We Are All at Risk

Summary

Podcast Title: Verdict with Ted Cruz
Episode: We Are All at Risk
Release Date: February 12, 2022
Host: Senator Ted Cruz
Description:
Verdict with Ted Cruz delves into the pressing political issues of the day, offering unfiltered insights, exclusive interviews, and honest commentary. In the episode titled "We Are All at Risk," Senator Ted Cruz engages in a robust discussion with Michael Knowles and Liz Wheeler, addressing topics ranging from Big Tech censorship and free speech to public health policies and cryptocurrency.

---

1. The Threat to Free Speech: Big Tech and Dissent (00:00 - 06:59)

Key Points:

• Government and Big Tech Censorship:
  Senator Cruz opens the discussion by highlighting the alarming trend of government entities leveraging Big Tech platforms to suppress dissenting voices. He references Ted Cruz's own experiences and the silencing of influential podcasters like Joe Rogan.

• Canadian Trucker Protest:
  The conversation shifts to the international incident involving Canadian truckers, where government actions have been perceived as authoritarian, further threatening free speech.

• Joe Rogan's Censorship:
  Michael Knowles emphasizes the significance of Joe Rogan's platform, noting that his massive audience makes him a formidable voice that the government fears. The attempt to silence Rogan is portrayed as part of a broader strategy to quell dissent.

Notable Quotes:

• Ted Cruz [00:00]:
  "We are all at risk here, and what happens now will have a lot to say about the future of free speech in our society."

• Michael Knowles [05:50]:
  "We have Joe Rogan, who is not weak. He's got 100 million listeners and viewers. That is a crap ton of listeners and viewers."

2. The Intersection of Free Speech and Authoritarianism (07:17 - 19:37)

Key Points:

• Authoritarian Tactics:
  Michael Knowles discusses how both the suppression of Joe Rogan and the Canadian truckers represent coordinated efforts by authoritarian elements to control narratives and silence opposition.

• Impact on Private Enterprises:
  Senator Cruz raises concerns about the government's ability to pressure private companies like Spotify and GoFundMe to act against dissenters, undermining the independence of these platforms.

• GoFundMe Controversy:
  The episode delves into how GoFundMe initially redirected funds raised for Canadian truckers to other causes under political pressure, leading to accusations of deceptive trade practices.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Knowles [12:07]:
  "This administration could kill crypto... Washington is perfectly capable of sending the jobs overseas and sending that business overseas. I think that would be catastrophic."

• Ted Cruz [19:04]:
  "I will never use GoFundMe again. Obviously, we can't trust it if they're gonna take the money away from the causes we think we're giving to."

3. Cryptocurrency as a Defense Against Authoritarian Control (19:37 - 30:15)

Key Points:

• Advocacy for Bitcoin and Crypto:
  Michael Knowles expresses strong support for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency as tools to bypass government control, citing their potential to serve as hedges against inflation and financial manipulation.

• Legislative Efforts:
  Knowles mentions introducing legislation to have the Congressional store accept Bitcoin, thereby promoting its acceptance and integration into mainstream economic systems.

• Threats from the Biden Administration:
  The conversation touches on concerns that the current administration may implement policies to undermine or destroy the cryptocurrency industry, drawing parallels to past actions by other governments.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Knowles [25:09]:
  "I think bitcoin is actually where Silicon Valley was maybe 15 or 20 years ago, which is at a fork in the road..."

• Ted Cruz [30:03]:
  "Well, it's great to know that bitcoin is good for developing economies because if Joe Biden's policies continue to destroy our dollar and our jobs, we may soon be a developing economy ourselves."

4. The Administrative State and Chevron Deference (30:15 - 50:20)

Key Points:

• Growth of the Administrative State:
  Liz Wheeler and Michael Knowles discuss the expansion of the administrative state, highlighting how agencies like the CDC, FDA, and others have accrued significant power, often at the expense of individual liberties and accountability.

• Chevron Deference Explained:
  The doctrine of Chevron deference is dissected, explaining how it allows courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, thereby facilitating regulatory capture and reducing judicial oversight.

• Impact on Public Policy:
  The conversation underscores how Chevron deference has enabled agencies to push forward policies that may not align with legislative intent, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study for its detrimental effects.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Knowles [41:37]:
  "Chevron was a mistake, that it contributed to the growth of the regulatory state."

• Ted Cruz [45:07]:
  "Stare decisis makes sense in that you want predictability in a legal system... But stare decisis is not absolute."

5. Public Health Policies and Political Hypocrisy (50:20 - 52:02)

Key Points:

• Stacey Abrams' Mask Controversy:
  The episode analyzes a photograph of Stacey Abrams not wearing a mask while surrounded by masked children, critiquing it as emblematic of political hypocrisy and elitism in public health mandates.

• Role of Public Health Establishment:
  Liz Wheeler prompts a discussion on redefining the role of public health authorities, advocating for a balance that respects individual freedoms while maintaining public safety.

• Historical Context and Future Implications:
  The dialogue touches on the historical evolution of the administrative state and its implications for future governance, emphasizing the need to curb unchecked bureaucratic power.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Knowles [32:52]:
  "This picture will play a central role in the election... It speaks volumes."

• Liz Wheeler [37:36]:
  "When public health is defined as... it speaks to the administrative state because we could get rid of Fauci, meaning President Biden could fire him."

6. Audience Interaction and Light-Hearted Segment (50:20 - 52:02)

Key Points:

• Listener Questions:
  The hosts address a humorous listener query about the nicknames of Ted Cruz, Liz Wheeler, and Michael Knowles, adding a lighter element to the otherwise intense discussion.

• Promotion of Additional Content:
  Liz Wheeler introduces a new series called "Cloakroom" exclusive to Verdict subscribers, focusing on behind-the-scenes insights into D.C. politics.

Notable Quotes:

• Michael Knowles [50:43]:
  "Ted is actually not short for Theodore. My full name is Rafael Edward Cruz..."

