Speaker 1: Think about that, So Security you paid for your whole life, Medicare,
Speaker 1: Medicaid not a joke. Really, ask yourself, how are you
Speaker 1: going to sleep at night knowing that every five years,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise and the other ultramgat Republicans are going to
Speaker 1: vote on whether you'll have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. It's
Speaker 1: unlikely they'll be able to wipe it out, but any
Speaker 1: one of you doubt for a second they'll find ways
Speaker 1: to cut benefits and programs in order to keep anything going.
Speaker 1: That's what this is about. They've always wanted to cut
Speaker 1: Social Security, They've always wanted to cut Medicare, They've always
Speaker 1: wanted to cut Medicaid. This episode, A Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruise is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now,
Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
Speaker 1: the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulent,
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 oh one K or your IRA, they make it easy.
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two. Again, the phone
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven, six eight one eight
Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word tactus to sixty five
Speaker 1: five three two. Today's episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: is brought to you by ip Vanish. Did you know
Speaker 1: that browsing online using incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy?
Speaker 1: Without added security, you might as well give all your
Speaker 1: private data way to hackers, advertisers, your Internet service provider,
Speaker 1: and who knows who else. Ip Vanish helps you securely
Speaker 1: and privately browse the Internet by encrypting one hundred percent
Speaker 1: of your data. This means that your private messages, passwords, emails,
Speaker 1: browsing history, and other information will be completely protected from
Speaker 1: falling into the wrong hands. Ip Vanish makes you virtually
Speaker 1: invisible online. It's that simple. Just for Verdict listeners, ip
Speaker 1: vanish is offering an insane seventy percent off their annual plan.
Speaker 1: That's like getting nine months for free. You have to
Speaker 1: go directly to ip vanish dot com slash tactus to
Speaker 1: get this seventy percent off discount. Ip vanish is super
Speaker 1: easy to use. Just tap one button and you're instantly protected.
Speaker 1: You won't even know it's on. You can use ip
Speaker 1: vanish on your computers, tablets, and phones, whether you're at
Speaker 1: home or in public. Don't go online without use ip vanish.
Speaker 1: Don't forget. Verdict listeners get seventy percent off the ip
Speaker 1: vanish annual plan. Just go to ip vanished dot com
Speaker 1: slash cactus to claim your discount and secure your online life.
Speaker 1: That's ip va nish dot com slash Cactus. This episode,
Speaker 1: A Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by
Speaker 1: Jennia Cell. How old does your mirror say you are?
Speaker 1: You can delay this question by five, ten, even fifteen years.
Speaker 1: With Jenny Cell's new ultra retinal cerum. 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 Jennia 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, our skincare products, and it's fun.
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 geniu Cell's
Speaker 1: new Ultra Retinals serum. That is fifty percent off if
Speaker 1: you go to genueell dot com slash Cactus. It's spelled
Speaker 1: g e n u cel dot com slash cactus, genu
Speaker 1: cell dot com slash Tactus. Welcome back to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles no longer able to sleep
Speaker 1: at night because the co host of this show is
Speaker 1: going to take away everybody's social security, so says the
Speaker 1: leader of the formerly free World. Senator What say you? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I will say the White House this week
Speaker 1: noted and designated it as Elder Abuse Day, and I
Speaker 1: guess I do have to apologize because apparently I'm interfering
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden's naptime. You know, it really is amazing
Speaker 1: that the kind of fearmongering that the White House does.
Speaker 1: You remember years ago the Democrats ran ads of Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan literally pushing Granny off the cliff. So now he's
Speaker 1: standing at the aflcio saying Cruise wants to end the
Speaker 1: social security I mean, look, let's be honest. Who has
Speaker 1: hurt seniors more in the past twenty years than Joseph
Speaker 1: Robinette Biden Junior. You got nine percent inflation, food prices skyrocketing,
Speaker 1: healthcare skyrocketing, electricity skyrocketing, gas skyrocketing. Seniors are getting screwed.
Speaker 1: The only one who can compete with Joe Biden for
Speaker 1: screwing seniors is Jimmy Carter. And so what does he do?
Speaker 1: He fearmongers, He suggests, Look, so security is a bedrock
Speaker 1: of our country. Ain't nobody messing with it? He knows that,
Speaker 1: but he can't run on his record, so he's got
Speaker 1: to scare people. And I'm sorry that that that that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is finding it hard to sleep at night.
