Lying Sacks Of Crap

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 oh one 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 cactus 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 vanished dot com slash cactus to get this seventy percent off discount. Ip vanish 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 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 vanished dot com slash cactus to claim your discount and secure your online life. That's IPVanish dot com slash Cactus. This episode a Verdict that's Ted Cruise is brought to you by Jenna Sell. How old does your mirror say you are? You can delay this question by five, ten, even fifteen years with

Jenny Cell's new ultra retinal serum. You can you know, see it sitting right here on the death Here's a testimonial from Marina Marina lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product, My skin loves it. I have spent more money, she says, on creams over the years, enough to pay off my house. Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying high with Genia Cell's new ultra retinal

serum with hyaluronic acid. This works to hydrate your skin at the cellular level. It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects. And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking. Likewise, we know that you use our face products are skincare products, and it's fine. All's fair in love and war. Now, if you go to my uurl that is Genia cell dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty percent off Genia Cell's

new ultra retinal serum. That is fifty percent off. If you go to genie cell dot com slash cactus, it's spelled ge n u Cel dot com slash cactus, jeniusl dot com slash tactus Senator. This is all happening in real time. Right now takes me back to our earliest days on this show during impeachment. You've just come from the Capitol. You've just voted to shoot down this Democrats abortion rights bill. The way this is being reported right now in the Associated Press and MSNBC is that a

gop led filibuster stopped the abortion bill. Last I checked, the vote was forty nine in favor fifty one against. Am I crazy. Is this just my legal ignorance or is that not a filibuster? Yes, you stopped trying to bring math into it. The fact is a majority of the Senate voted against this radical bill. But the press doesn't like that news that the real headline should be bipartisan majority of the Senate rejects radical pro abortion bill.

That would in fact be the accurate headline. But you know, it's interesting. The other part of the headline, it's not just the filibuster part that is inaccurate, is the part that says codifies Row. This bill does nothing of the sword. It doesn't. When you read codifies Row, you think, oh, it goes back to the way things were before the Supreme Court decides the Dobbs case. Well, no, that's not what this bill does. If this bill passed, it would

be a radical bill. It would strike down just about every reasonable, common sense restriction on abortion that has been enacted the last forty nine years. Under ROW. It's been deemed permissible even already, for states to limit late term abortions, for states to restrict taxpayer funding of abortions, for states to require parental consent or parental notification. This Democrat bill strikes all those laws down. This Democrat bill is the

unlimited Abortion for All bill. Think about it for a minute that forty nine Democrats were happy to vote for that. The only one who voted with the Republicans was Joe Mann. The bill couldn't codify ROW because parts of Row versus Weight have already been overruled. They were overruled by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which changed some of the reasoning and some of the processes for abortion. And so you know, this has been an ongoing debate for a long time.

Your colleague, Senator Elizabeth Warren yesterday said that the dabb's decision could represent an extremist, right wing Supreme Court imposing its views on the American people because if versus Weight is overruled, then you'll have a situation where the majority of states will impose severe restrictions on abortion immediately. If the majority of states are going to impose new restrictions, how is the Supreme Court imposing its views on the people.

This is literally an example where for Democrats and the press, up is down, right, has left, everything is backwards and upside down. You have Democrats screaming that overturning Row is an assault on democracy. In fact, if the Court does overturn Row, it is a victory for democracy. Rowe was an assault on democracy. Roe versus Wade was seven unelected lawyers in black robes saying, you stupid voters don't know how to resolve these issues rights. We're not going to

let you do this now. For one hundred and eighty five years, literally from the beginning of our country until nineteen seventy three, questions of abortion were decided by the voters and by the state legislatures that were elected by the voters. Roe said no more. They said, we don't

believe in democracy. And the reason Democrats are freaking out right now is you know, when poker at tell is when they do something that gives away what their hand is when they're and they're trying to represent something other than what their hand is here, the Democrats have a tell. Number one, The fact that they're freaking out is a tell that they know their views on abortion are radical

and out of touch with the American people. Forty nine of the Democrats today voted for a law that allows abortion up until the home and of birth, literally until the child is being born. This Democrat bill would allowed to abortion. Do you know the latest polling, You know what percent of Americans agree with abortion up until the

