Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Oceania Had Always Been at War with Eastasia

Transcript

Oceania Had Always Been at War with Eastasia · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has concluded it's absolutely magnificent term with
0:05
Speaker 1: a major blow to the deep state. So now we
0:10
Speaker 1: are in the dog days of summer and we are
0:12
Speaker 1: looking ahead, looking ahead to the midterm elections. This is
0:16
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict with Ted
0:25
Speaker 1: Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now,
0:28
Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
0:30
Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
0:32
Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
0:35
Speaker 1: the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
0:39
Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
0:42
Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
0:45
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
0:49
Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
0:54
Speaker 1: Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
0:57
Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your
1:00
Speaker 1: hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
1:03
Speaker 1: your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
1:07
Speaker 1: to get started. All it takes is a short phone
1:09
Speaker 1: call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
1:11
Speaker 1: right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your
1:14
Speaker 1: four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy.
1:16
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
1:18
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
1:20
Speaker 1: your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
1:23
Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
1:27
Speaker 1: Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
1:28
Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two. Again, the phone
1:32
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
1:34
Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word cactus to six five
1:37
Speaker 1: five three two. Welcome back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz.
1:40
Speaker 1: I am Michael Knowles, so pleased to be joined by
1:43
Speaker 1: the Senator who is on vacation, but there is no
1:47
Speaker 1: vacation when it comes to verdict So a Senator, thank
1:49
Speaker 1: you for jumping off the beach for a few moments
1:52
Speaker 1: to join us on the show. Well, happy fourth of July,
1:55
Speaker 1: and it's great to celebrate our nation's birth and independent
2:00
Speaker 1: and it's great to do that with the family at
2:03
Speaker 1: the beach, but sometimes you got to come back and
2:06
Speaker 1: address major issues that have come up. One of them
2:09
Speaker 1: is we've covered so much of this Supreme Court term,
2:12
Speaker 1: which seems to me certainly the greatest Supreme Court term
2:15
Speaker 1: in my lifetime, perhaps in American history. With the overruling
2:19
Speaker 1: of Row, you had the major win for Second Amendment rights,
2:23
Speaker 1: major win for religious liberty, major win for education freedom,
2:27
Speaker 1: and now in West Virginia versus EPA, a major blow
2:32
Speaker 1: for the administrative state. But this case, probably more than
2:36
Speaker 1: any of the others, is pretty complex. I don't know
2:40
Speaker 1: all the nuances of it, and I've really tried to
2:42
Speaker 1: dig into it. The case does not overrule what is
2:47
Speaker 1: called Chevron deference, which is a major source of power
2:50
Speaker 1: for the administrative state, but it does beef up the
2:53
Speaker 1: Major Questions doctrine, which is to protect the power of
2:57
Speaker 1: the people to make their voices heard against the administrative
3:03
Speaker 1: agencies of the executive What does this case do so,
3:07
Speaker 1: cutting to the bottom line, I think this case is
3:09
Speaker 1: an important victory A for democracy, for actually having control
3:14
Speaker 1: of policy, b in the democratically elected branches of government,
3:18
Speaker 1: and B for jobs and our ability to pay our bills.
3:26
Speaker 1: So what this concerned was under the Obama administration, they
3:30
Speaker 1: rolled out what they called their Clean Power Plan, and
3:32
Speaker 1: it was the EPA. It was a massive power grab
3:36
Speaker 1: to essentially shut down coal fired power plants across the country,
3:42
Speaker 1: and force a transition to natural gas and wind and solar.
3:47
Speaker 1: And to do so, the EPA itself admitted that its plan,
3:50
Speaker 1: the Obama EPA, would cost billions of dollars in the economy,
3:54
Speaker 1: would destroy tens of thousands of jobs, this was their
3:57
Speaker 1: own estimate, and would drive up everyone's cost of energy.
4:01
Speaker 1: So that that was the Obama administration's big present to America. Now,
4:06
Speaker 1: the plan has been litigated ever since the Obama administration.
4:11
Speaker 1: Under Trump, they rescinded the rule. Under Biden, they rescinded
4:15
Speaker 1: the decision. In other words, they potentially teed it up again.
4:20
Speaker 1: Just when we've got five dollar gasoline and electricity prices
4:23
Speaker 1: going through the roof. The Biden EPA was threatening to
4:27
Speaker 1: put yet more regulatory burdens driving up the cost of energy.
4:30
Speaker 1: And what the Supreme Court did has struck it down.
4:33
Speaker 1: It was a six three decision. Chief Justice Roberts wrote
4:37
Speaker 1: the opinion. And what Chief Justice Roberts relied on, as
4:42
Speaker 1: you mentioned it there, it's called the Major Questions doctrine.
4:44
Speaker 1: The Major Questions doctrine essentially says that if there is
4:51
Speaker 1: a regulatory decision that is a big deal that has
4:55
Speaker 1: big consequences, economically, politically, that Congress has to have been
5:01
Speaker 1: very clear in giving the agency the authority to do it,
5:04
Speaker 1: that the Court is not going to read in some vague,
5:07
Speaker 1: ambiguous language. In this case, the Obama EPA was relying
5:12
Speaker 1: on language that had been on the books for decades,
5:15
Speaker 1: had never been applied to have such a massive power grab.
5:20
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court said, look, if if you're looking
5:24
Speaker 1: at a regulation that is going to have a massive
5:26
Speaker 1: economic impact, you can do that. But Congress has to
5:30
Speaker 1: be really clear that it wants to give the agency
5:34
Speaker 1: that authority that we're not going to read in just
5:38
Speaker 1: through vague and ambiguous language. And I think that that's
5:41
Speaker 1: an important decision. One of the things the Court relied
5:44
Speaker 1: on quite a bit is the fact that that Congress
5:47
Speaker 1: had repeatedly debated cap and trade, had debated putting a
5:51
Speaker 1: tax on carbon, had debated a lot of these policies,
5:54
Speaker 1: and had rejected it over and over and over again.
