Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:00]
Ted Cruz
President Joe Biden has just concluded his foreign tour and things did not go well. You're hearing criticism from the right. You're even hearing criticism from the left. People are saying that the tour was filled with gaffes. I don't think that quite expresses it. A gaffe is when you accidentally mispronounce the name of the debate moderator. What Joe Biden did was accidentally commit the United States to engaging in chemical warfare. What Joe Biden did seems to be a little bit more significant than just a mild gaffe or two. And it has major implications for US national security and our role in the first major war in Europe since World War II. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [00:51]
Jen Yacel
This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by Jen Yacel. Gentlemen, you know your wife's use your razor. I've been doing this to my husband since we were dating. I'm not sure that he to this day knows that I do this. Likewise, we ladies know that our husbands use our skincare products when we are not looking. So let me introduce you to Genucel. Bags and puffiness under the eyes are a problem for millions of American men and women. Until now. Introducing the new Genucel serum with plant stem cell technology for under eye bags and puffiness. Let me show you my two favorite products. Here we have the plant stem cell therapy anti wrinkle treatment. And here we have the immediate effects too. These are hands down my two favorite products and products that are the favorite of many others as well. Why? Because if you use instant effects, you will see results in the first 12 hours or your money back. I guarantee it. If you order now, you can save big on Genucel's risk free introductory offer. Just go to genucell.com cactus that's G-E N U C E-L.com cactus if you order now and use my special promo code cactus, of course you can save an extra 10% off your order today. Just go to jenucelle.com cactus and use promo code Cactus. This episode of Verdict is brought to you by American Hartford Gold. Well, the new inflation numbers are out and they are the worst this country has seen in nearly 40 years. The price of gas is astronomical. The price of housing is up. The US national debt is way up. And with our current administration printing and spending trillions of our dollars, experts don't see it getting better anytime soon. So how do you protect your money, your retirement, your savings? Well, when times are turbulent, Americans like you turn to real assets like physical gold and silver. American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by helping you diversify a portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. All it takes to get started is a short phone call and they'll have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k. And they make it easy. If you call them right now, they will give you up to $1,500 of free silver on your first order. So don't wait. Call them now. Call 855-768-1883. That's 855-768-1883 or text Cactus to 65532. Again, that's 855-768-1893 or text Cactus to 65532.
- [03:15]
Michael Knowles
Today's episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by IPVanish. Did you know that browsing online using incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy? Without added security, you might as well give all your private data away to hackers, advertisers, your Internet service provider, and who knows who else. Ipvanish helps you securely and privately browse the Internet by encrypting 100% of your data. This means that your private messages, passwords, emails, browsing history and other information will be completely protected from falling into the wrong hands. Ipvanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple. Just for Verdict listeners, Ipvanish is offering an insane 70% off their annual plan. That's like getting nine months for free. You have to go directly to IPVanish.com Cactus to get this 70% off discount. IPVanish is super easy to use. Just tap one button and you're instantly protected. You won't even know it's on. You can use Ipvanish on your computers, tablets and phones, whether you're at home or in public. Don't go online without using IPVanish. Don't forget, Verdict listeners get 70% off the IPVanish annual plan. Just go to IPVanish.com Cactus to claim your discount and and secure your online life. That's I P V A-N-I-S-H.com Cactus welcome.
- [04:27]
Ted Cruz
Back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. Senator, there are flubs, and there are flubs. There are bad tours around the world, and there are really, really bad tours around the world. Amid a war in Europe, President Biden, during this disaster, committed America to using chemical weapons, called for regime change in Russia, and said that American troops are going to be going to Ukraine. Apparently, the White House has walked this back. The White House coming out against the president of the United States is astounding in and of itself. What happened and what does it mean for America's involvement in this war?
- [05:10]
Unknown Speaker
Well, it's the most spectacularly disastrous foreign trip for a president that I can remember. And it actually beats out George Herbert Walker Bush when he went to Japan and threw up on the prime minister of Japan. And that, by the way, is not a great look for a president to be vomiting on a head of state. But in this instance, we would have been better off if Biden had simply thrown up. As I counted, Michael, there were five separate screw ups on one trip. The first that's gotten the most attention is when he came out in favor of regime change and said, how can this man stay in power? Dear God, how can this man stay in power? And by the way, it is a potentially reasonable position to be in favor of regime change. Except he didn't know he was in favor of regime change. He made the policy, and then the White House immediately walked it back and retracted it and said, oh, no, no, no, no, he didn't mean anything by it. Look, we've talked about in this podcast how I actually think through taking away Russia's oil and gas customers, through taking away the billions they make selling energy, that we could put real pressure on the oligarchs and the KGB holdovers to get rid of Putin. And that would be. The world would be better with Putin out of power. But Biden was not actually making an intelligent position as commander in chief, calling for pressure to change the corrupt dictator in Russia. He was just sort of musing out loud.
