Speaker 1: I've got good news and good news and bad news.
Speaker 1: The good news is there's a big win for conservatives
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court. The other good news there's a
Speaker 1: big win for conservatives in the culture at the box office.
Speaker 1: But the bad news is squish Republicans are caving two
Speaker 1: Democrats up on Capitol Hill on the Second Amendment. Well,
Speaker 1: the co host of this show has just come from
Speaker 1: voting on that legislation. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: Today's episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to
Speaker 1: you by ip vanish. Did you know that browsing online
Speaker 1: using incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy? Without added security,
Speaker 1: you might as well give all your private data way
Speaker 1: to hackers, advertisers, your Internet service provider, and who knows
Speaker 1: who else. Ip Vanish helps you securely and privately browse
Speaker 1: the Internet by encrypting one hundred percent of your data.
Speaker 1: This means that your private messages, passwords, emails, browsing history,
Speaker 1: and information will be completely protected from falling into the
Speaker 1: wrong hands. Ip vanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's
Speaker 1: that simple. Just for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering
Speaker 1: an insane seventy percent off their annual plan. That's like
Speaker 1: getting nine months for free. You have to go directly
Speaker 1: to ip vanished dot com slash cactus to get this
Speaker 1: seventy percent off discount. Ip Vanish is super easy to use.
Speaker 1: Just tap one button and you're instantly protected. You won't
Speaker 1: even know it's on. You can use ip vanish on
Speaker 1: your computers, tablets, and phones, whether you're at home or
Speaker 1: in public. Don't go online without using ip Vanish. Don't forget.
Speaker 1: Verdict listeners get seventy percent off the ip vanish annual plan.
Speaker 1: Just go to ip vanished dot com slash cactus to
Speaker 1: claim your discount and secure your online life. That's ip
Speaker 1: v anish dot com slash Cactus. This episode, a Verdict
Speaker 1: that's Ted Cruise is brought to you by Jenny Cell.
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: Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum. You can you know
Speaker 1: see it sitting right here on the desk. 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 genu 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 gn u cel dot com slash cactus, Genua cell
Speaker 1: dot com slash cactus. This episode, A Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now, the
Speaker 1: new inflation numbers are out, and I think we can
Speaker 1: all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of gas
Speaker 1: is way up, the price of housing is up, the
Speaker 1: 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 headge 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 O n 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 eight one eight eight three,
Speaker 1: or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
Speaker 1: tactus to six five five three two. Again. The phone
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven to sixty eight one
Speaker 1: eight three or text the word tactus to six five
Speaker 1: five three two. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. You have just come from Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill just voting on this big gun control legislation. There
Speaker 1: seems to be a compromise between a bunch of Republicans
Speaker 1: and the Democrats. What happened, Well, I just voted about
Speaker 1: an hour ago on the initial vote, the motion to
Speaker 1: proceed to take up the legislation. Now, the statutory tax
Speaker 1: texts they rolled out just a couple of hours ago,
Speaker 1: so we're still in the process of studying the details
Speaker 1: of what they laid out. But all the Democrats voted
Speaker 1: for it, and fourteen Republicans voted for it. So the
Speaker 1: vote was sixty four to thirty four. They needed sixty
Speaker 1: to proceed, so they get They got there with fourteen
Speaker 1: Republicans and that's going to consume this week the debate
Speaker 1: on that bill. I think it is safe to say
Speaker 1: you are not one of the fourteen Republicans who voted
Speaker 1: to proceed with this legislation. That is safe, And actually
Speaker 1: I printed out the fourteen who are So if you
Speaker 1: want to know the fourteen who are it is Blunt, Burr, Capita, Cassidy, Collins, Cornin,