• Liz Wheeler [51:17]:
  "And Liz is short for Elizabeth. I will answer on behalf of Michael and say that it's not short for Michelangelo."

7. Conclusion and Sponsorships (52:02 - End)

Key Points:

• Sponsorship Message:
  The episode concludes with a sponsorship message for Jobs, Freedom, and Security PAC, a political action committee supporting conservative causes and candidates.

Notable Quotes:

• Liz Wheeler [52:02]:
  "This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom, and Security PAC..."

---

Insights and Conclusions

The episode "We Are All at Risk" serves as a comprehensive critique of the current state of free speech, the overreach of government agencies, and the burgeoning threat of authoritarianism facilitated through Big Tech and regulatory bodies. Senator Ted Cruz, alongside Michael Knowles and Liz Wheeler, underscores the interconnectedness of these issues, highlighting how the suppression of influential voices like Joe Rogan and movements such as the Canadian truckers reflect a broader agenda to control narratives and eliminate dissent.

A significant portion of the discussion is dedicated to the dangers posed by the administrative state, particularly through mechanisms like Chevron deference, which allow unelected agencies to wield disproportionate power. This, coupled with the manipulation of public funds and the undermining of private enterprises like GoFundMe, paints a picture of a society increasingly susceptible to authoritarian control.

Moreover, the advocacy for cryptocurrency emerges as a beacon of hope against such control, positioning Bitcoin and other digital currencies as tools to preserve financial independence and resist governmental overreach. The conversation also delves into the hypocrisy within public health policies, using Stacey Abrams' mask incident as a symbol of the disconnect between political elites and the general populace.

Overall, the episode calls for increased vigilance and proactive measures to safeguard free speech, reduce the power of the administrative state, and embrace technologies that promote individual freedoms. It serves as a rallying cry for conservative listeners to unite against the encroaching influences that threaten the foundational liberties of American society.

Transcript

[Ted Cruz]

Government is using big tech to shut down dissent. They're doing it on the biggest podcast platform in the world. They're doing it up in America's hat with Canadian truckers. We are all at risk here, and what happens now will have a lot to say about the future of free speech in our society. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

[Michael Knowles]

Foreign.

[Liz Wheeler]

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 public. Don't go online without using IP Vanish. Don't forget, Verdict listeners get 70% off the IP Vanish annual plan. Just go to IPVanish.com Cactus to claim your discount and secure your online life. That's IP V A N-I-H.com Cactus this.

[Unknown]

Episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by Thompson Cigar. Now, I don't have to tell you that the gentleman on this show likes cigars. So does my husband. Most times. Actually, that's what we do after the show. They smoke cigars and we tell ourselves what a great show it was. But that's why you've got to check out Thompson Cigar. Whether you're working from home or just kicking back after a week of being essential, there's no better way to relax than with a premium cigar. They've got the best prices on the biggest brands in the business, from Macanudo to Monte Cristo. Or maybe are you looking to try new, rare, top rated blends? But you don't want to splurge on boxes? Well, check out Thompson's Cigar Tour. A smattering of five different blends delivered to your doorstep each month. Now Michael and my husband have been fans of Thompson even before they became a partner. No one has more selection than Thompson. Their customer service is the best. So sit back and take a break from all the craziness with a cigar from Thompson Cigar Company. These guys rarely do offers, but right now Thompson is offering our listeners 15% off orders over $75 or 20% off orders over $99. To take advantage of these incredible savings, Simply go to thompsoncigar.com and use promo code cactus when you are ready to check out that website is thomson t-h o-m p s o-n cigar.com and use promo code cactus this episode of Verdict is also brought to you by stamps.com Now I know a lot of you are small business owners and if you are, you know that there's nothing more valuable than your time. So stop wasting it on trips to the post office. Stamps.com makes it easy to mail and ship right from your own computer. You can save time and money with stamps.com you can send letters and packages for less with discounted rates from USPS, UPS and more. Stamps.com brings the service of the Post Office and UPS shipping right to your computer. So whether you're an office sending invoices, a side hustle Etsy shop or a full blown warehouse Shipping out order stamps.com will make your life easier. All you need is a computer and a standard printer. No special supplies or equipment. Within minutes you're up and running printing official postage for any letter, any package, anywhere you want to send. And you'll get exclusive discounts on postage and shipping from USPS and ups. Once your mail is ready, you just schedule a pickup or drop it off. No traffic, no lines. There is no risk. And with our promo code Verdict you get a special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a digital scale. No long term commitments or contracts. Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in verdict. That's stamps.com, promo code verdict. Never go to the post office again.

[Ted Cruz]

Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. Michael I'm Michael Knowles. Senator. They seem like very different issues. Canadian truckers and the most popular podcaster on the planet. Except for the week that Verdict launched. But we'll digress. We leave that for a couple of years ago. They are deeply connected stories and actually you seem to have played a role in all of this. You caused a little bit of an international incident, Senator, when you got into A Twitter spat with the mayor of Vancouver over this trucker protest going on up in Canada.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, that's true enough. The mayor of Vancouver said, you know, we Canadians don't want you truckers. You guys go home. And I had to point out, I said, gosh, you know, the Canucks might have a different view if the truckers actually did go home and suddenly your shelves were empty. I mean, it seems to me two years ago, people were waxing eloquent about the great heroes that truckers were. And I agree, they make our entire system, our economy, move forward. But now these leftist politicians are, to hell with you truckers. We don't like what you have to say.

[Ted Cruz]

So it's not just the little guy, it's not just the working class that is being put upon here. It's even one of the most elite, influential, popular voices in the world. That would be Joe Rogan, this podcaster who's got a massive, massive audience. He's politically independent, and Big Tech is shutting him down. We touched on it a little bit. Some aging hippies were trying to boot him off of Spotify, but it appears to be sort of working well.

