Migrant Madness

I went in twenty eighteen. I stood outside facilities where the Trump administration was separating families, tearing babies out of their mother's arms. Some of those kids still haven't been reunited with their families. And so one thing I will say is I certainly don't need lectures or invitations from

Republicans about the border or border policies. And you know, and I certainly won't take advice on border from from anyone who voted against securing record level of funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and and you know, and while folks are sending invites, I'll use this opportunity to invite him or anyone else next time to vote for record funding for DHS. As President Biden has requested, so

we'll move on. Nope, we'll move on from that. This episode, A Verdict with Ted Cruz is sponsored by American Hartford Gold. If you're anything like me, you're pretty concerned about the future of our country. Inflation is at the highest level we've seen in forty years, interest rates are skyrocketing, and market experts like Jamie Diamond, who's the CEO of JP Morgan, not only predicted the recession that we're in, but are

now using terms like unprecedented and economic hurricane. If you want to protect your future, do I did call the only precious metal dealers that I trust, American Hartford Gold. They can show you how to protect your savings in your retirement accounts by diversifying your portfolio with physical gold and silver. All it takes to get started is a short phone call and they'll have physical gold and silver scent directly to your door or inside your I array or four oh one K and they make it easy.

They're the highest rated firm in the business, with an A plus rating from a Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. And as an exclusive offer to you fans, A Verdict with Ted crews. If you call them right now, they will give you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver and a free safe on qualifying orders. All you have to do don't wait, call them now. Call eight five five seven, six, eight one eight eight three.

That's eight five five seven, six eight one eight eight three. Or if you prefer text messaging, you can text the word cactus to six five five three two. The phone number is eight five five seven, six eight one eight eight three. Or you can text the word captus to six five five three two. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz, the show that the White House just cannot stop talking about. I am Michael Knowles, and if you want to bring this show, by the way to a

campus near you, time is running out to apply. We will be going on tour with Young America's Foundation. You can apply. We've just got a week or so left at YAF dot org slash Verdict and maybe the White House Press Secretary. We'll talk about you and your fellows students, because they sure seem to be tuning in here. Senator, I think we're the first, second, third, and now fourth podcast that the White House has referenced from the press briefing.

You know, it really is quite striking. And maybe when we're doing our college tour, we ought to film Verdict down on the border and invite Karine to come down to Verdict and be on the podcast and she can lie directly on the podcas cast rather than doing it from the White House. Look, I had to say, it is studying. Look, no one is surprised to see a press flack flacking. That's what they do. She's supposed to spend whether you're a Democrat or Republican. White House Press

Secretary spins. What is wild about this is she is brazenly, openly, shamelessly lying, and at this point she knows she is, and everyone in the room knows she is. This all started when she said at a previous briefing that people are not walking across the border. It's just not happening. That is not happening. Now, that's not kind of sort of right, that's not a little bit wrong. It is

precisely exactly opposite. And the imitation that I issued to her, as I said, come down to the border and spend one hour with me, go out on patrol with a border patrol Union sixty minutes you pick the time doesn't matter. Pick any hour of the day. We'll go out for sixty minutes, and I guarantee you we will encounter not one, but multiple groups of illegal immigrants, because they are coming twenty four hours a day. Every time I've gone out there,

it doesn't take sixty minutes. It takes about five minutes before you encounter the first group, and it is a steady stream of humanity. And I suggested to her also, I said, okay, you said, as we just played in that clip, that you don't need to be lectured by Republican senators. I said, I'll tell you what. Bring the entire Washington press corps. Bring them all down to the valley with us. You and I can go out for an hour and we'll hold a press conference, and one

or two things will happen. If we don't encounter anyone, I'll stand up and say I was wrong. But when we encounter multiple groups women, children, one after the other after the other, you'll stand up and you'll admit you were lying, and not just lie. You were lying from the White House deliberately and repeatedly. And to be clear, it's not just her lying. Joe Biden's responsible he's paying

