May 5, 2025 • 30 mins
-
Harvard's Tax-Exempt Status:
- President Trump announced plans to end Harvard University's tax-exempt status, citing the university's alleged discrimination based on race and anti-Semitism.
- The discussion includes the potential legal battle and the implications of revoking Harvard's 501(c)(3) status, referencing the Bob Jones University case as a precedent.
-
Elon Derangement Syndrome:
- The hosts discuss incidents of domestic terrorism targeting Tesla factories, attributing these acts to what they call "Elon Derangement Syndrome."
- A specific case is mentioned where a transgender individual involved in firebombing a Tesla dealership was released from federal custody due to the need for gender transition treatment.
-
Patriot Mobile Advertisement:
- An advertisement for Patriot Mobile, a Christian conservative wireless provider, is included. The ad emphasizes the company's support for conservative causes and offers a free month of service with a promo code.
-
Harvard's Alleged Discrimination:
- The podcast delves into allegations of racial and anti-Semitic discrimination at Harvard, including a report on anti-Semitism and the university's policies.
- The discussion highlights the impact of these policies on Jewish and other minority students.
-
Affirmative Action and Meritocracy:
- The hosts discuss affirmative action policies at Harvard, particularly in the context of the Harvard Law Review.
- They argue that these policies are racially discriminatory and undermine meritocracy.
-
Cultural and Political Commentary:
- The podcast includes broader commentary on cultural and political issues, such as the influence of "wokeness" in universities and the legal system.
- The hosts express strong opinions on these topics, often criticizing liberal and progressive viewpoints.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast 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 #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
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 (00:01):
Welcome in is verdict with Center Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you. It's so nice to have you with us
on this Monday morning, and Center Harvard sure is making
you proud right now.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
It really is extraordinary. President Trump has publicly announced that
the administration is going to end Harvard's tax exempt status.
This administration is going to war with the nation's oldest
and most prestigious university. The stakes are massive. They're tens
of billions of dollars. The stakes are cana University getting
(00:30):
federal funds discriminate based on race? Can they promote anti Semitism?
The establishment will roar back mightily. It's going to be
a serious legal fight. We're going to break down what's
likely to play out, what the basis is of what
the administration is doing, and what the risks are of
what the administration is doing. We're also going to break
down a really amazing story we've covered previously elon derangement
(00:54):
syndrome and how it's led to domestic terrorism fire bombing
of Tesla factories. Well, we now see a story where
elon derangement syndrome is merging with just out of control
wokeness and one of these domestic terrorists that fire bombed
a Tesla dealership has been released from federal custody. Why
(01:15):
is that because the terrorist is transgender and the judge ruled, well,
the the the gender transition treatment was more important than
punishing domestic terrorists, so you got to let them out
of jail. It really is astonishing. We're gonna walk you
through those facts as well.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
It is amazing to see what you can get you
to jail if I ever get arrested. I'm just letting
you guys know I'm gonna identify as a chick, So
just want to get that on the record.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
You can use it America, and.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I, for one find I, for one, find that very plausible. Ben.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I think you.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Look cute, cute and tennis skirts.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Just wait, if you ever get arrested. I'm just saying
there's a good chance you'll do it too. If this
is how the system's.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Gonna Martina Ferguson, that's right, Martina Ferguson, I love it.
I want to take a moment and tell you about
our friends over at Patriot Mobile. You've heard me talk
about Patriot Mobile for a while. So the question is
why haven't you switched the only Christian conservative wireless provider
in the country where every time I make a call
or send a text pay my bill, I know I'm
actually fighting for what I believe in. You may not
(02:17):
realize this, but Big Mobile gives big donations to hardcore
leftist radical causes, including organizations that pay for abortions. And
that's exactly why I want you to switch to Patriot Mobile.
They are the real deal and you also get cutting
edge technology. Switching has never been easier. There's no store visits,
(02:37):
there's no hassles. You keep your number, keep your phone
you have now, or upgrade to a new one. Plus,
they are on all of the three major US networks.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
What does that mean?
Speaker 1 (02:46):
You get the best nationwide coverage you can get. They
also have a second number option as well. You can
put a different number on the same phone. It's like
carrying two phones in one. They've got unlimited data plans,
mobile hot spots, international roaming, Internet on the go devices,
and even home internet backup for you. Plus, when you
pay your bill, you're standing up for what you believe in,
(03:09):
as they give about five percent of your bill to
organizations that support our first and our Second Amendment rights,
the rights of unborn children. And they stand with our military,
our veterans, our wounded warriors, and our first responders. So
I want to give you a free month of service
right now. Go to Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict.
That's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, or call them
(03:30):
nine to seven to two Patriot right now. Use the
promo code verdict to get a free month of service
nine seven to two Patriot or Patriot mobile dot com
slash verdict and get that free month of service with
the promo code verdict right now. All right, Senator, So
let's get into this issue with Harvard. Donald Trump calls
to remove Harvard's tax exempt status. Let's explain exactly why
(03:53):
he's saying that and what made this all become such
a big deal so quickly.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Well, Harvard is the oldest university of Ameria, was founded
in sixteen thirty six. It is the wealthiest university in America.
It has a fifty three billion dollar endowment, and for
a long time it's been the most prestigious university in America.
And I think President Trump is exactly right going after
Harvard because it is it is the birthplace of woke.
(04:20):
As you know my last book, Unwoke, How to Defeat
Cultural Marxism in America, I describe colleges and universities, and
especially Harvard, as the Wuhan lab of the woke virus.
It's where it was invented, it's where it mutated, and
it's where it's spread. Now going after Harvard and denying
them their tax Execs exempt status, what does that mean?
(04:42):
If they're five oh one C three status is revoked,
it means Harvard pays taxes just like a for profit institution.
