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. It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz. We've got
one heck of a show for you today. It deals
with everything from China and the movie, the Barbie movie
coming out. Plus we've got another victory we want to
talk about that deals with censorship. And then there's the
big story, and that is one that deals with cocaine
at the White House. Now, Senator, there's other big news
(00:23):
that we're going to deal with, including a huge court
victory against government censorship. But everyone is obsessed with the
cocaine at the White House. So let me get your
initial take to that one.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
You know, I don't think Saturday Night Live could satirize
the Biden White House worse than what has actually happened now.
Of course, for Saturday Night Live to satirize them, they'd
have to be willing to actually make fun of Democrats.
But listen, Biden ran promising to bring back dignity to
the White House when the last couple of weeks we've
had number one, a biological man who identifies as a
(00:58):
transgender woman and go topless with his surgically constructed breast
bouncing around on the South lawn. That happened a couple
of weeks ago, we had a couple of days ago,
Hunter Biden standing behind his parents on the balcony of
the White House, by all appearances, stoned out of his mind.
(01:20):
And then we now have had a bag of cocaine
literally found in the West Wing of the frigging White House.
The West Wing, by the way, is the working office
of the White House. It's where the Oval office is,
It's where the Chief of Staff's office is, It's where
the National Security Advisor's office is, It's where the senior
(01:40):
White House staff works. And there's just a bag of
white powder. Like, I don't know at this point, how
do you even satirize it? With topless transgender people running
around and bags of cocaine in the White House. This
is Joe Biden's administration.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
The part that's also extremely shocking to me is the
fact that the White House wouldn't comment on this at all.
They wouldn't say if they're going to drug test their
staffers moving forward, and they wouldn't even say that they
would hold the person accountable if they find out who
brought in this cocaine? Is the rule of law and
(02:22):
order completely gone under this administration? I mean, if someone
brings cocaine into the White House and you won't publicly
come out and state immediately we are going to prosecute
the fullests in the law when we find not if
when we find with that type of determination.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Oh look, it's worse than that. It's not only is
they're a double standard and they won't prosecute people who
reviolating the law. We know that, I mean Hunter Biden.
We've got videos of him on crack cocaine and the
DOJ won't prosecute it. So we know that. But it's
worse than that because it's a DOJ cover up. It's
a Biden White House cover up. You know, we had
(03:01):
the administration put out a statement we probably will never
know whose cocaine it was. Really, really, are you frigging
telling me someone can leave a bag of something in
the West wing of the White House if it were
a bag of anthrax? Would they be like, well, you know,
we'll never know who left it. Oh well, and by
the way, where this was located, so so let me
(03:24):
give you a little bit of the geography of the
White House. Where this was located was by the entrance
to the White House in the west wing. So when
you come to the west wing for a meeting. You
come in a door that is down on the ground level,
and where you come in, off on your right there's
a dining room. Off on your right is the situation room,
(03:45):
and it apparently is right somewhere in that entrance foyer
is where this bag of cocaine was found. And it
was found in a normal security suite. Now, Kareeine John
Pierre has said, well, this is a heavily traffic area
of the White House. I have to say it is
screamingly funny that she keeps using the word heavily trafficked,
(04:06):
heavily traffic. Well, when you're trafficking in cocaine, that she
may be speaking more literally than typical. There's an irony
that Karine Jean Pierre may have accidentally spoken the truth
from the podium of the White House. But listen, that
is the entrance that senators go through. It's the entrance
that cabinet members go through. It's the entrance that if
(04:28):
you're going to meet someone senior in the White House,
typically if you're going to meet the President, that's the
entrance you go through. I've gone through that entrance probably
hundreds of times. What is bizarre is they say we
can't figure out who it is. Now, I will say
something odd, which is, there's lots of speculation on Twitter. Oh,
(04:52):
a bag of cocaine in the White House, It's got
to be Hunters, you know. My guess is it probably
isn't Hunters. I don't know that obvious. We know that
Hunter has a drug problem, We know that he has
used cocaine and used crack cocaine in the past. But
I doubt Hunter Biden is going in the West wing
all that often and going in that interest, all that
(05:13):
entrance all that often. I think it is in all
likelihood someone who works in the Biden administration, some senior
Biden official, which makes the cover up all that the
more astonishing. You're telling me, with the cameras they have there,
with the secret service they have there, with the marine
detail they have there, that nobody can figure out, Hey,
(05:37):
who left the bag of cocaine by the front door
of the West wing of the White House? I mean
that is or the side door. That's insane. And the
only reason they would put out a statement saying we
will never know who it was is the same reason
why the DOJ and the FBI is engaged in a
cover up of Hunter Biden's acts of criminality, of Joe
(06:00):
Biden's acts of criminality, of the evidence of corruption. Sadly,
this administration is more than willing to politicize. Look, it
would be embarrassing if we discover that a senior White
House aid is bringing cocaine into the West Wing to
do Schedule one serious drugs in the White House. And
(06:21):
so their answer instead is, of course, we're not going
to prosecute it. We're not going to investigate it, and
you know what, we'll just never know who did it. Whoops.
Oh well.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
One of the other things the talking point you mentioned
it was the fact they say this is a heavily
trafficked area. The White House is not Disney World, It's
not a Starbucks line at the airport. Okay it this
is the idea of this is highly trafficked. Makes it
sound like there's thousands and thousands of people walking through
this area. You've been there, like you said, hundreds of times.
(06:51):
I've had a blessed career to be able to go
to the White House a significant number of times as well.
I was there last time the day of the State
of the Union, and I was in the It's the
exact area where the cobbies are where you put your
phones before I went in the Oval Office to meet
with President Trump, and this area. The idea that you
can't find out who it is is a lie. The
same way I would argue Senator that the idea that
(07:12):
we still don't know who leaked, for example, the Roe v.
Wade of being overturned, is a lie. They know. I
have no doubt in my mind, and this is my
opinion that they know exactly who brought this cocaine in.
And I promise you if it would have been anthrax
or something like that, we would know who did it.
They would have found them. There's no way you can
(07:32):
tell me they can't figure this crime out.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So I actually don't know if they know who it is.
I think they don't want to know. I think they
are being willfully blind. I think they're putting their head
in the sand like an Ostrich and just saying, let's
not figure it out. Let's just say, gosh, really difficult
to figure out, and this is the sort of question
we don't want an answer to. I also think it
(07:58):
is a different scenario than the Supreme Court leak. Look,
I think Chief Justice Roberts wants to know who leaked it.
We've seen Justice Alito has said he thinks he knows
who leaked it. But what I suspect happened there, and
I don't know because the Court has not given definitive answers.
(08:19):
But what I suspect happened there is that they didn't
run a very good investigation. I don't think it was
because they didn't want to know the answer. I just
think it's because they allowed the Marshal's Office to lead
that investigation. And the Marshal's Office is not an investigative agency.
It's not an agency that investigates crimes. It's a part
(08:41):
of the Marshal's office. You have the police officers of
the Court that are protecting against acts of violence, but
they're not typically investing investigating crimes. They're not typically engaged
in forensic analysis. And what I called for at the
time is the Supreme Court I believe should called in
the FBI. The FBI has very extensive forensic capability. The
(09:05):
reason the Court didn't, I think was because of separation
of powers concerns, and there's a view within the judiciary
that we're Article three, we're a separate branch of government
and asking Article two asking the executive branch to assist
is intruding in our internal business. I get that, but
(09:26):
I think the better decision would have been for the
Chief Justice to instruct the Marshall's Office to work with
the FBI and get their forensic capability to find out
who leaked. And so I think the motivation is different.
I think with the Supreme Court leak, it wasn't an
effort to cover it up. It was rather putting institutional
(09:48):
concerns above what I think was the incredibly important need
to expose and punish the leaker. In the White House,
on the other hand, I think it is a flat
out cover up. I think they do not want to
know because it is exceptionally likely it is I think
close to one hundred percent that it is someone who
(10:11):
works in the White House. Look, I suppose, is it
possible that some random visitor to the White House left
a bag of cocaine? I guess theoretically, so maybe it's
not one hundred percent, But what are the odds some
guy who has a meeting with let's say, the Chief
of Staff of the White House just happens to bring
a bag of cocaine with them and happens to leave
(10:33):
it in the foyer. I mean, just that strikes me
as very unlikely. I think it is much more likely
this is someone that comes in and out of that
building every day, and in that instance, whoever it is,
is going to be really embarrassing for the Biden White House.
And so it's much easier from a political damage control
(10:54):
perspective to say, oh, we can't figure it out. Oh well,
because boy, we really don't want to know the answer that.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Yeah, great point. I want to tell you real quick
about our friends over in augusta precious medals. If you
have been saving for a long time for retirement, maybe
you're in retirement, or maybe you're trying to figure out
a strategy to protect your hard earned dollars. If you
haven't looked at gold, especially with what's been going on
with the economy and the incredible ups and downs on
Wall Street, then now may be the time to see
(11:21):
if a gold ira can help you protect your hard
earned dollars. Now, if you are close to retirement and
in retirement, the number one thing you're thinking about is this,
there is no time to make up losses and a
lot of people have had losses in their retirement accounts
over the last couple of years. That's where gold can
also come in to protect you. Now, my friends in
Augusta Precious Medals, they want to sit down with you
(11:43):
and they want you to understand how you can protect
your money with a gold IRA. Not only are they
going to send you the free Investor's Guide on gold,
but they will do a one on one web conference
with you as well. They'll give you the economic insights
and explain to you how gold IRA can work for
you you and most importantly, give you the peace of mind,
and that is the most important thing to protect your assets.
(12:06):
Call Augusta Precious Metals right now and get the free
Investor's guide and do the one on one with them.