5:57
Speaker 1: And the Court said, look, if Congress, when they try
6:00
Speaker 1: to vote on it, can't decide this is a good idea,
6:03
Speaker 1: we're not going to read into ambiguous language the ability
6:07
Speaker 1: for the agency to just circumvent Congress. So this is
6:10
Speaker 1: a big win for the conservative who wanted to deal
6:13
Speaker 1: the conservatives who have for a long time wanted to
6:16
Speaker 1: deal a blow against the administrative state and against the
6:19
Speaker 1: EPA in particular. We're Goodness takes the epas the villain
6:22
Speaker 1: and ghostbusters. They've been in our cross here is for
6:25
Speaker 1: a very long time. But it doesn't seem to go
6:27
Speaker 1: all the way that many libertarians and conservatives have wanted
6:31
Speaker 1: the Court to go, which is to overrule Chevron deference
6:35
Speaker 1: at which comes out of a Supreme Court decision that
6:38
Speaker 1: gives a lot of authority to the agencies to regulate themselves.
6:42
Speaker 1: Is that right? That's right? And look, I think it's
6:46
Speaker 1: entirely possible that this Court will overrule Chevron Deference in
6:50
Speaker 1: a subsequent case. The Court didn't need to go there
6:54
Speaker 1: in this case because the Major Questions Doctrine resolved the
6:57
Speaker 1: matter and resolved it actively, and so it was unnecessary
7:01
Speaker 1: to consider Chevron deference and decide it on that basis.
7:06
Speaker 1: You know what I would say? So a legislative proposal
7:11
Speaker 1: that I've long been in a proponent of is something
7:13
Speaker 1: called the Rains Act, and I'm a co sponsor the
7:15
Speaker 1: Rains Act. The Rains Act provides that any regulation that
7:21
Speaker 1: imposes an economic cost of one hundred million dollars or
7:25
Speaker 1: more requires an updown vote from Congress before going into effect,
7:30
Speaker 1: and the Rains Act hasn't passed. I have fought hard
7:35
Speaker 1: to try to get it passed, and we haven't gotten
7:37
Speaker 1: it done yet. I tried very hard with the Trump
7:40
Speaker 1: administration for them to make it a priority, and the
7:42
Speaker 1: Trump White House that it just wasn't a priority for them.
7:46
Speaker 1: I think it would have been the most significant regulatory
7:49
Speaker 1: reform we could do to create an environment where jobs
7:54
Speaker 1: are plentiful. This Supreme Court decision is a step in
7:59
Speaker 1: that direction because it is saying the way they laid
8:02
Speaker 1: out the major questions doctrine, they said, if it has
8:05
Speaker 1: a big economic impact. Now, they didn't quantify what a
8:08
Speaker 1: big economic impact was. And here the Obama administration's own
8:13
Speaker 1: estimate is that they were destroying tens of thousands of jobs,
8:15
Speaker 1: so that they were readily admitting that they were they
8:19
Speaker 1: were having a big, big economic impact. But this decision
8:23
Speaker 1: I think is positive for limiting executive power absent congressional authorization,
8:31
Speaker 1: and I think that's that's important for part of the
8:36
Speaker 1: reason why you see regulations that are really harmful to
8:39
Speaker 1: the to jobs and businesses coming from the executive branch
8:45
Speaker 1: is because bureacrats are unaccountable. They don't have to face
8:48
Speaker 1: the people. And there's a power to having elected officials
8:53
Speaker 1: vote on it, because look, if you're a member of Congress,
8:56
Speaker 1: it's not an easy vote to cast a vote to
8:58
Speaker 1: destroy tens of thousands of jobs. You tend to have
9:01
Speaker 1: the people whose jobs you're destroying get really ticked off
9:04
Speaker 1: at you and show up at town halls and yell
9:06
Speaker 1: at you. And so there's a reason even Democrats at look,
9:10
Speaker 1: some of the crazies don't mind voting that way, but
9:12
Speaker 1: even Democrats get nervous about directly voting to destroy a
9:16
Speaker 1: lot of jobs. That democratic accountability, I think is good
9:21
Speaker 1: for economic freedom because if you have people who vote
9:24
Speaker 1: for it, it lets the voters in the next election
9:27
Speaker 1: step up and throw the bums out. Now, you mentioned
9:30
Speaker 1: crazy Democrats, and this brings up a completely unrelated issue,
9:35
Speaker 1: only related in the sense that unaccountable people are passing
9:38
Speaker 1: lots of insane regulations right now. But I do have
9:41
Speaker 1: to get your take on it, because it has somehow
9:43
Speaker 1: come to dominate a lot of the political conversation over
9:46
Speaker 1: the past few days Jordan Peterson and Dave Ruben. You're
9:51
Speaker 1: just thrown off of Twitter. They've been suspended Jordan for
9:55
Speaker 1: making a comment and then Dave for reposting is comment.
9:58
Speaker 1: And the comment, WHI is that Ellen Page the actress?
10:04
Speaker 1: Is Ellen Page the actress? That was essentially the comment
10:07
Speaker 1: Jordan referred to Ellen Page, who's the girl from Juno
10:10
Speaker 1: who now identifies as a man and calls herself Elliott.
10:13
Speaker 1: He just called her Ellen and didn't disparage her really
10:17
Speaker 1: in anyway, just pointed out that you had gone through
10:19
Speaker 1: this gender transition and use the female pronounces. He was
10:23
Speaker 1: thrown off for that. Dave was then thrown off the
10:26
Speaker 1: internet for that. Have we really descended this far where
10:31
Speaker 1: if you call a celebrity, very well known woman by
10:37
Speaker 1: the name that she was known by for most of
10:39
Speaker 1: her career, that you can now be thrown out of
10:43
Speaker 1: the public square with basically no way to fight back. Look,
10:47
Speaker 1: it is true insanity and the woke rules are changing
10:52
Speaker 1: so fast you need a guide to reference it. So
10:55
Speaker 1: apparently you're not allowed to say the words Ellen Page.
10:58
Speaker 1: Are you allowed to say the words Ellen Page age?
11:01
Speaker 1: With reference to when Ellen was going by Ellen and
11:04
Speaker 1: starring in movies with the names Ellen Page on them.
