Chipping Away at Democracy, LIVE at Yale University

Yale University. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict with Ted Cruise is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now, the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of gas is way up, the price of housing is up, the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately, given the way that our current administration prints money and spends money, experts don't see this

going away, This inflation going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money, your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence, Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy to get started. All it takes is a short phone call and they will have physical gold

and silver delivered right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your four O N K or your IRA, they make it easy. If you call them right now, then they will give you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on your first order. So don't wait, call them right now. Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three. Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word cactus to six five five

three two. Again, the phone number is eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three, or text the word tactus to six five five three two. Today's episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by ip vanish. 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 way to hackers, advertisers,

your internet service provider, and who knows who else. Ip vanish helps you securely and privately browse the Internet by encrypting one hundred percent 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. Ip Vanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple. Just for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering an insane

seventy percent off their annual plan. That's like getting nine months for free. You have to go directly to ip vanish dot com slash cactus to get this seventy percent off discount. Ip vanish is super easy to use. Just tap one and you're instantly protected. You won't even know it's on. You can use ip vanish on your computers, tablets, and phones, whether you're at home or in public. Don't go online without using ip vanish. Don't forget. Verdict listeners

get seventy percent off the ip vanish annual plan. Just go to ip vanish dot com slash cactus to claim your discount and secure your online life. That's ip v a nish dot com slash cactus. I love Yale. This is my alma mater. I love Yale. I don't know if my alma mater loves me quite so much, but I love it, and I'm so dismayed when I see Yale at the forefront of shutting down speech. Just last week, a Kristen Wagoner, a conservative lawyer, was shouted down at

Yale Law School. This is supposed to be the number one law school in America. Someone actually said in the room a Yale law student, I'll fight you, b I tch. That's the kind of discourse we're seeing here. I remember some years ago there was a gal we call her Shrieking Girl, an undergraduate screaming at her professor saying, this is not an intellectual space. This is supposed to be a place of comfort and home for me. Senator, what's going on in the IVY League. Well, Michael, I'm very

glad to see that they're teaching spelling at Yale. And I will say, you know, it's it's you have been longing to come back here for the two and a half years we've been doing this podcast. We went on the road. We did a campus tour last year, and I have to say I still remember we were at Catholic University in Washington, d C. And afterwards a student comes up and ask you, Michael, to cite and to recite rather Dante's Inferno in the original Italia. This is true.

This is two of you proceeded to do so almost in three part harmony. And so my question is number one, can you do it again? At number two? What are the students at Yale going to ask you today, Senator? When I was an undergrad graduate here and I was a single man, I had to let it's hard to believe. I had to learn some Italian poetry because look, I wasn't on the football team. Okay, I didn't have It was the best I could. Yale has a football team,

all right, I had to get something the football tea. Guys, they're the only conservatives at the whole school. So all right, fair enough, but I did. The question is a really good one, Senator, which is, okay, if you're at Catholic you they have you recite Dante? What do they have you recite at Yale? And I fear the answer is, I don't know Fuco Ibraham Kendy. These days, I don't know Robin DeAngelo. It isn't this state of American higher education.

Though we're all having fun here together tonight, no one has busted down the door yet and yelled, any four and five letter words at us, the state of American higher education? Okay, it's it's only here that profanities are five letter words. Well, no, the one arts goes to eleven is that we just put extra lines some in French, you know. But the state of American higher education, yeah, is in It is in a sorry state. So what happened. We're supposed to be with the elites. We're supposed to

be with the future leaders. Everyone who matriculates at Yale is told you're going to be president for three terms. You're the greatest person in the world. And yet why are our elites doing such a poor job of things? Look, higher education has embraced the idea that the school is about not challenging you, is about making you comfortable. The whole point of a university is to make you uncomfortable. The whole point of a university is to challenge you

with ideas. Posit as a crazy idea that when you enter college at eighteen, every idea you believe maybe is not fully formed and you don't entirely under understand the entirety of the universe. If that's true, the most im poor and value of college is encountering others who challenge your ideas, who challenge your assumptions, who make you think and and look. I mean, when I went to school, I had a lot of professors who I disagreed with profoundly.

I thought it was very useful to hear their worldview, hear what they're saying, because at the end of the day, most of the stuff you learn in college you're not going to do for your career. I mean most of the you know, you know, think how many classes you had in college that are useful to being a world class podcaster? Stopic, get out of here, plush. You know. I did take bartending at Princeton. That has been useful. That's a hard skill. But look, at the end of

the day, what you're learning is how to think. And if you're only encountering ideas you agree with, then by definition, you're not learning how to think. That that's the most pernicious part of it at all, is that training people in group think, training people you cannot think different Fritenly, you know, Galileo was told the same thing. It didn't

work out well. Science, philosophy, literature, they're all about challenging assumptions, challenging what you think and the very dynamic that you have. And look what happened to Yale Law School. What's sad about that is it's not unusual. Yeah, you see it happening at universities all over the country where speakers come in. I mean, in that instance, Kristen Wagner, who was there, is a Supreme Court advocate who had just won a case by a vote of seven to two at the

US Supreme Court. Now I get it. The students at Yale Law School. They didn't like that case. They didn't like that case. They were upset about it. So instead of coming in and saying, well, you know what, I think the justice has got it wrong. You know what I think, I think the Constitution says something. And instead of doing what one would imagine Yale lawyers would be capable of doing, which is presenting arguments and reasoning, they instead try to exercise the Heckler's veto and just screen

down anyone who disagrees. That's not just harmful on the particular issue that they're not hearing the other side, it's harmful for thinking in life. And I got to tell you, when you come out of school, most places you work are not safe spaces. Most bosses are not going to be overly worried about injuring your fragile feelings. And so I think the point of education is prepare you for life, and that means encountering things that make you uncomfortable, that

make you doubt, that make you question. That's really what an education is all about. I joked when your former or not classmate, but fellow Harvard law graduate, judge Katangi Jackson, when she failed to answer the question what is a woman? When she laughed, she said, can I answer? Of course I can't answer that question. I'm not a biologist. When she did that, my first thought was, only someone with two degrees from Harvard could be so stupid as to not know what a woman is. And and so I

don't know. I mean, as you say, there are these problems at all of the universities, but to me, it seems more. It actually seems more pronounced in the Ivy League, these supposedly prestigious institutions, where it seems that whatever you see about free speech on other campuses. Yale Law School is supposed to be the top law school in the country, screaming profanity is at a lawyer for having an open discussion. How do you fix that? I don't want to sound

