie Corman's comans rather
Speaker 2: uh and and he said said the government had met
Speaker 2: its its burden of proof. I think that's that's clearly right.
Speaker 2: And and the Department of Homeland Security laid out how
Speaker 2: Khalil misrepresented himself on his green card application, and in particular,
Speaker 2: he was not upfront about his involvement with organizations he's
Speaker 2: involved with. He he willfully failed to disclose his employment
Speaker 2: with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut
Speaker 2: when he applied for permanent US residency uh And what
Speaker 2: what what the federal government argued is that made him
Speaker 2: inadmissible at the time he was given his green card
Speaker 2: because of quote fraud or wilful misrepresentation of material fact.
Speaker 2: He also failed to disclose his work for UNRA uh
Speaker 2: And And you know UNRA we've talked about before, is
Speaker 2: the UN agency that that has literally been in bed
Speaker 2: with AMAS. You had multiple A Moss terrorists working at
Speaker 2: on Rah. UNRA has given significant material aid hamas terrorists.
Speaker 2: And and the court ruled that that look that that
Speaker 2: is is ample grounds to deport Uh, to deport him.
Speaker 2: I think that ruling is is clearly right. And if
Speaker 2: you looked at at at Khalil. You looked at his writings.
Speaker 2: This is someone who is viciously anti Israel and anti America.
Speaker 2: And in fact he's using the deportation to just rail
Speaker 2: against America and what a hostile environment it is. And
Speaker 2: in fact Khalil's argument, here's something he wrote. He wrote
Speaker 2: an op ed in Columbia, you know, attacking how dare
Speaker 2: you to port me? And he says something. He accuses
Speaker 2: the Columbia administrators of manufacturing quote public hysteria about anti
Speaker 2: Semitism without once mentioning the tens of thousands of Palestinians
Speaker 2: murdered under bombs made of your dollars. So understand, this
Speaker 2: guy's complaint is that the Columbia administrators stood too strongly
Speaker 2: against anti Semitism. They let their entire campus get taken over,
Speaker 2: that they let Jewish students be terrorized, they let campus
Speaker 2: buildings be taken over. They were weak and and effective,
Speaker 2: which is why the president of Columbia had to step down.
Speaker 2: And yet this guy's claim is Nope, no, they were
Speaker 2: too strong and against anti Semitism. They should have been
Speaker 2: effectively marching alongside me in favor of Hamas. This ruling
Speaker 2: is clearly right I'm glad it came down. There are
Speaker 2: going to be more rulings like this. If you are.
Speaker 1: Here, this will have precedent, right like this is.
Speaker 2: Going to be no no. This is a ruling of
Speaker 2: an immigration judge in this case. So it doesn't resolve
Speaker 2: the issue across the country, but the immigration law is
Speaker 2: quite clear that that. Look, Khalil's case was harder because
Speaker 2: he was a legal permanent resident. He has a green card,
Speaker 2: and legal permanent residents have greater legal protections than just
Speaker 2: somebody under student visa. Somebody under a student visa, they
Speaker 2: can have their visa revoked and sent back. It is
Speaker 2: not a high threshold to do that. To revoke a
Speaker 2: green card is a higher threshold. And so the ruling
Speaker 2: here is well that the Department Homeland Security gave evidence
Speaker 2: that he had lied when getting his green card and
Speaker 2: that was basis for deportation. And so that I think
Speaker 2: that's the right ruling here. It's a good ruling, and
Speaker 2: I think you're gonna see Listen, let me say to
Speaker 2: any anti American radicals who've come in on student visas,
Speaker 2: you are not welcome in America. And if you are
Speaker 2: going to use our hospitality to attack and threaten and
Speaker 2: harass fellow students. If you're going to use our hospitality
Speaker 2: to attack America, get the hell out and and we're
Speaker 2: going to help you get the hell out. And that
Speaker 2: is one of the best things that Trump administration is
Speaker 2: doing right now.