11:06
Speaker 1: Are you allowed to say that? Are you allowed to
11:08
Speaker 1: say that Bruce Jenner was on the cover of Wheaties
11:11
Speaker 1: or was that Caitlyn Jenner? And we didn't know it
11:13
Speaker 1: even though it had the words Bruce Jenner printed on
11:15
Speaker 1: the cover on the outside of the Wheati's box, there's
11:19
Speaker 1: a level of you know, the term Orwellian gets tossed
11:24
Speaker 1: around a lot, but it really is big, big tech
11:27
Speaker 1: trying to erase we're at war with Eurasia. We've always
11:31
Speaker 1: been at war with Eurasia. Anyone who says to the
11:34
Speaker 1: contrary shall be disappeared. Now, look, if Ellen or Elliot
11:40
Speaker 1: or whoever wants to go by whatever name they want
11:42
Speaker 1: to go, fine, let go by whatever name you want.
11:45
Speaker 1: That that's but to say no one is allowed to
11:50
Speaker 1: say anything different. It's the opposite of liberty. It's totalitarian.
11:56
Speaker 1: Is I think Ellen or Elliott or whatever name tomorrow
11:59
Speaker 1: you want to go by Moon Unit, I don't care, Like,
12:03
Speaker 1: call yourself whatever you want, that's fine, But nobody has
12:06
Speaker 1: the right to silence others and to see Twitter just
12:09
Speaker 1: so casually flicked Jordan Peterson off Twitter, so casually flicked
12:13
Speaker 1: Dave Rubin off Twitter. I think is one of the
12:17
Speaker 1: reasons we've talked about it a lot. I very much
12:20
Speaker 1: hope Elon Musk goes through with this purchase. I think
12:23
Speaker 1: it may be the most important development for free speech
12:26
Speaker 1: in decades, and hopefully if and when Musk buys Twitter,
12:33
Speaker 1: this sort of garbage will stop, because it is idiocy.
12:37
Speaker 1: There's a kind of irony here too, because before Allen
12:40
Speaker 1: started identifying as Elliott, she was gay, married to a
12:44
Speaker 1: woman to a woman who identifies as a lesbian. This
12:47
Speaker 1: was after same sex marriage became a cultural phenomenon, but
12:52
Speaker 1: sort of before transgenderism became a cultural phenomenon. And it
12:55
Speaker 1: occurred to me that to affirm Ellen, who now goes
12:59
Speaker 1: by Elliot's gender identity, is to deny her lesbian partners
13:09
Speaker 1: sexual orientation. I'm trying to see if I can keep
13:12
Speaker 1: that straight, which is to say, we cannot simultaneously affirm
13:18
Speaker 1: so many contradictory things. And you mentioned it's Oceania being
13:23
Speaker 1: at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at
13:26
Speaker 1: war with East Asia. The rules are changing so constantly.
13:29
Speaker 1: I think what is really scary for Americans who aren't
13:32
Speaker 1: keeping up and who don't really care. What Ellen Page
13:35
Speaker 1: does is that you can be ostracized, You can be
13:39
Speaker 1: censored and removed from the town square because Twitter and
13:42
Speaker 1: Google and Facebook, those are the town square now for
13:45
Speaker 1: simply saying the thing that every single person believed until
13:49
Speaker 1: about five minutes ago. If Twitter now holds that you
13:53
Speaker 1: cannot call a woman who identifies as a man a woman, well,
13:58
Speaker 1: then effectively are aren't they prohibiting any disagreement with transgenderism?
14:03
Speaker 1: The vast majority of Americans who I suspect do not
14:06
Speaker 1: go along with a radical transgender kind of worldview. Does
14:10
Speaker 1: that mean that now the people who control the public square,
14:14
Speaker 1: the flow of ninety percent of information around the Internet, Google, Facebook,
14:17
Speaker 1: and Twitter, we're just not allowed to express our opinions. Look,
14:20
Speaker 1: that's exactly what it means that they want to silence dissent.
14:24
Speaker 1: You know. I will say back in twenty sixteen, I
14:27
Speaker 1: actually had a person who identified herself to me as
14:30
Speaker 1: Ellen Page confront me an Iowan. So I was at
14:34
Speaker 1: the Iowa State Fair. I was actually cooking pork chops
14:37
Speaker 1: at the Iowa State Fair, and this young woman walked
14:41
Speaker 1: up to me and began questioning me on I don't
14:45
Speaker 1: remember exactly. It was gay marriage, gay lesbian issues. I
14:49
Speaker 1: had no idea who she was, but that conversation with her,
14:52
Speaker 1: it was filmed and put out there, and at the
14:54
Speaker 1: time she had later identified herself as actors Ellen Page.
14:57
Speaker 1: I am I allowed to say that. That's what she
14:59
Speaker 1: told her name was when she was questioning me, and
15:01
Speaker 1: that's what she said online. Maybe I was being questioned
15:04
Speaker 1: by Elliott. I didn't know it like it. There is
15:08
Speaker 1: a level of this gets pitched and it's like through
15:14
Speaker 1: the looking that glass where they say this is all
15:19
Speaker 1: about I guess the phrase is dead name him. You know,
15:23
Speaker 1: you don't have a right to control what other people say.
15:27
Speaker 1: You know, if Michael you want to go by Michelle,
15:30
Speaker 1: knock yourself out. But but you don't have the right.
15:36
Speaker 1: You know. It's like the old phrase, my freedom to
15:38
Speaker 1: swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
15:41
Speaker 1: You have all the liberty you want to say what
15:43
Speaker 1: you want, but that doesn't extend to silencing someone else
15:46
Speaker 1: saying something that you don't like. And today's left doesn't
15:50
Speaker 1: believe that. Part of it is they're rules on things
15:54
Speaker 1: like like gender, and I don't know how many one
15:59
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty seven genders. I can't keep up with
16:01
Speaker 1: the latest, the latest, fantastical distinctions. Their rules make so
16:07
Speaker 1: little sense that I think they realize they must silence
16:11
Speaker 1: anyone questioning them because they can't defend them on the merits.