like the old man. Back in my day things were better, but things really do seem to have gotten worse. Michael. One of the things I love about you, as I'm confident since you were five years old, you've been the old man yelling get off my lawn. And I came out of the womb with a cigar in my teeth. You know, hair parted. Yes, your mother's still ticked off about it hurts. It hurts, YEA. Look, we need to be, particularly in the so called elite institutions, willing to think

for ourselves. You're right. Schools like Yale, the students are told all the time you are the leaders of the world. You are the future Bill Clinton's of the world. The kid who wrote that op ed calling for people to boycott us, he said, there is a great power and responsibility that comes with being a Yale and the kid is eighteen years old. This is what This is what these students are told. Look, and I think it's part of why, if anything, the censorship is greater, because the

fear is greater at an institution like this. Every student here worked your tail off. Since you were in kindergarten. You were struggling with the perfect attendance. You were struggling to put the apple on the teacher's desk, you were struggling to be in student council and drama and debate and football and underwater basket we don't even know what,

but but it was. You know. Look, you recall the speech that it seems deans give about their a gazillion valedictorians in the world, we turn half of them down, and that when you get into a place like you now, I wouldn't know, but I would imagine today there's a sense of relief of okay, all right, I've made it. But there's also a sense of terror of O crap, like like like what if I lose it? What if I anger the gods of Yale? Yeah, although I don't.

I'm not sure God or man are allowed it yet, you know, no more mostly mostly demons and people of unspecified gender. Yeah, but but but but look, it is, when you've worked very hard for something, you're often afraid to lose it. And if you're afraid to lose it, you don't want to take risks um all right, I remember coming out of coming out of law school, coming

out of a clerkship. So I clerked for a judge in the Court of Appeals clerk to on the Supreme Court, I'm clerking for Chief Justice Ranquist, which who was an amazing friend and amazing boss. And I remember coming out, you got thirty six Supreme Court law clerks coming out, and almost all of them were unbelievably risk averse. They were going to big, fancy law firms because that's the next blue chip thing to do, unless you go become law professors and train other people to continue to perpetuate

the cycle. I remember when I came out, I went to a little bitty law firm. It had six lawyers, it was nine months old, and I thought it was fascinating. Listening to a lot of my co clerks and they were like, well, wait, that's really risky. Why would you do that. You don't know if this firm is going to survive. You don't know if it'll go under. And listen, when I was looking for a law firm, I was

looking for lawyers. I wanted to work for lawyers that I wanted to come carry their briefcase and just you know the way Abraham Lincoln learned to be a lawyer was literally carrying a briefcase and studying and apprenticing under someone. That's still the best way to become a lawyer. And I remember the other clerks said, well, what if it goes bankrupt or, like the lead lawyer at the firm is a guy named Chuck Cooper, one of the top Supreme Court lawyers of the country, a very dear friend.

And they said, well, you know, Chuck Cooper could become the US Solicitor General in another Republican administration. He could become the top lawyer for the government for the United States in front of the the Preme Court. I remember thinking, a Okay, why is it a bad thing if your boss, when you're brand new and starting your career, goes on to become the top lawyer for the United States of America in the Supreme Court? And why would you want

to work for someone who wouldn't be considered for that job? Right? And fine, if it's a little bitty law firm and it's nine months old, if they go bankrupt in a year, you know what, I felt confident I could get another job, Like if there's any value to working your tail off and trying to build some academic credentials in a history. It was like, look, I don't think I'm unemployable. Yea,

it took politics to make me unemployable. But that I remember being fascinated at the mindset of the clerks that they had worked so hard that risk terrified them. And I think you see that manifested at universities across the country. But I think the Ivy League it is more intense because there's more fear of the risk and the uncertainty. I've seen exactly that. I remember it when I was in college, not that I guess it was ten years ago now, but I as far as I can tell

visiting campuses, things remain the same. The students at these name brands schools. You know, ten years ago Joe Biden was vice president. That's true according to Obama. Still is that's a good point. So gosh, now you're bringing me back to the worst memory I have in college. I just got their freshman year. I'm so excited to need you to share all. No, No, it's not that much.

It's not that one door. No. I had just gotten here and it was the two thousand and eight election, and I thought, oh, this is going to be great. I'm gonna have such a great time on campus. And then then Obama wins and three thousands people. I don't

know that. Thousands of people come out. They're celebrating. You see wafts of marijuana clouds coming up from the Green people drinking, and in a dorm on Old Campus one of the freshman dorms is me and about six other Republicans just drinking vodka out of the handles, say oh, no things, everything's going downhill. But I did notice this with the conservatives. It's actually very similar to your preparation routine for the podcast. It's true, if it ain't broke,

don't fix it. You know, it's obviously worked a long time. I noticed this with the campus conservatives. They're willing to wear the bow tie. Generally, they're willing to go and advocate for lower taxes and deregulation, maybe even smaller government. But on a lot of say cultural issues, the issues that the ruling elite really don't want you to touch, they won't touch them either. They'll sometimes say things like I'm a conservative, but I'm not that kind of a conservative. No, no,

I'm still a fashionable one. And I think it's to protect the job at Goldman Sachs. I think it is that same risk aversion that you're describing. Look, I think you're right, and I think you see in the conservative world generally people being cautious and risk averse. And part of it is, Look, everyone likes to be liked, particularly young people. I mean, there's a reason peer pressure is a thing. Right. You know, you're at college, you want to go out, you want to have a good time.

You know, ideally you'd like to find someone you think is attractive, and you know, see what happens. Although I remember when I showed up as a college freshman, there was there was a T shirt that was popular. It said on the front sex Kills and on the back

it said come to Princeton, Live Forever. There's a lot of truth to that, but look, people are there is no doubt the positive peer pressure when I was in school, when you were in cool, but even more so today that if you take an unpopular position, you risk being denigrated, you risked being ostracized. And so people opt at a minimum to just shut up about it, yea, to just say, you know what, I'm going to keep my views quiet.

How you come through that, I think is one of the real testing aspects of education, right right, can you withstand that or like the vast majority, do you just kind of go along, go with the flow, go along with the crowd, and lose whatever principle you might have had. This does bring us to your colleague, senator in the United States Senate. You're Republican, colleagues, we have just confirmed a woman that you say is the most radical Supreme Court justice in the history of this country. I agree.