very instant of birth? Six percent? Wow, six percent of Americans agree with the position of forty nine out of fifty Democrats and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Elizabeth Warren when she's screaming and ranting and raving, it's because the voters are going to be allowed to do what they

think is right and not be subject to her radical decrees. Now, the Democrats have another tell, which is you notice that when they're talking about the Dabbs decision, they very very quickly say, if this decision goes into effect, it will strike down the availability of contraceptives, it will strike down gay marriage and an interracial marriage. That the New York Times went so far. The editorial board the New York Times suggested that there are multiples in the Union that,

if they were allowed to, would ban interracial marriage. What utter garbage, you bigoted, moronic Manhattan leftist elite, lying sacks of crap. But how do you really feel? Yeah, it kind of pisses me off. And I would note by the way that these racist leftists of the New York Times, there may be no one on planet Earth whom they despise more than Justice Clarence Thomas, who is married to a white woman. He is in an interracial marriage. I suspect Clarence Thomas would be quite surprised if he were

doing something to strike down interracial marriage. But the only people who imagine interracial marriage is going to be struck down is radical leftist because they've never actually met a conservative voter, so they think we're all bigoted clansmen. But here's the tell on this. When the Democrats and the press are not defending their positions on abortion, it's because they know their positions on abortion are wildly out of the mainstream. So anytime you hear them talking about contraception

or marriage, it's because they're trying to change the subject. Well, so this raises a question to me that I do not have an answer to, which is why would the Democrats bring up this bill? It makes them look extremely foolish. It gives away the whole game. It shows that actually the overruling of Row is not an assault on democracy, that actually most people don't want this kind of crazy, extreme abortion agenda. Elizabeth Warren admitted it herself in this

column in Marie Claire Magazine. Wait, you're reading Marie Claire magazine. Oh constantly, Michael, Why are you reading Marie Claire magazine? And what is Marie Claire Magazine? I am so I cannot believe how uncultured you are. Senator. Next you're going to tell me you don't read Glamor either. I only raise Cosmo for teams only because that's fair enough. So why are they doing this? They've got egg on their face. It looks pathetic. Is it just to appease the base?

You've got to understand today's Democrats are captured by the radical activists on every issue. On immigration, they're captured by the open border radicals, on issues of dr gender, they're they're captured by the transgender radicals, and and and on issues of abortion, they actually don't care about the swing voter. They don't care about the American people. They don't care about the soccer mom. They care about the radicals who control the money and control the foot soldiers in the

Democratic Party. And here's proof of it. Chuck Schumer could have had a vote today that he would have won a buipartisan majority on so just it's a fifty fifty cent fifty Democrats fifty Republicans. Two of the Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, have explicitly stated, in fact, they've introduced legislation that would do something like codifi row. It would it would take some elements of abortion off the table.

It would leave some of the restrictions like partial birth and taxpayer funding and prettal consent of prettal notification in place, but it would it would be more accurately described as codifying Row than this current radical bill. If Schumer had brought that up, he would have won today fifty three to forty seven. He would have gotten the forty nine Democrats have voted for this, He would have gotten Joe mentioned who he lost. He would have gotten two Republicans.

Now it still wouldn't have passed because it would take sixty to go up, but we would have had a vote that was fifty fifty three forty seven, and the Democrats could accurately say bipartisan majority of the Senate votes to rebuke the Court. They don't care, their radicals don't actually want anything like a middle ground. They are appeasing

the crazies. Well, speaking of the craziest center, I mean, you're kind of seeing this right now in Washington, d C. In Virginia, which is that the White House is refusing to condemn the protesters who were showing up not even just to the Supreme Court, which is a questionable practice in and of itself, and we can get to it. They're showing up to the homes of judges where their children sleep, protesting, screaming in residential neighborhoods. The White House

has asked about that, what do they do? They shrugged their shoulders. The last pod, we talked about how this leak of the Supreme Court decision is an attempt to destroy the Supreme Court's attempt to tear down the rule of law, and it's an attempt to use political pressure to bully the justices into changing their votes, and it really goes right to the heart of the integrity of

