June 4, 2025 • 33 mins
🔥 1. Judicial Power and Nationwide Injunctions
- Main Argument: Senator Cruz criticizes what he describes as an abuse of judicial power by "radical left-wing judges" issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump-era policies.
- Historical Context: He claims that in the first 150 years of U.S. history, there were no nationwide injunctions, and that the Trump administration faced more such injunctions than any other presidency combined.
- Political Clash: A heated exchange between Cruz and Senator Cory Booker is highlighted, where they debate the enforcement of laws protecting judges and the political motivations behind judicial actions.
- Key Themes:
- Alleged partisan use of the judiciary to block Trump policies.
- Accusations of selective outrage and hypocrisy from Democrats.
- Concerns over undermining democratic processes and presidential authority.
💣 2. Colorado Terror Attack and Immigration Policy
- Incident Overview: The second half discusses a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, allegedly carried out by an Egyptian national affiliated with radical Islamist ideologies.
- Details:
- The suspect overstayed a tourist visa, was granted work authorization, and later committed a hate crime targeting Jewish individuals.
- He was reportedly inspired by anti-Zionist sentiments and had prepared Molotov cocktails.
- Criticism of Biden Administration:
- Cruz blames the Biden administration’s immigration policies for allowing such individuals into the country.
- He argues that open borders have led to national security threats, including the entry of individuals on terrorist watch lists.
- Call to Action:
- Cruz renews his push to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, citing its influence and support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
In the last four months, the Trump administration has seen
more nationwide injunctions than the entirety of the twentieth century,
and more nationwide injunctions than President George W. Bush, Barack Obama,
and Joe Biden combined. The translation is pretty clear. This
(00:24):
is not normal. In fact, it's totally out of control,
radicalized justice at the hands of the left. And by
the way, it's not even justice, it is anarchy of
our judicial system. It's all being orchestrated in a campaign
of judicial obstruction and activism. As the chair of the
(00:45):
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight and Agency Action
as well as Federal Rights, Ted Cruz is leading the
way on the discussion on the ways to rein in
these abusive nationwide injunctions. Now, as many of you know,
I do a podcast with Senator Cruz. He had a
(01:07):
very intense and linked the conversation with Corey Booker. We
decided to do our show on that because this is
obviously a threat to our democracy. We see now and
I'm going to go and say it again. There have
been more nationwide injunctions in the last four months in
the entirety of the twentieth century and more nationwide injunctions
(01:29):
and President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden combined,
this is a threat to our democracy. And the play
is very clear. What the Democrats are doing is they're
going to their friends who are liberal activist judges and
they're getting them to do their dirty work for them.
(01:49):
That's number one. But number two, they're also doing this
because it's the only way they believe they can fight
back against Donald Trump effectively, because because they lost the
last election and the fact that the Republicans controlled the House,
the Senate, and the presidency, this is their option to
(02:10):
go rogue and to be radical. I want you to
hear the conversation centered cruise that I had and also
this very intense back and forth on the issue with
Corey Booker. Now to put it in perspective for you,
Corey Booker is trying to figure out how to become
the president of the United States America. He certainly wants
to make sure he's the nominee for the Democratic Party,
(02:32):
and he's having to do this by actually outgoing to
the left or outliberaling radical communists and socialists like AOC.
And so this is part of the reason why he's
in essence endorsing this behavior by these activist judges. Now
we also know what's happened at the Supreme Court because
(02:54):
of Democrats. They've been leaking opinions, for example the Roe v. Wade,
which was un precedented in that decision. And the Democrats
have no problem intimidating justices, including those in the Supreme Court.
They've been trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme
Court anytime they get a ruling they don't like. And
(03:15):
they have no problem with the Court justices, especially those
that are conservatives, having threats against themselves and their families.
But first I want to tell you about my friends
at Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone and
your cell phone is not with Patriot Mobile, then the
question I gotta ask you is why why have you
(03:36):
not made the switch? Well, you should make the switch,
and the deal is really easy. You get cutting edge technology.
Switching has never been easier. There's no store visits, no hassles.
You get to keep your same phone number you have
right now. You get to keep your same phone you've
got now or upgrade to a new one. And they
have a one hundred percent US based team that can
(03:57):
activate you literally in minutes. The other thing that I
love about Patriot Mobile is this they have access to
all three major networks, meaning you get exceptional nationwide coverage.
I use Patriot Mobile and half for years. They can
even put a second number on a different network on
your phone. It's like carrying two phones in one. You
(04:18):
can have a work number and a personal number. It's amazing.
They have unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, Internet
on the go devices, and home internet backup as well.
You can get all of this from Patriot Mobile. So
why are you waiting? Make the switch today? And by
the way, when you pay your bill, you know that
(04:41):
about five percent of that bill every month is going
back to support conservative causes. Causes that stand for our
First and or Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children,
and they stand with our veterans, our first responders or
police and firemen, are EMTs and are wounded warriors. So
make a difference with every call you make. So right now,
(05:01):
go to Patriotmobile dot com, slash ferguson or call them
ninety seven to two Patriot You're going to get a
free month of service with the promo code Ferguson. So
switch to Patriot Mobile and make a difference with every
call you make Patriot Mobile dot com slash ferguson or
nine seven to two Patriot. All right, now, take a
(05:22):
listen to this conversation that I had with Senator Cruz
and his back and forth in Congress with Corey Booker. Senator,
We've got two big topics to discuss today, including something
in the Senate that got a little spicy between you
and Cory Booker.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Well, it did so. Yesterday I chared a hearing that
was examining the abuse of power from individual district court
judges who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and
the Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of
law fair. This is in the last four years, we
(06:03):
saw Democrat prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That
that was they were doing everything they could to stop
the voters from re electing President Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
That failed.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Now during the Trump presidency, we are seeing law fair unfold.
