Speaker 1: Welcome it as Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you. Let's start with a victory, Senator, the Texas
Speaker 1: Bar Application has actually added a couple of questions that
Speaker 1: deal with free speech and incivility. This and wake of
Speaker 1: what happened at Stanford Law School, and this is because
Speaker 1: of a letter that you wrote. This is something that
Speaker 1: I would argue every state in America should be modeling
Speaker 1: after what the Texas Bar Application is doing with adding
Speaker 1: these basic questions.
Speaker 2: Well, Ben, you're right, We've had a big victory in
Speaker 2: the last week for free speech. Everyone who listens to
Speaker 2: Verdict was appalled, and we discussed at length what happened
Speaker 2: at Stanford Law School where Fifth Circuit Federal Court of
Speaker 2: Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan went to give a speech on
Speaker 2: campus at Stanford Law School and a group of law
Speaker 2: students screamed him down, cursing, cursing, profanities, yelled were just
Speaker 2: they shouted him down and prevented him from speaking, and
Speaker 2: some of the explicit profanities they yelled at at him.
Speaker 2: I've never in my life seen a federal judge treated
Speaker 2: the way these Stanford law students that did then, of course,
Speaker 2: the Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion came in,
Speaker 2: and the judge understandably appealed to the dean to the
Speaker 2: administration for help enforcing Stanford's free speech policy, and the
Speaker 2: dean proceeded to side with the mob, decide with the
Speaker 2: people screaming down the judge, and she read from a
Speaker 2: seven minute prepared lecture attacking the judge. In the wake
Speaker 2: of that, across the country, people were rightly horrified.
Speaker 3: I did two things.
Speaker 2: Number one, I wrote to the President of Stanford and
Speaker 2: the Dean of the Stanford Law School, calling on Stanford
Speaker 2: to fire the de and to discipline the students. And
Speaker 2: we ended up getting a meaningful victory in that regard.
Speaker 2: That dean is on leave. We don't know if she's
Speaker 2: ultimately gonna be fired, but astonishingly enough, Stanford stepped forward,
Speaker 2: condemned what the dean did, said it violated their policy,
Speaker 2: and put her on leave. That's a big deal. That
Speaker 2: is a victory. But then a second victory that I
Speaker 2: think is even more significant. A month ago I sent
Speaker 2: a letter to the Texas State Bar and in particular
Speaker 2: to Chief Justice Nathan hect of the Texas Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: I know Chief Justice HEC very well. I've argued in
Speaker 2: front of the Texas Supreme Court and in front of
Speaker 2: Chief Justice HECT many many times. The letter I sent
Speaker 2: to the Texas Bar, I urged the bar to do
Speaker 2: something about it. Anyone who's a member of the bar,
Speaker 2: you have to take a bar exam in Texas. It's
Speaker 2: three days long and it's extensive. It deals with knowledge
Speaker 2: of the law. Knowledge of the law generally knowledge of
Speaker 2: Texas law, in particular if you're going to be an
Speaker 2: attorney in the state of Texas. So, for example, there
Speaker 2: are questions on the Texas Bar about oil and gas law,
Speaker 2: which I suspect if you take the New York Bar
Speaker 2: you don't get questions about oil and gas law because
Speaker 2: they don't actually let you drill for oil and gas. Well,
Speaker 2: in Texas you have to know at least something about
Speaker 2: it if you're going to be a member of the
Speaker 2: Texas Bar. But there is also you take an ethics exam,
Speaker 2: and there is also an element of every bar exam
Speaker 2: which is character and fitness to practice law. And the
Speaker 2: notion is if you're going to be an attorney, if
Speaker 2: you're going to represent clients, if you're going to be
Speaker 2: able to go before court and represent clients, you have
Speaker 2: to have sound character, you have to be fit to
Speaker 2: practice law. And so what I asked a month ago,
Speaker 2: if Chief Justice Hect, I'll read a paragraph from the
Speaker 2: letter I sent him, I would ask that the Texas
Speaker 2: Board of Bar Examiners, in discharging their duties of assessing
Speaker 2: the character and fitness of prospective bar applicants, take particular
Speaker 2: care with students who have graduate sduated from Stanford Law
Speaker 2: in class years twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four, or
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. Specifically, I suggest that students graduating from
Speaker 2: those years be made to answer in writing whether they
Speaker 2: participated in the shameful harassment of Judge Duncan on March ninth,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. And then I went on to say,
Speaker 2: I would leave it to the considered judgment of the
Speaker 2: Texas Supreme Court in the Texas Board of Bar Examiners
Speaker 2: as to what the proper remedy should be for any
Speaker 2: students who answer in the affirmative. Well, last week I
Speaker 2: got a letter back from Chief Justice Hect, and it
Speaker 2: is a terrific letter. Is a terrific response. Let me
Speaker 2: tell you what Chief Justice hec said, and I'm going
Speaker 2: to read it to you. Dear Senator Cruz, thank you
Speaker 2: for your letter of March sixteenth, twenty twenty three. I am,
Speaker 2: of course, very familiar with the disruption of Judge Kyle
Speaker 2: Duncan's invited presentation at Stanford Law School, as well as
Speaker 2: as I'm sorry to have to say similar occurrences at
Speaker 2: Yale Law School. It goes on to say, I'm going
Speaker 2: to skip a little bit of it, but it goes
Speaker 2: on to say the Board has historically relied on law
Speaker 2: schools to report disciplinary matters that should be considered in
Speaker 2: determining an applicant's character and fitness for admission to the
Speaker 2: Texas Bar School. Reactions to recent violations of free speech
Speaker 2: policies suggests that reliance is not justified. The Board is
Speaker 2: planning to add questions to the Bar Application to inquire
Speaker 2: of applicants directly concerning in civility and violations of school policies.
