Speaker 1: China, a major vote on marriage, and a rail strike.
Speaker 1: That's the stories today on Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator,
Speaker 1: nice to have you with us. You're back and watching
Speaker 1: in DC after Thanksgiving, and I want to get people
Speaker 1: up to speed on what's going on right now, specifically
Speaker 1: with China. It was shocking because the Prime Minister actually
Speaker 1: came out in the UK and is now leading on
Speaker 1: this issue of China after watching What's having the people.
Speaker 1: He came out earlier saying something that the President of
Speaker 1: the United States of America just says that they're still silent.
Speaker 1: Take a listen. Now, Let's be clear, the so called
Speaker 1: Golden Era is over, along with a naive idea that
Speaker 1: trade would automatically lead to social and political reform. That,
Speaker 1: nor should we rely on simplistic Cold war rhetoric. We
Speaker 1: recognize China poses a systemic challenge to our values and interests,
Speaker 1: a challenge that grows more acute as it moves towards
Speaker 1: even greater authoritarianism. Instead of listening to their people's protests,
Speaker 1: the Chinese government has chosen to crack down further, including
Speaker 1: by assaulting a BBC journalist center. He came out and
Speaker 1: when you desperately need leaders. Leaders stand up and lead
Speaker 1: when they see that America is not leading on China.
Speaker 1: I felt like he probably had no choice but to
Speaker 1: stand up and to say this. I'm glad he did.
Speaker 1: But where's America right now? Well, unfortunately, Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: the White House are completely a wall now. You know,
Speaker 1: I will say for the British Prime Minister that was
Speaker 1: a degree of clarity missing in the United States of America.
Speaker 1: But that being said, you know, one of the things
Speaker 1: he said is we should not rely on simplistic cold
Speaker 1: war rhetoric. I actually think it's a conceit of the
Speaker 1: so called intelligentsia that simple terms like good and evil
Speaker 1: can't be used. You know, I was ten when Reagan
Speaker 1: became president, and I remember well that at the time,
Speaker 1: the all of the Democrats, many of the Republicans, all
Speaker 1: of the media, all of the academy, they all recognize
Speaker 1: that the smart and nuanced thing to say on the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union was that we needed to that they they
Speaker 1: couldn't be beaten, that the best we could hope for
Speaker 1: was detante, which I've joked is French for surrender, and
Speaker 1: that there was nothing we could do about it. And
Speaker 1: Reagan came in as this California cowboy, and he said
Speaker 1: a series of things that shocked Washington. He said, for example,
Speaker 1: he described the Soviet Union as an evil empire. He said, Marxism,
Speaker 1: Leninism will end up on the ash heap of history.
Speaker 1: When they asked what's your objective in the Cold War,
Speaker 1: he said, very simple, we win, they lose. All of
Speaker 1: the self proclaimed in a lectuals were shocked. They tittered
Speaker 1: at him, what an ignorant philistine. Didn't he understand subtlety
Speaker 1: and nuance. And if you come to my office in DC,
Speaker 1: you've been there, Ben. The most dominant feature in my
Speaker 1: office is a gigantic painting. It's about twenty feet wide
Speaker 1: of Ronald Reagan's standing before the Brandenburg Gate and saying
Speaker 1: what I think are the most consequential words of any
Speaker 1: leader in modern times. Mister Gorbachov, tear down this wall
Speaker 1: with that leadership, With that clarity, Ronald Reagan won the
Speaker 1: Cold War. We defeated the Soviet Union. We need that
Speaker 1: same clarity with regards to Communist China. Communist China is
Speaker 1: the new evil empire, and the Marxism, Leninism, the Maoism
Speaker 1: that dominates China. I believe it will also end up
Speaker 1: on the ash heap of history. But we need absolute clarity.
Speaker 1: And it's not simplistic to say that communist China murder
Speaker 1: its citizens, torturing its citizens, locking down its citizens, engaging
Speaker 1: in draconian violations of human rights, maintaining concentration camps with
Speaker 1: over a million people in those concentration camps, employing slave labor,
Speaker 1: covering up COVID. All of that is evil. It's not gray,
Speaker 1: it's not subtle. It is evil. And contrast that with
Speaker 1: the complete gobbledegook from the Joe Biden White House. I
Speaker 1: want to read the entirety of the Biden White House
Speaker 1: statement on the massive protests that are unfolding in China
Speaker 1: based on the draconian, horrific COVID lockdown policies in China, Senator,
Speaker 1: before you read that, I want to remind people about
Speaker 1: our response, our good friends, Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is
Speaker 1: America's only Christian conservative wireless company who shares your values.
Speaker 1: Now more than ever, it's important to band together and
Speaker 1: support companies that share our conservative values. And Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: is the company that can save you money on your
Speaker 1: cell phone bill. While also making an impact with every
Speaker 1: call you make. Patriot Mobile donates a portion of every
Speaker 1: dollar earned to organizations that fight for causes you care about.
Speaker 1: They also stand up for our first Second Amendment rights
Speaker 1: and the right to life. They help with adoptions, especially
Speaker 1: after the overturning of Rovuwade. Patriot Mobile also saves you money.
Speaker 1: They have plans that fit any budget, and they use
Speaker 1: the same exact towers that you're using right now with
Speaker 1: your cell phone. So if you're worried about coverage, don't
Speaker 1: be Make the switch and actually stand up for what
Speaker 1: you believe in with every phone call you make, while
Speaker 1: also saving money. Nine seven two Patriot is their number.
Speaker 1: Use the promo code Verdict for free activation and other
Speaker 1: special offers. You'll get to keep your same cell phone
Speaker 1: if you want to or get a new one, You'll
Speaker 1: get to keep your same cell phone number, and switching
Speaker 1: is easy. Nine to seven to Patriot. That's nine seven
Speaker 1: to Patriot. Use the promo code Verdict or online at
Speaker 1: patriotmobile dot com slash Verdict right center. I want to
Speaker 1: get back to you reading that statement you just mentioned.
Speaker 1: A moment ago. Here's what the Biden White House said.