The woman can't well, sorry, the person cannot tell you what a woman is. And she is supportive of critical race theory, talks about the founders of that movement by name. She has lauded the sixteen nineteen project, which says America is evil from the very beginning. It's based on a false thesis about slavery. So this woman is very far

to the left. And yet when I looked at the Senate confirmation hearings over who was grilling Katangi Jackson, it was you and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton a little bit, and that was pretty much it. And all of the other Republican Senators were sitting there twiddling their thumbs and in some cases actually encouraging this woman who's now the furthest left judge we've ever had on the court. What gives well, look, risk, aversion doesn't end when you're twenty one.

It doesn't end when you're in college. It doesn't end when you're in grad school. It doesn't end when you start your first job. And in the world of politics, if you dare to take on the oar the doxy, you get demonized. I promise you. In the what twenty minutes we've been sitting here, there have been a thousand tweets telling me to go do things that are anatomically impossible. Good night, everybody. Look it is And if you're a Republican senator, it is not complicated that this nomination was

an historic first. Anytime a Republican opposes a Democratic Supreme Court nomination, you are certain to be vilified by the media. All the more so if that nominee happens to be the first African American woman nominated the court. It means going into it, you know, to a certainty, if you say anything, if you say good morning, you'll be called a racist, you'll be called a sexist, You'll be demonized. And look, today's Democrats, that's their opening line to begin with,

no matter what you say. But in this context, I can tell you among the Republican Senators, most of them went into this nomination scared of their own shadow. They didn't want to be held up as the modern day clansmen, which if you said any critical question, that was the attack that was coming on top of that. Look, why is it we care about who's on the Supreme Court? This is something I cared deeply about. I think a

lot of Americans care deeply about it. The reason I believe we care about it is the Supreme Court has been the institution throughout history that has played the most pivotal role for protecting our fundamental rights, for protecting free speech, for protecting religious liberty, for protecting the right to keep in bear arms, for protecting our safety and security of our families, by ensuring that the criminal laws are enforced. You know, this was one that I'll confess I felt

conflicted about it. I've known Katangi for thirty years. We were in law school together. We were one year a part in law school, were on the law of you together. She is someone that on a personal level, she's very smart, she's charming, she has an easy smile. Everybody who knows her likes her. But at the end of the day, a Supreme Court nomination is not about whether someone is

smart or talented, or whether you like them. It is about what their record are, what their record is, and what kind of job they will do in the position. And as I examined her record, I came to the conclusion that a record demonstrated that she will be the furthest left of any of the justices that have ever served on the Court. Now there's some people that want Actually that to me is comforting. It's comforting that there's that many people applauding, because that suggests that there's a

wide difference of opinion in this room. I think that's fantastic. I'm actually glad for everyone who applauded there, because if you're left of center, thank you for coming out, thank you for being part of a conversation. If you're starting from a perspective that you don't agree with me, if you're starting from a perspective that you don't agree with Michael, then it is wonderfully and refreshingly open minded that you're here and willing to have this conversation that you don't

start from the perspective of I can't hear you. That's very positive, But I do think in the confirmation now Justice Jackson, her record was far out of the mainstream. And it's worth pointing out too, because now President Biden is trying to suggest that this was the most vicious

attack on any Supreme Court nominee in history. When Brett Kavanaugh was up, they called him a a rapist without any evidence whatsoever, and because of the testimony of a woman who contradicted herself many times, and whose testimony was contradicted by everyone who was even supposedly around her at the time, by another woman who certainly never met Breck Havanaugh ever, and by a felon lawyer who's currently doing

time for wire fraud. So CNN said he could be the Democratic presidential nominator, right, a fellon lawyer who may still become the Democrat nominee someday. And so you had that with the Katanshie Jackson confirmation process. You Senator and

a couple of your colleagues just quoted her court opinions. Yeah, you know, it reminds me of one of my favorite podcasts you and I did was oh over a year ago with a Fellowdaymeric Weinstein, who's a very bright man, brilliant man, but he's politically left of Senate, and we had a long pod with a pretty vigorous discussion on lots of issues. But I remember the topic of Supreme Court nominations came up and he made a point. He said, well,

they're nasty, but everybody doesn't. Both sides do it, you know, it's just the nature of politics. And as you'll recall, and by the way, i'd encourage you that that's a fun podcast to go back and listen to, because we had some very i think substantive discussions and disagreements, respectful and civil. But the point I made to him, as I said, look, that's not true. If you look at the really nasty confirmations, the confirmations that got personal and ugly,

it's only one party that does this. Whether it was Robert Bourke, whether it was Clarence Thomas, or whether it was Brett Cavanaugh. It has been the Democrats that go into the gutter with the kind of personal attacks that those confirmation hearings featured, and Republicans have not. And I don't believe will engaged in that before we get to the wonderful leftists in the room, who will get a chance to ask questions and perhaps try to refute things

that we've said. We always have this rule. If you disagree with us, you get to cut to the front of the line. This really doesn't jibe with my authoritarian tendencies, but we deal with it. We let it happen. It's fine, it's fine. So we will get to that before that, though, I do want to close out this issue of the confirmation. Where was the conservative movement? So look, it's a very

good question. This past week I sat down with a number of leaders of the conservative movement, and I got to say, the movement, most of the organization's right of center, were largely absent from the fight over Katani Brown Jackson, and I think the reasons were a couple of fold One, I think conservative groups and organizations, just like a lot of Republican senators, were terrified at being vilified for daring to oppose the first African American woman nominated the court,

so they didn't want to have the fight. Secondly, there is a reasoning that many people found persuasive, which is that Justice Jackson was nominated to replace Stephen Briar. Stephen Briar is a left of center justice, and so the argument went, you're replacing one left of center justice for another. It doesn't change the underlying balance of power on the court, so it's not worth the fight. Now, I'm not convinced

that's right. I will say, of the left leaning justices on the Court, Briar has been the most conservative of the liberals, which is not to say remotely conservative, but to give an example, you know, one of the cases that I litigated when I was Slicitor General of Texas was a case called Van Ord versus Texas, Van Orden versus Perry, rather and Van Ordon versus Perry was challenging the display of the Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds, and that case went all the way to

the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court upheld Texas's monument by a vote of five

to four. Now, what's interesting in that case, as I had spent thousands of hours getting ready for that case, and we'd written our brief trying to really just mind meld with Sandra Day O'Connor, who Justice O'Connor, at the time, was the swing vote on the cord and so I tried to put every argument in fact that you know, one of the lawyers in my office asked, They said, Ted, is it possible to be too obsequious to Justice O'Connor,

And I said, no, it is not. I want the most common words in this brief to be O'Connor comma jay. I want them more common than and or THEE. And if we can put an oil portrait of Justice O'Connor on the cover of our brief, I think that would be tasteful and appropriate. Well, I tried to pitch those all of those arguments. Every argument I aimed at Justice O'Connor missed, and she voted to strike down the monument.

