Speaker 1: As tensions ratchet up between Moscow, Russia, and the West,
Speaker 1: Germany is inviting Putin right into the heart of Europe.
Speaker 1: And the worst part of all is very few people
Speaker 1: even know that it's happening. Well, we know one person
Speaker 1: who knows it's happening, who's been very involved in this
Speaker 1: now for years. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Verdict. I'm Michael Knowles, joined as ever by
Speaker 1: Senator Ted Cruz. Senator. This is a subject which I
Speaker 1: will just put it out on the table. I know
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing about. I have heard little rumblings here and there,
Speaker 1: but there is something called nord Stream two. I know
Speaker 1: this involves oil going to Europe. I know this involves Germany.
Speaker 1: I know this involves Russia. That's all I know. But
Speaker 1: it's apparently a very big deal and nobody's talking about it.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, I hope somebody knows something or else.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a very short podcast. But
Speaker 1: so nord Stream too is a natural gas pipeline that
Speaker 1: is being constructed from Russia to Germany. And Russia has
Speaker 1: massive oil and gas resources, and in fact, I remember
Speaker 1: John McCain used to refer to Russia he used to say,
Speaker 1: Russia is a gas station with a country attached. Russia
Speaker 1: fuels its aggression through the export of oil and gas
Speaker 1: and Nordstream too. Right now, Europe relies on Russia for
Speaker 1: energy resources. But but much of that right now comes
Speaker 1: through Ukraine. Now, now this is harkening back to impeachment.
Speaker 1: You recall we talked a lot about Ukraine and how
Speaker 1: Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union broke off and
Speaker 1: Russia and Germany reached an agreement to build a new pipeline,
Speaker 1: a pipeline that cuts Ukraine completely out and that carries
Speaker 1: the natural gas eight to Germany. And the problem is,
Speaker 1: building this pipeline would do several things. Number One, it
Speaker 1: would enrich Russia. It would put billions of additional dollars
Speaker 1: in Putin's coffers, which he then uses to build their military,
Speaker 1: to be aggressive, to pressure to invade his neighbors, to
Speaker 1: reak havoc. Number Two, though it actually hurts Europe because
Speaker 1: it makes Europe more dependent on Russia. It gives Putin
Speaker 1: more control over Europe. And so I began over a
Speaker 1: year ago last year in twenty nineteen, really leaning in aggressively,
Speaker 1: trying to stop nord Stream two from being constructed. So
Speaker 1: you saw this happening early on, but I guess you
Speaker 1: saw it happening at a time where the relationship that
Speaker 1: we have to putin, the relationship we have to China
Speaker 1: is all kind of influx. And so I'm wondering, now,
Speaker 1: without having had my head in it, how should the
Speaker 1: United States even look at Vladimir Putin? Even look at Russia?
Speaker 1: Are we still in the Cold War? Is a different
Speaker 1: from the Cold Wars? It's still a threat to Europe.
Speaker 1: Where's that relationship? Putin is a bad guy. He is
Speaker 1: a KGB thug. He is not our friend, and we
Speaker 1: should be trying to minimize his power. We should be
Speaker 1: trying to minimize his ability to do damage to America
Speaker 1: and damage to Europe. And you may recall when when
Speaker 1: President Trump went and spoke to NATO, he leaned in
Speaker 1: hard and he took on Angela Merkel, the head of Germany,
Speaker 1: for why are you doing this nord Stream too thing?
Speaker 1: This is terrible. You're hurting Europe and helping helping Putin.
Speaker 1: So I was in the Senate. I'm on the Senate
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations Committee, and I said, all right, let's do
Speaker 1: something about it, and so I teamed up with a Democrat,
Speaker 1: with Jane Sheheen, who's a Democrat from New Hampshire, and
Speaker 1: we introduced legislation that was tough sanctions focused on any
Speaker 1: company that was helping build the Nordstream two pipeline. Okay,
Speaker 1: and it was designed to be iCal. There were only
Speaker 1: five companies in the world that had the technology to
Speaker 1: be able to build the deep sea pipeline needed, and
Speaker 1: so we were targeting those fives to try to cut
Speaker 1: them off. Well, when I introduced the legislation, it was
Speaker 1: very interesting. Russia has been aggressive in their counterpropaganda. They
Speaker 1: were they were putting out this legislation has no chance
Speaker 1: of passage. It will never pass, it can't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: I remember Rick Perry was Energy Secretary talking to Rick
Speaker 1: at the time who was in Europe, and was saying, look,
Speaker 1: you need to understand Cruz's legislation is going to pass.
