Speaker 1: About half an hour ago, the Senate voted to shoot
Speaker 1: down the Democrats plan to codify ro versus Wade into
Speaker 1: law pass a radical national abortion bill. About five ten
Speaker 1: minutes ago, Senator Cruz made it to our studio. He
Speaker 1: is now just getting his microphone on. I'm Michael Knowles.
Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now,
Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
Speaker 1: the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
Speaker 1: Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your
Speaker 1: hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
Speaker 1: your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
Speaker 1: to get started. All it takes is a short phone
Speaker 1: call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
Speaker 1: right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your
Speaker 1: four oh one K or your IRA, they make it easy.
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first order, So don't wait, call them right now.
Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two Again, the phone
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven, six eight one eight
Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word cactus to six five
Speaker 1: five three two. Today's episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: is brought to you by ip vanish. Did you know
Speaker 1: that browsing online using incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy?
Speaker 1: Without added security, you might as well give all your
Speaker 1: private data way to hackers, advertisers, your Internet service provider,
Speaker 1: and who knows who else. Ip Vanish helps you securely
Speaker 1: and privately browse the Internet by encrypting one hundred percent
Speaker 1: of your data. This means that your private messages, passwords, emails,
Speaker 1: browsing history, and other information will be completely protected from
Speaker 1: falling into the wrong hands. Ip Vanish makes you virtually
Speaker 1: invisible online. It's that simple. Just for Verdict listeners, ip
Speaker 1: vanish is offering an insane seventy percent off their annual plan.
Speaker 1: That's like getting nine months for free. You have to
Speaker 1: go directly to ip vanished dot com slash cactus to
Speaker 1: get this seventy percent off discount. Ip vanish is super
Speaker 1: easy to use. Just tap one button and you're instantly protected.
Speaker 1: You won't even know it's on. You can use ip
Speaker 1: vanish on your computers, tablets, and phones, whether you're at
Speaker 1: home or in public. Don't go online without using ip vanish.
Speaker 1: Don't forget. Verdict listeners get seventy percent off the ip
Speaker 1: vanish annual plan. Just go to ip vanished dot com
Speaker 1: slash cactus to claim your discount and secure your online life.
Speaker 1: That's IPVanish dot com slash Cactus. This episode a Verdict
Speaker 1: that's Ted Cruise is brought to you by Jenna Sell.
Speaker 1: How old does your mirror say you are? You can
Speaker 1: delay this question by five, ten, even fifteen years with
Speaker 1: Jenny Cell's new ultra retinal serum. You can you know,
Speaker 1: see it sitting right here on the death Here's a
Speaker 1: testimonial from Marina Marina lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says,
Speaker 1: great product, My skin loves it. I have spent more money,
Speaker 1: she says, on creams over the years, enough to pay
Speaker 1: off my house. Just kidding, but it feels like that
Speaker 1: this product has changed my life like no other. Now
Speaker 1: Marina is flying high with Genia Cell's new ultra retinal
Speaker 1: serum with hyaluronic acid. This works to hydrate your skin
Speaker 1: at the cellular level. It builds on this deep moisture
Speaker 1: with incredible anti wrinkle effects. And gentlemen, you know that
Speaker 1: we ladies, we wives use your razors in the bathroom
Speaker 1: when you are not looking. Likewise, we know that you
Speaker 1: use our face products are skincare products, and it's fine.
Speaker 1: All's fair in love and war. Now, if you go
Speaker 1: to my uurl that is Genia cell dot com slash cactus,
Speaker 1: you can get up to fifty percent off Genia Cell's
Speaker 1: new ultra retinal serum. That is fifty percent off. If
Speaker 1: you go to genie cell dot com slash cactus, it's
Speaker 1: spelled ge n u Cel dot com slash cactus, jeniusl
Speaker 1: dot com slash tactus Senator. This is all happening in
Speaker 1: real time. Right now takes me back to our earliest
Speaker 1: days on this show during impeachment. You've just come from
Speaker 1: the Capitol. You've just voted to shoot down this Democrats
Speaker 1: abortion rights bill. The way this is being reported right
Speaker 1: now in the Associated Press and MSNBC is that a
Speaker 1: gop led filibuster stopped the abortion bill. Last I checked,
Speaker 1: the vote was forty nine in favor fifty one against.