Speaker 1: Ernst Graham, McConnell, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Tillis, and Young. Those
Speaker 1: were the fourteen Republicans who voted. Yes, wish I could
Speaker 1: say that I were surprised, Senator, but I'm not. You
Speaker 1: know that obviously you've named a lot of the moderates
Speaker 1: and the people who often do go over with the
Speaker 1: Democrats here. But that's a big not fourteen is a
Speaker 1: big number. Well, it's a combination of the moderate to
Speaker 1: liberal Republicans combined with Republican leadership, combined with the Republicans
Speaker 1: who are retiring, and that's sort of the ace and
Speaker 1: the whole for leadership. As the folks who are retiring,
Speaker 1: you're never going to face the voters again, that they're
Speaker 1: likely going to go be lobbyists in town. And so
Speaker 1: suddenly they have all sorts of votes that the people
Speaker 1: who elected them would prefer they wouldn't take. But since
Speaker 1: they're not on the ballot anymore, they vote differently than
Speaker 1: they would otherwise. You know, it's it's actually it's a
Speaker 1: similar manifestation in the Senate. You've got six year terms
Speaker 1: and it's a common phenomenon. We're two out of every
Speaker 1: six years people grow a backbone or a conservative and
Speaker 1: those happen to me the two years they're on the ballot,
Speaker 1: and then the other four years they're not on the ballot,
Speaker 1: they transmogrify into very very different senators until the last
Speaker 1: two years when they're back on the ballot, when suddenly
Speaker 1: they become conservative again. And unfortunately, it's kind of a
Speaker 1: merry go round of of who are the chunk of
Speaker 1: Republicans on the ballot that will stand steady. The retiring
Speaker 1: Republicans it's an even worse problem because then they feel
Speaker 1: little to no accountability to the voters who sent them there.
Speaker 1: So this is still being worked out right now, just
Speaker 1: in broad strokes. How bad is it? You know, I
Speaker 1: don't know the full details, As I said, they just
Speaker 1: rolled out the statutory text right before we voted on it,
Speaker 1: which is a typical Capitol Hill strategy. So I'll study
Speaker 1: the details more and know it. There's some elements that
Speaker 1: are fairly unobjectionable in terms of funding for things like
Speaker 1: school safety that everyone agrees with. The most problematic elements
Speaker 1: I think concern red flag laws. Red flag laws that
Speaker 1: there's funding to incentivize states to pass red flag laws,
Speaker 1: red flag laws or proceedings whereby you can strip guns
Speaker 1: from law abiding citizens. And in a number of states,
Speaker 1: particularly Blue Democrats states, they're very very low thresholds for
Speaker 1: doing so. There's very little protection of due process. And
Speaker 1: you know, it poses a real problem if somebody is
Speaker 1: unhappy with you, Michael, if you have a you know,
Speaker 1: someone who's mad at you, a disgruntled coworker, a jilted
Speaker 1: ex girlfriend, what have you. Red flag laws, particularly without
Speaker 1: serious due process protections, can provide an avenue for that
Speaker 1: person unhappy with you to go behind your back and
Speaker 1: take away your Second Amendment rights to protect yourself. Because
Speaker 1: in that case, the red flag is not you know,
Speaker 1: some raving lunatic who's making direct threats, who says I'm
Speaker 1: gonna kill you. I'm gonna kill you. The red flag
Speaker 1: simply could be you are a conservative, you are a Republican,
Speaker 1: you voted for someone that I don't, You've said something
Speaker 1: that I disagree with. The red flag could be you,
Speaker 1: And in that case, to deprive someone of a constitutional
Speaker 1: civil right would seem to be a huge overreach. Well,
Speaker 1: and I will say this, look that they were negotiating
Speaker 1: back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats on the
Speaker 1: exact language. And so I haven't read the statutory language yet.
Speaker 1: I will read it this week before we vote on
Speaker 1: the final bill. This was the initial vote just to
Speaker 1: take it up. So I'll study the details. But there's
Speaker 1: a lot of there's a lot of variants in the details.
Speaker 1: The devil is in the detail on this. And so
Speaker 1: for example, some of the formulations they were talking about
Speaker 1: keyed off of whether someone was a quote mental defective.
Speaker 1: That's some language that actually is in federal law right now.
Speaker 1: It's sort of an different era. We don't don't tend
Speaker 1: to speak much in terms of things like mental defective.