It also means contributions to Harvard are no longer tax deductible,
So if you give money to Harvard, you can't deduct
them from your taxes. Both of those are a huge,
huge deal. If that happens. If the Trump administrations follows through,
(05:05):
Harvard will litigate, They will go to court, and this
will be a battle that will go to the US
Supreme Court. And on one level, the Trump administration's legal
arguments are very strong, But at another level, it's an
uphill fight given who the Supreme Court is. So we're
going to break down both pieces of that. Why is
the legal argument strong? Well, i'll tell you the case
(05:27):
that would be front and center if this goes to
the court is a case called Bob Jones University versus
United States, and it was decided by the Supreme Court
in nineteen eighty three. And what happened in nineteen eighty
three is the IRS revoked the five OZHO one C
three status of Bob Jones University because Bob Jones University
(05:49):
had a policy that prohibited interracial dating. There was another school,
Goldsborough Christian Schools, that had a racially discriminatory admissions policy,
and likewise, the IRS revoked Goldsborough's five O one C
three exception. That case went all the way to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled eight to one
(06:12):
that the IRS could revoke the five oh one C
three exception, and they did so by concluding that it
was contrary to public policy to promote racial discrimination. Was
contrary to public policy objectives in the United States, and
that will be the basis. It was eight to one.
Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion. There was only
(06:34):
one discent. The dissent was William Renquist who wrote a
dissent and said, look, under the terms of five oh
one C three, under the statute. They don't specify whether
the purposes are good or bad, and so we shouldn't
allow them to do that. But eight justices said, well,
yes we should, and that's what we do. That will
be the basis. Now under that case, Harvard has a
(06:57):
real difficult time, and it has a real difficult time
because it has for a long time openly and brazenly
discriminated based on race, and it is also openly and
brazenly created an environment that that discriminates against Jewish students
and promotes anti Semitism. Both of those are huge, huge
(07:20):
factual problems. And the facts, particularly at Harvard, that there
was just a scathing report on anti Semitism that that
walk through the incredible pattern of anti semitism, that that
Harvard has promoted, welcomed, and used to persecute Jewish students,
(07:43):
and that on the face of it, is contrary to
federal civil rights laws. And so the Trump administration's legal
argument on the merits is quite strong.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
You look at the illegal arguments here, and there's a
lot of people that are going to just be angry
about the story itself and the fact that your reward
people for going after Jewish students I mean, how is
this not an award to the student by saying, hey,
we're sanctioning what you did. We know you're taking a
bag wrap, but hey, here's a bunch of money for
(08:14):
you to go ahead and say we're behind you. That
seems to be what the university is saying. Otherwise, why
on earth would you give this cash?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah? Look, and there are twin issues here. The Trump
administration has already cut two billion dollars frozen two billion
dollars in direct federal funds that it was sending to Harvard.
That's a big deal. The five oh one C three
status is an even bigger deal. And so both of those.
The basic principle is, if if a university is violating
federal civil rights law, if they're discriminating base on race,
(08:46):
if they are discriminating against Jewish students, if they're discriminating
against Anglo students, if they're discriminating against Asian students, all
of which Harvard has been doing, why should the federal
government be giving them money? And why should they get
a special benefit of to the tax laws. Now, why
is it that I say this is an uphill fight?
Because the Supreme Court is an institution that is elite,
(09:10):
and that is very much birthed of the establishment. Let
me ask you, Ben, of the nine Supreme Court justices,
how many of them do you think went to Ivy
League schools.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
I'm going to go with eight of the nine, you
would be correct.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Eight. How many went to Harvard Law School?
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Because I finally got one right? Because this is what
you doing this show? If you're new and I.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Know to ask.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
He likes to haze me every episode with something he
knows I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
To, and I just well, you just got it right
in this moment.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Eight out of eight, and I'm one for a thousand
right now.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Well, let's keep going. How many do you think went
to Harvard Law School.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
I'm gonna go with seven out of nine.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Four four went to Harvard Law School, four went to
Yale Law School. Of the eight justices, of the eight
justices for or went to Harvard Law School, four went
to Yale Law School. Of the eighteen degrees they have
college degrees and law degrees. Of the eighteen degrees, how
many of them do you think are Ivy League degrees.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I'm gonna guess nine out of.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Nine, fifteen, fifteen out of eighteen. The only one that
doesn't have an IVY League Okay, yeah, the only one
that doesn't have an IVY League degree is Amy Cony Barrett,
who went to Rhodes College in Notre Dame. But if
you look at it, this is an institution that is steeped,
steeped in Harvard, and the institution in fact, Elana Kagan
(10:37):
was the former dean of the Harvard Law School. And
so I think they are going to be highly resistant
to the notion that Harvard's five oh one C three
status can be revoked. And I will tell you they're
also going to be concerned about the slippery slope of
what happens with the next administration.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
All right, So center, here's the question that I think
a lot of people listening are going to want me
to ask, and that is it sounds like this would
be much of an uphill battle for the president. I
think he probably knows that, as staff does. But is
this also as much about sending a message to other
universities that if you think that we're going to turn
a blind eye to this, you're wrong and we're going.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
To be watching you closely.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Of course it is. Look, Harvard is the big Kahuna,
And so going after Harvard is meant to send a
message to every other school that violating the civil Rights law.
Discriminating base on race, discriminating against students on their skin color,
on their race, on their religion, is contrary to federal law,
(11:36):
and there will be real consequences you look. For example,
Harvard just released a scathing report on anti Semitism on campus,
and it found that politicized instruction in four Harvard schools
had quote mainstreamed and normalized what many Jewish and Israeli
(11:56):
students experience as anti semitism. Schools were the Graduate School
of Education, the thh Chan School of Public Health, the
Divinity School because of course, if you're studying divinity, you're
going to be a racist, and the Medical School, all
of which have been targeted by the Trump administration for
quote egregious records of anti Semitism or other bias. And
(12:20):
the report concluded that at those schools, Jewish students and
Israeli students were routinely ostracized and subject to instruction quote
that effectively made a specific view on the Israel Hamas
conflict a litmus test for full classroom participation. And let
(12:41):
me give you one example that's just an amazing thing.
