Speaker 1: We spend a lot of time on this show talking
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden, but today, at the risk of descending
Speaker 1: into incoherent babbling and sheer pandemonium, we will present the
Speaker 1: President in his own words. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: This episode A Verdict with Ted Cruz is sponsored by
Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold. If you're anything like me, you're pretty
Speaker 1: concerned about the future of our country. Inflation is at
Speaker 1: the highest level we've seen in forty years, interest rates
Speaker 1: are skyrocketing, and market experts like Jamie Diamond, who's the
Speaker 1: CEO of JP Morgan, not only predicted the recession that
Speaker 1: we're in, but are now using terms like unprecedented and
Speaker 1: economic hurricane. If you want to protect your future, do
Speaker 1: what I did. Call the only precious metal dealers that
Speaker 1: I trust, American Hartford Gold. They can show you how
Speaker 1: to protect your savings and your retirement accounts by diversifying
Speaker 1: your portfolio with physical gold and silver. All it takes
Speaker 1: to get started is a short phone call and they'll
Speaker 1: have physical gold and silver scent directly to your door
Speaker 1: or inside your I array or four oh one K
Speaker 1: and they make it easy. They're the highest rated firm
Speaker 1: in the business with an A plus rating from the
Speaker 1: Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. And as
Speaker 1: an exclusive offer to you fans a Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, they will give you
Speaker 1: up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver and a
Speaker 1: free safe on qualifying orders. All you have to do
Speaker 1: don't wait, call them now. Call eight five five seven
Speaker 1: six eight one eight eight three. That's eight five five
Speaker 1: seven six eight one eight eight three. Or if you
Speaker 1: prefer text messaging, you can text the word cactus to
Speaker 1: six five five three two. The phone number is eight
Speaker 1: five five seven six eight one eight eight three. Or
Speaker 1: you can text the word cactus to six five five
Speaker 1: three two. Welcome back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz. I'm
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles, Senator. There is a lot that I want
Speaker 1: to get to. To get to Martha's vineyard, I want
Speaker 1: to get to the Iranian President. But first I do
Speaker 1: not want us to be accused of creating a straw
Speaker 1: man out of Joe Biden. Joe Biden just sat down
Speaker 1: with sixty minutes for an interview covering pretty much every
Speaker 1: topic under the sun, and I would like to get
Speaker 1: your reaction to Biden in his own words, since, as
Speaker 1: far as I can tell, the media will never push
Speaker 1: the man in any way and push back on his
Speaker 1: talking points. Well, unfortunately, his mental acuity is so diminished
Speaker 1: that that sixty minutes took one hundred and twenty minutes.
Speaker 1: It's that it was a soft bare Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: how can you not did not go for that one?
Speaker 1: Look the press that they're not even the praetorian Guard,
Speaker 1: that they are his loyal propagandists, and they allow him
Speaker 1: to spin without challenge. But but but let's get to specifics. Okay,
Speaker 1: So first up, he takes on the issue of inflation.
Speaker 1: We know we've got forty year record high inflation. The
Speaker 1: inflation has kept up. Here is the spin that the
Speaker 1: White House is putting on it the president. As you know,
Speaker 1: last Tuesday, the annual inflation rate came in at eight
Speaker 1: point three percent. The stock market nose dived, people are
Speaker 1: shocked by their grocery bills. What can you do better
Speaker 1: and faster? Well, first of all, let's put this in perspective.
Speaker 1: Inflation rate month to month was just an inch, hardly
Speaker 1: at all. You're not arguing that eight point three is
Speaker 1: good news. No, I'm not saying it is good news.
Speaker 1: But it was eight point two or eight point two before.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not. You may I can make it
Speaker 1: sound like all of a sudden, my god, it went
Speaker 1: to eight point two percent. It's the highest inflation rate,
Speaker 1: mister President in forty years. I got that. But guess
Speaker 1: what we are. We're in a position where for the
Speaker 1: last several months it hasn't spiked, it has just barely
Speaker 1: has been basically even Look, this is a process. This
Speaker 1: is a process. Is the economy going to get worse
Speaker 1: before it gets better? No? I don't think so. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you saw actually more pushback than I've ever seen
Speaker 1: from the media there. It wasn't very much at all,
Speaker 1: But at least he saying, come on, man, you know,
Speaker 1: like me, throw me a bone here. It's obviously extremely
Speaker 1: high inflation. Biden says, no, the month over month has
Speaker 1: barely ticked up. What say you? So you're right, I'll
Speaker 1: give Scott Pelley some some credit. He did at least
Speaker 1: pushback some, which is more than than than the White
Speaker 1: House press briefing typically does. But you know, Biden's argument
Speaker 1: is bizarre. He says, well, it's eight point three but
Speaker 1: it didn't get any worse. Yeah, I mean it's you know,
Speaker 1: I'm reminded of an analogy like like you're you're badly
Speaker 1: wounded and you're bleeding out a pint an hour, And
Speaker 1: his defense is, well, it didn't increase, it didn't go
Speaker 1: up to two pints an hour, like you're still bleeding
Speaker 1: to death. Like eight point three percent annualized inflation means
Speaker 1: that families across this country are badly hurting, and it
Speaker 1: is continuing to be It's the highest inflation rate in
Speaker 1: forty years. And Biden has no solution for it. But
Speaker 1: it's worse than having no solution for it. He doesn't
Speaker 1: understand what caused it. There's only one thing that causes inflation.
Speaker 1: That's government spending too much money, spending money it doesn't have,
Speaker 1: borrowing money it doesn't have, and printing money it doesn't have.
Speaker 1: Biden's solution is, spend more money they don't have, borrow
Speaker 1: more money they don't have, and print more money they
Speaker 1: don't have it that will produce more inflation. And Biden's
Speaker 1: answer as well, think how much worse it could be?
Speaker 1: Think how much worse it could be month over month?
Speaker 1: And I think I don't measure inflation month over month.
Speaker 1: Nobody measures inflation month over month. We measure it, measure
Speaker 1: it year over year. And the fact is that goods
Speaker 1: cost eight and a half percent more in September of
Speaker 1: this year than they did in September of last year.
Speaker 1: And so even that shift of well, let's look at
Speaker 1: the month to month metric, I think, who cares about
Speaker 1: that metric. If it's jumped to this much in a year,
Speaker 1: that's really really bad. Well, and look, even that figure
Speaker 1: understates it in terms of what Americans are actually feeling.
Speaker 1: You take gasoline, gasoline is still double what it was
Speaker 1: when Biden was elected. That ain't eight percent. That's double.
Speaker 1: That is hurting people. One hundred dollars gas bill is
Speaker 1: now not unusual to fill up your truck. You know,
Speaker 1: people are seeing one hundred and fifty dollars gas bills,
Speaker 1: particularly if you're you're unfortunate enough to live on the
Speaker 1: West coast. You know, you look at food bills that
Speaker 1: have skyrocketed. You look at you know, you look at electricity.