Speaker 1: But if the threshold is low, I look, there are
Speaker 1: estimates that something like twenty percent of Americans have some
Speaker 1: form of mental illness. You know, I joked at lunch
Speaker 1: last week that it seems to me serving in the
Speaker 1: United States Congress should be prima facia evidence of mental illness.
Speaker 1: You know, you think about schools, how many kids are
Speaker 1: diagnosed with ADHD, how many kids are medicated on prozac
Speaker 1: or riddle in or something else. And if the threshold
Speaker 1: is low, that there's a hyperactive fifteen year old who
Speaker 1: gets a diagnosis and gets medicated and you have a
Speaker 1: gun grabbing Blue Stith that says, Okay, well, guess what,
Speaker 1: You've just lost your right to keeping bare arms for
Speaker 1: the rest of your life. I think that's obviously unconstitutional
Speaker 1: and would be striking struck down by any court following
Speaker 1: the law. But in the meantime, it's a real problem.
Speaker 1: And so my view on guns and crime generally is
Speaker 1: there's a right approach and a wrong approach. You know,
Speaker 1: there's an interesting story. Are you for here with Project Exile? No,
Speaker 1: I'm not okay. So Project Exile was something that was
Speaker 1: created during the Bill Clinton Justice Department, and it was
Speaker 1: created in Richmond, Virginia, in the Eastern District of Virginia,
Speaker 1: and it was the US attorney there laid out and said,
Speaker 1: we are going to prosecute anyone who commits a violent
Speaker 1: crime with a gun. We're gonna go after them under
Speaker 1: federal law. We're gonna lock them up in jail with
Speaker 1: a mandatory minimum sentence, and we're going to let people know.
Speaker 1: We're gonna let people know if you knock over a
Speaker 1: liquor store and you're a felon. If you're a felon
Speaker 1: in possession of a firearm, that carries a mandatory minimum
Speaker 1: settence under federal law, but typically the Feds don't prosecute it.
Speaker 1: Project Exile says you commit a crime with a firearm,
Speaker 1: you're going to jail, you're doing hard time, and they
Speaker 1: advertise it. They put up billboards in Richmond in Virginia,
Speaker 1: carry a gun, do hard time. And Richmond had one
Speaker 1: of the highest murder rates in the country, and the
Speaker 1: Feds started anytime you brought a gun to a crime boom,
Speaker 1: you got prosecuted, and the murder rates plummeted, and you
Speaker 1: started seeing criminals that would literally go knock over a
Speaker 1: liquor store, go do a home invasion, and they leave
Speaker 1: their gun at home because they'd say, if I take
Speaker 1: a gun, I'm doing serious federal time. If you want
Speaker 1: to stop crimes, that's the sort of program that works.
Speaker 1: That's a great point. Obviously, we all agree that we
Speaker 1: should take guns away from criminals and people who have,
Speaker 1: in some objective way been seemed to be too dangerous
Speaker 1: to have a gun. We shouldn't just go along with
Speaker 1: some program to exploit a shooting or a tragedy as
Speaker 1: a way to advance generally unrelated gun control measures that
Speaker 1: Democrats have been pushing for a while. Not too late
Speaker 1: to stop this kind of thing. Let's hope that the
Speaker 1: squishes toughen up a little bit here and back off
Speaker 1: of this and listen to this podcast. That's the bad
Speaker 1: news that the squishes are going along with the Dems here.
Speaker 1: There is quite a lot of good news in the culture, though.
Speaker 1: I really want to get to the Supreme Court case,
Speaker 1: which the Left has lost their mind over. They've now
Speaker 1: said that this is a nearly fatal blow to the
Speaker 1: separation of church and state. Before that, though, I do
Speaker 1: have to do a little bit of gloating on the
Speaker 1: culture front. There was a big cultural win here. We
Speaker 1: sort of predicted it on this show. It's the get woke,
Speaker 1: go broke prediction. We talked last time about how people
Speaker 1: don't want to see toys and cartoon characters engaging in
Speaker 1: all sorts of eccentric sexual activities and kissing and pushing
Speaker 1: the woke sexual revolutionary agenda. And then over the weekend
Speaker 1: light Year, which made a big show of having a
Speaker 1: lesbian toy kiss in it. Light Year bombed at the
Speaker 1: box office. They were expecting a global box office of
Speaker 1: one hundred thirty five million dollars. What did it come to?