Speaker 1: This is going to pass. These sanctions are going to happen.
Speaker 1: And the Russian disinformation was fighting with Rick Perry. Well,
Speaker 1: Senate Foreign Relations. We take up my bill and it
Speaker 1: passes the committee by a vote of twenty to two,
Speaker 1: so overwhelming bipartisan passage. I then sought to take it
Speaker 1: up and pass it on the floor of the Senate,
Speaker 1: and to use a mechanism called unanimous consent, which is
Speaker 1: the way a lot of things get passed unanimous consent.
Speaker 1: As the name suggests, it's got to be unanimous, which
Speaker 1: means any senator can object. In this instance, Rand Paul
Speaker 1: voted against it in committee, and he'd objected to taking
Speaker 1: it up on the floor. And one senator can kill
Speaker 1: unanimous consent, or you see, is what everyone calls it.
Speaker 1: Could I just ask not asking for you to tell
Speaker 1: any tales out of school here, but what was the
Speaker 1: objection to? I mean, this seems like a sort of
Speaker 1: common sense piece of legislation. Listen. I'll let Rand speak
Speaker 1: for himself. He is very skeptical of sanctions. Generally, he
Speaker 1: doesn't he often opposes efforts to use sanctions against foreign countries,
Speaker 1: including sometimes our enemies. I actually think sanctions are a
Speaker 1: very effective tool, and they're a tool far short of warfare. Look,
Speaker 1: Rand and I agree at times, and that we're both
Speaker 1: as does the President, that we should be very hesitant
Speaker 1: to use military power and only use it when critically
Speaker 1: necessary to defend the nation. But I think are an
Speaker 1: effective tool of power short of military force. So when
Speaker 1: Rand objected, I had to find another way to pass this.
Speaker 1: And in twenty nineteen, the National Defense Authorization Act, which
Speaker 1: is the big bill that passes every year authorizing our
Speaker 1: military defense, that was moving forward, and I've been an
Speaker 1: active part of passing the NDAA year after year after year,
Speaker 1: and so we decided, all right, let's try to attach
Speaker 1: this bill to the NDAA. Now to do that, we
Speaker 1: had to get a lot of sign off. To do that,
Speaker 1: I had to get number one, the chairman, a Republican,
Speaker 1: and the ranking member of Democrat of the Senate Armed
Speaker 1: Services Committee to sign off, because the Armed Services Committee
Speaker 1: passes the NDA. So we did that. I had to
Speaker 1: get the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations Committee to sign off, because since that's the
Speaker 1: committee that had jurisdiction over my bill, Foreign Relations could
Speaker 1: have vetoed it and said no, we're not going to
Speaker 1: allow it to go onto the NDAA. So was able
Speaker 1: to do that, got both the chairman and ranking and
Speaker 1: then I had to do the same thing on Senate
Speaker 1: Banking that the Senate Banking Committee, because sanctions often go
Speaker 1: through banking. Banking could have vetoed it also, and so
Speaker 1: I had to get the chairman and ranking member of
Speaker 1: Senate Banking to sign off on and then I also
Speaker 1: had to get Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer to shine
Speaker 1: off on the majority and Minority leader. So we managed
Speaker 1: to do all of that. It got attached to the
Speaker 1: NDAA and it passed through the Senate. Then I had
Speaker 1: to do the exact same thing in the House, so
Speaker 1: get the chairman and the ranking on Armed Services, on
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations, on banking, and majority leadership. So we're talking
Speaker 1: phone call after phone call after phone call. As I'm
Speaker 1: talking to multiple members. Gene Sheheen is helping with the Democrats.
Speaker 1: She's talking to up multiple members in the House. We
Speaker 1: almost had it derailed from a completely unrelated education provision.
Speaker 1: I don't remember what it was, but it was threatening
Speaker 1: to derail at the House. So I had to be
Speaker 1: on the phone to Kevin McCarthy trying to like navigate
Speaker 1: through that and stop the objectives. December twenty nineteen, we
Speaker 1: get it past, okay. So once we get it past,
Speaker 1: then the question is, well, is the pipeline going to stop?