And yet, amazingly, the arguments that I aimed at Justice O'Connor found hurtle ground was Stephen Bryer, and Justice Bryer was our necessary fifth vote. We won five four because Steve Brier voted to uphold the Texas Ten Commandments monument. Now, I will say we were replacing who was the most conservative of the left leaning justices with a justice who I believe and to be honest, you can only assess these things after a decade or two, so we'll know

sometime in the future whether this prediction is right. But based on her record, I think she will prove to be the furthest left of those justices. That's a meaningful shift, but I got to tell you it was amazing. So we're engaged in this confirmation hearing, and normally in a judicial confirmation hearing, particularly a Supreme Court fight, there's an

ecosystem on right and left that rise up. So when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated, there's all these left leaning groups that are funded with millions of dollars that are attacking him, that are funding attacks by the way, that are sending protesters to Washington to show up in the hearing and scream and yell and yell at senators and elevators. There's an elevator we call the Jeff Flake Memorial Elevator because it's where these protesters who were on the payroll of

a leftist organization screamed at him. I'm glad that you didn't see conservatives hiring people just to scream and yell and throw a fit. But they also engage in research and what was fascinating so when the issue about her Lenian sentences came up, the first response that Democrats had was, well, a lot of federal judges sentence defendants, particularly defendants in

child pornography cases, to below the federal sentencing guidelines. And that argument is actually a reasonable argument if you look just at the first iteration of the back and forth, they had a reasonable point with some some real basis for it. The next iteration of the argument, however, was she was not just sentencing below the guideline. She was sentencing far, far, far below what the prosecutor was asking for any in each case, every case where she had discretion,

she went way below the prosecutor. And then, as we're talking about it amidst Republican senators, several Republican senators asked the question, well, how does her sentencing compare to other federal judges across the country. It's a good question. It was a reasonable question I asked my team. Initially, I said, look, surely someone is doing comprehensive research on a record this ought to be available. So my team reached out to

the likely organizations that would be doing this research. Nobody had done any research. You know that it had the situation been reversed, the left would have a dossier, and they did. They did for Neil Gorsuch, they did for Amy Coney Barrett, they did for Brett Cabnaugh. For all three, massive amounts of money were spent. The failure of the conservative movement. The movement did nothing to inform any one of the facts of this very disturbing The movement should

have come up with all the fodder for the tough questions. Now, speaking of tough questions, I want to get some tough questions from the audience. Shall we bring out our friend Liz Wheeler to field the questions. Welcome back, Thank you, thank you. I just want to say I noticed that when you were throwing the merch out at the beginning, the hats and the shirts, that you didn't have enough

for the whole audience. So I just want to let everyone know if you use my promo code live, you can get ten percent off on the Verdict with Ted Cruz dot com slash shop on the Merch store. This is what we call a shameless plug. But I gotta say one of the coolest things that set up here that I just saw shortly before we started filming is somehow we've gotten to be able to project the cactus on the wall, which I just think is is really cool. We've never done that before, so whoever came up with

that that was very clever. They're going to paint it afterward as a monument to this show, and then we'll all be prosecuted for vandalism. I think it's very complimentary to the chandeliarly. So are we ready for some questions? Yes? And the rule really does stand. I know I joked sincerely about how much I hate the rule, but if you disagree with us, you really are allowed to cut to the front of the line. So just indicate that up there and we look forward to hearing from you.

William F. Buckley Junior used to say a conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling stop. Does this definition still apply to today's political climate? Ooh, good question. Something that has misunderstood about that statement is he was speaking about history with a capital H. He was speaking about the Marxist conception of history as a science that can be known with certainty, and it comes from a popular line from the left, which is I have seen the

future and it works. And so Buckley is responding to that and saying, no, whatever you think the future is,

we are going to stand athwart that yelling stop. And so this statement is perfectly right inasmuch as Buckley is saying in the nineteen fifties, the conservative is one who is stopping communism, and he brought together a coalition of three disparate groups, the traditionalists who hated the iconoclasm and atheism of the Soviet Union, the libertarians who hated the collectivism, and the warhawk Democrats, for lack of a better word,

the people who hated the USSR as imperial ambitions. And those three groups didn't have a whole lot in common, but they had a common enemy, and so they fought the Soviet Union and they won. I mean, for all that we knocked that coalition today, it was successful and it did win the Cold War. So I think he was perfectly right at the time to say that the land Wall fell thirty years ago. And conservatives who are

just playing reruns of the nineteen eighties on YouTube. Frankly, I myself sometimes do it as comfort food, you know, I'm I go in on a cozy night and play old Reagan clips. But that isn't going to cut it. I'm confident with your wife. That's very romantic it say honey, just one more please. You know, Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley fought their battles and now they're resting. Let them rest. Don't dig up their bodies and try to revivify them.

Learn from them. I mean, that's something that we're trying to do here at the Buckley Program, right. The William F. Buckley Junior Program at Yale isn't about playing the hits from the eighties or the seventies of the sixties. It's about applying timeless principles and an understanding of the conservative tradition to the real circumstances today. So, Michael, I have to say, I'm deeply disappointed that we are in New Haven, Connecticut.

We're at your alma mater. You just got asked question about William Buckley, and you sat up straight, No, you're right, and argued in plain, clearly enunciated English. Could you try it again? And answered appropriately. Well. I'll be joined for the full hour today by Senator Ted Cruise. If I do not do my William of Buckley Junior impression, he will smash me in my damn face. I will stay plots stood too? Does that do it very nice? Is that? Thank you very much? Thank you? Than true for sure?

And this is demonstration before it became a podcaster, Michael was a frustrated actor and before that half a wasp. So I've been tree. You know, I've been trying my blue blood accent for a while. Yea, all right. Our next question is actually going to be from Verdict Plus. If you are a subscriber on Verdict plus this community, you get exclusive access to ask the Senator questions, not just not just in live events, but on a regular basis. That's where we also host the Cloakroom. So this next

question is from username godzill the rules. This is a question, Senator. I picked it because of the question I promised, not because of the user name. That was just part of it. Senator, if Republicans take the House, who would be the speaker? It's a good question. I think the answer probably will be Kevin McCarthy. I will say this, I stay out of speaker elections. I've got enough battles on the Senate side of things. You know, back when I arrived in

the Senate, John Bayner was the speaker. Bayinner and I friends yeah. Yeah. Let me just just say we had pretty significant differences of opinion. To put it mildly, I think it is likely that McCarthy, if there's a majority, will be speaker. Now it's not clear he will stay speaker. The job of Speaker of the House is a very difficult job. It is like hurting cats. There is wide disagreement among Republicans, and I think if there's discontent in

the ranks, he could be replaced. But I think given that he's been Republican leader in the minority, given that he's working very hard to take the majority, I would be surprised if House Republicans didn't at least given the first crack at leading. And if he does a good job, then presumably he'll stay speaker. Well, conservative critics would say that he leans to establishment and that he's not based enough. What say you to I love Liz, how you phrase that?