Speaker 1: I mean my electricity bill. It's a lot more than
Speaker 1: eight percent what it was last year. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of the bills consumers are paying. Haven't just gone
Speaker 1: up a little bit, They've gone up a ton and
Speaker 1: people are hurting. So there's good news that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: gave him this interview. I'mid all the terrible economic news.
Speaker 1: He said, No, there's there's a glimmer of light here
Speaker 1: because the pandemic, you know, the pandemic from two and
Speaker 1: a half years ago that was supposed to end in
Speaker 1: fifteen days. The pandemic, he says, is over. The president
Speaker 1: first Detroit Auto show in three years. Yeah, is the
Speaker 1: pandemic over. The pandemic is over. We still have a
Speaker 1: problem with COVID. We're still doing a lot of work
Speaker 1: on it. It's what the pandemic is over. If you
Speaker 1: notice no one's wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in
Speaker 1: pretty good shape. And so I think it's changing, and
Speaker 1: I think this is a perfect example of it. Okay,
Speaker 1: one do you agree? And two, if you do agree,
Speaker 1: that's good news. Right, that's something Biden can hang his
Speaker 1: hat on. Well, listen, he's right, the pandemic is over.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you who doesn't agree. The Biden White House.
Speaker 1: Within hours of this interview airing, the White House was
Speaker 1: immediately walking back no, no, no, no, no, we didn't
Speaker 1: mean the pandemic is over. Never mind what he actually
Speaker 1: said to the camera. Look, man, we have an administration.
Speaker 1: They still have vaccine mandates in place that they're still
Speaker 1: trying to throw people out of the Army and the Navy,
Speaker 1: and the Air Force and the Marines because they haven't
Speaker 1: gotten vaccinated. They're trying to throw people out of the
Speaker 1: federal government. They're trying to throw FBI agents out there,
Speaker 1: trying to throw Border patrol agents out there, trying to
Speaker 1: throw professionals up and down the federal government out look.
Speaker 1: The DC Public Schools have announced they're going to impose
Speaker 1: a vaccine mandate on the DC public schools that if
Speaker 1: a kid hasn't been vaccinated, that kid can't come to school.
Speaker 1: In the District of Columbia, only eighty percent of the
Speaker 1: kids have COVID vaccines, but only sixty percent of the
Speaker 1: African American kids, So the Democrats are literally trying to
Speaker 1: throw forty percent of the African American kids out of school. Now,
Speaker 1: they delayed that rule because there was so much pushback
Speaker 1: from the parents that they're like, gosh, maybe it isn't
Speaker 1: a good idea to throw forty percent of the black
Speaker 1: kids out of the DC public schools. Maybe really bad
Speaker 1: things will happen from that. But these idiots, they're trying
Speaker 1: to impose these mandates. We saw just this week New
Speaker 1: York is firing teachers who haven't gotten the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: We've seen nurses and doctors fired who haven't gotten the
Speaker 1: COVID vaccine. Yes, the pandemic is over, but these petty totalitarians.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you something, the US open, Why is
Speaker 1: it that we're putting a vaccine mandate to play tennis
Speaker 1: outside with world class athletes? Because these are petty totalitarian despots,
Speaker 1: And that answer illustrates We've all known that the pandemic
Speaker 1: was over for a long time, and yet you know what,
Speaker 1: Biden's administration is still appealing to impose the mask mandate
Speaker 1: on airplanes. His doj is litigating it right now. It's
Speaker 1: only because a courageous federal judge says enough is enough,
Speaker 1: get rid of of the mask. And you know what,
Speaker 1: You've still got numbskulls on planes, not many, but a
Speaker 1: few that they're virtuous, so strong they will mask up
Speaker 1: till the end of time. So the disconnect I get
Speaker 1: because there have been many times when the Biden White
Speaker 1: House undercuts Joe Biden himself, which raises a lot of
Speaker 1: questions about who is running the White House. I get
Speaker 1: the disconnect. But the question that I have is why
Speaker 1: why are they still pushing COVID? Is it ignorance? Is
Speaker 1: it neurosis? Are they really afraid of the Wuhan virus?
Speaker 1: Or is it a little more cynical and political than that.
Speaker 1: Do they see midterm elections coming up, specially elections that
Speaker 1: they don't seem very well situated for, and are they
Speaker 1: hoping to reinstitute some of the extraordinary quote unquote public
Speaker 1: health measures that seem to give them an electoral advantage
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. So I don't think it's the latter. Now,
Speaker 1: to be clear, you're going to see Democrats pushing mail
Speaker 1: in balloting because they think it elects Democrats, and it
Speaker 1: does elect Democrats. The more policies they put in place
Speaker 1: that increase the likely to fraud, the more likely Democrats
Speaker 1: are to win. So it's it doesn't have anything to
Speaker 1: do with COVID. It has to do with the fact
Speaker 1: they want to hold onto power. You know, it's interesting,
Speaker 1: it's getting in the mind of a leftist is not easy.
Speaker 1: I think there's several things going on. I do think
Speaker 1: there are definitely some on the left that have sort
Speaker 1: of bought the fear porn, the like we're all gonna die.
Speaker 1: We must be masked, we must be quadruple vaxed, we
Speaker 1: must like like some of them that has been so
Speaker 1: beaten into them that it's hard for them. It's like
Speaker 1: they have Stockholm syndrome or something. Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: like you see the self righteous lefty driving down the
Speaker 1: road in the car alone wearing a mask. You know,
Speaker 1: you see people out in DC. I saw this was
Speaker 1: several months ago, but I saw like two older ladies
Speaker 1: with gray hairs who who They weren't wearing birkenstocks, but
Speaker 1: everything about them conveyed that they were people of the left.
Speaker 1: They had some in the closet, so they were. They
Speaker 1: were walking down the street no mask. They saw me
Speaker 1: and reached in their purses and put on their mask
Speaker 1: because their virtue had to be demonstrated in while I
Speaker 1: was on the sidewalk anywhere near them. It that is
Speaker 1: a true thing for lefties. I think with lefty politicians
Speaker 1: it's a different thing. They like power that they like,
Speaker 1: having the authority to say you shut your business, you
Speaker 1: shut your school, you get a vaccine, like the vaccine mandate.
Speaker 1: It is an exercise of power. I will make you comply.
Speaker 1: You know, Joe Biden told Chicago fire half your police
Speaker 1: officers if they don't get the vaccine. It is it's
Speaker 1: it is the petty authoritarianism. But the pettiness is the point.