Speaker 1: Someone once told me in politics many years ago that
Speaker 1: the only thing worse than being talked about is not
Speaker 1: being talked about. And I assume that principle is in
Speaker 1: play here. It's interesting that Biden, while he's making this
Speaker 1: desperate plea in what seems to be a very unfavorable
Speaker 1: year for Democrats, he's going after you. Yeah, I will say,
Speaker 1: I guess I'm kind of flattered that that. Apparently I'm
Speaker 1: not just maga, I am ultraumaga like and just to
Speaker 1: say that's a point of clarification, your Senator, you worked
Speaker 1: very well with Donald Trump. Obviously, you guys worked very
Speaker 1: well together during the administration. But I seem to recall
Speaker 1: that you were the man's chief primary rival. If I've
Speaker 1: already going to describe someone as ultraumaga, doesn't that seem
Speaker 1: a little bit strange to describe the guy's primary rival
Speaker 1: that way. So look, Biden gets confused sometimes, and I'm
Speaker 1: not sure he knows what any of these words mean.
Speaker 1: I mean Biden literally he was elected to the Senate
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy two. When Joe Biden was first elected
Speaker 1: to the Senate, I was one and a half years old. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I understand how he remembers back to the false
Speaker 1: campaigns Democrats of ron way back when you know what
Speaker 1: Biden said, Ronald Reagan was going to take away so Security.
Speaker 1: I mean, Biden has been saying that line for a
Speaker 1: long time, for literally the entirety of my life and
Speaker 1: for about double the entirety of years. That's a good,
Speaker 1: good point, actually, and Reagan had two terms didn't take
Speaker 1: away social Security. It did strike me when he said
Speaker 1: that as just a kind of tired old line. Maybe
Speaker 1: it would have worked in twenty ten or twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: But you know, even his talking points they seemed to
Speaker 1: be a little dated at this point, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: just a Biden senator. You know I do not speak Spanish.
Speaker 1: You know this. You have spoken Spanish to me. I
Speaker 1: have responded by asking you where the library is. That
Speaker 1: is the extent of my Spanish. But from what I
Speaker 1: could make out, it sounds as though the President of Mexico,
Speaker 1: mister Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, does not like you very much.
Speaker 1: It's a senior endo game insist la protejo qua nicaraguezuela
Speaker 1: restaurants amarco no lo covin us for Florida Republican and
Speaker 1: see peror no solos. His sister senior Roo view Albertido Republican,
Speaker 1: it ta Cruz Chamberti Republican t curus, while the Crusado
Speaker 1: solo protejo dictadas see Okay permidi an arcotrafico que Domina
Speaker 1: territorial de Mexicogo senior the Cruz Marco MBI. Also, I
Speaker 1: could make out about one phrase their senator. The phrase
Speaker 1: was ted Cruz. Ted Cruz kept coming coming up, So
Speaker 1: if you wouldn't mind I know you're a little more
Speaker 1: fluent than I am. What did the president of Mexico
Speaker 1: say about you? And why is he so angry with you?
Speaker 1: So I will say that that is one of the
Speaker 1: most bizarre press conferences I've ever seen, because you've got
Speaker 1: a Mexican reporter who asked him a question about Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio and and am Low says, I'm sorry, who is
Speaker 1: this Rubio guy? I don't know who he is and
Speaker 1: and and the reporter says, oh, he's the senator from Florida.
Speaker 1: And he goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, they're three of them,
Speaker 1: three of the Cubans but ted Cruz. And it's the
Speaker 1: most bizarre thing because the reporter asked about Rubio, and
Speaker 1: am Low responds by attacking me, and I mean, going
Speaker 1: off on a screed, attacking me. And it's really bizarre.
Speaker 1: So the reason am Loo is is so worked up
Speaker 1: is that a a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, I
Speaker 1: pointed out that Mexico has had a horrific record under
Speaker 1: AMLO's presidency of allowing journalists to be murdered, and we're
Speaker 1: seeing historic levels of the drug cartels murdering journalists. If
Speaker 1: a journalist darres Cover the drug cartels and cover their
Speaker 1: murdering and murder and extortion and crimes. They're killing them
Speaker 1: and AMLO's turning a blind eye. And what's fascinating about
Speaker 1: this exchange. So Rubio had tweeted about AMLO's support for Cuba,
Speaker 1: Nicaragua and Venezuela and dictators, and actually Amlo doesn't mind that.
Speaker 1: He's like, yeah, yeah, forget about the dictators. Cruz is
Speaker 1: saying I'm turning a blind eye to the drug cartels.
Speaker 1: And what he says there is show me the proof.
Speaker 1: And he actually goes on later in that press conference
Speaker 1: to say I have the proof. I have the proof
Speaker 1: that Cruise is on the take from the supporters of
Speaker 1: gun rights. And so he goes on this whole thing about,
Speaker 1: you know, Cruz refuses to ban guns. You know what,
Speaker 1: am low damned straight, I refuse to ban guns. We
Speaker 1: have this thing in the United States called the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: the right to keep in bear arms. You don't want
Speaker 1: your citizens to be able to defend themselves from the
Speaker 1: drug cartels that that are terrorizing innocent Mexican citizens. And
Speaker 1: instead of responding to the substance, instead of having a
Speaker 1: government that actually takes steps to protect freedom of the press,
Speaker 1: to protect journalists, to stand up to the criminals. Instead,
Speaker 1: you know, Amlow seems very very dismayed it uh, you know,
Speaker 1: to quote Shakespeare mean thinks she doth protest too much.