Speaker 1: Because they were building the pipeline and the pipeline was
Speaker 1: ninety to ninety five percent complete. Wow, right, because we're
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's it's easy as we as
Speaker 1: we think about this legislation going through the Senate and
Speaker 1: then the House, we as Americans like to think that
Speaker 1: whatever we say goes, but that's only getting the American
Speaker 1: response set. But obviously Germany can do whatever it likes.
Speaker 1: So the question is are these sanctions going to work? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And let me pause for a second and point out
Speaker 1: what was truly miraculous December twenty nineteen. Can you think
Speaker 1: of anything else that was going on? Then? You know,
Speaker 1: I seem to recall it was a busy political time.
Speaker 1: The House was literally impeaching the president and impeaching the
Speaker 1: president over Ukraine. Now, mind you stopping Nordstream two benefits Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It is a frigging miracle. Is a Christmas miracle on
Speaker 1: thirty fourth Street that we got this done. We passed
Speaker 1: bipartisan legislation through both houses of Congress that concerned Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I didn't mention Ukraine at all. Every time I talked
Speaker 1: to people, I said Germany, Russia, Ukraine. Never heard of it.
Speaker 1: I don't know where it is, don't have my map
Speaker 1: doesn't have Ukraine on it, don't know anything about it.
Speaker 1: Like in the midst of that partisan mess, to get
Speaker 1: this national security win was miraculous. But then once it happened,
Speaker 1: there was a company, a Swiss company called All Seas
Speaker 1: that was actually building the pipeline. It was almost done
Speaker 1: and so they're rushing to just finish the pipeline. So
Speaker 1: I was like, well, tough luck, we're done. So what
Speaker 1: I did then is drafted a letter to the CEO
Speaker 1: of All Seas, and it is a letter that says,
Speaker 1: this is to put you in formal notice that your
Speaker 1: company is in direct jeopardy of facing crushing economic sanctions
Speaker 1: on your shareholders and your senior employees that will effectively
Speaker 1: put your company out of business. And there were a
Speaker 1: couple of questions that could arguably be ambiguous. Number One,
Speaker 1: the way the statute was written, the State Department had
Speaker 1: to do a report I think it was sixty days later,
Speaker 1: and so you could say, oh, well, we got sixty
Speaker 1: days to get this done. And number two, the statute
Speaker 1: allowed what was called a wind down period, so you
Speaker 1: didn't just stop immediately and cause environmental damage. Our letter explained,
Speaker 1: although the report is due sixty days later. Under the
Speaker 1: terms of the letter, your liability attaches instantaneously, and the
Speaker 1: sanctions are mandatory. The executive has no discretion over whether
Speaker 1: to impose them. And so what I wrote in the
Speaker 1: letter to the CEO, I said, you need to be
Speaker 1: aware the instant the President signs this bill, your company
Speaker 1: faces exposure and your only reasonable option is halt construction
Speaker 1: instantaneously and before the bill is signed. Yeah, Now both
Speaker 1: Houses of Congress have passed it. There's a big lobbying
Speaker 1: press in Washington. Suddenly all CES hires a lobbyist. They're
Speaker 1: reaching out, so suddenly that there's word that at the
Speaker 1: NSC there may be an effort to try to undercut
Speaker 1: these sanctions. So I pick up the phone and I
Speaker 1: call Robert O'Brien, the National Security Advisors, a close friend
Speaker 1: of mine. Robert was headed to a Christmas party. I said, look, Robert,
Speaker 1: I need you to come out, and I talked to
Speaker 1: him about it and said, this would be don't listen
Speaker 1: to this dumbass lobbying effort. This is a huge national
Speaker 1: security win for the country. Thankfully NSC. Robert's a great
Speaker 1: guy and nscn't didn't bite. We then had a fight,
Speaker 1: an interagency fight between the State Department, the Treasury Department
Speaker 1: in the Energy Department. So I'm on the phone with
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary Stephen Manuche, and I'm on the phone with
Speaker 1: Energy Secretary Danbury. Yet Mike Pompeo was in Europe. I
Speaker 1: forget where he was, but I'm texting Mike on my phone.