Eight seven seven the number four gold i r A
eight seven seven the number four gold IRA or online
at Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals
(12:27):
dot com. Senator, one more question on this. Do you
think that we're going to find out or is the
White House going to have to come clean on this?
Is there anything Congress will be able to do? I mean,
they're treating it like a crime scene right now, at
least acting like, hey, this is a real crime. You've
got a substance that wasn't supposed to be in the
White House. It is cocaine and a legal substance of that.
(12:48):
It's also a national security issue how this could get
into the White House a white substance in general. Think, goodness,
it wasn't something like anthrax. But are we going to
get answers or is this just going to go away?
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Well, if it's up to the Biden White House, it
will go away. I expect that the House of Representatives
will try to do some oversight on this. I also
expect that the Biden White House will will simply erect
a wall around the White House and will stonewall. And
we've seen DOJ stonewall, We've seen the FBI stonewall. I
expect that the Secret Service will stonewall on this. And
(13:22):
so the chances that Senate Democrats want to get to
the bottom of this are zero. Why because they know
that it is very likely a senior official in the
Biden White House. It could conceivably be Hunter Biden. There
is at least one known cocaine user who frequents the
(13:43):
White House, but as I said, generally you would assume
that Hunter Biden is in the residence of the White
House rather than entering through the business interests of the
West Wing. But Senate Democrats do not want to know
the answer because I think they are much more interested
in political daydamage control that then actually getting to the bottom.
(14:03):
You are right, the West wing of the White House
is a crime scene right now. Anyplace else, if police
discover a bag of cocaine, the place they discover it,
they call a crime scene and they investigate whose cocaine
is this? And you know what, there are thousands of
people in jail right now for possessing a bag of
(14:26):
cocaine just like the one found in the West Wing
of the White House. And so there's a double standard
of justice. We talked about this with a Hunter Biden investigation,
that if you're some poor schmoe who did crack cocaine,
you could serve hard time, But if you're connected to
Joe Biden and this White House, you get special treatment,
(14:46):
you get a cover up from this administration.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Yeah, it's sad to see the White House turn into
this side show, as you described it earlier, with this
what they've done to this White House is sad. It's
supposed to be a place of honor and respect. It's
supposed to be a place of dignity that we're supposed
to be proud of, and certainly you can't say that
right now with this administration the way that they're treating it.
I want to move to also another big.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
I got to say, comparatively. Comparatively, Bill Clinton has got
to be looking at this going, wow, you guys disrespected? Yeah,
I mean Bill Clinton's like, boy, I got criticism for
what I did in the West wing of the White House.
The bidens are making Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Yeah, it only takes one more bigger idiot to make
you look good. Right, That's all you can say about
that one. I want to move to another story and center.
This could have massive implications.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
For the elect By the way, Ben, for the record,
let's not have that be the slogan of this podcast,
although our critics would suggest that's already our slogan.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Yeah, there you go. Fair enough, fair enough. We've got
a big story that deals. We've got a big story
that's gonna deal that could have huge ravocations for the
election coming up. And it's a big court victory. This
is something that Verdict listeners are going to want to
know about because it's not being covered. There was a
(16:10):
huge court victory against government censorship. A federal judge has
blocked the Biden administration officials from actually communicating directly with
social media companies to silence and censor people, ideas and stories.
This judge is not ordered Biden officials to quote limit
(16:31):
their contact with social media companies. Ruling says that Biden
administration's policing of social media is likely a violation of
people's First Amendment. Now, so people understand, the Biden administration
has been in regular contact, sometimes daily, multiple times a week,
and if you say something they don't like, whether it
(16:51):
was during the time of COVID or other issues they
don't like, they could just connect with them and say, hey,
silence that person, shut that person's count down, get that
person kicked off your platform. And this judge has finally
said you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Well, that's exactly right. And you know, this is a
topic we're going to do a deep dive into. And
this is one of the reasons I think people listen
to Verdict because we cover topics that the corporate media
won't cover, and they won't cover in any substance. This
is a very important decision. This is a very important
victory for free speech, and the corporate media doesn't want
(17:27):
you to know about it. This is a ruling that
came down on July fourth, on Independence Day, and it
came down from Chief Judge Terry Dodie of the Western
District of Louisiana, who's a federal district judge, and he
issued a preliminary injunction that restricts the Biden administration from
communicating with social media platforms in order to ask them
(17:51):
to remove or suppress content containing protected speech. In other words,
to stop the Biden administration from collaborating with big tech
to censor you. Now, this opinion is one hundred and
fifty five pages long. It is a serious, scholarly opinion.
It is an incredibly detailed opinion. This is a case
(18:15):
that was brought against the Biden administration by the State
of Missouri and the State of Louisiana. And it was
also brought by two epidemmologists, Jay Badchaira and Martin Kouldorf,
and four other social media commentators who allege that social
media firms remove their posts and this injunction focuses on repeatedly.
(18:42):
It is at the preliminary junction stage. So what the
court concluded. In order to grant a preliminary injunction, the
district court has to find that the plaintiffs are likely
to prevail on the merits of their claim. So that's
what the district court concluded, that they are likely to
win to prove in court that the Biden administration violated
(19:03):
the First Amendment and violated the free speech rights of Americans.
That's a big deal. And they walk through carefully what
was going on. It documents instances where White House officials
explicitly demanded censorship, including in some cases, demanding that social
media delete the accounts of private Americans, including Tommy larn
(19:29):
including Tucker Carlson, including Alex Berenson. At one point, a
White House official expressed frustration with Facebook's lack of censorship
of what they called vaccine disinformation, writing in an email
and I'm quoting, are you guys efing serious? And they
did not abbreviate efing. I want an answer on what
(19:52):
happened here, and I want it today. Now let's be
clear that that is not an email of someone saying, Gosh,
would you mind looking at this, Hey, this is a concern.
That is the kind of communication we saw Hunter Biden
give to the Chinese official. I want an answer, and
I want it by tonight. It's the kind of answer
you give someone who works for you that you have
(20:15):
power over. The opinion also documents Facebook's collusion with the
CDC to censor COVID related claims. This included a scheme
where Facebook would email an official of the CDC quote
to determine whether statements made on Facebook were true or false,
(20:38):
and if the CDC said this statement is false, Facebook
would remove the quote false statements. So, for example, the
CDC rated as false the claim that COVID nineteen vaccines
weaken the immune system. Now, I would say, as we
sit here right now in twenty twenty three, that claim
(21:00):
has not one hundred percent been proven true. But there's
a lot of evidence to think it's true, and at
a minimum, it is not objectively false, proven to be
such so that the government can silence you from saying
to the contrary. Likewise, the opinion discusses the FBI's efforts
through what it called the Foreign Influenced Text Task Force
(21:25):
to quote prime technology companies about possible hack and dump
operations led by foreign state actors. And Joel Roth, who
was a Twitter executive, testified that during the joint Industry
FBI meetings, he learned that quote, there were rumors that
(21:47):
a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden, and
as we know, social media right before the twenty twenty
election suppressed the story that broke about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Now here's the critical thing. The FBI at the time
knew that Hunter Biden's laptop was not Russian disinformation because
(22:07):
the agency was in possession of the laptop as of
December of twenty nineteen, so a year earlier. In addition,
another office what's called the Global Engagement Center. It's part
of the State Department. It was an initiative that emerged
from Executive Order three five eight four issued by Obama,
(22:31):
which established the State Department's Center for Strategic counter Terrorism Communications. Ultimately,
another executive order, Executive Order one three seven two one,
again issued by Obama, transformed the cSCC into the Global
Engagement Center, and the center is designed to quote, direct, lead, synchronize, integrate,
(22:57):
and coordinate US efforts to recognize understanding and counter foreign
state and non state propaganda and disinformation aimed at undermining
the policy, security, or stability of the United States. But
you know what they didn't do. They didn't focus on
foreign actors. They focused on repeatedly Americans whose speech they
(23:20):
were trying to silence. And so what the District court
did is it issued an injunction against multiple different parts
of the Biden administration to stop directing social media to
censor free speech postings from American citizens. And and let
(23:42):
me read you a portion of it. Defendants use meetings
and communications with social media companies to pressure these companies
to take down, reduce, and suppress the free speech of
American citizens. They flagged posts and provided information on the
type of posts they wanted suppressed. They also followed up
with directives to the social media companies to provide them
(24:04):
with information as to the action the company had taken
with regard to the flag post. This seemingly unrelented pressure
by defendants had the intended result of suppressing millions of
protected free speech postings by American citizens. If ever, there
(24:24):
were a case where the quote significant encouragement theory should apply,
this is it. And that's a theory that explains that
when the government engages in significant encouragement to private actors
to censor speech, that the government is liable for violating
the First Amendment. And here's what the court wrote in conclusion.
(24:44):
The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario
during the COVID nineteen pandemic, a period best categorized by
widespread doubt and uncertain the United States government seemed to
have assumed a role similar to an Rwelian ministry of truth. Wow,
(25:12):
that's a federal court in an order against the Biden administration.
The Biden administration is freaking out about this.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
You hear the court put it that way. And this
is where I smile, because this is such a significant
win for freedom of speech and also not having a
government like you see that influences and runs media in
places like Russia and China and Venezuela and Cuba, and
(25:41):
the idea that you can silence your political opposition, which
is exactly what the government has been doing clearly under
the Biden administration. This important day now sooner. This is
also going to have a big impact, I think on
this election cycle coming up, because this is what they
were able to do in the last election cycle, in
the presidential election cycle, which was to say, Okay, we're
(26:02):
gonna really start ratcheting up and silencing people and shutting
down their reach. And Democrats realize their secret weapon was
just pick up the phone and say I am the government, yes,
you're the private sector. I need you to shut down
these people. And even some of the accounts that were
shutting down were people that had five hundred and eight
hundred followers and then they said something that went viral,
(26:25):
and they're like, yeah, we don't like we don't even
know who this person is, we don't even know what
they're saying. They had a treat to went viral, we
don't like it. Therefore shut down their account, and they
did it well.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
And it's even worse than that. So these big tech
companies are staffed in significant parts by a lums from
the federal government, from the Obama administration, from the Biden administration.