You know? Some conservative critics might say, you know conservative critics whose name rhyme with wiz Leely Perhaps that's the fun part of moderating the questions as I get to throw my own in. So look, I had been through now multiple Republican leaders in the House when I arrived at was John Bayner. Bayner loathed conservatives. There are conservatives in the House, and it was interesting because he had started out as a relative tively conservative House member before

he began climbing the wrongs of leadership. But by the time he was speaker, I would I would encounter House Republicans who would just tell me about He'd walk up to them at on the floor and just say, f you like to their faith. And Bayner's kind of an interesting fellow, and that he's had all sorts of interesting things to say about me. He's described me as Lucifer in the flesh. He's described me as the most miserable

son of a bitch he's ever worked with. And the irony is, I've never worked with him, so I don't know John Baynard my whole life. I have not spoken fifty words to banter. So it's kind of a curious thing. And so he came out with a book recently that I think nobody read, although when he was recording his video for it, he did a video of the audio book and he's drinking copious amounts of red wine and chain smoking, and in the middle of the video he's

reading a segment of the book completely unrelated. He looks in the camera and says, fu ted Cruz, like in the middle of the video. And so a friend of mine gave me this book. It may have been the one copy purchased. And so I did what's called the Washington read. So the Washington read. As you take a book, you go look in the index to see what they say about you, and you go skim through to figure out whatever. So I did that, said, all right, let's

see what he asked to say. And what was fascinating. He actually describes why he loves me so much. And he said, look, when Cruz arrived in January of twenty thirteen, he said, the crazies among the House Republicans, by which he means the Conservatives, they had been largely beaten down and Cruz got there and he convinced them. Suddenly they believed they could fight for something. Suddenly they believed they could do something. And he said, that made my life miserable.

So that was bainer when it started. Ultimately, I think he was so antagonistic to conservatives it cost him the speakership. He was toppled. Ultimately, the next speaker was Paul Ryan Paul Ryan was substantially less antagonistic to conservatives than Bayiner. Now, Paul had been in Washington a long time. Paul had been When he arrived, he was a young Turk charging the castle. And I think after twenty years, the Paul Ryan twenty years into it was very different from the

Paul Ryan who had at first arrived in Washington. But Paul had a better relationship with conservatives in the House. He was no longer one of them, but it was less actively antagonistic than Bayer had been. You now have McCarthy and McCarthy. It's interesting, I think idea logically, Kevin is the most moderated three. If you actually look at where Kevin's personal views are, he's the least conservative of the three. But he also is the least antagonistic to

House conservatives. And right now I would say House conservatives get along with him pretty well. Now, in some ways, it's easier to get along with the leader of House Republicans when you're in the minority. When you're in the minority and everyone's voting no, there are fewer fracture lines for disagreement. I think we're more likely to find disagreement next year if we see Republican majorities in both houses.

Look the singular cause of the disagreements I've had with Mitch McConnell, and Mitch and I have battled like crazy in the Senate. The major cause of those has been on the question of how much can we stand up and fight the agenda, whether a Barack Obama or Joe Bia and so with McCarthy, I think time will tell how he navigates those waters. I'm less concerned about where he personally is ideologically, and I'm more concerned if and when he becomes a speaker, with how he leads and

whether I'm a big believer. When you got the majority, you got to do something with It doesn't mean you fight everything. If you fight everything, you're fighting nothing. But it does mean that you pick some issues that matter that you care about, and you stand up and fight and make a difference. And I think if Kevin does that, he'll be more likely to keep the job, and if he doesn't, he may not. Right, my name is Maya Cook. Good evening, Senator, Cuz, thank you so much for coming

to Yale this evening. And I think in the spirit of the Buckley Programs, celebration of intellectual diversity. I wanted to take a moment to celebrate our newest addition to the Supreme Court of the US. Who I know, we've already talked about Justice Jackson. You're here tonight, though in the name of fostering intellectual diversity in academic spaces. It would appear to me that you already recognize the importance

of new perspectives. And as a young woman, seeing Justice Jackson on the Supreme Court is invigorating, truly, And on Tuesday it baffled me that you would ask such flagrantly racist questions to this exceedingly well qualified candidate. Your colleagues in the GOP promised a respectful and dignified hearing for Justice Jackson, and to me, you did not uphold this. So today I wanted to create a space where you might be able to challenge your own thinking, as prudent

scholars often do. So I'm here to ask you what are two nice comments you can give about recent nominee Justice Jackson's judicial experience. Besides from she has an easy smile. Yeah. Well, let me start by thanking you for being here and thank you for asking a substantive, important question, Thank you for engaging in a conversation. I think we all would be better off if we engage in substantive conversations. There's

a lot to praise about Judge Jackson. She is very very bright, she is very very accomplished, she is very talented. She has an impressive and inspiring personal story. I will say, sitting listening to her opening remarks where she described her personal story, she described her parents journey, you had to be dead not to be inspired by that journey and listen.

I will say, more broadly, if you look at the history of our country, if you look at the history of our country on race, it is absolutely inspiring to see an African American woman serving on the Supreme Court. I will also point out that when it comes to issues of race, I think both the press and the modern left are hypocritical on this question, that they only define someone as black, or they only define someone as Hispanic if they agree with them ideologically. So Clarence Thomas

has been on the Court for decades. Clarence Thomas is a black man. The Left hates him. They despise Clarence Thomas. And I'll tell you, by the way, the treatment of Clarence Thomas on the left is markedly different than say antonin Scalia. Antonin Scalia was brilliant. He and Justice Thomas were every bit as conservative. And yet the vitriol that was heaped on Clarence Thomas nasty racist language from the left. There was one magazine cover that that showed Clarence Thomas

as an uncle Tom sitting at Scalia's feet. I think was racist and disgusting. And listen, I will say this as an Hispanic man, As an Hispanic man, Jorge Ramos went on television in Spanish and described me as a traitor to my race for daring. Okay, look, that says something about the view of the left that they're telling you you have one way to view things in one way only, and if you don't, we'll demonize and attack you.