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two, which
Speaker 1: brings us to Harvard, and Trump has said we are
Speaker 1: freezing the funding going to Harvard. They have slashed over
Speaker 1: two point two billion in funding to Harvard after the
Speaker 1: school is defied federal law, and the White House says,
Speaker 1: we're not playing around. A lot of Americans, by the way,
Speaker 1: may not realize that two point two in fact, a
Speaker 1: lot more than that is going to Harvard of your
Speaker 1: tax dollurs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Harvard gets roughly nine billion dollars in federal taxpayer dollars,
Speaker 2: so it gets an enormous amount. Now, it's a huge
Speaker 2: research institution, and it does some good research. It does
Speaker 2: medical research and scientific research, and some of that researches
Speaker 2: is valuable. But what the Trump administration is announced the
Speaker 2: Joint Task Force on combating anti semitism. Has announced that
Speaker 2: it's freezing over two billion dollars in multi year grants
Speaker 2: and contracts to Harvard. And that was following the school's
Speaker 2: president putting out a statement saying it would not comply
Speaker 2: with the Trump administration's demands on anti semitism. And I
Speaker 2: got to say, this is a battle that that Harvard
Speaker 2: and a lot of academic institutions are putting out statements
Speaker 2: in support of Harvard. So brave, so brave. And I
Speaker 2: will say most other institutions, when the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: threatened their funding, they've caved, and they've caved very quickly.
Speaker 2: But but the other institutions are happy to applaud Harvard
Speaker 2: and say, yes, yes, yes, lose your funds. You're you're
Speaker 2: so brave.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And And what is striking is that Democrats, Barack Obama,
Speaker 2: the Democrat governor Massachusetts, are all lining up behind Harvard.
Speaker 2: And and and there is a reason when you look
Speaker 2: at the core basis of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, there was a time in a prior generation
Speaker 2: when the Democrat Party was considered a blue collar party,
Speaker 2: and in the age of FDR, it was a party
Speaker 2: of union members and working class uh and and and
Speaker 2: In fact, one of the reasons that that FDR was
Speaker 2: was treated with contempt is because he was a very
Speaker 2: wealthy person, as many Democrats are. But but he was
Speaker 2: considered a quote traitor to his class because he was
Speaker 2: a rich man who became a historic Democrat leader. Well,
Speaker 2: that Democrat Party doesn't exist anymore. The Democrat Party no
Speaker 2: longer cares about the blue collar and in fact, they
Speaker 2: routinely to de stroy blue collar jobs. Today's Democrat Party
Speaker 2: is a party of coastal elites and and it is
Speaker 2: a party that is comprised of big universities and and
Speaker 2: and big business and big Tech and big Hollywood, all
Speaker 2: of whom have overlapping problems. All of them are are
Speaker 2: in bed with China and and and all of them
Speaker 2: have been taken over by by radical leftism, by cultural Marxism.
Speaker 2: As you know. The most recent book I wrote is
Speaker 2: entitled Unwoke, How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America, And
Speaker 2: each chapter breaks down a different major institution that's been
Speaker 2: captured by the radical left. The first chapter is entitled
Speaker 2: Universities the wuhan Lab of the Woke virus, and and
Speaker 2: and what I argue is that it is universities and
Speaker 2: sadly my alma mater, Harvard, where the woke virus was
Speaker 2: first created in a lab, and then it mutated and spread,
Speaker 2: and it spread throughout just about every other major institution
Speaker 2: in this country. And so Harvard has been the locusts
Speaker 2: of much of the radical leftism and cultural Marxism that
Speaker 2: has done enormous damage to our institutions. And Harvard is
Speaker 2: digging in, and they're claiming that they're digging in in
Speaker 2: defense of free speech. But what they're really digging in
Speaker 2: on is they don't want to change their policies Number one,
Speaker 2: that discriminate on race. They love discriminating on race, they
Speaker 2: love dei that they love putting race front and center,
Speaker 2: which by the way, is directly contrary to federal civil
Speaker 2: rights law. And they also want to continue admitting radical
Speaker 2: anti Semites. They want to continue looking the other way
Speaker 2: at Prohamas protesters who threaten Jewish students, who threaten violence,
Speaker 2: who threaten intimidation, who call for genocide, And they want
Speaker 2: to continue admitting and promoting anti American radicals. And that
Speaker 2: includes both students and faculty. And so when the administration
Speaker 2: put a series of demands in place that Harvard said, No.
Speaker 2: I got to tell you, Harvard thinks they want this fight.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, the Trump administration is eager for this
Speaker 2: fight with Harvard, and you could not ask Harvard has
Speaker 2: an endowment of over fifty billion dollars. And you know,
Speaker 2: one of my favorite responses to that, to Harvard's supposed
Speaker 2: stance on principle where they talked about standing for the
Speaker 2: First Amendment is Hillsdale College, which is a great college.
