← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Climate Activists Go Rogue, Biden Demands Masks & Big Win Over Terrorists Week In Review
00:35:48
Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Welcome to Verdict Weekend Review. Ben Ferguson with you and each Saturday we are going to give you some of the best moments of the Verdict podcast with Senator Ted Cruz from the past week. This week there are three points that we want to make sure that you hear about that. If you missed it, that's where this Weekend Review will come in. Number one, we're going to be talking about climate change and the new threat of 1 billion people dying if we don't fix the problem. That's what Democrats are now threatening you with. Also, Joe Biden do as I say, not as I do, mandating that others wear masks. But he's already taken his off after he promised he was gonna wear it. And a huge victory because of Verdict listeners that deals with the issue of 9 11. It is the Weekend Review and it starts right now. Climate change has become obviously an election year issue, at least for the Democrats. You can see it over the last couple weeks. They're kind of testing things, they're really pushing things here. But, but now we're finding out how academia deceives people about climate change. And, and this is something that I think is, is not just disingenuous, but it's really disgusting. They put out a new report that has actually come out and they say that there's, there's a new prediction that 1 billion deaths will happen from climate change this century. So you better get on board. Researchers from Canada and Australia have published this new study predicting 1 billion deaths from climate change over the next hundred years. Citing a scientific quote consensus. The authors analyze, they say 180 studies on climate change and mortality covering on a 1000 ton rules. This is a new theory which means for every thousand tons of fossil fuels burn, a person dies. Now this article was published and it contends that a future person, a future person is killed every time humanity burns a thousand tons of fossil carbon. They say based on that calculation that burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will cause 2 degrees Celsius of global warming or AGW, which in turn they say will cause roughly a billion future premature deaths spread over a period of very roughly one century. I wish they used this type of logic when they were talking about unborn children that are killed. But, but of course they'll never do that. But this might be the most ridiculous fear mongering article and they say it's a scientific consensus now.
- [02:37]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, look, there is an enormous problem with the politicization of science and particularly when it concerns climate change, the dishonesty of science. I'm going to make a radical claim. Right now I predict with absolute certainty that 7 billion people alive today will die in the next hundred years of climate change. Now mind you, there are a little over 7 billion people alive today, and it is a virtual certainty that all of us will die in the next hundred years. And whether there was climate change or not, that assertion is unquestionably true. It just is utterly disingenuous to claim it's climate change that will cause it. Let me focus on There was an article that came out on September 5th from a guy named Patrick Brown. Now, Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and he is the co director of the Climate and Energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, and he wrote an article in the Free press that I think is really consequential. I want to just read from you the beginning of the article. Quote if you've been reading any news about wildfires this summer, from Canada to Europe to Maui, you will surely get the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change. Here's the AP quote climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse. Scientists call it the new abnormal. From PBS NewsHour, quote, wildfires driven by climate change are on the rise. Spain must do more to prepare, experts say. And from the New York Times, how climate changed Turn Lush Hawaii into a tinderbox. And from Bloomberg, quote Maui fires show Climate changes Ugly reach now here's Dr. Brown continuing from this I am a climate scientist, and while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn't close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus. So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world's most prestigious journals. It fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it. The paper I just published, Climate Warming Increases Extreme Daily Wildfire Growth Risk in California, focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science want to tell. This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high profile journals. In many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia, and the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain pre approved narratives, even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society. To put it Bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and, and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve. This is a stunning indictment of the machinery and apparatus around, quote, unquote science. Today the journals publish, quote, unquote research that echoes the pre approved political orthodoxy they want published. And if you don't echo that, they don't publish you. And it is one of the many really corrupt aspects of how science and climate change reporting and academic work is really doing a disservice to the American people.