[Michael Knowles]

These two stories are deeply interconnected, and they represent together the most dire threat to free speech. We have Joe Rogan, you have petty government authoritarians enlisting their buddies in Big Tech to silence the voice of dissent. Canadian truckers, you have petty government authoritarians enlisting the voice of Big Tech and the power of Big Tech to silence the voice of dissent. And both. Look, this would never have happened even a year or two or three ago. This is a new phenomenon. Let's take Joe Rogan. So Jen Psaki publicly called from the White House podium for Spotify to take down his episodes. For Spotify to silence him. I will say, Let me start off by saying I'm pissed off. Look, our last podcast, we talked about how this pod was the first podcast to be mentioned from the White House podium, and in comes Joe Rogan and Bigfoot's us.

[Ted Cruz]

Mm. That's true, Senator. We were the first two. We can at least hang our hat on that. But yes, Joe Rogan has come in. He is now the third podcast to be referenced at a White House briefing.

[Michael Knowles]

I will say, in between the two, Jen Psaki was asked about this podcast, and her comment was she said she is blissfully not a spokesperson for Ted Cruz. Which I have to admit, Michael, I retweeted and just said, the bliss is mutual.

[Ted Cruz]

The feeling is reciprocated. Right.

[Michael Knowles]

But I will say we did talk about actually Setting up margaritas and kickboxing and see if we could recruit her over because she thankfully, we're not gonna do that. Look, stop for a second and think about the White House, the executive office of the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on planet earth, calling for a voice of dissent to be silenced. And calling very specifically, calling out big tech, calling out the oligarchs in Silicon Valley. Jen Psaki was very specific. Spotify, take down this post. Now normally when you have suppression of free speech, there's a big power imbalance and it's powerful people trying to silence weak people. Well here the person they're trying to silence is Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan is many things, but not weak. He's got 100 million listeners and viewers. That is a crap ton of listeners and viewers. And he gets more viewers for many episodes. He's 10x or 100x what CNN is. And the White House is terrified of him. CNN is terrified of him. The blue check marks on Twitter are terrified of him. And it's worth pausing. Look, you and I are unlikely advocates for Joe Rogan. I don't know Joe Rogan. I've never met the guy.

[Ted Cruz]

Me neither.

[Michael Knowles]

As far as I know he's not a conservative. He endorsed Bernie friggin Sanders. Generally conservatives don't endorse wild eyed socialists, but Rogan. Look, I've really grown to admire Rogan because he's demonstrated backbone. He's willing to speak out. And on Covid he's called bullshit. To the continued propaganda and the contradictions and the lies coming out of Fauci, coming out of the Biden White House, coming out of the press. And for those in power, having someone willing to dissent with a really big megaphone scares them and so they want to destroy them. And the important thing to know about Joe Rogan, this is not spontaneous, this is not organic. This is an organized assassination of speech. It started off kind of comical, but then the White House chimed in. And then you noticed it started off with COVID misinformation because he brought in scientists and doctors who had views that differed from the enlightened view of Dr. Fauci, which changes every week, but whatever it is, that week is holy scripture and cannot be challenged. Yeah, but then this kind of hack writer, Don Winslow, who I'd never heard of other than he's loud and obnoxious on Twitter, puts out this video, an old video of Rogan using the N word. And look, using the N word is wrong. Neither you nor I support it. And suddenly all of the blue check marks gathered up together. And Rogan is a racist for having used it. Look, that's not a word that should be used in polite society. But I will tell you who else has used the N word repeatedly. Joe Biden. Rappers like crazy. Howard Stern. They're not canceling Howard Stern. Why? Because Howard Stern is serviling, kissing the behinds of those in power. It's really a shame. Howard Stern started out a rebel, and now he echoes the words of the petty tyrants. If you shut up and echo what they say, you're okay. If you're Jimmy Kimmel, you can dress in blackface, you can do whatever you want because you're a mouthpiece for the regime.

[Ted Cruz]

This has followed a familiar script, and I guess this also ties it to the Canadian trucker protest, which is the actual substantive issue that this is about is Covid. And so Joe Rogan questioned the COVID narrative. He brought on very respected, very well known scientists. They questioned the government's Covid narrative, the narrative du jour, because as you say, it changes all the time. And so what happens then? They try to attack him. It doesn't work. Then the left calls him a racist. That is always the next card that they play. They pull it out of nowhere. They take clips out of context. They do whatever they can. They apply a standard unevenly. And they're trying to do that. That seems to have weakened him a little bit. He's made some concessions. We'll see where it go. But I guess my question on it is, what is it about this Covid issue? Because I guess what the left would say is, Michael, Senator, this is about health. People are gonna die if this information gets out there. And that's why we've got to suppress the truckers. It's why we've gotta shut up. Rogan, is this a unique issue where people are not allowed to dissent?

[Michael Knowles]

It is unique in the following way. It has revealed the authoritarianism of these government leaders. They believe they have the power to force you to comply, to force you to take a vaccine. My body, my choice doesn't matter to them anymore. Nope, not your body, not your choice. We're gonna force you to take a vaccine, to force you to wear a mask, to force you to obey. And if you don't, they will use the coercive force of government to shut your business down. You know, there's a restaurant here in D.C. that was shut down because they refused to enforce the vaccine mandate. So local restaurants said, look, I don't wanna like, have My customers come in, demand their papers, you know, intrude on their medical business. And so what did D.C. do? District of Columbia came in and shut them down. I mean, it is arbitrary power. They will shut your business down. They will shut your restaurant down. They'll shut your bar down. They'll shut your store down. They will fire you if you're active duty military. A soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, a Navy seal. They will fire you if you're a doctor, a nurse. They will fire you if you're a government employee, if you're an FBI agent, if you're a border patrol agent, they will fire you. It is force. And these are the same guys that during the height of COVID when it started, we're shutting down playgrounds, we're shutting down churches. We're suing to say, if you sing Amazing Grace, everyone's gonna die. What Covid has done has revealed the arbitrariness, the power. And by the way, you know, some might say. All right, you're exaggerating. Listen, all these Democratic politicians know it's crap. We all saw this week, Stacey Abrams sitting in a classroom full of little kids. The kids are all masked, and she's sitting there grinning ear to ear with no mask, right in front. Why? Because she's a Democratic overlord and the rules don't apply to her. They just apply to the little people. In this case, it really was little people. It was children. And it's all the Democratic politicians, every one of them. Gavin Newsom palling around with Magic Johnson. I think it's pretty cool he gets to hang out with Magic Johnson. I'm jealous about that. Eric Garcetti saying, oh, I held my breath. I had my mask off, but I held my breath. Baloney. But the lie is so absurd. The person saying it doesn't believe it, the person hearing it doesn't believe it. But what it's really about. And by the way, Barack Obama, this week, he's having this massive house built in Hawaii. Nevermind global warming, nevermind the environment. And he's standing there with the workers, little working people. The workers are all masks. And there's Obama, no masks, supervising the servants. That's the same as Nancy Pelosi when she does her fundraisers, where the serving people must be masked. It's garbage. It is contempt of elitists. But the fact that they take their mask off. I've talked in this pot all the time. Democratic senators remove their masks all the time behind closed doors, when the TV cameras aren't there, Boom. The mask comes off, but as soon as they come out, they put the mask on. This is about power. And Rogan and the truckers are threats to it. And I gotta say, look, Rogan in the world of speech has a damn powerful megaphone. Spotify is paying him $100 million. $100 million is a lot of money, Michael. If Spotify offered it to you tomorrow, $100 million, shave your head and become an MMA wrestler. I gotta say, I think we'd see Michael Knowles, you know, dressed in red tights, going to wrestle.