Speaker 2: It is a conservative college, a free market college. But
Speaker 2: one of the things they do is they don't take
Speaker 2: federal money. And Hillsdale actually twigted, well, you can say
Speaker 2: anything you like, just don't take federal money. And oddly enough,
Speaker 2: Harvard doesn't want to do that. They want the taxpayers
Speaker 2: to fund them, but they want to continue to be
Speaker 2: embracing racism and vitriolic anti American sentiment while at the
Speaker 2: same time being funded by American taxpayers.
Speaker 1: So when you look at this fight, I do think
Speaker 1: the very interesting parts of all of this that we're
Speaker 1: talking about is now Americans are really waking up and
Speaker 1: realizing like where their money has been going, how much
Speaker 1: of it is going, And you're right. There's some of
Speaker 1: this as research, and that's the thing we can be
Speaker 1: proud of, and that's a good thing. But a lot
Speaker 1: of this is going to indoctrinating kids with radical leftist ideals.
Speaker 1: And that's part of the reason why I think they
Speaker 1: need this money, right, They want the money for that reason.
Speaker 1: They've been doing a great job of doing that for
Speaker 1: the last several decades. So if the money does dry
Speaker 1: up at places like Harvard and then we start to
Speaker 1: see more questions being asked about other money, not only
Speaker 1: could this change universities in a positive way, I think
Speaker 1: for free speech and not having one set of views
Speaker 1: that are indoctrinated, but it could also say the taxpayers
Speaker 1: a hell of a lot of money because it's not
Speaker 1: just Harvard that's getting cash.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, but Harvard is the perfect test subject. And
Speaker 2: our universities right now have become indoctrination labs. They've become
Speaker 2: places that enforce rigid orthodox and if you say something
Speaker 2: that is contrary to the radical leftist view, you risk
Speaker 2: being disciplined, you risk being having your grades, and you
Speaker 2: also risk just not being admitted. And look, some of
Speaker 2: the question comes down to a very simple what is
Speaker 2: it that the administration was requesting. Because if the administration
Speaker 2: was demanding, Harvard must teach in every class that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is the greatest president who have ever lived. I
Speaker 2: would agree with Harvard that no university could give in
Speaker 2: to a government demand about a specific position like that,
Speaker 2: particularly if it's one they disagree with. But that's not
Speaker 2: what the Trump administration said. And I have in front
Speaker 2: of me the letter that the Trump administration said. It's
Speaker 2: five pages. I'm not going to read it all, but
Speaker 2: I'm going to read some of the portions of it.
Speaker 2: So it is addressed both to Alan Garber, who is
Speaker 2: the president of Harvard University, and Penny Prisker, who is
Speaker 2: the lead member of the Harvard Corporation. Penny Pritzker, by
Speaker 2: the way, was a cabinet member under Barack Obama. And
Speaker 2: the Harvard Corporation runs all of Harvard. And it's this
Speaker 2: privately held corporation of all Democrats that run Harvard as
Speaker 2: this left wing bastion. Here's how the letter begins, Dear
Speaker 2: doctor Garber, the United States has invested in Harvard University's
Speaker 2: operation because of the value to the country of scholarly
Speaker 2: discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement.
Speaker 2: It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights law, and
Speaker 2: it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of
Speaker 2: environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of
Speaker 2: which are antithetical to ideological capture. Harvard has in recent
Speaker 2: years failed to live up to both the intellectual and
Speaker 2: civil rights conditions that justify federal investment, but we appreciate
Speaker 2: your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome
Speaker 2: your collaboration in restoring the university to its promise. We
Speaker 2: therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an
Speaker 2: agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard's financial relationship with
Speaker 2: the government. Here's the first governance and leadership reforms. By
Speaker 2: August twenty twenty five, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform
Speaker 2: and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter,
Speaker 2: including fostering clear lines of authority and accountability. Apparently that
Speaker 2: was objectionable, empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and from
Speaker 2: among the tenured professorate and senior leadership, exclusively those most
Speaker 2: devoted to the scholarly mission of the university and committed
Speaker 2: to the changes indicated in this letter. Reducing the power
Speaker 2: held by students and untenured faculty, reducing the power held
Speaker 2: by faculty, whether tenured or untenured, at administrators more committed
Speaker 2: to activism than scholarship. Now, again, this is something Harvard
Speaker 2: found unacceptable. We're not willing to focus on scholarship instead
Speaker 2: of activism. Note that's a violation of what we want
Speaker 2: to do. And reducing forms of governance bloat, duplication, or
Speaker 2: decentralization that interfere with the possibility the reforms indicating this letter.