Speaker 2: Texas lawyers are expected to adhere to the Texas Lawyer's Creed,
Speaker 2: promising to treat Council, opposing parties, the court, and members
Speaker 2: of court staff with courtesy and civility. The admissions process
Speaker 2: should examine whether applicants could be expected to fulfill this problem.
Speaker 3: Promise.
Speaker 2: I gotta say, Ben, that's a big damn deal. If
Speaker 2: there are Stanford students in that room who were screaming
Speaker 2: and cursing and thinking that you can behave as a wholigan,
Speaker 2: as an Antifa rioter, and at the same time be
Speaker 2: admitted as a member of the bar, this has got
Speaker 2: to make them think twice. And I hope that other
Speaker 2: bars follow suit. The behavior of those students was utterly
Speaker 2: unacceptable for anyone who wants to be a lawyer. And
Speaker 2: so I congratulate Chief Justice hect He did exactly the
Speaker 2: right thing, and this is meaningful in terms of a
Speaker 2: victory for free speech.
Speaker 1: How many other states do you think could actually look
Speaker 1: at this and go, oh wow, we should do the
Speaker 1: exact same thing. There are a lot of states that
Speaker 1: have different universities, a lot of states that dealt with
Speaker 1: protests on college campuses. We see almost weekly now where
Speaker 1: conservative speakers are attacked and even assaulted, as we saw
Speaker 1: one conservative swimmer who was attacked just last week. We
Speaker 1: witnessed this happen, and there's got to be a higher standard.
Speaker 1: As you said, for those practicing law that are going
Speaker 1: to be in our courts and not treating people this way.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that other states will look at this
Speaker 1: and say, what Texas just did? This was such a
Speaker 1: big victory for not just free speech, but free speech
Speaker 1: and decorum for everyone. This is saying it's unacceptable no
Speaker 1: matter who's doing it. How quickly do you think others
Speaker 1: could jump on board?
Speaker 2: You know, I think it's likely that you will see
Speaker 2: other states follow suit. I think it is more likely
Speaker 2: in red states than blue states. So Florida is a
Speaker 2: natural place to think about that could follow suit, and
Speaker 2: Florida is a big deal. Look, Texas has thirty million people.
Speaker 2: We have nearly ten percent of the population of the
Speaker 2: United States. I guarantee you there are Stanford Law students
Speaker 2: who hoped and intended to practice law in the state
Speaker 2: of Texas. I don't know if any of them were
Speaker 2: in that room harassing and screaming at Judge Duncan. There
Speaker 2: are other states. I mean, the states that would be
Speaker 2: most significant would be the California State Bar the New
Speaker 2: York State Bar, because you've got a ton of Stanford
Speaker 2: Law graduates planning to practice either in California or New York.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they would follow suit. I'm skeptical
Speaker 2: that they would given the overall politics of those two states.
Speaker 2: But I will note Stanford Law School, to the astonishment
Speaker 2: of a lot of us, behaved a lot better than
Speaker 2: Yale Law School did. Stanford Law School, in particular, suspended
Speaker 2: the dean unequivocally condemned the behavior of the students and
Speaker 2: made clear that it violated their free speech policy. And
Speaker 2: let me be clear, just to engage with some of
Speaker 2: the trolls that will say, well, gosh, if you're punishing
Speaker 2: people for screaming and and shouting down a federal judge,
Speaker 2: that's anti free speech. No, no, it's not. You have
Speaker 2: every right to engage in speech. Those students would have
Speaker 2: been perfectly justified to show up, to be outside with placards,
Speaker 2: to be making their views known. What you don't have
Speaker 2: a right to do is silence the speech of another
Speaker 2: That's what the Supreme Court is called a heckler's veto.
Speaker 2: You don't have the right to shout down and silence
Speaker 2: another speaker. And part of it is you're violating not
Speaker 2: only the free speech rights of the speaker, you're violating
Speaker 2: the free speech rights of the other students who want
Speaker 2: to listen to that speaker, and so. Had the Stanford
Speaker 2: Law students stood outside and protest in a way that
Speaker 2: did not disrupt the event, that would have been entirely appropriate.
Speaker 2: But their objective was to use force to shout down
Speaker 2: and make the judge's speech impossible. That is directly antithetical
Speaker 2: to free speech. I would note it is even worse
Speaker 2: when you were dealing with a federal appellate judge. So
Speaker 2: at Yale Law School, they did that to Kirsten Wagoner,
Speaker 2: who's an attorney who had argued and won a major
Speaker 2: case of the Supreme Court. That was bad, but it
Speaker 2: is qualitatively different to do so to a sitting federal
Speaker 2: appellate judge. I'll tell you this, I've been a member
Speaker 2: of the bar for a couple of decades. Now, if
Speaker 2: you did what they did in that classroom, in any
Speaker 2: courtroom in America, you better have your toothbrush with you
Speaker 2: because you would be found in contempt. They would put
Speaker 2: handcuffs on you, and they would put you in jail.