Speaker 1: All three of them, State and Energy were in the
Speaker 1: right place, which is wanting these sanctions to be robust. Treasury,
Speaker 1: unfortunately was pushing on the other side, and so it
Speaker 1: was a big fight. So I'm talking to all three
Speaker 1: leaning in hard. At the end of the day, State
Speaker 1: and Energy and National Security Council won that interagency battle,
Speaker 1: and so the sanctions remained tough. The President signed that bill.
Speaker 1: I believe it was a Thursday at seven pm, if
Speaker 1: I'm remembering the time correctly. About fifteen minutes earlier Thursday,
Speaker 1: six forty five pm, all CS puts out a press release.
Speaker 1: We are lifting anchor and leaving and we have immediately
Speaker 1: halted all construction of door Stream too. So where does
Speaker 1: this put the pipeline now? I mean, so, after there's
Speaker 1: a sort of herculean effort, it finally gets through all
Speaker 1: the very chambers of the Congress and then gets through
Speaker 1: the departments and it goes into effect. Where does that
Speaker 1: leave the pipeline. So for several months it just left
Speaker 1: it stopped. So it's ninety five percent bill. But remember
Speaker 1: a pipeline that is ninety five percent built is zero
Speaker 1: percent built. The pipeline doesn't work, so you connect both ends.
Speaker 1: So so right now it's a hunk of metal on
Speaker 1: the bottom of the ocean like it's not doing nothing.
Speaker 1: So Russia was then scrambling, all right, how do we
Speaker 1: build it? And they didn't have the technology to do it.
Speaker 1: They're trying to do it using a Russian ship called
Speaker 1: the academic Chursky. Now to do that, they had to
Speaker 1: get a new environmental permit from Denmark. So I was
Speaker 1: on the phone to the Danish ambassador, pressing on the
Speaker 1: Danish ambassador saying, don't grant the permit. Unfortunately, Merkel and
Speaker 1: Germany are on the phone with Denmark leaning on them hard,
Speaker 1: please grant the permit. They ended up granting it. By
Speaker 1: the way, they're serious environmental risks to how Russia wants
Speaker 1: to do it. Among other things. One of the ways
Speaker 1: they're looking at doing it is dragging an anchor on
Speaker 1: the seafloor and they are actually unexploded Kevin chemical munitions
Speaker 1: on the sea floor from World War Two that if
Speaker 1: you hit them you could have an environmental complete mess. Wow.
Speaker 1: And it's not like the Russians are very good at this.
Speaker 1: They don't know how to do this, which is why
Speaker 1: they had to hire a Swiss company to build it initially. Well,
Speaker 1: a sentator, you mentioned the world wars here, and maybe
Speaker 1: this is a stupid question, but just knowing the little
Speaker 1: I do of history, the Germans and the Russians have
Speaker 1: not always had a wonderful relationship, and I'm just wondering
Speaker 1: why is Germany so hell bent on getting this pipeline
Speaker 1: in this relation ship with Russia. Is it just money?
Speaker 1: You know, Michael, I don't have a great answer. I
Speaker 1: think it is not in the German people's best interest.
Speaker 1: Merkel is leaning in really hard. The European Union actually voted,
Speaker 1: I think it was about a year ago to condemn
Speaker 1: Nordstream two is harmful to Europe and the vote was
Speaker 1: something like four hundred to one hundred. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was an overwhelmingly lopsided vote condemning Nordstream two, and so
Speaker 1: the Russians have been scrambling to move forward. I have
Speaker 1: been since then. And by the way, all of the
Speaker 1: naysayers who were trying to stop our legislation, what they
Speaker 1: kept saying was it'll never work. It won't actually stop
Speaker 1: the pipeline. There's no chance of it succeeding. And of
Speaker 1: course it worked like a charm. It's stopped it into
Speaker 1: the tracks. Now the Russians are trying to retrofit their
Speaker 1: ship to be able to finish it. And so what
Speaker 1: I've done, I've been working very closely with State and
Speaker 1: Energy still and Treasury. But I introduced a second set
Speaker 1: of say sanctions that is even it's a tougher set
Speaker 1: of secondary sanctions that basically says anyone else who's affiliated
Speaker 1: with it, you're getting sanctioned to like if you if
Speaker 1: you touch this project, you're screwed. Yeah. Again, I did
Speaker 1: it with Jeane Sheheen. It was bipartisan, Republican and Democrat,
Speaker 1: and we passed passed it through the Senate, attached to
Speaker 1: the next NDAA and so and so we got that through.