We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day.
We are seeing left wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day,
and they are seeking out radical left wing judges who've
(06:36):
been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have
seen is we have seen over forty nationwide injunctions against
the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of
just how egregious this is, in the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, Ben, do you
(06:57):
know how many nationwide injunctions were issued.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to forty,
it's not going to be a lot.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
The number would be zero. So the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, there was not
a single nationwide injunction that was issued. Now, how about
the twentieth century, the twentieth century, the entire hundred years
from nineteen hundred to nineteen ninety nine, there have been
more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the
(07:30):
first five months than there were in the entire twentieth century.
There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump
than there have been during the George W. Bush presidency,
plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency
(07:51):
all combined. This is an assault. You have left wing judges,
individual radical district judge who are issuing injunctions, trying to
set aside the policies of the president, and trying to
set aside the will of the American voters. And it
(08:11):
is an assault in democracy. And I got to say
Democrats not only are okay with it, they're enthusiastically cheering
it on.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
It really is shocking, and the level of I think
attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear. It is
these judges are saying, we're going to take away the
power of the presidency. The dangerous aspect of that precedent
is also something that I would hope that many people
that maybe conserd themselves to be moderate or liberal would
(08:45):
be concerned about, because that's not how this country is
supposed to work now.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
It should not be an individual district judge having the
ability to set aside the policies of the United States government,
the president of the United States, and the policies that
the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest
issue in this last election was the voters were sick
and tired of the open borders we saw for four
(09:11):
years the invasion of twelve million illegal immigrants, and they
wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists,
child molesters, violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump
is doing. And we're seeing the Democrats who are suing
(09:31):
over and over again, and they're getting radical left wing
judges to issue orders saying stop deporting criminals. And it's lawless.
By the way, federal immigration law gives enormous power to
the president to deport illegal immigrants, and these radical judges,
they don't care. And I will tell you as we
were discussing this in this hearing, so the Democrats all
(09:54):
showed up for this hearing and they were loaded for bear,
and they were all attacking President Trump. That was no surprise.
And they were saying that the President is horribly saying mean,
mean things about judges. And mind you, these are judges
who are dramatically abusing their power. And yet the Democrats
(10:16):
were all pretending to be horrified that the President would
criticize judges. Now, I want to play for you in exchange.
I had I was talking about the hypocrisy of Democrats
who are claiming to be defending judges. And yet when
Joe Biden was president and you had violent mobs protesting
(10:39):
outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. The Democrats said
not a word. They were not bothered at all that
the Biden Justice Department refused to enforce the criminal law
that makes it a crime to protest and outside the
home of a justice and to threaten the justice's families
as they were. And there was an exchange. So Corey Booker,
(11:03):
he's a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Corey wants to
run for president. He wants to run as the great
Liberal hope. And Corey decided to engage with me and
attack me on this issue. And he and I went
back and forth, and I want to play this entire exchange.
It's a little bit extended, but this exchange was striking
because he jumped in and he's like, no, no, no,
(11:25):
I'm going to fight you on this point. And I've
got to say, I don't want to be a spoiler here,
but I don't think it went well for Corey. Give
a listen, it did not.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Here. It is.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Indulge me for a moment, We indulge you every moment.
I appreciate that active generosity. It's just something you said
that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed
and you're welcome. But when Judge Anderol was killed in
New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate, they're outpouring
of support, they're outpouring of concern, They're willing to work
(12:01):
together on a bipartisan bill. Was extraordinary. It shows the
truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery
rhetoric that you were selling, we're really by parties working
by partisanship. Cornin and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about,
got together and actually passed a bill to better protect
our Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours.
(12:26):
You know, Gorsich and I disagree on a lot of stuff.
I knew his wife before he did. We studied together
at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there
were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I
remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons.
I actually distinctly remember you Chairman on more than once
(12:46):
condemning those attacks on Republican appointed jurists. To say things
like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and
feeds the fiery rhetoric, and it's just plain not true.
It's just plain not true, and I think you know that.
But we can pull from the record for my colleagues
(13:07):
in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it. There's a
lot of substantive things to say here, but to think
that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being
threatened was not in existence, I think that's unfair and
really concerns me that you would say that in the
way that you did.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Well. I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note,
as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things, and
it is existing federal law eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh
seven that makes it a crime to protest at a
judge's home. And the law provides whoever, with the intent
of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,
(13:46):
or with the intent or of influencing any judge, dur
or witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty,
pickets or parades interor near a building housing a court
of the United States internear a building or residence occupied
or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer,
or with such intent, uses any sound, truck or similar
device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near
(14:08):
any such building or residence shall be fined under this title,
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That
is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry
mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices homes, and in
the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody.