A required school course in the School of Education taught
something called the Pyramid of White Supremacy. And this document
is really it's a chart. You look at it on
Twitter or online, it'll blow your mind. But it's a
(13:03):
pyramid of white supremacy. And here are all the things
that it's describing as white supremacy. At the top is
the KKK. Okay, we're agreed. KKK very bad. I'm against lynching, terrible,
I'm against burning crosses, very very bad, racial slurs, jokes, terrible,
hate crimes, terrible, anti semitism, kind of interesting, bombing black churches,
(13:29):
Japanese incarceration, Operation Wetback. Now Operation Wetback was an Eisenhower
federal government program deporting illegal aliens, so that is now
white supremacy to deport illegal aliens. And the Muslim Ban,
which was President Trump's policy in the first term. That
was restricting immigration from countries with high percentages of radical
(13:53):
Islamic terrorism. All right, So that's the first part of
the triangle. You could agree with some of it, you
can dis agree with some of it, but then it
starts to get really looney. You know what, The next
one listed is what is that? The Anti Defamation League,
the ADL. The Anti Defamation League exists to fight against
(14:15):
anti Semites. So the Anti Defamation League is, according to
these radicals, an example of white supremacy. What's the next one?
All lives matter? So if you say all lives matter,
that's white supremacy. See, you know what the next one is.
You're gonna love the next one.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
What's that one?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Maga?
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Well, of course you got to add that one to
the list. That just make.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
America great again? Is white supremacy. This was Harvard's teaching.
I'm going to just go through some of the more
of these illegal aliens. That's white supremacy. Thugs read a redlining,
Whussein Obama, Confederate symbols, life after hate, CVE, welfare queens,
the war on drugs. If you're opposed to illegal drugs,
(14:59):
that's white reverse racism, anti affirmative action, anti BDS. So
if you are opposed to boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning Israel,
then you're a bigot, black identity extremist community policeman. All right,
you know what else is white supremacy?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
I can't wait, like King Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan
or Ted Cruz.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
I'll go with one of those three.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Well, those are all clearly on their charter. They don't
specify it. Although MAGA was up right up top color blindness. Now,
mind you, that is literally what doctor Martin Luther King
said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that we
want a nation where people can be judged by the
content of their character and not the color of their skin.
But according to these radicals, Martin Luther King is apparently
(15:48):
a white supremacist.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
This is like a food pyramid for hating conservatives, isn't.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
It It is.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
I'm going to give you some other examples. Mass incarceration,
tsa random searches, police apologists. So if you defend the police,
you're a white supremacist. US military rescue operations, stop in
fit frisk, the myth of meritocracy. Understand, if you believe
(16:16):
in merit these lunatics say that is racist English only
the school to prison pipeline, victim blaming anti Kaepernick, So
if you don't like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during
the national anthem, you are a white supremacist. Columbus Day,
(16:39):
mind you, it is a federal holiday, but never mind that,
And then it gets to the bottom of the pyramid
and it lists things like settler colonialism, slavery, Wall Street,
the Great Recession, corporate interests, the stock market, greed, NAFTA.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Did you know?
Speaker 2 (16:57):
NAFTA is white supremacy. According to the start outsourcing, McCarthy
is a migrant workers manifest destiny, the very settlement of America.
Oil pipelines are white supremacy. The war on terror, and
the corporate media are all white supremacy. This is whack
(17:20):
of doodle stuff. And this is taught in a required
course in the Harvard Education School.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
So let's talk about the mindset of Harvard for a second.
In these other universities, it does seem pretty clear that
they believe that they're never going to be touched, and
even if they are, their endowments are so big that
they think they're probably going to be just fine and
liberals will continue to give. Does that not go back
to the point the presidents bring up, which is why
(17:49):
the hell are we giving all of these places this money.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
They're fine on their own.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
They're acting like they don't need us, that they are
hardcore against conservative and others that don't basically go with
this pyramid of hate of conservative ideals. So let's just
decouple and say you guys, do you and we'll keep
our tax towers.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Well, look, there's real value to that.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
I will say that there is research money that is
spent in colleges and universities that is worthwhile, that is useful.
There's scientific research. There's research, say at medical schools, where
you're trying to research the cure for cancer, you're trying
to research a cure for Alzheimer's, you're trying to cure
deadly diseases. There is scientific research that the Department of
(18:34):
Defense pays for, for example, that is developing high tech
lasers or other equipment that has significant defense needs. And
so there is a role for scientific research. And much
of the scientific research that happens in our nation happens
in research universities. All of that would be fine if,
(18:56):
and this is a big if universities were not flagrantly
violating federal civil rights laws. Let me give you more.
This report at Harvard, at the Divinity School, Jewish students
were subject to quote the embrace of a pedagogy of desionization,
(19:17):
in which instructors attribute to Jews to great sins, first
in the levant the establishment of the state of Israel
and the Palestinian Nakba, and second in the United States
participation in white supremacy. So the Harvard Divinity School teaches
(19:39):
Jews the existence of the State of Israel is racist,
and Jews also they teach are white supremacist. That is
flagrantly in violation of federal civil rights laws. And sadly
it is it is something that Harvard openly and brains.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
As they fight this final question, is there an opportunity
through this legal challenge for us to even be able
to find out more about what Harvard is doing? Is
that part of what could happen in the upside here
is Hey, we get to ask more questions, we get
to see more behind the books, we get to see
more of the propaganda that we were talking about right now.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
That is absolutely right, and I'm going to say the
facts are going to get worse and worse as they
come out. Harvard doesn't want people to know the facts. So,
for example, there were a whole series of stories that
came out about the Harvard Law Review. Now, now, what
is the Harvard Law Review. The Harvard Law Review is
a legal journal that's at Harvard Law School that has
eighty students who are student editors, and getting on the
(20:45):
Law Review is incredibly prestigious. It is incredibly difficult to do.
Typical Harvard Law School classes about five hundred and sixty people,
so you have about forty people out of five sixty
that make it on the class make it on the
Law Review. When I was there, I was on the
Law Review. When I was there, roughly half of the
editors on the Law Review made it from a combination
(21:06):
of grades and a week long, incredibly arduous writing competition.
Another roughly half made it from purely the writing competition.
But when I say roughly half, at the time it
was thirty two where grades in writing, thirty two were
just writing and then eight were reserved for affirmative action.