Speaker 1: I think it was eighty something million. And then the
Speaker 1: domestic box office was way below predictions at fifty one
Speaker 1: million dollars. Did you, senator, did you take the air
Speaker 1: out of the gay toys? That's a question I've never
Speaker 1: gotten before. Listen. I will say this. I do think
Speaker 1: it's amazing how the Verdict podcast seems to be driving Hollywood.
Speaker 1: At our campus live tour in Alabama, we talked about
Speaker 1: how Disney wanted Mickey and Pluto to go at it,
Speaker 1: and liberals brains exploded, and apparently the showrunners for Light
Speaker 1: Years said, hey, what a great idea. Let's have lesbian
Speaker 1: toys get it on. And you know they got a
Speaker 1: little Berry White and with his deep boys, let's get
Speaker 1: it on. And then last week on Verdict, we said
Speaker 1: this is terrible. Leave the kids alone. You said, we
Speaker 1: don't want to see uh eccentric sex with with with
Speaker 1: kids or toys. Let me take out the word eccentric.
Speaker 1: How about no sex like kids and toys. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I will say leftists really lost their minds
Speaker 1: because last week we talked about do we really need
Speaker 1: lesbian toys and cartoons? And leftist like the phrase lesbian
Speaker 1: toys that I really think they're tiny, little walnut sized
Speaker 1: brains broke that that apparently they're supposed to go on
Speaker 1: these these cultural rampages and we're not supposed to notice. Ye,
Speaker 1: and not only that, we're all supposed to quietly shut
Speaker 1: up and take our kids. Well, you know what, there
Speaker 1: were very few kids movies at the box office this
Speaker 1: past weekend. It was Father's Day. You want to talk
Speaker 1: about a good time to take your kids to the movies.
Speaker 1: And I think there were a whole bunch of Americans
Speaker 1: that said, you know what, I can think of something
Speaker 1: better to do than listen to Hollywood lecture my six
Speaker 1: year old on their views of sexuality. How about just
Speaker 1: to have a fun like the Toy Story films are awesome. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it speaks volumes that while light Year was getting
Speaker 1: his ass kicked, the kicker was Tom Cruise and Maverick
Speaker 1: in Top Gune, a straight up patriotic conservative. We love
Speaker 1: Americans beat the bad guys like the contrast is night
Speaker 1: and day, and Hollywood is so knuckleheaded that they seem
Speaker 1: unable to get the message. Maybe they will, because look,
Speaker 1: there's tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars delta
Speaker 1: between those two. Maverick's been out for several weeks and
Speaker 1: it's still obliterated light Year. Somebody depositing the checks ought
Speaker 1: to notice that they certainly should. That this is what
Speaker 1: the left does to so many institutions. Is as you say,
Speaker 1: Toy Story is a great movie. It's a great friend.
Speaker 1: I love Toy Story one. I liked Toy Story two.
Speaker 1: I don't really remember Toy Story three or if there
Speaker 1: was a four, but they were good movies. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Tim Allen was fantastic. Tim Allen was fantastic.
Speaker 1: Then they yanked him out of this movie. And so
Speaker 1: people look at it and they say, well, we like
Speaker 1: these movies. And then the radicals go in and they say, oh, look,
Speaker 1: we've got these really popular movies and institutions. Let's go
Speaker 1: in and in a really heavy handed way, in a
Speaker 1: very didactic and obvious way, let's go in and use
Speaker 1: the things that people love to push our radical political agenda,
Speaker 1: which is completely superfluous and irrelevant to the story. And
Speaker 1: I'm really pleased to see that the American parents and
Speaker 1: moviegoers said, oh, no, thank you. Yeah, we like toy story.