So look. And by the way, in terms of having the first African American woman on the Supreme Court, there was an opportunity for this to happen twenty years ago. There's a judge named Janice Rogers Brown. Janice Rogers Brown was a Supreme Court justice on the California Supreme Court. George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit. At the beginning of beginning of his presidency, he nominated Judge Brown in the DC Circuit. The Democrats filibuster Judge Brown.

That filibuster was led by a guy named Joe Biden. It also included people like Chuck Schumer. It included Pat lagh, He included Diane Feinstein, they Philip The reason they filibustered Judge Janice Rogers Brown is because she was a black woman, but she was also conservative and they did not want her to go to the Supreme Court, and they succeeded in filibusting her. They delayed her nomination for a couple of years until it finally went through. She finally went

to the DC Circuit. Now, everyone who was rumphing in the media that if you oppose an African American woman who's a qualified judge, you're a racist. Precisely zero of them thought it was racist for Democrats, including Joe Biden, to filibuster Annis Rodgers Brown. By the way, there was another nominee that Bush put forward, a guy named Miguelistrata mcguel. It's an incredibly qualified Supreme Court advocate. He was nominated

the DC Circuit as well. The Democrats philibustered him. If you read the memos that were leaked from Ted Kennedy's lawyers, Here's what Ted Kennedy's lawyers said about Miguelistrata. They said, we must stop him quote because he is Hispanic. That's what Ted Kennedy's lawyers said in writing. Now, I'm going to suggest to you, if you oppose somebody because of their race, that is the definition of racist. And look, I'll point out in your question you said that my

questioning of Judge Jackson was you use the term racist. Listen. Racism is a horrific evil in this country. It is also an insult that the left tosses around casually. I would welcome if you look at the questions I asked Judge Jackson. Every single question I asked her concerned her record, either her record as a judge sentencing defendants before her, or her record writing academic materials and law reviews, or

her record giving speeches to law schools. All of that is the job of the Senate in the advice and consent process. And so respectfully, I could not disagree more deeply when you say it is racist to examine a judge based on their record. If the Democrats wanted to oppose Janice Rogers Brown because they opposed conservatives. You know, do you think the Democrats were all sexist when they voted party line against Amy Coney Barrett. I'm willing to

bet you don't, because she's not a liberal woman. So you can't have it both ways, which is that when a Democratic nominee has a certain characteristic, anyone who opposes them as racist or sexist or what have you. But when a Republican nominee has those characteristic it's open season and you can go after them full force, and the

left is righteous in doing so. The standard should be the same, and I'm going to suggest what the standard should be is we should examine people based on their actual record and whether into what extent that record demonstrates they will defend the constitutional rights of all Americans. I think that's what people care about. Mika. I do want to add one thing, as a young professional woman similar to you, I do want to speak to however you

identify um. I do think it's important to look at exactly what happened with Katanji Brown Jackson as it relates to the progress that women have made in our country. And by that, I mean how Joe Biden has taken us backwards in the progress that we have made moving away from sexism. Because when conservatives say that Katanji Brown Jackson was nominated by Joe Biden because of her race and because of her gender, we're not inferring that. Joe

Biden said that himself. He said he was going to nominate someone because she was a woman, and because she was a black woman. And as women, ourselves as minorities, this should be extremely insulting to us. It reduces us to tokens. It is tokenism, it's racial tokenism, and it's it's sexism. And this is this is the fundamental problem

with the idea of equity right. It leaves women wondering did I get the job based on my qualifications and my resume, or did I get the job because I am part of a gender quota, because I have been reduced to my genitalia. And so I would challenge young women to reject what Joe Biden has done. I would challenge young women to acknowledge that this is actually racial discrimination and gender discrimination. And the people who lose the most are women who not only are they left to

wonder about themselves? Their co workers and their colleagues are also left to wonder did this woman? Did this black woman achieve what she achieved based on her merits or because of the color of her skin or her gender? Hello, my name is Evan M. Assuming that would end global hunger, would you pilate another man? Actually, I do have an answer to this, all right? I act? Do you think it is better that the alien answer this? You know, there's a line and there's a line of American psycho

about that Yale thing. I think that's when our questioner is alluding to a Like a typical left wing undergraduate, you are engaging in consequentialist ethics. You are attempting to justify flavorantly immoral behavior to achieve a good end. And I tell you, my friend, the ends do not justify the means. Absolutely absolutely not. I am curious with that, young fellow. If it would solve world hunger, would you

vote for Donald Trump? All right? Hello, Senator Cruz. My name is pre and I'm a community college transfer student and current undergrad junior at Yale. Are you aware of the radical left protests occurring on the popular mobile game among us, what are you doing to protect our youth from this and other online indoctrination? So I'll confess I'm not and you don't say, all right, so among us? I've played it a couple of times with my daughters and it's sort of fun. But but if there's a

radical protest on it, I don't know about it. You always surprise me. I haven't even heard of this, and you're totally hip to the jib of this game. Well you know it, You know when you have a thirteen year old and eleven year old and the look. I grew up driving from Lagory at Yale. I played video games the whole way here, so so, but I did not play among us. So if there is a protest, I don't know about it. All right. Our next question, I could pretend is from Verdict plus, but it's actually

my question. I want to hear your discussion of this topic. There was a piece that was published today by David French regarding the anti groomer bill, the parental Rights and Education Bill in Florida. The left calls of the Don't Say Gay bill. He accuses conservatives of being anti free speech. In fact, he calls conservatives hypocrites for trying to control what teachers are instructing children in the classroom, given that

conservatives generally support free speech. So my question to both of you is, our conservatives hypocrites when it comes to these parental rights and education bills? Are Are we hypocrites because we don't want the kindergarten teachers to trans the kids? That's the question? Yes, Okay, I don't think so. I don't think it's in the free speech tradition of America to preach transgenderism to five year olds. I have a test.

It's the what would Washington do test? If you talk to the founding fathers, you said, do you believe that you founded this country to protect the sacred right of weirdos to indoctrinate five year olds into transgenderism and other assorted ideologies. I don't think they would have said yes, By golly, that's why we fought the revolution. What about slavery? I don't think they're teaching a lot about slavery in kindergarten, which is probably probably a good thing. But what would

the founding father Well, it's a good question. Any fathers say about slavery, Well, you want to repeat it? Just because it was in the microphone. So folks, the question was what would the founding fathers say about slavery? And frankly, the answer is, we'd be here all night because a lot of them vigorously opposed slavery. Some of them own slaves.