Speaker 1: It's I have the power to control you. Now, on
Speaker 1: the flip side, I think the inflation component of it.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason that Biden says the pandemic is
Speaker 1: over is I think they're starting to get scared about November,
Speaker 1: and so he's trying to have some good news and
Speaker 1: saying the pandemic is over is him saying, look, see
Speaker 1: we solved COVID. By the way, you're fired if you
Speaker 1: don't get a vaccine. But see we solved COVID. Now.
Speaker 1: I alluded earlier to the war in Ukraine, obviously a
Speaker 1: huge challenge for Biden because, in the words of Vladimir Zelenski,
Speaker 1: president of Ukraine, Biden largely was the cause of that
Speaker 1: of that war by dropping sanctions on Putin and by
Speaker 1: actually sort of inviting him to invade eastern Ukraine and
Speaker 1: saying there wouldn't really be consequences. So here's what Biden
Speaker 1: said in response to the breakout of the first major
Speaker 1: war in Europe in seventy years. It has been barbaric
Speaker 1: when he's donned his attacks on civilian everything from civilian
Speaker 1: hospitals to two, you know, people's old age homes to
Speaker 1: neighborhoods for ordinary people, live, schools, schools. It's just outrageous.
Speaker 1: And so the price Ukrainian people are paying for this
Speaker 1: war is extremely high. But we're going to stay with
Speaker 1: them as long as they need our help. You're already
Speaker 1: north of fifteen billion dollars in terms of those commitments.
Speaker 1: How far do you go as long as it takes
Speaker 1: ironclad commitment. Yes, as Ukraine succeeds on the battlefield, Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin is becoming embarrassed and pushed into a corner. And
Speaker 1: I wonder, mister President, what you would say to him
Speaker 1: if he is considering using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Don't,
Speaker 1: don't don't. It will change the face of war unlike
Speaker 1: anything since World War Two, And the consequences of that
Speaker 1: would be what what would the US response be? You
Speaker 1: think I would tell you if I knew exactly it
Speaker 1: would be. Of course, I'm not going to tell you.
Speaker 1: So there's a little bit of a slip he has
Speaker 1: at the end, which is he admits he doesn't know
Speaker 1: what the response of me, And he said, do you
Speaker 1: think I would tell you even if I did know?
Speaker 1: And certainly he's not going to be the one formulating
Speaker 1: those strategies. But putting aside the blame game, which which
Speaker 1: we know you Zelenski blames Biden for the war, But
Speaker 1: putting aside the blame game for a second, what do
Speaker 1: you make of his answer, Yes, we will stick with Ukraine, Yes,
Speaker 1: there's no end to the support that we will give,
Speaker 1: and his deterrent speech a slight, slight bit of rhetoric
Speaker 1: against Putin. Look, he asked, what do you do? What
Speaker 1: do you say if Putin is going to drop a
Speaker 1: nuclear bomb in Europe? It's kind of a big question.
Speaker 1: Biden's answer is dot dot d Okay, It's uncanny. It's
Speaker 1: like I've got Biden right in front of me. Okay,
Speaker 1: just just listening to that. Is there anyone on planet
Speaker 1: or Earth who that would deter from doing anything? Literally anything?
Speaker 1: A third grader who's beating up another third grader who
Speaker 1: heard someone going dude, dude, that third grader is getting
Speaker 1: punched in the nose like look. One of the responsibilities
Speaker 1: of the commander in chief is to deter our enemies.
Speaker 1: Why did Putin invade Ukraine. One of the reasons was
Speaker 1: Biden's weakness waiving sanctions, But another week reason was Biden
Speaker 1: is so incredibly weak that every bad actor looks at
Speaker 1: the commander in chief and says, this guy ain't gonna
Speaker 1: stop nothing. And so you know, as you noted, he said, well,
Speaker 1: even if I knew what I was gonna do, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't do anything. Look. I pray Putin does not use
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons, but that statement right there increase the likelihood
Speaker 1: that he will. And we need a commander in chief.
Speaker 1: I agree, you don't say exactly what the consequences are,
Speaker 1: but a commander in chief looks in the TV camera
Speaker 1: and says, using nuclear weapons in Europe would be an
Speaker 1: extraordinary escalation and the consequences would be devastating. It would
Speaker 1: be devastating to Putin to Russia, to the regime. Under
Speaker 1: no circumstances will the world sit by and watch a
Speaker 1: Russian dictator use a nuclear weapon. That's what a commander
Speaker 1: in chief says, not some you know what. It reminds
Speaker 1: me of who's the little old guy in the Simpsons
Speaker 1: who's always getting killed? Like the little bald guy. I
Speaker 1: can't remember the name of that character that I forget
Speaker 1: his name too, but that's who Biden seemed like. Yet
Speaker 1: we need strength of the Oval office, that ain't it now?
Speaker 1: I remember, after Biden's completely botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, you
Speaker 1: said on this show that the way in which America
Speaker 1: pulled out of Afghanistan makes an invasion of Ukraine by
Speaker 1: Russia much more likely, and an invasion of Taiwan by
Speaker 1: China much more likely. That's the next question that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden gets asked. Here's what he says about a potential
Speaker 1: Chinese further takeover of Taiwan. What should Chinese President She
Speaker 1: know about your commitment to Taiwan. We agree with what
Speaker 1: we signed on to a long time ago, and there's
Speaker 1: one China policy, and Taiwan makes their own judgments about
Speaker 1: their independence. We are not moving. We're not encouraging them
Speaker 1: being independent. We're not that's their decision. But would US
Speaker 1: forces defend the island yes, if in fact there was
Speaker 1: an unprecedented attack. After our interview, white House official told
Speaker 1: US US policy has not changed. Officially, the US will
Speaker 1: not say whether American forces would defend Taiwan, but the
Speaker 1: Commander in chief had a view of his own, so
Speaker 1: unlike Ukraine, to be clear, Sir, US forces, US men
Speaker 1: and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a
Speaker 1: Chinese invasion. Yes, So it's amazing in that interview, how
Speaker 1: as Biden is sort of babbling his answer, the voiceover
Speaker 1: just takes there and says, yeah, okay, never mind what
Speaker 1: he says. The White House actually he contradicts him. And
Speaker 1: so now you've got this disagreement yet again between Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and the White House. Whatever that means. You've got
Speaker 1: this question about what exactly America's policy view visa VI
Speaker 1: Taiwan is. There is this question of the one China
Speaker 1: policy again, whatever that is. That phrase has been taken
Speaker 1: to mean different things at different times over the decades.
Speaker 1: So two parts, One, what is Joe Biden slash the
Speaker 1: White House actually saying here? And two do you think
Speaker 1: that their approach is the right policy to Taiwan? So look,
Speaker 1: nobody knows what the hell he's saying. I get to say,
Speaker 1: when Biden talks about foreign policy, I've never seen a
Speaker 1: president like this in my lifetime, where he screws it
Speaker 1: up every day. But like he just says things. This
Speaker 1: is a guy you wouldn't let handle the remote control
Speaker 1: of your television set. He doesn't understand what he's saying.