16:16
Speaker 1: And that does fundamentally reflect and acknowledging a weakness on
16:19
Speaker 1: their part. It also does seem to go along with
16:22
Speaker 1: the broad broader leftist ethos, which is a rejection of
16:26
Speaker 1: the past. Actually, if you read some of the literature
16:29
Speaker 1: around the phenomenon of dead naming, this phrase only cropped
16:33
Speaker 1: up about ten years ago on the Internet to refer
16:36
Speaker 1: to the names that people have gone by their whole
16:38
Speaker 1: lives until they decide to identify as the opposite sex.
16:42
Speaker 1: A lot of the literature around that will discuss it
16:44
Speaker 1: as a rejection of the past. It didn't happen. Ellen
16:48
Speaker 1: was never Ellen. Ellen was always Elliott. Your Oceani was
16:52
Speaker 1: always at war with East Asia. As you say, well,
16:55
Speaker 1: and let me ask you a question. Let me ask
16:57
Speaker 1: a question on this, Michael. And this is this is
16:59
Speaker 1: where you're you're good at Theoretical navel gazing is the
17:07
Speaker 1: current theory of transgenderism. Let's take it that Ellen was
17:11
Speaker 1: always Elliott. And if that's the case, that does that
17:15
Speaker 1: imply that there actually is objective truth that Ellen was
17:18
Speaker 1: in fact Elliott. And isn't that in contradiction with the
17:22
Speaker 1: other left wing tenant that you can change whatever the
17:26
Speaker 1: hell you are right now, you can become a woman,
17:28
Speaker 1: a man, and a chipmunk, all in the course of
17:30
Speaker 1: this podcast, Like is their objective truth or not? And
17:35
Speaker 1: what I don't know is do the leftist activist do
17:38
Speaker 1: they distinguish like, dude, are they willing to say, well,
17:43
Speaker 1: Ellen may have been a woman in twenty sixteen when
17:46
Speaker 1: she introduced herself as Ellen and said she was a woman,
17:49
Speaker 1: but now she's a man? Or do they maintain that
17:55
Speaker 1: what is today was yesterday too and she didn't change anything?
18:00
Speaker 1: And how do you tell the difference? Is there like
18:01
Speaker 1: a guide some people say they change and some didn't
18:05
Speaker 1: like what's the what is the reasoning behind this? The
18:10
Speaker 1: current view held by the people who promote this kind
18:12
Speaker 1: of ideology is that Ellen is now and always was Elliott,
18:18
Speaker 1: even when she was in that movie about being pregnant
18:21
Speaker 1: and possibly having an abortion, when she was in Juno,
18:23
Speaker 1: even then she was really a man. But what if
18:27
Speaker 1: Elliott believes that she was Ellen? Then like like, is
18:31
Speaker 1: she allowed or he allowed? Well, this I think is
18:33
Speaker 1: the key. Is that an acceptable? This is the key
18:36
Speaker 1: because you know on Wikipedia, if you look at Ellen
18:39
Speaker 1: Page or Bruce Jenner or any really prominent person who
18:41
Speaker 1: identifies as transgender, the way that that person will be
18:45
Speaker 1: described will always be with the pronouns that they are
18:49
Speaker 1: now using, including going back to the very moment of birth.
18:53
Speaker 1: But your question is such an important one because you're saying, well,
18:57
Speaker 1: what decides if Ellen wakes up tomorrow and says I'm
19:00
Speaker 1: Ellen again, I'm as she again, and people have done
19:02
Speaker 1: that plenty of times, then is she is she again?
19:05
Speaker 1: And I think that's the case. I think what this
19:07
Speaker 1: ultimately comes down to is not that there is objective truth.
19:11
Speaker 1: For the obviously there is objective truth. But I don't
19:14
Speaker 1: think the contention of the left and the transgender ideology
19:17
Speaker 1: is that there is objective truth. I think what it
19:19
Speaker 1: comes down to is the primacy of the will. Whatever
19:23
Speaker 1: Ellen says is true, even if what Ellen says contradicts
19:27
Speaker 1: what Allen said yesterday. And so politics devolves from a
19:31
Speaker 1: reasoned debate that you constantly hear conservatives and old school
19:36
Speaker 1: liberals lamenting the loss of reasoned civil dialogue. Well that
19:39
Speaker 1: has to go away. If politics really only comes down
19:42
Speaker 1: to my will versus your will, and my interest versus
19:46
Speaker 1: your interest, well then we can't talk to each other.
19:48
Speaker 1: Then then we really can't even communicate. It's just all
19:51
Speaker 1: a bunch of sounds and pronouns and new noises that
19:56
Speaker 1: don't really have any coherence to them. Well unless they're
19:59
Speaker 1: connect to divorce, and you will be fired, you will
20:02
Speaker 1: be silenced, you will be blocked, you will be canceled
20:06
Speaker 1: if you don't comply with what I demand. And that's
20:10
Speaker 1: the call of the left, you know, on these names.