Some of the ones who own slaves recognize the moral problem with slavery and wanted to end it, and they set up ways for it to end through the constitution, and there were vigorous debates. The country almost fell apart. We almost didn't get a constitution because of that issue. So the answer is it's complicated and would be interesting,

but that wasn't the question. I was asked the question on David French saying that conservatives are hypocrites regarding free speech because we don't we don't want kindergarteners learning about transgenderism. Is silly to me, because one, kindergarten classrooms are not exactly a rollicking free marketplace of ideas where we're discovering new scientific technologies and things like that. No, you're learning

your ABC's. But furthermore, even on this issue of academic freedom, there is there is no right of a teacher to teach whatever that teacher wants in a classroom specifically to kindergarteners. It's funny to hear that kind of a question here at the William F. Buckley Junior Program. The Conservative movement was founded with a book called God and Man at Yale. Everyone remembers the title, few people remember the subtitle, which is The Superstitions of Academic Freedom, which he put in

scare quotes. He said that academic freedom is a hoax, that it's a superstition that was merely instrumental for the left to get rid of all of the old norms. He quotes the former Yale president Charles Seymour, who says that skepticism has utility only when it leads to conviction. Later on, Bill Buckley is having a debate with Leo Chern on firing Line. Buckley said, I do not want a more open society. I want the society to be

considerably more closed. He's used the phrase epistemological optimism, by which he meant that we can know certain things, we can settle certain things. And Buckley said he it felt no desire to protect the rights of a Nazi or of a communist. David French infamously defended drag Queen's story hour on the suggestion that if we don't protect the right of drag queens to jiggle around for little kids, then by golly, they might not let us go to

church on Sundays. And well, first of all, the Left has prevented us from going to church on Sundays for about the past two years with the COVID lockdowns. But even beyond that, if we can't tell the difference between tworking for little kids in skimpy outfits at the library and a pastor preaching the Gospel on Sunday, then we do not possess the rational faculties and the moral conscience to govern ourselves. So I've got a different take on

the matter. And one of the reasons this podcast can be interesting and fun is that Michael and I have fairly different worldviews. Michael is very Burkian. He is very comfortable with tradition, he is very comfortable with lack of change. I was amazed to see you disagree in any way with Buckley standing athwart and by the way, thwarts a word used far too rarely in life. Athwart history, yelling, yelling stop. I'm far more libertarian. I am far more

live and let live. When it comes to free speech, I ambrace free speech, and I embrace free speech not just for people I agree with, but for people I disagree with. I ambrace free speech. You know you mentioned for Nazis and communists. I think Nazis and communists have free speech rights. Now, reasonable people ought to disagree with Nazis and communists, we ought to battle them with more free speech. But I very much agree with John Stuart Mill that the best cure for bad speech is more speech.

And so I think academic freedom actually matters, and even academic freedom for people who are nutty. That being said, though, I think the Florida law the other states that are considering laws is markedly different, which is that if a state is going to have a public school system, it's going to set curriculum that is inherent in the process

of having a school system. And if you're setting curriculum, you're making a choice of what is included in the curriculum and what is excluded in the curriculum, and making that choice is not in and of itself a violation of free speech. You're necessarily sorting what do we think it is imperative our kids learn. And the Florida bill. You know, it was interesting the opponents of the bill,

they dubbed it that don't say gay bill. And yet the bill provided that that for kids that were pre kindergarten through third grade, that you should not discuss questions of sexuality. Look, pre kindergarten kids are three and four years old, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for a state to say we want kids in pre k and k to be learning reading and writing and arithmetic, and they shouldn't be talking about sex. And by the way, I don't want straight teachers talking about straight sex to

four year old from kindergarten. Like you know, kids go to kindergarten to learn, to play blocks, to learn, to get some basic education. And by the way, the Florida law ended at third grade. At fourth grade it was hey, Katie, bar the door, you know, you know, bring out the S and M. Let's get exploded. So apparently at age nine all was good. But prior to age nine, And what's fascinating, I think the cultural left jumped the shark on this because you saw many political democrats, You saw

the corporate media all excited don't say gay. You saw Hollywood all chanting gay, gay gay, which I gotta say, is not an act of bravery to chant gay in Hollywood mandatory, Actually it is. But what's interesting is if you look at the polling of parents of Floridians who read the terms of this law, which is let's not teach little bitty kids about sex, the overwhelming majority of Floridians agreed with it, including the majority of Democrats in Florida.

So it's the cultural elites who are like, how dare you silence these brave truth tellers. You can do all the brave, brave truth telling you one outside of the kindergarten classroom. Ye. Now, as usual, we're running extremely late. This is every episode of the show. But before we go, I do want to get to one more question. Let's do two question. Whoever's next in line? Go ahead, sir, Thank you, Hello, Senator Cruz, thanks for coming out. I

really appreciate you being here making the trip. My name is Jamark Simon and my question for you, Senator Cruz, is so, according to the Texas Tribune, you refused to certify the Arizona presidential election results, But most Republicans like Mitch McConnell, have admitted that Joe Biden. One, do you think Joe Biden legitimately won the twenty twenty election? Why are I not? Okay? Great question. Look, Joe Biden is

indisputably the president of the United States today. Now there are those in the media world that love to go around to Republicans and ask variants of the following question, do you agree the twenty twenty election was fair and straight and everything was above board? And the answer that is no. In the twenty twenty election, there were widespread allegations of voter fraud. If you looked at polling at the time, thirty nine percent of Americans, nearly half believe

the election had been stolen. That is very disturbing for anyone that wants to see the American people have faith in our democratic system. As we were going to January sixth, under legislation called the Electoral Count Act, if a House member and a Senator objects to the counting of electoral votes, the two chambers split up into separate chambers, we have two hours of debate and we vote on it. And I spent days and weeks struggling about how to vote.

And here was my thinking. As I struggled with it if I vote no, if I voted against an objection, that will be heard and that will be understood by tens of millions of Americans. As my saying, voter fraud isn't real, it doesn't exist, it's not a real problem, and that is not what I believe. That is emphatically the opposite of what I believe. So I didn't like

that option. On the other hand, to simply object to the certification of the election because your guide didn't win, because the candidate you're supporting didn't win, I think that's completely unprincipled and indefensible. So I didn't like that option. And so I'm looking at these two options going both of these options suck. So I did what lawyers often do, which is try to study history to see if there are any press precedents from which we can draw insight.