Speaker 1: I just love that he has that nickname am Low.
Speaker 1: He's sort of like j Low with the Andreas Manuel
Speaker 1: Lopez overdo. That's very impressive. And when you've got two
Speaker 1: world leaders, both in North America attacking you. You've got
Speaker 1: Biden going after you and then the speckless guy down
Speaker 1: in Mexico, I suppose that means you're probably doing something right. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm just waiting for Justin Trudeau. I want the trifecta.
Speaker 1: Come on, man, the Canadian truckers were right. Let's see
Speaker 1: if Trudeau rises to the occasion. Now, Justin Trudeau knows
Speaker 1: a thing or two about Cuba and Cubans, according to rumors,
Speaker 1: but who knows. Maybe we can discuss that on a
Speaker 1: future podcast. I do have to talk about one of Michael.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to ask you who's your daddy. That's true,
Speaker 1: as Telemachus says, it's a wise man knows his own father,
Speaker 1: and certainly that's true. Up in America's hat as well.
Speaker 1: But closer to home, there is another group that's going
Speaker 1: after you. That would be, of course, the media and
Speaker 1: the Congressional Democrats. And really, I suppose I'm repeating myself
Speaker 1: in the January sixth committee because you have been such
Speaker 1: a target of this whole thing. What is your take
Speaker 1: on the January sixth hearings? You know, Pelosi really gave
Speaker 1: up the game when the committee was being four And
Speaker 1: typically in a committee you have a roughly equal number
Speaker 1: of Democrats and Republicans. The majority party typically has one
Speaker 1: or two more, but it's about equal, and the majority
Speaker 1: party doesn't get to pick the other parties members that
Speaker 1: are on it. And so Kevin McCarthy selected several people,
Speaker 1: including Jim Jordan and Nancy Pelosi said no, no, we
Speaker 1: don't want real Republicans, we don't want actually people who
Speaker 1: will ask questions. Instead, she picked she picked Liz Cheney
Speaker 1: and Adam Kinzinger because they both decided they're not Republicans
Speaker 1: anymore and their agenda is the same, which is to
Speaker 1: attack all the Republicans just like Pelosi's is right, and
Speaker 1: you know, I gotta say so as you walk down
Speaker 1: the hall, this is the only question that reporters want
Speaker 1: to ask, and they're they're asking it constantly, and I
Speaker 1: just laughed. They're like, are you going to watch it?
Speaker 1: I'm like, why would I watch this? I don't watch
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Conventions convention every four years. That is
Speaker 1: a multi day political campaign ad. It is designed to
Speaker 1: be propaganda, and I get it. They can have their
Speaker 1: campaign ads, but it's not actual factual inquiry. And if
Speaker 1: it were, look if you want to ascertain what's going on,
Speaker 1: if you look at congressional hearings that go somewhere, you
Speaker 1: have cross examination, you have scrutiny. You have if a
Speaker 1: particular witness comes in and makes a charge, there's all
Speaker 1: these allegations that are made. You actually have someone challenge
Speaker 1: the credibility of the witness. Press on engage. Cross examination
Speaker 1: is a powerful tool for ferreting out truth. But for example,
Speaker 1: this kangaroo chord has zero interest in Nancy Pelosi's culpability
Speaker 1: on January sixth with stopping a sufficient law enforcement presence,
Speaker 1: stopping a sufficient effort to stop the riot that happened
Speaker 1: because she said, in her words, was bad optics. They
Speaker 1: don't want to talk about that because that's inconsistent with
Speaker 1: their political narrative. I think it makes a lot of
Speaker 1: reporters really excited, but but I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to change any voters mind anywhere in America. And by
Speaker 1: the way, the New York Times, there's an old line
Speaker 1: that a gaff is when someone in Washington accidentally tells
Speaker 1: the truth. All right, The New York Times let the
Speaker 1: cat out of the bag when they ran as a
Speaker 1: headline January sixth Committee hearings present opportunity for Democrats to
Speaker 1: change the mid term narrative. Well, that's obviously what they
Speaker 1: want to do. I think it has failed badly so far,
Speaker 1: and I think it's going to continue to fail. Do
Speaker 1: you think Pelosi made a mistake kicking Jordan and Banks
Speaker 1: and the real Republicans off the committee? That is, if
Speaker 1: you do think, because if they were on the committee,
Speaker 1: presumably the Republicans would be more engaged, you'd have the relling,
Speaker 1: there would be a reason to tune in. I think
Speaker 1: it was stupid to kick off the real Republicans. It
Speaker 1: look even from a perspective of of TV. Let's say
Speaker 1: you let's say you're a Nancy Pelosi and you're not
Speaker 1: interested in truth you are interested in nyeballs and frankly,
Speaker 1: the clash of seeing Jordan R. Banks go at it
Speaker 1: with with with the witnesses makes good TV. That conflict
Speaker 1: would cause some people possibly to give a flip about
Speaker 1: what's going on. This is right now, a bunch of
Speaker 1: Democrats talking to a bunch of Democrats. It's it's MSNBC.