Speaker 1: We don't like you using the things that we love
Speaker 1: to push your radical agendas. So no thanks. And let
Speaker 1: me make a point also, Michael, this is also not
Speaker 1: about so the left like saying things like the Florida
Speaker 1: law was don't say gay. You're right, it's actually not
Speaker 1: about that. And I'll give an example on the counter. So,
Speaker 1: Hollywood usually is so willing to chase the dollar that
Speaker 1: they're craven when it comes to China, and they're willing
Speaker 1: to censor movies because China wants them too. And one
Speaker 1: great example of that is Bohemian Rhapsody. Bohemian Rhapsody, I
Speaker 1: think was a fantastic movie. I really enjoyed that. It
Speaker 1: was very well done. China insisted that they edit Bohemian
Speaker 1: Rhapsody to cut out the scene showing Freddie Mercury was gay, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, is insane. How do you tell Freddie
Speaker 1: Mercury's life story and leave out that he's gay. It
Speaker 1: was a big damn part of his life. And Bohemian
Speaker 1: Rhapsody is not being marketed to six year olds. It
Speaker 1: Bohemian Rhapsody was an R rated movie. It was four adults.
Speaker 1: It was the story of an credible artists that was
Speaker 1: entirely appropriate. You know, Rocketman about Elton John. You wouldn't
Speaker 1: tell Elton John's life story and leave out that he's gay.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's an integral part of who he is.
Speaker 1: What made the light Year Antics so dismaying. It was
Speaker 1: entirely gratuitous. It was meant it was targeted at kids,
Speaker 1: and it was meant to say, this is what we
Speaker 1: want to convey to you, little children. And I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the parents are saying, leave our kids alone,
Speaker 1: and and and let us discuss sex and sexuality with
Speaker 1: our kids at a time and age that is appropriate,
Speaker 1: not what you If we can't even take him to
Speaker 1: Disney movies, what can we take him to? Right? Stop
Speaker 1: stop forcing this. I love that point it was. It
Speaker 1: was so gratuitous, superfluous, irrelevant to the plot of Toy Story,
Speaker 1: was so heavy handed and on the nose. And I
Speaker 1: like that that the the gamble from the left didn't
Speaker 1: pay off, that the moviegoers are not so infatuated with
Speaker 1: Toy Story that they were willing to go to the
Speaker 1: movies and just allow the left to go in and
Speaker 1: hollow out their stories to push their own radical agenda.
Speaker 1: So there was a big one at the box office.
Speaker 1: There was also apparently a big win for conservatives at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. This isn't the case that Carson versus Making.
Speaker 1: This is a case up in Maine on religious liberty.
Speaker 1: That would seem to be what's the case about. So
Speaker 1: it's a terrific, terrific victory for religious liberty. So the
Speaker 1: state of Maine has a tuition assistance program, and then
Speaker 1: there's some parts of Maine that are very rural where
Speaker 1: they don't actually have public schools up and running, and
Speaker 1: so the state provides tutition assistance for you to send
Speaker 1: your kids to whatever schools are there, to whatever private
Speaker 1: schools are there, particularly in smaller communities where you don't
Speaker 1: have the resources of a big public school. But Maine
Speaker 1: excluded religious schools. Said you can send your kids somewhere,
Speaker 1: but if it's a religious school, or as they called it,
Speaker 1: a sectarian school, which means they actually believe in faith,
Speaker 1: believe in God, and teach something about God, then you're
Speaker 1: not eligible. And so the plaintiffs in this case challenge
Speaker 1: that and said, look, you're discriminating against my free exercise
Speaker 1: of religion. And I want to choose to send my
Speaker 1: kid to a religious school, and you're discriminating against faith
Speaker 1: and religion. And the Supreme Court six three So Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts wrote the opinion and concluded that it violated
Speaker 1: the Constitution to discriminate against religious schools when otherwise they
Speaker 1: would qualify, they met all the other criteria. If they
Speaker 1: just stopped as pesky references to God, they would get
Speaker 1: the state money. But if they insist you say God, Nope,
Speaker 1: no money. And the Supreme Court said, sorry, you can't.