- [07:27]
Ben Ferguson
When you look at not only the fact that this is how you get the money, and I do think it's an issue of follow the money as you just described it. Certainly it's an indoctrination on college campuses and among researchers. And the cash flow is if you believe in this, we will fund you. But, but when you make these out latest claims and then you treat them as fact, there's, there's nothing you can do to debate this with them. When you look at what they said here, they said this is a scientific consensus and the authors say they analyze 180 studies. All of them, I'm sure, were studies that were funded by radical lefties and global warming activists. Right, those that raise money, et cetera. But when they come out and say that, you know, we're going to lose a billion people, you make it sound that bad. Is there any way to overcome that with anything else but this propaganda? And I think that's why they make these outlandish claims.
- [08:20]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, it's why we need people in colleges and universities and think tanks in the academic world and the scientific world to reject politicized science. Let me read a little more from Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown says, quote, so in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake, that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires, either accidentally or purposely. A startling fact, over 80% of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. I want to repeat that sentence because the corporate media will never say it. A startling fact, over 80% of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. Now here's what Dr. Brown continues to say in my paper we didn't bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did, but I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature's editors and reviewers. This type of framing with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts. Heat related deaths and have been declining and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change, which the thinking goes would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions. This is a narrative of so called scientific inquiry. Scientific journals, academic journals that have abandoned the mission of science. Science is about examining evidence, following the scientific method, beginning with a hypothesis, looking to evidence to disprove that hypothesis, and determining what's happening. Today, an enormous amount of science is simply politics covered in scientific garb and in no place is that more profound than in the world of climate change where there are billions of dollars connected to so called scientists telling the preferred political narrative, facts be damned.
- [11:35]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it is no longer about facts certainly in academia where it's supposed to be about that, now it's about propaganda and indoctrinating people to this while they all fly on their private jets to climate change events, which I still laugh at the hypocrisy of that. Now if you want to hear the rest of this conversation you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week. Now on to story number two center I also want to deal with COVID We were talking about the lies and they seem to be coming back now. The White House now letting everybody know that Joe Biden is going to start wearing a mask indoors this after Joe Biden has come down with COVID even though Joe Biden has tested negative for Covid yesterday and the day before and the day before that.
- [12:20]
Senator Ted Cruz
President Biden tested negative last night for COVID 19 and tested negative again today. He's not experiencing any symptoms as far as the steps he is taking since the President was with the first lady yesterday, he will be masking while indoors and around people in alignment with CDC guidance And as active as has been the practice in the past, the President will remove his mask when sufficiently distanced from others indoors and while outside as well.
- [12:49]
Ben Ferguson
Now, the funny part is, Senator, this is said from the podium at the White House. Moments later, the President is on stage at a ceremony. He's not the appropriate distance the White House says is appropriate from other people. And then he takes his mask off that they just said to everybody who's going to be wearing if he's in close quarters with a lot of different people. And you add that in with a D.C. area elementary school. Montgomery County, Maryland is now reinstating a mass mandate. And the mass mandate isn't just for those little masks, no, no N95 masks for all their third grader graders. Because a few kids tested positive for Covid, they sent out a letter telling parents that these, these mass, these N95 masks are going to be mandated in class. These masks, they say, have been distributed and students and staff and identified classes and or activities will be required to mask while in school for at least the next 10 days. Except of course, while eating and drinking. And the mask will become optional, they claim, after the quote, outbreak has dissipated. Here it is, mask mandates coming back.