Speaker 1: Quote We've said that zero COVID is not a policy
Speaker 1: we are pursuing here in the United States, and as
Speaker 1: we've said, we think it's going to be very difficult
Speaker 1: for the People's Who Republic of China to be able
Speaker 1: to contain this virus through their zero COVID strategy. For US,
Speaker 1: we are focused on what works, and that means using
Speaker 1: the public health tools like continuing to enhanced vaccination rates,
Speaker 1: including boosters, and making testing and treatment easily accessible. We've
Speaker 1: long said that everyone has the right to peacefully protest
Speaker 1: here in the United States and around the world. This
Speaker 1: includes in the PRC. That's the total statement. What weak,
Speaker 1: sniveling Neville Chamberlain problem and one of the biggest reasons
Speaker 1: the enemies of America are on the rise today is
Speaker 1: the Biden Democrats are so weak. They're unwilling to call
Speaker 1: evil evil, They're unwilling to call murderers murderers, and they're
Speaker 1: unwilling to stand up to communist China and the enemies
Speaker 1: of America. I want to get your thoughts about something
Speaker 1: else that's also happened, and this is about the technology
Speaker 1: side of things. There has been a lot of people
Speaker 1: that were shocked by Apple actually taking away some of
Speaker 1: the devices mechanisms where people were sharing information in China
Speaker 1: that we're helping these protests to break out. One of
Speaker 1: them was a basic thing that you've probably used a
Speaker 1: thousand times, an air drop. And the Apple literally is
Speaker 1: aiding China, while at the same time Apple, the same
Speaker 1: company is threatening to remove Twitter from their apps or
Speaker 1: because they say it's, you know, too dangerous to society.
Speaker 1: When when you see companies like Apple helping the red
Speaker 1: China the way they are saying, you know, okay, what
Speaker 1: do you want us to do to make sure we
Speaker 1: help you squash these protests that are happening, is there
Speaker 1: a point where there needs to be some sort of oversight.
Speaker 1: Corporate America has lost its way. I don't think it
Speaker 1: is accidental that apples are red. Apple is in bed
Speaker 1: with communist China. Most of big tech is in bed
Speaker 1: with communist China. An awful lot of big business is
Speaker 1: in bed with communist China. Big universities are in bed
Speaker 1: with communist China. Big Hollywood is in bed with communist China.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's one of the reasons the Democrats
Speaker 1: are structurally pro China because all of their major donors,
Speaker 1: big business, big tech, big universities in big Hollywood are
Speaker 1: in bed with China. Apple is more than happy to
Speaker 1: facilitate squashing the protesters. Human rights be damned, is Apple's view. Apparently,
Speaker 1: as long as they can keep making money in communist China,
Speaker 1: it is utterly craven. Look, it's the same policy the
Speaker 1: NBA has as they grovel because they want to make
Speaker 1: money in China and never mind the slave labor. It's
Speaker 1: the same policies the Biden White House has. You know,
Speaker 1: last year I forced to vote on the Senate floor
Speaker 1: that the United States should not expend any money purchasing
Speaker 1: electric vehicles or parts, batteries or other things in electric
Speaker 1: vehicles made using slave labor in concentration camps. Now, if
Speaker 1: you think about it, should we be buying things made
Speaker 1: with slave labor? That ought to be one hundred to
Speaker 1: nothing both that ought to be easy. Yeah. We voted
Speaker 1: on the Senate floor, and every single Democratic sept one
Speaker 1: except Joe Manchion voted no. Why is that because the
Speaker 1: Biden White House, Joe Biden is Communist China's customer of
Speaker 1: the year. They are buying the output of concentration camps
Speaker 1: and I want you to think back of like the
Speaker 1: history of concentration camps, the people who facilitate, who fund
Speaker 1: human slavery. History is not kind to them. Well, you
Speaker 1: know what that is Joe Biden, that is Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 1: that is John Kerry, that is today's Democrat Party that
Speaker 1: cannot be bothered to care about slavery and misery and depression.
Speaker 1: And by the way, let's be clear when you talk
Speaker 1: about the donations, I want everybody listening to verdict. This
Speaker 1: is the information you need to share with your friends.
Speaker 1: Ninety seven point five percent of Apple's donations are to
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. If you look at their employee donations
Speaker 1: in the midterm elections to candidates by party, this is
Speaker 1: how much money was Apples donations. Ninety seven point five
Speaker 1: percent of appless wit to Democrats. Big tech has become
Speaker 1: the financial muscle. Who was the biggest Democrat donor in
Speaker 1: the country In twenty twenty Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook,
Speaker 1: He went in spent what are called zuckbucks. He spent
Speaker 1: four hundred million dollars, essentially taking over the election machinery,
Speaker 1: the operation of elections in big blue cities and key
Speaker 1: swing states. It is not an exaggeration to say Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg is directly responsible for Joe Biden being President of
Speaker 1: the United States. By the way, Sam Bankman freed from FTX,
Speaker 1: who made billions, and it appears now was engaged in
Speaker 1: a massive Enron style made off style Ponzi scheme, defrauding
Speaker 1: investors of billions. We don't know that for sure, but
Speaker 1: a sure looks like it from what has come out
Speaker 1: so far. He was the second largest donor in the
Speaker 1: country to Democrats, behind George Soros. I gotta say, and
Speaker 1: we talked about this on a pod last week, how
Speaker 1: many Democrats have given the money back? Or even better,
Speaker 1: how many Democrats have given the money back to the
Speaker 1: investors who were defrauded by Sam Bankman freed. I believe
Speaker 1: the answer is none. Joe Biden certainly hasn't given the
Speaker 1: millions of dollars he got from Sam Bankman freedback. And
Speaker 1: so listen watching big text reaction, watching journalism reaction to Twitter.
Speaker 1: Elon must took over Twitter, and he said one simple thing.
Speaker 1: He said, Okay, we're gonna allow free speech. We're gonna
Speaker 1: allow people to speak. You can't threaten people, you can't
Speaker 1: make threats of violence. You can't carry out criminal conduct.
Speaker 1: But if you have a political view, if you're right wing,
Speaker 1: left wing, if you're arguing a political view, you can
Speaker 1: say it. And if people think what you're saying's wrong,
Speaker 1: they can say what you're saying's wrong. The corporate media
Speaker 1: world has lost their minds over it. They're freaking out.
Speaker 1: We talked in a previous pod about how CBS News
Speaker 1: had a twenty four hour fake boycott where they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: my goodness, if you're actually listening to people who disagree,
Speaker 1: we won't be part of it. And then they realize, no,
Speaker 1: we can't do that. A huge component of what is
Speaker 1: happening corporate America, the Fortune one hundred has become the
Speaker 1: financial enforcement arm of the Democrats. And there have been
Speaker 1: public reports that Twitter's advertising has dropped in half. Why
Speaker 1: because major corporate companies are just saying, no, we won't
Speaker 1: advertise anymore. And by the way, who is the biggest
Speaker 1: advertiser on Twitter, Apple, Yeah, Apple's cut off its advertising.