(14:33):
We had the Attorney General sitting at that table, and
multiple Republican senators asked him, why are you not enforcing
the law. What they are doing is a crime. And
my friend from New Jersey said, it is a lie
to say we the Democrats condone this. I would challenge
my friend find a single Democrat senator on this committee
(14:57):
holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law.
I was here at those hearings, and I do not
recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General,
you should arrest these people who are violating the law.
You should protect the judges. I agree that there was
general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator
(15:21):
that I ever saw in this committee was willing to
hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding
the federal criminal law because the Biden administration agreed with
the protesters and I think wanted those justices harassed at
their home.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you
made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in
the face of protests as Supreme Court justices homes. Again,
we joined together in a biparisan way, not only to
condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round the
(15:57):
clock security protection literally as introduced May fifth past the
Senate bipartisan fashion on May night. So if you're saying
that we didn't criticize.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Them and arrest a single person on.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Who are now changing the that is what I say again.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
I'll I'll pull the record itsrest even one again.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
The answer is not my point to you. Who is
the accusation that the Democrats on this committee do not
care about the safety of federal judges. I did not
interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish.
I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of
heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why
(16:40):
we have such divisions in this country. The attacks we
see from the President of the United States of America,
trolling and dragging judges through is to what we should
be talking about that puts people in danger. I'm simply
taking issue with the claim that you made at the
top that people on the Democratic side of the aisle
(17:01):
do not care about the safety and the security of
judges and said nothing. You said we were silent after
people's houses were protested. That is a patent lie, sir.
We were not silent. We took action. We've joined in
a bipartisan way to protect those judges, as was done
in a bipartisan way to protect a New Jersey judge
(17:24):
after their horrific attack at their home. So I see
you now trying to shift the debate to whether we
talk to an attorney general. I'm simply taking issue with
this accusation that somehow we Democrats are so bad because
we don't call out threats to college to our judicial colleagues,
and that is wrong. You could change the argument now
(17:46):
that you want, but what you said was patently not
true and was in fact a patent lie.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from
New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent
lie and says he's doing so in defense of lowering
the rhetoric. There is some irony to doing those two together.
I'll point out that in the entire course of those remarks,
Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made,
(18:13):
which is, the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted
zero people for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat
senator on this committee was silent about it. And this
was an ongoing pattern for months. And I would note
also that the Senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls
about language threatening judges, and yet I do not recall
(18:36):
a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word
when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme
Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices
by name Gorsich and Kavanaugh, and he said, you have
unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And
not a single Democrat senator had a word to say
(18:57):
about this, And so their outr is selective. And I
will give my colleague from New Jersey a chance to
just answer a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden
Justice Department have enforced the criminal law against protesting at
a justice's home, yes or no.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next
day and you holding that standard for him and not
for your president, who you actually rightfully describe when you
were running against him in a primary. I would love
to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about
the danger of our president and his rhetoric. But now
(19:36):
you are failing, in fact blind to the very things
you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump
would know an apology if it hit him in the head,
never set apologizing. So again, you are very, very sir,
very very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your
criticisms of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer
the cou question and did not tell us whether the
criminal law should be enforced, because he knows the answer
is yes, and he knows that the Biden Department of
Justice was being wildly political and partisan in refusing to
enforce the law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court
justice's rulings.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
That was one very entertaining back and forth. Centator I
wish there was actually more of this in the Senate
because it's a great moment where you can see two
very different viewpoints, two very different ways of looking at this.
And like you said, it did not go well for
Corey Booker, but I actually love that there's this type
(20:37):
of grand debate.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Absolutely, we need to have this engagement. We need to
have this engagement on ideas, and it's striking the Democrats.
They claim they support democracy, but yet when it comes
to Donald Trump, they want a single unelected district judge
striking down every policy he implements. And they don't care
(21:03):
that the American people voted for it. They want power.
And look, in the course of this hearing, there were
a couple of points I made that no Democrat had
a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed
over and over again before radical left wing judges. Of
the forty plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against
(21:27):
the Trump administration, thirty five of them have been in
five jurisdictions, five left wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these
left wing judges because they know that they'll rule for them,
and the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just
violating the law. Well, you know what, if that were true,
(21:49):
you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not.
The Democrat attorneys general, the left wing interest groups are
going to seek out the radicals because they know the
radicals will rule for them. And we're not seeing Democrat
senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say, give
(22:10):
any explanation as to why one radical judge should be
able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President
of the United States, who was elected by the American
people to secure the borders, to bring us back to
common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important,
and I got to say, I think Corey Booker. Listen,
(22:33):
Corey is running for president of the United States. That's not complicated.
He's going to run in twenty twenty eight, and he's
running in the left lane of the Democrat Party. So
he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren, he's going to
take on AOC and he's going to argue, I am
I am liberal Democrat here mirror. But at the end
(22:55):
of the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you've
got a problem if you actually got to address the substance,
and I think today we did and it was not
the outcome he was hoping for.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments
that I'll be interested to see when this audio and
video comes back to haunt him down the road when
that president run you mentioned, because I think he thought
he was about to have a moment and it's not
the moment he probably was hoping for if you go
back and look at that tape. I want to also
get to this other big issue, and that is out
(23:29):
in Colorado and the tear attack there. We've got a
significant update on this individual and also real concerns and
honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat
of other terrorists that may be in this country that
were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Well, it turns out that four years of open borders
allowing over twelve million people to come into this country illegally,
that was a really bad policy. And even worse, Look,
there were ten million people who were apprehended by the
Biden administration.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
They let them go.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
That is problematic on many many fronts, but the most
disturbing number is two million. They're roughly two million god aways.