Speaker 1: It's pending, it hasn't been signed into law, but we
Speaker 1: got it through the Senate. Again. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: I recently joined with a couple of other senators and
Speaker 1: sent a letter to the German port where Russia is
Speaker 1: retrofitting uh, the academic Trursky and trying to to to
Speaker 1: lead its efforts to finish this pipeline. The German ports name,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sorry, it's a German name along German name
Speaker 1: that I can't remember, but it uh, it had a
Speaker 1: whole lot of consonancy. So I sent them a letter
Speaker 1: pointing out, look, under the terms of these sanctions, you
Speaker 1: are facing serious sanctions under what Congress has passed. I
Speaker 1: got to say Germany is the German government is flipping out,
Speaker 1: is losing their minds. They're very upset. Russia's very upset.
Speaker 1: Now other players in Europe, like I spoke two weeks
Speaker 1: ago to the Polish ambassador Poland thinks, you know, Europe
Speaker 1: has seen the danger of Russian aggression. You know, for Poland,
Speaker 1: Soviet tanks in the streets are real memories. They know
Speaker 1: what that's like. And and part of the reason you
Speaker 1: don't want Europe totally dependent on Russia for energy is
Speaker 1: because Putin's demonstrated he'll shut off the energy in the
Speaker 1: middle of a brutal winner in order to extract concessions
Speaker 1: from people he wants to get concessions from, and so
Speaker 1: he uses it. You know, it's a little bit like saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna make myself dependent on
Speaker 1: the mafia, on the mob you know, you know, you
Speaker 1: know Vito Corleoni, I'm gonna put him in charge of
Speaker 1: of of air and water for my house. That's a
Speaker 1: really bad idea, because Vito will come to you sometime
Speaker 1: and ask for a favor. And then Putin has a
Speaker 1: lot of Vito Corleoni. Apologies to Marlon Brando somewhere he's
Speaker 1: rolling over in his grave. It was it was like
Speaker 1: I was watching the film. But so this battle is
Speaker 1: ongoing right now. M here's the bottom line. I don't
Speaker 1: believe this pipeline will ever get constructed, but we are
Speaker 1: literally fighting both Merkel and Putin right now who billions
Speaker 1: of dollars are at stake to complete this pipeline. We
Speaker 1: have managed to keep a bipartisan coalition throughout the government
Speaker 1: in Congress and the executive branch, Republicans, Democrats, all the
Speaker 1: other issues were fighting about. We've managed to keep this
Speaker 1: coalition together on national security. And if we continue to
Speaker 1: stop the pipeline, which we've done so far, it hurts Putin,
Speaker 1: taking billions of dollars out of its pockets. It helps
Speaker 1: Europe by making it less dependent on Russia. And it
Speaker 1: helps America because if Europe because Europe, it would be
Speaker 1: much better for Europe for them to be importing energy
Speaker 1: from America, creating jobs of the United States of America
Speaker 1: rather than enriching Putin. And so this is a win
Speaker 1: win all around. And it's an active diplomatic battle that
Speaker 1: it is ongoing right now, and I think that's an
Speaker 1: important point. First of all, it serves American interests, Second
Speaker 1: of all, it serves European interests, and third of all,
Speaker 1: this harkens back to something that we talked about very
Speaker 1: early in the podcast during impeachment, which is, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of our focus now is on China. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we're living in this pandemic and these lockdwns that were
Speaker 1: caused by China, and so people are saying, Okay, China
Speaker 1: is the real threat. You know, Russia was a threat
Speaker 1: during the Cold War, but now China is the real threat.
Speaker 1: This doesn't have to be an either or Here, it's
Speaker 1: not the case that just because China is now threatening
Speaker 1: us in a way that we hadn't seen before, then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, Vladimir Putin is our best friend.
Speaker 1: Is surely he does not have our interests at heart
Speaker 1: now that that's exactly right. Listen, In terms of magnitude
Speaker 1: of threats, China is the far bigger geopolitical threat. I
Speaker 1: think it's the biggest threat we have over the next century.