for her to lie. And all of the corporate media that sat there silently, that haven't run fact checks, we haven't seen pants on fire because none of the corporate media. This is an objective, factual statement, and it is objectively and completely false. All of the corporate media is complicit in the lies. And actually this week she escalated it even more where she said absurdly, Joe Biden has done

more to secure the border than Donald Trump. Like that is I actually wonder if the reporters and the press briefing move back a few feet because they're afraid lightning is going to strike her as she stands there, Like I cannot think of a White House Press secretary who repeatedly brazenly lied to the American people the way she is doing, even Jensaki, who would spin like crazy. But I can't think of flat out objective lies of the kind that Karine is now making a weekly, if not

daily occurrence. So the lie is pretty shocking. I don't think anybody buys it. You just look at the numbers. You're going to get two million plus illegal aliens this year, way more than you got under Trump, way more than we've ever gotten. But I guess what is confusing to me is one, does she really believe that anybody in America, Republican, independent, or Democrat, believes that Joe Biden is tougher on illegal immigration than Donald Trump. No, not a single person believes that.

But but furthermore, Biden and the Democrats ran on opening up the border. They said Trump's restrictive border policies are bad and immoral and Unamerican, and diversity is our strength, and no person is illegal and come across the border.

I mean, they explicitly said that. So is this new line coming out of the White House, beyond it being dishonest, is it a reflection that, wait a second, voters actually don't like the policies that we ran for president on, and so now we're just going to pretend that those were never our policies in the first place. So I think it is. And it's a combination of number one, speaking to the hard left partisans who are with them no matter what, and number two, they're counting on the

media to assist in the cover up. Look, it's reminiscent. She's also said in recent weeks about school shutdowns. When the nape scores came back so we had. NAPE is the National Assessment of fourth graders. It's considered the gold standard for testing educational progress, and the national standards show that fourth graders have had a dramatic drop in both mass scores and reading scores, the biggest drop since the

NAPE test has begun being implemented. It is massive. It is obvious because of the school shutdowns, and not only that, the racial gap has widened to the widest level ever because the people who got hurt the most by the school shutdowns were low income kids, many of which are African American and Hispanic. And so the racial gap under Joe Biden congratulations, dams have gotten much broader. So what

does Kareem do. She stands up and says, well, Joe Biden worked to reopen schools, and it was Republicans who blocked us. And it is a level of okay, that's not just spin inversion, that is flat out mendacity. It was Republicans, certainly on this podcast and from the Senate floor. I was screaming early early on, open up the schools, send the kids back to schools, let them go. Republicans across the country where and by the way, people like

Greg Abbott and Rhnda Santis were opening up schools. Amazingly enough, in the Biden White Houses world, these dastardly Republicans managed to shut down schools only in bright blue jurisdictions controlled by Democrats. Now that's some nefarious power. I'm going to shut down the schools in New York City, but not in any place where there's actually Republican leadership. It is asinine.

But she tells that lie because the Washington Post won't call her on it, because CNN won't call her on it, because the New York Times won't call her on it, And so it's gas lighting taken to just a The word Orwellian is used too often, but it is truly Orwellian. Two plus two is five, but it's not even that. It's two plus two is umbrella. Yeah, I mean that's what they're doing now, the Senator, I can't help, but

notice you just mentioned Governor DeSantis. And while I'm very pleased that people in the White House are listening to this show, I have to wonder if some people down in Florida are listening to this show as well, because there's a great headline that just came out about something to Santis and the Florida Republicans are doing. They've just

sent airplanes full of illegal aliens to Martha's vineyard. And I cheered when I saw the headline, and then I had to think, you know, there's a certain podcast hosted by a certain senator from Texas that has been calling exactly for that for many weeks now, and I just can't help but wonder if that may have had some effect on this policy going into effect. I was thrilled when the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, took me up on the ID and began sending illegal immigrants, first to DC,

then to New York, then to Chicago. It's had a fantastic event as these these Democratic mayors have lost their minds and declared national emergencies. The mayor of DC declared a national emergency or a city emergency because six thousand illegal immigrants were sent to DC. Of course, we've had since Biden became president, we have had four point two million illegal immigrants cross illegally with Biden as president. It is horrific. That's a crazy number. Four point two million.