Speaker 1: Why because Tim Cook and Apple will say, you bastards,
Speaker 1: you're allowing free speech, and we are the big tech oligarchs.
Speaker 1: No one is allowed to disagree with us. By the way,
Speaker 1: do you wonder why big tech is so friendly with China?
Speaker 1: She says, we are the oligarchs. No one's allowed to
Speaker 1: disagree with us. Big Tech says, we are the oligarchs.
Speaker 1: No one's allowed to disagree with us. Dictators of a
Speaker 1: feather tend to flock together. Yeah, they do. And if
Speaker 1: you look at the money, and you can see it,
Speaker 1: as you were mentioning a moment ago about Apple being
Speaker 1: one of the top advertisers, but you look at where
Speaker 1: the money goes from big tech, and many of those
Speaker 1: have connections of China. Netflix of their donations nine nine
Speaker 1: point six percent went to Democrats, Twitter ninety eight point
Speaker 1: seven before Zuckerberg took over, Airbnb ninety seven point eight,
Speaker 1: Apple ninety seven point five, Left ninety six point one.
Speaker 1: These are the Facebook and so on all and the
Speaker 1: ninety plus percentile. That is part of the reason why
Speaker 1: you're seeing them all look the other way on this
Speaker 1: issue of China when it comes to the issue of
Speaker 1: things like by the way, you know who the single
Speaker 1: biggest donors to Hillary Clinton were. If you say China,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna laugh, well, Google, which is another way of
Speaker 1: saying China. Yeah, there you go. Google, it's all big tech.
Speaker 1: They love them all each and every time. They go
Speaker 1: all in because they know they will not rain them
Speaker 1: in and they will not ask any questions about them.
Speaker 1: Look at the NBA totally silent. You're a basketball guy.
Speaker 1: It is beyond to me. I think absurd to watch
Speaker 1: the NBA spend years giving their floor to Black Lives Matter,
Speaker 1: literally painting it on the floor, putting it in the
Speaker 1: corners and doing all that they did. We're you know,
Speaker 1: we're about the national anthem, and then they're immediately silent
Speaker 1: on what's happening in China right now. Is another example
Speaker 1: of the hypocrisy of the people on the left. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: you look at the Fortune one hundred that is complicit
Speaker 1: with what's happening in China, and that also wants desperately
Speaker 1: for Elon Musk's effort to make Twitter a place where
Speaker 1: free speech is allowed. They want that to fail. Let
Speaker 1: me read a list of some of the companies that,
Speaker 1: based on media Matters analysis of pathematics data, have stopped
Speaker 1: for a significant period of time advertising on Twitter. Abbott
Speaker 1: Laboratory is all state corporate ration, AMC Networks, American Express Company,
Speaker 1: AT and T Bigheart pet Care, Black Rock Incorporated, Blue,
Speaker 1: Triton Brands Incorporated, Boston Beer Company, California State Lottery, Century
Speaker 1: Link Channel, Chevrolet, Chipotle, Mexican Grill, Citygroup, CNN, Dell, uh Diago,
Speaker 1: Direct TV, Discover Financial Services, Fidelity First National, Retail Realty Partners, Ford, Heineken,
Speaker 1: Hewlett Packard, Hilton Worldwide, Inspire Brands, Jeep, Kellogg Company, Cole's Department, Scores, Ken, Drill,
Speaker 1: LinkedIn Corporation, Mail Chimp, Marriott International, Mars pet Care, Mars Incorporated,
Speaker 1: Mercan Company, Meta Platform, and other words, Facebook, Moneywise, Neslee, Novarda,
Speaker 1: sag pernod Ricard, play Pass, the Coca Cola Company, the
Speaker 1: Kraft Heinz Company, tire Rack, Verizon, Wells Fargo, Whole Foods Market,
Speaker 1: and Yum Brands. Yeah. I mean, if that's not proof
Speaker 1: that they're all trying to bankrupt the people that don't
Speaker 1: do and say and silence the people they want them
Speaker 1: to silence, aka conservatives, They're just going to say, we'll
Speaker 1: try to bury you and ruin your company. That's what
Speaker 1: they're all about. And let's be clear. If Elon must
Speaker 1: says tomorrow, I will behave like communist China. I will
Speaker 1: silence anyone who disagrees with the left wing orthodoxy. Those
Speaker 1: brands will all come running back. What they want is
Speaker 1: for him to be the chief censor of the public square.
Speaker 1: Facebook's perfectly willing to do that. Google is quite willing
Speaker 1: to do that. YouTube is quite willing to do that.
Speaker 1: And suddenly Twitter is this outlier. By the way, if
Speaker 1: the reports from Elan are to believed, more people are
Speaker 1: using Twitter. But this is a question of power. This
Speaker 1: is a question of using power to try to force
Speaker 1: censorship and muzzle free speech, and it is incredibly dangerous.
Speaker 1: And my view is of corporate America. If they want
Speaker 1: to come out and say we hate free speech and
Speaker 1: we will use our financial power to silence and censor you,
Speaker 1: they ought to tell us that, they ought to admit that,
Speaker 1: they ought to let you know when you're buying their products. Hey,
Speaker 1: your money is going to silence you. But they're trying
Speaker 1: to do it surreptitiously. They're trying to hide and it
Speaker 1: is And by the way, the big enchilada that they're
Speaker 1: trying to set the stage for is the two biggest
Speaker 1: gatekeepers at all of tech, or Apple and Google. And
Speaker 1: if Apple and Google pull Twitter down from their app stores.
Speaker 1: That is like setting off the atom bomb. Now, by
Speaker 1: the way, they did that to Parlor, they did that
Speaker 1: in concert to Parlor. Parlor grew up as a conservative
Speaker 1: alternative to Twitter, it was gaining real success. And then
Speaker 1: simultaneously Google and Apple together said your deep platform by
Speaker 1: which is such an obvious anti trust violation as a
Speaker 1: very simple matter, when horizontal competitors cooperate together to block
Speaker 1: a new entrant to the market, that is on its
Speaker 1: face and antitrust violation. They didn't care. They're so rich,
Speaker 1: they have so much power. They said, screw it, will
Speaker 1: bury you in lawsuits. That's nothing can do about it.