the institution. This is the next step of that, which is the radical showing up at the private homes of the justices, trying to intimidate them, trying to frighten them, trying to threaten them. And by the way, it's not just at the homes of the justices. These guys are also showing up at pro life advocacy groups, at pro life pregnancy centers. There was one in Wisconsin that they threw a Molotov cocktail on that they burned, that they

spray painted and vandalized. There was another one in Denton, Texas that they spray painted and vandalized. There were people showing up at Catholic churches across the country and harassing people going to Mass on Sunday. I mean, it's just number one. These are vile, evil, bigoted people. I'm sorry if you go to anyone's church and harass them at church, that there is a circle of hell just for you. That that is contemptuous, even if you disagree with them.

Leave them alone at church, and leave them alone at home. And I got to say the intimidation at the homes of the justices to see Jensaki repeatedly refused to condemn it. It's just peaceful. You know, several hundred angry people outside your house while your children are inside, screaming and yelling and cursing. It, that's just peaceful. It's repulsive. Well, it's also against the law, is I mean, you know you reference the acts of violence at the pro life center

is the pro life pregnancy centers. But obviously that's against the law. It's also against the law to show up to it. Judges home, It's right there in the US Code. You know it better than I do. Where are the prosecutions? Where are the handcuffs? So let's talk about that. The

particular federal provision you're talking about is eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh seven, and it says, whoever with the intent of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades inter near a building housing a court of the United States or internear a building, or residents occupied or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer

shall be fined under this title or in prison not more than one year, or both. So they're clearly doing that. They're picketing at the home of a judge with an intent of influencing the judge's decision. It's a straight out federal crime. And Merrick Garland and the corrupt Biden Department of Justice is nowhere to be found. They're not enforcing the law. And this is it is a form of obstruction of justice. It is trying to get the judge to change their mind, to change their vote, to change

their decision. And I'll point out it's not just federal law. Actually, Virginia law likewise has a provision and it is section eighteen point two Das four eighteen and section eighteen point two Dash four nineteen of the Code of Virginia that makes it a crime to piket the residence of an individual. And so Virginia likewise, for those justices who live in Virginia, you've got both a federal crime and a crime in Virginia. And this is going to someone's home, I'm going to suggest,

is inherently threatening and intimidating. It's one thing to go to the office. Look, there have been protests on the steps of the Supreme Court. Are actually right below the steps of the Supreme Court from the beginning of our country, from when the Supreme Court building was built and before that in the Capitol. That's perfectly fine. You want to protest on them all, that's perfectly fine. You want to protest to the public square, that's perfectly fine. There's a

reason you go to someone's home. You go to someone's home because that's where they sleep, that's where their children are, that's where their physical safety is. What do you make of Chuck Schumer saying that, look, this is this is the business. We've chosen to quote him and Wroth and the Godfather, and Chuck Schumer said that he has protesters at his house three or four times a week sometimes. And if the judges didn't want that, while they're in the wrong line of work, well they are in a

different line of work. This is not the business they have chosen. Politics is one thing. And listen, when I ran for office, when Schumer ran for office, part of the job is to be responsive to the people, and that means protests are a perfectly legitimate part of the political process because each of us elected to the Senate, elected to the Congress are required or had the responsibility of representing our constituents. The justices are not elected representatives.

Their responsibilities to the Constitution and to the law. Now, the Democrats think this is the business the justices have chosen. And when Chuck Schumer stood on the floor steps of the Supreme Court and threatened the justices by name and said, if you decide this decision we're wrong, you will have unleashed the whirlwind, he was threatening them. And so the job of a politician the job of a justice is

very different. There's a reason it is a federal criminal offense to do this to a judge and it's not a federal criminal offense to do this to an elected official, because the jobs are different, and you shouldn't be using threats and intimidation to try to change a judicial decision. Now that being said, I actually think what's happening to elected officials, whether Chuck Schumer or anyone else, has gone

too far. Look, public service means a lot, but it shouldn't have to entail threats to the safety and lives of your kids. I think it should be treated as a criminal offense protesting a residential neighborhood, that there are time, place, and manner restrictions. If a protest is designed to threaten and harass an individual, you can do it at the office, you can do it in the public square, but you shouldn't be allowed to go and harass people at their homes.