Speaker 2: You don't get to speak to a judge that way,
Speaker 2: even if you don't like the judge even if you
Speaker 2: disagree with the judge's ruling. Our system is based upon
Speaker 2: some modicum of civility, and sadly, those Stanford law students
Speaker 2: seem not to have learned that, to have learned the
Speaker 2: opposite with the encouragement of the Deidan. But kudos to
Speaker 2: the Texas State Bar for setting an exam sample an
Speaker 2: example that I hope other bars follow, and in particular,
Speaker 2: Florida should be the next bar to act because Florida.
Speaker 2: A lot of those students want to go to Florida too,
Speaker 2: and doing this will be a real deterrence to the
Speaker 2: next time this is happening. If you're a law student,
Speaker 2: you're a lefty, you're a Marxist, you're gonna think twice
Speaker 2: about Well, wait a second, I'd like to be able
Speaker 2: to admit be admitted to the bar, so maybe I
Speaker 2: won't shout down a speaker who comes to campus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a big victory centator, like you said, and
Speaker 1: one that hopefully will go viral all over the country.
Speaker 1: I want to also ask you about another issue and.
Speaker 2: Been part of the reason for emphasizing Florida. If I'm correct,
Speaker 2: there's an election happening next year with two candidates out
Speaker 2: of the state of Florida. You are correct, sir, So
Speaker 2: I just think it's a good opportunity. Texas is leading
Speaker 2: right now, Florida out alite as well.
Speaker 4: I love it.
Speaker 1: Great, great point there, and we'll see and keep everybody
Speaker 1: updated on as. Hopefully this is something that goes viral
Speaker 1: and is good for the entire country when there is rules,
Speaker 1: and also when you cannot intimidate federal judges this way,
Speaker 1: it holds lawyers to a high standard which they should
Speaker 1: be held to.
Speaker 4: I want to move to another issue center.
Speaker 1: Everybody's saying about taxes, whether you paid them, whether you're
Speaker 1: waiting on the refund. Tax Day is tomorrow, and that
Speaker 1: means that there are a lot of people that are
Speaker 1: sitting here going and am I really getting my money's
Speaker 1: worth out of the government? And am I really getting
Speaker 1: my money's worth out of the IRS? When I pay
Speaker 1: this tax liability each and every year. It makes me
Speaker 1: angry when I see how big the check is, and
Speaker 1: then I think what did I not get in return?
Speaker 1: Before we get into some news about what Democrats want
Speaker 1: to do in expanding the IRS, so let me tell
Speaker 1: you about our friends over at chalk If you're a
Speaker 1: guy and you feel like you're just losing a little
Speaker 1: bit of your edge. You feel like you've got weakness
Speaker 1: and complacity over strength and vitality. You feel like you're
Speaker 1: just not the way you used to be. Then you
Speaker 1: need to check out Chalk. Chalk is here to help
Speaker 1: real American men take back their right to proudly maximize
Speaker 1: their masculinity by boosting testostrom levels up to twenty percent
Speaker 1: over ninety days.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: I've been taking Chalk now for a couple of months.
Speaker 1: I can tell you it works. It's manufactured right here
Speaker 1: in the USA. Chalk's and natural herbal supplements are clinically
Speaker 1: proven to have game changing effects on your energy, your focus,
Speaker 1: your mood. So maximize your masculinity today. Go to chalkcchoq
Speaker 1: dot com. I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack all right.
Speaker 1: You check it out Chalk choq dot com. Use it
Speaker 1: code Ben for thirty five percent off anty Chalk subscription
Speaker 1: for life choq dot com promo code Ben thirty five
Speaker 1: percent off and you can cancel obviously at any time.
Speaker 1: Center let's deal with the irs for a second. There
Speaker 1: are two headlines that caught our irs. Eighty billion news
Speaker 1: dump raises some serious questions. Forty eight days after a deadline,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration says, the IRS will release some details
Speaker 1: of its eighty billion and new taxpayer funding. And this
Speaker 1: on top of the fact we're now hearing that the
Speaker 1: IRS is planning to hire thirty thousand new employees over
Speaker 1: the next two years. Now, I want you to explain,
Speaker 1: is this on top of the eighty seven they already wanted,
Speaker 1: or is this thirty because they don't get the eighty
Speaker 1: seven thousand that they wanted.
Speaker 4: Explain this for everybody.
Speaker 2: Well, now, unfortunately, this is the first installment of the
Speaker 2: eighty seven thousand. So we all recall how last year
Speaker 2: the Democrats, when they still had control of both Houses
Speaker 2: of Congress, they ram through their Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 2: which did nothing to reduce inflation and in fact increased
Speaker 2: inflation by spending trillions of dollars and imposing billions of
Speaker 2: taxes on things like oil and gas, which drove up
Speaker 2: the cost of gasoline at the pump. One of the
Speaker 2: elements of that multi trillion dollar bill was eighty billion
Speaker 2: dollars in new funds for the IRS to hire eighty
Speaker 2: seven thousand new employees. Well, right before Good Friday and Easter,
Speaker 2: the IRS released the news. They did it as a
Speaker 2: news dump going into the holiday because they didn't want
Speaker 2: people to pay attention to it that they are right
Speaker 2: now hiring the first thirty thousand of those employees. Ten
Speaker 2: thousand of them are being hired in the current fiscal year,
Speaker 2: and in fiscal year twenty twenty four, they're planning to
Speaker 2: double that with twenty seven thousand new hires. Now, now
Speaker 2: what does that mean, Well, let's go through a lot
Speaker 2: of different elements. The long and short of it is,
Speaker 2: it means a whole bunch more IRS employees there to
Speaker 2: harass you, to harass citizens, to rass small businesses, to
Speaker 2: harass and target the political enemies of the of the
Speaker 2: Biden White House. But let's go through some details. Number one,
Speaker 2: you know the IRS is big on deadlines. Well, the
Speaker 2: statute actually said that they had to release the details
Speaker 2: for how they were going to spend the eighty billion
Speaker 2: dollars no later than February seventeenth, twenty twenty three. Now,
Speaker 2: I don't have my calendar in front of me, but
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure it's not February seventeenth, twenty twenty three. They're,
Speaker 2: in fact forty eight days late. If you or I
Speaker 2: tried that with the IRS, we'd face penalties. The IRS
Speaker 2: forty eight days late, No big deal, that's just business
Speaker 2: as usual. What are they doing with this money? Well,
Speaker 2: the Democrats talking point is that this is for taxpayer services.