- [13:58]
Senator Ted Cruz
Look, this is utterly absurd. Mask mandates are wrong. And for the left, this has become a combination of a number of things. Number one, it's an article of faith. Number two, it's a virtue signal. It shows just how self righteous they think they are. You know, as I was walking down the halls of the Capitol today, one very prominent Democrat senator was walking along with his N95 mask and behind him was a staffer wearing his N95 mask. And it shows virtue. But number three, it's about control. And, and, and this is all about controlling people. Whether it's mask mandates, whether it's vaccine mandates, whether it's having the 437th booster. Enough is enough is enough. This is crap. And no, I look, I recognize. And by the way, a year from now we are gonna see the most deadly COVID variant ever seen. The election variant. And before the election, it's. They're gonna need to shut everything down because they want to have, uh, mail in balloting for everyone because they think it helps elect Democrats. Enough is enough is enough. If you wanna wear a mask, fine, but don't be a hypocrite and don't try to force other people to. And, and. All right, listen. So many of the people who listen to this podcast are conservatives, but some are not. Some are open minded. Some want to hear Both sides. So, so, so maybe you think, all right, I'm not gonna trust Cruz, I'm not gonna trust Ferguson on this. All right, if you don't trust Me, listen to CNN, left wing CNN, confronting Dr. Fauci this past weekend about his false claims about masks. Give a listen.
- [15:36]
C
There is a perception out there by many, how many, I don't know, that they don't work and that the data concludes that they didn't work in the first go round. Respond to that on masks.
- [15:49]
D
Yeah, well that's not so. I mean, when you're talking about at the population level that the data are less strong than knowing that if you look on a situation as an individual protecting themselves or protecting them from spreading it, there's no doubt that masks work. Different studies give different percentages of advantage of wearing it. But there's no doubt that the weight of the studies, and there have been many studies, indicate that the benefit of wearing masks.
- [16:19]
C
I'm going to refer to one of them. You've heard about it before. I heard about it from a number of radio callers. Bret Stephens in the Times talked about Cochrane, put that on the screen. The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness, including COVID 19, was published last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is the lead author, were unambiguous. There is just no evidence that they masks make any difference, he told the journalist Mayanne Damasi, full stop. But wait, hold on. What about the N95 masks as opposed to the lower quality surgical or cloth masks? Makes no difference, none of it, he said. Well, what about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates? They were convinced by non randomized studies, flawed observational studies. How do we get beyond that finding of that particular review?
- [17:16]
D
Yeah, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at an individual level, for individual, when you're talking about the effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data are less strong. But when you talk about as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting themselves from spreading it to others, there's no doubt that there are many studies that show that there is an advantage. When you took at the broad population level, like the Cochran study, the data are less firm with regard to the effect on the overall pandemic. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about an individual's effect on their own safety. That's a bit different than the broad population level.
- [17:59]
Ben Ferguson
I mean, you hear him there. And even he's being questioned Foushee, by a guy who's not conservative at cnn. And Sperkon Fauci's like, well hold on, I'll read for you what they say. And yet Fauci is still sitting there, Senator, saying no, no, no, these things work. You're somehow still wrong.
- [18:15]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, look, two things. Number one, Fauci himself knows what he's saying is wrong. And if you go back to the Beginning of COVID February 5, 2020, Sylvia Burwell, who was the secretary of health and human services for three years under Barack Obama, emailed Fauci and asks ask if she should wear a mask. And by the way, his whole defense was well, individually it not for society. Here's what Foushee wrote on February 5th of 2020, quote, Masks are not are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected. Rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. Foushee continues, the typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus which is small enough to pass through material. It might however, provide some slight benefit to keep out gross droplets if someone costs or sneezes on you. And he added, quote, I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. That's what he said in 2020. Then he decided that it was politically beneficial to mandate that everyone had to wear a mask. And yet now look, the second point I'd make, the fact that CNN is turning on this in the height of the pandemic, the words that you just played from cnn, they would not utter. There was no brooking dissent from whatever St. Fauci said, whatever the mandate was, Mass today, not mass tomorrow, mass the next day. You couldn't disagree. The fact that even CNN is turning I think is significant. I think if the Biden administration tries another round of shutdowns and mask mandates, I think a lot of the country is gonna say no. And hell no. I'll tell you, the state of Texas has zero interest in shutting down. And I think you're gonna see resistance not just in Texas, but all over the country.