Those are people that crossed the border. We know cross
the border, but yet they escaped detection. And those god
aways are much much more likely to be criminals. They're
much more likely to be murders, rapists, child molesters, terrorists,
(24:33):
gang members. And if you look at this radical who
attacked and fire bombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado,
this was a guy who never should have been in
this country to begin with. He came in on a
(24:54):
tourist fe say, he overstated, and this was a radical
Islamist And and I want to read to you a
tweet from Bill Malusion. Now, regular listeners of this podcast
know Bill Malusian is the best reporter in America. He
reports for Fox News and he's been detailing what's going
on at the border. Here's what Bill Malusian tweeted, breaking
(25:16):
new details on Colorado terror attack suspect as Feeds charged
him with federal hate crime. According to federal court filings
obtained by Fox News, Egyptian illegal alien Mohammed Solomon admitted
in an interview that he wanted to kill all quote
Zionist people, and he had been planning the attack for
(25:40):
a year, and that he would conduct the attack again
if he could. He allegedly told investigators that he waited
to carry out the attack until his daughter graduated high school,
and that he specifically targeted the quote Zionist group in
Boulder after learning about them from an online search. It
(26:03):
was premeditated, as he allegedly admitted, he knew they would
gather on Sunday at one pm, he arrived and waited
for them. Additionally, investigators found a black container with fourteen
more Molotov cocktails near the spot he was arrested in.
(26:26):
Inside his vehicle, investigators found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine,
and USAID. This man was admitted into the country via
a tourist visa during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed
(26:47):
an asylum request, and was granted work authorization by the
Biden administration, which expired at the end of March of
this year. So understand, this guy came into this country,
he overstated his visa, and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look,
a radical Islamic terrorist, we want you to stay. It
(27:11):
was not hard to figure out from his social media
who this guy was, but the Biden administration they were
not focused on defending this nation. They were not focused
on stopping terrorists from coming into this country. Instead, they
made a political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben,
why would Democrats open up the borders? It clearly hurt
(27:32):
them in the flat last election. Why would they do this?
And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed
twelve million illegal immigrants, they said, listen, every one of
these we think are going to vote for Democrats. We
want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally.
The rest of them. They believed, if they stayed in power,
(27:53):
they'd grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if
they have to bring in Muslim brotherhood terrorists who were
murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Yeah, this is the part that I really think we
do need to make it clear, not just now but
in the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to
this in your comments there. Their plan they knew was
going to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint.
(28:28):
They were willing to play Russian Roulette with that open border.
And they were warned and they saw the people that
were on the terrorists watch list Senator, and they didn't
care because it was their overall plan to flood the
country with the legal immigrants and fundamentally changes country. They
knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists,
(28:49):
some of them on the terrorists watch lists at the time,
to get into this country, and they still continued to
have the open border policy because they basically said, Hey,
it's part of our bigger plan, and there's gonna be
collateral damage from this, so be it.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
And listen when I say this, this sounds harsh, and
you sort of think of a listener who's not terribly
political and they're like, wait, the Democrats couldn't really want
more terrorists in this country. But at the end of
the day, that was the inevitable consequence of the policies
(29:27):
they put in place when you allow twelve million people
to cross the border illegally. And by the way, the
Biden Border control the border patrol, they instructed their agents
be on the lookout for Hesbela Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jehad
(29:48):
terrorists coming across this border. Look, we have radical Zealots
who have declared Jahad in America, who have demanded of
their terrorists murder as many Americans as you can, and
murder as many Jews and Israelis as you can. And
in the face of those very real and clear national
(30:10):
security threats, the fact that the Biden administration and the Democrats,
it wasn't just Joe Biden, it wasn't just Kamala Harris,
it was every single Democrat in the Senate, it was
every single Democrat in the House. Because they voted in
favor of open borders over and over and over again,
they knew that some of the people coming were just
(30:31):
like this radical And listen, I've reintroduced this week legislation
to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The
Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
At this is something you've been sounding the alarm on
for quite some time. I want to be very clear
about that.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than
a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It
is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt,
it is in cutter it is all across the Middle East.
And the Muslim Brotherhood openly aggressively they support hamas they
(31:16):
support Hesbela. They are a terrorist organization and by the way,
to be clear, in Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look,
we had Mohammed Morci, who was the leader of Egypt,
who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now now thankfully Mohammed
(31:36):
Morsei was defeated, and he was defeated by Alsisi, who
is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look. Look if you
look at the Arabs who are dealing with this, the
Muslim Brotherhood and the Jahadas, they believe in using violence,
using murder to force people to embrace their radical is
(31:59):
the fore and and yet these are these are the
radicals that are fighting, that that are murdering Israelis, and
that are murdering Americans, and and and this is exactly
the radicals that this lunatic in Boulder, Colorado was embracing,
(32:20):
and that Joe Biden, the Democrats were letting end of
this country.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
Final question on the on the the designate of Muslim
Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to
be the moment where you think there's a decent chance
that this can become reality or there's still going to
be Democrats at all costs that say we are going
to defend this.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
So I hope so so right now today, the Muslim
Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia,
They're designated in the United Arab Emirates, They're designated in Egypt,
in Syria and Bahrain. But the United States has yet
to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When
(33:03):
you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jahad,
the murdering of innocence, they are a terrorist organization. And
so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term
for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated. We did not succeed.