Speaker 1: Am I crazy. Is this just my legal ignorance or
Speaker 1: is that not a filibuster? Yes, you stopped trying to
Speaker 1: bring math into it. The fact is a majority of
Speaker 1: the Senate voted against this radical bill. But the press
Speaker 1: doesn't like that news that the real headline should be
Speaker 1: bipartisan majority of the Senate rejects radical pro abortion bill.
Speaker 1: That would in fact be the accurate headline. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. The other part of the headline, it's not
Speaker 1: just the filibuster part that is inaccurate, is the part
Speaker 1: that says codifies Row. This bill does nothing of the sword.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. When you read codifies Row, you think, oh,
Speaker 1: it goes back to the way things were before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decides the Dobbs case. Well, no, that's not
Speaker 1: what this bill does. If this bill passed, it would
Speaker 1: be a radical bill. It would strike down just about
Speaker 1: every reasonable, common sense restriction on abortion that has been
Speaker 1: enacted the last forty nine years. Under ROW. It's been
Speaker 1: deemed permissible even already, for states to limit late term abortions,
Speaker 1: for states to restrict taxpayer funding of abortions, for states
Speaker 1: to require parental consent or parental notification. This Democrat bill
Speaker 1: strikes all those laws down. This Democrat bill is the
Speaker 1: unlimited Abortion for All bill. Think about it for a
Speaker 1: minute that forty nine Democrats were happy to vote for that.
Speaker 1: The only one who voted with the Republicans was Joe Mann.
Speaker 1: The bill couldn't codify ROW because parts of Row versus
Speaker 1: Weight have already been overruled. They were overruled by Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood v. Casey, which changed some of the reasoning and
Speaker 1: some of the processes for abortion. And so you know,
Speaker 1: this has been an ongoing debate for a long time.
Speaker 1: Your colleague, Senator Elizabeth Warren yesterday said that the dabb's
Speaker 1: decision could represent an extremist, right wing Supreme Court imposing
Speaker 1: its views on the American people because if versus Weight
Speaker 1: is overruled, then you'll have a situation where the majority
Speaker 1: of states will impose severe restrictions on abortion immediately. If
Speaker 1: the majority of states are going to impose new restrictions,
Speaker 1: how is the Supreme Court imposing its views on the people.
Speaker 1: This is literally an example where for Democrats and the press,
Speaker 1: up is down, right, has left, everything is backwards and
Speaker 1: upside down. You have Democrats screaming that overturning Row is
Speaker 1: an assault on democracy. In fact, if the Court does
Speaker 1: overturn Row, it is a victory for democracy. Rowe was
Speaker 1: an assault on democracy. Roe versus Wade was seven unelected
Speaker 1: lawyers in black robes saying, you stupid voters don't know
Speaker 1: how to resolve these issues rights. We're not going to
Speaker 1: let you do this now. For one hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: five years, literally from the beginning of our country until
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy three, questions of abortion were decided by the
Speaker 1: voters and by the state legislatures that were elected by
Speaker 1: the voters. Roe said no more. They said, we don't
Speaker 1: believe in democracy. And the reason Democrats are freaking out
Speaker 1: right now is you know, when poker at tell is
Speaker 1: when they do something that gives away what their hand
Speaker 1: is when they're and they're trying to represent something other
Speaker 1: than what their hand is here, the Democrats have a tell.