Speaker 2: It's to make the IRS nicer. I don't know, when
Speaker 2: you file your return, maybe they send a masseuse to
Speaker 2: do a foot massage. You know, it's just taxpayer services. Yeah, well,
Speaker 2: let's have some top lines. For every one dollar that
Speaker 2: is being spent on quote, taxpayer services, fourteen dollars is
Speaker 2: being spent on new IRS enforcement. Forty five point six
Speaker 2: billion dollars is going to tax enforcement, while three point
Speaker 2: one eight billion is going to taxpayer services. So when
Speaker 2: they claim this is to make the IRS more warm
Speaker 2: and fuzzy, they ain't telling the truth.
Speaker 1: You look at the IRS and just some of the
Speaker 1: other headlines that we've seen recently. We saw Matt Taby
Speaker 1: who was testifying before Congress. All of a sudden he
Speaker 1: gets bothered the same exact day with IRS com and knocking.
Speaker 1: You can go back to Lois Lerner harassing Conservatives, Christians
Speaker 1: pro are anti abortion groups, tea party groups. We've seen
Speaker 1: that there, but you had, I mean this recently. One
Speaker 1: was I think even more shocking was the fact that
Speaker 1: the IRS is visiting a journalist home the same day
Speaker 1: as before Congress. And that just screams abuse of power
Speaker 1: and weaponizing of the IRS. And now they want more
Speaker 1: thirty thousand more employees that could easily be used to
Speaker 1: do this to many other good Americans.
Speaker 2: Look, the good news is they're not very good at this.
Speaker 2: They're so clottish, they're so obvious when they target their
Speaker 2: political opponents, they do so in a way that is
Speaker 2: obvious that Matt Taibi is is actually a left leading
Speaker 2: liberal journalist who.
Speaker 3: Speech well.
Speaker 1: But he made a flawed mistake right, he actually did
Speaker 1: some journalism.
Speaker 2: He has told the truth that in particular he is
Speaker 2: courageously reported on the Twitter files and on big tech
Speaker 2: getting in bed with the government, engaging in censorship. And
Speaker 2: I gotta say Tave has been I think a little
Speaker 2: bit astonished. I've met him only once. I met him
Speaker 2: on the day of his testimony. I don't know him personally,
Speaker 2: but I suspect that going into this, I mean, he
Speaker 2: was a man of the left. I suspect he he
Speaker 2: had some real skepticism towards conservatives and assumed Democrats would
Speaker 2: be more welcoming of journalism and free speech. I got
Speaker 2: to say, I think those assumptions were severely disabused. The
Speaker 2: Democrats in the House before whom he testified, attacked him
Speaker 2: relentlessly because he dared speak about big tech censorship and
Speaker 2: big tech doing it at the behest of government, the
Speaker 2: Biden Whitehouse, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: But the IRS steps in under Biden and shamelessly they
Speaker 2: send IRS employees to his home literally the same day
Speaker 2: he's testifying in front of Congress. You know, if they'd
Speaker 2: waited a week, it wouldn't have seemed that obvious. But
Speaker 2: these guys are bad at their jobs that they're so
Speaker 2: obvious that they come in and just beat on the
Speaker 2: door as he's testifying. And by the way, I'll note,
Speaker 2: all right, let me ask you a question, a fairly
Speaker 2: amazing question. Sure, in the year twenty twenty two, what
Speaker 2: percentage of IRS employees do you think physically set foot
Speaker 2: in the office in the entire year twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: The scary part is, I'm going to go with like
Speaker 1: thirty percent, only because I know the quality of government
Speaker 1: work and I know what they were able to get
Speaker 1: away with in the name of COVID.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll say this, you may be even slightly more
Speaker 2: pessimistic than the IRS should be. So the then hot
Speaker 2: head of the IRS, Charles Reddig told Congress in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two that fifty three percent of IRS employees never
Speaker 2: set foot into an office, so doing some mass, presumably
Speaker 2: that means forty seven percent did set foot in an office.
Speaker 2: It's not clear they were there a day or two
Speaker 2: or what they were there. And I got to tell you,
Speaker 2: when the Democrats were ramming this terrible legislation through the
Speaker 2: misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, my colleague Susan Collins, Senator from Maine,
Speaker 2: a Republican, but a very liberal Republican. She had an
Speaker 2: amendment that I thought was a terrific amendment that said,
Speaker 2: before you can spend the eighty billion dollars in new funds,
Speaker 2: the IRS needs to do a public accounting of how
Speaker 2: many of its employees are actually showing up at work.