Speaker 1: This is like a panel of MSNBC talking heads sitting
Speaker 1: down and going Trump is terrible. Yes, Trump is terrible,
Speaker 1: though I agree, Oh definitely, uh huh, and like that's
Speaker 1: boring and not news, like we know you think that.
Speaker 1: It was not lost on us that you don't have
Speaker 1: the Donald Trump swimsuit calendar up on your wall. We
Speaker 1: got that. I think it was a bad strategic and
Speaker 1: tactical mistake for Pelosi to throw the Republicans selected by
Speaker 1: the Republicans off the committee because, just like The New
Speaker 1: York Times, it said the quiet part out loud. It
Speaker 1: made it obvious we are telling a story complete with
Speaker 1: our Hollywood producer, and we don't want anyone telling any
Speaker 1: different stories than the story we want to tell. And
Speaker 1: just look at the coverage. I think the Times example
Speaker 1: is a great, great point here. The New York Times
Speaker 1: is covering the coverage. The New York Times is covering
Speaker 1: the way they want to shift the narrative. But there's
Speaker 1: there's no actual news happening, and so it just doesn't
Speaker 1: seem politically urgent. Well, and Michael, an easy way to
Speaker 1: understand how ludicrous it is what the Democrats are doing
Speaker 1: is just to flip the premise. Imagine if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: held an inquiry onto what happened on January sixth, and
Speaker 1: it was just Trump. To be honest, would the press
Speaker 1: give it any credibility? Of course not, But to be honest,
Speaker 1: if you wanted to have something, you would want to
Speaker 1: have both parties. You would want to have free speech,
Speaker 1: you would want to have conflict, you would want to
Speaker 1: have debate. That's the method for ascertaining truth. Nobody in
Speaker 1: the press would give any credibility to a purely republican
Speaker 1: assessment of January sixth or anything else. I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: whatever you talk about. A purely republican assessment gets no credibility.
Speaker 1: And that's not crazy because we have a partisan system.
Speaker 1: Both parties want to advance their narrative. And if you're
Speaker 1: an intelligent voter, look as a consumer of news. I
Speaker 1: don't just read right wing news right I read left
Speaker 1: wing news too, and I try to figure out the
Speaker 1: truth somewhere in the middle. When the Democrats and the
Speaker 1: corporate media are only spewing their propaganda. You know, it's
Speaker 1: transparent to everyone. Now, speaking of Nancy Pelosi's missteps and
Speaker 1: transparency and other trans issues, Nancy Pelosi made a claim
Speaker 1: this past week on a television show that I will
Speaker 1: admit I don't regularly watch. She gave her theory on
Speaker 1: what America is all about. I'll give it to you
Speaker 1: in her own words. Please give a warm drag race.
Speaker 1: Welcome Nancy Pelosi, Welcome back, my honor to be here.
Speaker 1: Your freedom of expression of yourselves in drag is what
Speaker 1: America is all about. Senator, I'm not a graduate of
Speaker 1: Harvard Law School. I've never clerked for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I'm not a member of the United States Senate. In
Speaker 1: your estimation, is transvestiism what America is all about? You know,
Speaker 1: I kind of think Nancy may have missed some days
Speaker 1: in American history, Like, look, you you got a right
Speaker 1: to dress up anyway you want. That's great to knock
Speaker 1: yourself out, but the idea, yeah, the last pod we did,
Speaker 1: we talked about the drag show for kids in Dallas. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is another example of the Democratic Party going so extreme. Like, look,
Speaker 1: if people want to dress in drag, that's fine. I'm
Speaker 1: quite libertarian about do what you want to do. But
Speaker 1: to claim that's what America is all about. I look,
Speaker 1: I get it. The founding fathers did wear wigs, so
Speaker 1: she does have a point there they were wearing wigs.
Speaker 1: But but I'm not sure that's what Washington and Jefferson
Speaker 1: were doing. But but it's it is such the dominant
Speaker 1: the the left wing culture war is the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a It's just it is who
Speaker 1: they are and what they're driven by, and they keep going.