Speaker 1: Number one, The fact that they're freaking out is a
Speaker 1: tell that they know their views on abortion are radical
Speaker 1: and out of touch with the American people. Forty nine
Speaker 1: of the Democrats today voted for a law that allows
Speaker 1: abortion up until the home and of birth, literally until
Speaker 1: the child is being born. This Democrat bill would allowed
Speaker 1: to abortion. Do you know the latest polling, You know
Speaker 1: what percent of Americans agree with abortion up until the
Speaker 1: very instant of birth? Six percent? Wow, six percent of
Speaker 1: Americans agree with the position of forty nine out of
Speaker 1: fifty Democrats and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: when she's screaming and ranting and raving, it's because the
Speaker 1: voters are going to be allowed to do what they
Speaker 1: think is right and not be subject to her radical decrees. Now,
Speaker 1: the Democrats have another tell, which is you notice that
Speaker 1: when they're talking about the Dabbs decision, they very very
Speaker 1: quickly say, if this decision goes into effect, it will
Speaker 1: strike down the availability of contraceptives, it will strike down
Speaker 1: gay marriage and an interracial marriage. That the New York
Speaker 1: Times went so far. The editorial board the New York
Speaker 1: Times suggested that there are multiples in the Union that,
Speaker 1: if they were allowed to, would ban interracial marriage. What
Speaker 1: utter garbage, you bigoted, moronic Manhattan leftist elite, lying sacks
Speaker 1: of crap. But how do you really feel? Yeah, it
Speaker 1: kind of pisses me off. And I would note by
Speaker 1: the way that these racist leftists of the New York Times,
Speaker 1: there may be no one on planet Earth whom they
Speaker 1: despise more than Justice Clarence Thomas, who is married to
Speaker 1: a white woman. He is in an interracial marriage. I
Speaker 1: suspect Clarence Thomas would be quite surprised if he were
Speaker 1: doing something to strike down interracial marriage. But the only
Speaker 1: people who imagine interracial marriage is going to be struck
Speaker 1: down is radical leftist because they've never actually met a
Speaker 1: conservative voter, so they think we're all bigoted clansmen. But
Speaker 1: here's the tell on this. When the Democrats and the
Speaker 1: press are not defending their positions on abortion, it's because
Speaker 1: they know their positions on abortion are wildly out of
Speaker 1: the mainstream. So anytime you hear them talking about contraception
Speaker 1: or marriage, it's because they're trying to change the subject. Well,
Speaker 1: so this raises a question to me that I do
Speaker 1: not have an answer to, which is why would the
Speaker 1: Democrats bring up this bill? It makes them look extremely foolish.
Speaker 1: It gives away the whole game. It shows that actually
Speaker 1: the overruling of Row is not an assault on democracy,
Speaker 1: that actually most people don't want this kind of crazy,
Speaker 1: extreme abortion agenda. Elizabeth Warren admitted it herself in this
Speaker 1: column in Marie Claire Magazine. Wait, you're reading Marie Claire magazine.
Speaker 1: Oh constantly, Michael, Why are you reading Marie Claire magazine?
Speaker 1: And what is Marie Claire Magazine? I am so I
Speaker 1: cannot believe how uncultured you are. Senator. Next you're going
Speaker 1: to tell me you don't read Glamor either. I only
Speaker 1: raise Cosmo for teams only because that's fair enough. So
Speaker 1: why are they doing this? They've got egg on their face.
Speaker 1: It looks pathetic. Is it just to appease the base?
Speaker 1: You've got to understand today's Democrats are captured by the
Speaker 1: radical activists on every issue. On immigration, they're captured by
Speaker 1: the open border radicals, on issues of dr gender, they're
Speaker 1: they're captured by the transgender radicals, and and and on
Speaker 1: issues of abortion, they actually don't care about the swing voter.
Speaker 1: They don't care about the American people. They don't care
Speaker 1: about the soccer mom. They care about the radicals who
Speaker 1: control the money and control the foot soldiers in the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. And here's proof of it. Chuck Schumer could
Speaker 1: have had a vote today that he would have won
Speaker 1: a buipartisan majority on so just it's a fifty fifty
Speaker 1: cent fifty Democrats fifty Republicans. Two of the Republicans, Susan
Speaker 1: Collins and Lisa Murkowski, have explicitly stated, in fact, they've
Speaker 1: introduced legislation that would do something like codifi row. It
Speaker 1: would it would take some elements of abortion off the table.