Speaker 1: If they try to do it to Twitter, which a
Speaker 1: bunch of leftists and Democrats are pressuring them to do,
Speaker 1: it will be a massive escalation. Now, what's interesting They
Speaker 1: could do it to Parlor because Parlor was a little
Speaker 1: company with not that much financial resources behind it. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is the richest man in the world. He's already tweeted,
Speaker 1: all right, if you do that, I'm going to go
Speaker 1: create a new phone. No. I don't know if he'll
Speaker 1: do that or not. But the guy does make teslas.
Speaker 1: He knows how to make cars. It's not like he
Speaker 1: doesn't know how to make stuff, and so they got
Speaker 1: to be a little more cautious. And I think they
Speaker 1: are a little more cautious about straight out bullying him
Speaker 1: because he's, at a minimum not a ninety eight pound weakling.
Speaker 1: They can just kick sand at his face and ignore.
Speaker 1: And I for one, if they do kick him off, though,
Speaker 1: if they do kick Twitter off, and I've had so
Speaker 1: many people ask me this over the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: is Twitter really going to go away from the app
Speaker 1: store if they do that to try to destroy Twitter
Speaker 1: instantly by pulling that off? Is there anything that Congress
Speaker 1: will do in response really with antitrust? No, there's nothing
Speaker 1: Congress will do in response because Congress the Senate is
Speaker 1: controlled by the Democrats, and the Democrats want Apple to
Speaker 1: kick Twitter off. There's nothing the Biden Department of Justice
Speaker 1: will do in response. Why because the Biden Department of
Speaker 1: Justice is profoundly partisan and they want Apple to kick
Speaker 1: Twitter off. You know, just today Karen John Pierre was asked,
Speaker 1: I guess yesterday was asked about what Elon Musk and
Speaker 1: the question from a reporter, I mean it was if
Speaker 1: Saturday Night Live were funny anymore. This would make a
Speaker 1: great Saturday Night Live skit because you had a lefty
Speaker 1: report who says, are you concerned that so many new
Speaker 1: people are signing up for Twitter and enjoying free speech?
Speaker 1: And the White House says, yes, we are very concerned.
Speaker 1: We are keeping an eye on what Elon Musk is doing. Like,
Speaker 1: holy crap, they're mad number one that free speech is allowed,
Speaker 1: but number two, they're mad that people like it. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is so that it's successful and that they can't
Speaker 1: control it. But that's what they're so concerned about. I
Speaker 1: don't believe Apple and Google will do it. I think
Speaker 1: it is too big a risk. They're big on beating
Speaker 1: up people they can beat up. They're big on picking
Speaker 1: on the puny, wimpy kid. I think they're scared of
Speaker 1: someone who can punch back. You know, there was an
Speaker 1: interesting There was an interesting moment you mentioned that press briefing,
Speaker 1: and I want to play it for you real quick.
Speaker 1: There was a reporter the White House that asked one
Speaker 1: of the weirdest questions I've ever heard, and the question was,
Speaker 1: what tools do you have to stop Elon Musk from
Speaker 1: restoring free speech at Twitter. Listen the question about Twitter.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a researcher at Stanford who says that
Speaker 1: this is a critical moment really in terms of ensuring
Speaker 1: that Twitter does not become a vector for misinformation. I mean,
Speaker 1: are you concerned about the Elon Musk says there's more
Speaker 1: and more subscribers coming online. Are you concerned about that?
Speaker 1: And what tools do you have? Who is it at
Speaker 1: the White House that is really keeping track of the
Speaker 1: I mean, there it is, that's what you just mentioned, basically,
Speaker 1: Play her answer, Play Karen John Pearre's answer. So this
Speaker 1: is something that we're certainly keeping an eye on. And look,
Speaker 1: we you know, we have always been very clear and
Speaker 1: that when it comes to social media platforms, it is
Speaker 1: their responsibility to make sure that when it comes to misinformation,
Speaker 1: when we when we comes to the hate that we're seeing,
Speaker 1: that they take action, that they continue to take action. Again,
Speaker 1: we're all keeping a close eye on this. We're all
Speaker 1: u monitoring what's what's currently occurring, and we see, you know,
Speaker 1: we see it with our own eyes of what you
Speaker 1: all are reporting and just for ourselves what's happening on Twitter.
Speaker 1: But again, social media companies have a responsibility to prevent
Speaker 1: their platforms from being used by any user to incite violence,
Speaker 1: especially violence directed at individual communities as we have been seeing,
Speaker 1: and the present has been very clear on calling that out.
Speaker 1: He'll continue to do that, and we're going to continue
Speaker 1: a monitor situation. I love, We're going to monitor it.
Speaker 1: I mean, Senator, if you want to talk about a
Speaker 1: dog whistle to basically, yes, everybody pull your money from Twitter. Yes,
Speaker 1: advertisers that love us, the big tech oigarchs and others,
Speaker 1: make sure you destroy them. Yes. Apple, you have the
Speaker 1: backing of the White House. If you want to take
Speaker 1: down Twitter, We've got your back. It's all in that
Speaker 1: response from her, It is big brother is watching you.
Speaker 1: We are watching you. We are going to use all
Speaker 1: the power we can to crush you. And the amazing
Speaker 1: thing is all right. So they're buzzwords misinformation, which she
Speaker 1: means anything that contradicts the left wing narrative. So, for example,
Speaker 1: one thing they defined as misinformation was saying that the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen virus had originated in Wuhunt, China, had originated
Speaker 1: a Chinese government lab, the Wuhunt Institute for Virology. I
Speaker 1: now believe the overwhelming majority of evidence indicates that's exactly
Speaker 1: where the virus escape from. And I think a significant
Speaker 1: preponderance of the evidence indicates that the virus was created
Speaker 1: at that lab through gain a function research. For over
Speaker 1: a year, Big Tech would censor anyone saying that at
Speaker 1: the explicit request of doctor Fauci. Doctor Fauci and emails
Speaker 1: asked Mark Zuckerberg censor anyone saying the Wuhan virus came
Speaker 1: from the Wuhan Institute for Virology, by the way, without
Speaker 1: admitting and I, doctor Fauci, funded that research that created
Speaker 1: the pandemic. I will note one amazing exception. One of
Speaker 1: the very few outlets that actually got into that was
Speaker 1: this podcast. This podcast. Early on in the pandemic, we
Speaker 1: did two extensive podcasts laying out the evidence that this
Speaker 1: virus had escaped from the Wuhun Institute for Virology. At
Speaker 1: the time, you were treated like a tinfoil hat wearing
Speaker 1: lunatic for saying that. I don't know why Big Tech
Speaker 1: didn't censor us. Frankly, they censored other people for saying
Speaker 1: the same thing. But miraculously they let us out. Now
Speaker 1: it's clear what we were saying is right. By the way,
Speaker 1: this is the same big tech the censor the hunter
Speaker 1: Biden laptop. Again, it was true, it was accurate, but
Speaker 1: it was politically inconvenient. What they mean by misinformation and
Speaker 1: is anything that hurts democrats are their preferred narrative. If
Speaker 1: it's misinformation. I got a crazy idea. If what someone
Speaker 1: is saying is false, counter it with the truth. Yeah,
Speaker 1: eximain why it's false. And you notice that Fauci's coming
Speaker 1: out on his last days. Just yesterday he did his
Speaker 1: CNN quote exit interview and what I'm about to play
Speaker 1: for you, he basically is saying that you're a liar
Speaker 1: center for doing those two shows and for what you
Speaker 1: just said. Listen, I can't tell you what's going on
Speaker 1: in all of China and in other things. I can
Speaker 1: tell you for sure that if you look at the
Speaker 1: viruses that the NIH grant funded to study in a
Speaker 1: surveillance way, anybody who even has a peripheral understanding of
Speaker 1: evolutionary virology will tell you these viruses could not possibly
Speaker 1: turn into Sauce Kobe too. So when you talk about
Speaker 1: a leak, maybe there's a lab leak, but it's not
Speaker 1: with the viruses that the h was funding. That's almost
Speaker 1: certain that that's the case. Okay, so that's affective interview.