Speaker 1: If it's an equally applicable program that everyone else can get,
Speaker 1: you can't discriminate against people of faith and school rules
Speaker 1: of faith just because they're exercising their First Amendment rights
Speaker 1: and their religious liberty rights. I think it is a
Speaker 1: great victory for religious liberty for everyone. But it's also
Speaker 1: a great victory for school choice, and both of those
Speaker 1: I think are incredibly important. Now, what are conservatives supposed
Speaker 1: to say when they hear the liberal justices on the
Speaker 1: Court and a lot of people in the liberal media
Speaker 1: complaining that this is an outrageous attack on the American
Speaker 1: tradition of the separation between church and state. Well, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of things they should say. First of all,
Speaker 1: the words separation of church and state are found nowhere
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. They're not in the Constitution, they're not
Speaker 1: in the Bill of Rights, they're not in the Declaration
Speaker 1: of Independence. That's not there. The phrase a wall of
Speaker 1: separation between church and state comes from a letter that
Speaker 1: Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist So it's a
Speaker 1: private correspondence is where that phrase is taken from. But
Speaker 1: it's not actually the law. And what is the law
Speaker 1: is the First Amendment. And the First Amendment has two
Speaker 1: religious liberty clauses. It has the establishment clause that prevents
Speaker 1: Congress from establishing a religion, and it has the free
Speaker 1: exercise clause that prevents Congress and prevents government from restricting
Speaker 1: the free exercise of religion. And there are two different
Speaker 1: interpretations of what the establishment clause mean. Liberals interpret it
Speaker 1: as saying that essentially government must be hostile to religion,
Speaker 1: that government must treat religion as something bad. That's where
Speaker 1: you get the phrase wall of separation of church and
Speaker 1: state is church bad. I think that's a complete misreading
Speaker 1: of what the establishment clause is about. The establishment clause
Speaker 1: was about preventing government from controlling churches, preventing government from
Speaker 1: controlling faith. Both the establishment Clause and free exercise clause
Speaker 1: work hand in hand. Well, this actually leads into one
Speaker 1: of the mail bag questions that we got. We've been
Speaker 1: extremely derelict on taking mail bag questions, so I do
Speaker 1: want to get through a few of them before we go.
Speaker 1: And this was on this case and on the question
Speaker 1: of religious liberty. This is from Zachary who says, if
Speaker 1: the Satanic Temple starts private schools that your tax dollars
Speaker 1: will pay for, will you? Conservatives regret the Supreme Court decision,
Speaker 1: so we're happy about it now. I think this is
Speaker 1: a great ruling. And obviously I don't think that the
Speaker 1: Christian school should be discriminated against, and I'm very in
Speaker 1: favor of school choice. But what happens if the Satanic Temple,
Speaker 1: which is as it's a little different than the outright
Speaker 1: the Satanists down on their knees, they're kind of ironic Satanists.
Speaker 1: And we could debate further whether one can be an
Speaker 1: ironic Satanist or if you end up kind of being
Speaker 1: a sincere one either way. But what if they started
Speaker 1: school and they say, Okay, we've got the Satan's school,
Speaker 1: and your tax dollars are going to go for that is? One,
Speaker 1: would that follow from the support case? And two should
Speaker 1: we support it? So yes, it would follow, and should
Speaker 1: we support it? Well, let me answer it by making
Speaker 1: an observation. I don't maintain today that federal student loans,
Speaker 1: federal pell grants should be disallowed from going to Yale University.
Speaker 1: So why should I say they shouldn't go to the
Speaker 1: Satanic temple they're teaching? Is much garbage at Yale, right,
Speaker 1: and for that matter, of my alma maters, Princeton at Harvard.
Speaker 1: So I don't don't particularly mean to single out Yale.