Speaker 1: He doesn't know what he's saying. Look, that voiceover is weird.
Speaker 1: Think about it. Have you ever seen a president of
Speaker 1: the United States interviewed and his White House staff had
Speaker 1: to correct and retract what he said mid interview, not
Speaker 1: even afterwards, because they're like, oh crap. He just like
Speaker 1: fundamentally changed US policy towards China and Taiwan, and he
Speaker 1: doesn't know it. He is no aware of it. It's
Speaker 1: one thing. Look, a commander in chief has the prerogative
Speaker 1: to change US foreign policy. That's part of what a
Speaker 1: president has an ability to do, at least in significant respect,
Speaker 1: although Congress plays a major role in that also. But
Speaker 1: watching that interview, listen, it's genuinely frightening because he doesn't
Speaker 1: appreciate any of that nuance. We have an obligation by
Speaker 1: statute to support Taiwan and to support Taiwan in the
Speaker 1: face of Chinese aggression. The word support has a lot
Speaker 1: of flexibility. We have never passed legislation, We've never signed
Speaker 1: a treaty committing to send US servicemen and women to
Speaker 1: fight Chinese soldiers to defend Taiwan. We've committed to support them.
Speaker 1: But what constitutes support The statute deliberately doesn't define. And
Speaker 1: Biden is just cavalier and saying, yep, I'd send US
Speaker 1: soldiers to go fighting. You know, it's not like they're
Speaker 1: talking about fighting Grenada to fight the Chinese Red Army.
Speaker 1: That's kind of a big deal. Let's go to war.
Speaker 1: And he does it with no appreciation of it. When
Speaker 1: the White House walks it back, it makes clear that
Speaker 1: the administration is incoherent on it. And this actually there
Speaker 1: are a lot of similarities to this discussion and the
Speaker 1: Ukraine Nordstream to discussion. This President and the Democrats don't
Speaker 1: understand the difference between deterrance and acting after the fact.
Speaker 1: The best way to protect Taiwan is prevent China from
Speaker 1: going in in the first place, and to do that
Speaker 1: means you want deterrence. In terms of number one, massive
Speaker 1: and cataclysmics sanctions on China such that the penalty the
Speaker 1: Chinese would pay makes them think again, using levers of
Speaker 1: power we have that are not sending our sons and
Speaker 1: daughters to die, but secondly preparing and equipping the Taiwanese
Speaker 1: to defend themselves. You know, there's a phrase that is
Speaker 1: used by the military planners of that Taiwan should be
Speaker 1: a porcupine. In other words, that like, if the Chinese
Speaker 1: try to invade, there should be a lot of spines
Speaker 1: that they should be really eager to put their tushy
Speaker 1: little dairy air on top of that means expediting armed
Speaker 1: sails to Taiwan. Now, and look, Taiwan is a wealthy country.
Speaker 1: They have the money to pay for F sixteens, to
Speaker 1: pay for advanced weapons systems, to pay for equipment, so
Speaker 1: that if the Chinese military planners are assessing costs and
Speaker 1: benefit of invasion, the Taiwanese are really robustly available, prepared
Speaker 1: to repel an invasion. That's actually being smart and proactive
Speaker 1: on the front end. Biden's not doing nearly enough of that.
Speaker 1: And in fact, let me give you a very specific example.
Speaker 1: So the people of Taiwan under Barack Obama the Chinese
Speaker 1: government got mad because the people of Taiwan were allowing
Speaker 1: the or the US government was allowing Taiwanese government officials
Speaker 1: to have a Taiwanese flag and allowing Taiwanese soldiers to
Speaker 1: wear Taiwanese military insignia. So the Obama administration passed a
Speaker 1: new regulation prohibiting taiwan from displaying their flag on US
Speaker 1: government property or from any Taiwanese soldier wearing a uniform.
Speaker 1: It's bizarre. It's the only nation on earth that we
Speaker 1: don't let them wear their own military uniforms. That was
Speaker 1: inexplicit capitulation to the government of China when Trump became president.
Speaker 1: For the first three and a half years of the
Speaker 1: Trump presidency, unfortunately, the State Department kept that rule in place,
Speaker 1: and I spent three and a half years basically taking
Speaker 1: a two by four to the Trump State Department, to
Speaker 1: Rex Tillerson and then Mike Pompeo saying this is stupid.
Speaker 1: We should allow our Taiwanese friends and allies to display
Speaker 1: their flag and their soldiers to wear their uniforms. Three
Speaker 1: and a half years, I beat them up. I beat
Speaker 1: Tillerson up on it, and then I beat Mike Pompeo
Speaker 1: up on it. Finally, in the latter half of the
Speaker 1: last year the Trump presidency, the State Department reversed its rules.
Speaker 1: Pat Pompeo agreed with me, reversed the policy and said, okay,
Speaker 1: Taiwan now can display their flags and wear their uniforms
Speaker 1: on US government property. Biden came in when Tony blink In,
Speaker 1: the new Secretary of State, was coming in. I questioned
Speaker 1: him about this at his hearing, and he said that
Speaker 1: they would maintain the current policy, in other words, allow
Speaker 1: Taiwan to display their symbols of sovereignty. What happens b
Speaker 1: Lincoln gets confirmed. They flipped the policy. So now the
Speaker 1: Biden administration refuses to allow any symbols of sovereignty. Now.
Speaker 1: I have passed into law now twice, my legislation, the
Speaker 1: Taiwan Symbols of Sovereignty legislation that would allow Taiwan to
Speaker 1: display their flag and display and the soldiers to wear
Speaker 1: their uniforms. The Biden administration stripped it out at the
Speaker 1: last minute of the legislation that that just passed. And
Speaker 1: there's another bill that's moving that Joe Biden is actively
Speaker 1: lobbying removing it. I've been able to get both Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats in the Senate to agree with this legislation,
Speaker 1: and yet Biden is so committed to appeasing China that
Speaker 1: he's trying to pull it out. And so it's dangerous
Speaker 1: when there's this incoherence on policy on a matter as
Speaker 1: important and consequential as stopping and standing up to communist
Speaker 1: China and deferring Chinese aggression. And I think this Biden
Speaker 1: interview just makes it worse. Will rather than answer any
Speaker 1: questions in sensible detail on his own foreign policy, Biden
Speaker 1: then turned the interview away from his own administration's views
Speaker 1: toward Donald Trump, suggesting that Donald Trump imperiled national security
Speaker 1: by keeping classified documents at Mara Lago, for which Biden
Speaker 1: then sent the FBI to go go knock down the
Speaker 1: doors of the presidents and now main political rival to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden of his residence. Here's what Biden had to say,
Speaker 1: When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents
Speaker 1: laid out on the floor of Mara Lago, what did
Speaker 1: you think to yourself looking at that image, how that
Speaker 1: could possibly happen, How anyone could be that irresponsible? And
Speaker 1: I thought, what data was in there that may compromise
Speaker 1: sources and methods. By that, I mean names of people
Speaker 1: who helped, etc. And it's just totally irresponsible, And you
Speaker 1: don't know what was in those documents. I have not
Speaker 1: asked for the specifics of those documents because I don't
Speaker 1: want to get myself in the middle of whether or
Speaker 1: not the Just Department should move or not move on
Speaker 1: certain actions they can take. I agreed, I would not
Speaker 1: tell them what to do, and not in fact engage
Speaker 1: in telling them how to prosecute or not. So one,
Speaker 1: was it really so shocking? I asked that somewhat sincerely,
Speaker 1: was it really so shocking the photograph that the FBI released?