Speaker 1: Literally now he's saying it still, So it's amazing a
Speaker 1: couple of things. Number One, he's saying, you talk about
Speaker 1: a leak from the lab, So he's now implicitly admitting
Speaker 1: yet leak from the Chinese lab, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: writing asked Mark Zuckerberg, don't allow anyone to say it
Speaker 1: leak from the Chinese lab. So what he just said
Speaker 1: there a couple of years ago, he claimed was misinformation
Speaker 1: and Big Tech was more more than happy to censor.
Speaker 1: But then secondly, he also admitted we were funding the
Speaker 1: creation of viruses, which he's denied before, so he just
Speaker 1: admitted that, but he argued the viruses we created were
Speaker 1: not this virus. You know what, maybe that's possible. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm not a virologist. You know how we're
Speaker 1: going to figure out by having congressional oversight hearings and
Speaker 1: examining evidence. And let me say what an indictment of Democrats.
Speaker 1: They've had a control of both houses for two years.
Speaker 1: They don't give a damn about knowing where COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: came from. They don't give a damn about knowing China's culpability.
Speaker 1: They don't give a damn about knowing the degree to
Speaker 1: which doctor Fauci and the federal government funded it. They
Speaker 1: don't care about any of that. They want to cover
Speaker 1: it up. They want to blame it all in the
Speaker 1: Democrat slash corrupt corporate media narrative. Donald Trump created COVID
Speaker 1: in the Oval Office and released it on America to
Speaker 1: cause people to suffer. That's what they want to say.
Speaker 1: Facts be damned, well, we need to figure it out. Now.
Speaker 1: Fauci's admitted he was funding the creation of viruses, and
Speaker 1: there's a very good chance the virus leaked from the
Speaker 1: Chinese lab. That's a big admission. All right, Let's hear
Speaker 1: some witness testimony and some expert examination about whether the
Speaker 1: viruses Fauci funded were in fact COVID nineteen. I agree
Speaker 1: that that has not yet been proven, but I think
Speaker 1: there's considerable evidence to suggest it could be the case.
Speaker 1: We need more examination. I hope with a Republican majority
Speaker 1: in the House, we'll finally get that, and hopefully they'll
Speaker 1: get to actually ask some real questions off out too
Speaker 1: that he's going to have to defend himself on I
Speaker 1: want to move Senator to this big vote on marriage
Speaker 1: in the Senate. We've been talking about this extensively with
Speaker 1: your good friend and Senator Mike Lee's amendment. With this
Speaker 1: bill you were talking about, there need to be pressure
Speaker 1: put on Senators to have that bill be vote on
Speaker 1: with the amendment not separated out. Otherwise we were going
Speaker 1: to have a major problem with religious liberty in this country,
Speaker 1: quite possibly the government. This was a vote they organized
Speaker 1: and plan I'm referring to the Democrats right after Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: They wanted to ram this through, and you flew back
Speaker 1: to Washington just like everybody else. What happened. The twelve
Speaker 1: Republicans who caved continued cavy and the Democrats passed their
Speaker 1: bill in bracing gay marriage number one number two. This bill,
Speaker 1: my words, is going to set the stage for the
Speaker 1: Biden I RS to target people of faith, and in
Speaker 1: particular to deny tax exempt status to religious churches, charities, universities,
Speaker 1: and k through twelve schools. I stood up today at
Speaker 1: the Senate lunch and I address the twelve Republicans who
Speaker 1: are voting with the Democrats, and I said listen, and
Speaker 1: in fact I made an offer to my colleagues, I said,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what. I will bet any one of
Speaker 1: you one hundred dollars that in the next two years,
Speaker 1: the Biden Irs is going to come after a religious
Speaker 1: institution because of their beliefs on marriage, that they're going
Speaker 1: to come after and deny tax exempt status to Catholic charities,
Speaker 1: or to bring them Young University, or to Notre Dame,
Speaker 1: or to Liberty University. By the way, I think Liberty
Speaker 1: University is going to be who they target for because
Speaker 1: they hate the evangelicals. And I will say one of
Speaker 1: my colleagues took that bet. So we'll see two years
Speaker 1: from now whether I'm paying one hundred dollars or collecting
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars, I will tell you. Subsequently, I also
Speaker 1: pointed out part of this bill they create a federal
Speaker 1: cause of action to sue institutions that believe in marriage
Speaker 1: as the union of one man and one woman. There
Speaker 1: are going to be hundreds of lawsuits filed all across
Speaker 1: this country. And I got to tell you most of
Speaker 1: those lawsuits, the defendants aren't going to have the money
Speaker 1: to defend them, so they're going to settle, They're going
Speaker 1: to cave, and they're going to abandon their religious beliefs
Speaker 1: to embrace same sex marriage. That's what the Democrats want,
Speaker 1: and the Republicans, they're twelve Republicans who went along with it.