Speaker 1: But Putin and Russia remain dangerous, and we need to
Speaker 1: be vigorous against them. And for that matter, of nuclear
Speaker 1: Iran would be profoundly dangerous. North Korea's dangerous. So there
Speaker 1: are lots of dangerous places on Earth. China, strategically, their
Speaker 1: economic might makes them, I think, a different level of
Speaker 1: magnitude than every other player for the next century. But
Speaker 1: Russia is dangerous, and putting billions of dollars in Putin's
Speaker 1: pockets to use against us is a really bad idea. Well,
Speaker 1: moving from the realm of foreign policy to tell on
Speaker 1: domestic affairs here in our last few moments, I want
Speaker 1: to get to the mailbag, Rob asks. He says, I
Speaker 1: would like Ted's thoughts on the recent comments by Dems
Speaker 1: that a Trump landslide on election night could be a mirage.
Speaker 1: That basically you could get Trump winning on election night,
Speaker 1: but then some mail in ballots come in weeks later
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, the election goes to Joe Biden. Well, look,
Speaker 1: I think it is a moment where the Democrats actually
Speaker 1: set out loud the things that they meant to keep quiet,
Speaker 1: which which is they're admitting from a democratic perspective, there
Speaker 1: were one or two outcomes. Either they win in November
Speaker 1: or they're going to scream the election is illegitimate. They're
Speaker 1: going to file litigation in every state and jurisdiction they can,
Speaker 1: and they're going to do everything they can to steal
Speaker 1: the election. That they the outcome of Trump winning that
Speaker 1: there's so much rage at Adam that I and you
Speaker 1: can see them setting the predicate for them. You can
Speaker 1: see them already setting the stage to challenge the legitimacy
Speaker 1: of the election. And and you know, it's interesting there
Speaker 1: have been prominent Democrats, Hillary Clinton asking, you know, would
Speaker 1: Trump accept it if he lost? And there's an odd
Speaker 1: thing that a lot of Democrats do. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a Freudian projection, which is they accuse the other side
Speaker 1: of doing what they're doing. Look, it's the Democrats that
Speaker 1: still haven't accepted they lost in twenty sixteen. You know,
Speaker 1: it's Stacy Abrahams who still thinks she's governor of Georgia.
Speaker 1: And I am very concerned that that they are unless
Speaker 1: they win, in which case it will be Hosanna, hosanna
Speaker 1: income the Socialists. But but if if there's any outcome
Speaker 1: other than they're winning on election night, hold on tight,
Speaker 1: because they're going to do everything they can to dispute
Speaker 1: the outcome. Right. It's very funny because Hillary Clinton said
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen that Donald Trump is threatening not to
Speaker 1: accept the results of the election. This is a threat
Speaker 1: to democracy. She then went on to dispute the election
Speaker 1: for four years, and now she's saying Joe Biden should
Speaker 1: not concede under any circumstances. You know, if there were
Speaker 1: self awareness on that side of the aisle, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: sure we could all laugh about it, But sadly there
Speaker 1: seems not to be. So, Michael, let me jump in
Speaker 1: actually on a mailbag topic, and this is actually a
Speaker 1: correction from prior mailbag. Hold on center. I'm going to
Speaker 1: stop you, right, there. I'm shocked. I'm edified, but shocked
Speaker 1: that you would correct something on the air, because if
Speaker 1: this were The New York Times and you had said
Speaker 1: something wrong, you would bury the correction in page three
Speaker 1: thousand and fifty of some supplemental book that no one
Speaker 1: would read. But you are going to make a correction
Speaker 1: right here on the show, I am, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna shine a light on it. Which is which is.
Speaker 1: Several episodes ago, we were doing a mailbag and we
Speaker 1: had a question from from from one listener who's handle
Speaker 1: on Twitter. You and I both were heard to is
Speaker 1: Bay Lamb's donkey? Yes, And we were talking about it
Speaker 1: going well, you know, and we're sort of we made
Speaker 1: some jokes. Well, I gotta tell you afterwards, Um, a
Speaker 1: dear dear friend of mine, guy named Willie Langston, is
Speaker 1: one of my closest friends on earth. Uh and and
Speaker 1: Willie is a deep devout Christian, a godly man and
Speaker 1: and and a he knows the Bible through and through.