Speaker 1: I have my suspicions about it, but I'd like to
Speaker 1: know your answer. And then too, what do you make
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden saying, Look, I don't want to get
Speaker 1: involved here. I don't I don't want this investigation of
Speaker 1: Trump to look political. Look, every part of that answer
Speaker 1: was an absolute crock. Number one is it's shocking to
Speaker 1: see empty minilla folders. No, I've seen more frightening things
Speaker 1: in my life than that. You might get a papercut
Speaker 1: from it. I guess that's shocking. It is a little terrifying,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a little rich saying Biden go on
Speaker 1: about how horribly irresponsible it was without any acknowledgement. There
Speaker 1: was a certain person named Hillary Clinton who had tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of documents on a private email server that
Speaker 1: was subject to hacking, including potentially classified documents, in violation
Speaker 1: of law, and Biden was vice president in the administration
Speaker 1: that refused to prosecute her, that that gave her a
Speaker 1: hall pass and said never mind, and by you, by
Speaker 1: the way, this is a Hillary Clinton who also in
Speaker 1: obstructing the investigation. They use hammers to shatter cell phones
Speaker 1: and destroy evidence. They they they use equipment to wipe
Speaker 1: drives cleaned to obstruct from the investigation. And so the
Speaker 1: blazing hypocrisy. And by the way, we've also talked about
Speaker 1: on this podcast, how every president after the presidency retains
Speaker 1: documents and there's a back and forth with getting the
Speaker 1: documents back in the archives, and it takes it takes months,
Speaker 1: and it takes years. And Obama I had thousands of
Speaker 1: documents that still haven't been submitted back. And so that
Speaker 1: the weaponization and politicization over a document production question is
Speaker 1: I think quite absurd. But for me, the most priceless
Speaker 1: part of that exchange was the self righteous I would
Speaker 1: never put myself in whether my Department of Justice should
Speaker 1: go after him. What an utter cruck go to point
Speaker 1: out two facts. Number One, when Joe Biden was Vice
Speaker 1: president on January fifth, he participated this is twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: in an Oval office meeting with Barack Obama, where he
Speaker 1: suggested to the Department of Justice that they go after
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn, then Donald Trump's incoming national security advisor, under
Speaker 1: the Logan Act, because Michael Flynn, the incoming National Security Advisor,
Speaker 1: had had a conversation with a foreign leader. Mind you,
Speaker 1: every national security advisor in the history of the country
Speaker 1: has had lots of conversations with foreign leaders, because that's
Speaker 1: their frigging job to have conversations with foreign leaders. But
Speaker 1: it was Biden who suggested go prosecute them, and who
Speaker 1: also signed off on and by the way, keep this
Speaker 1: entire prosecution and persecution secret from the incoming president. So
Speaker 1: that is in writing Sally Yates, the Deputy Attorney General,
Speaker 1: her notes show it was Biden's idea to do this.
Speaker 1: So you want to talk about someone who's personally directed
Speaker 1: the weaponization of DJ against the Trump administration. Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: right at the top of that list, and secondly at president.
Speaker 1: As president, he has repeatedly called on you know, I
Speaker 1: think the Department of Justice needs to be tougher going
Speaker 1: after Trump. He's calling for them publicly. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like the classic you know, who will rid me of
Speaker 1: this troublesome cleric. He's just calling out loud. And if
Speaker 1: only there's a Department of Justice or an FBI that
Speaker 1: might listen and send, say, fifty agents to raid the
Speaker 1: guy's house. But I don't know about it. I just
Speaker 1: publicly mused, wouldn't it be nice if they did it?
Speaker 1: What a crock Yeah, of course, of course. And to
Speaker 1: say this is not political is you know, Strand's credulity.
Speaker 1: It's beyond the point of absurdity. And yet, and yet,
Speaker 1: there is a question about whether or not Biden will
Speaker 1: run in twenty twenty four. Biden thus far has said yes,
Speaker 1: I am running. Biden has filed the paperwork to run.
Speaker 1: You have said on this podcast, Biden's not going to run.
Speaker 1: He can't run. Biden for the first time, I think,
Speaker 1: when asked this question starts to open the door to
Speaker 1: not running in twenty twenty four. Were you committed to
Speaker 1: running again or are there certain conditions that have to
Speaker 1: be right. Look, if I were to say to you,
Speaker 1: I'm running again, all of a sudden, the whole range
Speaker 1: of things come into play that I have requirements I
Speaker 1: have to change and move and do in terms of election,
Speaker 1: in terms of election loss. And it's much too early
Speaker 1: to make that kind of decision. I'm a great respecter
Speaker 1: of fate, and so what I'm doing is I'm doing
Speaker 1: my job. I'm going to do that job and within
Speaker 1: the time frame that makes sense. After this next election
Speaker 1: cycle here, going into next year, make a judgment of
Speaker 1: what to do. You say that it's much too early
Speaker 1: to make that decision. I take it the decision has
Speaker 1: not been made in your own head. Look, my intentions,
Speaker 1: I said to begin with, is that I would run again.
Speaker 1: But it's just an intention. But is it a firm
Speaker 1: decision that I've run again? That remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: How would you say your mental focus is? Well, it's focused,
Speaker 1: I says, I think it's I haven't. Look, I have
Speaker 1: trouble even mentioning, even saying to myself my own head,
Speaker 1: the number of years. I no more think of myself
Speaker 1: as being as old as I am than fly. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just not I haven't observed anything in terms of
Speaker 1: there's not things I don't do now that I did before,
Speaker 1: whether it's physical or mental or anything else. Mister President,
Speaker 1: you are the oldest president ever. Pretty good shape, uh,
Speaker 1: which leads to my next question. You are more aware
Speaker 1: of this than anyone. Some people ask whether you are
Speaker 1: fit for the job. And when you hear that, I
Speaker 1: wonder what you think. Watch me not great advice, I
Speaker 1: think if Joe Biden's trying to garner su board. But
Speaker 1: your take on that, senator reading between the lines, is
Speaker 1: the guy running in twenty twenty four? No, no way,
Speaker 1: All right, There of different elements of that, so let's
Speaker 1: unpack that. So, first of all, he starts out with
Speaker 1: latently false legal advice. And I recognize Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: never a very good lawyer, but he really showed that there.