You've got Joel Roth who claimed that the Trump administration
were quote literal Nazis. So these are hardcore radical leftists.
(26:57):
They're already eager to use they're mini coopoly power to
silence speech, but the government is urging them any speech
they dislike, they were urging them to silence. And I
want to make an important clarification because to the extent
you're seeing discussion of this in the corporate media, and
(27:17):
the discussion is quite limited, but to the extent you
see it, you're seeing histrionic reaction from democrats and corporate
media analysts saying, well, how can this be that the
government is prohibited from communicating this is a danger to
our country. Let's be clear. The injunction explicitly includes carve
(27:37):
outs for communication with social media companies that is permissible,
including notifying companies about criminal activities, notifying social media companies
about national security threats, and notifying them about threats to
public safety. And also speech that is not protected by
the First Amendment is expressly exempted from the injunct. So
(28:00):
this injunction is narrowed too, Biden administration, you cannot ask
social media companies to censor political speech because you disagree
with it and dislike it. That is not how the
First Amendment operates. And I guarantee you if you are
watching a democrat or a corporate media analyst talk about this,
(28:22):
they're going to suggest that the government can no longer
longer talk to the social media companies at all. That
is categorically false.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Yeah, and look, you know some of them are going
to try to still keep the back channels going and
they're going to try to get around this, And that's
the questions. Will there be enforcement from this? And I
hope that there certainly is. I want to tell you
about our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy and
you're sick and tired of feeling like you are losing
your strength and your vitality and weakness and complacency is
(28:51):
setting in. You just don't feel like yourself. You're tired,
you're fatigued. You want to work out, you want to
be active, but it's just not like it used to be,
then you need to check out Chalk. Chalk is here
to help real men just like you take back your
right to probably maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterum levels
up to twenty percent over ninety days. Yeah, you heard
(29:13):
me right, booster you testostrum levels up to twenty percent
over ninety days. Now. I've been taking chalk choq dot
com the mal Vitality Stack now for several months. It works.
It's manufactured right here in the us of a. Chalk's
natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing
effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So if
(29:35):
you are tired of weakness and complacency and you're ready
to get back what you used to feel like with
strength and vitality, check out Chalk choq dot com. That's
choq dot com. Use the promo code Ben. You're gonna
get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life
choq dot com. Use the promo code Ben thirty five
(29:57):
percent off and booster your tesostrum levels of twenty over
ninety days. Center. I want to also ask you about
another big issue, and this deals with China. This is
not a normal conversation that you would think you and
I would be having. There's a movie that's out, the
Barbie movie, Barbie and Ken. It is now making waves
(30:22):
for a map in that movie, and it's basically so
Barbie and the people that made the movie, could it
make a bunch of money in China by making them
happy in Beijing? Explain this insane story.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, sure, Barbie is an upcoming summer blockbuster targeting obviously
young girls, teenage girls who are a huge movie going audience.
And there's a scene in the movie Barbie where Barbie
is in front of a map of the world, and
it's a cartoon map. It's not a very detailed map.
(31:00):
So for example, it has drawn out one of the
places on the map is Asia, so it's a map
of the world and has Asia, but off to the
east of Asia that they have lines drawn in the
South China Sea, and it's called the nine dash line.
(31:20):
And the nine dash line is a line that the
Communist Party of China is pushing out because they are
claiming that China has sovereignty over virtually the entirety of
the South China Sea, and that is contrary to international
law the South China Sea. The claim is disputed by Vietnam,
(31:42):
by Malaysia, by Indonesia, by Burnei, by the Philippines in Taiwan,
and in fact, an international tribunal at the Hague found
the Chinese Communist Party's map is illegal. In other words,
that their claims of sovereignty, they're trying to steal control
over international waters and waters that other nations have sovereignty.
(32:03):
And it's a power grap And what's bizarre. You have
this cartoon map with with no specificity. Asia is one
block on it. And yet there in the sea are
the nine dashes that are exactly what the CCP wants
to claim. The South China Sea is theirs. And in
response to this, the country of Vietnam officially banned the
(32:27):
movie from Vietnam. They said, this is Chinese Communist propaganda,
and it is a sad pattern. We've seen an ongoing
pattern of Hollywood movies cow towing to the Chinese Communists
and at times censoring their movies, but at times doing
what they're doing here, which is just happily repeating CCP
(32:51):
propaganda because they want to sell the movie in China,
and they recognize that that repeating what makes the Chinese
Communist Party and the government happy, increases the chances that
the government will allow the movie to be sold in China.
But I got to say, it is shameful to see
Hollywood acting as a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist You know,
(33:15):
when I saw this, I tweeted out, I said, well,
you know, I guess Barbie is made in China, and
a vast number of the Barbie dolls sold in America
are in fact manufactured in China. But it is sad
to see a movie aimed at young girls is acting
as the mouthpiece for Chinese communist propaganda.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
It's not just that too, there's also problems here in
the US. There's an amazing movie that you just went
to that talks about human trafficking and children that are
being sex trafficked and what a problem it is in
the world. It actually was the number one movie over
the July fourth weekend, beating out Indiana Jones, which is incredible,
and it was actually in half the number of theaters
(33:58):
apparently as Indiana Jones. And this is what's encouraging to
me center is the fact that it seems like as
much as they're trying to force this propaganda, whether it
be Barbie, whether it be Target, whether it be Disney.
I mean, they had massive layoffs the other day with
talent at ESPN. A lot of people believe this is
because of Disney and ESPN. People just had enough of
their woke propaganda and their obsession with Black Lives Matter
(34:21):
propaganda on ESPN day and night for several years and
people just said, I'm done with you. And now we're
seeing that the conservatives are starting to fight back with
their dollars not spending them places. But also this movie
that just came out that that is dealing with a
tough issue, an important issue, goes to number one with
half of the of the distribution in theaters as the
(34:45):
big Hollywood movie, you know, with Indiana Jones.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And so this movie Sound of Freedom.
I actually on July third, I took my mom to
see it. And my mom loves movies, so do I.
So the two of us went to see It's a
fantastic movie. Jim Cavizl, who played Jesus in the Passion
of the Christ, is an incredibly talented actor. He plays
the lead. He plays Tim Ballard. So this is a
true story. Tim Ballard was a DHS Department Homeland Security
(35:14):
agent who was working fighting child trafficking and and and
he saw the horrific evils of child sex trafficking. There
is a massive, multi billion dollar business of kidnapping and
selling children for sex trafficking, and it is horrific, it
is evil, and and the true story, Tim Ballard ended
(35:36):
up actually leaving his job and going down to Latin
America to rescue over a hundred kids who had been
kidnapped by child sex traffickers and and it's it's a
true story. And I got to tell you I met
Tim Ballard, Jim Jim Cavisel came by my office a
couple of weeks ago. We talked about the movie and
(35:57):
let me encourage everyone go watch this movie. It's inspiring.
I mean, it's an amazing true story. So much of
what comes out of Hollywood as garbage today, it's propaganda.
This is a true story about fighting. Look, you can
disagree about all sorts of political issues, but the sick
predators who engage in in sexual assault of little kids
(36:21):
and sell little children to pedophiles that I worked a
lot of years in law enforcement. I dealt with a
lot of horrible crimes. I dealt with murders, I dealt
with all sorts of crimes. The ones that always got
me the most upset, the most angry are the bastards
that hurt kids. I think there is a special circle
(36:43):
of hell devoted to people who hurt kids. And the
corporate media and most of Hollywood they didn't want this
movie made. They don't want anyone to know about it.
It gets no press. In fact, when I met with
Jim Caviezel, the Houston Chronicle wrote a hit piece saying, oh,
Jim Caveazl is this crazy conspiracy theorist guy without talking
(37:04):
about the movie, without talking about the horrors of child
sex trafficking. Instead, they just wanted to paint it as
a tenfoil hat crazy thing. This is a true story,
and you are right. On July fourth, Sound of Freedom
was the number one box office movie in the country.
(37:25):
It beat Indiana Jones. Sound of Freedom was on just
over two thousand screens. Indiana Jones was on over four
thousand screens, and nevertheless, Sound of Freedom was number one.
I want to encourage everyone to go watch it, but
it's a sign of just how messed up Hollywood is
that they don't want.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
You to watch it. Yeah, and they don't want to
talk about They're hoping that this weekend it dies, which,
as you know, we've got a lot of vertict listeners
that want that may not even know this movie exists.
It's a movie you need to go see, and you
need to go see it this weekend. And the reason
why is because after last weekend, there are some theaters
that will pick up this movie, and if more people
(38:05):
go this weekend, more theaters will pick it up next
week because they think they're missing out on profits. That's
why it's so important. Don't wait for it to come out.
This is a movie that conservatives and Christians should support.
This is put your money where your mouth is and
go out there. Because if we succeed in these movies
being successful, center more of them are going to be made,
(38:28):
which is the best part of all.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Well, and Ben, I'll tell you when we finished watching
the movie on the afternoon of July third, at the
end of the movie, the entire theater burst out an applause.