- [20:16]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, I think you're right. And the other thing that worries many people is this, the president and this idea that we could go back into some sort of government shutdown. There was that awkward interview that he did with Kamala Harris far away from him, the social distancing back in the early days of COVID in his administration, sitting next to, you know, far Away from David Muir's interviewing them in a weird triangle. And he said he would have no problem if the scientists told him to, to shut down our entire economy.
- [20:42]
C
I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives because we cannot get the country moving until we control the virus. That is the fundamental flaw of this administration's thinking. To begin with, in order to keep the country running and moving and the economy growing and people employed, you have.
- [21:02]
Ben Ferguson
To fix the virus. You have to deal with the virus.
- [21:05]
Senator Ted Cruz
So if the scientists say shut it.
- [21:06]
C
Down, I would shut it down. I would listen to the scientists.
- [21:11]
Ben Ferguson
I mean, that's apparently still on the table. And if they're bringing the mask back, I mean, how far away are we from having another fall where they start shutting things down? And what should the American people do?
- [21:22]
Senator Ted Cruz
Look, the Democrats want to shut it down. They want to impose mandates. And I gotta say, one of the biggest lies of that exchange is I would listen to the scientists. The only scientists that he listens to are the ones who say what he wants to hear. You know, the very last podcast we did, we did a two part episode with an interview with Dr. Phil and one of the interesting things, look, Dr. Phil has been the number one ranked daytime TV host for a decade. And, and, and he talked about how the data are that the school shutdowns from COVID cost many, many more lives than the virus would have cost. In other words, listen to the scientists. The Democrats aren't listening to the scientists because if they did, they'd look at the harm from the shutdowns. They look at the harm for businesses shut down. They'd look at the harm from churches shut down, they'd look at the harm from school shut down. The kids who face learning loss for the rest of their life, they look at the mental health numbers that have gone up. They'd look at the kids who didn't go to school and didn't have physical wellness checks, didn't have mental health checks, didn't have daily food because for low income kids, for many of them, their principal source of food is at school. They didn't have the counselors who could observe whether kids are subject to physical abuse or sexual abuse, because when they shut down schools, they sent them at home. And the data, what Dr. Phil told us, and if you didn't listen to those two podcasts, you got to go back and listen to them. But what Dr. Phil said on this podcast was that the data show that many, many more lives were lost because of the shutdowns. But the Democrats don't want to listen to the scientists. They have a political agenda, so they'll cherry pick whatever scientists repeat the politically favored outcome that support the result they want.
- [23:05]
Ben Ferguson
Anyway, Senator, last question for you. What do you think states should be doing? Because Texas has banned the mass mandates as Covid restrictions are being imposed in other states. It was a Newsweek headline. It says, a ban on COVID 19 restrictions and imposed a mandate to wear face mask in public spaces went into effect in Texas after a number of institutions across the US Reinstated the policy due to a rise in new infections fueled by the emergence of two new variants of the virus. Now, that's the gist of this, but Texas is saying, hey, we're going to stand up to this type of insanity. Do other people need to be calling their legislators and asking for the same thing?
- [23:43]
Senator Ted Cruz
Look, absolutely, yes. Listen, states need to embrace common sense. States need to defend liberty. States need to defend individual choice. If someone wants to wear a mask, knock yourself out. You. You can still. You know, I flew from, from Texas to D.C. today. There were still a handful of people in the airport that choose to wear masks. Okay, if you want to wear a mask, that's fine. You've got an individual choice. You can, you can wear a ski mask if you want. That's your choice. But government shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask. Airlines shouldn't be forcing people to make a ma wear a mask. Airport shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask. Restaurants shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask. Nobody should be forcing anyone to wear a mask. And even more so, governors and states need to say not just no, but hell no to the shutdowns. We will look back in the future years. In the future, we will look back and say, what in the hell did America do shutting much of the country down for a year or more? Many parts of the country, almost all Democrat parts of the country, shut businesses down, shut churches down, shut schools down. Many schools, tens of millions of kids were out of school for over a year, and the consequence was cataclysmic. It is, without exaggeration, the most catastrophic public policy decision of our lifetimes. And so states need to say, we're not going down that road again. No, we're not gonna do it. Look, you know, the school shutdowns were bad. When Randy Weingarten, the head of one of the big teachers unions, is now suddenly claiming I wasn't for school shutdowns, despite the fact that she fought relentlessly for school shutdowns and caused Democratic politicians to jump on a string when she demanded it. Now even she's running away from it. States need to stand up and say we're not shutting anything down. Look, if there's another public health crisis and at some point there will be protect people who are vulnerable, work to provide treatment options, give people advice on how to keep safe, but respect their individual liberty and don't engage in arbitrary shutdowns and mandates. The mandates are wrong. Say no to the mandates as before.