Speaker 1: So he says, well, they're legal consequences if I say
Speaker 1: I'm running. Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior is the incumbent President
Speaker 1: of the United States. He has filed paperwork with the
Speaker 1: fec as a candidate for president of the United States
Speaker 1: in the next election. He is, legally speaking, a candidate
Speaker 1: for president of the United States in the next election.
Speaker 1: He is raising money to run in the next election.
Speaker 1: Everything about that is triggered because he is an active
Speaker 1: candidate raising money for that election cycle. For the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four election. Nothing changes if he says yes or no.
Speaker 1: Now what Biden is mimicking. So Trump has said if
Speaker 1: I say I'm running, that triggers things. That's true, it
Speaker 1: does for Trump. Why because Trump is not the sitting
Speaker 1: president of the United States, and he is not a
Speaker 1: filed candidate. When you file for a candidate, that does
Speaker 1: trigger limitations. That does trigger a whole set of legal restrictions,
Speaker 1: all of which apply to Biden one way or the other.
Speaker 1: So Biden's opening answer is just gobbledegook. But secondly, and
Speaker 1: here's where I'll be oddly defending Biden in this respect,
Speaker 1: I understand why he doesn't want to say no, I'm
Speaker 1: not running. I think the chances that he's running a zero.
Speaker 1: He's too old. He knows he's too old. The party
Speaker 1: would lose its mind if he ran. He's not up
Speaker 1: to doing the job now. The idea that he would
Speaker 1: run again when he's one hundred and forty two, it
Speaker 1: just it ain't gonna happen. But I understand why a
Speaker 1: sitting president doesn't want to announce that. If you announce
Speaker 1: I'm not running, you turn yourself into a lame duck
Speaker 1: a year and a half into his term. That makes
Speaker 1: sense for him. It is reasonable and rational for him
Speaker 1: not to telegraph I ain't run it again. So I
Speaker 1: think that's what he's doing. But you know, one of
Speaker 1: the things that makes perfectly obvious that he is that
Speaker 1: he's not running again is the Democrats are all openly campaigning.
Speaker 1: They're at least four the top tier of the Democrats
Speaker 1: are Kamala Harris, Pete Buddha Gedge, Elizabeth Warren, and Gavin Newson.
Speaker 1: All four of them are running right now. They're stabbing
Speaker 1: each other in the back, They're they're running around preening
Speaker 1: for the cameras that the primary is happening right now
Speaker 1: and they all know it. Um do you think any
Speaker 1: of them are doing particularly well or better than any
Speaker 1: of the others. I think Kamala is doing lousy. I
Speaker 1: think she's had a spectacularly bad tenure as vice president.
Speaker 1: She came in as the prohibitive favorite. Like a year
Speaker 1: and a half ago, there was an argument that she
Speaker 1: would even clear the field potentially as the sitting vice
Speaker 1: president for the Democratic president who's African American, whose female.
Speaker 1: I mean that the Democrats are such bean counters and
Speaker 1: so ind identity politics that that on paper, you're like, wow,
Speaker 1: can how could anyone even run against her? She's screwed
Speaker 1: things up so badly for so long that they're all
Speaker 1: sharpening their knives and they've decided to forget about it.
Speaker 1: Buddha Gedge was the earliest, so early on you had
Speaker 1: the Harris Buddha Jedge jabbing back and forth. The most
Speaker 1: recent entrant to the field is Newsome, whose ambition is
Speaker 1: just bursting off. He's you know, I think the most
Speaker 1: dangerous place in California right now might be between Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom and a TV camera and then Warren. So Warren
Speaker 1: doesn't get talked about that much, but to my mind,
Speaker 1: Warren is a dark horse in this field because she's
Speaker 1: still represents the id of the hardcore progressive socialist Marxist left,
Speaker 1: and that can be potent in a Democrat primary. So
Speaker 1: I think they're they're leaning in more and more. I
Speaker 1: will say the tail end of Biden, are you two old?
Speaker 1: And he says, just watch me like we have been dude,
Speaker 1: Like like, yeah, you shake hair, hands with the empty air,
Speaker 1: you talk to the easter bunny. You get confused, like
Speaker 1: tying your shoes. That that that that's the problem. You
Speaker 1: screw up. You commit to to invading China, defend Taiwan
Speaker 1: just as a slip of the tongue that your own
Speaker 1: staff has to correct mid interview. That let me just
Speaker 1: engage an understatement does not suggest the maximum level of competence. Hmm.
Speaker 1: Very diplomatic speaking of Bidens who have made a mess
Speaker 1: of things overseas. U he did address his son. The
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden issue has gotten worse and worse and worse.
Speaker 1: Something like twelve to seventeen percent of people who voted
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden twenty twenty later told polsters that had
Speaker 1: they known about Hunter Biden's crimes, had the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: lapstop story not been suppressed by the entire big tech establishment,
Speaker 1: they would not have voted for Joe Biden. This is
Speaker 1: clearly a big liability for him if the story can
Speaker 1: get out, not just about the hookers and the drugs,
Speaker 1: but also the business dealings, the trading of US influence.
Speaker 1: And so Biden was asked about Hunter. Here here's his answer,
Speaker 1: the President, if you run again, Republicans are most likely
Speaker 1: to go after your son Hunter once again. And I
Speaker 1: wonder what you would like to say about your son
Speaker 1: and whether any of his troubles have caused conflicts for
Speaker 1: you or for the United States. I love my son.
Speaker 1: Number one, he fought an addiction problem, he overcame it,
Speaker 1: he wrote about it. And no, there's not a single
Speaker 1: thing that I've observed at all from that it would
Speaker 1: affect me or the United States relative to my son Hunter.