(33:23):
I think we will succeed this administration. I think President
Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to
keep pressing designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
because that is who they are, and we saw the
horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Make sure you share this podcast with your family and friends,
put it up on social media wherever you are, and
we appreciate you listening every day.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
We'll see you back here tomorrow
In the last four months, the Trump administration has seen
more nationwide injunctions than the entirety of the twentieth century,
and more nationwide injunctions than President George W. Bush, Barack Obama,
and Joe Biden combined. The translation is pretty clear. This
(00:24):
is not normal. In fact, it's totally out of control,
radicalized justice at the hands of the left. And by
the way, it's not even justice, it is anarchy of
our judicial system. It's all being orchestrated in a campaign
of judicial obstruction and activism. As the chair of the
(00:45):
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight and Agency Action
as well as Federal Rights, Ted Cruz is leading the
way on the discussion on the ways to rein in
these abusive nationwide injunctions. Now, as many of you know,
I do a podcast with Senator Cruz. He had a
(01:07):
very intense and linked the conversation with Corey Booker. We
decided to do our show on that because this is
obviously a threat to our democracy. We see now and
I'm going to go and say it again. There have
been more nationwide injunctions in the last four months in
the entirety of the twentieth century and more nationwide injunctions
(01:29):
and President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden combined,
this is a threat to our democracy. And the play
is very clear. What the Democrats are doing is they're
going to their friends who are liberal activist judges and
they're getting them to do their dirty work for them.
(01:49):
That's number one. But number two, they're also doing this
because it's the only way they believe they can fight
back against Donald Trump effectively, because because they lost the
last election and the fact that the Republicans controlled the House,
the Senate, and the presidency, this is their option to
(02:10):
go rogue and to be radical. I want you to
hear the conversation centered cruise that I had and also
this very intense back and forth on the issue with
Corey Booker. Now to put it in perspective for you,
Corey Booker is trying to figure out how to become
the president of the United States America. He certainly wants
to make sure he's the nominee for the Democratic Party,
(02:32):
and he's having to do this by actually outgoing to
the left or outliberaling radical communists and socialists like AOC.
And so this is part of the reason why he's
in essence endorsing this behavior by these activist judges. Now
we also know what's happened at the Supreme Court because
(02:54):
of Democrats. They've been leaking opinions, for example the Roe v. Wade,
which was un precedented in that decision. And the Democrats
have no problem intimidating justices, including those in the Supreme Court.
They've been trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme
Court anytime they get a ruling they don't like. And
(03:15):
they have no problem with the Court justices, especially those
that are conservatives, having threats against themselves and their families.
But first I want to tell you about my friends
at Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone and
your cell phone is not with Patriot Mobile, then the
question I gotta ask you is why why have you
(03:36):
not made the switch? Well, you should make the switch,
and the deal is really easy. You get cutting edge technology.
Switching has never been easier. There's no store visits, no hassles.
You get to keep your same phone number you have
right now. You get to keep your same phone you've
got now or upgrade to a new one. And they
have a one hundred percent US based team that can
(03:57):
activate you literally in minutes. The other thing that I
love about Patriot Mobile is this they have access to
all three major networks, meaning you get exceptional nationwide coverage.
I use Patriot Mobile and half for years. They can
even put a second number on a different network on
your phone. It's like carrying two phones in one. You
(04:18):
can have a work number and a personal number. It's amazing.
They have unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, Internet
on the go devices, and home internet backup as well.
You can get all of this from Patriot Mobile. So
why are you waiting? Make the switch today? And by
the way, when you pay your bill, you know that
(04:41):
about five percent of that bill every month is going
back to support conservative causes. Causes that stand for our
First and or Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children,
and they stand with our veterans, our first responders or
police and firemen, are EMTs and are wounded warriors. So
make a difference with every call you make. So right now,
(05:01):
go to Patriotmobile dot com, slash ferguson or call them
ninety seven to two Patriot You're going to get a
free month of service with the promo code Ferguson. So
switch to Patriot Mobile and make a difference with every
call you make Patriot Mobile dot com slash ferguson or
nine seven to two Patriot. All right, now, take a
(05:22):
listen to this conversation that I had with Senator Cruz
and his back and forth in Congress with Corey Booker. Senator,
We've got two big topics to discuss today, including something
in the Senate that got a little spicy between you
and Cory Booker.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Well, it did so. Yesterday I chared a hearing that
was examining the abuse of power from individual district court
judges who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and
the Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of
law fair. This is in the last four years, we
(06:03):
saw Democrat prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That
that was they were doing everything they could to stop
the voters from re electing President Trump.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
That failed.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Now during the Trump presidency, we are seeing law fair unfold.
We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day.