- [06:48]
Ted Cruz
Well, and you can tell it wasn't intentional because he reversed his position when the staff members at the White House told him to. So this was a major flub in the middle of a war that's already quite tense.
- [06:59]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, and it's a big Damn deal. Number two, he told the 82nd Airborne they were going to Ukraine. He's talking to the 82nd Airborne, said, When you're in Ukraine, this is what you'll see. You'll see Ukrainian women in front of tanks and the soldiers there going, what do you mean when we're in Ukraine? Like, we're not sending our guys to Ukraine. And so that was gaffe. Number two, they had to walk that back and said, no, no, no, no, the 82nd Airborne's not going to Ukraine when you're in Ukraine. It's just a figure of speech, you know, like, everyone uses it when you're in Ukraine, it's just how you start a conversation.
- [07:38]
Ted Cruz
Well, you say when in Rome and just like you say that, you say when in Ukraine. Yeah, yeah.
- [07:45]
Unknown Speaker
Number three was chemical weapons. And you referenced it in the opening where he said, look, if Russia uses chemical weapons, we will respond in kind. Like, holy crap.
- [07:57]
Ted Cruz
What?
- [07:58]
Unknown Speaker
Like the President just said we're gonna use chemical weapons on Russia. That's kinda bad.
- [08:02]
Ted Cruz
Yeah.
- [08:04]
Unknown Speaker
You know, we do have treaty obligations against using chemical weapons. He of course didn't mean it. They immediately walked it back, said, no, no, no, no, we will respond somehow, but not actually in kind using chemical weapons. So that's gaffe number three. Gaffe number four is a little technical, but is consequential, which is he said sanctions, like sanctions on Nord Stream 2 don't deter conduct and they're not meant to deter conduct. Now mind you, for months, the Biden administration's entire talking points for why they didn't impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2, why they waived the sanctions, was that the threat of sanctions was a deterrent that would prevent Putin from invading Ukraine. So it's literally what they said. Day after day, week after week, month after month, they stood up and said, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no, the sanctions are not about deterring anything.
- [08:56]
Ted Cruz
Right.
- [08:56]
Unknown Speaker
They've walked that back. And then the fifth gaffe is one that has been less noticed, but in many ways it's one of the most shocking. So when he was doing a press conference explaining away his other four gaffes, where he famously had a note card where he was instructed what to read, I didn't mean regime change, I was just expressing moral outrage. His explanation was, I was just talking about the Ukrainian troops that we are training in Poland right now. And everyone said, the what? We're what and where?
- [09:41]
Ted Cruz
Come again?
- [09:41]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, and if we are doing that, I don't know about it. So I'm not in a position to reveal any classified information, cuz I don't have any on this topic. But if what Biden said is right, then he almost surely revealed classified information on national and globally televised tv. And then the White House immediately walked that back, said, no, no, no, no, we're not saying we're training Ukrainian troops in Poland, which is what the President just said. Now, interestingly enough, and it's kind of like the first point, so 1 and 5 have some similarities. Regime change and America trading Ukrainian troops in Poland, the President actually has the authority to release classified information. So if the Commander in Chief makes a determination that it is in the national interest for the public to know this. The president can tell people classified information, but Biden had no clue he was doing that. No one can argue with a straight face that he was exercising his presidential authority to release classified information. He was just presumably repeating whatever some briefer had told him a few minutes earlier. And I gotta say, listen, I have been watching foreign policy for 30, 40 years and engaged in foreign policy for a decade. I literally cannot think of another example where a president has screwed this many things up of this great a consequence in less than 48 hours.
- [11:20]
Ted Cruz
Well, you compared the president to Mr. Magoo the other day, and I laughed and I laughed because it's true. So it raises this question, and I'm hesitant even to bring it up because every time any president is in office, the opposition says, he's crazy, he's a madman. We need to invoke the 25th Amendment. We need to remove him. He's unfit for office. Office. They did it to Trump, they did it to Obama. I suppose to some degree. They certainly did it to Bush. They always do it. And it wasn't true. None of those people were senile. None of them had a mental impairment that stopped them from doing their job beyond the ordinary trappings that go with office. In this case, it seems to me it's different, not in degree, but in kind. It seems clear, I think, even to honest liberals that Joe Biden has some age related impairment. He's not the man he was five or 10 years ago and he was never all that sharp to begin with. So it does raise the question, should we be talking about invoking the 25th Amendment now that this is a national security risk?