That's when I was there. Now, by all appearances, it
(21:29):
has gotten much worse. It was brazen then, It was
racially discriminatory then, but it is now much worse. The
Harvard Law Review now uses race explicitly to number one
select their editors. And by the way, becoming an editor
at the Law Review increases your chances of getting a
judicial clerkship dramatically increases your chances of getting a Supreme
(21:53):
Court clerkship dramatically, increases your chances of getting hired by
a big, prestigious law firm that pays lots of money,
increases your chances of becoming a professor at a prestigious
university dramatically. So the Law Review is a major gateway
to elite success in the legal world, and the Harvard
Law Review now in writing, they are quite open in
(22:15):
saying that that they will discriminate for editors based on race,
and they will also discriminate on the articles they pick. So,
for example, in a twenty twenty four memo, one journal
article argue that the fact that the author was quote
not from an underrepresented background was a negative when it
(22:36):
came to evaluating the piece for publication. There is a
quote holistic Review Committee which now selects nearly half the
student editors and has made the inclusion of quote underrepresented
groups its first priority. Violates Title six.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
So to be clear, you're saying there's a chance now
now that if you were at Harvard you wouldn't get picked.
Is that what you're telling me?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
You know, I don't know, and you don't know, So
I say that what's interesting about it is you genuinely
don't know. Is one of the things that they're very
clever in how they discriminate because you don't know on
what basis you were admitted. I had the grades to
get in on grades, and I think I did well
in the writing competition, but I have no idea which
(23:25):
of the slots I was in, because nobody does. They
don't tell you. They just announced the forty editors that
have gotten in, so I don't know. But I'll tell
you a story I've told before. So what I was
on the law review. There were a number of conservative editors,
and we made a run at ending affirmative action in
the law of you. And I have to admit I
(23:46):
sat back there was we were all eighty of us
were gathered in a classroom and we were debating this,
and there were some other students that were really kind
of leading the charge, some other conservatives. I agreed with them,
but I also could count votes, and out of the
eighty students, there were maybe eight or ten of us
that were conservatives. We were a tiny minority. So I
was like, look, we ain't going to win the vote,
(24:08):
but all right, this is fine, Let's have the debate.
So we're having the debate, and I was sitting in
the back. It was fairly quiet, and I remember this
one supercilious liberal stood up and said, if we eliminate
affirmative action, the Harvard Law Review will be nothing but
white men. And I have to admit I was kind
(24:30):
of a little bit checked out in the back of
the room and I heard that, and that pissed me off.
And I said, you know what, you want to understand
why affirmative action is so insidious. The arrogance of that
imbecile just showed it. His belief, as an enlightened leftist
is that if merit were the only criterion, only white
men would get in, that no one who is African
(24:52):
American would get in. Who is Hispanic? And let's be clear,
I'm Hispanic. He's sitting there. And in fact I told him,
I said, all right, hey guy, you want to pull
your transcript out in my transcript and drop him on
the table right there, Let's see what pure merit produces.
But there was something even more dripping in his leftist condescension,
(25:15):
which is, at the time, the Harvard affirmative Action program
did not include gender, so there was not affirmative action
for women. And I said to all the women editors,
do you hear what he just said to you? He
believes if it's pure merit, no women would make it.
And by the way, historically all the women editors who
are liberals voted against adding gender to affirmative action because
(25:37):
they recognized that if it was added to it that
that people it would devalue what they had accomplished. But
it showed just the absolute arrogance of the left when
it comes to embracing racism, because at the end of
the day, they that they look down on the poor,
benighted people that will only succeed in life with their beneficence.
(26:01):
And by the way, the price for that beneficence is
for them to be loyal and obedient for the rest
of their lives. I mean, that is the very explicit
left wing charter the affirmative action.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Is based on, which brings us to another story where
this stuff started on college campuses and now it's made
our way into courtrooms. The Tesla Arson suspect one of them.
And there's a lot of mo out there, right, but
this one specifically, and we'll get to the story of
what happened here in a second, but has been quote
released because of gender transition, would be at risk if
(26:38):
they didn't release. So if you're going to jail, just
say you're doing a gender transition and apparently then the
law cannot hold you accountable for your terrorist actions.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
So there's an individual named Owen McIntyre who was on
spring break in Missouri and he firebombed two Tesla's cyber trucks.
He threw molotovails, he fire bombed it. He got caught,
and he was charged charged with domestic terrorism. And then
what happened is his federal public defender argued that going
(27:12):
to jail will disrupt his gender affirming medical care, which
began in March of this year. It is likely to
be interrupted or terminated entirely if he remains in pre
trial detention. And the federal magistrate judge bought that argument
and let him go. And let me say one of
the craziest things about this story. You and I Ben
(27:36):
spent twenty minutes trying to figure out if this defendant
is male or female.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
By the way, and the pride, he's not lying, I
want to be clear about that. We literally are googling
everything is a dude is a chick. If we don't
know what it is like, that's the insanity of the
where we live.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
And we can't tell. And you and I actually disagree.
So I think this is a person who was born
female who has decided that she is a he and
wants to be a man.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
And the reason I think that. The reason I think
that is we've googled it, and every damn story uses
he he he he he and and given the insane
Orwellian world we live in, I think if ABC is
referring to this person as a he and and the
person is transgender, that that to me means the person
was born as she. Now your argument is, Ben.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
This is a dude that grew in his hair. It
looks like a chick.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Then why does all the media refer to this person
as a he?
Speaker 1 (28:36):
I actually because I think everybody's lost their damn minds,
That's what I think, And I think I mean, and
the fact that we even are at the point where
we have to have this discussion tells you how insane
the world is.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
You Literally, every story I clicked on, I googled it
and clicked on story after story, and there's not one
that actually describes the facts one way or the other,
So damned if I know. But either way, look, the
federal prosecutors argue this person is a domestic terrorist, that
they're throwing molotov cocktails, and it is. It is woke
(29:12):
politics taken to the level of insanity, that that to
get a sex change treatment is now reason to be
forgiven for domestic terrorism. Allthough, to be fair, it's not forgiven.