That is a crazy number. It is larger than many of the states of our Union. I mean four point two million since Joe Biden put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. That's what's coming. It continues to get worse. And what is amazing about when red state governors, first Texas now Florida are shipping two blue strongholds is the Democrats, who talk a good game immediately flipped tailed. So I want to give you a quote from Martha's Vineyard. When I introduced the legislation,

you had democrats. Democrats in the House of Representatives slammed me. But I want to read from the county commissioner of Martha's Vineyard, Keith chattonover and here's the quote he's at about my legislation. I would love to see Martha's Vineyard become a haven for new immigrants in the country. But Senator Cruz has no idea what he's talking about regarding a border crisis. He went on to say, immigrants make our country stronger, as evidenced by immigration from Brazil and

other countries to the vineyard. And he is trying to whip up racial anxieties for political gain, which is essentially the entire GOP platform. Anyhow, that's before they arrived. I want to see if after two, three, four, five, six, ten, one hundred planeloads or bus loads, if the county commissioner has the same view, and I'm going to predict he's going to do exactly the same as the mayor from DC and the mayor from New York and the mayor from Chicago, which is runs screaming, oh crap, this is

a real problem. All those mayors, by the way, they're doing that after five thousand, maybe ten eleven thousand illegal aliens in their cities. Not a drop in the bucket, A fraction of an iota of a drop in the bucket when you're talking about four point two million foreign nationals coming into the country. I'm so pleased. Big kudos to Governor Abbott for following up on this. Big kudos

to Governor de Santis for following up on this. And all I can say is, there are a lot of other red state governors, and there is a major illegal immigration problem in this country, and there are a whole lot of other liberal cities that you mentioned there. I want to see more airplanes. I want to see more buses. Doll out those tickets. Give these blue state and blue city mayors some of a taste of their own medicine

and put them on the record. Look, I think that's exactly right, and it makes it impossible for the Biden White House to defend their lies when you have blue Democrat mayors suddenly realizing, oh wow, this is an enormous bird and honest. And to put it in perspective, So DC is a big city. The mayor declared an emergency when six thousand, five hundred illegal immigrants had been sent to DC. Let's take Del Rio, Texas. Del Rio, Texas is a border city. It's on the Rio Grand River

Del Rio, Texas. Its population is about thirty thousand people. I was down there where when under the bridge that crosses the Rio Grand that's right there in Del Rio there were at one time fifteen thousand illegal immigrants, almost all of whom were from Haiti, and they were crossing it. And you want to talk about people freaking out, this is one small town that had fifty percent, five zero percent of the population of the town crossing in a

single day. That's what Texas is facing. And so look sending them to blue jurisdictions has a purpose, which is to cause these hypocrites to be forced to acknowledge their hypocrisy and admit that it's a crisis. They're right that it's a crisis, but it's an even bigger crisis for Texas and for other states along the border. Now, speaking of legislation that you've filed, turning away from this absolutely marvelous new approach on immigration, which I'm which I again

encourage other GFP governors to follow. Going back to the Senate, there were some fireworks that took place, and all I'm getting is, we actually haven't really talked about this yet, so I'm really going to be hearing it mostly for the first time now on air, but I've read the headlines. There was a school safety bill that you pushed in the Senate that looked like it could pass by unanimous consent, and then one Democrat senator shot the thing down. And

I saw the main points of the bill. They didn't seem particularly right wing or extreme or Republican. They seemed perfectly common sense. What happened, Well, it's September. School is starting and school kids across the country are going back to school, including kids in Uvaldi, where we had just a few months ago the worst school shooting in Texas history was horrific, and I think we need to do much much more to keep our kids safe. And so