Speaker 1: It's not accurate to say that's what America is all about,
Speaker 1: but it is accurate to say that's what today's Democrat
Speaker 1: Party is all about. I at least understand that the
Speaker 1: Democrats are making this philosophical claim that this is at
Speaker 1: least what the country should be all about. What I
Speaker 1: don't understand is how can Pelosi with a straight face
Speaker 1: make the historical claim that transvestiism, which was illegal, by
Speaker 1: the way, in lots of America throughout parts of the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century in San Francisco, of all places, which has
Speaker 1: not exactly been promoted. I don't think it was part
Speaker 1: of the Shining City on a Hill speech. I don't
Speaker 1: think Governor Bradford was writing about his you know, great
Speaker 1: passion for cross dressing. How do you make the historic
Speaker 1: claim that actually, America, it's not about apple pie or
Speaker 1: freedom or going west young man. No, No, it's about
Speaker 1: dressing up like a lady. Well, and there's a richer irony.
Speaker 1: So she did. She has a tiny leg to stand
Speaker 1: on in that she starts off by saying freedom of expression.
Speaker 1: And you can make an argument that freedom of expression
Speaker 1: is what America is all about. But the irony is
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi doesn't believe in freedom of expression, like today's
Speaker 1: Democrat Party has abandoned free speech. So she literally means
Speaker 1: only if you want to dress up as a woman,
Speaker 1: he's what America is all about. But if you want
Speaker 1: to make a movie asking what is a woman? That
Speaker 1: is not what America is all about. So so she
Speaker 1: it is quite amazing. You know, Nancy Pelosi leads a
Speaker 1: Democrat party that wants big tech to censor that that
Speaker 1: that wants views that they disagree with. Silence that's wants
Speaker 1: to ban conservative speakers from campus. So I'm glad she's
Speaker 1: acknowledging freedom of expression is important. But you know, I
Speaker 1: wish there were Democrats in Congress that still believe that. Oh,
Speaker 1: of course, because when Pelosi uses the phrase freedom of expression,
Speaker 1: and really it's it's true of democrats broadly. All they
Speaker 1: really seem to mean is replacing our taboos with their taboos,
Speaker 1: and replacing our standards with their standards. There's this major
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case of a high school football coach who
Speaker 1: just said a prayer on his knee by himself alone
Speaker 1: on the football field after the games, and the school
Speaker 1: fired him for it. They were they were so angry
Speaker 1: at this individual act of expression. So I don't think
Speaker 1: Pelosi is defending that. But but to your point, they're
Speaker 1: only defending this sort of thing. And actually it ties
Speaker 1: right in with the big story out of Hollywood, which
Speaker 1: is that there's a new movie. It's a new toy
Speaker 1: story movie about Buzz light Year, and for some reason,
Speaker 1: Disney felt it was very very important to include lesbian
Speaker 1: toys kissing in the Buzz Lightyear movie. Meanwhile, they fire
Speaker 1: Tim Allen, who originated the role of buzz Lightyear. They
Speaker 1: replace him with Frankly, probably a more expensive actor. What
Speaker 1: is going on? Do our kids? Is it so important
Speaker 1: that our kids see lesbian toys? Smooch? Well, I gotta say, Michael,
Speaker 1: I think it is remarkable that the Verdict podcast seems
Speaker 1: to be driving Hollywood's agenda. Um. You and I sat
Speaker 1: at the University of Alabama for our live campus tour
Speaker 1: and we were talking about woke Disney, and I observed,
Speaker 1: I said, look, these these lunatics. They want to see
Speaker 1: Mickey and Pluto going at it and and and the
Speaker 1: press lost their mind. And then what do they do?
Speaker 1: Boom the next movie they come out buzz Lightyear. What
Speaker 1: do we need? We need lesbian toys? Now? Never mind
Speaker 1: that the last time I checked, most toys are kind
Speaker 1: of androgynous. They're usually without genitalia unless little shopping in
Speaker 1: the Yeah. Yeah, like it's just but it is the
Speaker 1: commitment to culture, it is. And you know, this movie
Speaker 1: has now been banned I think in fourteen countries. The
Speaker 1: UAE has banned it, their countries in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: their countries in Asia. There's significant discussion that China is
Speaker 1: not going to allow the movie in because of this scene.
Speaker 1: And I got to say, it's it's it's a wild
Speaker 1: twist where Hollywood has been willing to grovel to China,
Speaker 1: to let China censor its movies, to embrace anti Americanism,
Speaker 1: to avoid any criticism of China because they want to
Speaker 1: get access to the Chinese Chinese movie market. But when
Speaker 1: it comes to their culture agenda, apparently now suddenly they've discovered,
Speaker 1: all right, give up the money because lesbian toys are
Speaker 1: more important. And I must say it brings a whole
Speaker 1: new meaning to the phrase to infinity and beyond. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's sort of like the slippery slope, Senator. You know,
Speaker 1: it seems that we never get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: the slippery slope. Maybe that's because the slippery slope goes
Speaker 1: to infinity and beyond. Why do toys have to go
Speaker 1: at it like like like it just you could do without.