Speaker 2: We voted on it. It was a straight party line vote.
Speaker 2: The Democrats all said, nope, no, we don't expect government
Speaker 2: employees to show up to work.
Speaker 3: Not a problem. They don't have to come.
Speaker 1: It's incredible because the job is you're supposed to have
Speaker 1: to go to work, right, there's zero accountability if you're
Speaker 1: getting to phone it in.
Speaker 3: Look, that's exactly right. And so you know.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this the eighty seven thousand new
Speaker 2: IRS employees, which is doubling the size of the agency.
Speaker 2: It's designed, among other things, to put cash directly in
Speaker 2: the pockets of Democrats in Congress. In the past decade,
Speaker 2: the IRS union has given six hundred and one thousand,
Speaker 2: seven hundred and fifty nine dollars in pack funding to
Speaker 2: Democrat party committees. Wow, in twenty twenty two, what percentage
Speaker 2: of the pack funding from the IRS employee unions do
Speaker 2: you think went to Democrats?
Speaker 4: I would say seventy five plus percent.
Speaker 3: Easy, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: Really, they're not even trying to hide how biased they are.
Speaker 1: They're not even trying to act like, oh, we'll give
Speaker 1: a little bit over here.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. They couldn't find one wobbly Republican. They
Speaker 2: couldn't find one hundred percent of pack funding to Democrats.
Speaker 2: In the twenty twenty two cycle, one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: its pack funding went to Democrats. And so when Democrats
Speaker 2: dump eighty billion in new cash into the IRS, magic
Speaker 2: upon magic, hundreds of thousands of that dollars, if not
Speaker 2: millions of those dollars come right back in campaign checks,
Speaker 2: which may explain why Democrats senators don't care at all
Speaker 2: if the IRS employees show up at work or not.
Speaker 2: The only good thing is if they're not at work,
Speaker 2: maybe they'll be less effective in harassing citizens and small businesses.
Speaker 2: But be clear, their objective is to harass and target
Speaker 2: and attack you if you are perceived to be a
Speaker 2: political enemy of this regime.
Speaker 1: Incredible, and the scary part is they're, like you said,
Speaker 1: they're just trying to explode the size of the IRS,
Speaker 1: and I think it's pretty clear to weaponize it and
Speaker 1: make sure they can keep hardworking Americans down in the process,
Speaker 1: and they don't have to go to the office to
Speaker 1: do it, which is also a scary idea as well.
Speaker 1: I want to also tell everybody real quick about a
Speaker 1: gust of precious metals. If you are getting close to retirement,
Speaker 1: maybe you're in retirement and you've saved one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars or more my friends and a Gust of Precious Metals.
Speaker 1: They want to talk to you about protecting your hard
Speaker 1: earned dollars. You're very hard earned dollars in gold and silver.
Speaker 1: You can learn how a gold IRA can actually help
Speaker 1: diversify and protect you. We've seen what's been going on
Speaker 1: with the banks, We've seen what's going on with interest rates,
Speaker 1: we've seen what's happening with Wall Street. If it's been
Speaker 1: stressing you out, you're not the only one. And that's
Speaker 1: why you should call august the Precious Metal. Here's the
Speaker 1: other cool thing. If you call them, they're actually going
Speaker 1: to pay you in pure gold.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just to.
Speaker 1: Learn how a gold ira can protect you. That's a
Speaker 1: big deal. A pure gold coin for free. So reach
Speaker 1: out to a Gust of Precious Metals today and get
Speaker 1: started with gold. Don't let the bake failures get you down.
Speaker 1: Get this free gold and get some peace of mind.
Speaker 1: Eight seven seven the number four gold Ira eight seven
Speaker 1: seven the number four gold Ira or online at Augusta
Speaker 1: Precious Metals dot com slash verdict. That's Augusta Precious Metals
Speaker 1: dot Com center. I want to get to something else
Speaker 1: also here that's interesting and let's talk about the Southern
Speaker 1: Poverty Law Center. You had an op ed this week
Speaker 1: calling them out and the double standard of their self
Speaker 1: serving nature.
Speaker 4: And it comes down.
Speaker 1: To really two of their lawyers, one of them that
Speaker 1: had actual criminal past issues, and yet the Southern Poverty
Speaker 1: Law Center has done nothing to ram in their own
Speaker 1: out of control individuals within their organization.
Speaker 2: So the Southern Poverty Law Center is a radical left
Speaker 2: wing organization. It is virulent, hateful, and it is hard,
Speaker 2: hard left. Now you might say, oh, come on, those
Speaker 2: adjectives are strong. What are they like Antifa terrorists or something. Well,
Speaker 2: as it so happens, a lawyer who works at the
Speaker 2: Southern Poverty Law Center, his name is Thomas Webb Jurgens,
Speaker 2: was recently charged for being an Antifa terrorists and for
Speaker 2: his direct involvement in a violent riot against the police
Speaker 2: in Atlanta, Georgia. Now, all right, you're ostensibly a legal organization.
Speaker 2: One of your lawyers gets charged with being a terrorist.
Speaker 2: You would think at a minimum you'd back away and say, well, well, okay,
Speaker 2: we're not actually a terrorist organization.
Speaker 3: Nope.