[Ted Cruz]

I don't want to undercut my negotiation. I would do it for 95.

[Michael Knowles]

I would, I believe you. And I'd buy tickets to it.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, I guess this is what's so scary here is Joe Rogan. He's got this huge megaphone, and yet they can at least to some degree make him concede. We were always told that yes, the government is bad and they do lots of bad things, but we've got private enterprise, we've got our own private organizations, we can do our own work in the culture, fight back, build your own, Google, all that kind of stuff. And yet what we've seen here in the States and with the Canadian truckers is you're seeing the government using these private entities. So you've got Spotify is being pressured by the White House to boot Rogan, or at least to censor him. You've got GoFundMe. There was a GoFundMe set up for these Canadian truckers. A lot of people were donating to them. And then GoFundMe, under a lot of political pressure, says, whoops, nevermind, we're gonna take that money away from the truckers. Well, so now we don't have the government, we don't have the private enterprise. What are we supposed to do?

[Michael Knowles]

So you look at Spotify, they haven't kicked Rogan off yet, but the goal is to kick him off entirely. That's what the White House called for. They have taken down about 100 episodes of his show. So they've decided that you and I, we don't get to see what he said those episodes. We're too dumb, we're too ignorant, we can't listen. That speech is dangerous and so they're going to ban it. I gotta say, Rogan responded by apologizing. And listen, if there's one lesson Donald Trump has taught us is don't apologize to the woke left wing mob because they're not interested in apology, they're not interested in truth, they're not interested in Facts. Nobody cares in the mob about the substance of what was on those hundred episodes. They don't care at all. They want to destroy him. You look at the truckers. Listen, in Canada, the Canadian politicians, you know, the mayor of Ottawa was reveling in calling for GoFundMe to pull down the site and was bragging about it. And GoFundMe people had given $10 million to support this. I mean, it was, you know, a spontaneous movement. And when the government officials called on GoFundMe, just like the White House did, the government officials in Canada called on GoFundMe. Stop this. You know, GoFundMe didn't have $100 million tied up with the truckers. If they did, they might have behaved differently. Spotify's been a little bit trying to have their cake and eat it too. So GoFundMe just said, Nope, we're taking the money. And first they said, we're gonna give it to a bunch of left wing causes that we support. Then there was so much outrage, they backed off and said, oh, no, no, we'll just refund the money. Look, this weekend I sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking the ofTC to investigate GoFundMe for deceptive trade practices. Because if you take $10 million, if you steal it from people and divert it to a place that the consumers who gave it didn't intend it to go, that is deception. That is consumer fraud. And it is indicative of the arrogance of Big Tech and the willingness for them to act as enforcers of. For government officials.

[Ted Cruz]

Now, there was a second part of this GoFundMe story. So I'm very glad that you are bringing legitimate government power against GoFundMe here. I will never use GoFundMe again. Obviously we can't trust it if they're gonna take the money away from the causes we think we're giving to now.

[Michael Knowles]

Michael, that's not fair. If you wanna support Black Lives Matter or Antifa. If you wanna support rioters and people that are firebombing police cars, if you wanna support people that are taking over police stations and declaring chaz autonomous zones, GoFundMe is the site for, for you. So if you wanna support Marxists, that's the place to go.

[Ted Cruz]

And you don't even need to donate directly to. You can donate to whoever you want. Don't worry, GoFundMe will redirect your money. You don't even need to think about it. So I'm really glad that you are leading on this issue and getting the government to look into this obvious fraud. But there was a second part to the story here, which is that after GoFundMe took all the money, a bunch of people then got together and started to fund the truckers. Not through the government, obviously, not even through some private enterprise, some organization like GoFundMe. They did it through bitcoin.

[Michael Knowles]

Bitcoin is a powerfully revolutionary technology cryptocurrency. I am very bullish on bitcoin and on crypto generally. And I gotta tell you, the same petty authoritarians who hate Joe Rogan, who hate the Canadian truckers, they hate bitcoin and they hate crypto. And there's some irony. So I've become a very vocal defender of crypto, probably the leading defender, or certainly one of the leading defenders in the U.S. senate. And it's interesting, a lot of the bitcoin and crypto folks were Bernie Bros. Just like Rogan. You know, the kind of cool socialists that seem hip. And yet these authoritarians hate bitcoin and they hate crypto, and it's for the same reason. Why do they hate Joe Rogan? Cause they can't control him. He's not subject to their authoritarian power. Why do they hate bitcoin? Because they can't control it. It is a system of currency outside of the monopoly control of the U.S. government. And I gotta say, as I've addressed, I spoke at a big crypto conference in Austin several months ago. And I said, listen, you need to understand, this administration, I believe, is gonna go after you and is going to try to destroy you. And by the way, that's a pattern of authoritarians. China, communist China outlawed bitcoin for the exact same reason. Why does Elizabeth Warren hate bitcoin? For the same reason that she and China hates bitcoin. Cause neither one of them can control it. And the theme through all of this is the power of freedom to be not subject to the arbitrary whims of those in government power.