When's the last time you read a movie where that happened. Yeah,
I mean it is uplifting. It's horrifying. I mean, the
evil of it is horrifying, but it also is a
demonstration that you can go and you can fight against
(38:54):
this evil and you can prevail. And it's important for
people to understand peace. People don't like to talk about
modern day slavery, and sadly, under the Biden administration with
their open borders at the southern border, human trafficking has
exploded the results of open borders. I'll give you an
amazing statistic we've talked about on Verdict before this statistic
(39:17):
is from the New York Times. In twenty eighteen, the
Mexican drug cartels made in revenue from human trafficking roughly
five hundred million dollars. Last year, they made over thirteen
billion dollars from human trafficking. That is a two six
hundred percent increase. This is evil and it is modern
(39:38):
day slavery. Now that being said, as bad as Hollywood is,
as much as they don't want you to hear and
watch movies that expose things like this, as much as
they're willing to cowtow to communist China, we did have
a significant victory recently, which is the pattern of Hollywood
(40:01):
censoring for China has been an ongoing pattern, and I've
been calling it out for a long time. So, for example,
the movie Top Gun Maverick. You remember the first movie
Top Gun. Yeah, Maverick had on the back of his
jacket a series of patches of different flags, and two
(40:24):
of the flags that were on the back of his
jacket were the flag of Japan and the flag of Taiwan. Well,
the Chinese communists don't like Japan and they hate they
loathe Taiwan, and so the movie Top Gun Maverick the sequel,
they edited those patches out. They've just made them sort
of random patterns that didn't correspond to any country because
(40:46):
they didn't want to offend the Chinese Communist Party by
referring to Japan or Taiwan. And I called him out,
I said, really, are you serious? Are you telling me
that Maverick is afraid of the Chinese Communists? I mean
it was insane and a bit of good news. Actually,
the studio ended up putting him back, so when the
movie was released, they had the patches back, and there
(41:09):
was enough criticism they got embarrassed. Another example Hollywood the
movie Bohemian Rhapsody. It's another great movie. It's a biopic
of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of Queen. The studio
that produced it edited out scenes that showed that Freddie
Mercury was gay because the Chinese Communists didn't want to
acknowledge that Freddy Mercury was gay. Now, Ben, how the
(41:30):
hell do you tell Freddie Mercury's story without acknowledging he
was gay. It was a pretty damn important part of
his life. And you know, Hollywood is always happy to
virtue signal about how woke they are. Unless they're trying
to make millions of dollars from China, in which case
they're like, nope, edited out. Guess what, Freddy Mercury no
longer gay, Let's just take it out. It was embarrassing,
(41:53):
it was wrong, and so I introduced legislation called the
Script Act. And what the Script Act said is that
if a Chinese studio, sorry, if an American studio engages
in censorship at the behest of the Chinese government or
in order to please the Chinese government, then they are
(42:15):
not eligible to use US government assets. So there are
lots of movies where movie studios use assets of the
US government. Think something like Top Gun, where they're using
fighter jets, or they're using ships, or they're using tanks,
or they're using humvies. Or think you know a movie
where you're down on the border, you're downfighting drugs, and
you're up in a Blackhawk helicopter. They're all sorts of
(42:38):
instances where the US government allows Hollywood to use their
assets to film great action movies. The Script Act says, Okay,
if you're going to let the Chinese communist government censor
your films, you can't use US government assets to do
it and the Script Act. I introduced it, I fought
(42:59):
for it. I'll tell the Democrats resisted it mightily that
Hollywood supports the Democrats significantly. We had a huge battle
back and forth. Ultimately, the full Script Act didn't pass,
but major portions of the Script Act passed in the
Fiscal year twenty twenty three National Defense Authorization Bill. And
(43:24):
in the past week, the Pentagon issued their guidance and
guidelines pursue it to the legislation that I wrote, making
clear to studios, if you let the Chinese government censor
your movies, you're ineligible to use US government assets. And hopefully, awesome,
(43:45):
it will be a major incentive to stop this garbage,
to stop Hollywood from cowtowing to the Chinese communisty.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
You mentioned victories, and there's one more that deals with
a dear friend of ours in a book that's coming out.
I'm going to tell you about that a second, But
let me tell you real quick about Patriot Mobile. We
talk so much about woke corporations that come after your
values and why do you want why would you give
them your money? Right, there's one category that you just
hadn't had an option for years, and that is with
your cell phone. The big three mobile companies out there,
(44:15):
they've been dumping millions of dollars into leftist causes year
after year. Many of the big mobile companies out there
have actually given massive donations to Planned Parenthood. Well, now
you've got an option. Patriot Mobile. They are America's only Christian,
conservative wireless provider offering dependable nationwide coverage on all three
(44:39):
major networks, so you get the best possible service in
your area without the woke propaganda push by leftists working
hard to destroy this country. Now, when you switch to
Patriot Mobile, every month, a portion of your bill, at
no extra charge to you, is going to be used
to support free speech and religious freedom, going to be
there to use to support the sancty of life and adoptions.
(45:00):
They're also going to support the Second Amendment, our military,
our veterans or first responders. This is what they do
every month when you pay your bill. So, if you
want to stand with a company that stands with your
values and you want to fight back every time you
use your phone, switch to Patriot Mobile. You can keep
your same cell phone number if you want to, and
your same cell phone that you have in your hand.
(45:21):
Call them eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight
Patriot eight seven eight Patriot, or online at Patriotmobile dot
com slash Verdict. Use the promo code of Verdict and
you'll get the best deals plus free activation of the year.
That's Patriot Mobile dot Com slash Verdict. There's a one
(45:45):
more good news story, and this one for me is
just makes me happy. It's a dear friend of mine
and a dear friend of yours. Mark Levin has his
new book that is coming out soon, and it came
out that Target had said they would not sell Mark
Levin's new book in stores. They were apparently afraid that
(46:06):
they were going to offend liberals, so they were not
going to carry it. Now, Mark Levin pretty much everything
he touches in the book world becomes a New York
Times bestseller. This is another example of why I'm not
going to give a damn dime of my money to Target.
But there was so much backlash so quickly that Target realized,
we don't want to step in it again. Right after
(46:28):
what they just did with all of their activist clothing
and everything they were doing, binding and tucking outfits with
their LGBTQ gay pride month that they now have reverse course.
And this is proof that when we get together and focus,
we can win some of these battles.
Speaker 2 (46:47):
Well, that's exactly right. This is a big victory again
for free speech against censorship, in this case censorship from
big business. Mark Levin, who is a dear friend of mine,
a dear friend of yours. He is the great one.
And and that is a title that is fully earned. Uh,
it is not hyperbole to say I wouldn't be in
the US Senate without Mark Levin when when I was
(47:08):
at two percent and was just getting started, Mark had
me on my show over and over and over again,
and and and helped me get get my message out
to millions of Texans, help help me prevail. By the way,
another guy named Ben Ferguson, who was also hosted a major,
major show, had me on repeatedly. And so I'm grateful
to the both of you, and and and I got
(47:30):
to say, Democrats are still pissed at both of you.
Uh for impact you did there, badge of honor. But Mark,
you're right. Every book he writes sells a gazillion copies.
His books are fantastic. His latest book, Uh, you know,
you know, Mark is is someone who's very subtle. He
has difficulty speaking clearly. He has difficulties saying what he
(47:51):
really believes. So his title with all of the understatement
that that has made Mark famous. Uh, the title of
the book is the Democrat Party Hates America. Well that
you know. I haven't read Mark's book yet, it's coming
out shortly, but I suspect he makes a compelling case
(48:12):
for the title. But Mark tweeted out on July fifth,
Target will not carry the Democrat Party Hates America because
it might offend Democrats pathetic. You can go to Amazon
dot com and order directly without going through Democrat Party corporatis.
And I want to thank Barnes and Nobles Walmartin Books
(48:32):
a million for carrying the book. Now, a lot of
conservatives spoke out against this. I spoke out. I retweeted Mark,
and here's what I said. I said, not to worry.
Target has built up so much goodwill with conservatives that
I'm sure they won't mind. And then I said, and
bias book because I'm sure it's a fantastic book. Well,
(48:53):
here's the good news. If you feel like all of
corporate America as a disaster, well, Mark tweeted out on
July sixth. The day later, Target just informed my publisher
that is reversed course and will be taking my new
book in its stores upon its release. You folks are
an immense force for free speech and market capitalism, and
(49:17):
conservative authors and audiences everywhere will benefit from your patriotism.
I could not be more proud of you, not only
for how this specific case turned out, as there will
undoubtedly be more of this, but because you've made it
clear that you've had enough and will exercise your enormous power.
The silent majority is silent no longer. I'll more fully
(49:39):
discuss this on radio. God bless and I thank and
salute you all. That is awesome, and every conservative, everyone
who believes in free speech, everyone who doesn't want to
see corporate America silence views they disagree with, should celebrate.
We started this pod by talking about a victory for
free speech in the courtroom, and we're ending the pod
(50:01):
by talking about a victory for free speech against big business.
In both instance, there is a power to truth. There
is a power to highlighting what is real and what
the facts are, and when we do so, that has
enormous potency.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Am into that don't forget. You can listen to the
show Monday, Wednesday and Fridays wherever you get your podcast.
If you're listening Apple, hit that follow button. You will
never miss in that episode. Hit that like button or
subscribe button if you're on other platforms, and please share
this episode on social media. You can hit that little
Ford button, that little arrow in the corner up in
the right, depending on what platform you're on, down at
(50:40):
the bottom, and you can put it up on social
media wherever you are on social media and right us
a five story review. It helps us reach more people
on the charts, and that's really important. And don't forget.
We do this every week Monday, Wednesday and Friday, so
make sure you listen each and every day. It's always
a pleasure center. And again, don't forget. Go out there
and see that amazing movie this week and support a
(51:00):
movie that's important to this country. This is a huge
victory and it's going to inspire others to make great movies.
So make sure you're part of it as well. And
we'll see you back here in a couple of days.