Speaker 2: SPLC said, great, we stand by our lawyer, and I'm
Speaker 2: going to commend them for one thing, truth and advertising.
Speaker 2: They're admitting what it is is they believe. And in fact,
Speaker 2: within hours of jurgens arrest, the SPLC released a statement,
Speaker 2: and it didn't condemn the violence against the police officers
Speaker 2: that took place. Instead, it denounced Jurgens's arrest as quote
Speaker 2: and I'm quoting him here, part of ongoing state repression
Speaker 2: and violence and urged not that the violence against police
Speaker 2: officers end, but instead a de escalation of violence against black, brown,
Speaker 2: and Indigenous communities. That's who they are now, who have
Speaker 2: they been in the past. In the past, so they
Speaker 2: put out every year a hate list where they identify
Speaker 2: hate groups. And by hate groups they mean you, they
Speaker 2: mean Conservatives, they mean Christians, that they mean any people
Speaker 2: of faith that take their faith seriously. So among others
Speaker 2: that they listed the Family Research Council as a hate group.
Speaker 2: And by the way, an angry, violent leftist took the
Speaker 2: Southern Poverty Legal Center's list of hate groups and went
Speaker 2: as a gunman an open fire trying to murder people
Speaker 2: at the Family Research Council, and heroically a security guard
Speaker 2: risked his life and stopped that violent attack. That's who
Speaker 2: the SPLC is now. Let me tell you the most
Speaker 2: amazing thing, you know who.
Speaker 3: They also are.
Speaker 2: A source for the Biden administration for federal appellate judges,
Speaker 2: and in particular, Joe Biden has nominated Nancy Abudu, who
Speaker 2: is the director for Strategic Litigation for the SPLC, to
Speaker 2: be a Federal Court of Appeals judge for the US
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Now, I got
Speaker 2: to say, this is amazing when they are selecting as
Speaker 2: their nominees to be federal pellet judges senior leaders from radical, racist,
Speaker 2: hateful groups that embrace Antifa terrorism. And and I can
Speaker 2: tell you in the Senate Judiciary Committee, when Abudu was
Speaker 2: before our committee, I questioned her about this, she refused
Speaker 2: to disclaim, to denounce, to distance herself in any way
Speaker 2: whatsoever with the shameful and disgraceful record. The Senate is
Speaker 2: expected fairly soon to vote on on Nancy Abudhu's confirmation.
Speaker 2: And I very much hope that we don't put left
Speaker 2: wing partisan radicals on the Federal Court of Appeals.
Speaker 4: What are your your your gut instincts on this?
Speaker 1: Are there enough Democrats that you serve with that maybe
Speaker 1: are moderate or just see this as not the right
Speaker 1: job to put a radical activist on the on the
Speaker 1: on the these you know, real not just positions, but
Speaker 1: they have real consequences.
Speaker 4: These positions.
Speaker 1: They're putting them in for everyday Americans who may have
Speaker 1: to see themselves or a case that involves in go
Speaker 1: before one of these judges.
Speaker 2: Well if passed his prologue. The answer to that is no.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden has been president over two years now, almost
Speaker 2: two and a half years. In that time, do you
Speaker 2: want to know how many Democrats have voted against any
Speaker 2: Biden judge.
Speaker 4: I'm going to go with one to zero.
Speaker 2: One was high. Wow, the number is zero. Not a
Speaker 2: single Democrat has voted against a single Biden judge. And
Speaker 2: the Senate Judiciary Committee they rubber stamp every left wing radical,
Speaker 2: one after the other after the other.
Speaker 1: Is that we're getting more radical by the way that
Speaker 1: they're just saying at this point they feel like they
Speaker 1: can they no longer have to have have a solid
Speaker 1: resume with understanding of the law and the Constitution. It's
Speaker 1: just put a fundamentalist on there. We don't care if
Speaker 1: they're socialists. In fact, we want them to be extreme.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Now, look, we've talked in this podcast about how in
Speaker 2: the Senate Commerce Committee in the past two months, I
Speaker 2: led the effort and successfully defeated two Biden nominees, number
Speaker 2: one Gigi Sohn to the Federal Communications Commission and number
Speaker 2: two Phil Washington to the FAA. Both of those we
Speaker 2: were able to pick Democrats off. Now, the Commerce Committee
Speaker 2: is a very different committee. The Judiciary Committee, sadly is
Speaker 2: very partisan, and the Democrats there have rubber stamped. Look,
Speaker 2: we had a judge who hadn't yet been voted out
Speaker 2: of committee who didn't know what Article two of the
Speaker 2: Constitution is art Article two is literally what establishes the
Speaker 2: President of the United States and the executive branch. And
Speaker 2: this judicial nominee said, I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 2: That is someone who is patently unqualified to be a judge.
Speaker 2: We have another judicial nominee who Chuck Schumer put forward
Speaker 2: to be a district judge in New York, who wrote
Speaker 2: how he is motivated every day by hatred for conservatives.
Speaker 2: He wakes up in the morning motivated by hatred for conservatives.
Speaker 2: This is not someone who should be a federal judge.
Speaker 2: And so I'm leading the fight against these nominees. But
Speaker 2: I got to tell you. I talk privately with my
Speaker 2: Democrat colleagues and I asked them, I say, look, why
Speaker 2: is it so hard to stand up and say no,
Speaker 2: to say you know what? Judges ought to know what
Speaker 2: Article two of the Constitution is a first year law student,
Speaker 2: if you didn't know that, you would flunk constitutional law.