I have legislation. When the Senate took up its gun control bill, I authored the lead alternative to the Democrats gun control bill, and it was legislation that was called Cruiz Barosso, and it had all sorts of elements to go after violent criminals, to lock them up, to get them off the streets, to protect our kids. The Democrats party line vote voted against it. So what I did today is I took just the school safety components of Cruiz Barosso, so not the whole thing, but what was

focused directly at enhancing school safety. And in particular it was thirty billion dollars, and that's with a bee of funding. Thirty billion dollars of funding to enhance school safety. And it has a number of elements. One element is doubling the number of police officers in schools so that we have twice as many police officers on campus. They're physically to protect our kids, to stop praise madmen from from

getting into classrooms and trying to murder our children. Number two, it has ten billion dollars to hire fifteen thousand new mental health professionals to help spot these deranged young men before they commit these kind of crimes, to help intervene early to stop this before it happens. And in addition to that, it is as funding for school safety improvements throughout the campus, things to make the campus more physically secure.

So what I did today as I stood up on the Senate floor and I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to pass it. Now, the procedures in the Senate, if you ask, it's called asking for a U see unanimous consent. The presiding officer then says is their objection, and if nobody objects, it passes it. It passes the same in it and it is treated as having passed one hundred to nothing. So there's a process for a UC, which is before you seek a UC, you tell the other side you're going to do it so they can

determine if they're going to object. So I told the Democrats last week I was going to seek UC to pass this, and we heard from the Democrats that they're going to object it. In particular, we heard Chris Murphy, who was the Democrat from Connecticut, was going to object. And I did a media interview a few days ago where a reporter asked me, said, well, well, what is his objection going to be? And I told the report

I said, actually, I don't know. I have no idea because they haven't articulated any substantive reasons why the bill is a bad idea. They haven't indicated anything they oppose. So I said, I guess I'm looking forward to hear what he has to say. So I stand up. I give a speech in favor of it, saying we need to do more, we need to keep our kids safe. This is a common sense bill. This ought to be a bill that passes one hundred to nothing. Presiding Officer

turns and says, is there any objection? And Chris Murphy stands up and he says, and I'm going to read you the entirety of his speech, Madam President, I object periclean wow, soaring oratory. And I have to admit I stood up at that point and I was flabbergasted. I've been in the Senate ten years. I've never seen that happen on a debate on the Senate floor. He provided not one word of argument, not one reason why it was a bad idea, not one harm. He has no

basis to object. He simply says I object and kills it. And I said, look at a time when I mean our kids, there is a real problem of mass murderers, of lunatics, who are targeting schools, who are targeting churches, who are targeting malls. I mean it is crime, is a serious problem which has gotten worse under Democrats. And this is this legislation would be the most comprehensive of the most far reaching, the most serious school safety legislation

ever enacted by the federal government. And the Democrats are killing it. Chris Murphy's killing it without even bothering to explain why. And I further said, on the Senate floor, I said, you know, there's a reason he feels he can do that. And I pointed up to the Senate gallery where the reporters normally sit, and I said, if you look at the gallery, the number of reporters presently here is zero point zero zero, not a single but

reporter bothered to show up. Why is it that the senator from Connecticut feels he can just kill this bill and provide zero reasoning as to why, because he knows the docile corporate media won't report on it, won't tell an when it happened, and we'll never ask him. He knows he will not get a question. Why did you single handedly prevent us from doubling the number of police officers on school campuses? Why did you kill fifteen thousand

new mental health counselors on school campuses? Because the media propagandists. And by the way, I then asked for a second, you see, I said, Look, I had assumed he would present some argument as to why he thought this was a bad idea. I don't know what it is because he chose not to, so I said, And maybe he disliked how we were spending it. Maybe he says we should spend more on counselors than on cops. I don't, I don't know, I don't. I mean, he didn't say anything.