Speaker 2: So that's the first one. Apparently something was objectionable about that.
Speaker 2: What's the next one? Merit based hiring reform. By August
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, the university must adopt and implement merit
Speaker 2: based hiring policies and ceased all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex,
Speaker 2: or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related
Speaker 2: practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Now, mind you, that
Speaker 2: is existing federal civil rights law. You cannot discriminate against
Speaker 2: based on race, and yet for Harvard that is is outrageous.
Speaker 2: Of course, they want to discriminate based on race. It's
Speaker 2: an ideological commitment. What's the next one? Merit based admissions reform?
Speaker 2: By August twenty twenty five, the university must adopt and
Speaker 2: implement merit based admission policies and ceased all preferences based
Speaker 2: on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its
Speaker 2: undergraduate program, each graduate program, individual, each of its professional schools,
Speaker 2: and other programs. Again, the idea of actually admitting students
Speaker 2: based on merit rather than discriminating based on race, which
Speaker 2: minds you? Discriminating based on race as illegal under federal
Speaker 2: civil rights law. To Harvard is anathema. What's the next one?
Speaker 2: International admissions reform? By August twenty twenty five, the university
Speaker 2: must reform its recruitment, screening, and admission of international students
Speaker 2: to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and
Speaker 2: institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,
Speaker 2: including students supportive of terrorism or anti Semitism. Again, apparently,
Speaker 2: that is outrageous and unacceptable. The next one viewpoint, diversity
Speaker 2: and admission and hiring. By August twenty twenty five, the
Speaker 2: university shall commission an external party which will satisfy the
Speaker 2: federal government as to its competence and good faith to
Speaker 2: audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity,
Speaker 2: such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be
Speaker 2: individually viewpoint diverse. Now, notably, they're not saying higher conservatives.
Speaker 2: They're not saying higher Trump supporters. They're saying, you cannot
Speaker 2: have a faculty that is universally orthodox and indoctrinating that
Speaker 2: all have the same view that.
Speaker 3: You know, the.
Speaker 2: Left loves to prattle on about diversity as our strength,
Speaker 2: and by diversity they mean we must all be leftist
Speaker 2: to believe the same thing, but saith though with different
Speaker 2: skin colors. Now, I actually think diversity means having different ideas,
Speaker 2: confronting ideas you disagree with. Look I go through these
Speaker 2: to give an example. I think each of those demands
Speaker 2: are very reasonable. They're saying, comply with federal law. Be
Speaker 2: an institution that actually does what you say, what you
Speaker 2: claim to be doing. And yet Harvard is outraged. How
Speaker 2: dare you hold us to the terms of federal law.
Speaker 2: We cannot comply with.
Speaker 1: That as before, If you want to hear the rest
Speaker 1: of this conversation on this topic. You can go back
Speaker 1: and now the podcast from earlier this week to hear
Speaker 1: the entire thing. I want to get back to the
Speaker 1: big story number three of the week. You may have missed.
Speaker 2: You told a story earlier today about the EPA's involvement
Speaker 2: in cleaning up the California wildfires, and it's a good
Speaker 2: example of how it impacts people's lives. Like you wouldn't
Speaker 2: necessarily think the EPA is involved in dealing with wildfires,
Speaker 2: but you guys are deeply involved.
Speaker 4: As soon as the wildfires hit Los Angeles, over thirteen
Speaker 4: thousand properties destroyed, President Trump comes into office. He inherits
Speaker 4: it happened a few days before he got there. He
Speaker 4: signs an executive order. He says, EPA, you have thirty
Speaker 4: days to do your entire Phase one hazardous material removal
Speaker 4: before Phase two starts, which is the Army Corps of
Speaker 4: Engineers doing their debris removal.