Speaker 1: It would leave some of the restrictions like partial birth
Speaker 1: and taxpayer funding and prettal consent of prettal notification in place,
Speaker 1: but it would it would be more accurately described as
Speaker 1: codifying Row than this current radical bill. If Schumer had
Speaker 1: brought that up, he would have won today fifty three
Speaker 1: to forty seven. He would have gotten the forty nine
Speaker 1: Democrats have voted for this, He would have gotten Joe
Speaker 1: mentioned who he lost. He would have gotten two Republicans.
Speaker 1: Now it still wouldn't have passed because it would take
Speaker 1: sixty to go up, but we would have had a
Speaker 1: vote that was fifty fifty three forty seven, and the
Speaker 1: Democrats could accurately say bipartisan majority of the Senate votes
Speaker 1: to rebuke the Court. They don't care, their radicals don't
Speaker 1: actually want anything like a middle ground. They are appeasing
Speaker 1: the crazies. Well, speaking of the craziest center, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're kind of seeing this right now in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: In Virginia, which is that the White House is refusing
Speaker 1: to condemn the protesters who were showing up not even
Speaker 1: just to the Supreme Court, which is a questionable practice
Speaker 1: in and of itself, and we can get to it.
Speaker 1: They're showing up to the homes of judges where their
Speaker 1: children sleep, protesting, screaming in residential neighborhoods. The White House
Speaker 1: has asked about that, what do they do? They shrugged
Speaker 1: their shoulders. The last pod, we talked about how this
Speaker 1: leak of the Supreme Court decision is an attempt to
Speaker 1: destroy the Supreme Court's attempt to tear down the rule
Speaker 1: of law, and it's an attempt to use political pressure
Speaker 1: to bully the justices into changing their votes, and it
Speaker 1: really goes right to the heart of the integrity of
Speaker 1: the institution. This is the next step of that, which
Speaker 1: is the radical showing up at the private homes of
Speaker 1: the justices, trying to intimidate them, trying to frighten them,
Speaker 1: trying to threaten them. And by the way, it's not
Speaker 1: just at the homes of the justices. These guys are
Speaker 1: also showing up at pro life advocacy groups, at pro
Speaker 1: life pregnancy centers. There was one in Wisconsin that they
Speaker 1: threw a Molotov cocktail on that they burned, that they
Speaker 1: spray painted and vandalized. There was another one in Denton,
Speaker 1: Texas that they spray painted and vandalized. There were people
Speaker 1: showing up at Catholic churches across the country and harassing
Speaker 1: people going to Mass on Sunday. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: number one. These are vile, evil, bigoted people. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: if you go to anyone's church and harass them at church,
Speaker 1: that there is a circle of hell just for you.
Speaker 1: That that is contemptuous, even if you disagree with them.
Speaker 1: Leave them alone at church, and leave them alone at home.
Speaker 1: And I got to say the intimidation at the homes
Speaker 1: of the justices to see Jensaki repeatedly refused to condemn it.
Speaker 1: It's just peaceful. You know, several hundred angry people outside
Speaker 1: your house while your children are inside, screaming and yelling
Speaker 1: and cursing. It, that's just peaceful. It's repulsive. Well, it's
Speaker 1: also against the law, is I mean, you know you
Speaker 1: reference the acts of violence at the pro life center
Speaker 1: is the pro life pregnancy centers. But obviously that's against
Speaker 1: the law. It's also against the law to show up
Speaker 1: to it. Judges home, It's right there in the US Code.
Speaker 1: You know it better than I do. Where are the prosecutions?
Speaker 1: Where are the handcuffs? So let's talk about that. The
Speaker 1: particular federal provision you're talking about is eighteen USC. Section
Speaker 1: fifteen oh seven, and it says, whoever with the intent
Speaker 1: of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,
Speaker 1: or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror witness,
Speaker 1: or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets
Speaker 1: or parades inter near a building housing a court of
Speaker 1: the United States or internear a building, or residents occupied
Speaker 1: or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer
Speaker 1: shall be fined under this title or in prison not
Speaker 1: more than one year, or both. So they're clearly doing that.