Speaker 1: We don't need to see. It's the sexualization of kids
Speaker 1: that Hollywood embraces, and it is a political agenda that
Speaker 1: that is all consuming. And look, they fired Tim Allen,
Speaker 1: they replace him with Chris Evans Captain America. So so
Speaker 1: I mean it is American icons driving an agenda that that,
Speaker 1: astonishingly enough for the first time, matters more to Hollywood
Speaker 1: than money. Oh. I think that this is why it's
Speaker 1: important that Allen's getting dropped for Chris Evans. Is you
Speaker 1: might say, well, maybe Tim Allen was just asking for
Speaker 1: too much money, and so it's they're moving on to
Speaker 1: a cheaper actor. I suspect Chris Evans is demanding a
Speaker 1: higher contract right now than Tim Allen is. He's a major,
Speaker 1: major movie star, young and write in the prime of
Speaker 1: his career, and so the only explanation I can think
Speaker 1: of is that Tim Allen is an outspoken conservative. Chris
Speaker 1: Evans is a huge lib from everything that I can tell,
Speaker 1: and so even more to your point that the studios
Speaker 1: are willing to lose money if it advances their cultural agenda.
Speaker 1: And speaking of people losing money, Senator, it's not just
Speaker 1: Hollywood losing money. You and I and all the rest
Speaker 1: of America is losing money right now because inflation is
Speaker 1: through the roof and our president is blaming Republicans. You know,
Speaker 1: the White House has one talking point, I didn't do it,
Speaker 1: not my fault, it's Republicans fault. It's Putin's fault. It's
Speaker 1: anybody's fault, but Joe Biden. There's a reason Biden's approval
Speaker 1: rating is in the thirties because people recognize that that's
Speaker 1: just that's just not credible to watch this White House
Speaker 1: try to blame everything. You know, watching Biden's energy secretary
Speaker 1: go on TV and saying, you know, Biden's trying to
Speaker 1: do everything he can to lower gas prices. Won't yeah,
Speaker 1: except allow people to drill for oil and gas like
Speaker 1: like Other than that, I mean, you'd literally have had
Speaker 1: for a year and a half an unrelenting war on
Speaker 1: oil and gas production in the United States. They keep
Speaker 1: doubling down, they keep Bizarrely, Biden is going to be
Speaker 1: flying to Saudi Arabia to kiss Saudi Arabia is behind,
Speaker 1: after he's been attacking Saudi Arabia for a year and
Speaker 1: a half and alienating them because he wants the Saudis
Speaker 1: to produce more oil. He wants Venezuela to produce more oil,
Speaker 1: he wants it Ran to produce more oil. He wants
Speaker 1: everyone to produce more oil except Americans. Yeah, and it is.
Speaker 1: He believes that he can just convince the American people
Speaker 1: it's everybody else's fault. It seems like they're deflecting a
Speaker 1: little bit, Senator, And it's actually a type of deflection
Speaker 1: that you first called my attention to right in the
Speaker 1: earliest days of this podcast when we were in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night and the bunker in the middle
Speaker 1: of Washington, DC, which is the Democrats line here is
Speaker 1: inflation is not entirely Joe Biden's fault, which, of course,
Speaker 1: inflation is not entirely Joe Biden's fault, but that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that it's not at all his fault, or even
Speaker 1: largely his fault. And you can point to the reasons
Speaker 1: that he's driving inflation the ones that you've named. One.
Speaker 1: He's not allowing us to produce energy too. He in
Speaker 1: many ways caused the war in Ukraine, at least according
Speaker 1: to President Zelenski's take on things three. He's continued to
Speaker 1: lock down the economy in many ways that I don't
Speaker 1: think is very conducive to economic growth. You know, the
Speaker 1: list goes, he keeps spending a crap ton of money,
Speaker 1: like in the end of the day, trillions and trillions
Speaker 1: of dollars. You're right, it's not entirely Joe Biden's fault.
Speaker 1: It's also Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's and every damn
Speaker 1: Democrat that votes for a trillion here and a trillion
Speaker 1: there and spends and spends and spends and spends. And actually,
Speaker 1: you know, so one form of inflation they call shrinkflation.
Speaker 1: You notice you go in and like packages are all
Speaker 1: smaller in the stores, so you know, you buy de
Speaker 1: Ritos and you have five fewer chips in the bag.