I totally agree. There is nothing in the text or spirit of the First Amendment that says you have a right to go to a residential neighborhood and scare a bunch of kids. Schumer is not my favorite person in the world, but I think he ought to be able to sleep at night without people standing outside screaming. And by the way, he didn't tell you who it is protesting him. It's not conservatives. It's crazy leftist, for whom

Schumer is not crazy enough. That's the interesting thing. There's another Senator who I will not name, who protesters through a rock through their window that shattered and cut one of their children quite severely. From the shattering glass, we are going to see violets. I am very concerned that we may see violence directed at the Supreme Court, at these justices. This is the kind of extreme hatred and violence that the Democrats embrace if it favors their partisan ends.

There is some good news. I mean, one, I think the reason they're doing this is because they're losing in the political arena and so they're getting desperate. But two, you also I felt to introduce a great bill on a completely different topic. But well not a completely different topic actually, because the bill you introduced was about my body, my choice. Namely, it was to give American service members to protect them from being punished for refusing to take

the experimental COVID vaccines. Well, that's right. So the bill I introduced this week is a bill. It's called the Allowing Military Exemptions Recognizing Individual Concerns about New Shots Act or the Americans Act. Oh you you guys with your acronyms, that is the best acronym I've heard in a long time in legislature. Well, I'd like to claim credit. I can. It was the great, great guys on my team that came up with it. But I laughed out loud and said let's go with it and the bill. Thirteen other

Senators joined being introducing it. And the bill is very simple. The bill would stop the military from firing soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines if they declined to take the COVID vaccine. We're seeing thousands of soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and coast guardsmen and guardians threatened with being fired. We're seeing cadets at our service academies threatened with being thrown out. We're seeing people in the reserves being thrown out. It is grotesque, it is wrong,

it is an abusive power. This bill says you can't throw anyone out because they decline to get a vaccine. It also says if someone has been thrown out, they can come back in if they want that. It's choice. If they want to come back in, they can do it. And if they choose not to come back in, if you have discharged them, it's something less than honorable discharge. That will adjust their discharge status to reflect their actual service.

In other words, we shouldn't be weakening our ability to defend this nation, to keep this nation safe because of a political agenda from the left. It's your body, your choice. You ought to be able to decide whether or not to take the COVID vaccine. And this should be a simple common sense bill, which means, of course the Democrats are likely to oppose it party line. Of course, you'll notice there'll just be a one hour period where they stop chanting my body, my choice that as well, your

bill is up for debate. Then after they'll of course go right back to it before we go as usual running late. I do want to get to a few mail back questions from our wonderful Verdict. At listeners you can join, not you, Senator, I think you're already a member, but you you out there in the tubes land, you can join Verdict Plus. Over at locals you can subscribe, get lots of extra content. We've got our Friendlies. Wheeler hosts a series there with Senator Cruz Cloakroom, and you

can submit your questions to the mailback. So, Senator, rapid fire round. First up from Steven very important question, Ted, Michael, how do you take your coffee cream? No sugar, lots of cream though I like my coffee like I know, I'm not going to quote that line from Airplane, but I do take my coffee black. Great movie, one of the greatest movies of all time. From Rod, Senator, why is the GOP still so focused on the fiscal side

of things when voters care about the social side. I don't know, do you even agree with that premise, Senator, depends who in the GOP. I think there is a generational difference. I think there are particularly Republicans who've been in Congress a long time who are your kind of traditional You could call them business Republicans, or if you want to be more pejorative, you could call them country club Republicans who tend to want to tax a little bit less, spend a little bit more, and a runaway

from the social issues. I actually think those numbers are shrinking. I think more and more people recognize there is a culture war going on, and we didn't start it. The left has decided to try to destroy our culture. The Look, we have a incoming Supreme Court justice who can't tell you what a woman is right. We have Disney that has promised that they will have a gay or transgender

character in every movie they put out. By the way, I will note again when verdict was on the road that that that that the one quip I said of you know, parents could could would like to be able to trust their movies and not have to worry about turning on some movie and seeing Mickey going at it