We are seeing left wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day,
and they are seeking out radical left wing judges who've
(06:36):
been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have
seen is we have seen over forty nationwide injunctions against
the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of
just how egregious this is, in the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, Ben, do you
(06:57):
know how many nationwide injunctions were issued.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to forty,
it's not going to be a lot.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
The number would be zero. So the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, there was not
a single nationwide injunction that was issued. Now, how about
the twentieth century, the twentieth century, the entire hundred years
from nineteen hundred to nineteen ninety nine, there have been
more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the
(07:30):
first five months than there were in the entire twentieth century.
There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump
than there have been during the George W. Bush presidency,
plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency
(07:51):
all combined. This is an assault. You have left wing judges,
individual radical district judge who are issuing injunctions, trying to
set aside the policies of the president, and trying to
set aside the will of the American voters. And it
(08:11):
is an assault in democracy. And I got to say
Democrats not only are okay with it, they're enthusiastically cheering
it on.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
It really is shocking, and the level of I think
attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear. It is
these judges are saying, we're going to take away the
power of the presidency. The dangerous aspect of that precedent
is also something that I would hope that many people
that maybe conserd themselves to be moderate or liberal would
(08:45):
be concerned about, because that's not how this country is
supposed to work now.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
It should not be an individual district judge having the
ability to set aside the policies of the United States government,
the president of the United States, and the policies that
the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest
issue in this last election was the voters were sick
and tired of the open borders we saw for four
(09:11):
years the invasion of twelve million illegal immigrants, and they
wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists,
child molesters, violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump
is doing. And we're seeing the Democrats who are suing
(09:31):
over and over again, and they're getting radical left wing
judges to issue orders saying stop deporting criminals. And it's lawless.
By the way, federal immigration law gives enormous power to
the president to deport illegal immigrants, and these radical judges,
they don't care. And I will tell you as we
were discussing this in this hearing, so the Democrats all
(09:54):
showed up for this hearing and they were loaded for bear,
and they were all attacking President Trump. That was no surprise.
And they were saying that the President is horribly saying mean,
mean things about judges. And mind you, these are judges
who are dramatically abusing their power. And yet the Democrats
(10:16):
were all pretending to be horrified that the President would
criticize judges. Now, I want to play for you in exchange.
I had I was talking about the hypocrisy of Democrats
who are claiming to be defending judges. And yet when
Joe Biden was president and you had violent mobs protesting
(10:39):
outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. The Democrats said
not a word. They were not bothered at all that
the Biden Justice Department refused to enforce the criminal law
that makes it a crime to protest and outside the
home of a justice and to threaten the justice's families
as they were. And there was an exchange. So Corey Booker,
(11:03):
he's a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Corey wants to
run for president. He wants to run as the great
Liberal hope. And Corey decided to engage with me and
attack me on this issue. And he and I went
back and forth, and I want to play this entire exchange.
It's a little bit extended, but this exchange was striking
because he jumped in and he's like, no, no, no,
(11:25):
I'm going to fight you on this point. And I've
got to say, I don't want to be a spoiler here,
but I don't think it went well for Corey. Give
a listen, it did not.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Here. It is.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Indulge me for a moment, We indulge you every moment.
I appreciate that active generosity. It's just something you said
that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed
and you're welcome. But when Judge Anderol was killed in
New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate, they're outpouring
of support, they're outpouring of concern, They're willing to work
(12:01):
together on a bipartisan bill. Was extraordinary. It shows the
truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery
rhetoric that you were selling, we're really by parties working
by partisanship. Cornin and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about,
got together and actually passed a bill to better protect
our Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours.
(12:26):
You know, Gorsich and I disagree on a lot of stuff.
I knew his wife before he did. We studied together
at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there
were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I
remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons.
I actually distinctly remember you Chairman on more than once
(12:46):
condemning those attacks on Republican appointed jurists. To say things
like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and
feeds the fiery rhetoric, and it's just plain not true.
It's just plain not true, and I think you know that.
But we can pull from the record for my colleagues
(13:07):
in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it. There's a
lot of substantive things to say here, but to think
that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being
threatened was not in existence, I think that's unfair and
really concerns me that you would say that in the
way that you did.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
Well. I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note,
as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things, and
it is existing federal law eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh
seven that makes it a crime to protest at a
judge's home. And the law provides whoever, with the intent
of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,
(13:46):
or with the intent or of influencing any judge, dur
or witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty,
pickets or parades interor near a building housing a court
of the United States internear a building or residence occupied
or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer,
or with such intent, uses any sound, truck or similar
device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near
(14:08):
any such building or residence shall be fined under this title,
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That
is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry
mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices homes, and in
the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody.
(14:33):
We had the Attorney General sitting at that table, and
multiple Republican senators asked him, why are you not enforcing
the law. What they are doing is a crime. And
my friend from New Jersey said, it is a lie
to say we the Democrats condone this. I would challenge
my friend find a single Democrat senator on this committee
(14:57):
holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law.
I was here at those hearings, and I do not
recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General,
you should arrest these people who are violating the law.