So my second amendment was, there are right now, there's one hundred and thirty billion dollars in unspent COVID relief funds designated for schools. So Congress has appropriated it. It's sitting there, it hasn't been spent. The way my bill was paid for is it was using had unspent COVID funds, so it did not cost any additional money because that's

money that has already been allocated to schools. But I said, all right, if he doesn't like how my bill is spending it, I had a very simple, one page bill that simply says schools, if they wish to, can spend some of that COVID relief money on enhancing school security. So they can spend some of it on hiring police officers, or spend some of it on enhancing the physical security on campus. Right now, the Democrats have put in place

rules that stop them from doing that. So the very simple rule let the schools decide if they want to spend it on school safety. What did Murphy do? Stood up and objected and gave a very short speech, this time maybe a minute or two, where he says, I'm not arguing because this isn't real. He says, this is clickbait, to which I responded, okay, is very real. And in order for both of these bills, or either of these bills to pass, the Senator for Connecticut had to do

one thing, just shut up. If he simply had closed his mouth, these bills would have passed unanimously. But he's unwilling to do it, and it's because the Democrats, when it comes to crime and mass shootings, they have one political objective, and that's taking away the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. When it comes to actually stopping these crimes, not only are they not interested in doing it, they actively and affirmatively oppose serious steps to enhance the

security of schools, and we saw it tragically today. It's also just such weak sauce to say, I object and I want to participate because politics involves a certain aspect of rhetoric and theater to it. Yes, of course that's what politics. It involves talking and making speeches and persuading fellow members. Yeah, duh, of course that's politics. And that, to me is such a weak sauce. But it's also not really a plausible objection because he's saying, this is clickbait.

This is clickbait. But to your point, the media didn't show up. The press weren't even there. And this actually brings me, to my mind an even more amazing moment, which is, as far as I can tell, Senator, and

please fill in the details here. The Democrats had a pro media cartel bill that they've been working on for a very long time to give our corporate left wing propagandist media even more power, and specifically to try to get some more money at a big tech but maybe to wield some more power than they already do over all the rest of US and over free speech in the country. And as far as I can tell, you single handedly derailed it somehow, even though the Democrats still

run the Senate. How did that happen? So we had a markup last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bill that is called the Journalism Competition Protection Act, and it actually I would characterize the bill differently than you did, um in that I think there are some good aspects of the bill, and I was genuinely mixed on whether the bill was a good idea or not. What the bill purports to do is to help smaller journalistic out outlets and in particular local media, so local broadcasters,

local newspapers. Right now, if you're a local newspaper and you write a story, big tech can take your story and put it online and run ads like get ad revenue from putting your story your content that you produced online. Big tech can and does makes billions of dollars distributing the content you provided that. You know, look, if you were a musician, a radio station wouldn't have the ability to take your music and play it against your wishes and make money off of it without paying you. Right.

So the argument from local media is what we have either written these stories or put together these news stories in the case of broadcast TV, and big tech just monetizes it for themselves and doesn't pass anything. So what this bill does is it allows smaller journalistic outlets, and it defines smaller journalistic outlets as those with fifteen hundred

employers employees or fewer. So it excludes the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal in the Washington Post, for example, because they all have more than fifteen hundred employees. But smaller outlets can band together and can form a joint group to negotiate with big tech in order to get paid for their content. What you're describing, Senator, actually see fine, and so so then my question would be

why derail it? Yeah, so, and it's modeled after what happened in Australia where they did something very similar to it and Facebook said We're not going to comply, and then like two days later they said, oh crap, we need all this content. So now they're paying the local media. So it was in significant respects successful in Australia. That was the model for this. So this was a bill that was authored by Amy Klobuchar, the Democrat from Minnesota,

and John Kennedy, the Republican from from Louisiana. Was a good friend of mine and a really good guy. And I said at the Markup, so I was being lobbied by both sides on this. Big tech hates this bill. So that's that's a plus. Anything big tech hates I have a natural inclination to. Like Here's what I said at the Markup. I said, when I look at big tech in journalism, the single greatest threat to free speech we have today is big tech censorship. And I don't

want anything we do to increase big tech censorship. Moreover, I want anything we do to decrease big tech censorship. And what this bill did was create an exemption from the antitrust laws. So ordinarily, a bunch of competitors you can't get all the newspapers in a state to come together and negotiate, is one that violates the antitrust laws. So this bill creates an exemption from the antitrust laws to let them come together and negotiate with big tech.