Welcome. It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz. We've got
one heck of a show for you today. It deals
with everything from China and the movie, the Barbie movie
coming out. Plus we've got another victory we want to
talk about that deals with censorship. And then there's the
big story, and that is one that deals with cocaine
at the White House. Now, Senator, there's other big news
(00:23):
that we're going to deal with, including a huge court
victory against government censorship. But everyone is obsessed with the
cocaine at the White House. So let me get your
initial take to that one.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
You know, I don't think Saturday Night Live could satirize
the Biden White House worse than what has actually happened now.
Of course, for Saturday Night Live to satirize them, they'd
have to be willing to actually make fun of Democrats.
But listen, Biden ran promising to bring back dignity to
the White House when the last couple of weeks we've
had number one, a biological man who identifies as a
(00:58):
transgender woman and go topless with his surgically constructed breast
bouncing around on the South lawn. That happened a couple
of weeks ago, we had a couple of days ago,
Hunter Biden standing behind his parents on the balcony of
the White House, by all appearances, stoned out of his mind.
(01:20):
And then we now have had a bag of cocaine
literally found in the West Wing of the frigging White House.
The West Wing, by the way, is the working office
of the White House. It's where the Oval office is,
It's where the Chief of Staff's office is, It's where
the National Security Advisor's office is, It's where the senior
(01:40):
White House staff works. And there's just a bag of
white powder. Like, I don't know at this point, how
do you even satirize it? With topless transgender people running
around and bags of cocaine in the White House. This
is Joe Biden's administration.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
The part that's also extremely shocking to me is the
fact that the White House wouldn't comment on this at all.
They wouldn't say if they're going to drug test their
staffers moving forward, and they wouldn't even say that they
would hold the person accountable if they find out who
brought in this cocaine? Is the rule of law and
(02:22):
order completely gone under this administration? I mean, if someone
brings cocaine into the White House and you won't publicly
come out and state immediately we are going to prosecute
the fullests in the law when we find not if
when we find with that type of determination.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Oh look, it's worse than that. It's not only is
they're a double standard and they won't prosecute people who
reviolating the law. We know that, I mean Hunter Biden.
We've got videos of him on crack cocaine and the
DOJ won't prosecute it. So we know that. But it's
worse than that because it's a DOJ cover up. It's
a Biden White House cover up. You know, we had
(03:01):
the administration put out a statement we probably will never
know whose cocaine it was. Really, really, are you frigging
telling me someone can leave a bag of something in
the West wing of the White House if it were
a bag of anthrax? Would they be like, well, you know,
we'll never know who left it. Oh well, and by
the way, where this was located, so so let me
(03:24):
give you a little bit of the geography of the
White House. Where this was located was by the entrance
to the White House in the west wing. So when
you come to the west wing for a meeting. You
come in a door that is down on the ground level,
and where you come in, off on your right there's
a dining room. Off on your right is the situation room,
(03:45):
and it apparently is right somewhere in that entrance foyer
is where this bag of cocaine was found. And it
was found in a normal security suite. Now, Kareeine John
Pierre has said, well, this is a heavily traffic area
of the White House. I have to say it is
screamingly funny that she keeps using the word heavily trafficked,
(04:06):
heavily traffic. Well, when you're trafficking in cocaine, that she
may be speaking more literally than typical. There's an irony
that Karine Jean Pierre may have accidentally spoken the truth
from the podium of the White House. But listen, that
is the entrance that senators go through. It's the entrance
that cabinet members go through. It's the entrance that if
(04:28):
you're going to meet someone senior in the White House,
typically if you're going to meet the President, that's the
entrance you go through. I've gone through that entrance probably
hundreds of times. What is bizarre is they say we
can't figure out who it is. Now, I will say
something odd, which is, there's lots of speculation on Twitter. Oh,
(04:52):
a bag of cocaine in the White House, It's got
to be Hunters, you know. My guess is it probably
isn't Hunters. I don't know that obvious. We know that
Hunter has a drug problem, We know that he has
used cocaine and used crack cocaine in the past. But
I doubt Hunter Biden is going in the West wing
all that often and going in that interest, all that
(05:13):
entrance all that often. I think it is in all
likelihood someone who works in the Biden administration, some senior
Biden official, which makes the cover up all that the
more astonishing. You're telling me, with the cameras they have there,
with the secret service they have there, with the marine
detail they have there, that nobody can figure out, Hey,
(05:37):
who left the bag of cocaine by the front door
of the West wing of the White House? I mean
that is or the side door. That's insane. And the
only reason they would put out a statement saying we
will never know who it was is the same reason
why the DOJ and the FBI is engaged in a
cover up of Hunter Biden's acts of criminality, of Joe
(06:00):
Biden's acts of criminality, of the evidence of corruption. Sadly,
this administration is more than willing to politicize. Look, it
would be embarrassing if we discover that a senior White
House aid is bringing cocaine into the West Wing to
do Schedule one serious drugs in the White House. And
(06:21):
so their answer instead is, of course, we're not going
to prosecute it. We're not going to investigate it, and
you know what, we'll just never know who did it. Whoops.
Oh well.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
One of the other things the talking point you mentioned
it was the fact they say this is a heavily
trafficked area. The White House is not Disney World, It's
not a Starbucks line at the airport. Okay it this
is the idea of this is highly trafficked. Makes it
sound like there's thousands and thousands of people walking through
this area. You've been there, like you said, hundreds of times.
(06:51):
I've had a blessed career to be able to go
to the White House a significant number of times as well.
I was there last time the day of the State
of the Union, and I was in the It's the
exact area where the cobbies are where you put your
phones before I went in the Oval Office to meet
with President Trump, and this area. The idea that you
can't find out who it is is a lie. The
same way I would argue Senator that the idea that
(07:12):
we still don't know who leaked, for example, the Roe v.
Wade of being overturned, is a lie. They know. I
have no doubt in my mind, and this is my
opinion that they know exactly who brought this cocaine in.
And I promise you if it would have been anthrax
or something like that, we would know who did it.
They would have found them. There's no way you can
(07:32):
tell me they can't figure this crime out.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So I actually don't know if they know who it is.
I think they don't want to know. I think they
are being willfully blind. I think they're putting their head
in the sand like an Ostrich and just saying, let's
not figure it out. Let's just say, gosh, really difficult
to figure out, and this is the sort of question
we don't want an answer to. I also think it
(07:58):
is a different scenario than the Supreme Court leak. Look,
I think Chief Justice Roberts wants to know who leaked it.
We've seen Justice Alito has said he thinks he knows
who leaked it. But what I suspect happened there, and
I don't know because the Court has not given definitive answers.
(08:19):
But what I suspect happened there is that they didn't
run a very good investigation. I don't think it was
because they didn't want to know the answer. I just
think it's because they allowed the Marshal's Office to lead
that investigation. And the Marshal's Office is not an investigative agency.
It's not an agency that investigates crimes. It's a part
(08:41):
of the Marshal's office. You have the police officers of
the Court that are protecting against acts of violence, but
they're not typically investing investigating crimes. They're not typically engaged
in forensic analysis. And what I called for at the
time is the Supreme Court I believe should called in
the FBI. The FBI has very extensive forensic capability. The
(09:05):
reason the Court didn't, I think was because of separation
of powers concerns, and there's a view within the judiciary
that we're Article three, we're a separate branch of government
and asking Article two asking the executive branch to assist
is intruding in our internal business. I get that, but
(09:26):
I think the better decision would have been for the
Chief Justice to instruct the Marshall's Office to work with
the FBI and get their forensic capability to find out
who leaked. And so I think the motivation is different.
I think with the Supreme Court leak, it wasn't an
effort to cover it up. It was rather putting institutional
(09:48):
concerns above what I think was the incredibly important need
to expose and punish the leaker. In the White House,
on the other hand, I think it is a flat
out cover up. I think they do not want to
know because it is exceptionally likely it is I think
close to one hundred percent that it is someone who
(10:11):
works in the White House. Look, I suppose, is it
possible that some random visitor to the White House left
a bag of cocaine? I guess theoretically, so maybe it's
not one hundred percent, But what are the odds some
guy who has a meeting with let's say, the Chief
of Staff of the White House just happens to bring
a bag of cocaine with them and happens to leave
(10:33):
it in the foyer. I mean, just that strikes me
as very unlikely. I think it is much more likely
this is someone that comes in and out of that
building every day, and in that instance, whoever it is,
is going to be really embarrassing for the Biden White House.
And so it's much easier from a political damage control
(10:54):
perspective to say, oh, we can't figure it out. Oh well,
because boy, we really don't want to know the answer that.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Yeah, great point. I want to tell you real quick
about our friends over in augusta precious medals. If you
have been saving for a long time for retirement, maybe
you're in retirement, or maybe you're trying to figure out
a strategy to protect your hard earned dollars. If you
haven't looked at gold, especially with what's been going on
with the economy and the incredible ups and downs on
Wall Street, then now may be the time to see
(11:21):
if a gold ira can help you protect your hard
earned dollars. Now, if you are close to retirement and
in retirement, the number one thing you're thinking about is this,
there is no time to make up losses and a
lot of people have had losses in their retirement accounts
over the last couple of years. That's where gold can
also come in to protect you. Now, my friends in
Augusta Precious Medals, they want to sit down with you
(11:43):
and they want you to understand how you can protect
your money with a gold IRA. Not only are they
going to send you the free Investor's Guide on gold,
but they will do a one on one web conference
with you as well. They'll give you the economic insights
and explain to you how gold IRA can work for
you you and most importantly, give you the peace of mind,
and that is the most important thing to protect your assets.
(12:06):
Call Augusta Precious Metals right now and get the free
Investor's guide and do the one on one with them.