with Pluto. Oh my goodness, the left lost their mind that I'm sorry, all the in depth constitutional analysis that we may have had in the podcast got dwarf, but by the image of one little mouse and one little dog doing unspeakable things that the Libs were titilated. There's no question about it. I you look, culture is where the battle is because they recognize that they destroy our culture, they destroy our country. There's some overlap too. I think

it was Patrick Denin who made this point. He said, when you think about the debt, what does that tell you about our culture? What does it tell you that our culture is leaving as an inheritance to the next generation a bunch of debt. You know that the economic part, the fiscal part, has a cultural aspect as well. So I will tell you, Michael, one of the crueler things

that my daughters say to me. My daughters are eleven and fourteen, and when they think I'm when they're irritated with me, which is not infrequently, they'll say, okay, Boomer, and it's like, damn it, I am not a boomer. I am firmly gen X. Now now you know you're you're a millennial. Stop insulting me. Please, look the boomer generation, the credit card bill they have racked up is the

great in the history of humanity. One generation, the me generation, and their kids and grandkids are going to be paying for it forever and ever. But I got to say to my fourteen year old Michael, I'm sorry to tell you you're a boomer too. She thinks all of us boomer is synonymous with way too old, and she puts all of us in that camp. We're all boomers. Now,

final question, Senator, before I let you go. This is from Michael, not me, I promise, He says, will the overturning of Rovie Wade be the issue that causes people to self segregate red states and blue states to the point where a peaceful national divorce would be all that prevents a civil war? We've seen a lot of civil unrest as they call it around as this. Are we headed towards civil war on this issue? Spring Court Justice Lewis brandeis referred to federalism, the system of fifty states,

as laboratory as a democracy. We've talked a lot on this podcast about laboratories. A democracy. I think it's perfectly healthy if different states have different policies that reflect the

values of their residence. Friend of mine, as a tech guy, very successful, moved from Northern California to Miami, and I was having brunch with him in Miami and he described how when his friends from Palo Alto would come visit him in Miami, he'd go out take him out to dinner, and he'd drive a fancy sports car because he did very well in tech, and he'd parked the car on the street, and he said his friends from northern California would freak out, what are you doing parking on the street,

Because what he said is if you park your car on the street in northern California, it will get broken into, it will get keyed. And I remember thinking, that's really bizarre that the simple act of being able to park your car on the street is this flex of like, holy cow, this is what happens when you have a functioning police force and your rights are protected. We will see some self segregation, but idiotic policies like abolishing the

police will see the chaos that follows from that. Also, in some ways, it reminds me of the cold war and the countries in Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. And you know, when I was a little kid in the nineteen seventies, my dad owned a seismic data processing company, a small business and my father and my mother ran together and he got hired in the late nineteen seventies to install a computer system for the government of Albania. Now Albania was a Communist government at the time, and

my father at the time was a Canadian citizen. He wasn't an American citizen. They wouldn't hire an American, but because my dad was Canadian citizen, they would hire him. And so he went over He went over there, and you want to talk about like frozen in time, poverty, misery,

the oppression of the Albanian government. But it was very interesting when my father went there the first time, the Albanian people were told Albania is the only completely electrified country in the world, that no other country on Earth has electricity except Albania. We are the only ones with electricity. The second time my father went over there, he met them initially in Munich and then went to Albanian like two Albanians, Madam. In Munich, they told the Albanians as

they left. Guess what. There are now two fully electrified countries in the world, Albania and Germany. And it reminds me a little bit of like these deep blue state prisoners who believe that everything being shut down, their schools being shut down, their words being censored, being afraid that their neighbors will get mad at them if they say the wrong thing. The you know, kind of not knowing what a woman is. I'm not sure people in blue

states are aware. It's different anywhere else. I was talking to my relatives in New York, so is my wife, sweet little Elisa, and they said, oh this, I can't wait until this COVID is over finally, and my wife says, it's been over for us for a while. You're seeing this right now, You're seeing two different visions for the country. Frankly, just look at the abortion protests outside the court on the one hand, screaming, yelling, nasty people. On the other hand,

people praying, serene, well behaved. What kind of country do you want to live in? These are options that we're seeing throughout the culture. We've got to leave at their senator in the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. 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, Job's Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.