It's released from pre trial attention, but it is still insane.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Well, but it's it's helping you, right, it's helping you
not be held accountable for your actions. And it's also
I think pretty clear that we're saying, if you want
to not be held accountable for your actions.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Just claim something that's woke.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
And these radical judges will be like, oh, we totally understand.
Let's just change the rules for you because you're in
our you're in our special protected class, and we want
to see you succeed in your transgenderism, which is not
supposed to be the job of the court.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Well, I got to say this, This insanity is a
big part the reason Donald Trump won in November and
we got a Republican House, at a Republican Senate because
I think a lot of people are looking at this
and saying this stuff is crazy.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Aim into that, don't forget. We do the show Monday,
Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscriber auto download button so
that you do not miss an episode. Please share the
episode wherever you are on social media because it really
does help us reach new people. And on those in
between days, grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I'll
keep you updown the latest breaking news and the Senate
and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.
Welcome in is verdict with Center Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you. It's so nice to have you with us
on this Monday morning, and Center Harvard sure is making
you proud right now.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
It really is extraordinary. President Trump has publicly announced that
the administration is going to end Harvard's tax exempt status.
This administration is going to war with the nation's oldest
and most prestigious university. The stakes are massive. They're tens
of billions of dollars. The stakes are cana University getting
(00:30):
federal funds discriminate based on race? Can they promote anti Semitism?
The establishment will roar back mightily. It's going to be
a serious legal fight. We're going to break down what's
likely to play out, what the basis is of what
the administration is doing, and what the risks are of
what the administration is doing. We're also going to break
down a really amazing story we've covered previously elon derangement
(00:54):
syndrome and how it's led to domestic terrorism fire bombing
of Tesla factories. Well, we now see a story where
elon derangement syndrome is merging with just out of control
wokeness and one of these domestic terrorists that fire bombed
a Tesla dealership has been released from federal custody. Why
(01:15):
is that because the terrorist is transgender and the judge ruled, well,
the the the gender transition treatment was more important than
punishing domestic terrorists, so you got to let them out
of jail. It really is astonishing. We're gonna walk you
through those facts as well.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
It is amazing to see what you can get you
to jail if I ever get arrested. I'm just letting
you guys know I'm gonna identify as a chick, So
just want to get that on the record.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
You can use it America, and.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I, for one find I, for one, find that very plausible. Ben.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I think you.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Look cute, cute and tennis skirts.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Just wait, if you ever get arrested. I'm just saying
there's a good chance you'll do it too. If this
is how the system's.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Gonna Martina Ferguson, that's right, Martina Ferguson, I love it.
I want to take a moment and tell you about
our friends over at Patriot Mobile. You've heard me talk
about Patriot Mobile for a while. So the question is
why haven't you switched the only Christian conservative wireless provider
in the country where every time I make a call
or send a text pay my bill, I know I'm
actually fighting for what I believe in. You may not
(02:17):
realize this, but Big Mobile gives big donations to hardcore
leftist radical causes, including organizations that pay for abortions. And
that's exactly why I want you to switch to Patriot Mobile.
They are the real deal and you also get cutting
edge technology. Switching has never been easier. There's no store visits,
(02:37):
there's no hassles. You keep your number, keep your phone
you have now, or upgrade to a new one. Plus,
they are on all of the three major US networks.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
What does that mean?
Speaker 1 (02:46):
You get the best nationwide coverage you can get. They
also have a second number option as well. You can
put a different number on the same phone. It's like
carrying two phones in one. They've got unlimited data plans,
mobile hot spots, international roaming, Internet on the go devices,
and even home internet backup for you. Plus, when you
pay your bill, you're standing up for what you believe in,
(03:09):
as they give about five percent of your bill to
organizations that support our first and our Second Amendment rights,
the rights of unborn children. And they stand with our military,
our veterans, our wounded warriors, and our first responders. So
I want to give you a free month of service
right now. Go to Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict.
That's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, or call them
(03:30):
nine to seven to two Patriot right now. Use the
promo code verdict to get a free month of service
nine seven to two Patriot or Patriot mobile dot com
slash verdict and get that free month of service with
the promo code verdict right now. All right, Senator, So
let's get into this issue with Harvard. Donald Trump calls
to remove Harvard's tax exempt status. Let's explain exactly why
(03:53):
he's saying that and what made this all become such
a big deal so quickly.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Well, Harvard is the oldest university of Ameria, was founded
in sixteen thirty six. It is the wealthiest university in America.
It has a fifty three billion dollar endowment, and for
a long time it's been the most prestigious university in America.
And I think President Trump is exactly right going after
Harvard because it is it is the birthplace of woke.
(04:20):
As you know my last book, Unwoke, How to Defeat
Cultural Marxism in America, I describe colleges and universities, and
especially Harvard, as the Wuhan lab of the woke virus.
It's where it was invented, it's where it mutated, and
it's where it's spread. Now going after Harvard and denying
them their tax Execs exempt status, what does that mean?
(04:42):
If they're five oh one C three status is revoked,
it means Harvard pays taxes just like a for profit institution.
It also means contributions to Harvard are no longer tax deductible,
So if you give money to Harvard, you can't deduct
them from your taxes. Both of those are a huge,
huge deal. If that happens. If the Trump administrations follows through,
(05:05):
Harvard will litigate, They will go to court, and this
will be a battle that will go to the US
Supreme Court. And on one level, the Trump administration's legal
arguments are very strong, But at another level, it's an
uphill fight given who the Supreme Court is. So we're
going to break down both pieces of that. Why is
the legal argument strong? Well, i'll tell you the case
(05:27):
that would be front and center if this goes to
the court is a case called Bob Jones University versus
United States, and it was decided by the Supreme Court
in nineteen eighty three. And what happened in nineteen eighty
three is the IRS revoked the five OZHO one C
three status of Bob Jones University because Bob Jones University
(05:49):
had a policy that prohibited interracial dating. There was another school,
Goldsborough Christian Schools, that had a racially discriminatory admissions policy,
and likewise, the IRS revoked Goldsborough's five O one C
three exception. That case went all the way to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled eight to one
(06:12):
that the IRS could revoke the five oh one C
three exception, and they did so by concluding that it
was contrary to public policy to promote racial discrimination. Was
contrary to public policy objectives in the United States, and
that will be the basis. It was eight to one.
Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion. There was only
(06:34):
one discent. The dissent was William Renquist who wrote a
dissent and said, look, under the terms of five oh
one C three, under the statute. They don't specify whether
the purposes are good or bad, and so we shouldn't
allow them to do that. But eight justices said, well,
yes we should, and that's what we do. That will
be the basis. Now under that case, Harvard has a
(06:57):
real difficult time, and it has a real difficult time
because it has for a long time openly and brazenly
discriminated based on race, and it is also openly and
brazenly created an environment that that discriminates against Jewish students
and promotes anti Semitism. Both of those are huge, huge
(07:20):
factual problems. And the facts, particularly at Harvard, that there
was just a scathing report on anti Semitism that that
walk through the incredible pattern of anti semitism, that that
Harvard has promoted, welcomed, and used to persecute Jewish students,
(07:43):
and that on the face of it, is contrary to
federal civil rights laws. And so the Trump administration's legal
argument on the merits is quite strong.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
You look at the illegal arguments here, and there's a
lot of people that are going to just be angry
about the story itself and the fact that your reward
people for going after Jewish students I mean, how is
this not an award to the student by saying, hey,
we're sanctioning what you did. We know you're taking a
bag wrap, but hey, here's a bunch of money for
(08:14):
you to go ahead and say we're behind you. That
seems to be what the university is saying. Otherwise, why
on earth would you give this cash?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah? Look, and there are twin issues here. The Trump
administration has already cut two billion dollars frozen two billion
dollars in direct federal funds that it was sending to Harvard.
That's a big deal. The five oh one C three
status is an even bigger deal. And so both of those.
The basic principle is, if if a university is violating
federal civil rights law, if they're discriminating base on race,
(08:46):
if they are discriminating against Jewish students, if they're discriminating
against Anglo students, if they're discriminating against Asian students, all
of which Harvard has been doing, why should the federal
government be giving them money? And why should they get
a special benefit of to the tax laws. Now, why
is it that I say this is an uphill fight?
Because the Supreme Court is an institution that is elite,
(09:10):
and that is very much birthed of the establishment. Let
me ask you, Ben, of the nine Supreme Court justices,
how many of them do you think went to Ivy
League schools.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
I'm going to go with eight of the nine, you
would be correct.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Eight. How many went to Harvard Law School?
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Because I finally got one right? Because this is what
you doing this show? If you're new and I.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Know to ask.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
He likes to haze me every episode with something he
knows I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
To, and I just well, you just got it right
in this moment.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Eight out of eight, and I'm one for a thousand
right now.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Well, let's keep going. How many do you think went
to Harvard Law School.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
I'm gonna go with seven out of nine.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Four four went to Harvard Law School, four went to
Yale Law School. Of the eight justices, of the eight
justices for or went to Harvard Law School, four went
to Yale Law School. Of the eighteen degrees they have
college degrees and law degrees. Of the eighteen degrees, how
many of them do you think are Ivy League degrees.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
I'm gonna guess nine out of.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Nine, fifteen, fifteen out of eighteen. The only one that
doesn't have an IVY League Okay, yeah, the only one
that doesn't have an IVY League degree is Amy Cony Barrett,
who went to Rhodes College in Notre Dame. But if
you look at it, this is an institution that is steeped,
steeped in Harvard, and the institution in fact, Elana Kagan
(10:37):
was the former dean of the Harvard Law School. And
so I think they are going to be highly resistant
to the notion that Harvard's five oh one C three
status can be revoked. And I will tell you they're
also going to be concerned about the slippery slope of
what happens with the next administration.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
All right, So center, here's the question that I think
a lot of people listening are going to want me
to ask, and that is it sounds like this would
be much of an uphill battle for the president. I
think he probably knows that, as staff does. But is
this also as much about sending a message to other
universities that if you think that we're going to turn
a blind eye to this, you're wrong and we're going.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
To be watching you closely.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Of course it is. Look, Harvard is the big Kahuna,
And so going after Harvard is meant to send a
message to every other school that violating the civil Rights law.
Discriminating base on race, discriminating against students on their skin color,
on their race, on their religion, is contrary to federal law,
(11:36):
and there will be real consequences you look. For example,
Harvard just released a scathing report on anti Semitism on campus,
and it found that politicized instruction in four Harvard schools
had quote mainstreamed and normalized what many Jewish and Israeli
(11:56):
students experience as anti semitism. Schools were the Graduate School
of Education, the thh Chan School of Public Health, the
Divinity School because of course, if you're studying divinity, you're
going to be a racist, and the Medical School, all
of which have been targeted by the Trump administration for
quote egregious records of anti Semitism or other bias. And
(12:20):
the report concluded that at those schools, Jewish students and
Israeli students were routinely ostracized and subject to instruction quote
that effectively made a specific view on the Israel Hamas
conflict a litmus test for full classroom participation. And let
(12:41):
me give you one example that's just an amazing thing.
A required school course in the School of Education taught
something called the Pyramid of White Supremacy. And this document
is really it's a chart. You look at it on
Twitter or online, it'll blow your mind. But it's a
(13:03):
pyramid of white supremacy. And here are all the things
that it's describing as white supremacy. At the top is
the KKK. Okay, we're agreed. KKK very bad. I'm against lynching, terrible,
I'm against burning crosses, very very bad, racial slurs, jokes, terrible,
hate crimes, terrible, anti semitism, kind of interesting, bombing black churches,
(13:29):
Japanese incarceration, Operation Wetback. Now Operation Wetback was an Eisenhower
federal government program deporting illegal aliens, so that is now
white supremacy to deport illegal aliens. And the Muslim Ban,
which was President Trump's policy in the first term. That
was restricting immigration from countries with high percentages of radical
(13:53):
Islamic terrorism. All right, So that's the first part of
the triangle. You could agree with some of it, you
can dis agree with some of it, but then it
starts to get really looney. You know what, The next
one listed is what is that? The Anti Defamation League,
the ADL. The Anti Defamation League exists to fight against
(14:15):
anti Semites. So the Anti Defamation League is, according to
these radicals, an example of white supremacy. What's the next one?