[Ted Cruz]

Now you have convinced me on this. I don't know anything about crypto. I'm a terrible investor. My investment strategy generally is buy high, sell low. That's whenever I'm involved. But what a lot of listeners probably don't know is that you are much hipper than I am. You have been on this crypto thing for a while. It's true. And you did make headlines because, well, crypto was collapsing and I was panicked and selling all my crypto. You were apparently buying the dip.

[Michael Knowles]

That is true. So I bought bitcoin. I own bitcoin. I think, according to the public reports, there are three senators that own bitcoin. Me, Cynthia Lubbus and Pat Toomey. I'll say. I don't know. Six, eight months ago, I didn't know a whole lot about bitcoin and crypto. And I saw that it was growing and developing, and I said, look, I need to educate myself. And so I started setting up dinners with people involved in the crypto world and just sitting down and listening to them. And I started off with all sorts of dumb questions. What is it? How does it work? And learning. And it's complicated stuff. And certainly I would not hold myself out as an expert today, but I started learning and listening to it and being fascinated by the development of it, by the ability. There's a book, actually, that Cynthia Lummis recommended to me called Layered Money, which I read, that talks about some of the history of the development of money from the beginning. But crypto is the next evolution of it. And I've gotten very bullish on crypto, especially bitcoin, and really horrified at the efforts of Elizabeth Warren and big government Democrats to crush this growing industry. Texas is becoming an oasis for bitcoin. We're seeing more and more crypto moving to Texas, particularly Austin. And so I started several months ago. I actually have a weekly buy order in for bitcoin that every week I just have an automatic buy. Look, given that there's volatility, I'm a fan of dollar cost averaging, which is just having a buy that occurs weekly automatically. So that high or low, it averages out. And then what I ended up doing, I guess a couple of weeks ago is when bitcoin dropped about in half. I said, all right, I don't believe this drop. And so I made a bigger purchase. I bought 25,000 worth of Bitcoin. Under the Senate, you have to file a financial disclosure for a purchase over $1,000. So I filed that financial disclosure. And usually those financial disclosures don't. Maybe they get a little bip, but they don't get a whole lot of attention. It actually was fascinating, Michael. When I filed the financial disclosure, it generated a ton of press. And listen, I am bullish on bitcoin, so I'm proud to say I got skin in the game. I believe in it, and that's why I invested in it. But I think we ought to be encouraging. I want cryptocurrency. I want America to be the hub of cryptocurrency globally. And frankly, I want Texas to be the hub of cryptocurrency. In America.

[Ted Cruz]

So I have been convinced by you and by other, I mean, Ronald Reagan's favorite economist, George Gilder, was really bullish on blockchain, blockchain technology years ago even, and said, this is kind of the future of the Internet. And so what I'm convinced on here now is that this would be a way to avoid government control. This would be a way to avoid even the control of private businesses that are often working at the behest of the government anyway. But then my final question to you is this. If the government was able to clamp down on all these private businesses and build your own Google and all of that, and that hasn't worked. We saw it with the truckers. We're seeing it with Rogan too. What is to stop them from clamping down on bitcoin? You've already heard rumblings out of the government. What is the likelihood that Biden does that?

[Michael Knowles]

So, look, they may well. And I am quite concerned about it. This administration could kill crypto. When I talked to the conference in Austin, there are a lot of folks in the crypto world who are a little bit utopian. They have a view that we are inevitable, that bitcoin is inherently superior to all other forms of money. I will say one of the things I like about it is it's a potential hedge against inflation. And given this administration spending trillions and driving up trillions in debt, I'm interested in the hedge in inflation as they're devaluing the dollar. And so I like bitcoin as a hedge against inflation. But the point I made at this conference is y'all need to understand government can destroy you. I ask, how many of y'all have heard of Napster? And they all did. And I said, listen, it's easy to think we're happily in our sort of Austin, peaceful place. And I think bitcoin is actually where Silicon Valley was maybe 15 or 20 years ago, which is at a fork in the road where Silicon Valley could have chosen to go towards a libertarian utopia. Leave us alone, let's be entrepreneurs. Let's have freedom. Or they could have done what they did, which is to go down the socialist woke path of we exercise power, we are totalitarian, and we're hard leftist woke. And unfortunately, Silicon Valley took the wrong choice. I think bitcoin and crypto more generally is at that same fork of the road. I hope that they go the libertarian way. I hope they go the small business. Leave us alone. Let us be entrepreneurs. You know, that is really potent so I'm trying to encourage it, but absolutely there is a very real and potent threat from the Biden administration that they will go after it, that they will try to destroy it. And I'm gonna fight against that because I think it is a huge, huge industry going forward. And I don't wanna see the idiot politicians in Washington drive it out of America and send it overseas. It won't disappear. But Washington is perfectly capable of sending the jobs overseas and sending that business overseas. I think that would be catastrophic.

[Ted Cruz]

Right. Especially at a moment where dissent against the ruling class, the liberal establishment, the regime, whatever you want to call it, where that is so difficult and where people are genuinely persecuted for it. Yes, we have to wield what political power we can. Yes, we need to wield what market power we can. But if there were an instrument, a technology really, to be able to exercise our rights and our way of life, that's something very hopeful. And so I hope that we can maintain it. We unfortunately so far are not accepting bitcoin in the verdict store, but I think we really should. I think that would be a great way to do it.