And so I introduced an amendment. I said, the immunity from antitrust under this bill does not apply to any negotiations or agreements concerning content moderation, concerning censorship. In other words, you can get together and negotiate on price. You can say you got to pay me for what we're producing. But what you can't get together as you can't get a media cartel together with a big tech cartel and say hey, let's all agree that we will censor any

story about Donald J. Trump. And this bill would give that immunity for manitrust laws for them to get together as a cartel and collude to censor more effectively. And so it says, hey, if this is about price, they let them negotiate on price, but censorship should not be a topic that is covered by this bill. And so we vote on it, and all the Republicans vote for me,

including John Kennedy. And what John Kennedy says at the markup, he says, listen, I want to help the local newspapers and local stations, but I'm not interested in censorship, and what Cruiz is saying seems very reasonable that when they're bargaining, they shouldn't be bargaining about censorship, they should be bargaining about price. So Amy Klobuchar got very angry, begins screaming at John Kennedy in the market. She's like, we had a deal and you're not. You're not following our deal.

He's like, we didn't have a deal to allow censorship. That wasn't our deal. So they're going back and forth and we have a committee vote. Now here's what's very interesting. One of the Democrats, John Ossoff from Georgia, was not there. He actually had COVID and was an India, so he was out of the country. Normally, if you are absent, if a senator is absent from a mark up, your staff can have a proxy to vote for you. So even if you're not physically there, your staff can cast

a proxy vote that counts well. Osoff was not physically there and he had not given his staff the proxy to vote. They didn't have a vote from him one way or the other. So we voted on my amendment. Jesshry. Committee has eleven Democrats and eleven Republicans. We voted on it, and the vote was eleven to ten, eleven ours voting yes and only Tends voting no because asof wasn't there.

Dick Durban, the chairman of the committee, has head explode, like like they're it is worth watching how these Dems are just fulminating and spewing and they're losing their minds. And then Michael, what happened next was truly hysteric. Amy klobucharcis, so my amendment's been adopted. It's now part of her bill. And she says, well, if this isn't the bill, I can't support my bill. There you go, I no longer it is. I no longer support my own bill. And

she said, and we're gonna pull it down. I made clear if you adopt my amendment, I'll vote for your bill. And once the amendment was adopted, I would have voted for it. But it was amazing because the Democrats made clear in that mark up that they value censorship over anything else. It's total vindication of the Republican skepticism, right because the Democrats come out they say, this is just a bill about helping small newspapers, which I'm totally four.

You're totally for. I think most people are totally for. Okay, great, okay, man, you're not going to censor right now. No, we're not going to censor. Okay, great, Well, I'm just going to put in this little amendment that says you can't use this as a way to censor everybody. Then the amendment passes and then they say, yeah, never mind. It's just it just tells you what they were after the whole time. It was truly brazen, and I think it was revealing.

It showed censorship and silencing of the political opposition has become a core value of today's Democrat party. They support it, and apparently they're now willing to vote against their own bills if there's anything in them that might actually stop big tech from censoring Michael Knowles. That's amazing, that's amazing. I love it. I even I just love the whole kind of nitty gritty technical way. Because ass Off was out and you saw your life. I love the whole thing.

Speaking of close votes, though, I've got to ask you about a vote that's coming up that is causing me to lose my hair. You know, I count on my hair for a like count on it for like three inches of height, and it's causing me to pull my hair out. There is going to be this gay marriage vote. Now, the Supreme Court in o burghfel redefines marriage, and that's that. I guess. Now the Democrats want to enshrine this in law. So I actually pass along and say, now this is

the definition of marriage. And some Republicans seem to be wanting to go along with this, possibly some Republican senators, some Republican candidates. I don't see any reason to do this. The Supreme Court has already spoken. It's just I mean, this is to the left of Barack Obama circa twenty eleven. I just none of this is making sense to me. And I was looking at the numbers. Is this thing going to pass? So I don't know. And it is

even worse than you described. So what we're hearing is that this is likely to be what's called the comeback vote next Monday. So Monday typically when everyone flies back to DC for session, the first vote of the day is at five thirty pm on a Monday, and that's late enough that even from the West coast, you can fly in and get there in time. To vote. That's called the comeback vote, and it's what brings everyone back