Eight seven seven the number four gold i r A
eight seven seven the number four gold IRA or online
at Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals
(12:27):
dot com. Senator, one more question on this. Do you
think that we're going to find out or is the
White House going to have to come clean on this?
Is there anything Congress will be able to do? I mean,
they're treating it like a crime scene right now, at
least acting like, hey, this is a real crime. You've
got a substance that wasn't supposed to be in the
White House. It is cocaine and a legal substance of that.
(12:48):
It's also a national security issue how this could get
into the White House a white substance in general. Think, goodness,
it wasn't something like anthrax. But are we going to
get answers or is this just going to go away?
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Well, if it's up to the Biden White House, it
will go away. I expect that the House of Representatives
will try to do some oversight on this. I also
expect that the Biden White House will will simply erect
a wall around the White House and will stonewall. And
we've seen DOJ stonewall, We've seen the FBI stonewall. I
expect that the Secret Service will stonewall on this. And
(13:22):
so the chances that Senate Democrats want to get to
the bottom of this are zero. Why because they know
that it is very likely a senior official in the
Biden White House. It could conceivably be Hunter Biden. There
is at least one known cocaine user who frequents the
(13:43):
White House, but as I said, generally you would assume
that Hunter Biden is in the residence of the White
House rather than entering through the business interests of the
West Wing. But Senate Democrats do not want to know
the answer because I think they are much more interested
in political daydamage control that then actually getting to the bottom.
(14:03):
You are right, the West wing of the White House
is a crime scene right now. Anyplace else, if police
discover a bag of cocaine, the place they discover it,
they call a crime scene and they investigate whose cocaine
is this? And you know what, there are thousands of
people in jail right now for possessing a bag of
(14:26):
cocaine just like the one found in the West Wing
of the White House. And so there's a double standard
of justice. We talked about this with a Hunter Biden investigation,
that if you're some poor schmoe who did crack cocaine,
you could serve hard time, But if you're connected to
Joe Biden and this White House, you get special treatment,
(14:46):
you get a cover up from this administration.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Yeah, it's sad to see the White House turn into
this side show, as you described it earlier, with this
what they've done to this White House is sad. It's
supposed to be a place of honor and respect. It's
supposed to be a place of dignity that we're supposed
to be proud of, and certainly you can't say that
right now with this administration the way that they're treating it.
I want to move to also another big.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
I got to say, comparatively. Comparatively, Bill Clinton has got
to be looking at this going, wow, you guys disrespected? Yeah,
I mean Bill Clinton's like, boy, I got criticism for
what I did in the West wing of the White House.
The bidens are making Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Yeah, it only takes one more bigger idiot to make
you look good. Right, That's all you can say about
that one. I want to move to another story and center.
This could have massive implications.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
For the elect By the way, Ben, for the record,
let's not have that be the slogan of this podcast,
although our critics would suggest that's already our slogan.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Yeah, there you go. Fair enough, fair enough. We've got
a big story that deals. We've got a big story
that's gonna deal that could have huge ravocations for the
election coming up. And it's a big court victory. This
is something that Verdict listeners are going to want to
know about because it's not being covered. There was a
(16:10):
huge court victory against government censorship. A federal judge has
blocked the Biden administration officials from actually communicating directly with
social media companies to silence and censor people, ideas and stories.
This judge is not ordered Biden officials to quote limit
(16:31):
their contact with social media companies. Ruling says that Biden
administration's policing of social media is likely a violation of
people's First Amendment. Now, so people understand, the Biden administration
has been in regular contact, sometimes daily, multiple times a week,
and if you say something they don't like, whether it
(16:51):
was during the time of COVID or other issues they
don't like, they could just connect with them and say, hey,
silence that person, shut that person's count down, get that
person kicked off your platform. And this judge has finally
said you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Well, that's exactly right. And you know, this is a
topic we're going to do a deep dive into. And
this is one of the reasons I think people listen
to Verdict because we cover topics that the corporate media
won't cover, and they won't cover in any substance. This
is a very important decision. This is a very important
victory for free speech, and the corporate media doesn't want
(17:27):
you to know about it. This is a ruling that
came down on July fourth, on Independence Day, and it
came down from Chief Judge Terry Dodie of the Western
District of Louisiana, who's a federal district judge, and he
issued a preliminary injunction that restricts the Biden administration from
communicating with social media platforms in order to ask them
(17:51):
to remove or suppress content containing protected speech. In other words,
to stop the Biden administration from collaborating with big tech
to censor you. Now, this opinion is one hundred and
fifty five pages long. It is a serious, scholarly opinion.
It is an incredibly detailed opinion. This is a case
(18:15):
that was brought against the Biden administration by the State
of Missouri and the State of Louisiana. And it was
also brought by two epidemmologists, Jay Badchaira and Martin Kouldorf,
and four other social media commentators who allege that social
media firms remove their posts and this injunction focuses on repeatedly.
(18:42):
It is at the preliminary junction stage. So what the
court concluded. In order to grant a preliminary injunction, the
district court has to find that the plaintiffs are likely
to prevail on the merits of their claim. So that's
what the district court concluded, that they are likely to
win to prove in court that the Biden administration violated
(19:03):
the First Amendment and violated the free speech rights of Americans.
That's a big deal. And they walk through carefully what
was going on. It documents instances where White House officials
explicitly demanded censorship, including in some cases, demanding that social
media delete the accounts of private Americans, including Tommy larn
(19:29):
including Tucker Carlson, including Alex Berenson. At one point, a
White House official expressed frustration with Facebook's lack of censorship
of what they called vaccine disinformation, writing in an email
and I'm quoting, are you guys efing serious? And they
did not abbreviate efing. I want an answer on what
(19:52):
happened here, and I want it today. Now let's be
clear that that is not an email of someone saying, Gosh,
would you mind looking at this, Hey, this is a concern.
That is the kind of communication we saw Hunter Biden
give to the Chinese official. I want an answer, and
I want it by tonight. It's the kind of answer
you give someone who works for you that you have
(20:15):
power over. The opinion also documents Facebook's collusion with the
CDC to censor COVID related claims. This included a scheme
where Facebook would email an official of the CDC quote
to determine whether statements made on Facebook were true or false,
(20:38):
and if the CDC said this statement is false, Facebook
would remove the quote false statements. So, for example, the
CDC rated as false the claim that COVID nineteen vaccines
weaken the immune system. Now, I would say, as we
sit here right now in twenty twenty three, that claim
(21:00):
has not one hundred percent been proven true. But there's
a lot of evidence to think it's true, and at
a minimum, it is not objectively false, proven to be
such so that the government can silence you from saying
to the contrary. Likewise, the opinion discusses the FBI's efforts
through what it called the Foreign Influenced Text Task Force
(21:25):
to quote prime technology companies about possible hack and dump
operations led by foreign state actors. And Joel Roth, who
was a Twitter executive, testified that during the joint Industry
FBI meetings, he learned that quote, there were rumors that
(21:47):
a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden, and
as we know, social media right before the twenty twenty
election suppressed the story that broke about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Now here's the critical thing. The FBI at the time
knew that Hunter Biden's laptop was not Russian disinformation because
(22:07):
the agency was in possession of the laptop as of
December of twenty nineteen, so a year earlier. In addition,
another office what's called the Global Engagement Center. It's part
of the State Department. It was an initiative that emerged
from Executive Order three five eight four issued by Obama,
(22:31):
which established the State Department's Center for Strategic counter Terrorism Communications. Ultimately,
another executive order, Executive Order one three seven two one,
again issued by Obama, transformed the cSCC into the Global
Engagement Center, and the center is designed to quote, direct, lead, synchronize, integrate,
(22:57):
and coordinate US efforts to recognize understanding and counter foreign
state and non state propaganda and disinformation aimed at undermining
the policy, security, or stability of the United States. But
you know what they didn't do. They didn't focus on
foreign actors. They focused on repeatedly Americans whose speech they
(23:20):
were trying to silence. And so what the District court
did is it issued an injunction against multiple different parts
of the Biden administration to stop directing social media to
censor free speech postings from American citizens. And and let
(23:42):
me read you a portion of it. Defendants use meetings
and communications with social media companies to pressure these companies
to take down, reduce, and suppress the free speech of
American citizens. They flagged posts and provided information on the
type of posts they wanted suppressed. They also followed up
with directives to the social media companies to provide them
(24:04):
with information as to the action the company had taken
with regard to the flag post. This seemingly unrelented pressure
by defendants had the intended result of suppressing millions of
protected free speech postings by American citizens. If ever, there
(24:24):
were a case where the quote significant encouragement theory should apply,
this is it. And that's a theory that explains that
when the government engages in significant encouragement to private actors
to censor speech, that the government is liable for violating
the First Amendment. And here's what the court wrote in conclusion.
(24:44):
The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario
during the COVID nineteen pandemic, a period best categorized by
widespread doubt and uncertain the United States government seemed to
have assumed a role similar to an Rwelian ministry of truth. Wow,
(25:12):
that's a federal court in an order against the Biden administration.
The Biden administration is freaking out about this.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
You hear the court put it that way. And this
is where I smile, because this is such a significant
win for freedom of speech and also not having a
government like you see that influences and runs media in
places like Russia and China and Venezuela and Cuba, and
(25:41):
the idea that you can silence your political opposition, which
is exactly what the government has been doing clearly under
the Biden administration. This important day now sooner. This is
also going to have a big impact, I think on
this election cycle coming up, because this is what they
were able to do in the last election cycle, in
the presidential election cycle, which was to say, Okay, we're
(26:02):
gonna really start ratcheting up and silencing people and shutting
down their reach. And Democrats realize their secret weapon was
just pick up the phone and say I am the government, yes,
you're the private sector. I need you to shut down
these people. And even some of the accounts that were
shutting down were people that had five hundred and eight
hundred followers and then they said something that went viral,
(26:25):
and they're like, yeah, we don't like we don't even
know who this person is, we don't even know what
they're saying. They had a treat to went viral, we
don't like it. Therefore shut down their account, and they
did it well.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
And it's even worse than that. So these big tech
companies are staffed in significant parts by a lums from
the federal government, from the Obama administration, from the Biden administration.