Speaker 1: Fair answer, Senator. Oh look, I understand why Biden gave
Speaker 1: that answer. That's an answer probably a lot of fathers
Speaker 1: would give. The real indictment is CBS that they took
Speaker 1: that answer. They just says, well, gosh, meaneasers are saying
Speaker 1: mean things about your son. Anything you want to say,
Speaker 1: I love my son. Oh, okay, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that's hard hitting news. Okay, Like, look, the
Speaker 1: guy has videoed himself committing multiple felonies. When you have
Speaker 1: crack cocaine and you're with prostitutes waving a gun around
Speaker 1: that like violates so many laws it's difficult to to
Speaker 1: catalog this. Biden Department of Justice doesn't enforce the laws
Speaker 1: with respect to him, and that doesn't even begin to
Speaker 1: touch the corruption the deals with Ukraine. Look, verdict started
Speaker 1: out talking about brisman impeachment. All of that now is
Speaker 1: ancient history. Getting paid eighty three thousand dollars a month
Speaker 1: by a Ukrainian natural gas company when you don't when
Speaker 1: you don't know anything about Ukraine or natural gas, that's
Speaker 1: reeks of corruption. I think this is really the point here, Senator,
Speaker 1: because you know, if Biden just gave the answer and said, look,
Speaker 1: I love my son, he's a drug addict, degenerate, but
Speaker 1: hopefully he's cleaning up his life. I think people would
Speaker 1: move on if that last part wasn't and nothing whatsoever
Speaker 1: affects the United States or my presidency or administration. And
Speaker 1: you think, well, putting you know, the drugs and the
Speaker 1: women and wine women in song aside, when you're when
Speaker 1: you're being paid off, when your son is getting a
Speaker 1: major payoff from a corrupt government, when you are you
Speaker 1: then the vice president or the point person on US
Speaker 1: relations with that government, to say nothing of Hunter Biden's
Speaker 1: business dealings in China and elsewhere around the world. That
Speaker 1: actually does affect the United States, and that does affect
Speaker 1: your presidency. It very much does. And you look at
Speaker 1: China and Hunters investments, where you know, Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: now selling oil from our strategic petroleum reserve to China,
Speaker 1: including Chinese state owned companies that Hunter's firm was a
Speaker 1: major investor and shareholder in. That's a big damn deal.
Speaker 1: You know. The what it says in the laptop ten
Speaker 1: percent for the big guy, meaning Joe Biden. On its face,
Speaker 1: that screams corruption. Merrick Garland and this politicized DJ won't
Speaker 1: investigate it. They won't, and what should have happened. They
Speaker 1: need to appoint a special counsel because there's no credibility
Speaker 1: of a fair and impartial investigation. And again I'm not
Speaker 1: going to fault Joe for trying to defend his son
Speaker 1: and trying to dismiss it. That's what any parent would do.
Speaker 1: But there is a responsibility for a journalist actually to
Speaker 1: have facts, like the question isn't so supposed to be
Speaker 1: why are there so many Republican meanings. And that's basically
Speaker 1: what CBS's question was. I thought that was they ought
Speaker 1: to teach that question in journalism schools. Here's how to
Speaker 1: flunk the job of a journalist. Now, before we get
Speaker 1: to the mailbag, Senator, I do want a little bit
Speaker 1: of a palate cleanser here. We have been dealing with
Speaker 1: the leader of the free world, at least nominally our
Speaker 1: own leader. I'd like to turn our attention to another
Speaker 1: American network TV interview with another world leader. That would
Speaker 1: be the Iranian president who was asked about his views
Speaker 1: on the Holocaust. Do you believe the Holocaust happened, that
Speaker 1: six million Jews were slaughtered massdia tarichi ye. Look, historical
Speaker 1: events should be investigated by researchers and historians. There are
Speaker 1: some signs that had happened. If so, they should allow
Speaker 1: it to be investigated and researched. So you're not sure,
Speaker 1: I'm getting that. You're not sure. What about Israel's right
Speaker 1: to exist philistine? You see the people of Palestine or
Speaker 1: the reality This is the right of the people of
Speaker 1: Palestine who are forced to leave their houses in motherland.
Speaker 1: The Americans are supporting this false regime there to take
Speaker 1: root and be established. There not a ton of pushback
Speaker 1: from Leslie Stall there. What do you make of the
Speaker 1: Iranian president's remarks? So, I think that is utterly disgraceful
Speaker 1: on multiple levels. Let's start off, Raissi is a mass
Speaker 1: murderer and a terrorist. He is directly responsible for enormous
Speaker 1: number of murders of tortures. He has been one of
Speaker 1: the most repressive figures in this horrific regime for years.
Speaker 1: He was appointed by the Ayatola to that position despite
Speaker 1: a horrific record of human rights abuses. Number Two, he
Speaker 1: was allowed by the Biden administration to come to the
Speaker 1: United States, come to New York, to the United Nations.
Speaker 1: He should not have been. I've introduced legislation to block
Speaker 1: him from coming. We should not be allowing terrorists and
Speaker 1: mass murders into the United States. But the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: every enemy of a world, every enemy of America, they
Speaker 1: treat with weakness and appeasement. And this is yet another example.
Speaker 1: Number three. It's particularly horrifying this interview right now. In
Speaker 1: recent days, the world was stunned with the news that
Speaker 1: a twenty two year old Iranian woman was captured the
Speaker 1: religious police in Iran and was beaten to death for
Speaker 1: the crime of not wearing a headscarf. She dared to
Speaker 1: go outside and she wasn't covering her face the way
Speaker 1: the Islamic radicals insist, and the religious police arrested her
Speaker 1: and beat her to death. Within hours of that happening,
Speaker 1: an American journalist on CBS Leslie Stall is sitting there compliantly,
Speaker 1: bleeding like a sheep, wearing a headscarf. That's disgusting. Did
Speaker 1: she ask about what happened? No? And then the final
Speaker 1: bit to end with Ras engaging in Holocaust denial. Well,
Speaker 1: historians should debate and examine to see if there's evidence
Speaker 1: the Holocaust is one of, if not the most terrific
Speaker 1: event in all of human history. The systematic extermination of
Speaker 1: six million Jews an attempted genocide. You don't think there's evidence,
Speaker 1: go to Auschwitz, go to the concentration camp, read the
Speaker 1: diary of Anne Frank, examine the horror, and to c CBS,
Speaker 1: oh okay, well that's that's of you. Yeah, oh okay,
Speaker 1: And and dece to sit there while this monster spews
Speaker 1: anti Semitic filth on CBS. There are not words to
Speaker 1: describe the abdication of responsibility. Leslie Stall should be ashamed,
Speaker 1: and CBS should be ashamed that they're willing to kiss
Speaker 1: up to a monster and a tyrant. Not so much
Speaker 1: for a palett cleanser, you know, I guess the President
Speaker 1: of Iran generally is not not much of a palate cleanser.
Speaker 1: Before we go, I know it's a long episode, but
Speaker 1: I do want to get to some of our wonderful
Speaker 1: listeners in the mail bag question from Andrew were the
Speaker 1: Martha's Vineyard planes a good one time stunt or should
Speaker 1: GOP governors keep up the migrant buses and flights to
Speaker 1: left wing cities as a long term strategy? Keep it
Speaker 1: up over and over and over again. As you know,
Speaker 1: I introduced legislation to do this a year ago. I've
Speaker 1: been calling on on Republicans to do this a year ago.