Speaker 2: And like with the wildfires, you have people's homes that
Speaker 2: burn to the ground. There's a lot of toxic sludge.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a mess. It's dangerous. Like fires produce
Speaker 2: bad stuff, and you guys had to figure out how
Speaker 2: to clean it up, but do it in thirty days?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: First the response was that's impossible. This is going to
Speaker 4: take you until the summer at best. It's going to
Speaker 4: take a few months for sure. The lithium ion batteries
Speaker 4: were all over this particular area. We got it done
Speaker 4: in less than thirty days after ramping up to fifteen
Speaker 4: hundred workers. Proud of the effort from EPA. We do
Speaker 4: a lot like this that the American public might not
Speaker 4: know about. And that's why in just a couple of days,
Speaker 4: we're heading to the Tijuana area in southern California, where
Speaker 4: a lot of Mexican raw sewage is entering for decades.
Speaker 3: We need to end it.
Speaker 1: Number one about you guys dealing with water issues and
Speaker 1: Tijuana and I also and there's another one that a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans will remember, and that was the trained derailment,
Speaker 1: and it seemed like the government was picking winners and
Speaker 1: losers with that cleanup or lack thereof. You guys have
Speaker 1: also gotten involved with that because what you did in
Speaker 1: the wildfires in California is incredible. That's what every American
Speaker 1: should get, no matter where they live, and politics shouldn't
Speaker 1: come into it.
Speaker 4: This is something that really showed then Junior Senator JD
Speaker 4: Vance as someone who understands leadership in a time of crisis,
Speaker 4: when disaster strikes, your instinct as a leader should be
Speaker 4: to show up at that site and to be the
Speaker 4: voice of the people. And what was wild was JD
Speaker 4: was like the only one there. I think that might
Speaker 4: be Congressman Bill Johnson's district.
Speaker 2: Well, to be fair, Donald Trump came to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well and it was j and JD.
Speaker 2: Not Joe Biden, not Pete boudhage Edge, but Donald Trump came.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 4: And I remember the conversations where JD was engaging with
Speaker 4: President Trump to make sure that President Trump was there.
Speaker 4: And this was all in the initial days and weeks
Speaker 4: after disaster struck. Yes, and a lot of people were wondering, well,
Speaker 4: where is this person, where is that person, Where is
Speaker 4: this agency, where's that agency? It should be This is
Speaker 4: the ultimate gut check and an instinct check of just
Speaker 4: when it's amazing.
Speaker 2: Because Biden and the Democrats they really like Palestinians, you
Speaker 2: would think they would have gone, oh my.
Speaker 3: Gosh, you know, all right.
Speaker 2: For the record, Lezelden is officially speechless. He doesn't know
Speaker 2: what to do with that smart ass comment.
Speaker 4: I'll tell you it was a it was such a
Speaker 4: missed opportunity to lead and that EPA. Over the course
Speaker 4: of time, they ended up being two hundred and twenty thousand.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: We saw a two hundred and twenty thousand tons of
Speaker 4: contaminated soil removed, We saw tens of millions of gallons
Speaker 4: of water removed. They ended up becoming a massive EPA
Speaker 4: effort that actually is still ongoing and in a way
Speaker 4: for the environmental and human impacts. There's gonna be testing
Speaker 4: going on for a long time to come. And I
Speaker 4: would encourage anyone who's out there listening, who is in
Speaker 4: that community, in the in the area, that that maybe
Speaker 4: you used to go to East Palestine, but now you
Speaker 4: take a detour, you go somewhere else. We all need
Speaker 4: to do our part to help bring East Palastine, Ohio back,
Speaker 4: and very important to the Vice President, but unfortunately too
Speaker 4: many of these cases have shown that lack of leadership.
Speaker 2: Well and tell us what you're doing in Tijuana, because
Speaker 2: it's an amazing here.
Speaker 4: You have an issue where for decades Mexican ros sew
Speaker 4: which has been coming across the border. It's been poured
Speaker 4: into the Tijuana River. It ends up contaminating water and air.
Speaker 4: We have Navy seals getting sick. They have to do
Speaker 4: training somewhere else. So we have decided enough is enough.
Speaker 4: We're going to Tijuana in the coming days. I can't
Speaker 4: wait to get there. We're gonna be on the US
Speaker 4: side of that border. We have a whole plan of action.