You've got Joel Roth who claimed that the Trump administration
were quote literal Nazis. So these are hardcore radical leftists.
(26:57):
They're already eager to use they're mini coopoly power to
silence speech, but the government is urging them any speech
they dislike, they were urging them to silence. And I
want to make an important clarification because to the extent
you're seeing discussion of this in the corporate media, and
(27:17):
the discussion is quite limited, but to the extent you
see it, you're seeing histrionic reaction from democrats and corporate
media analysts saying, well, how can this be that the
government is prohibited from communicating this is a danger to
our country. Let's be clear. The injunction explicitly includes carve
(27:37):
outs for communication with social media companies that is permissible,
including notifying companies about criminal activities, notifying social media companies
about national security threats, and notifying them about threats to
public safety. And also speech that is not protected by
the First Amendment is expressly exempted from the injunct. So
(28:00):
this injunction is narrowed too, Biden administration, you cannot ask
social media companies to censor political speech because you disagree
with it and dislike it. That is not how the
First Amendment operates. And I guarantee you if you are
watching a democrat or a corporate media analyst talk about this,
(28:22):
they're going to suggest that the government can no longer
longer talk to the social media companies at all. That
is categorically false.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Yeah, and look, you know some of them are going
to try to still keep the back channels going and
they're going to try to get around this, And that's
the questions. Will there be enforcement from this? And I
hope that there certainly is. I want to tell you
about our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy and
you're sick and tired of feeling like you are losing
your strength and your vitality and weakness and complacency is
(28:51):
setting in. You just don't feel like yourself. You're tired,
you're fatigued. You want to work out, you want to
be active, but it's just not like it used to be,
then you need to check out Chalk. Chalk is here
to help real men just like you take back your
right to probably maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterum levels
up to twenty percent over ninety days. Yeah, you heard
(29:13):
me right, booster you testostrum levels up to twenty percent
over ninety days. Now. I've been taking chalk choq dot
com the mal Vitality Stack now for several months. It works.
It's manufactured right here in the us of a. Chalk's
natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing
effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So if
(29:35):
you are tired of weakness and complacency and you're ready
to get back what you used to feel like with
strength and vitality, check out Chalk choq dot com. That's
choq dot com. Use the promo code Ben. You're gonna
get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life
choq dot com. Use the promo code Ben thirty five
(29:57):
percent off and booster your tesostrum levels of twenty over
ninety days. Center. I want to also ask you about
another big issue, and this deals with China. This is
not a normal conversation that you would think you and
I would be having. There's a movie that's out, the
Barbie movie, Barbie and Ken. It is now making waves
(30:22):
for a map in that movie, and it's basically so
Barbie and the people that made the movie, could it
make a bunch of money in China by making them
happy in Beijing? Explain this insane story.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, sure, Barbie is an upcoming summer blockbuster targeting obviously
young girls, teenage girls who are a huge movie going audience.
And there's a scene in the movie Barbie where Barbie
is in front of a map of the world, and
it's a cartoon map. It's not a very detailed map.
(31:00):
So for example, it has drawn out one of the
places on the map is Asia, so it's a map
of the world and has Asia, but off to the
east of Asia that they have lines drawn in the
South China Sea, and it's called the nine dash line.
(31:20):
And the nine dash line is a line that the
Communist Party of China is pushing out because they are
claiming that China has sovereignty over virtually the entirety of
the South China Sea, and that is contrary to international
law the South China Sea. The claim is disputed by Vietnam,
(31:42):
by Malaysia, by Indonesia, by Burnei, by the Philippines in Taiwan,
and in fact, an international tribunal at the Hague found
the Chinese Communist Party's map is illegal. In other words,
that their claims of sovereignty, they're trying to steal control
over international waters and waters that other nations have sovereignty.
(32:03):
And it's a power grap And what's bizarre. You have
this cartoon map with with no specificity. Asia is one
block on it. And yet there in the sea are
the nine dashes that are exactly what the CCP wants
to claim. The South China Sea is theirs. And in
response to this, the country of Vietnam officially banned the
(32:27):
movie from Vietnam. They said, this is Chinese Communist propaganda,
and it is a sad pattern. We've seen an ongoing
pattern of Hollywood movies cow towing to the Chinese Communists
and at times censoring their movies, but at times doing
what they're doing here, which is just happily repeating CCP
(32:51):
propaganda because they want to sell the movie in China,
and they recognize that that repeating what makes the Chinese
Communist Party and the government happy, increases the chances that
the government will allow the movie to be sold in China.
But I got to say, it is shameful to see
Hollywood acting as a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist You know,
(33:15):
when I saw this, I tweeted out, I said, well,
you know, I guess Barbie is made in China, and
a vast number of the Barbie dolls sold in America
are in fact manufactured in China. But it is sad
to see a movie aimed at young girls is acting
as the mouthpiece for Chinese communist propaganda.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
It's not just that too, there's also problems here in
the US. There's an amazing movie that you just went
to that talks about human trafficking and children that are
being sex trafficked and what a problem it is in
the world. It actually was the number one movie over
the July fourth weekend, beating out Indiana Jones, which is incredible,
and it was actually in half the number of theaters
(33:58):
apparently as Indiana Jones. And this is what's encouraging to
me center is the fact that it seems like as
much as they're trying to force this propaganda, whether it
be Barbie, whether it be Target, whether it be Disney.
I mean, they had massive layoffs the other day with
talent at ESPN. A lot of people believe this is
because of Disney and ESPN. People just had enough of
their woke propaganda and their obsession with Black Lives Matter
(34:21):
propaganda on ESPN day and night for several years and
people just said, I'm done with you. And now we're
seeing that the conservatives are starting to fight back with
their dollars not spending them places. But also this movie
that just came out that that is dealing with a
tough issue, an important issue, goes to number one with
half of the of the distribution in theaters as the
(34:45):
big Hollywood movie, you know, with Indiana Jones.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And so this movie Sound of Freedom.
I actually on July third, I took my mom to
see it. And my mom loves movies, so do I.
So the two of us went to see It's a
fantastic movie. Jim Cavizl, who played Jesus in the Passion
of the Christ, is an incredibly talented actor. He plays
the lead. He plays Tim Ballard. So this is a
true story. Tim Ballard was a DHS Department Homeland Security
(35:14):
agent who was working fighting child trafficking and and and
he saw the horrific evils of child sex trafficking. There
is a massive, multi billion dollar business of kidnapping and
selling children for sex trafficking, and it is horrific, it
is evil, and and the true story, Tim Ballard ended
(35:36):
up actually leaving his job and going down to Latin
America to rescue over a hundred kids who had been
kidnapped by child sex traffickers and and it's it's a
true story. And I got to tell you I met
Tim Ballard, Jim Jim Cavisel came by my office a
couple of weeks ago. We talked about the movie and
(35:57):
let me encourage everyone go watch this movie. It's inspiring.
I mean, it's an amazing true story. So much of
what comes out of Hollywood as garbage today, it's propaganda.
This is a true story about fighting. Look, you can
disagree about all sorts of political issues, but the sick
predators who engage in in sexual assault of little kids
(36:21):
and sell little children to pedophiles that I worked a
lot of years in law enforcement. I dealt with a
lot of horrible crimes. I dealt with murders, I dealt
with all sorts of crimes. The ones that always got
me the most upset, the most angry are the bastards
that hurt kids. I think there is a special circle
(36:43):
of hell devoted to people who hurt kids. And the
corporate media and most of Hollywood they didn't want this
movie made. They don't want anyone to know about it.
It gets no press. In fact, when I met with
Jim Caviezel, the Houston Chronicle wrote a hit piece saying, oh,
Jim Caveazl is this crazy conspiracy theorist guy without talking
(37:04):
about the movie, without talking about the horrors of child
sex trafficking. Instead, they just wanted to paint it as
a tenfoil hat crazy thing. This is a true story,
and you are right. On July fourth, Sound of Freedom
was the number one box office movie in the country.
(37:25):
It beat Indiana Jones. Sound of Freedom was on just
over two thousand screens. Indiana Jones was on over four
thousand screens, and nevertheless, Sound of Freedom was number one.
I want to encourage everyone to go watch it, but
it's a sign of just how messed up Hollywood is
that they don't want.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
You to watch it. Yeah, and they don't want to
talk about They're hoping that this weekend it dies, which,
as you know, we've got a lot of vertict listeners
that want that may not even know this movie exists.
It's a movie you need to go see, and you
need to go see it this weekend. And the reason
why is because after last weekend, there are some theaters
that will pick up this movie, and if more people
(38:05):
go this weekend, more theaters will pick it up next
week because they think they're missing out on profits. That's
why it's so important. Don't wait for it to come out.
This is a movie that conservatives and Christians should support.
This is put your money where your mouth is and
go out there. Because if we succeed in these movies
being successful, center more of them are going to be made,
(38:28):
which is the best part of all.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Well, and Ben, I'll tell you when we finished watching
the movie on the afternoon of July third, at the
end of the movie, the entire theater burst out an applause.