Speaker 1: So maybe CNN was right because they might start selling
Speaker 1: gas by the court, but we're not far away from
Speaker 1: two dollars a court for gasoline, and so so you know,
Speaker 1: it just it's it's a smaller unit. Like a good
Speaker 1: question to ask if you're watching a CNN broadcast. I
Speaker 1: pick on CNN in particular because they actually used to
Speaker 1: be something of journalists. They were bad journalists, but they
Speaker 1: were trying to be journalists. Now they're just shameless shills.
Speaker 1: But a question that's worth asking if you watch a
Speaker 1: news broadcast is would a word of this have been
Speaker 1: different if the Biden White House had written the script?
Speaker 1: And if the answer is no, it's not journalism, right.
Speaker 1: This is not a complicated concept, but CNN and MSNBC
Speaker 1: seemed very confused at the concept well, speaking of perhaps
Speaker 1: unethical ways to make money, like just having the government
Speaker 1: print to endless amounts of cash. There was a mail
Speaker 1: bag question that came in. I mentioned it to you
Speaker 1: a little bit earlier because I didn't know anything about it,
Speaker 1: but I would love your take on it, if you
Speaker 1: have formed one. This is from Chris. I believe Chris
Speaker 1: is or I'm sorry that the question is from Jonathan,
Speaker 1: but it's about someone who is one of your constituents.
Speaker 1: Question is the twitch streamer Asmond Gold said, he reached
Speaker 1: out to Senator Cruz's office about regulating lootboxes in video games.
Speaker 1: Where does the Senator stand on lootboxes? I know that
Speaker 1: those are all words, and I understand they have been
Speaker 1: strung together in an English sentence, but I don't really
Speaker 1: understand what it means semantically together. Look, I'm happy to
Speaker 1: engage in a conversation with him. I'm happy to see
Speaker 1: what he has to say on it, as I understand
Speaker 1: if the concern he's raising is a concern about gambling
Speaker 1: and kids. And I will say it is certainly true
Speaker 1: that that social media online environments, including video games, are
Speaker 1: designed to be addictive. Now I'm I'm something of a gamer.
Speaker 1: I'm not a gamer like like hardcore twitch streamers, and
Speaker 1: and I don't don't do the massive multiplayer games, not yet, Senator.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you, I bet you never thought that
Speaker 1: you were going to be a top podcaster. So who knows.
Speaker 1: We may have to launch the Verdict twitch stream and
Speaker 1: start playing pac Man or whatever the kids are playing
Speaker 1: these days. That that that that could well be. And
Speaker 1: you remember when you and I did Dave Rubens podcast,
Speaker 1: We did a twitch stream on playing I think it
Speaker 1: was a Nintendo that he had, and we did that
Speaker 1: and if I remember right, I beat his ass. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure that's right, And if not, that's the story
Speaker 1: I'm going with. But look, they're different components of it.
Speaker 1: In games, I'll tell you I don't like it when
Speaker 1: you can buy in game items and sort of make
Speaker 1: your character stronger or get advantages. Now, I'll confess, when
Speaker 1: I play some games, I'll sometimes buy it because it
Speaker 1: is more fun. If suddenly your character has a lot
Speaker 1: more great stuff that would take you six months or
Speaker 1: a year to build up. So sometimes I'll okay, I'll
Speaker 1: spend twenty bucks and buy a you know, a treasure
Speaker 1: chest full of coins, because then I can spend him
Speaker 1: to get cool things in the game. You know, I
Speaker 1: think it is a greater concern when you're dealing with kids,
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with miners who have a potential number
Speaker 1: one to spend a whole lot of money. And you know,
Speaker 1: with some of the loot boxes, there's there's a fair
Speaker 1: amount of randomness that you could get a lot of
Speaker 1: great stuff or some lousy stuff. And so I guess
Speaker 1: that's the argument that it's gambling. I'll confess I haven't.
Speaker 1: I'm open to hearing arguments on this, but I approach
Speaker 1: the issue with a pretty strong libertarian bent. So I'd
Speaker 1: like to not see kids exploited and harmed, and so
Speaker 1: I'd be interested in his views. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that the federal government really has a
Speaker 1: dog in the fight that if people want to in
Speaker 1: a video game spend money on stuff in the game,
Speaker 1: I think my instincts are probably that that may not
Speaker 1: be a great choice if you're spending massive amounts of
Speaker 1: money in games, But I'm not sure the federal government
Speaker 1: has a role preventing you from doing that. Well, we'll
Speaker 1: have to look into loot boxes more. Maybe I'll brush
Speaker 1: up on my Donkey Kong or you know whatever's really
Speaker 1: hip right now. Um, and I hope that we can
Speaker 1: figure out maybe maybe we'll have to be quite confident
Speaker 1: it's not Donkey Kong, is it not? Okay, I'm a
Speaker 1: little behind the curve, but uh, there were there were
Speaker 1: no lootboxes in Donkey Kong too, So we'll maybe we'll
Speaker 1: we'll hear from Osman Gold and you know, I will note.