Speaker 2: I'm just warning you when you're in the cabinet, what
Speaker 2: happens in Tijuana does not stay in Tijuana.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, sir, great advice.
Speaker 4: And especially if you drink the water, you'll be bringing
Speaker 4: that back to you, back with you to DC. So listen,
Speaker 4: it's something that we're going to step up on and
Speaker 4: tackle and we're proud of that. EPA wants to assist.
Speaker 4: And these are Americans that we see over there California.
Speaker 3: Do they vote red or blue? All your listeners know
Speaker 3: the answer to that one doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: But look, you're you're you're cleaning that crap up literally.
Speaker 2: I mean that that is valuable. That's what we want
Speaker 2: the EPA to be doing. That's important. Let me let
Speaker 2: me ask you so, so you and I are in
Speaker 2: in Midland, Texas. We spent the day We started by
Speaker 2: going to a rig that was drilling an oil well.
Speaker 2: We then had a roundtable. And actually, when you were
Speaker 2: being confirmed and you came by my office, you and
Speaker 2: I have been good friends for over a decade, but
Speaker 2: when you were being confirmed, I said, I want to
Speaker 2: ask you to commit to come the Midland Texas and
Speaker 2: sit down with with oil and gas leaders, with entrepreneurs,
Speaker 2: with people that are producing energy and hear from them.
Speaker 2: And it's amazing. You're the first EPA administrator in history
Speaker 2: to come the middle of Odessa, which is astonishing. It's
Speaker 2: like saying an ag secretary never been to Iowa. It's
Speaker 2: like saying a secretary of State had never been to
Speaker 2: the United Kingdom or never been to Israel. Like like
Speaker 2: your job, every EPA administrator should be in the Permian base.
Speaker 2: And given the importance of it, and and and the involvement.
Speaker 3: Of the e p A.
Speaker 2: So so tell us about you met with wildcatters and
Speaker 2: business leaders, a lot of people that are good friends
Speaker 2: of mine. Give us your impression of of of the
Speaker 2: folks you met, and and and what you learned on
Speaker 2: this trip?
Speaker 3: Was it valuable salt of the earth? Job creators?
Speaker 4: You could just imagine how much sweat equity was around
Speaker 4: that table of people who have poured their lives, their heart, blood, tears,
Speaker 4: creating jobs, providing energy to Texans and beyond.
Speaker 3: And these people need us to.
Speaker 4: Be thanking them, to be to be praising them for
Speaker 4: their good work, to be supporting them as opposed to
Speaker 4: using our power to try to make it more difficult
Speaker 4: for them.
Speaker 3: We shouldn't be trying to so by them.
Speaker 2: By the way, these guys are all close friends and
Speaker 2: buddies of mine. I have had great joy in recent
Speaker 2: weeks and months asking them how much they're like Billy
Speaker 2: Bob Thornton. Have they ever been tied up and had
Speaker 2: a mask over their head? Have they been covered in
Speaker 2: gasoline by cartels? Our host Bill Holmes, great great, great friend, Landman,
Speaker 2: very successful businessman. I asked him so. By the way,
Speaker 2: if you haven't watched Landman, you should. It's the best
Speaker 2: show on television. I did play for President Trump in
Speaker 2: the Oval Office last week. The segment from Landman where
Speaker 2: Billy Bob Thornton talks to the left wing environmental lawyer
Speaker 2: about windmills. It's the best three minutes on television of
Speaker 2: our lifetime. And I will say at least the landman
Speaker 2: I know in Midland tell me that that they murder
Speaker 2: fewer people than they do in the show. It's still
Speaker 2: a great show.
Speaker 4: And for Billy Bob, if you're out there listening, that
Speaker 4: was some that was a free sponsorship from Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 4: So you're lucky that you have that fan playing it
Speaker 4: for President Trump in the Oval, bringing a great a
Speaker 4: great show to the people, and listen, we need to
Speaker 4: get smart with energy policy. There are people promoting win
Speaker 4: as an intermittent sources if that's a substitute for base
Speaker 4: load power.
Speaker 3: For all of you out there listening.
Speaker 4: Let's let's get smart, educate, advocate the people who are
Speaker 4: around all the policy.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
Speaker 1: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: podcasts and we will see you back here on Monday morning.