Speaker 1: They're picketing at the home of a judge with an
Speaker 1: intent of influencing the judge's decision. It's a straight out
Speaker 1: federal crime. And Merrick Garland and the corrupt Biden Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is nowhere to be found. They're not enforcing
Speaker 1: the law. And this is it is a form of
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. It is trying to get the judge
Speaker 1: to change their mind, to change their vote, to change
Speaker 1: their decision. And I'll point out it's not just federal law. Actually,
Speaker 1: Virginia law likewise has a provision and it is section
Speaker 1: eighteen point two Das four eighteen and section eighteen point
Speaker 1: two Dash four nineteen of the Code of Virginia that
Speaker 1: makes it a crime to piket the residence of an individual.
Speaker 1: And so Virginia likewise, for those justices who live in Virginia,
Speaker 1: you've got both a federal crime and a crime in Virginia.
Speaker 1: And this is going to someone's home, I'm going to suggest,
Speaker 1: is inherently threatening and intimidating. It's one thing to go
Speaker 1: to the office. Look, there have been protests on the
Speaker 1: steps of the Supreme Court. Are actually right below the
Speaker 1: steps of the Supreme Court from the beginning of our country,
Speaker 1: from when the Supreme Court building was built and before
Speaker 1: that in the Capitol. That's perfectly fine. You want to
Speaker 1: protest on them all, that's perfectly fine. You want to
Speaker 1: protest to the public square, that's perfectly fine. There's a
Speaker 1: reason you go to someone's home. You go to someone's
Speaker 1: home because that's where they sleep, that's where their children are,
Speaker 1: that's where their physical safety is. What do you make
Speaker 1: of Chuck Schumer saying that, look, this is this is
Speaker 1: the business. We've chosen to quote him and Wroth and
Speaker 1: the Godfather, and Chuck Schumer said that he has protesters
Speaker 1: at his house three or four times a week sometimes.
Speaker 1: And if the judges didn't want that, while they're in
Speaker 1: the wrong line of work, well they are in a
Speaker 1: different line of work. This is not the business they
Speaker 1: have chosen. Politics is one thing. And listen, when I
Speaker 1: ran for office, when Schumer ran for office, part of
Speaker 1: the job is to be responsive to the people, and
Speaker 1: that means protests are a perfectly legitimate part of the
Speaker 1: political process because each of us elected to the Senate,
Speaker 1: elected to the Congress are required or had the responsibility
Speaker 1: of representing our constituents. The justices are not elected representatives.
Speaker 1: Their responsibilities to the Constitution and to the law. Now,
Speaker 1: the Democrats think this is the business the justices have chosen.
Speaker 1: And when Chuck Schumer stood on the floor steps of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and threatened the justices by name and said,
Speaker 1: if you decide this decision we're wrong, you will have
Speaker 1: unleashed the whirlwind, he was threatening them. And so the
Speaker 1: job of a politician the job of a justice is
Speaker 1: very different. There's a reason it is a federal criminal
Speaker 1: offense to do this to a judge and it's not
Speaker 1: a federal criminal offense to do this to an elected official,
Speaker 1: because the jobs are different, and you shouldn't be using
Speaker 1: threats and intimidation to try to change a judicial decision.
Speaker 1: Now that being said, I actually think what's happening to
Speaker 1: elected officials, whether Chuck Schumer or anyone else, has gone
Speaker 1: too far. Look, public service means a lot, but it
Speaker 1: shouldn't have to entail threats to the safety and lives
Speaker 1: of your kids. I think it should be treated as
Speaker 1: a criminal offense protesting a residential neighborhood, that there are time, place,
Speaker 1: and manner restrictions. If a protest is designed to threaten
Speaker 1: and harass an individual, you can do it at the office,
Speaker 1: you can do it in the public square, but you
Speaker 1: shouldn't be allowed to go and harass people at their homes.