Speaker 1: I'm very glad Greg Abbott and Ron De Santis took
Speaker 1: my advice and carried it out. It was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. It's totally transformed the debate. But rich
Speaker 1: leftist socialists lost their minds when fifty illegal immigrants showed
Speaker 1: up at Martha's Vineyard tomorrow. We had to send one
Speaker 1: hundred the next day we had to send two hundred
Speaker 1: and five hundred and a thousand. The volume is so massive,
Speaker 1: and and listen the reason to do it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it has been amazing watching the media and all these
Speaker 1: blue check mark activists losing their minds and they're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: do Satis and Abbots are engaged in human trafficking. No,
Speaker 1: it's a humanitarian crisis. It is not human trafficking. To
Speaker 1: ask somebody, would you like to go to Martha's Vineyard,
Speaker 1: I will fly you for free there. That's not called
Speaker 1: human trafficking, despite all the idiots saying it is also
Speaker 1: not cruel and inhumane to take someone to a billionaire's playground.
Speaker 1: Martha's Vineyard is. I've actually never been, so I don't
Speaker 1: really know what Martha's Vineyard is, but from everything I see,
Speaker 1: it's a really fancy place that I know. The Obamas
Speaker 1: have a twelve million dollar home there, so it's a
Speaker 1: bunch of rich people and it's presumably really during nice.
Speaker 1: The reason to send them there is it's about the
Speaker 1: only thing that forces the corrupt corporate media to actually
Speaker 1: cover what's happening, and it also shows the utter hypocrisy
Speaker 1: we talked in the last podcast about how the county
Speaker 1: executive in Martha's Vineyard when I proposed this legislation, said
Speaker 1: they would welcome the illegal immigrants there. They wanted to
Speaker 1: be a haven for them. And I didn't know what
Speaker 1: I was talking about. There was no border crisis. As
Speaker 1: soon as they showed up, Oh crap, they declared a crisis.
Speaker 1: But additionally, it forces the Democrats and the media to
Speaker 1: defend their incoherence. What did they do in Martha's Vineyard
Speaker 1: within twenty four hours? They put them on buses and
Speaker 1: shipped them away. Shipped them away to a military base.
Speaker 1: You know. AOC tweeted out said, shout out to the
Speaker 1: people of Massachusetts and the people of Martha's Vineyard for
Speaker 1: demonstrating the very best of American values. And I did
Speaker 1: something I don't do often. I retweeted AOC, I said, look, well,
Speaker 1: what did Martha's Vineyard do? They deported them within twenty
Speaker 1: four hours. I agree, let's emulate Martha's Vineyard. But the
Speaker 1: very best of American values. I assumed that means Texas
Speaker 1: can do the same thing, and we put them on
Speaker 1: a bus and ship them back to where they came from.
Speaker 1: Within twenty four hours. Can we get them out? Look,
Speaker 1: the volume is crushing, and all of these self righteous
Speaker 1: virtue signals are ignoring what is happening. This is human slavery.
Speaker 1: To see lefties saying it was crueling in humane to
Speaker 1: send them to Martha's vineyard. Now, you know what's crueling
Speaker 1: in humane. Hundreds of thousands of children being abused and
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted by human traffickers under Joe Biden. You know
Speaker 1: what's crueling in humane. Thousands upon thousands of women being
Speaker 1: raped by human traffickers under Joe Biden. You know what's
Speaker 1: crueling in humane. Hundreds of immigrants abandoned to die in
Speaker 1: the desert. Pregnant ladies, old people, children dead in the
Speaker 1: desert week after week. You know what's crueling in humane.
Speaker 1: Fifty three illegal immigrants dead and attractor trailer of heat
Speaker 1: because of the human traffickers under Joe Biden. You know
Speaker 1: what's cruel in humane. Over one hundred thousand people dying
Speaker 1: of fentanol overdoses because of the chaos of Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: open borders. You know what's crueling in humane. Thousands of
Speaker 1: teenage boys working for the cartels in every city in America.
Speaker 1: Because they owe thousands of dollars to the cartel. You
Speaker 1: know what's crueling in humane? Thousands of teenage girls in
Speaker 1: forced prostitution because they owe thousands of dollars to the cartel.
Speaker 1: And you know what's crueling in humane. A corrupt media
Speaker 1: that won't report on any of that, but they suddenly
Speaker 1: notice when Buffy's tea time is disturbed at Martha's Vineyard.
Speaker 1: We ought to keep doing that every damn day till
Speaker 1: they've forced to cover the human slavery disaster that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is responsible. Here here one hundred percent agree with
Speaker 1: the sentiment, I hope. I'm so glad that the governors,
Speaker 1: some of the Republican governors, have taken the advice we
Speaker 1: need a lot more of it. I totally agree we
Speaker 1: need a lot more of this show, by the way,
Speaker 1: but I unfortunately cannot stay. We've got to turn to
Speaker 1: our friend Liz Wheeler on the cloak room. Liz, what
Speaker 1: will you be talking about? Hi, Michael High, Senator. I
Speaker 1: don't know about you, guys, but I feel super confident
Speaker 1: after hearing those videos in Biden's mental capacity, in his
Speaker 1: mental acuity, very confident in the fact that he's not
Speaker 1: actively harming the American people with his impractical and unwise policies. Yikes.
Speaker 1: Over on the cloak Room, we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: something kind of exciting that happened just a couple days ago.
Speaker 1: The Fifth Circuit Court issued a ruling on Big Tech
Speaker 1: that might lead to a showdown at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Big Tech, of course, famous for banning conservatives based on
Speaker 1: our viewpoints. The Fifth Circuit issued a ruling saying that
Speaker 1: corporations do not have a free wheeling right to censor speech.
Speaker 1: So we are going to discuss what exactly this means.
Speaker 1: Is it going to reach the Supreme Court, how is
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court going to rule, and what is the
Speaker 1: implication of this across the country, not just in the
Speaker 1: state of Texas where the original law emanated from. So
Speaker 1: you can join us on the Cloakroom on Verdict Plus
Speaker 1: at Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com slash plus. If
Speaker 1: you use my promo code, which is Cloakroom, then you
Speaker 1: can watch for free for the first month of your
Speaker 1: annual subscription that is Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com
Speaker 1: slash Plus. I am going to self censor right now
Speaker 1: and take myself off of this show. So that you
Speaker 1: can get to that very interesting conversation. Make sure everyone
Speaker 1: out there that you like subscribe on YouTube, on Apple, podcasts,
Speaker 1: on Spotify, on locals, wherever you get your podcasts. For now,
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles. 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 as
Speaker 1: the country in twenty twenty two, Job's 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.