Speaker 2: Maybe a federal judge should know enough to pass con law.
Speaker 2: Or a radical from the SPLC, an organization that has
Speaker 2: been extreme that has is right now embracing Antifa terrorism.
Speaker 2: When I asked Democrat, I said, look, under the Constitution,
Speaker 2: the Senate has a role of advising and consent. That
Speaker 2: means you can say no. And to be clear, when
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was president, we confirmed a lot of fantastic judges,
Speaker 2: and I led the fight to confirm many of them.
Speaker 2: But there were some nominees that were not great nominees
Speaker 2: that had problems. And I can tell you that I
Speaker 2: and others on Judiciary pressed back against the Trump White House. Now,
Speaker 2: we usually didn't do so publicly, and I've told Democrats,
Speaker 2: I get you don't necessarily want to have a public
Speaker 2: fight with the White House about this, But I'll tell
Speaker 2: you when Trump was president, I'd pick up the phone,
Speaker 2: Mike Lee would pick up the phone. We'd call the
Speaker 2: Trump White House and we'd say, look, this nominee is
Speaker 2: not up to stuff, and almost without exception, the White
Speaker 2: House would pull the nominee. That's the way to do it.
Speaker 2: And at least so far, no Democrats have had the
Speaker 2: chutzpah to stand up and do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is sad to see, but all so, it's
Speaker 1: like they just say, we don't even care. Just give
Speaker 1: me an activist on there. That's now what our job is.
Speaker 1: It's no longer about what they know or what they
Speaker 1: don't know. They'll figure that part out later. As long
Speaker 1: as they're an activist and they pledge allegiance to radical ideology,
Speaker 1: they're good enough for me. I want to tell everybody
Speaker 1: real quick about Patriot Mobile. If you're a conservative and
Speaker 1: you're sick and tired of giving your money to companies
Speaker 1: that don't stand and align with your values, you've got
Speaker 1: an option when it comes to your cell phone service. Now,
Speaker 1: nine nine percent of you listening right now are probably
Speaker 1: actually listening on a cell phone or through a cell
Speaker 1: phone in your speakers.
Speaker 4: In your car. How would you like to know that
Speaker 4: every time you use your cell phone.
Speaker 1: Every time you make a phone call, every time you
Speaker 1: send a text, and every time you pay that bill,
Speaker 1: you're actually making a difference, sending up for the values
Speaker 1: you believe in.
Speaker 4: That's what Patriot Mobile does.
Speaker 1: They take a portion of your bill every month, give
Speaker 1: it back to conservative causes and organizations that send up
Speaker 1: for our First Amendment rights, our Second Amendment rights, the
Speaker 1: rights of unborn children, even helping with a adoptions and
Speaker 1: the postro vwad world that we're.
Speaker 4: In right now.
Speaker 1: If you want to have your dollars aligned with what
Speaker 1: you believe in, make the switch Patriot Mobile. All you
Speaker 1: got to do is call them. You get to keep
Speaker 1: your same cell phone number if you want to. You
Speaker 1: can keep your same cell phone in your hand, or
Speaker 1: upgrade to a new one, and usually they can actually
Speaker 1: save you money over what you're paying right now. Eight
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot is the number. Eight seven eight Patriot
Speaker 1: eight seven eight Patriot or online it Patriot Mobile dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict. Lastly, Sinatra,
Speaker 1: I do want to get your reaction to something else
Speaker 1: that's been interesting, and that is we've seen oil and
Speaker 1: gas prices going up. We've seen OPEC quietly announced they're
Speaker 1: going to really reduce their daily production of oil. We
Speaker 1: have also seen Democrats celebrating this, saying that look, the
Speaker 1: higher the oil go, it benefits Biden's green agenda. You
Speaker 1: combine this now with some of the data that's been
Speaker 1: coming out and on the price of electric vehicles that
Speaker 1: are going up. This with Biden's EPA administrator Michael Reagan
Speaker 1: announcing new tailpipe admission standards. Here's what he had to say,
Speaker 1: and this was very quiet. Take a listen this week.
Speaker 5: That's why today I'm pleased to announce that EPA is
Speaker 5: proposing the strongest ever federal pollution technology standards for both
Speaker 5: cars and trucks. Together, today's actions will accelerate our ongoing
Speaker 5: transition to a clean vehicle's future, tackle the climate crisis
Speaker 5: head on, and improve air quality for communities all across
Speaker 5: the country.
Speaker 1: Now, center that sounds great, finding Danny, But if you
Speaker 1: really want to put a real headline to this, what
Speaker 1: the EPA administrator is announcing is he's forcing dealers and
Speaker 1: shoppers to mostly either drive or to sell electric vehicles
Speaker 1: with technology, by the way that source from China helping
Speaker 1: them become even more powerful. This is going to skyrocket
Speaker 1: the cost of electric vehicles for the average American as well.
Speaker 3: Well. It is a radical position.