When's the last time you read a movie where that happened. Yeah,
I mean it is uplifting. It's horrifying. I mean, the
evil of it is horrifying, but it also is a
demonstration that you can go and you can fight against
(38:54):
this evil and you can prevail. And it's important for
people to understand peace. People don't like to talk about
modern day slavery, and sadly, under the Biden administration with
their open borders at the southern border, human trafficking has
exploded the results of open borders. I'll give you an
amazing statistic we've talked about on Verdict before this statistic
(39:17):
is from the New York Times. In twenty eighteen, the
Mexican drug cartels made in revenue from human trafficking roughly
five hundred million dollars. Last year, they made over thirteen
billion dollars from human trafficking. That is a two six
hundred percent increase. This is evil and it is modern
(39:38):
day slavery. Now that being said, as bad as Hollywood is,
as much as they don't want you to hear and
watch movies that expose things like this, as much as
they're willing to cowtow to communist China, we did have
a significant victory recently, which is the pattern of Hollywood
(40:01):
censoring for China has been an ongoing pattern, and I've
been calling it out for a long time. So, for example,
the movie Top Gun Maverick. You remember the first movie
Top Gun. Yeah, Maverick had on the back of his
jacket a series of patches of different flags, and two
(40:24):
of the flags that were on the back of his
jacket were the flag of Japan and the flag of Taiwan. Well,
the Chinese communists don't like Japan and they hate they
loathe Taiwan, and so the movie Top Gun Maverick the sequel,
they edited those patches out. They've just made them sort
of random patterns that didn't correspond to any country because
(40:46):
they didn't want to offend the Chinese Communist Party by
referring to Japan or Taiwan. And I called him out,
I said, really, are you serious? Are you telling me
that Maverick is afraid of the Chinese Communists? I mean
it was insane and a bit of good news. Actually,
the studio ended up putting him back, so when the
movie was released, they had the patches back, and there
(41:09):
was enough criticism they got embarrassed. Another example Hollywood the
movie Bohemian Rhapsody. It's another great movie. It's a biopic
of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of Queen. The studio
that produced it edited out scenes that showed that Freddie
Mercury was gay because the Chinese Communists didn't want to
acknowledge that Freddy Mercury was gay. Now, Ben, how the
(41:30):
hell do you tell Freddie Mercury's story without acknowledging he
was gay. It was a pretty damn important part of
his life. And you know, Hollywood is always happy to
virtue signal about how woke they are. Unless they're trying
to make millions of dollars from China, in which case
they're like, nope, edited out. Guess what, Freddy Mercury no
longer gay, Let's just take it out. It was embarrassing,
(41:53):
it was wrong, and so I introduced legislation called the
Script Act. And what the Script Act said is that
if a Chinese studio, sorry, if an American studio engages
in censorship at the behest of the Chinese government or
in order to please the Chinese government, then they are
(42:15):
not eligible to use US government assets. So there are
lots of movies where movie studios use assets of the
US government. Think something like Top Gun, where they're using
fighter jets, or they're using ships, or they're using tanks,
or they're using humvies. Or think you know a movie
where you're down on the border, you're downfighting drugs, and
you're up in a Blackhawk helicopter. They're all sorts of
(42:38):
instances where the US government allows Hollywood to use their
assets to film great action movies. The Script Act says, Okay,
if you're going to let the Chinese communist government censor
your films, you can't use US government assets to do
it and the Script Act. I introduced it, I fought
(42:59):
for it. I'll tell the Democrats resisted it mightily that
Hollywood supports the Democrats significantly. We had a huge battle
back and forth. Ultimately, the full Script Act didn't pass,
but major portions of the Script Act passed in the
Fiscal year twenty twenty three National Defense Authorization Bill. And
(43:24):
in the past week, the Pentagon issued their guidance and
guidelines pursue it to the legislation that I wrote, making
clear to studios, if you let the Chinese government censor
your movies, you're ineligible to use US government assets. And hopefully, awesome,
(43:45):
it will be a major incentive to stop this garbage,
to stop Hollywood from cowtowing to the Chinese communisty.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
You mentioned victories, and there's one more that deals with
a dear friend of ours in a book that's coming out.
I'm going to tell you about that a second, But
let me tell you real quick about Patriot Mobile. We
talk so much about woke corporations that come after your
values and why do you want why would you give
them your money? Right, there's one category that you just
hadn't had an option for years, and that is with
your cell phone. The big three mobile companies out there,
(44:15):
they've been dumping millions of dollars into leftist causes year
after year. Many of the big mobile companies out there
have actually given massive donations to Planned Parenthood. Well, now
you've got an option. Patriot Mobile. They are America's only Christian,
conservative wireless provider offering dependable nationwide coverage on all three
(44:39):
major networks, so you get the best possible service in
your area without the woke propaganda push by leftists working
hard to destroy this country. Now, when you switch to
Patriot Mobile, every month, a portion of your bill, at
no extra charge to you, is going to be used
to support free speech and religious freedom, going to be
there to use to support the sancty of life and adoptions.
(45:00):
They're also going to support the Second Amendment, our military,
our veterans or first responders. This is what they do
every month when you pay your bill. So, if you
want to stand with a company that stands with your
values and you want to fight back every time you
use your phone, switch to Patriot Mobile. You can keep
your same cell phone number if you want to, and
your same cell phone that you have in your hand.
(45:21):
Call them eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight
Patriot eight seven eight Patriot, or online at Patriotmobile dot
com slash Verdict. Use the promo code of Verdict and
you'll get the best deals plus free activation of the year.
That's Patriot Mobile dot Com slash Verdict. There's a one
(45:45):
more good news story, and this one for me is
just makes me happy. It's a dear friend of mine
and a dear friend of yours. Mark Levin has his
new book that is coming out soon, and it came
out that Target had said they would not sell Mark
Levin's new book in stores. They were apparently afraid that
(46:06):
they were going to offend liberals, so they were not
going to carry it. Now, Mark Levin pretty much everything
he touches in the book world becomes a New York
Times bestseller. This is another example of why I'm not
going to give a damn dime of my money to Target.
But there was so much backlash so quickly that Target realized,
we don't want to step in it again. Right after
(46:28):
what they just did with all of their activist clothing
and everything they were doing, binding and tucking outfits with
their LGBTQ gay pride month that they now have reverse course.
And this is proof that when we get together and focus,
we can win some of these battles.
Speaker 2 (46:47):
Well, that's exactly right. This is a big victory again
for free speech against censorship, in this case censorship from
big business. Mark Levin, who is a dear friend of mine,
a dear friend of yours. He is the great one.
And and that is a title that is fully earned. Uh,
it is not hyperbole to say I wouldn't be in
the US Senate without Mark Levin when when I was
(47:08):
at two percent and was just getting started, Mark had
me on my show over and over and over again,
and and and helped me get get my message out
to millions of Texans, help help me prevail. By the way,
another guy named Ben Ferguson, who was also hosted a major,
major show, had me on repeatedly. And so I'm grateful
to the both of you, and and and I got
(47:30):
to say, Democrats are still pissed at both of you.
Uh for impact you did there, badge of honor. But Mark,
you're right. Every book he writes sells a gazillion copies.
His books are fantastic. His latest book, Uh, you know,
you know, Mark is is someone who's very subtle. He
has difficulty speaking clearly. He has difficulties saying what he
(47:51):
really believes. So his title with all of the understatement
that that has made Mark famous. Uh, the title of
the book is the Democrat Party Hates America. Well that
you know. I haven't read Mark's book yet, it's coming
out shortly, but I suspect he makes a compelling case
(48:12):
for the title. But Mark tweeted out on July fifth,
Target will not carry the Democrat Party Hates America because
it might offend Democrats pathetic. You can go to Amazon
dot com and order directly without going through Democrat Party corporatis.
And I want to thank Barnes and Nobles Walmartin Books
(48:32):
a million for carrying the book. Now, a lot of
conservatives spoke out against this. I spoke out. I retweeted Mark,
and here's what I said. I said, not to worry.
Target has built up so much goodwill with conservatives that
I'm sure they won't mind. And then I said, and
bias book because I'm sure it's a fantastic book. Well,
(48:53):
here's the good news. If you feel like all of
corporate America as a disaster, well, Mark tweeted out on
July sixth. The day later, Target just informed my publisher
that is reversed course and will be taking my new
book in its stores upon its release. You folks are
an immense force for free speech and market capitalism, and
(49:17):
conservative authors and audiences everywhere will benefit from your patriotism.
I could not be more proud of you, not only
for how this specific case turned out, as there will
undoubtedly be more of this, but because you've made it
clear that you've had enough and will exercise your enormous power.
The silent majority is silent no longer. I'll more fully
(49:39):
discuss this on radio. God bless and I thank and
salute you all. That is awesome, and every conservative, everyone
who believes in free speech, everyone who doesn't want to
see corporate America silence views they disagree with, should celebrate.
We started this pod by talking about a victory for
free speech in the courtroom, and we're ending the pod
(50:01):
by talking about a victory for free speech against big business.
In both instance, there is a power to truth. There
is a power to highlighting what is real and what
the facts are, and when we do so, that has
enormous potency.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Am into that don't forget. You can listen to the
show Monday, Wednesday and Fridays wherever you get your podcast.
If you're listening Apple, hit that follow button. You will
never miss in that episode. Hit that like button or
subscribe button if you're on other platforms, and please share
this episode on social media. You can hit that little
Ford button, that little arrow in the corner up in
the right, depending on what platform you're on, down at
(50:40):
the bottom, and you can put it up on social
media wherever you are on social media and right us
a five story review. It helps us reach more people
on the charts, and that's really important. And don't forget.
We do this every week Monday, Wednesday and Friday, so
make sure you listen each and every day. It's always
a pleasure center. And again, don't forget. Go out there
and see that amazing movie this week and support a
(51:00):
movie that's important to this country. This is a huge
victory and it's going to inspire others to make great movies.
So make sure you're part of it as well. And
we'll see you back here in a couple of days.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.