All lives matter? So if you say all lives matter,
that's white supremacy. See, you know what the next one is.
You're gonna love the next one.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
What's that one?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Maga?
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Well, of course you got to add that one to
the list. That just make.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
America great again? Is white supremacy. This was Harvard's teaching.
I'm going to just go through some of the more
of these illegal aliens. That's white supremacy. Thugs read a redlining,
Whussein Obama, Confederate symbols, life after hate, CVE, welfare queens,
the war on drugs. If you're opposed to illegal drugs,
(14:59):
that's white reverse racism, anti affirmative action, anti BDS. So
if you are opposed to boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning Israel,
then you're a bigot, black identity extremist community policeman. All right,
you know what else is white supremacy?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
I can't wait, like King Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan
or Ted Cruz.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
I'll go with one of those three.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Well, those are all clearly on their charter. They don't
specify it. Although MAGA was up right up top color blindness. Now,
mind you, that is literally what doctor Martin Luther King
said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that we
want a nation where people can be judged by the
content of their character and not the color of their skin.
But according to these radicals, Martin Luther King is apparently
(15:48):
a white supremacist.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
This is like a food pyramid for hating conservatives, isn't.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
It It is.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
I'm going to give you some other examples. Mass incarceration,
tsa random searches, police apologists. So if you defend the police,
you're a white supremacist. US military rescue operations, stop in
fit frisk, the myth of meritocracy. Understand, if you believe
(16:16):
in merit these lunatics say that is racist English only
the school to prison pipeline, victim blaming anti Kaepernick, So
if you don't like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during
the national anthem, you are a white supremacist. Columbus Day,
(16:39):
mind you, it is a federal holiday, but never mind that,
And then it gets to the bottom of the pyramid
and it lists things like settler colonialism, slavery, Wall Street,
the Great Recession, corporate interests, the stock market, greed, NAFTA.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Did you know?
Speaker 2 (16:57):
NAFTA is white supremacy. According to the start outsourcing, McCarthy
is a migrant workers manifest destiny, the very settlement of America.
Oil pipelines are white supremacy. The war on terror, and
the corporate media are all white supremacy. This is whack
(17:20):
of doodle stuff. And this is taught in a required
course in the Harvard Education School.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
So let's talk about the mindset of Harvard for a second.
In these other universities, it does seem pretty clear that
they believe that they're never going to be touched, and
even if they are, their endowments are so big that
they think they're probably going to be just fine and
liberals will continue to give. Does that not go back
to the point the presidents bring up, which is why
(17:49):
the hell are we giving all of these places this money.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
They're fine on their own.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
They're acting like they don't need us, that they are
hardcore against conservative and others that don't basically go with
this pyramid of hate of conservative ideals. So let's just
decouple and say you guys, do you and we'll keep
our tax towers.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
Well, look, there's real value to that.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
I will say that there is research money that is
spent in colleges and universities that is worthwhile, that is useful.
There's scientific research. There's research, say at medical schools, where
you're trying to research the cure for cancer, you're trying
to research a cure for Alzheimer's, you're trying to cure
deadly diseases. There is scientific research that the Department of
(18:34):
Defense pays for, for example, that is developing high tech
lasers or other equipment that has significant defense needs. And
so there is a role for scientific research. And much
of the scientific research that happens in our nation happens
in research universities. All of that would be fine if,
(18:56):
and this is a big if universities were not flagrantly
violating federal civil rights laws. Let me give you more.
This report at Harvard, at the Divinity School, Jewish students
were subject to quote the embrace of a pedagogy of desionization,
(19:17):
in which instructors attribute to Jews to great sins, first
in the levant the establishment of the state of Israel
and the Palestinian Nakba, and second in the United States
participation in white supremacy. So the Harvard Divinity School teaches
(19:39):
Jews the existence of the State of Israel is racist,
and Jews also they teach are white supremacist. That is
flagrantly in violation of federal civil rights laws. And sadly
it is it is something that Harvard openly and brains.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
As they fight this final question, is there an opportunity
through this legal challenge for us to even be able
to find out more about what Harvard is doing? Is
that part of what could happen in the upside here
is Hey, we get to ask more questions, we get
to see more behind the books, we get to see
more of the propaganda that we were talking about right now.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
That is absolutely right, and I'm going to say the
facts are going to get worse and worse as they
come out. Harvard doesn't want people to know the facts. So,
for example, there were a whole series of stories that
came out about the Harvard Law Review. Now, now, what
is the Harvard Law Review. The Harvard Law Review is
a legal journal that's at Harvard Law School that has
eighty students who are student editors, and getting on the
(20:45):
Law Review is incredibly prestigious. It is incredibly difficult to do.
Typical Harvard Law School classes about five hundred and sixty people,
so you have about forty people out of five sixty
that make it on the class make it on the
Law Review. When I was there, I was on the
Law Review. When I was there, roughly half of the
editors on the Law Review made it from a combination
(21:06):
of grades and a week long, incredibly arduous writing competition.
Another roughly half made it from purely the writing competition.
But when I say roughly half, at the time it
was thirty two where grades in writing, thirty two were
just writing and then eight were reserved for affirmative action.
That's when I was there. Now, by all appearances, it
(21:29):
has gotten much worse. It was brazen then, It was
racially discriminatory then, but it is now much worse. The
Harvard Law Review now uses race explicitly to number one
select their editors. And by the way, becoming an editor
at the Law Review increases your chances of getting a
judicial clerkship dramatically increases your chances of getting a Supreme
(21:53):
Court clerkship dramatically, increases your chances of getting hired by
a big, prestigious law firm that pays lots of money,
increases your chances of becoming a professor at a prestigious
university dramatically. So the Law Review is a major gateway
to elite success in the legal world, and the Harvard
Law Review now in writing, they are quite open in
(22:15):
saying that that they will discriminate for editors based on race,
and they will also discriminate on the articles they pick. So,
for example, in a twenty twenty four memo, one journal
article argue that the fact that the author was quote
not from an underrepresented background was a negative when it
(22:36):
came to evaluating the piece for publication. There is a
quote holistic Review Committee which now selects nearly half the
student editors and has made the inclusion of quote underrepresented
groups its first priority. Violates Title six.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
So to be clear, you're saying there's a chance now
now that if you were at Harvard you wouldn't get picked.