And as i history, I focused in particular on the presidential election of eighteen seventy six. That was an election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Now, in that election, it was a very close election. It was a nasty, divisive election. In that election, there were serious allegations of voter fraud in three different states. And what did Congress do facing that at those allegations of voter fraud. Congress didn't throw their hands in the air and say, Okay,

there's nothing we could do. This is terrible, but we're powerless. Oh well, that's not what Congress did. What Congress did is they appointed what they called an electoral commission. It consisted of five House members, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. And that electoral commission conducted an audit of the election results in the three challenge states and examined the actual evidence and made determinations about the allegations of

voter fraud. The more I looked at it, the better that precedent seemed to me. And so as we were heading into January, first, I was headed back to DC. Initially I was just going to announce this is what I think we should do, and i'd actually typed up a two page statement. Was on Southwest Airlines flying from Houston back to DC and with my laptop typed up

a two page statement. But then as I thought about it, I decided, you know, it would be better not to do this alone, but to try to assemble a coalition together. And so I began visiting with other senators, and in the next twenty four hours a total of eleven senators joined together and we put out a joint statement in which we said we were going to object to the results of the election in order to call for the appointment of an election commission to conduct an emergency ten

day audit. Now, if that happens on January sixth, it means the audit be completed before January twentieth, So wouldn't delay the inauguration and have a determination on the allegations of voter fraud. I continue to believe if Congress had done this, you would have much greater confidence in the election. And as I stood on the Senate floor and you can watch, I gave a five minute speech on the Senate floor advocating for this. I turned to the Democrats and I said, look, all of you insist on TV

there is no voter fraud. It doesn't exist. Well, if you're right, you should welcome the election Commission, because presumably if the evidence doesn't back up the claims, that's what the commission will determine. And you know, Senator, there is actually one other historical tidbit here. I know you mentioned the first Caveman election where they elected the Grand poobab. Joe Biden was actually at that election. Did you know that he was? He was in the Caveman Senate and

no item. This seems like a reasonable proposal that you're describing, and it continues to be It continues to be trotted out in the media as evidence that Republicans don't accept election results. There is another irony to that, which is a poll some months ago showed that a higher percentage of Democrats don't believe the results of the twenty sixteen election. Then Republicans disbelieve the results of the twenty twenty election. It is true. Hillary Clinton went all over the country

saying the election was stolen. The election was stolen. Stacy Abram still says she is the sitting governor of Georgia and president of Earth too, according to start. Okay, that's true. All right, that was just annoying. All right, let's do one final question. Thank you, sir, Senator Cruz, thank you

for coming. My name is Nicola Ryan Schreiber. And in the year nineteen seventy one, the US moved off the gold standard, and ever since, the centralization of power around the ability to print money has been the greatest power essentially on Earth, and power creups and absolute power crups absolutely.

And what I have been dismayed to see that is that most conservatives, where they claim to say that they want smaller government, at the moment that they have their hand on the money printer, they let money printer go burr. And this is consistent in the last fifty years. And so I'm curious now, with the creation of the hardest money that has ever been created, Bitcoin, how would you feel about moving to a bitcoin standard. So, look, that is a great question, and thank you for that question.

Let me take a couple of pieces of it. There's no doubt that when the United States moved off the gold standard, it facilitated a massive inflation of our currency. It made it easier for government to print money and for politicians. Look, it's actually easy to reach a bipartisan deal in Washington. The way you do it is you sit down with everyone in the room and we say we'll spend a billion for you, billion for you, a billion for you, a billion for you. You get to

a trilia, you're done. And on that deal you get all the Democrats and you get half to two thirds of the Republicans, and in the Senate they're consistently about twenty of us who object to excessive spending, who try to fight for spending restraint, but sadly you often see the vote about eighty to twenty. The massive spending in Washington is what is fueling the inflation that is hurting the American people so profoundly right now, and it is one of the things that is fueling the move to bitcoin.

And as you may know, I am a huge proponent of bitcoin. I'm a huge proponent of cryptocurrency. I think it is an incredibly important innovation. I think one of the reasons I personally am an investor in bitcoin, one of the reasons that you were seeing people move to bitcoin is exactly what you said as a hedge to inflation, that bitcoin by design cannot go over twenty one million bitcoin.

It's a finite sum. And at the end of the day, a currency is a means of exchange in a way of setting value of one item visa v Another item. And one of the ways to understand inflation is if an apple is a dollar and a banana is two dollars, and you double the number of dollars on planet Earth. Then, roughly speaking, you would expect the apple to be two

dollars in the banana to be four dollars. Now, the math doesn't work out exactly the same, but that's the principle, is that currency gives the relative values of one girder service visa v another. When you have politicians devaluing everyone's goods and services, they look for other ways to store value. It's why people in times of inflation are drawn to gold, or drawn to silver, or drawn to real estate or commodities other hard assets as it hedges to inflation. So

I am a big proponent a bitcoin. I think the single greatest threat to bitcoin and crypto is Washington politicians screwing it up, and it is a very real threat. You asked if I would support our going to it as as legal tender. Look, I'm not looking for the government to make the choice to supplant the dollar. I know there are a lot in the bitcoin community that believe it will inevitably go that way, and if it does, I'm fine with that too, But I don't think you

should have a government mandate to make it so. But I think it is important. I think the bitcoin community in the crypto community writ large is an incredibly blossoming industry. China just shut it down. Texas is becoming ground zero for bitcoin and crypto. I want to welcome everyone to Texas, and I think, I actually think the bitcoin world is at a fork in the road, an awful lot like big tech was about fifteen years ago. We're big tech in Silicon Valley. It could have gone one road to

being a libertarian utopia. Lead me alone, let us be free and innovate, or it could have gone the road it shows, which is a woke, scolding, censoring, socialist mob, and unfortunately it shows the latter. My hope is that bitcoin and crypto chooses the former, and so I think we ought to be looking for ways to encourage innovation and development in bitcoin and crypto more broadly. Now, I want to thank you. That was an excellent question. I want to thank everyone out there who had questions. I

want to thank our Verdict plus community. I want to thank Carol Brown and the Irving Brown Lecture series. I want to thank the William F. Buckley Junior Program at Yale. I want to thank Young America's Foundation. I want to thank our friend Liz Wheeler, host of the Liz Wheelers Show and Cloak Room over a Verdict plus. Senator, I always want to thank you and I want to thank everyone who has tuned in here in the room. I want to thank everyone who's tuned in on YouTube. This

has been a wonderful time with all of you. Ye thank you. So I'm Michael Michael Ols. This is Verdict the Ted Cruise. 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 twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.