20:13
Speaker 1: I also all it's also seems to me that the
20:15
Speaker 1: names are intentionally provocative. You know, there are plenty of
20:18
Speaker 1: names that are androgynous and ambiguous. I don't know Taylor,
20:22
Speaker 1: Skylar Madison, you know. But when it comes down to
20:26
Speaker 1: this question of someone who's obviously a woman going by
20:30
Speaker 1: I don't know, Hank or something that seems a little
20:32
Speaker 1: little crazy as well. And I think this issue keeps
20:37
Speaker 1: getting so much play in large part because ordinary people
20:41
Speaker 1: who are not engaging in all this kind of ideological
20:44
Speaker 1: naval gazing who are not very online or marching with
20:48
Speaker 1: the radical leftists in the streets, who are just kind
20:50
Speaker 1: of conducting their ordinary lives. They're looking at this and
20:53
Speaker 1: they're saying, I know this is obviously wrong. Well, I
20:57
Speaker 1: will say, so, I'm on a plane an awful lot,
20:59
Speaker 1: and so I download lots and lots of shows, streaming shows,
21:04
Speaker 1: and one of the shows that I've watched on Netflix
21:06
Speaker 1: is something called Umbrella Academy about these students who have
21:11
Speaker 1: sort of superhero type powers. And for the first two seasons,
21:15
Speaker 1: Umbrella Academy starred Ellen Page and the third season, which
21:20
Speaker 1: I just finished watching it now, stars Elliot Page. And
21:24
Speaker 1: what's interesting is the character in the Netflix series has
21:31
Speaker 1: the same transition that Ellen slash Elliot has had, and
21:36
Speaker 1: in fact, the beginning of season three, the character is
21:40
Speaker 1: a woman, although the credits say it's Elliott Page playing
21:47
Speaker 1: a woman, and then the character decides that she is
21:51
Speaker 1: a heat And part of how Hollywood does this is
21:55
Speaker 1: every single person immediately just this is reality and and
22:02
Speaker 1: and it was an interesting example because when I started
22:04
Speaker 1: watching season three, I was kind of curious how they
22:06
Speaker 1: were going to handle this issue, and so they made
22:09
Speaker 1: the character completely mirror what the actor was going through
22:15
Speaker 1: as well, which which I just thought was an interesting wrinkle.
22:18
Speaker 1: It's a total failure of imagination, it seems. Also, it
22:22
Speaker 1: seems that it used to be that acting was when
22:24
Speaker 1: you pretended to be someone that you were not. Now
22:27
Speaker 1: we're told that unless you're gay, you can't play a
22:30
Speaker 1: gay character, unless you're this specific sub race of a
22:34
Speaker 1: group of p you can't play a person of that
22:36
Speaker 1: group unless you know what. Whatever happened to playing pretend,
22:39
Speaker 1: whatever happened to the imagination that that seems to be
22:42
Speaker 1: out the window right now, Michael, That's exactly right. The
22:45
Speaker 1: concept of acting has has just gone away. I mean
22:49
Speaker 1: now in order to play Michael Knowles, one must be
22:55
Speaker 1: a Catholic conservative attack Sicilian, and nobody other than Michael
23:02
Speaker 1: Knowles can play up Michael Knowles. That's right, and the
23:05
Speaker 1: whole concept of acting has gone. You know, there's a
23:08
Speaker 1: there's a famous story of when Sir Lawrence Olivier was
23:12
Speaker 1: doing a movie along with Dustin Hoffman, and you know,
23:15
Speaker 1: Hoffman is famously a method actor, and in the scene
23:18
Speaker 1: he was required to be very, very tired, so he
23:21
Speaker 1: stayed up all night and he was exhausted, and for
23:24
Speaker 1: some reason there was a problem shooting and they weren't
23:26
Speaker 1: able to fill in the scene, and Hoffman got upset
23:29
Speaker 1: and uh and and and you know, I was like, look,
23:32
Speaker 1: I stayed up all night. I was like getting ready,
23:34
Speaker 1: now we're not going to shoot the scene. And Sir
23:35
Speaker 1: Lawrence Olivier uh famously quipped to him, he said, my
23:40
Speaker 1: dear boy, why don't you try right right? And then
23:46
Speaker 1: the sort of meta's story on top of that, Uh,
23:49
Speaker 1: did you ever see the movie Hook? Yeah? Oh years ago,
23:52
Speaker 1: but yes, you know, it's a great movie with Robin
23:55
Speaker 1: Williams and Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams plays a grown
23:58
Speaker 1: up Peter Pan and Dustin Hoffman plays Captain Hook. And
24:02
Speaker 1: apparently while they were filming Hook, Robin Williams would make
24:06
Speaker 1: fun of of of Hoffman and he would, you know,
24:09
Speaker 1: he'd make the voice of a parrot and he go, caw,
24:12
Speaker 1: try acting, try acting, And apparently there is no acting anymore. No,
24:18
Speaker 1: no acting is over. I do want to clarify for
24:21
Speaker 1: people too, if you do want to play me, not
24:24
Speaker 1: just any Italian will do not. I don't want any
24:26
Speaker 1: northern Itali. It's got to be from the town in
24:28
Speaker 1: Sicily where my family comes from. That's how particular we're
24:32
Speaker 1: we're going to get now that you know they say
24:35
Speaker 1: that politics is show business for ugly people, and speaking
24:38
Speaker 1: of particularity, I want to get Ninian. Thank you, Michael.
24:41
Speaker 1: I take that personally, so thank you very much, with
24:46
Speaker 1: notable exceptions of course, of course obviously for the people
24:49
Speaker 1: on this podcast. But you know, when we're looking ahead
24:53
Speaker 1: to the midterms, we got a whole lot of seats,
24:56
Speaker 1: we got all of those hundreds of congressional seats, We've
25:00
Speaker 1: got a whole bunch of Senate seats up to say
25:02
Speaker 1: nothing about the state houses. So since you're much more
25:06
Speaker 1: focused on the ground, on the nitty gritty, know the
25:09
Speaker 1: players very closely. What should conservatives be looking at, where
25:12
Speaker 1: should we be looking what races should we be focused on,
25:16
Speaker 1: and how by what margin are we going to win?
25:20
Speaker 1: So I'm very optimistic for November. I think it is
25:22
Speaker 1: going to be an historic victory. I think the chances
25:26
Speaker 1: of our taking the House are are approaching one hundred percent.