Is that what you're telling me?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
You know, I don't know, and you don't know, So
I say that what's interesting about it is you genuinely
don't know. Is one of the things that they're very
clever in how they discriminate because you don't know on
what basis you were admitted. I had the grades to
get in on grades, and I think I did well
in the writing competition, but I have no idea which
(23:25):
of the slots I was in, because nobody does. They
don't tell you. They just announced the forty editors that
have gotten in, so I don't know. But I'll tell
you a story I've told before. So what I was
on the law review. There were a number of conservative editors,
and we made a run at ending affirmative action in
the law of you. And I have to admit I
(23:46):
sat back there was we were all eighty of us
were gathered in a classroom and we were debating this,
and there were some other students that were really kind
of leading the charge, some other conservatives. I agreed with them,
but I also could count votes, and out of the
eighty students, there were maybe eight or ten of us
that were conservatives. We were a tiny minority. So I
was like, look, we ain't going to win the vote,
(24:08):
but all right, this is fine, Let's have the debate.
So we're having the debate, and I was sitting in
the back. It was fairly quiet, and I remember this
one supercilious liberal stood up and said, if we eliminate
affirmative action, the Harvard Law Review will be nothing but
white men. And I have to admit I was kind
(24:30):
of a little bit checked out in the back of
the room and I heard that, and that pissed me off.
And I said, you know what, you want to understand
why affirmative action is so insidious. The arrogance of that
imbecile just showed it. His belief, as an enlightened leftist
is that if merit were the only criterion, only white
men would get in, that no one who is African
(24:52):
American would get in. Who is Hispanic? And let's be clear,
I'm Hispanic. He's sitting there. And in fact I told him,
I said, all right, hey guy, you want to pull
your transcript out in my transcript and drop him on
the table right there, Let's see what pure merit produces.
But there was something even more dripping in his leftist condescension,
(25:15):
which is, at the time, the Harvard affirmative Action program
did not include gender, so there was not affirmative action
for women. And I said to all the women editors,
do you hear what he just said to you? He
believes if it's pure merit, no women would make it.
And by the way, historically all the women editors who
are liberals voted against adding gender to affirmative action because
(25:37):
they recognized that if it was added to it that
that people it would devalue what they had accomplished. But
it showed just the absolute arrogance of the left when
it comes to embracing racism, because at the end of
the day, they that they look down on the poor,
benighted people that will only succeed in life with their beneficence.
(26:01):
And by the way, the price for that beneficence is
for them to be loyal and obedient for the rest
of their lives. I mean, that is the very explicit
left wing charter the affirmative action.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Is based on, which brings us to another story where
this stuff started on college campuses and now it's made
our way into courtrooms. The Tesla Arson suspect one of them.
And there's a lot of mo out there, right, but
this one specifically, and we'll get to the story of
what happened here in a second, but has been quote
released because of gender transition, would be at risk if
(26:38):
they didn't release. So if you're going to jail, just
say you're doing a gender transition and apparently then the
law cannot hold you accountable for your terrorist actions.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
So there's an individual named Owen McIntyre who was on
spring break in Missouri and he firebombed two Tesla's cyber trucks.
He threw molotovails, he fire bombed it. He got caught,
and he was charged charged with domestic terrorism. And then
what happened is his federal public defender argued that going
(27:12):
to jail will disrupt his gender affirming medical care, which
began in March of this year. It is likely to
be interrupted or terminated entirely if he remains in pre
trial detention. And the federal magistrate judge bought that argument
and let him go. And let me say one of
the craziest things about this story. You and I Ben
(27:36):
spent twenty minutes trying to figure out if this defendant
is male or female.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
By the way, and the pride, he's not lying, I
want to be clear about that. We literally are googling
everything is a dude is a chick. If we don't
know what it is like, that's the insanity of the
where we live.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
And we can't tell. And you and I actually disagree.
So I think this is a person who was born
female who has decided that she is a he and
wants to be a man.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
And the reason I think that. The reason I think
that is we've googled it, and every damn story uses
he he he he he and and given the insane
Orwellian world we live in, I think if ABC is
referring to this person as a he and and the
person is transgender, that that to me means the person
was born as she. Now your argument is, Ben.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
This is a dude that grew in his hair. It
looks like a chick.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Then why does all the media refer to this person
as a he?
Speaker 1 (28:36):
I actually because I think everybody's lost their damn minds,
That's what I think, And I think I mean, and
the fact that we even are at the point where
we have to have this discussion tells you how insane
the world is.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
You Literally, every story I clicked on, I googled it
and clicked on story after story, and there's not one
that actually describes the facts one way or the other,
So damned if I know. But either way, look, the
federal prosecutors argue this person is a domestic terrorist, that
they're throwing molotov cocktails, and it is. It is woke
(29:12):
politics taken to the level of insanity, that that to
get a sex change treatment is now reason to be
forgiven for domestic terrorism. Allthough, to be fair, it's not forgiven.
It's released from pre trial attention, but it is still insane.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Well, but it's it's helping you, right, it's helping you
not be held accountable for your actions. And it's also
I think pretty clear that we're saying, if you want
to not be held accountable for your actions.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Just claim something that's woke.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
And these radical judges will be like, oh, we totally understand.
Let's just change the rules for you because you're in
our you're in our special protected class, and we want
to see you succeed in your transgenderism, which is not
supposed to be the job of the court.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Well, I got to say this, This insanity is a
big part the reason Donald Trump won in November and
we got a Republican House, at a Republican Senate because
I think a lot of people are looking at this
and saying this stuff is crazy.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Aim into that, don't forget. We do the show Monday,
Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscriber auto download button so
that you do not miss an episode. Please share the
episode wherever you are on social media because it really
does help us reach new people. And on those in
between days, grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I'll
keep you updown the latest breaking news and the Senate
and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.