- [25:57]
Ben Ferguson
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and download the podcast from earlier this week to hear entire thing. I want to get back to the big story number three of the week you may have missed. The listeners did an amazing job of sharing. It was one of the biggest podcasts I think we've ever done together and it dealt with the issue of 9 11. You issued a statement afterwards and and that also went viral and you have a new statement, an update I want you to tell me about tonight. This goes back to that letter that the DOJ, or I should say the DOJ sent out to families victims of 911 and they were letting them know in a heads up that we were probably going to do a plea deal with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. And I think it was three or four other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, we went through the history of who he is, the mastermind of 9 11, but also killed many other people and and many other attacks around the world, innocent children, women, etc, and they were going to do a deal to, to spare him the death penalty so we could get him out of Gitmo and then close down Gitmo. That's the ultimate goal for the DoD and the Biden administration. We now have an update. Because of the outrage of so many listeners of this show and others and that story going viral, it looks like they're not going to get away with it.
- [27:17]
Senator Ted Cruz
That's exactly right. And I want to take a minute to thank the listeners a verdict because I actually think you guys made a real difference in something that matters enormously in this country, which is as we discussed on this podcast, the Biden administration sent out letters to the families of the victims who were murdered on September 11th and said, hey, we're contemplating a plea deal where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other conspirators behind the mass murder on September 11 would be spared the death penalty. They'd give it life in prison. They would be exempted from capital punishment despite the fact that they committed an act of war, despite the fact fact that they killed nearly 3,000 people. We'd spare them. And you know, when, when they sent this letter, it was initially getting almost no press coverage. No one was covering it. No one was discussing it. ABC didn't discuss it at the 6:00 news. NBC didn't discuss it. CBS didn't discuss it. CNN didn't discuss it. MSNBC didn't discuss it. The entire corporate media ignored you and I were so outraged by it that we sat down to do our pod and we actually had three topics. This was topic number one. We had two other topics. And we ended up deciding, you know what, the entire podcast is going to focus on this issue on September 11th, on the horrific terrorist attack that, that came after America, on what it meant and on the outrage. Listen, the Biden administration. And we talked about in this, that podcast. And by the way, you ought to go back and listen to that podcast. You can go back and find. We did a full podcast on this September 11th effort of the Biden administration to spare the mastermind of September 11th. But I believe this is part and parcel of the Biden administration's effort to essentially abolish the federal death penalty. And before Joe Biden leaves the White House, I think he is going to pardon or commute the sentences of every single federal death penalty prisoner, including the racist lunatic who murdered nine African Americans at the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina, including multiple vicious terrorists and murderers. But as a result of this podcast, we focused the entire 30 minutes of the pod on the facts behind it. And we asked you, we said, if you're outraged, pick up the phone, call your House member, call your senator, call the White House and say, do not spare the September 11 mastermind. Well, we were about the only people shining a light on this. And it ended up people got worked up, which is good. They should have been worked up. We were worked up. It was wrong. It was outrageous. It was astonishing, what they're doing. Well, I gotta say, on. On Wednesday, the administration came out and announced that it was not going to accept the plea deal. And here's what prosecutors said in the filing. Quote, the administration declines to accept the terms of the proposed joint policy principles offered by the accused in the military commission's case, United States vs Muhammad, et al. And so I think that is a real victory verdict listeners ought to feel proud of. Now, to be clear, the Biden administration gave themselves some wiggle room, so they may go back and take the deal, but they at least filed a court pleading saying they're rejecting the deal. That's A major victory. It was only the political pressure that came. And that political pressure was generated in very significant respect by the listeners of this podcast. But my view is the bastards that attacked America, that murdered nearly 3,000Americans, they ought to be prosecuted, they ought to be sentenced to death, and they ought to be executed. Because I think it's a matter of justice that people that committed horrific terrorist attacks on America, they should face the ultimate punishment. But the only way we'll be sure that happens is if the American people hold this administration to account and if they're too embarrassed and ashamed to let these guys off.