[Michael Knowles]

So, Michael, I've actually introduced legislation in Congress to have the congressional store accept bitcoin. Really. So that's one of the pieces of legislation I've introduced as a way of spreading its acceptance, by the way, in El Salvador. I spoke with the president of El Salvador last week. El Salvador, it's legal currency. It's legal tender in El Salvador and it is. Bitcoin has all sorts of potential, particularly in a developing economy, for people to have secure savings. You may not have access to a bank account, but if you have a cell phone, if you have any technology, you can have secure savings that can't be stolen from you. It can also is secure instantaneous transactions. You can transfer it, buy and sell. There are massive inefficiencies right now in the transfers of cash that crypto and bitcoin go all around. And so it is a generation skipping technology which is potent and that's one of the reasons. So I've introduced legislation to repeal what the Democrats did, putting additional burdens on crypto. And I've also, as I said, I think the congressional store ought to accept it because it helps expand the ability of this industry to grow. And I think there's enormous benefit to Texas and the country as this industry grows.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, it's great to know that bitcoin is good for developing economies because if Joe Biden's policies continue to destroy our dollar and our jobs, we may soon be a developing economy ourselves.

[Michael Knowles]

Now we have more.

[Ted Cruz]

Just when you think it's over, there is still more. Some of you who have gone over and gone to verdictwithtedcruise.comshop and headed over and subscribed to the Verdict community. Some of you know about this, but some of you might not know this quite yet, but our friend Liz Wheeler is hosting a new series with Senator Cruz, the hardest working man in show business and in politics. And that is called Cloakroom. Liz, what are you talking about?

[Unknown]

Hi, Michael. Hi, Senator. Yes, and Michael, you and I joke. One series is simply not enough for Senator Cruz. So there must be two. I'm so excited. This will be our second episode in the series. I'm excited to introduce it. It's called the Cloak Room. It's on Verdict. It is only for Verdict subscribers. You can of course join us at Verdict with Ted Cru. It's a brand new series with Senator Ted Cruz. It's co hosted by me, Liz Wheeler. Basically, how it's going to work is I'm going to pick his brain like I would in a strategy session. It's a behind the scenes peek into the details of what goes on in D.C. just like the real cloakroom of the Senate. Today, we're going to talk about Stacey Abrams and that infamous maskless photo of her with kids who were wearing masks next to her. Plus the proper role. This is the nerdy part. The proper role of public health and the administrative state and the separation of powers. Now, like I said, you can join us at verdict with TedCruz.com Plus, I also have a promo code cloakroom for you. If you use this promo code cloakroom, you'll get one month free. A one month free trial on your annual subscription. It's gonna be a good time.

[Ted Cruz]

Then, as I have mentioned before, soon after that, we're gonna have a series where it is just me and Liz and no Senator. Then a series of Liz and the Cactus. And we're just building out a whole universe here because as the left tries to clamp down on us, it's more important than ever to speak out. And in our beneficence, in our charity, which is a theological virtue, we are not going to keep this episode behind the paywall. In the future, the episodes are gonna be behind the paywall. But right now we have a sneak peek. So I'm gonna get out of here. Liz, you take it away with the Cloak Room.

[Unknown]

Thank you, Michael. I'm Liz Wheeler. This is Cloakroom on Verdict. Plus, Senator, we have A great episode planned today. So let's start with this photograph. This is the photograph heard round the country, if you will. It is, of course, Stacey Abrams, gubernatorial candidate for the state of Georgia. She is not wearing a mask in this photograph, but she is surrounded by school children, very small children with wearing masks on their face. And not only is this a terrible look, she actually is defending this in the wake of all the outrage. So my question to you, like I said, is purely political. Is this photograph going to be the reason that she loses her election? Is this going to disqualify her in the eyes of her voters?

[Michael Knowles]

Look, I think this photograph has the potential to be something like Terry McAuliffe's comment at the end of the Virginia governor's race where he said, in the debate, he said parents have no right to say what's taught to their kids in school. And I think if there was one sentence that defeated McAuliffe and elected Glenn Youngkin, it was that sentence. It was the arrogance that was revealed. It was. You know, there's an old line that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth, tells you what they really think. This picture shows you what Stacey Abrams really thinks. And it is, I think this picture will play a central role in the election. You know, several things are striking. Number one, they put the picture out. They were proud of this picture. They saw nothing wrong with it. And then suddenly the reaction was so intense they deleted it and they got the school to delete it, too. They tried to ban it, tried to erase it, just delete the. In fact, the school person deleted her entire account. But then when everyone naturally criticized the self evident hypocrisy, the Abrams campaign put out this statement, just snarling with attacks that of course people are attacking me because they're racists. And it's all about undermining Black History Month because they're all just horrible racists who hate me, completely ignoring the substance. Also, our campaign put out a statement that, well, Stacey requested that everyone wear a mask and she just took hers off briefly. Well, okay, so that doesn't make it better.

[Unknown]

Maybe she held her breath like Garcetti did.

[Michael Knowles]

Indeed. And by the way, I think it's much better, the world would be better if Democratic politicians held their breath because it would mean they couldn't talk. So that would be an improvement. Look, this picture, I was reading something today that was comparing this saying this is the most consequential image of a politician in a room full of kids since George W. Bush was reading a children's Story to a room full of kids when they came in and told him the news about 9 11, about the plane flying into the Twin Towers. And you know, we all remember that image and know that image. And I think this one likewise, people will remember years from now. This is an image that will define the double standards, the arrogance, the hypocrisy. And it speaks volumes. I also thought it was notable like the Washington Post wrote a story about Republican outrage over Abrams in the picture. And what's interesting is they didn't show the picture. They had a picture of Stacey Abrams like out on the campaign trail smiling. The Washington Post very deliberately wouldn't show the picture. Cuz you actually don't need any commentary, you just need to see the image and it tells you everything you need to know, including the fact that of everyone in the picture, the person at greatest risk from a serious illness of COVID was clearly Stacey Abrams. Yeah, she's the one not wearing a mask. The little children, the odds are overwhelming if one of those kids got Covid that there would be few if any symptoms and it would not be life threatening. But what it reveals is that neither she nor the other Democratic politicians that are insisting the kids be masked, they don't believe in this stuff.