- [12:24]
Unknown Speaker
You know, there's no doubt he is diminished and diminished significantly due to age. I think the threshold for the 25th Amendment is really damn high, and it's particularly damn high when the voters were on notice of the impairment and elected him anyway. And I gotta say, you know, look, it was not a secret a year and a half ago that Joe Biden had lost about 65 miles on his fastball.
- [12:58]
Ted Cruz
Right?
- [13:00]
Unknown Speaker
You know, his fastball's a wiffle ball. And that was blazingly obvious. So I would be hesitant to go down the road of the 25th Amendment. I think it's dangerous as hell. I think having a president in office who is less than fully aware of what's going on, who are enemies of believe is less than fully aware of what's going on, who our friends believe is less than fully aware of what's going on, who Everybody believes is, to a significant degree, out of it. That's a real problem. It's one of the reasons I think Putin invaded Ukraine, because Biden is so weak and ineffective that he didn't believe there'd be meaningful pushback.
- [13:50]
Ted Cruz
Now, I agree with you, actually. I don't think that it should be a sort of flippant decision to remove a president using the 25th amendment. I think you make a good argument here. The voters knew about it going in. Biden wasn't exactly hiding it. So we've got a president who is not just making some stupid comments over an ice cream cone, but is actually saying things that could lead the United States into a war. There's nothing we're going to do about that. In terms of removing him. You're a United States senator. Can the Senate come in and put some guardrails around what President Biden can do in terms of foreign policy?
- [14:25]
Unknown Speaker
Well, yes, although we're not gonna do so with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi controlling the Congress. And so I think we need to get to November. I think we're very likely to win the House. I think the odds are quite good we'll win the Senate, too, and that will provide some meaningful checks. But particularly on foreign policy, the commander in chief under the Constitution has wide leeway. And so there are real risks to having a commander in chief who's not up to the task. And I gotta tell you, look, in 14 months, 15 months, Biden's been in office, I haven't spoken to him once. Huh. Which is really weird. Like, it is strange. And by the way, you might say, all right, Cruz, he's this right winger. So Biden's not talking to Cruz. That's true of virtually every Republican senator. Lindsey Graham. Lindsey and Joe Biden have traveled all over the world together. They've been buddies for 20 years. Lindsey told me a couple of months ago he hadn't spoken to Biden since Biden became president.
- [15:24]
Ted Cruz
Wow, that's very strange.
- [15:26]
Unknown Speaker
Like, almost without exception, very few, if any, Republican senators are speaking to him. I think the Democrats. He speaks to the Democrats a little more, but presumably they think he's safe speaking to the Democrats, that they're not gonna reveal what's going on. I can tell you. One senator described to me how he'd spoken to Biden. One Republican said he'd spoken to Biden once in the past year and a half. And he said he went over to the White House for a bill signing, and they were. He said it was fairly it was not a major bill, but it was, you know, they were trying to do a bipartisan bill signing. He said he struck up a conversation with Joe and Biden said, hey, have you been to the Cabinet Room? And this senator said, well, I lied and said no. And so Biden took him to the Cabinet Room. And Biden begins telling war stories from like 30, 40 years ago and just reminiscing and telling stories. And apparently the White House staff is freaking out and they're coming in, Mr. President, Mr. President, you need to leave. You need to leave. And Biden yells at him and says, I'm telling stories, damn it. And he spends like 45 minutes reminiscing. And it's like, you know, your grandfather sitting there reliving, you know, the 1950s. He, you know, corn pop. I don't know if corn pop featured in those stories or not, but I gotta say, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of just how diminished he is. I will say it's particularly strange that Biden is not talking with Republican senators, given that we all know him. Look, it was Joe Biden that swore me into office 10 years ago when I became a senator. All of us, I mean, he is a creature of the United States Senate. Most of us have known him a pretty long time. It is an odd dynamic. And it's clear the White House staff is protecting him. They're isolating him. They are afraid of what he will say. And that's a dangerous situation.
- [17:29]
Ted Cruz
That is. And that inside peak is all the more disturbing because Joe Biden has a reputation as a back slapper, as a glad hander. He's the guy who pals around with everybody. So it does seem to underscore what we're seeing from this trip. Namely, you've got the White House apparatus and then you've got Joe, who occasionally will just speak out of turn, and it doesn't really seem to matter. So then right now we've got two major issues in the United States, both involving treaties. There is the Iran deal that Obama struck up, Trump shot down. Now they're trying to bring back. And you've got NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We know that the Senate has an important role in treaties, entering into treaties, potentially withdrawing from treaties. We know that the executive has an important role here, and sometimes the executive ignores the Senate. So where does that stand since both of these things are right at the forefront now, especially amid the war in Ukraine?