25:29
Speaker 1: I think it is virtually a certainty that will take
25:31
Speaker 1: the House. I think the real question is how big
25:34
Speaker 1: of a margin? And I think the chances are good
25:37
Speaker 1: that will take the Senate. I'd probably handicap the Senate
25:40
Speaker 1: at sixty five thirty five on the House side. Some
25:44
Speaker 1: of the reason why I'm so optimistic, let me give
25:46
Speaker 1: you just some of the specific data, because the two
25:53
Speaker 1: best predictors for elections historically have been the generic congressional ballot,
26:00
Speaker 1: which is just asking people in the upcoming congressional election,
26:03
Speaker 1: do you intend to vote Republican or Democrats, So without
26:06
Speaker 1: a name of a candidate that is measured every year,
26:09
Speaker 1: that's a very good predictor for what's going to happen
26:12
Speaker 1: in November. And then the presidential approval or disapproval. And
26:16
Speaker 1: consistently those two together had been very good predictors. So
26:19
Speaker 1: if you look at you look at for example, twenty ten,
26:25
Speaker 1: which was an historic year. In that election, the generic
26:29
Speaker 1: ballot was Republican plus nine point four, so it was
26:32
Speaker 1: really strong generic ballot. Presidential approval was actually not too bad,
26:37
Speaker 1: it was point five, so it was just the disapproval
26:42
Speaker 1: was just slightly above approval, and we ended up picking
26:49
Speaker 1: up sixty three seats, getting to a majority of two
26:52
Speaker 1: hundred and forty two seats. Likewise, twenty fourteen, the generic
26:56
Speaker 1: was our plus two point four. Presidential approval was ten
27:01
Speaker 1: point four, and we got to two hundred and forty
27:04
Speaker 1: seven seats. Now, if you look at where we are
27:07
Speaker 1: today in twenty twenty two, the generic congressional is R
27:12
Speaker 1: plus three point three, So that means by a three
27:14
Speaker 1: point three percent people say they're going to vote Republican
27:17
Speaker 1: instead of Democrat. That's better than it was in twenty fourteen,
27:21
Speaker 1: although not as good as it was in twenty ten.
27:23
Speaker 1: But the presidential approval is minus eleven point five, which
27:28
Speaker 1: is by far the worst, much much worse than twenty ten,
27:32
Speaker 1: much much worse than twenty fourteen. Let me give you
27:34
Speaker 1: another stat that is a very interesting predictor, which is
27:38
Speaker 1: the enthusiasm gap. If you ask voters, are you very
27:42
Speaker 1: excited to vote in November, it's a really good predictor
27:45
Speaker 1: of what's going to happen. And if you go back
27:47
Speaker 1: and look at it. In two thousand and six, Democrats
27:53
Speaker 1: who were very interested in voting in November sixty nine percent,
27:56
Speaker 1: Republicans fifty six percent. So the Democrats had a thirteen
28:00
Speaker 1: percentage advantage on enthusiasm. They picked up thirty seats twenty
28:06
Speaker 1: ten Democrats who were very interested was forty nine percent,
28:10
Speaker 1: Republicans was sixty six percent, So Republicans had a seventeen
28:15
Speaker 1: percent advantage. We picked up sixty three twenty fourteen, the
28:20
Speaker 1: differential was eleven percent. We picked up thirteen seats. Twenty eighteen,
28:28
Speaker 1: the differential Democrats who were interested was sixty six percent,
28:32
Speaker 1: Republicans fifty seven. So Democrats had a nine point advantage
28:37
Speaker 1: and enthusiasm. They picked up forty seats. And then if
28:41
Speaker 1: you go and look to March of twenty twenty two,
28:45
Speaker 1: Democrats fifty percent of very interested in voting. In November,
28:48
Speaker 1: Republicans sixty seven percent, so we've got a seventeen percent advantage.
28:53
Speaker 1: All of that is suggesting that we could see a
28:57
Speaker 1: Republican victory in the House with potentially a pickup anywhere
29:02
Speaker 1: from thirty to sixty seats. I think that's the spread
29:05
Speaker 1: that's in play, which is a whole lot of seats.
29:10
Speaker 1: What we're seeing is congressional seats that are say a
29:15
Speaker 1: D plus six or a D plus eight are right
29:18
Speaker 1: now polling tie. If you look at Virginia, Virginia last year,
29:24
Speaker 1: as you know, elected Glenn Younkin. Biden won Virginia by
29:27
Speaker 1: ten points, So Virginia was a D plus ten and
29:31
Speaker 1: an election day last year it went Republican. If we're
29:34
Speaker 1: winning D plus ten congressional seats, we're looking at sixty
29:38
Speaker 1: plus pickups in the House. So I think it's going
29:40
Speaker 1: to be a big, big deal, And I think how
29:44
Speaker 1: the Senate is too. So there are far too many
29:48
Speaker 1: congressional House seats to track. In terms of the Senate races,
29:53
Speaker 1: You've got some big celebrity candidates. Jdevans has made a
29:57
Speaker 1: huge splash in Ohio. The yours is already a celebrity
30:01
Speaker 1: and has been for a long time in Pennsylvania. What
30:04
Speaker 1: are the races that we should really be looking at,
30:07
Speaker 1: whether because they're bellweathers, you know, they're they're gonna tell
30:11
Speaker 1: us which way the winds are blowing, or just because
30:14
Speaker 1: they're so crucial for Republicans to pick. Sure, So the
30:17
Speaker 1: reason the Senate is far less certain than the House
30:20
Speaker 1: is that we don't have a great map this year.
30:22
Speaker 1: So Republicans are defending more vulnerable seats than Democrats are.
30:25
Speaker 1: And that just as luck of the draw of who
30:28
Speaker 1: happens to be up, because in the Senate only the
30:29
Speaker 1: third of the senators are up. Every two years. If
30:34
Speaker 1: you look at Republican pickup opportunities, the fourmost natural are Georgia, Arizona, Nevada,
30:45
Speaker 1: and New Hampshire. Georgia and Arizona have historically been read states.
30:50
Speaker 1: Just a couple of years ago, they had both had
30:53
Speaker 1: two two Republican senators. Now both Georgia and Arizona have
30:57
Speaker 1: two Democrats senators. In Georgia, you've got Herschel Walker running um.
31:04
Speaker 1: I think I think Walker's got a good shot at
31:06
Speaker 1: winning that race. I think Georgia is still fundamentally a
31:09
Speaker 1: red state. Uh the special elections or the runoff elections
31:14
Speaker 1: that that happened in in twenty twenty one, Republican turnout
31:19
Speaker 1: was depressed. It was right after the election. I was
31:21
Speaker 1: on the ground. I saw it that that that our
31:23
Speaker 1: base was demoralized and didn't show up in that special election.