Speaker 1: So I actually just watched last week watched again Ready
Speaker 1: Player one. Did you ever see this this movie? No?
Speaker 1: I heard it was great, but I didn't catch it.
Speaker 1: I've seen it several times, but I just happen to
Speaker 1: have rewatched it last week, and it's it's a really
Speaker 1: good movie about virtual reality and people going into the
Speaker 1: game and a whole alternative world in the game. But
Speaker 1: people amass money in virtual reality and it ends up
Speaker 1: for many people subsuming the world. And look, there are
Speaker 1: hard challenges. We're we're not we're not yet to the
Speaker 1: dystopic world of Ready Player one, but we might be.
Speaker 1: We're on a path towards that, and you know, escapism,
Speaker 1: there are times when escapism can be valuable, but it
Speaker 1: also is going to raise all sorts of challenges and
Speaker 1: challenges that can spill over from the virtual world to
Speaker 1: the real world. And how those intersections happen, We're going
Speaker 1: to have to learn more about them, and specifically on
Speaker 1: this issue of the loot boxes and gaming, a lot
Speaker 1: of the question involves the role of parents and parental
Speaker 1: rights is a big topic these days, and I believe
Speaker 1: parental rights is the topic of your conversation on the
Speaker 1: Cloakroom with Liz Wheeler. Is that right, Liz, Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is a great question, right, It's it's a question I
Speaker 1: think a lot of conservatives are asking our parental rights absolute.
Speaker 1: Ten parents actually be bad parents and take their kids
Speaker 1: to a dreg show or ten that? Or should that
Speaker 1: be illegal? We're going to break this down on the
Speaker 1: cloak Room. You can join us for this conversation Adverdict
Speaker 1: with Ted crew dot com slash Plus. If you use
Speaker 1: my promo code, which intuitively you know this is cloak Room,
Speaker 1: you can get your first month free on your annual subscription.
Speaker 1: That's Verdict with Ted Cruz dot com slash Plus. But
Speaker 1: before I tossed this back to you, I I want
Speaker 1: to talk about the Tim Allen thing that you guys
Speaker 1: were talking about before the New Disney movie. The buzz
Speaker 1: liked your movie. There was actually a member on our
Speaker 1: Verdict plus community today that was asking whether you, Senator,
Speaker 1: are ever going to star in a movie or even
Speaker 1: make a cameo in a movie. I think they said,
Speaker 1: are you gonna be a high powered lawyer in one
Speaker 1: of these one of these crime movies? And I laughed
Speaker 1: when I saw that. I thought to myself, what could
Speaker 1: possibly trigger the libs more than conservative Tim Allen being
Speaker 1: in a movie? And Senator, I think the answer is you.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you right now. I'm not fighting Sylvester Stallone
Speaker 1: and Schwartzenegger would break me in half. So but but
Speaker 1: but I'm game. And and listen, if if Star Trek
Speaker 1: could have Stacy Abrams as the President of Earth, which
Speaker 1: which really was Look, I I'm something of a treky.
Speaker 1: I'm not a hardcore treky, but I like Star Trek
Speaker 1: and it really is just sad for them to be
Speaker 1: to be yet another woke mouthpiece. It's one thing to
Speaker 1: take on issues, it's another thing to be just silly.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of me, you know, Michael Jordan. Republicans
Speaker 1: buy sneakers too, you know, Republicans watch Star Trek too,
Speaker 1: and you start putting Stacy Abrams there, and suddenly I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to find something else to watch. I'll go back,
Speaker 1: I'll go back to original Star trek Um. James T. Kirk,
Speaker 1: by the way, was the best captain any ever anyway,
Speaker 1: So so that and you've never seen the Internet get
Speaker 1: more upset when than when I said that James T.
Speaker 1: Kirk as a Republican and Admiral Picard was a Democrat.
Speaker 1: And and apparently lefties don't like it when you comment
Speaker 1: on their art. They believe they own it well. And now, Senator,
Speaker 1: not only will you be criticized by the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, not only will you be criticized by
Speaker 1: the President of Mexico, but you will be criticized by
Speaker 1: the president of the world on Star Trek. I have
Speaker 1: no doubt much more to be covered on the Cloakroom.
Speaker 1: So do not go anywhere. I will go somewhere though,
Speaker 1: because that is it for Verdict. I'm Michael Knowles. This
Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom
Speaker 1: and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting
Speaker 1: conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate
Speaker 1: to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican
Speaker 1: Party across the nation.