- [18:26]
Unknown Speaker
Well, this week we had, I think, a very interesting constitutional debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And this week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took up a bill from Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat from Virginia was Hillary Clinton's running mate. And the bill from Tim Kaine provides that the United States that the President cannot withdraw from NATO without an affirmative 2/3 vote from the U.S. senate. And the issue is actually, I think, a very interesting constitutional issue because there is real ambiguity in the Constitution over whether or not withdrawing from a treaty takes Senate approval. To enter into a treaty, the President has to sign it and 2/3 of the Senate has to ratify it. But over the 200 plus years of our country's history, multiple Presidents have asserted the authority to withdraw from treaties and have done so. And it's interesting actually, when Jimmy Carter was President, he withdrew from a treaty concerning Taiwan and committing us to the defense of Taiwan. He withdrew from that treaty and Barry Goldwater sued him. He was in the Senate from Arizona and he sued him. And the case was Goldwater versus Carter and Goldwater. It went to the D.C. circuit, then it went to the U.S. supreme Court. And the U.S. supreme Court concluded that it was a political question. In other words, the Supreme Court said we're not gonna answer whether pulling out of a treaty takes Senate approval or not. That it is non justiciable, which is a, a legal term. Something that is non justiciable means it's not susceptible to being resolved by the courts.
- [20:19]
Ted Cruz
If you have a conflict between two branches of government, particularly if it's the executive in the legislature, who but the judiciary is going to decide that question?
- [20:29]
Unknown Speaker
Well, what the court said is, it's what's called a political question. It's non justiciable. It's not susceptible to the court's resolving it, but rather it should be resolved by the political back and forth between Congress and the President. What the court said in that decision is, listen, if Congress disagrees with the President's decision, they can pass legislation expressing their disagreement. They can fight back. There's a check and balance. And so in foreign relations, it's interesting. So Tim Kaine proposed this a while back and as I looked at it, I agreed with it. So I co sponsored Tim Kaine's proposal. And I co sponsored it because I support NATO. I think NATO is the most successful military alliance Post World War II that the world has seen. And I think supporting NATO is important. The debate we had in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rand Paul argued vociferously against Tim Kaine's legislation.
- [21:33]
Ted Cruz
So Rand Paul was arguing that the President does have the right unilaterally to withdraw from treaties.
- [21:39]
Unknown Speaker
Yes. And Rand made constitutional arguments. He said, look, number one, what Tim is proposing is legislation that would be passed by the Senate, passed by the House, signed by the president. How can the House have a role in treaties under the Constitution? It's just the Senate, and this is the House inserting itself into the treaty power. That's a real argument. That's a serious and substantive argument. And he laid out also the history that going back to our earliest presidents, including Washington, they've asserted the authority to withdraw from treaties. Trump withdrew from a number of treaties and did so without Senate approval. Rand also argued, under the terms of NATO, it provides that America can withdraw, which has largely been understood to be the president can withdraw. I thought it was a good and robust debate. And I'll tell you what I said, Michael. I said, listen, I think the Constitution is ambiguous on this question. I think there are decent arguments on both sides. And I agree with the Supreme Court that this is naturally resolved in the give and take in the political arm wrestling between Congress and the White House. In this instance, I'm voting for the bill because I agree with this substantive area that we should stay in NATO. And I wanna put a check in balance against pulling out on NATO. And this is Congress pressing back to underscore the importance of this commitment. But what's interesting, there were several Democrats on the committee who suggested, why don't we do it more broadly and pass a bill that says a president may not pull out of any treaty without the Senate approving by two thirds? And what I said in committee is, I said, look, I would oppose that. I'm not interested in across the board asserting this congressional authority. There may well be treaties that this president or a subsequent president may want to withdraw from. And if Congress disagrees, we can pass something then to press back. In this instance, I think NATO is worthy of it. And it ended up. The vote was overwhelming. It was all the Democrats and every Republican voted yes, except for Rand, who voted no. So that was the result of the debate. But I remember I turned to Mike Rounds, the Republican who sits next to me. I'm like, that was the best constitutional debate I think I've ever heard in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
- [24:12]
Ted Cruz
Well, this is what I'm actually so surprised at, happily surprised at, to hear is the Senate's supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Usually there is no deliberation whatsoever, and you see a bunch of party lines, votes, and a lot of talking points, and sometimes people don't even show up. And what you've described is actual statecraft and actual sort of first principles and constitutional argument that may have persuaded people, at least to some degree.