[Unknown]

No, they don't. It's worse than hypocrisy, isn't it? It's elitism. They actually aren't just violating rules that they think apply to themselves, they actually don't believe that their own rules apply to them. And this has been, this is the reason the Washington Post isn't picturing or showing this photograph is because they know it's not a Republican or a Democrat issue anymore among voters, especially parents. That parents across the aisle are outraged at how the public health establishment has treated their children and continue to treat their children in school. And that's where I wanna dive into this a little more nerdy, a little more philosophical aspect of this. We've seen up close and personal the last two years how the public health establishment hold so much power over the American public, how much they influence politicians who issue dictates and mandates and lockdowns and masks and vaccines and all of these fairly invasive measures in the name of health, in the name of public health. And so I wanna talk to you tonight, I wanna ask you from a philosophical perspective, what is the role or what should be the role of the public health establishment in our country?

[Michael Knowles]

Well, it depends what qualifies for public health establishment. And in many ways that is functionally Dr. Anthony Fauci and He has become the face of it. So much so that on TV he has said, I represent science. You know, it reminds me of scripture. In the beginning was the Word. I mean, it is this hubris to embody science with which Fauci. Look, two years ago, Fauci had a pretty good reputation. He was well respected. The arbitrariness, the arrogance, the attitude of infallibility, and the obvious contradictions that have come from Fauci, I think have done massive and long term damage to the credibility of the cdc, of the nih, of the public health establishment. Listen, you want to minimize the spread of disease, lock every person on planet Earth in a dungeon and never let them out. You will reduce the spread of disease. There just are other negative consequences.

[Unknown]

Right. Well, that kind of gets to my question. That's why I think that we as a nation, especially the Republican Party and the conservative movement, need to analyze, we need to be thoughtful about what the proper role of public health is. When public health is defined as. I mean, as the premise that you laid out as Fauci as these government bureaucrats who weren't elected, they were appointed, who have the highest salary of all federal employees, including the President of the United States. And to me, it speaks to the administrative state because we could get rid of Fauci, meaning President Biden could fire him, he could resign. I mean, he's old. He's not gonna be in this position forever. You can replace one bureaucrat with another bureaucrat, but as long as you have this system, as we do, of these executive agencies that Congress defers rulemaking to, I don't see this problem, particularly now that they have cemented how they wanna handle pandemics or public health. They know that they can wage this power the way that they have. I don't see this going away unless we address the administrative state specifically.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah, look, I think it's a very good point. I think the Trump administration made serious mistakes as Covid broke out. And one of the mistakes was elevating Fauci and deferring to him for far too long. The Trump administration should have fired Fauci. The way Fauci and the declared overlords of public health treated us is that they were infallible.

[Unknown]

Yeah.

[Michael Knowles]

And they did it while being cynically political at the same time. That combination is a really toxic brew.

[Unknown]

It is. And especially because if there's a doctor in the private sector who has a terrible opinion or gives you terrible medical advice, you just. You go somewhere else. You go to a different. You go to a Different provider and that doctor. I mean, it's a meritocracy, or it's supposed to be. And that's not the case when it's a government bureaucrat. Again, that's why I think that when we're looking at the power of these bureaucrats and federal agencies, we have to understand the history a little bit that this idea of the administrative state was introduced, at least theoretically, by Woodrow Wilson. He thought that there should be this class of neutral bureaucrats that ran our federal government. I personally don't believe that there can be someone who is politically neutral. I think everyone has an opinion. Then LBJ and FDR expanded this administrative state. So now we have this bloated apparatus which a lot of people call the deep state because of all these politicos that work there that aren't accountable to the voter, in my opinion, and I want your take as a constitutional lawyer on this. In my opinion, the advent of this, or what really caused this to grow out of control was when the Supreme Court stopped applying the separation of powers doctrine. That, of course, was when Congress would delegate their legislative authority to the executive agency. The judicial branch used to not allow that, but then they stopped and they did allow Congress. And now look what we have. So I'd love to hear your take on that and how we reverse that.

[Michael Knowles]

So you're exactly right. It got exacerbated by a decision from the Supreme Court that was called the Chevron decision, where they created something that's called Chevron deference, which the courts now will defer to the judgment of an agency, even if the statute, even if the law doesn't require that outcome. If the expert agency has an outcome, they will defer to it if there's any ambiguity in the statute. I think there are a lot of folks, and I would count myself among them, who think Chevron was a mistake, that it contributed to the growth of the regulatory state. And you've got a couple of things at play here. Number one, and elected politicians like to shift power to the executive branch because they can avoid responsibility. They can pass a vague and general law, and then when the agency does something bad, they can say to their voters, hey, it's not me that did it. It's the EPA that did it. It's the agency, it's OSHA that did it. But secondly, there's a problem that we've seen that's called regulatory capture, and this is a notion from economics where you have regulators that are regulating a particular industry who become captured by it. They have a revolving door where people come from the agency to the private sector that they're regulating and back again, and they end up following the interests of the giant companies in that industry. So you see it in the aviation world with the FAA and a company like Boeing, and you look at the 737 Max, where there was an instance the FAA was not remotely effective enough in ensuring the safety of the 737 Max. With respect to Covid, you look at the FDA and just how in bed the FDA is with Big Pharma. I've seen some data with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that have suggested good results, particularly in the developing world. But both of those drugs are incredibly cheap. Both of those drugs you can get for pennies. Whereas Big Pharma, if you look at the treatments they're pushing, they're thousands of dollars. And I do think, like, there is a real question of agency capture. Why is it that the agency favors treatments that cost thousands of dollars versus treatments that cost pennies? And particularly in the weird politicized world where the fact that Trump said hydroxychloroquine good caused half the country to say it must be bad if Trump likes it, which is a really weird way to make medical or scientific decisions.