to DC. We are hearing this week that the comeback vote on Monday is going to be the vote on this bill. And there are a couple of components of this bill. Number one, it is responding to a made up threat because, and we've talked about this at length, the Supreme Court majority and Dobbs explicitly said not once, not twice, but three times that the Court was not going to revisit a burger Fell. It was not going

to revisit its decision on gay marriage. You have Clarence Thomas, who wrote one concurrence, suggesting that, but the five justices explicitly said, no, we're not going to. The third time, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, says, I don't know how to say this anymore clearly, No, no, no. So as much as the Democrats and the media want to suggest that the Court is suddenly on the verge of overturning that decision, the Court's majority said unequivocally it was not.

So it's not trying to do address an affirmative threat to gay marriage, which which people could be concerned about. It's engaged in politics. But you know, look, if it were empty politics, that would be problematic, but not necessarily

the end of the world. But it's worse than that because if this bill passes, it repeals the Federal Defensive Marriage Act, which Bill Clinton signed in a a law it used to be Democrats would agree with defending marriage, but it also a men's federal law defining marriage to encompass whatever any state says marriage is that any state that is that makes anything called a marriage legal is automatically legal for federal law. And by the way, that's not

even limited to two people. That means of a state made polygamy legal federal law would immediately recognize polygamy as

federal law. I mean, I mean it is broadreaching. It's it's even worse than that, because you know, there was an oral argument that Don Varelli, who had been the Solicitor General under Barack Obama, was presenting before the Supreme Court, where where Justice Alito asked, well, isn't the next step for the irs to go after the five oh one C three status of any institution that does not agree with gay marriage? And Varilli admits, oh, yes, yes, that

that is the next step. And if this bill passes, the effect will be, and I'll make a prediction right now, if this bill passes and Joe Biden signs it into law, the Biden Irs will use this bill to target schools K through twelve schools, to target universities, to target charities, and to target churches that maintain a traditional definition of marriage, whether that is a Biblical definition of marriage, or whether that is a Jewish synagogue or a Muslim mosque, or

any religion that teaches that marriages the union of one man and one woman. The Biden Irs, if this bill passes, will be empowered to go after them, to go to your church and say, unless you accept gay marriage, we are stripping you of your five oh one C three tax status, which you want to talk about opening up a massive new front in the assault on religious liberty.

This bill is about empowering the Biden Irs to target every church and school and university and charity in America that refuses to knuckle under to their view of gay marriage. I think it's incredibly dangerous. And yet, Michael, you asked me, is it going to pass? I don't know every Democrat's going to vote for it, and there have been multiple

Republican senators who said they will too. I don't know if they get to sixty or not, but given the threat to religious liberty, I think it would be profoundly dangerous if this passage. It's just unconscionable to me that a Republican senator would even consider voting for this, because to your point, even if you support gay marriage, even if you support o Bergafelt, whatever, to say that you

want to empower the federal government Joe Biden's irs. We know that Biden is is pretty loose and capricious when it comes to wielding the executive agencies to crush his political opponents. That you would empower them to go after schools and churches and charities and all these organizations because they have the temerity to continue to hold the view of marriage that everyone threat all of history, all around

the world held until about seven years ago. It's just I have such low expectations for people in the political establishment that I thought nothing could shock me anymore. But it's the most outrageous thing I've heard in politics in years. I think, yeah, and and look, this is a very real threat to show this is not hypothetical. The City of Philadelphia denied Catholic Charities participation in adoption services because Catholic charities did not embrace gay marriage, as they believed

it was contrary to their faith. And that case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Sprining Court struck it down and said you can't exclude them. The difference is, once this bill passes, they'll go back and they'll try to exclude Catholic charities. They'll go back and they'll target any charity, any church, at a school, at a university that dares disagree, and it is a green light for religious persecution from the Zealots and the Biden Irs. Well, we were mentioning it's not just the