- [24:38]
Unknown Speaker
And I'll tell you the maddening thing. It's not on C Span for you to watch, because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, So most committees meet in hearing rooms that are in one of the Senate office buildings, either in Russell or Dirksen or Hart. And the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for public hearings, we do that as well. But for business meetings where we are passing legislation or sometimes voting on when we're voting on nominations, we meet in the United States Capitol in an old historic meeting room with pictures of, you know, famous secretaries of state and, you know, gold adorning the ceiling. And it's on the first floor of the Capitol. It's kind of. It's one floor below the Senate floor and kind of off to the side. And there aren't TV cameras in that room, so we conduct business there. But unfortunately, this entire debate was not captured on tv, which I remember thinking at the end was really a shame because it was a substantive and consequential debate.
- [25:45]
Ted Cruz
It is a shame, though. Perhaps that's why. Perhaps the absence of TV cameras actually may have encouraged more. Well, since we're talking about this sort of minor issue of the nature of the Constitution and the treaty power of the Senate, I want to get to a much more important issue and global conflict that would be the slap heard around the world between Will Smith and Chris Rock. I think this is what the people are dying to hear your opinion about. The Internet is divided. I think generally people are on Chris Rock's side, though there are a handful of people who say chivalry is not dead. Good on Will Smith for defending his wife's honor. Senator, what say you?
- [26:24]
Unknown Speaker
Well, look, I generally try to stay out of fights between Hollywood celebrities. And I will confess I was not watching the Oscars. I was one of the seven and a half billion people on planet Earth that were not watching the Oscars. So afterwards, when I started seeing the headlines, I'm like, what? Like, what's this Will Smith saying? So I went and did what most other people did, which is I went and Googled it and watched the video. And that damn thing was surreal. It looks faked. And I mean, the way Will Smith walks up, it looks like it's a staged gig. And then apparently it's not. Apparently he was just really, really pissed. And I'm reminded of there's a guy I know in Washington who was part of Jeb Bush's campaign for president in 2016. And he was a senior guy in the campaign, and we were at a friend's wedding, and he said, you know, there's a way Jeb Bush could have won. And I said, look, with all respect, I'm not convinced that's right. This was not a cycle in which anyone named Bush was gonna win. He said, no, I've got a theory. I said, okay, let me hear it. And he said, my theory was if at the debate where Donald Trump insulted Columba, Jeb's wife, if Jeb had just turned around and punched him in the face and decked him, he might have won. And I was like, holy crap. I don't know. That would have been a unique moment on a presidential debate to see one candidate deck the other. And I don't know what would have happened then. Look, everyone can understand Will Smith when someone's making fun of your wife, getting pissed and defending her. That being said, you don't got a right to punch a comedian. Like, comedians are, you know, paid to be jerks. And if you are showing up where a comedian's performing, you shouldn't be surprised if they tell some jokes at your expense.
- [28:27]
Ted Cruz
Well, especially it's not as though Will Smith's wife is, you know, Donna Reed, keeping by the house. She is a public figure herself. She's an actress. She's a performer. But the only reason I really was even thinking about this stupid incident that we're still talking about now, four or five days later, is it does raise some questions about speech. You know, there are certain categories of speech that are not protected. I'm thinking of obscenity. I'm thinking of fraud, direct threats, and fighting words. Fighting words. And so. But then, on the other hand, certain. Lots of speech is very protected in the United States. And it would seem that comedians, in particular, at public events that have a kind of roast vibe to them, if they're not protected, then no speech is protected in America. So I wondered if there was any kind of legal argument there.
- [29:15]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, so under the law, Will Smith could likely be prosecuted for battery, and Chris Rock would likely have a cause of action against Will Smith for the same. I don't know, California law in particular. But generally speaking, under tort law and criminal law, that would be the case under typical application. But there is a caveat, which is to convict someone or to win a judgment, you have to convince a jury, and it's not clear to me in this case, you could convince a jury that there are some jurors who'd be like, damn straight, go get him. You make fun of his wife, go get him. And look, in a civil case, at least, you'd have to demonstrate some damages. I did think it was interesting that Will Smith. I actually like both Will Smith and Chris Robinson, but I thought it was interesting. Will Smith, who played Muhammad Ali, gets up and slaps him, which is sort of a weird. Like, you know, it'd be one thing if he punched him. The slap was weird. It was like, wow. I don't think I've ever seen Muhammad Ali slap someone.
- [30:24]
Ted Cruz
No. He floated like a butterfly.