31:27
Speaker 1: And if if your guys stay home and the other
31:29
Speaker 1: guys show up, that's that's a recipe for losing. So
31:32
Speaker 1: I think Georgia is a real pickup opportunity. Arizona is
31:36
Speaker 1: a real pickup opportunity. That's got a messy primary right now.
31:39
Speaker 1: There's several candidates slugging it out in that primary, so
31:41
Speaker 1: it's not clear who the Republican nominee is going to be.
31:46
Speaker 1: Mark Kelly is the incumbent Democrat, and he is. He's formidable,
31:51
Speaker 1: He's an astronaut um. His temperament seems moderate. I do
31:57
Speaker 1: think Kelly has been really, really hurt by Kirsten Cinema,
32:01
Speaker 1: the other Democrat senator from Arizona, because Cinema, on a
32:05
Speaker 1: number of issues, most notably the filibuster, has stood up
32:09
Speaker 1: to party leadership and has has tacked a more moderate course,
32:14
Speaker 1: and it's made Kelly. It's revealed him. His voting record
32:18
Speaker 1: is in many ways indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders, and I
32:20
Speaker 1: think that even though he cultivates a persona being a moderate,
32:26
Speaker 1: his voting record now does not match up with that.
32:28
Speaker 1: I think Arizona we got a good pickup opportunity Nevada.
32:32
Speaker 1: Adam Laxalt won the primary. I endorsed Adam, I campaigned
32:37
Speaker 1: with him. I think Adam is a great pickup opportunity
32:39
Speaker 1: if I were. In fact, I think Nevada Adam is
32:43
Speaker 1: the most likely Republican pickup this cycle because I think
32:47
Speaker 1: he's done a good job of unifying the party. I
32:49
Speaker 1: think he's running a good campaign. I think we're gonna win.
32:51
Speaker 1: In Nevada. New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan is on the ballot.
32:59
Speaker 1: Her she's underwater. Her disapproval is greater than her approval.
33:03
Speaker 1: I think she's vulnerable. It's not clear who the Republican
33:07
Speaker 1: is going to be and if we're going to have
33:08
Speaker 1: a strong candidate. I hope we do. If we have
33:11
Speaker 1: a strong candidate, I think New Hampshire is winnable, but
33:14
Speaker 1: we've got to get someone who is able to raise
33:18
Speaker 1: the money and be competitive. If the governor of New Hampshire,
33:21
Speaker 1: Chris Sinunu, had run, I think he would have won easily.
33:24
Speaker 1: He decided not to run, and so New Hampshire is
33:27
Speaker 1: a state where we just got to wait and see
33:28
Speaker 1: if we're going to have a candidate that can be competitive.
33:33
Speaker 1: Those are the four best pickup opportunities. There are other
33:37
Speaker 1: pickup opportunities that are more of a long shot. Colorado
33:42
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett I think is vulnerable. He doesn't have great
33:45
Speaker 1: name idee, he hasn't accomplished much of anything in the Senate.
33:48
Speaker 1: Colorado is a bluish state that in a really good
33:51
Speaker 1: year could conceivably go red. So I think Colorado is
33:54
Speaker 1: a possible pickup Washington State. Right now, the polling in
33:58
Speaker 1: Washington State is showing the Republican within just a couple
34:02
Speaker 1: of points of Patty Murray, the incumbent Democrat. I'll give
34:07
Speaker 1: you a long shot. Vermont. So Pat Lahey is retiring.
34:14
Speaker 1: Pat Lahe is actually the only Democrat in the history
34:17
Speaker 1: of Vermont elected to the Senate, which is really quite remarkable.
34:20
Speaker 1: The other senator is Bernie Sanders. Is not a Democrat.
34:22
Speaker 1: He's a socialist, right, He's not a member of the
34:25
Speaker 1: Democrat party. You know, there's a former US attorney running
34:30
Speaker 1: in Vermont, a woman who I think is in a
34:33
Speaker 1: really good year, has a shot at that race. So
34:38
Speaker 1: there are, depending on how good a year there is,
34:41
Speaker 1: there are four natural pickup opportunities, and then I think
34:44
Speaker 1: several more. Now, where are we on defense? We're on
34:48
Speaker 1: defense number one in Pennsylvania, as you noted, So Pat
34:52
Speaker 1: Toomey is the incumbent, he's a Republican, he's retiring. Doctor
34:56
Speaker 1: Oz is the Republican nominee. I think doctor Oz can win. Uh.
35:00
Speaker 1: He just went through a tough primary. But between him
35:05
Speaker 1: and Dave McCormick, who was another very strong candidate, but
35:08
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic that that that Oz's numbers are not terrific
35:13
Speaker 1: right now, but he just came out of the primary.
35:15
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic that's a winnable seat, but we need to
35:17
Speaker 1: hold Pennsylvania. UM. Wisconsin, Ron Johnson is the incumbent Republican.
35:24
Speaker 1: He probably is faces the greatest threat for any incumbent Republican.
35:30
Speaker 1: Wisconsin's a historically purple state. I think Ron will win
35:34
Speaker 1: this year. UM. I was just out in Milwaukee and
35:38
Speaker 1: and supporting him in campaigning for him. I think he'll
35:40
Speaker 1: win this year, but history history teaches that race is
35:45
Speaker 1: likely to be close. UM. You mentioned Ohio. Rob Portman,
35:50
Speaker 1: a Republican, is retiring. Jade Vance's the nominee. I think
35:53
Speaker 1: I think Jade will win that race. But Ohio has
35:56
Speaker 1: certainly historically been a swing seat. Uh. Missouri, You've got
36:01
Speaker 1: Roy Blunt who's retiring. There, You've got a crowdy and
36:05
Speaker 1: messy primary. The candidate I've supported, Eric Schmidt, who's the
36:08
Speaker 1: attorney general, I think is the strongest conservative that can win.