Speaker 1: I totally agree. There is nothing in the text or
Speaker 1: spirit of the First Amendment that says you have a
Speaker 1: right to go to a residential neighborhood and scare a
Speaker 1: bunch of kids. Schumer is not my favorite person in
Speaker 1: the world, but I think he ought to be able
Speaker 1: to sleep at night without people standing outside screaming. And
Speaker 1: by the way, he didn't tell you who it is
Speaker 1: protesting him. It's not conservatives. It's crazy leftist, for whom
Speaker 1: Schumer is not crazy enough. That's the interesting thing. There's
Speaker 1: another Senator who I will not name, who protesters through
Speaker 1: a rock through their window that shattered and cut one
Speaker 1: of their children quite severely. From the shattering glass, we
Speaker 1: are going to see violets. I am very concerned that
Speaker 1: we may see violence directed at the Supreme Court, at
Speaker 1: these justices. This is the kind of extreme hatred and
Speaker 1: violence that the Democrats embrace if it favors their partisan ends.
Speaker 1: There is some good news. I mean, one, I think
Speaker 1: the reason they're doing this is because they're losing in
Speaker 1: the political arena and so they're getting desperate. But two,
Speaker 1: you also I felt to introduce a great bill on
Speaker 1: a completely different topic. But well not a completely different
Speaker 1: topic actually, because the bill you introduced was about my body,
Speaker 1: my choice. Namely, it was to give American service members
Speaker 1: to protect them from being punished for refusing to take
Speaker 1: the experimental COVID vaccines. Well, that's right. So the bill
Speaker 1: I introduced this week is a bill. It's called the
Speaker 1: Allowing Military Exemptions Recognizing Individual Concerns about New Shots Act
Speaker 1: or the Americans Act. Oh you you guys with your acronyms,
Speaker 1: that is the best acronym I've heard in a long
Speaker 1: time in legislature. Well, I'd like to claim credit. I can.
Speaker 1: It was the great, great guys on my team that
Speaker 1: came up with it. But I laughed out loud and
Speaker 1: said let's go with it and the bill. Thirteen other
Speaker 1: Senators joined being introducing it. And the bill is very simple.
Speaker 1: The bill would stop the military from firing soldiers and
Speaker 1: sailors and airmen and marines if they declined to take
Speaker 1: the COVID vaccine. We're seeing thousands of soldiers and sailors
Speaker 1: and airmen and marines and coast guardsmen and guardians threatened
Speaker 1: with being fired. We're seeing cadets at our service academies
Speaker 1: threatened with being thrown out. We're seeing people in the
Speaker 1: reserves being thrown out. It is grotesque, it is wrong,
Speaker 1: it is an abusive power. This bill says you can't
Speaker 1: throw anyone out because they decline to get a vaccine.
Speaker 1: It also says if someone has been thrown out, they
Speaker 1: can come back in if they want that. It's choice.
Speaker 1: If they want to come back in, they can do it.
Speaker 1: And if they choose not to come back in, if
Speaker 1: you have discharged them, it's something less than honorable discharge.
Speaker 1: That will adjust their discharge status to reflect their actual service.
Speaker 1: In other words, we shouldn't be weakening our ability to
Speaker 1: defend this nation, to keep this nation safe because of
Speaker 1: a political agenda from the left. It's your body, your choice.