- [30:26]
Unknown Speaker
In actual litigation, it would be potentially difficult to prove damages. It's not clear to me a jury would convict or a jury would enter a judgment. And it reminds me of, you know, the old joke of, you know, the Texas gravestone that says he died at age 101, shot by a jealous husband. You know, there. My guess is, look, from all the public reporting, Chris Rock is not going to seek to press charges. And so nothing's gonna happen legally as a consequence of it. You know, by the way, I will say in response to this, every lefty troll on earth has taken great joy in coming after me on this and saying, well, Will Smith did what Cruz never would, which is defend his wife Heidi. Now, look, to be clear, when Trump insulted Heidi, I went after Trump with both barrels, which the lefties conveniently forget. They just thought that once he was elected president, I should take my marbles and go home and refuse to do the job I was elected to. And at the end of the day, I got a job.
- [31:49]
Ted Cruz
I suspect that's what the American left would have liked you to do is to indeed. Okay, good. Now get rid of that Cruz character. Get him out of here. No, of course. And this is something that you notice in politics, that everyone notices is when you're getting a deluge of attacks, usually it means that your opponents are afraid of you. And this actually ties in pretty well. This and the question of free speech ties in pretty well to the craziest, most important, non traversy going on today, namely that according to the left, you are not allowed to say the word gay in the state of Florida because of a bill called the Parental Rights and Education Bill. There's similar legislation pending in other states. Obviously, it's a big political winner, but this has been the major news story based, as far as I can tell, on a complete fabrication.
- [32:40]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, it really is bizarre. So Florida passed this bill saying you cannot discuss sexuality in schools with children between kindergarten and third grade. And frankly, I Wouldn't call it the don't say gay law. I'd call it the don't say sex law. And you know what, with five year olds, I'm really okay with their teachers not talking about sex. I'd like them not to say gay. I'd like them not to say straight. I'd like them not to say anything involving sex. Play with blocks with the damn kids and teach them arithmetic like ABCs. Right? Like you know it is. I actually think it's revealing. And by the way, the Florida law in fourth grade, apparently it's Katy bar the door. You can whip out, you know, S and M and like all sorts of crazy. Like all the kink you want, all the obscenity. Fourth grade is fine. And to see the modern left losing their mind on this is bizarre. Like Disney is having paroxysms of fits. Because you know what, I don't really want Snow White discussing sex either. Like when you take your little kid to a Disney film. And what's fascinating, I actually think the self described leftist intelligentsia may be really out of step with their own base. Particularly the African American community is not very keen on their kids being taught about sex when they're five. And there's at least one poll that was done in Florida of Democrats that showed a significant majority of Democrats in Florida support the law. The numbers that I saw were 52% to 36% of Florida Democrats support the law. And so all of the Disney woke activists are not just out of step with Republicans and independents, but according to this poll, more than half the Democrats in Florida are like, could you send my little kid to school and just avoid the whole sex topic? Like just there are plenty of things in life to talk about. I don't need the kindergarten teacher getting into this stuff.
- [35:08]
Ted Cruz
Right. Well, I think this is why you're going to see a lot more of these bills around the country. You really saw it beginning with Glenn Youngkin running on this issue of education, keeping radical racial and sexual ideologies out of the classroom. Now you're seeing it in Florida. So it's a total political winner for the people who don't want sex being taught in kindergarten. But then you have the high minded political philosophy of Hollywood elites. I'm thinking of Ron Perlman who played Hellboy among other movies. I seem to recall you got into some interaction with him some years ago. Your old enemy, Hellboy. He said this is a First Amendment issue. In a mostly incoherent Twitter rant, he said that the bill was a violation of the first amendment because of the words don't say which are not in the bill by the way. So do you have any first amendment take on his argument?
- [36:00]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, yeah. Hellboy has been particularly active lately. He also this last week recorded a different Twitter rant screaming F you at me. So he was particularly upset that I was questioning Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. And so he just screamed expletives at me as one does, which is sort of an odd thing. I was disappointed that he didn't have the red face paint and the horns. Cause it would have been more fun like actually having Hellboy cursed me out. Look, the people virtue signaling. And I guess as I said, I didn't watch the Oscars. But as I understand it, there was some point where like the hosts or everyone there began chanting gay, gay, gay to show that they were apparently not in kindergarten in Florida, which is a little odd. Okay.
- [36:49]
Ted Cruz
They could have had me fooled.