Speaker 1: I literally at lunch begged my colleagues if you don't
Speaker 1: want this to happen. So the Democrats disingenuously claim that
Speaker 1: it'd be clear. I want to people to understand when
Speaker 1: you say you beg your colleagues, is it generic to
Speaker 1: the room or is it you get to sit down
Speaker 1: with the twelve people that you were talking about that
Speaker 1: caved and try to appeal to them personally. How does
Speaker 1: this work? So every Tuesday and Wednesday, when the Senates
Speaker 1: in session, the Republicans have lunched together. We meet on
Speaker 1: Tuesdays and Thursdays in the LBJ room. We meet on
Speaker 1: Wednesdays in the Mansfield Room. So the LBJ room is
Speaker 1: where we met today, and virtually every Republican was there.
Speaker 1: I think of the fifty of us, they're probably forty
Speaker 1: seven of us in the room. Of the twelve Republicans
Speaker 1: who voted with the Democrats, all but one or two
Speaker 1: were there. And so I'm standing up in the room
Speaker 1: making a fervent pitch to my colleagues, and a number
Speaker 1: of the Republicans voted with the Democrats. They're like, well, look,
Speaker 1: we got to vote on Mike Lee's amendment, Michaelee. Mike
Speaker 1: Lee's amendment would have prohibited the IRS from targeting institutions
Speaker 1: based on their support for traditional marriage. Mike Lee's amendment
Speaker 1: was voted on. It was voted down. I stood up
Speaker 1: and said, no, kidding, why do you think the Democrats
Speaker 1: allowed to vote. They have the votes to beat it,
Speaker 1: they know they're going to win. So just having a
Speaker 1: vote and losing it is not actually defending religious liberty.
Speaker 1: It's a show vote. And by the way, a lot
Speaker 1: of the senators think, oh, if we have a show
Speaker 1: vote and we vote for it, we can say we
Speaker 1: supported religious liberty, except we were perfectly happy and content
Speaker 1: to lose on it. And this is where the voters
Speaker 1: are getting smarter and more savvy. I said, it's very
Speaker 1: very simple. If you don't want to see the IRS
Speaker 1: going after institutions, faith based institutions in your states. Of
Speaker 1: the twelve Republicans, three of you need to stand up
Speaker 1: and say we're going to vote no today on culture.
Speaker 1: Culture is the sixty vote threshold. That we voted on today.
Speaker 1: Unless the Democrats accept Mike Lee's amendment that prohibits the
Speaker 1: IRS from targeting those faith based institutions, I believe the
Speaker 1: Democrats would have caved now. They might not have caved today,
Speaker 1: but they want this bill to pass, and they would
Speaker 1: have caved tomorrow or the next day. And this is
Speaker 1: not a bill that is in the nomenclature of Washington
Speaker 1: a must pass bill. This is not like the death
Speaker 1: sealing or government funding where people like it has to
Speaker 1: has to pass. You know what, if forty one Republicans
Speaker 1: stood together and we said no, it would have been
Speaker 1: killed unless and until the Democrats gave those three Republicans
Speaker 1: who broke off what they wanted and the revealing thing.
Speaker 1: And I made this point to my colleagues. I said, look,
Speaker 1: all of the Democrats are telling you no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: this is not about the IRS targeting religious groups. We
Speaker 1: don't need Mike Lee's amendment because it's superfluous. It's already
Speaker 1: in there. This is already what the bill does. I said, well,
Speaker 1: if that's the case, what an easy give at What
Speaker 1: they're saying is wrong as a legal matter, it's wrong.
Speaker 1: But I said, if they're right that it's superfluous. If
Speaker 1: it does nothing, then holy cow. I mean, you guys
Speaker 1: are the worst negotiators on earth. If you can't stand
Speaker 1: up and say, well, give us this protection. If you say,
Speaker 1: it's already in there, it ought to be easy to
Speaker 1: give it to us. But the problem was twelve Republicans
Speaker 1: started with I surrender. And I'll tell you if you
Speaker 1: watch c SPAN, you can see me. I was standing
Speaker 1: on the Senate floor arguing with a number of my colleagues. Look,
Speaker 1: we were arguing respectfully. We weren't yelling at cursing at
Speaker 1: each other. But I was arguing with a number of
Speaker 1: my Republican colleagues and they were like, well, well, the
Speaker 1: Democrats would never take that. I said, of course they
Speaker 1: wouldn't take that, because you started by giving them all
Speaker 1: the votes they needed to pass it without it. What
Speaker 1: moron concede something additional when they've already gotten to yes.
Speaker 1: And so I'm sorry to say the Senate is done.
Speaker 1: It has past this bill. And as I said, I
Speaker 1: offered wager to my colleagues of one hundred bucks that
Speaker 1: in the next two years we're going to see the
Speaker 1: Biden irs target people of faith based on their views
Speaker 1: on marriage because Republicans were unwilling to stand and fight
Speaker 1: for religious liberty. And I gotta tell you, Ben, I'm
Speaker 1: pissed off. Trying not to be pissed off, but I'm failing.
Speaker 1: Why Why are we so weak? I mean, this was
Speaker 1: not something If you looked at what Mike Lee was
Speaker 1: doing and this amendment, it was it was not controversial.
Speaker 1: It just protected religious liberty. How is it so hard?
Speaker 1: And and maybe you can, you know, give a different
Speaker 1: word than that that will connect with people to understand
Speaker 1: why you wouldn't This wouldn't be a no brainer for
Speaker 1: these twelve Republicans or at least three of them out
Speaker 1: of the twelve to stand up. Look, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of politicians that liked a virtue signal, and there's
Speaker 1: no doubt public opinion has changed on gay marriage. D
Speaker 1: stand their Republicans who want to say I'm for gay marriage.
Speaker 1: I told my colleagues, if you want to say you're
Speaker 1: for gay marriage, put out a press release saying I'm
Speaker 1: for gay marriage. I love gay marriage. If you want
Speaker 1: dress up in a pink bow and dance it again,
Speaker 1: damn gay pride parade. I don't care. But don't pass
Speaker 1: into law legislation that is going to empower the politicized
Speaker 1: bureaucrats and the Biden administration to target people of faith.
Speaker 1: That's what these Republicans did. The Democrats know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And I was telling a couple of my Republican colleagues.
Speaker 1: They're like, no, no, no, this is not true. That's
Speaker 1: not true. I said, listen, I don't believe you actually
Speaker 1: want this outcome. I don't believe you want people of
Speaker 1: faith persecuted. I just think you're naive and that you
Speaker 1: don't understand how Democrats think. You don't understand the reason
Speaker 1: they are pushing this is because they want to target
Speaker 1: people of faith. And by the way, this is not hypothetical.