You should protect the judges. I agree that there was
general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator
(15:21):
that I ever saw in this committee was willing to
hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding
the federal criminal law because the Biden administration agreed with
the protesters and I think wanted those justices harassed at
their home.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you
made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in
the face of protests as Supreme Court justices homes. Again,
we joined together in a biparisan way, not only to
condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round the
(15:57):
clock security protection literally as introduced May fifth past the
Senate bipartisan fashion on May night. So if you're saying
that we didn't criticize.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Them and arrest a single person on.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Who are now changing the that is what I say again.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
I'll I'll pull the record itsrest even one again.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
The answer is not my point to you. Who is
the accusation that the Democrats on this committee do not
care about the safety of federal judges. I did not
interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish.
I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of
heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why
(16:40):
we have such divisions in this country. The attacks we
see from the President of the United States of America,
trolling and dragging judges through is to what we should
be talking about that puts people in danger. I'm simply
taking issue with the claim that you made at the
top that people on the Democratic side of the aisle
(17:01):
do not care about the safety and the security of
judges and said nothing. You said we were silent after
people's houses were protested. That is a patent lie, sir.
We were not silent. We took action. We've joined in
a bipartisan way to protect those judges, as was done
in a bipartisan way to protect a New Jersey judge
(17:24):
after their horrific attack at their home. So I see
you now trying to shift the debate to whether we
talk to an attorney general. I'm simply taking issue with
this accusation that somehow we Democrats are so bad because
we don't call out threats to college to our judicial colleagues,
and that is wrong. You could change the argument now
(17:46):
that you want, but what you said was patently not
true and was in fact a patent lie.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from
New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent
lie and says he's doing so in defense of lowering
the rhetoric. There is some irony to doing those two together.
I'll point out that in the entire course of those remarks,
Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made,
(18:13):
which is, the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted
zero people for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat
senator on this committee was silent about it. And this
was an ongoing pattern for months. And I would note
also that the Senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls
about language threatening judges, and yet I do not recall
(18:36):
a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word
when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme
Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices
by name Gorsich and Kavanaugh, and he said, you have
unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And
not a single Democrat senator had a word to say
(18:57):
about this, And so their outr is selective. And I
will give my colleague from New Jersey a chance to
just answer a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden
Justice Department have enforced the criminal law against protesting at
a justice's home, yes or no.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next
day and you holding that standard for him and not
for your president, who you actually rightfully describe when you
were running against him in a primary. I would love
to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about
the danger of our president and his rhetoric. But now
(19:36):
you are failing, in fact blind to the very things
you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump
would know an apology if it hit him in the head,
never set apologizing. So again, you are very, very sir,
very very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your
criticisms of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer
the cou question and did not tell us whether the
criminal law should be enforced, because he knows the answer
is yes, and he knows that the Biden Department of
Justice was being wildly political and partisan in refusing to
enforce the law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court
justice's rulings.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
That was one very entertaining back and forth. Centator I
wish there was actually more of this in the Senate
because it's a great moment where you can see two
very different viewpoints, two very different ways of looking at this.
And like you said, it did not go well for
Corey Booker, but I actually love that there's this type
(20:37):
of grand debate.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Absolutely, we need to have this engagement. We need to
have this engagement on ideas, and it's striking the Democrats.
They claim they support democracy, but yet when it comes
to Donald Trump, they want a single unelected district judge
striking down every policy he implements. And they don't care
(21:03):
that the American people voted for it. They want power.
And look, in the course of this hearing, there were
a couple of points I made that no Democrat had
a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed
over and over again before radical left wing judges. Of
the forty plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against
(21:27):
the Trump administration, thirty five of them have been in
five jurisdictions, five left wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these
left wing judges because they know that they'll rule for them,
and the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just
violating the law. Well, you know what, if that were true,
(21:49):
you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not.
The Democrat attorneys general, the left wing interest groups are
going to seek out the radicals because they know the
radicals will rule for them. And we're not seeing Democrat
senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say, give
(22:10):
any explanation as to why one radical judge should be
able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President
of the United States, who was elected by the American
people to secure the borders, to bring us back to
common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important,
and I got to say, I think Corey Booker. Listen,
(22:33):
Corey is running for president of the United States. That's not complicated.
He's going to run in twenty twenty eight, and he's
running in the left lane of the Democrat Party. So
he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren, he's going to
take on AOC and he's going to argue, I am
I am liberal Democrat here mirror. But at the end
(22:55):
of the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you've
got a problem if you actually got to address the substance,
and I think today we did and it was not
the outcome he was hoping for.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments
that I'll be interested to see when this audio and
video comes back to haunt him down the road when
that president run you mentioned, because I think he thought
he was about to have a moment and it's not
the moment he probably was hoping for if you go
back and look at that tape. I want to also
get to this other big issue, and that is out
(23:29):
in Colorado and the tear attack there. We've got a
significant update on this individual and also real concerns and
honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat
of other terrorists that may be in this country that
were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Well, it turns out that four years of open borders
allowing over twelve million people to come into this country illegally,
that was a really bad policy. And even worse, Look,
there were ten million people who were apprehended by the
Biden administration.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
They let them go.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
That is problematic on many many fronts, but the most
disturbing number is two million. They're roughly two million god aways.