- [31:35]
Ben Ferguson
My next question for you is this, is this just a pause and delay strategy, Senator? And do we have to keep monitoring them or does this put this to bed, especially for the victims and the families that were affected by 911 that got these, these, you know, I would say horrific letters from the Department of Defense saying that they may spare these guys lives after these men trained and did all that they did to kill their family members.
- [32:04]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, we don't know entirely. What we know is that the prisoners not only wanted to be spared the death penalty, but they wanted the Department of Defense to accept a guarantee that they would not serve their sentences in solitary confinement and that would allow them to eat and pray with other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They also wanted a civilian run program to treat brain disorders, to treat sleep disorders, and to treat gastrointestinal damage that they say the CIA caused during investigations. That's the demand the Biden administration turned down. There is a tiny bit of wiggle room that they could come back and say, okay, we're not going to give you those concessions, but we are going to take the death penalty off the table. And one of the key reasons, I think there are two things going on in the Biden administration. One, these left wing radicals are ideologically opposed to the death penalty. They don't want anyone executed ever. They want to sanctify, repeal the federal death penalty. Now, they don't want to go through the constitutional process of supporting legislation in Congress trying to get the votes and repealing it as a matter of law. They just want to say we, the executive branch, are going to refuse to enforce the death penalty and in fact are going to commute or pardon anyone convicted of the most egregious offenses in the country. I think a second objective, and again, we talked about this at length on the prior pod on this topic, is they want to close Guantanamo. And listen, when it comes to foreign policy, the Biden administration is a press release. Administration in Other words, they don't follow coherent foreign policy objectives. They don't have a strategic vision for defending this nation. Instead, they want a simple press release that lets them trumpet their moral virtue. So in Afghanistan, you know, you ask yourself, why was the. The surrender to the Taliban, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so utterly incompetent in such a disaster? A big part of the reason is the Biden White House viewed it as, hey, we want to be out of there by September 11, because then we can show how virtuous we are that we withdrew from the war by September 11th. The problem is when the military said, okay, if we leave that early, we need sufficient troops to maintain Bagram Air Force Base and also maintain Kabul Airport. And the Biden White House said, nope, nope, we don't care. Pull them out. Abandon Bagram Air Force Base. We don't need a secure airfield. We haven't evacuated anyone. We haven't evacuated Americans. We haven't evacuated the Afghans who assisted us. But we have a press release to issue. So ignore the national security imperatives. Let's issue our press release. I think in the case of Gitmo, their objective is the same. They want a press release saying, we are closing Gitmo. In order to do that, they've got to remove the most dangerous terrorists from Gitmo. In order to do that, they have to send them to prisons in the continental United States. And in order to do that, they either have to get a conviction or get a plea deal. And so I think part of the reason they want the plea deal is to shut Gitmo because they get a good press release from it. But I think the. The listeners of Verdicts and. And millions of Americans stood up and said no. And hell no.
- [35:29]
Ben Ferguson
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. Don't forget to download my podcast. And you can listen to my podcast every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards. I'd love to have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcast, and we will see you back here on Monday morning.