Speaker 1: The City of Philadelphia went after Catholic charity and Catholic
Speaker 1: Charities performed adoption services, and the City of Philadelphia said, well,
Speaker 1: you will not perform adoption services for gay couples, so
Speaker 1: you're out of the adoption businesses. We refuse to do
Speaker 1: business with you unless you will perform adoptions for gay couples,
Speaker 1: even though there were lots of other adoption agencies out
Speaker 1: there that did perform adoptions for gay couples. So it's
Speaker 1: not like gay couples in Philadelphia couldn't adopt. They just
Speaker 1: couldn't go to Catholic charities and say, hey, violate your
Speaker 1: faith and help us adopt. City of Philadelphia tried to
Speaker 1: ban them. Now thankfully that went to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and was overturned. This legislation today, I think there's a
Speaker 1: very real possibility will reverse that outcome. And a number
Speaker 1: of the Republicans who voted with it. I got in
Speaker 1: an argument at the lunch with one of the Republican authors.
Speaker 1: I won't identify who it was, but I said, one
Speaker 1: of the outcomes of this is you're going to unleash
Speaker 1: the trial lords, who are going to be funded by
Speaker 1: left wing groups suing all of these small charities, small
Speaker 1: Christian school small Jewish schools, universities, churches, and a bunch
Speaker 1: of them are not going to be able to defend themselves,
Speaker 1: not going to have the funds. They're just going to settle.
Speaker 1: They're just going to give in. It's it's litigation to
Speaker 1: accomplish a public policy goal from the left. They do
Speaker 1: it all the time. And one of my colleagues, who's
Speaker 1: one of the most vocal sponsors of this bill, said well,
Speaker 1: they can sue. Now, this doesn't change this at all.
Speaker 1: I said, well, yes it does. This spill explicitly creates
Speaker 1: a federal cause of action. What is the federal cause
Speaker 1: of action? A federal cause of action is it creates
Speaker 1: a right to file a lawsuit that did not exist.
Speaker 1: And my colleagues said, well, a burgh Felt, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case did that. I said no, No, A burgh
Speaker 1: Felt did not create a federal cause of action. Nothing
Speaker 1: in a burgh Fell created a federal cause of action.
Speaker 1: Now a Burgh Fell is the law of the land.
Speaker 1: A Burgha Fell ruled that gay marriage is required by
Speaker 1: the constitution. Disagree with that ruling, but that is the law.
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court was absolutely unequivocal that it's not
Speaker 1: going to revisit that decision. But there is no federal
Speaker 1: cause of action. Thanks to twelve of my Republican colleagues
Speaker 1: and all of the Democrats, there is now going to
Speaker 1: be a federal cause of action, and every lawsuit that
Speaker 1: is filed you can look to the folks who voted
Speaker 1: today as why those lawsuits are filed. And it's really
Speaker 1: sad and shocking that this has actually happened, and it's
Speaker 1: been the Republican's fault. I want to move lastly, Senator
Speaker 1: to the rail strike possibility. This is a very complex issue.
Speaker 1: You've seen Nancy Pelosi. She came out saying that the
Speaker 1: White House today the same meeting that Kevin mccartthey apparently
Speaker 1: was asked to come over for as well. It was
Speaker 1: a meeting they said was important. Here is what Pelosi
Speaker 1: had to say in front of the White House after
Speaker 1: this meeting, trying to avert this rail strike. Take a listen.
Speaker 1: We must avoid a strike. Jobs will be lost, even
Speaker 1: union jobs, will be lost, water will not be safe,
Speaker 1: product will not be going to market. It is we
Speaker 1: could lose seven hundred and fifty thousand jobs, some of
Speaker 1: them union jobs, that must be avoided. So tomorrow morning
Speaker 1: in the House, we will bring up the legislation. We'll
Speaker 1: bring it up tomorrow morning, she says in the House.
Speaker 1: This is a very interesting thing because she mentions multiple
Speaker 1: times their union jobs, union jobs, union jobs. That's the
Speaker 1: obsession of many in the Democratic Party on this. What
Speaker 1: is your take on this rail strike and how do
Speaker 1: we get to this point right before the holidays. Well,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and the administration screw this up. And screw
Speaker 1: this up badly. And you know, before the election, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden announced, oh, we've averted a rail strike. We solved
Speaker 1: the problem. Turned out that was a lie. It was
Speaker 1: exactly like what he said to Saudi Arabia, Hey, will
Speaker 1: you delay restrict oil production until after the election. It
Speaker 1: was all about getting past the election. Now that we're
Speaker 1: past the election, we discovered that Biden has screwed this up.
Speaker 1: So there have been ongoing negotiations that go back to
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen between the six Class one freight rail carriers
Speaker 1: and twelve different rail labor unions, and they've been ongoing
Speaker 1: and ultimately it went to something that's called the Presidential
Speaker 1: Emergency Board, which is something that has created pursuant to
Speaker 1: a law called the Railway Labor Act. Now, the Presidential
Speaker 1: Emergency Board made a number of recommendations, including increasing wages
Speaker 1: for railway workers by twenty four percent over five years. Now,
Speaker 1: twenty four percent sounds like a lot until you reflect
Speaker 1: on the fact that under Biden, inflation is over eight
Speaker 1: percent a year. So just adding up eight percent over
Speaker 1: five years, that's forty percent, and if you compound it,
Speaker 1: you get closer to fifty percent. So essentially this agreement
Speaker 1: raises rail workers salaries about half of what inflation has
Speaker 1: increased under Joe Biden the unions. Of the twelve unions,
Speaker 1: eight of the unions voted to approve the deal, so
Speaker 1: they wanted the additional money. But four of the rail
Speaker 1: labor unions voted to reject the deal, and those are
Speaker 1: the members who voted to reject the deal. And in particularly,
Speaker 1: what they're pressing for is sick leave. They want a
Speaker 1: few more days of sick leave, and they want clear schedules.
Speaker 1: As I understand it, the way rail workers work is
Speaker 1: the company has enormous ability to say you will work
Speaker 1: this day, and we're not going to tell you, and
Speaker 1: we can change it, and so the workers don't have
Speaker 1: clarity on when they're working. So this is all headed
Speaker 1: to a strike. Now, let me start by saying a
Speaker 1: strike would be a disaster. It would be catastrophic, It
Speaker 1: would be really bad. It would impose The projections are
Speaker 1: about two billion dollars a day of cost on the economy.