Speaker 1: It's a really good point on I'm sorry to say,
Speaker 1: on my alma mater, and yours too, and probably most
Speaker 1: schools at this point in the country. Is if you
Speaker 1: had a school that was teaching the tenets of Satanism
Speaker 1: and then you had any old run of the mill
Speaker 1: public or otherwise nambr nambrand school, what would the difference be.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that if it were a blind test,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure you could identify them. So Michael, let
Speaker 1: me give you an example. A tenured professor at Princeton
Speaker 1: is a guy named Peter Singer. Peter Singer is a
Speaker 1: very left wing ethicist who, among other things, has argued
Speaker 1: not only is easy in favor of abortion on demand,
Speaker 1: which a lot of people in the left are, he's
Speaker 1: argued in favor of infanticide up until age six. Right,
Speaker 1: it's a fair bet that Professor Singer could could make
Speaker 1: some of the some of the more moderate Satanists blush.
Speaker 1: That's a very important point. And there's a phrase you
Speaker 1: rarely hear more moderate Satanists. So this question. I got
Speaker 1: a lot of questions this week with lots of salty language,
Speaker 1: but this is a family show, so I'm going to
Speaker 1: clean it up a little bit. This was one of
Speaker 1: the more eloquently written ones, gets back to what we
Speaker 1: were talking about at the top of the show. This
Speaker 1: is from Josh. Why are there so many worthless Rhino Republicans? Currently?
Speaker 1: And it's not obviously this guy and other people are
Speaker 1: complaining about this, but it is a real tactical Republican question,
Speaker 1: which is why are there so many Rhinos? Why are
Speaker 1: there so many people when it seems that there is
Speaker 1: so much wind at the backs of the Conservatives because
Speaker 1: we don't do a good enough job in primaries on
Speaker 1: insisting on and finding strong conservatives with proven records. Listen,
Speaker 1: I'm on the road NonStop between now and election day.
Speaker 1: I'll probably be on the road thirty forty days between
Speaker 1: now in the November election, campaigning for candidates for the Senate,
Speaker 1: campaigning for candidates for the House. Look, I'll give you
Speaker 1: an example. So we had primary elections tonight, in multiple races. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: I campaigned for a candidate in Northern Virginia, Yes Lee Vega. Yes,
Speaker 1: Lee Vega is, and she won tonight. So I did
Speaker 1: two rallies for yesterday. She won tonight. So Yes, Le Vegas,
Speaker 1: I think a fantastic candidate. She's running in a Democrat district.
Speaker 1: You have Abigail Spanberg, who's the incumbent. Yes. Lee is
Speaker 1: the daughter of immigrants from El Salvador. Her brother was
Speaker 1: nearly killed by MS thirteen. He was badly wounded by
Speaker 1: MS thirteen. She knows firsthand the perils of illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: She's a cop. In fact, she's a three time cop.
Speaker 1: She's been a member of two police forces, and she's
Speaker 1: now a deputy sheriff. She is the wife of an
Speaker 1: army soldier. She is the daughter of a pastor. Her
Speaker 1: dad is a pastor right now in Maryland. She is
Speaker 1: the mom of two teenage kids. And she is a
Speaker 1: fantastic candidate. Now, when she jumped in this race, no
Speaker 1: one thought she had a prayer. All the money was
Speaker 1: on the other side. I sat down, I met with her.
Speaker 1: I said, you're a star. Endorsed her, campaigned for she
Speaker 1: was trailing yesterday. She just won today. That's encouraging. We
Speaker 1: don't do that enough. And there's a structural problem. Listen,
Speaker 1: Republican leadership in both the Senate and House, they want members.
Speaker 1: Their number one criterion is a member who will be obedient,
Speaker 1: who will just do what leadership says. And the dirty
Speaker 1: little secret is if you have someone who's going to
Speaker 1: rock the boat, who's going to be a rebel, leadership
Speaker 1: would rather a Democrat get elected than a pain in
Speaker 1: the neck conservative who will buck leadership. If you're a
Speaker 1: middle of the road, squishy mod they'll flood you with
Speaker 1: cash because you'll be obedient, you'll do what leadership wants.
Speaker 1: If you're a pain in the neck conservative, they'll do
Speaker 1: everything they can to kill you. And so listen, if
Speaker 1: you want stronger conservatives, then you've got to get involved
Speaker 1: in the primary process and get behind people who will
Speaker 1: follow through on what they say. Not only are you
Speaker 1: hanging around trying to gum things up on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: while the squishes are to give away our Second Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: Not only are you going around the country raising lots
Speaker 1: of money for the good conservative candidates, but not only
Speaker 1: are you doing this show, coming straight and doing this.