Speaker 2: It is following the position Gavin Newsom has taken in California,
Speaker 2: and Gavin Newsom really foreshadows all of the extreme radical
Speaker 2: policies coming from the Biden administration. This hurts consumers, This
Speaker 2: will drive up costs, This will drive up inflation, This
Speaker 2: will hurt jobs in the auto industry in particular, This
Speaker 2: will increase child labor and misery globally, and this will
Speaker 2: benefit many hostile countries, including in particular China. Now let
Speaker 2: me back through each of those and walk through it. So,
Speaker 2: California has announced a mandate that by twenty thirty five,
Speaker 2: all new cars sold in the state must be electric,
Speaker 2: that no internal combustion engines and new cars can be
Speaker 2: sold starting in twenty thirty five. Now what does that mean, Well,
Speaker 2: among other things, it means new cars sold in California
Speaker 2: must have at least two and a half times as
Speaker 2: much copper in them as conventional cars. Now, what is
Speaker 2: having two and a half times as much copper mean? Well,
Speaker 2: copper is something where in order to meet the demands
Speaker 2: of the Green New Deal for quote net zero globally,
Speaker 2: we're going to need to double the need for copper
Speaker 2: by the mid twenty thirty So copper consumption doubling. Now,
Speaker 2: where do you find copper? If you look at crude oil,
Speaker 2: forty percent of world crude oil supplies are found in
Speaker 2: three countries, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Now
Speaker 2: that's a good thing because we're one of the three,
Speaker 2: and under Trump, we became the number one producer worldwide
Speaker 2: of both oil and natural gas. Well, how about copper, Well,
Speaker 2: just two countries mine about forty percent of the world's
Speaker 2: copper supplies Peru, where the government right now is in
Speaker 2: utter disarray and the president was just impeached and arrested,
Speaker 2: and Chile, whose government likewise is being pulled powerfully left.
Speaker 2: Now that dynamic is problematic. But let's put on top
Speaker 2: of that the reality that other rare earth minerals are
Speaker 2: also critical in electric cars. Cobalt, which is an essential
Speaker 2: element for electric vehicle batteries, comes in very significant parts.
Speaker 2: Seventy percent of the co vault produced on planet Earth
Speaker 2: comes from one place, the Democratic Republic of Congo, where
Speaker 2: massive mining operations exist along with small hand dug mines
Speaker 2: literally dug by hand, where they have both adults and
Speaker 2: children working side by side. Now, how about the China
Speaker 2: peace Well, about sixty percent of the world's lithium, also
Speaker 2: critical to electric batteries, is processed in China. About forty
Speaker 2: seven percent of the copper worldwide is smelted in China.
Speaker 2: How much copper do you think the US processes worldwide?
Speaker 1: I would bet it's under five percent, only just because
Speaker 1: we've done everything we can to shut down manufacturing in America.
Speaker 2: Well, you're exactly right. This time it's four percent. We
Speaker 2: used to have more than a dozen copper smelters, now
Speaker 2: we have two. And so the impact of this is
Speaker 2: enriching China, is benefiting child labor, is driving up costs.
Speaker 2: And what the Biden administration now has done is it
Speaker 2: has announced a mandate that two thirds of all new
Speaker 2: vehicles and a quarter of heavy trucks sold in the
Speaker 2: US have to be electric by twenty thirty two. This
Speaker 2: is going to drive up your costs. And by the way,
Speaker 2: if you're skeptical, you know, if you believe the Democrat
Speaker 2: and media talking point that these green new deal jobs
Speaker 2: are going to be great for car companies. Let me
Speaker 2: read you from an analyst note on GM, and I'm
Speaker 2: just going to read it. This is an analyst that
Speaker 2: is analyzing GM General Motors for people investing. We are
Speaker 2: initiating on General Motors a neutral rating because the above
Speaker 2: position GM well for the next decade of EV's but
Speaker 2: a transition from a profitable ninety eight percent internal combustion
Speaker 2: engine portfolio to an EV portfolio negative fifteen to thirty
Speaker 2: percent gross margin could poses significant challenges. And I'm just
Speaker 2: going to read you a tweet from Brian Sullivan on CNBC.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna just read you the tweet analyst note on
Speaker 2: GM going from ninety eight percent profitable car sales to
Speaker 2: negative margins on evs. Does that sound sustainable? Hello, one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars pickups. This is the Joe Biden Green
Speaker 2: New Deal. Drive up your costs and make it un
Speaker 2: affordable for you to provide for your family.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's also want This next election coming up is
Speaker 1: going to be so important because this is their game
Speaker 1: plan and they don't care how much it hurts you,
Speaker 1: how much it hurts your family, how much it hurts
Speaker 1: the future this country, how much it enriches, as you
Speaker 1: mentioned over and over again, China and weekends America because
Speaker 1: with a week America and my words, not yours. These
Speaker 1: democrats that are really I think communists, they know that
Speaker 1: they gain more power through doing things like this. Don't
Speaker 1: forget we do this show three days a week. So
Speaker 1: make sure that subscribe or your auto download button wherever
Speaker 1: you're listening to this show right now. Don't forget it
Speaker 1: right hit that subscribe button, share it wherever you are
Speaker 1: on social media, hit that little forward era of the
Speaker 1: share button and share it there, and we will see
Speaker 1: you back here at Many people don't i think realize
Speaker 1: a centater, So I'm going to start saying this more bluntly.
Speaker 1: We publish every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, even when we
Speaker 1: are on vacation. We have been doing this show Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday Friday. When there's big news that breaks. We will
Speaker 1: do a special pot on other days if it doesn't
Speaker 1: fall on Monday, Wednesday Friday. So make sure that subscribes
Speaker 1: so you know when every episode comes out, and we'll
Speaker 1: see you back here in a couple of days