Speaker 1: So I don't want to see a rail strike. No
Speaker 1: one in the right mind wants to see a rail strike.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't have happened if Biden and the administration, we're
Speaker 1: actually doing their job and engaging and not lying to
Speaker 1: just before the election. Let's be clear about that. But
Speaker 1: at this point, what Joe Biden the Democrats are trying
Speaker 1: to do is they want Congress to step in and
Speaker 1: force a deal on the railroads and the unions, and
Speaker 1: they want to force the deal that the railroad companies want.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I've served in the Senate ten years.
Speaker 1: We've never done this in the past. There's never been
Speaker 1: any labor dispute where Congress has stepped in and said,
Speaker 1: we're picking the winners, we're picking the losers. And by
Speaker 1: the way, we've decided the management's the winners and the
Speaker 1: workers of the losers. That's what Biden is doing. Biden
Speaker 1: is screwing the union workers right now. Biden is saying
Speaker 1: while claiming that they're helping them, Like you just heard
Speaker 1: the Nancy Pelosi quote. Yes, and so my view is
Speaker 1: this aught be negotiated between the labor unions and the railroads,
Speaker 1: and they ought to work it out. And you know,
Speaker 1: I was talking with with with one of the CEOs
Speaker 1: of one of the big railroads recently and I asked him,
Speaker 1: you know. I talked to him at home Sunday night
Speaker 1: while I was at home over Thanksgiving, and I said, Okay,
Speaker 1: if Congress does this, what happens next month when there's
Speaker 1: a strike of airline pilots? Do we step in also
Speaker 1: and resolve the dispute between management and the unions in
Speaker 1: airline pilots? And how about the month after that when
Speaker 1: there's a strike of auto workers, do we step in there?
Speaker 1: And is Congress's job now to step in and crush
Speaker 1: the unions and resolve these issues or should they be
Speaker 1: worked out in negotiations between management and the workers? And
Speaker 1: I think Biden is scared of what is going to come,
Speaker 1: and so what is likely to happen. Biden and Schumer
Speaker 1: and Pelosi are going to force through a deal that
Speaker 1: rams a result down on the union workers despite the
Speaker 1: fact that they don't want it. And I stood up
Speaker 1: at lunch today. We actually had a pretty vigorous discussion.
Speaker 1: This was the other big topic at lunch, and I
Speaker 1: got up at a couple of other my colleagues got
Speaker 1: up and I said, look, I get Historically, Republicans have
Speaker 1: been viewed as reflexively pro management and Democrats as reflexively
Speaker 1: pro union. I think one of the most consequential political
Speaker 1: shifts of the last decade is that Republicans have become
Speaker 1: a blue collar party. We are the party of working
Speaker 1: men and women, We are the party of truck drivers
Speaker 1: and steel workers, and we are the party of the
Speaker 1: railroad union workers. And not just that. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans that are old National Chamber of Commerce,
Speaker 1: Republicans that just automatically, if the unions want it, we're
Speaker 1: against it. And here's what Biden's counting on is that
Speaker 1: some Republicans will come save as Bacon like. My view is,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to step in and force a deal
Speaker 1: that the railroad workers don't want. They ought to negotiate
Speaker 1: that with management and resolve it. And if the Biden
Speaker 1: White House hadn't screwed this up, we wouldn't been this
Speaker 1: mess to begin with. How quickly are we going to
Speaker 1: see movement you think from Congress? I mean, Pelosi says, hey,
Speaker 1: we're gonna take this up in the morning, right We're
Speaker 1: gonna get on this right away. Is there anything left
Speaker 1: that the union can do to stop Congress from screwing
Speaker 1: them or is it pretty much the fix is already
Speaker 1: in so I don't know. It sounds like Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Schumer are willing to ram through Biden's deal, screwing the
Speaker 1: working men. Now, I will say Bernie Sanders also doesn't
Speaker 1: like this deal. But Bernie Sanders wants to introduce legislation
Speaker 1: forcibly granting the union members I think in additional five
Speaker 1: days of sick leave. I don't support what Bernie's doing either.
Speaker 1: I don't think Congress ought to get in the middle
Speaker 1: of this fight and say you win, you lose. Look
Speaker 1: in abor arrangement, you have the ability, the workers have
Speaker 1: the ability to negotiate with management. They can fight back
Speaker 1: and forth, and they can resolve at their selves. And
Speaker 1: I don't think it should come down to who has
Speaker 1: more political strokes. So I don't support Bernie Sanders saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: we agree with we're just going to mandate the results.
Speaker 1: But I also don't think management ought to be able
Speaker 1: to run to the White House and say we want
Speaker 1: your help to squash what four of these twelve unions
Speaker 1: unions their members vot voted that they wanted. It'll be
Speaker 1: interesting to see how this ends up. And again, it's
Speaker 1: weird when you hear concertives as you just mentioned it.
Speaker 1: It was not exactly what I thought you were going
Speaker 1: to stay, Senator, but it makes sense. What you're saying
Speaker 1: is let them negotiate this and don't give them a
Speaker 1: bad deal. By the way, can I give you an
Speaker 1: interesting bit of historical trivia? Sure, So, the last time
Speaker 1: there was a rail strike, Congress stepped in and resolved it.
Speaker 1: Now what Congress did is it it adopted the recommendation
Speaker 1: of the Presidential Board. Here, it's not actually the recommendation
Speaker 1: of the Presidential Board that Biden wants to do. It's
Speaker 1: what's called a tentative agreement, which is modified from what
Speaker 1: the board recommended. But ninety two Congress did that. There
Speaker 1: were six senators who voted against the settlement that ended
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety two rail strike. You know who one
Speaker 1: of the six senators was? Who is that? Joe Biden? Wow?
Speaker 1: Wow history there. Yeah, you weren't joking. Ah, this is
Speaker 1: gonna be a mess right before the holiday, Senator. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. It's always nice to talk to you again
Speaker 1: when you're back in DC to hear what's going on
Speaker 1: behind the scenes. Don't forget subscribe. Hit that subscribe button.
Speaker 1: It's free and you'll get the show three days a week.
Speaker 1: We do the show obviously one day week using on
Speaker 1: video and audio as well, and the other two are
Speaker 1: just audio only. Make sure you write it's a five
Speaker 1: star review wherever you listen to this show, tell your
Speaker 1: family and friends about it, share it on social media,
Speaker 1: and you will see you back here in just a
Speaker 1: couple of days.