Speaker 1: But Senator, we can't let you go because you are
Speaker 1: sticking around for the verdict plus community to discuss even
Speaker 1: more on the cloak room with Liz Wheel or Liz
Speaker 1: what are you going to talk about him? Michael High, Senator,
Speaker 1: we are going to get into some really nitty gritty
Speaker 1: legal stuff. So we're all waiting with bated breath for
Speaker 1: the dab's decision. Right, is roeb Wade going to be overturned?
Speaker 1: Did Chief Justice John Roberts convince somebody else to join
Speaker 1: him in not overturning roev Wade. We're waiting for this.
Speaker 1: It seems like it's going to be at the last minute.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats meanwhile are preparing their arsenal of what
Speaker 1: they're going to do in response to Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: being overturned, what tactics they're going to use, and so
Speaker 1: we're going to dive into some of the legalities of
Speaker 1: some of their ideas because a couple of their suggestions,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure are against the law. So if you'd
Speaker 1: like to join us for this conversation, it's going to
Speaker 1: be great. Head on over to Verdict Plus. It's Verdict
Speaker 1: with Tedcruise dot com slash Plus. If you use my
Speaker 1: promo code Cloakroom, then you can watch for free for
Speaker 1: one month on your annual subscription. It's Verdict with tedcrewis
Speaker 1: dot com slash Plus and the promo code is Cloakroom.
Speaker 1: It's really going to be a great discussion. I'm very
Speaker 1: excited about it. And Michael, let me jump in for
Speaker 1: a second and take people behind the behind the curtain
Speaker 1: and get in a little bit of the sausage making
Speaker 1: of how we do Cloakroom. So before we do the podcast,
Speaker 1: every week, Michael, you and I get on a conversation
Speaker 1: with our producer and we talk about what topics we
Speaker 1: want to have and sort of roughly lay out Okay, tonight,
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about the gun stuff, and we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about light Year, and we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about the Spring Court case. This just happens on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill. On this we gotta hit this right. So
Speaker 1: we do a prep call and it's a loose prep call.
Speaker 1: We kind of just roughly have topics and then then
Speaker 1: get into it. But it's interesting Cloakroom the way we've done,
Speaker 1: and it just sort of arisen organically every episode when
Speaker 1: you turn to Liz and say, Liz, what are we
Speaker 1: get a discussed on cloak Room? If you cut to
Speaker 1: me and asked me, I have utterly no idea. So
Speaker 1: when Liz comes on, she's coming up with these topics
Speaker 1: and she sort of has a mandate of fine, interesting, esoteric,
Speaker 1: deep dive legal topics. And I gotta say she's phenomenal
Speaker 1: at coming up. She's come up with some really good topics.
Speaker 1: But I'm sitting here every week, I don't know, let's
Speaker 1: hear And sometimes if it's really esoteric, Liz and I
Speaker 1: will have a brief like she'll forward me some if
Speaker 1: she wants to talk about a particular case that I
Speaker 1: haven't read recently, she'll forward it to me and I'll
Speaker 1: reread it quickly. But it is an interesting process because
Speaker 1: we've had some really good deep dives on cloak Room
Speaker 1: of ideas that Liz has that she springs on me
Speaker 1: out of nowhere and we jump into him. This week
Speaker 1: on cloak Room will be discussing the airspeed velocity of
Speaker 1: an unladen swallow. Well, I can't wait. I can't wait
Speaker 1: to hear the topic and so I don't have to
Speaker 1: do any preparation at all. It's you're in the hot seat,
Speaker 1: Senator Liz. You've got all the prep. We will see
Speaker 1: you next time. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This
Speaker 1: episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to
Speaker 1: you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action
Speaker 1: committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across
Speaker 1: the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security
Speaker 1: Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress
Speaker 1: and help the Republican Party across the nation.