- [36:50]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah. There is no first amendment right implicated here. Because if you are a teacher at a school, you are required to teach the curriculum in a public school that the state has decided upon. And if you want to teach something else, you're welcome to go stand in a mall and talk about it. You're welcome to teach your own kids that. You're welcome to go to church and teach people there that you can go anywhere else you want. But if your job involves teaching a curriculum set by the state, then the state has a right to set a curriculum. And it is the essence of reasonableness, I think, to say that with little, little kids, they shouldn't be getting into questions of sexuality, that five year olds don't need their schoolteachers proselytizing their views on sex. That's not the job of a teacher. I think most Americans find that a very common sense position. As I said, this law says fourth grade is fine. So I mean, it's not like, you know, I actually would prefer you not teach your fourth graders about it either. But kindergartners, this ought to be a pretty easy proposition.
- [38:07]
Ted Cruz
Of course you see it when we're talking about the first amendment. And I've even heard some people bring up the question of academic freedom as though a second grade classroom were some free marketplace of ideas where new scholarly and scientific discoveries are occurring. No, of course not. As you say, if you are a teacher, you have to follow the curriculum. The curriculum is set by the state. The parents have some rights in their kids education. They certainly have rights as citizens and they can vote.
- [38:35]
Unknown Speaker
And by the way, look, nobody would think it was appropriate to say, for example, in colleges and universities you may not discuss sex. Like that would be bizarre. I will tell you, when I was at Princeton, there was a popular T shirt that said, sex kills. And on the back it said, come to Princeton. Live forever. Look, that would not be reasonable. Obviously, human sexuality is part of life. It's part of literature. It's part of history. No one would say it's reasonable for colleges to limit the discussions of that because presumably the students are mature enough to engage in that. This may seem like a radical proposition, but there's a difference between college kids and 5 year olds. There's even a difference between high school kids. I think most people would say even in high school, you wouldn't want to have that kind of restriction. That by high school, you know, anyone who's watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High knows there's very little else that teenage boys are thinking about. Now, I don't know that we need our schools necessarily proselytizing on those topics even at that age. But the judgment of the Florida legislature here that there are some things that are inappropriate for little kids to discuss, I think is a judgment that all of us look at home with our girls. I try very, very hard not to curse when I'm out with adults. When you and I are having a scotch and a cigar, you may have heard me once or twice, use some ripe language.
- [40:17]
Ted Cruz
Three times at most.
- [40:18]
Unknown Speaker
There is a difference, right?
- [40:19]
Ted Cruz
Of course. No, of course that's the case. You don't want to talk like a sailor around kindergarteners. The context matters here. And the American left is trying to completely take away the context and make what, to me are just outright dishonest arguments saying that the bill does things that it's not doing, and probably it's because they know that they're losing on this issue. Now, on the question of education, Senator, we do have a pretty big announcement from Verdict for all of our wonderful listeners and for the bright young minds in America. For that, I want to bring on our friend Liz Wheeler. Because, Liz, this involves you, too. We are going to my alma mater of Yale University coming up in what, just two weeks.
- [41:00]
Jen Yacel
We certainly are. And this is perhaps it may be the most exciting episode of Verdict on the Road. Because Yale is not only your alma mater, but they are a very ideologically compromised, elite institution of higher learning. And, I mean, I think we're gonna have a great time. I expect a big crowd, a crowd that doesn't just agree with what we're talking about, but a crowd who Wants to come and respectfully disagree. I think it's gonna be great.
- [41:23]
Unknown Speaker
And, Michael, I gotta ask you, how excited are you to be headed back to your old stomping grounds?
- [41:28]
Ted Cruz
I cannot wait. I'm not sure who is going to get more rotten tomatoes thrown at him. You know, it's not a very conservative campus, so I'm not sure you're the most popular guy there. But for me, a prophet has honor everywhere but in his hometown. Of course, we had to go because one of my favorite cigar bars in America is there. So I am excited. There is a small but mighty conservative underbelly at Yale. A lot of people go there and become more liberal. That's most of the time. Some end up to the right of Genghis Khan. That's what happened to me. So we're very excited. That's gonna take place on April 11, and then we will be going to the University of Alabama on April 18th. And we should point out, it's not just gonna be you, Senator. It's not just gonna be me. It's not just going to be our trusty cactus, but it's also going to be backed by popular demand, our great friend, Liz Wheeler.
- [42:18]
Jen Yacel
Senator, I hope you're gonna wear a Princeton and Harvard gear on stage at Yale. Right.
- [42:24]
Unknown Speaker
I'm assuming Yale requires that we be in, like, a smoking jacket with maybe a Sherlock Holmes pipe and some Madeira or, I don't know, has it gone more hippie than that? Do we have to be, like, nude and taking peyote or something?