Speaker 1: You ought to be able to decide whether or not
Speaker 1: to take the COVID vaccine. And this should be a
Speaker 1: simple common sense bill, which means, of course the Democrats
Speaker 1: are likely to oppose it party line. Of course, you'll
Speaker 1: notice there'll just be a one hour period where they
Speaker 1: stop chanting my body, my choice that as well, your
Speaker 1: bill is up for debate. Then after they'll of course
Speaker 1: go right back to it before we go as usual
Speaker 1: running late. I do want to get to a few
Speaker 1: mail back questions from our wonderful Verdict. At listeners you
Speaker 1: can join, not you, Senator, I think you're already a member,
Speaker 1: but you you out there in the tubes land, you
Speaker 1: can join Verdict Plus. Over at locals you can subscribe,
Speaker 1: get lots of extra content. We've got our Friendlies. Wheeler
Speaker 1: hosts a series there with Senator Cruz Cloakroom, and you
Speaker 1: can submit your questions to the mailback. So, Senator, rapid
Speaker 1: fire round. First up from Steven very important question, Ted, Michael,
Speaker 1: how do you take your coffee cream? No sugar, lots
Speaker 1: of cream though I like my coffee like I know,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to quote that line from Airplane, but
Speaker 1: I do take my coffee black. Great movie, one of
Speaker 1: the greatest movies of all time. From Rod, Senator, why
Speaker 1: is the GOP still so focused on the fiscal side
Speaker 1: of things when voters care about the social side. I
Speaker 1: don't know, do you even agree with that premise, Senator,
Speaker 1: depends who in the GOP. I think there is a
Speaker 1: generational difference. I think there are particularly Republicans who've been
Speaker 1: in Congress a long time who are your kind of
Speaker 1: traditional You could call them business Republicans, or if you
Speaker 1: want to be more pejorative, you could call them country
Speaker 1: club Republicans who tend to want to tax a little
Speaker 1: bit less, spend a little bit more, and a runaway
Speaker 1: from the social issues. I actually think those numbers are shrinking.
Speaker 1: I think more and more people recognize there is a
Speaker 1: culture war going on, and we didn't start it. The
Speaker 1: left has decided to try to destroy our culture. The Look,
Speaker 1: we have a incoming Supreme Court justice who can't tell
Speaker 1: you what a woman is right. We have Disney that
Speaker 1: has promised that they will have a gay or transgender
Speaker 1: character in every movie they put out. By the way,
Speaker 1: I will note again when verdict was on the road
Speaker 1: that that that that the one quip I said of
Speaker 1: you know, parents could could would like to be able
Speaker 1: to trust their movies and not have to worry about
Speaker 1: turning on some movie and seeing Mickey going at it
Speaker 1: with Pluto. Oh my goodness, the left lost their mind
Speaker 1: that I'm sorry, all the in depth constitutional analysis that
Speaker 1: we may have had in the podcast got dwarf, but
Speaker 1: by the image of one little mouse and one little
Speaker 1: dog doing unspeakable things that the Libs were titilated. There's
Speaker 1: no question about it. I you look, culture is where
Speaker 1: the battle is because they recognize that they destroy our culture,
Speaker 1: they destroy our country. There's some overlap too. I think
Speaker 1: it was Patrick Denin who made this point. He said,
Speaker 1: when you think about the debt, what does that tell
Speaker 1: you about our culture? What does it tell you that
Speaker 1: our culture is leaving as an inheritance to the next
Speaker 1: generation a bunch of debt. You know that the economic part,
Speaker 1: the fiscal part, has a cultural aspect as well. So
Speaker 1: I will tell you, Michael, one of the crueler things
Speaker 1: that my daughters say to me. My daughters are eleven
Speaker 1: and fourteen, and when they think I'm when they're irritated
Speaker 1: with me, which is not infrequently, they'll say, okay, Boomer,
Speaker 1: and it's like, damn it, I am not a boomer.