36:15
Speaker 1: But whether that race is competitive will depend on what
36:19
Speaker 1: happens in the primary. One of the candidates in the primary,
36:23
Speaker 1: Eric Gryten's the former governor resigned in scandal. I think
36:26
Speaker 1: if Gryton's wins the primary, you'll see Democrats invest a
36:30
Speaker 1: lot of money in Missouri. I think they'll think that
36:31
Speaker 1: that's a seat they can steal. If Gryton's wins the nomination.
36:37
Speaker 1: You know another state that could get bumpy as Alaska.
36:39
Speaker 1: So Alaska, you've got Lisa Murkowski, who's the incumbent, She's
36:42
Speaker 1: the Republican. Donald Trump has endorsed against her, he's campaigning
36:47
Speaker 1: against her. Alaska also has a weird system of voting
36:54
Speaker 1: of ranked choice voting, where you vote for multiple candidates
36:57
Speaker 1: and then you eliminate the lowest vote and reallocate those votes.
37:02
Speaker 1: So I don't know what will happen there. But anytime
37:06
Speaker 1: you have Republicans divided, in this case, you got Trump
37:08
Speaker 1: on one side and the incumbent Republican on the other,
37:11
Speaker 1: it's messy. And you know, when I got to the
37:15
Speaker 1: Senate ten years ago, Alaska had a Democrat, Mark Baggett
37:18
Speaker 1: in it. I mean, Alaska is in a Senate race.
37:21
Speaker 1: It's more purple than you might think. So I think
37:24
Speaker 1: we will probably hold on to Alaska, but it's not impossible.
37:28
Speaker 1: That we lose that state. So put all of that together,
37:32
Speaker 1: put it in the blender. My guests, right now, if
37:36
Speaker 1: the election were today, we'd win something like fifty three
37:40
Speaker 1: seats altogether. But I think the plus minus is anywhere
37:46
Speaker 1: from forty nine if things just go spectacularly bad to
37:53
Speaker 1: fifty six if they go phenomenally and we win some
37:56
Speaker 1: seats like like a Vermont or a Washington state. If
37:59
Speaker 1: it's that good a year, we could get up in
38:02
Speaker 1: the fifty five fifty six range. So then you're if
38:06
Speaker 1: you're looking at retaking the House, and especially if you're
38:08
Speaker 1: also looking at retaking the Senate, then you're setting the
38:11
Speaker 1: stage for two years of stopping Biden, slowing down Biden.
38:16
Speaker 1: It's hard to slow down Biden. Biden's pretty slow as
38:18
Speaker 1: it is right now. But you you you stop the administration,
38:22
Speaker 1: and then you look ahead to twenty twenty four. Is
38:25
Speaker 1: there is there anything that you're seeing right now that
38:29
Speaker 1: you think in twenty twenty two will help to determine
38:32
Speaker 1: the shape of the twenty twenty four field. Oh? Sure,
38:38
Speaker 1: Number one. I think it's important that we win in
38:41
Speaker 1: twenty two. But then when we had majorities, we got
38:43
Speaker 1: to do something with it, and you know, that's just
38:47
Speaker 1: the beginning of the battle to win the majorities. And
38:49
Speaker 1: if we get to January twenty twenty three with majorities
38:52
Speaker 1: in both houses, if Republican leadership decides to play a
38:56
Speaker 1: prevent defense and do nothing and be risk averse, which
38:59
Speaker 1: is often leadership's instinct, I think that will demoralize a
39:03
Speaker 1: lot of voters. If you elect a bunch of squishes,
39:06
Speaker 1: you can't just go blaming leadership when they push squishy policies.
39:10
Speaker 1: The leadership is one trying to herd cats, but but two,
39:15
Speaker 1: they are taking cues from their members. You know, they're
39:18
Speaker 1: they're trying to operate levers of power within the confines
39:22
Speaker 1: of reality. So I love this idea. You got to
39:24
Speaker 1: go out there, You got to go elect the most right,
39:27
Speaker 1: viable candidates, and then you're going to have a much
39:30
Speaker 1: better shot of encouraging leadership to actually stand up and fight. Now,
39:34
Speaker 1: there is much more to talk about, Senator, before you
39:36
Speaker 1: return to your lovely family vacation that we have rudely interrupted.
39:41
Speaker 1: There's a lot more to talk about on the cloakroom
39:43
Speaker 1: with our friend Liz Wheeler. Hi, Senator, Hi is it Michelle.
39:46
Speaker 1: I've been waiting in the wings, and I just overheard
39:48
Speaker 1: that that perhaps you're identifying as Michelle. Now, okay, well
39:51
Speaker 1: I just want to so I was told I just
39:52
Speaker 1: want to be the one to note that this is
39:55
Speaker 1: breaking national news. We have a great topic that we're
39:57
Speaker 1: going to talk about on the Cloakroom today. We are
39:59
Speaker 1: going to talk the about a very highly reported piece
40:03
Speaker 1: of the dabb's decision. This is, of course, Justice Clarence Thomas,
40:06
Speaker 1: who said, in future cases, we should reconsider all of
40:10
Speaker 1: this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Albergefell.
40:16
Speaker 1: So we're going to talk about these cases and whether
40:18
Speaker 1: they should be overturned, and if they were to be overturned,
40:21
Speaker 1: how that would be done. You can join us on
40:23
Speaker 1: the Cloakroom. It's on Verdict plus. Go to Verdict with
40:26
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot com slash plus. If you use my
40:29
Speaker 1: promo code, which is of course Cloakroom, you can get
40:32
Speaker 1: your first month free on your annual subscription. It is
40:34
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com slash Plus. I cannot wait.
40:38
Speaker 1: You were looking at the Clarence Thomas Nashville Fan Club
40:41
Speaker 1: over here, President and chairman. Can't wait to hear that
40:45
Speaker 1: discussion of why we need to get rid of substantive
40:47
Speaker 1: due process. All right, that's enough for me. I'm out
40:50
Speaker 1: of here. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
41:00
Speaker 1: This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought
41:03
Speaker 1: to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political
41:06
Speaker 1: action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates
41:11
Speaker 1: across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and
41:15
Speaker 1: Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for
41:18
Speaker 1: Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.