[Unknown]

Yes, that's. Well, that's science, if you're defining science as Dr. Fauci here. So get a little bit nerdier if you can on the Chevron deference here. I don't understand, Senator, why so many in the judiciary, and this is not just the Supreme Court, this is all levels, why there's such deference to precedent for the sake of precedent when precedent is so clearly unconstitutional. Now, you and I have talked about Dobbs versus Jackson, Women's Health. We talked about Roe v. Wade. We've talked about decisions that are obviously unconstitutional, that the left, there are judicial activists who actually don't want to overturn a demonstrably wrong and unconstitutional decision just because it's been, quote, unquote, settled for decades. So I don't understand that jurisprudence, if you want to call it a jurisprudence. But how do we undo the Chevron deference? Because it is incorrect. And you're right, Congress is never going to do anything about it because it makes their jobs easier not to be responsible for what they legislate.

[Michael Knowles]

So there's a doctrine courts follow that's called stare decisis. That is respect for precedent. It's following precedent. And look, stare decisis makes sense in that you want predictability in a legal system. You know, if you look at how laws are structured, there's a tension between rules and standards. Rules are clear, bright lines where you know which side you fall on them. Now they have the advantage of predictability. They have the advantage that ex ante beforehand you can know where you will be afterwards. The downside of clear bright line rules is sometimes that are unfair. Sometimes a line will result in a particular case where you say, well, gosh, that rule resulted in unfairness for this particular person because of some weird circumstances. On the other hand, standards, where things are flexible, they can respond to, oh, if it's unfair to do this here, let's not do it here. If it's fair to do it there, let's do it there. So you can respond to the exigencies of the circumstance. But the problem with standards is they're unpredictable. It's hard to predict on the front end what the answer will be. Stare decisis is a structural rule that you want players in our society, whether individuals, whether people looking at the civil law, whether people looking at the criminal law, whether companies to be able to predict the outcome. And so if you know, all right, there is this precedent, so the courts will follow this precedent, then you could order your behavior accordingly and say, okay, here's what the law is. You can go to your lawyers, ask what the law is, and you can know what it is that has an advantage. You want stability. You don't want the law changing willy nilly. But stare decisis is not absolute. There are times when precedents are wrong and precedents are overturned, and, and the courts have laid out rules for when precedent should be overturned. And the rules look to things like, have there been, has the law been settled? Have people had reliance interest on it? Has the law proven administrable? Has it proven. Sometimes there's a bad decision that just produces chaos and the courts say, okay, this didn't work. The courts also are more willing to follow stare decisis for a statutory question than they are for a constitutional question. Now why is that? Because a statutory question, which is the interpretation of a federal law passed by Congress, signed in law by the president, if the courts get it wrong, Congress can change the statute, and it does that sometimes. So if there's a statutory question, the courts get it wrong. Congress has the ability to fix it. So there's a higher protection for stare decisis in that instance because you want the predictability even if the court got it wrong with respect to the Constitution. There's more of a view that a constitutional Decision, if it is wrong, can be revisited. So, for example, the most famous overturning of precedent was Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld separate but equal. It upheld the discrimination in schools, and Brown vs Board of Education overturned Plessy. That was the right thing to do. Brown was the right decision. Plessy was wrong. During the argument in Dobbs, you had the Supreme Court justices asking the council, well, okay, look, here are all the decisions we've overruled, and they listed some big ones. Why doesn't Roe meet that standard? But how willing a justice is to overrule precedent that varies, justice by justice, I will say, by the way, as a final point on this, the liberals, it's not that they're devoted to stare decisis. They don't believe in stare decisis at all. They're devoted to left wing outcomes.

[Unknown]

Yep.

[Michael Knowles]

So they want stare decisis to be followed for left wing decisions. So Roe versus Wade, for them, stare decisis is critically important because they support Roe. They don't want stare decisis. When it comes to Heller, which is the Court's decision upholding the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the liberals would immediately overrule Heller. They don't want stare decisis when it comes to Citizens United, which protects our political speech and the right to engage and criticize politicians. They disagree with Citizens United. They would overturn it. So particularly for the left, when it comes to stare decisis, that is usually an excuse for whatever policy outcome they want, because the left views the courts as really very little different from a super legislature enacting the policy they agree with.

[Unknown]

Right. And so we have to get to. We don't have to. We want to get to a really funny question from the Verdict+subscriber pool here in just a second. But let me ask you a very quick yes or no question. Is there a possibility that Chevron deference, that Chevron could be overturned at the Supreme Court level?

[Michael Knowles]

So, yes, I think there's a good possibility. Especially Neil Gorsuch has been quite critical of Chevron deference. And it's a doctrine that has come under more and more criticism. I think there's a real possibility.

[Unknown]

Chevron's overturn because the left, as they have the past decade, has overshot. They've overshot on their abuse and the American people want to reject it. Okay, this is a really funny question. I saw this one. It's not a policy question at all. This is from Paul on the Verdict plus Community. Paul says, is Ted Short for Theodore. Is Liz short for Elizabeth? And is Michael short for Michelangelo?

[Michael Knowles]

Ooh, I like that. So I'll address my piece of it at least. So Ted is actually not short for Theater Theodore. My full name is Rafael Edward Cruz. Rafael is after my father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, who's Cuban. My middle name, Edward, is after my grandfather, my mother's father, who was Edward Darrah. So sometimes people refer to me as Eduardo. No, he was Irish and Italian. He was not. Or actually he was Irish. My grandmother was Irish and Italian. It was Edward. And Ted is a nickname for Edward. And so that's where Ted comes from.

[Unknown]

And Liz is short for Elizabeth. I will answer on behalf of Michael and say that it's not short for Michelangelo. It's short for St. Michael. Kidding. Obviously kidding. This actually will be a test to see if Michael does watch this series, because if he does, you know he'll comment on it. If you are not already a subscriber over on Verdict, please join us at verdictwithtedcruise.com I have a promo code for you. The promo code is, of course, Cloakroom. If you use this promo code, you will get one month free on your annual subscription. So go to verdict with TedCruz.com and use promo code cloakroom. I'm Liz Wheeler. This is the Cloakroom on Verdict.

[Liz Wheeler]

This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom, and Security pac, 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.