Speaker 1: And I gotta say, Willie had a little bit of
Speaker 1: fun making fun of you and me. I know, I
Speaker 1: know where this is going. For our lack of biblical literacy,
Speaker 1: because what it actually was referring to is Balom's donkey,
Speaker 1: and who is Balam? And I had to be reminded
Speaker 1: I didn't remember this, and Willie laughingly recounted, So if
Speaker 1: you look in the Book of Numbers, chapter twenty two,
Speaker 1: so Balom, he wasn't an Israelite. He was with the
Speaker 1: Mennonites and the Moabites, but he was someone to whom
Speaker 1: God spoke and the story in numbers twenty two. And
Speaker 1: I actually want to read the story because I remembered it,
Speaker 1: but I didn't remember it when we were talking about it,
Speaker 1: and it's worth remembering. So numbers twenty two, starting with
Speaker 1: verse twenty two. But God was angry because Balam was going,
Speaker 1: and the Angel of the Lord took his stand in
Speaker 1: the way as an adversary against him. Now he was
Speaker 1: riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him.
Speaker 1: When the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing
Speaker 1: in the way with his drawn sword in his hand,
Speaker 1: the donkey turned off the other way and went into
Speaker 1: the field, but Balam struck the donkey to turn her
Speaker 1: back into the way. Then the Angel of the Lord
Speaker 1: stood in the narrow path of the vineyards with a
Speaker 1: well on the side and a wall on that side.
Speaker 1: When the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she
Speaker 1: pressed herself into the wall and pressed Balaam's foot against
Speaker 1: the wall, so he struck her again. The Angel of
Speaker 1: the Lord went further and stood in a narrow place
Speaker 1: where he was no place to turn to the right
Speaker 1: hand of the left. When the donkey saw the Angel
Speaker 1: of the Lord, she laid down Underbalom. So Balam was
Speaker 1: angry and struck the donkey with his stick. And the
Speaker 1: Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said
Speaker 1: to Balom, what have I done to you that you
Speaker 1: have struck me these three times? Then Balam said to
Speaker 1: the donkey, because you have made a mockery of me.
Speaker 1: If I'd had a sword in my hand, I would
Speaker 1: have killed you by now. This is the guy talking
Speaker 1: to his donkey. The donkey said to Balam, Am, I
Speaker 1: not your donkey on which you have ridden all your
Speaker 1: life to this day. Have I ever been accustomed to
Speaker 1: do so to you? And he said no. Then the
Speaker 1: Lord opened the eyes of Balam, and he saw the
Speaker 1: Angel of the Lord standing in the way with the
Speaker 1: drawn sword in his hand, and he bowed all the
Speaker 1: way to the ground, and the Angel of the Lord
Speaker 1: said to him, why have you struck your donkey three times? Behold,
Speaker 1: I have come out as an adversary because your way
Speaker 1: was contrary to me. But the donkey saw me and
Speaker 1: turned aside from me these three times. If she had
Speaker 1: not turned aside from me, I would surely have killed
Speaker 1: you just now and let her the donkey live. And
Speaker 1: so our listener, bloms Donkey was a wonderful biblical reference
Speaker 1: that as a graduate a second Baptist high school, I
Speaker 1: am embarrassed that I did not recognize immediately. But Willie,
Speaker 1: I'm fessing up and fessing up for all to hear.
Speaker 1: You know, it's so funny you mentioned at Senator. I
Speaker 1: did have this thought. I was thinking about Bay what
Speaker 1: is that? And after the episode, I thought, oh, my gosh,
Speaker 1: I actually did read numbers, probably two years ago. I
Speaker 1: had never read all of numbers. It's two or three
Speaker 1: years ago. And you know it's not It's a little
Speaker 1: bit dry as far as books of the Bible go.
Speaker 1: And but I thought, oh gosh, this is very bad.
Speaker 1: And I, unlike bloms Donkey, I deserve to be struck
Speaker 1: three times. We do on this show. For our biblical ignorance.
Speaker 1: We've really covered a lot of ground. We've not only
Speaker 1: gone to modern day Russia, We've gone to the ancient
Speaker 1: mid East. We've covered everything in between, all the way
Speaker 1: from heaven to Earth. We'll have to stop it there
Speaker 1: and we will see one another next time, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna catch up on my Bible in the meantime. I'm
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode
Speaker 1: of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you
Speaker 1: by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee
Speaker 1: dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans
Speaker 1: to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help
Speaker 1: the Republican Party across the nation.