Those are people that crossed the border. We know cross
the border, but yet they escaped detection. And those god
aways are much much more likely to be criminals. They're
much more likely to be murders, rapists, child molesters, terrorists,
(24:33):
gang members. And if you look at this radical who
attacked and fire bombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado,
this was a guy who never should have been in
this country to begin with. He came in on a
(24:54):
tourist fe say, he overstated, and this was a radical
Islamist And and I want to read to you a
tweet from Bill Malusion. Now, regular listeners of this podcast
know Bill Malusian is the best reporter in America. He
reports for Fox News and he's been detailing what's going
on at the border. Here's what Bill Malusian tweeted, breaking
(25:16):
new details on Colorado terror attack suspect as Feeds charged
him with federal hate crime. According to federal court filings
obtained by Fox News, Egyptian illegal alien Mohammed Solomon admitted
in an interview that he wanted to kill all quote
Zionist people, and he had been planning the attack for
(25:40):
a year, and that he would conduct the attack again
if he could. He allegedly told investigators that he waited
to carry out the attack until his daughter graduated high school,
and that he specifically targeted the quote Zionist group in
Boulder after learning about them from an online search. It
(26:03):
was premeditated, as he allegedly admitted, he knew they would
gather on Sunday at one pm, he arrived and waited
for them. Additionally, investigators found a black container with fourteen
more Molotov cocktails near the spot he was arrested in.
(26:26):
Inside his vehicle, investigators found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine,
and USAID. This man was admitted into the country via
a tourist visa during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed
(26:47):
an asylum request, and was granted work authorization by the
Biden administration, which expired at the end of March of
this year. So understand, this guy came into this country,
he overstated his visa, and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look,
a radical Islamic terrorist, we want you to stay. It
(27:11):
was not hard to figure out from his social media
who this guy was, but the Biden administration they were
not focused on defending this nation. They were not focused
on stopping terrorists from coming into this country. Instead, they
made a political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben,
why would Democrats open up the borders? It clearly hurt
(27:32):
them in the flat last election. Why would they do this?
And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed
twelve million illegal immigrants, they said, listen, every one of
these we think are going to vote for Democrats. We
want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally.
The rest of them. They believed, if they stayed in power,
(27:53):
they'd grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if
they have to bring in Muslim brotherhood terrorists who were
murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Yeah, this is the part that I really think we
do need to make it clear, not just now but
in the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to
this in your comments there. Their plan they knew was
going to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint.
(28:28):
They were willing to play Russian Roulette with that open border.
And they were warned and they saw the people that
were on the terrorists watch list Senator, and they didn't
care because it was their overall plan to flood the
country with the legal immigrants and fundamentally changes country. They
knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists,
(28:49):
some of them on the terrorists watch lists at the time,
to get into this country, and they still continued to
have the open border policy because they basically said, Hey,
it's part of our bigger plan, and there's gonna be
collateral damage from this, so be it.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
And listen when I say this, this sounds harsh, and
you sort of think of a listener who's not terribly
political and they're like, wait, the Democrats couldn't really want
more terrorists in this country. But at the end of
the day, that was the inevitable consequence of the policies
(29:27):
they put in place when you allow twelve million people
to cross the border illegally. And by the way, the
Biden Border control the border patrol, they instructed their agents
be on the lookout for Hesbela Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jehad
(29:48):
terrorists coming across this border. Look, we have radical Zealots
who have declared Jahad in America, who have demanded of
their terrorists murder as many Americans as you can, and
murder as many Jews and Israelis as you can. And
in the face of those very real and clear national
(30:10):
security threats, the fact that the Biden administration and the Democrats,
it wasn't just Joe Biden, it wasn't just Kamala Harris,
it was every single Democrat in the Senate, it was
every single Democrat in the House. Because they voted in
favor of open borders over and over and over again,
they knew that some of the people coming were just
(30:31):
like this radical And listen, I've reintroduced this week legislation
to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The
Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
At this is something you've been sounding the alarm on
for quite some time. I want to be very clear
about that.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than
a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It
is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt,
it is in cutter it is all across the Middle East.
And the Muslim Brotherhood openly aggressively they support hamas they
(31:16):
support Hesbela. They are a terrorist organization and by the way,
to be clear, in Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look,
we had Mohammed Morci, who was the leader of Egypt,
who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now now thankfully Mohammed
(31:36):
Morsei was defeated, and he was defeated by Alsisi, who
is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look. Look if you
look at the Arabs who are dealing with this, the
Muslim Brotherhood and the Jahadas, they believe in using violence,
using murder to force people to embrace their radical is
(31:59):
the fore and and yet these are these are the
radicals that are fighting, that that are murdering Israelis, and
that are murdering Americans, and and and this is exactly
the radicals that this lunatic in Boulder, Colorado was embracing,
(32:20):
and that Joe Biden, the Democrats were letting end of
this country.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
Final question on the on the the designate of Muslim
Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to
be the moment where you think there's a decent chance
that this can become reality or there's still going to
be Democrats at all costs that say we are going
to defend this.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
So I hope so so right now today, the Muslim
Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia,
They're designated in the United Arab Emirates, They're designated in Egypt,
in Syria and Bahrain. But the United States has yet
to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When
(33:03):
you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jahad,
the murdering of innocence, they are a terrorist organization. And
so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term
for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated. We did not succeed.
(33:23):
I think we will succeed this administration. I think President
Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to
keep pressing designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
because that is who they are, and we saw the
horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Make sure you share this podcast with your family and friends,
put it up on social media wherever you are, and
we appreciate you listening every day.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
We'll see you back here tomorrow
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.