- [42:42]
Ted Cruz
I think it's a little bit of both, Senator. It's sort of. Yale has become a bit of a mullet these days. You know, tweed on the front, but that's it. You know, you wear your bow tie and nothing else. So we'll be doing that. One of the more surprising things, though, is that actually, I mean, we're very excited to have been invited by Yale, even with its liberal reputation. But it was the University of Alabama, the student paper there, that actually called the Young Americas foundation, an institution of bigotry and extremism that is consistently linked to racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and other harmful ideologies. It is not an organization of freedom or tradition. Even down south, it seems that liberalism and leftism reign.
- [43:27]
Unknown Speaker
Well, and I gotta say, that particular op ed you're reading from is from the Alabama College newspaper. And it reads like a parody, like if the Babylon Bee made up an angry leftist newspaper. So they. Apparently, there's a woman who's running for student body president. Who they had endorsed. And after the student newspaper endorsed them, someone found a picture of her at a YAF conference in D.C. and these leftists threw a tizzy fit. They stamped their feet. Oh goodness. This person we endorsed has like encountered a conservative idea in her life. What can we do? And so they have all these ad hominem insults at yaf. And you know, they believe in things like free enterprise, the Constitution, free speech, religious liberty. My God, they might even believe in the second amendment. But then the editorial ends with the funniest portion of all. They say, well, so we don't think this candidate is all that great, but her opponent is worse, so don't vote at all. But if you do vote, vote for her. But God, we can't stand conservatives. And it's like, really, it's truly a sight to behold.
- [44:47]
Jen Yacel
The whole thing absolutely slayed me. I laughed out loud reading this because I thought to myself, listen, according to radical leftist ideology, the governor, or now the former governor of Virginia can show up in black face in a photograph. But God forbid that this young woman running for student government show up in a picture from the Young America's foundation conference. This is the standards that the left has set and how they apply to conservatives. This is gonna be a great event. I hope the authors of this editorial come to our event.
- [45:15]
Unknown Speaker
Absolutely, they are welcome. They will be treated respectfully and they're welcome to come up with whatever crazy ass question they want. We will give them a place of.
- [45:24]
Jen Yacel
Honor and we'll try not to take their picture at a YAF event for their future candidacy.
- [45:31]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, then they'll unendorse themselves. Oh crap. We were photographed at Verdict. We officially deplatform ourselves.
- [45:40]
Ted Cruz
It totally underscores the reason why these events are so important, why we've got to go straight to the college campuses where these battles are being fought. We're so excited to do it with Young America's Foundation. You can find out more about these events. That's April 11th at Yale and April 18th at the University of Alabama. Go to yaf.org verdictlive that is yaf.org verdictlive if you're around New Haven, if you're around the University of Alabama, we will see you there.
- [46:11]
Unknown Speaker
Now, Michael, you can sign up to go in person, but you can also go there and sign up to watch it live on YouTube. So if you can't make it to New Haven, if you can't make it to Alabama, you can stay in the comfort of your own home wearing pajamas and bunny slippers and watch. Actually, you would fit in well at Yale in pajamas and bunny slippers and watch it live on YouTube. The same link, right?
- [46:36]
Ted Cruz
Absolutely. So make sure you head on over. We're so happy, as always, to partner with Young America's Foundation. It's going to be a great deal of fun to introduce a whole new generation of young American college conservatives to the right wing, which they probably haven't heard a whole lot about it in their classrooms. We're looking forward to seeing you. And if we can't see you, at least you'll see us. That is yaf.org verdictlive before that, though, Liz, you are going to be speaking with the senator on the Cloakroom. What are you gonna be talking about?
- [47:07]
Jen Yacel
Yes, we have a great topic. This is a topic we're asked, Senator, to talk about a lot, especially from the Verdict community. We're going to be talking a little bit about the Great Reset. We're going to be talking about the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab and this idea of globalism and not only those topics in and of themselves, but what we can do in our legal system here in the United States to actually prevent globalists from having control over our country. So it's very nerdy, very interesting. A highly requested topic. Anybody who wants to join us on the Cloakroom, join us on verdict. Go to verdictwithtedcruise.com verdict plus if you use my promo code, Cloakroom, you can get your first month free on your annual subscription. That is verdict with TedCruise.com/ that sounds fabulous.
- [47:49]
Ted Cruz
In the meantime, we will be having a reset ourselves. Not a great reset, a minor reset before we head on over to Cloakroom. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [48:07]
Michael Knowles
This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations and candidates across the country. In 2022, Jobs, Freedom and Security PAC plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.