Speaker 1: I am firmly gen X. Now now you know you're
Speaker 1: you're a millennial. Stop insulting me. Please, look the boomer generation,
Speaker 1: the credit card bill they have racked up is the
Speaker 1: great in the history of humanity. One generation, the me generation,
Speaker 1: and their kids and grandkids are going to be paying
Speaker 1: for it forever and ever. But I got to say
Speaker 1: to my fourteen year old Michael, I'm sorry to tell
Speaker 1: you you're a boomer too. She thinks all of us
Speaker 1: boomer is synonymous with way too old, and she puts
Speaker 1: all of us in that camp. We're all boomers. Now,
Speaker 1: final question, Senator, before I let you go. This is
Speaker 1: from Michael, not me, I promise, He says, will the
Speaker 1: overturning of Rovie Wade be the issue that causes people
Speaker 1: to self segregate red states and blue states to the
Speaker 1: point where a peaceful national divorce would be all that
Speaker 1: prevents a civil war? We've seen a lot of civil
Speaker 1: unrest as they call it around as this. Are we
Speaker 1: headed towards civil war on this issue? Spring Court Justice
Speaker 1: Lewis brandeis referred to federalism, the system of fifty states,
Speaker 1: as laboratory as a democracy. We've talked a lot on
Speaker 1: this podcast about laboratories. A democracy. I think it's perfectly
Speaker 1: healthy if different states have different policies that reflect the
Speaker 1: values of their residence. Friend of mine, as a tech guy,
Speaker 1: very successful, moved from Northern California to Miami, and I
Speaker 1: was having brunch with him in Miami and he described
Speaker 1: how when his friends from Palo Alto would come visit
Speaker 1: him in Miami, he'd go out take him out to dinner,
Speaker 1: and he'd drive a fancy sports car because he did
Speaker 1: very well in tech, and he'd parked the car on
Speaker 1: the street, and he said his friends from northern California
Speaker 1: would freak out, what are you doing parking on the street,
Speaker 1: Because what he said is if you park your car
Speaker 1: on the street in northern California, it will get broken into,
Speaker 1: it will get keyed. And I remember thinking, that's really
Speaker 1: bizarre that the simple act of being able to park
Speaker 1: your car on the street is this flex of like,
Speaker 1: holy cow, this is what happens when you have a
Speaker 1: functioning police force and your rights are protected. We will
Speaker 1: see some self segregation, but idiotic policies like abolishing the
Speaker 1: police will see the chaos that follows from that. Also,
Speaker 1: in some ways, it reminds me of the cold war
Speaker 1: and the countries in Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain.
Speaker 1: And you know, when I was a little kid in
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies, my dad owned a seismic data processing company,
Speaker 1: a small business and my father and my mother ran
Speaker 1: together and he got hired in the late nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: to install a computer system for the government of Albania.
Speaker 1: Now Albania was a Communist government at the time, and
Speaker 1: my father at the time was a Canadian citizen. He
Speaker 1: wasn't an American citizen. They wouldn't hire an American, but
Speaker 1: because my dad was Canadian citizen, they would hire him.
Speaker 1: And so he went over He went over there, and
Speaker 1: you want to talk about like frozen in time, poverty, misery,
Speaker 1: the oppression of the Albanian government. But it was very
Speaker 1: interesting when my father went there the first time, the
Speaker 1: Albanian people were told Albania is the only completely electrified
Speaker 1: country in the world, that no other country on Earth
Speaker 1: has electricity except Albania. We are the only ones with electricity.
Speaker 1: The second time my father went over there, he met
Speaker 1: them initially in Munich and then went to Albanian like
Speaker 1: two Albanians, Madam. In Munich, they told the Albanians as
Speaker 1: they left. Guess what. There are now two fully electrified
Speaker 1: countries in the world, Albania and Germany. And it reminds
Speaker 1: me a little bit of like these deep blue state
Speaker 1: prisoners who believe that everything being shut down, their schools
Speaker 1: being shut down, their words being censored, being afraid that
Speaker 1: their neighbors will get mad at them if they say
Speaker 1: the wrong thing. The you know, kind of not knowing
Speaker 1: what a woman is. I'm not sure people in blue
Speaker 1: states are aware. It's different anywhere else. I was talking
Speaker 1: to my relatives in New York, so is my wife,
Speaker 1: sweet little Elisa, and they said, oh this, I can't
Speaker 1: wait until this COVID is over finally, and my wife says,
Speaker 1: it's been over for us for a while. You're seeing
Speaker 1: this right now, You're seeing two different visions for the country. Frankly,
Speaker 1: just look at the abortion protests outside the court on
Speaker 1: the one hand, screaming, yelling, nasty people. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: people praying, serene, well behaved. What kind of country do
Speaker 1: you want to live in? These are options that we're
Speaker 1: seeing throughout the culture. We've got to leave at their
Speaker 1: senator in the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack,
Speaker 1: a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations,
Speaker 1: and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Job's
Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates
Speaker 1: running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.