Republican senators who were talking about this. A lot of candidates are being asked about this now. And I know that you've been hitting the campaign trail like crazy for some of these Republican candidates. You were just up in New Hampshire, I believe with is it Caroline Levitt? Who is? She was behind and then she just and she was being outspend. Then she jumps ahead. So you're you're very much you know you're you're going to all of these places you see what's happening? One, I want to ask

you about that race. But two, where do we stand? I'm getting such conflicting information right now from pretty much every news source. Are we going to take the House or do we have a shot at the Senate? What's the state of the race. All right, well, let me start with your first question. So we had a great victory this week. There is New Hampshire had their primaries on Tuesday, and for one of the two congressional seats

in New Hampshire, it's a very close seat. A Democrat holds it now, but it's it's a seat that could go either way, could go Democrat or Republican. And there was a contested primary. The top two candidates in the primary were number one, a woman who I supported named Caroline Levitt. Caroline is twenty five years old. She is young, She is attractive, articulate, dynamic. She worked in the Trump White House. She worked on the press team in the

Trump White House. She is a New Hampshire native, grew up there, went to college there, played softball at St. Anselm's College. Is a really dynamic candidate and she's a conservative. If elected, she will be the youngest woman ever to serve in the House Representatives. She's you know, gen z, she's not even you know, she's not gen x, or even why she's gen z. Her principal opponent was a much more moderate candidate who had been Chris Christie's executive

director in New Hampshire. So he was a New Jersey Republican who moved to New Hampshire to run Chris kissed Christie's campaign and was not remotely as conservative as Caroline. However, the DC party bosses, if given a primary between a conservative and a moderate, reliably almost inevitably back the MOD and put big money behind the MOD because they want conservatives to lose. We've seen the DC party bosses attacking conservatives and primaries all over the country this year. It's

been really a problem. I've been fighting them in many of those races. Well, in this race, the DC party bosses and lobbyists spent five million dollars attacking Caroline Leavitt.

Five million dollars flooded the airwaves with attack ads, and by the way, in New Hampshire, five million dollars buys a lot of TV ads, right right, I mean that's a lot of money for any congressional race, but especially wow, that's crazy well, and ironically, that's five million dollars that was given by Republican donors to retake the House, not to try to defeat Conservatives in primaries, but the party bosses here they want House members who will not rock

the boat, who will obey them, who will just salute and take orders. Five million dollars. I saw what was happening. I endorsed Caroline early on. I'm raising money for her, raising hard money for her. And then last week, last Thursday, I got in a plane and I flew to New Hampshire and did a big rally for It was awesome. It was at a VFW VFW hall that that I hung out and drank beer and there were hundreds of people there and there was energy and there was a

grassroots enthusiasm. And she was losing, she was behind in the polls, but the rally, the rally dominated the news up there. We had a lot of enthusiam. Actually, right after the rally, she went on Tucker Carlson had a fantastic interview with Tucker that we watched from the VFW hall. She was filming it outside and so we're all sitting there having a beer watching it and everyone's cheering her, and then she came in and got a hearty round

of applause. Well, the election Tuesday night, she won, despite five million dollars being spent by DC party bosses. She won anyway, and she's now the candidate for the general election, and I think she's got a very good chance of winning, of defeating an incumbent Democrat, and of being a really strong leader in Washington. Senator, there's so much more to talk about, but not with me. What is left to talk about is going to be on the room with

our friend Liz Wheeler. Liz, what will you be discussing? Hi, Michael, Hi, Senator. We're gonna put on our legal hats for the cloakroom and discuss a very controversial ruling from the Supreme Court in which the Court is essentially forcing a Jewish university to officially give recognition to an LGBTQ club, which is in violation of that university's orthodox Jewish belief. So we're going to discuss the nitty gritty of what this ruling is and the sort of political aspect of it too.

Because Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the leftist justices. So you can join us with that discussion. Go to Verdict with Ted Cruz dot com slash Plus. If you use my promo code, which is Cloakroom, you can watch for free for the first month of your annual subscription. That is Verdict with Ted Cruz dot Com slash Plus. I

very much look forward to that discussion. I very much look forward to all of you out there subscribing to the show wherever you get your podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcast, all over the place. Until next time, 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, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.