All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 21, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
38:31
We're Ending Your White Privilege - December 20th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes, inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Down verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked why.
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Well, we're coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound.
We'll all be tired.
And if you want a little bang in your yin-yang, come along.
There's no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen.
Thank you all for being here.
I'm just gonna ask the press to step out so we can begin a briefing.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Mr. President, Mr. President, sure.
Your son have defied the subpoena.
Did you watch?
Did you watch?
I'm in front of you.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we have coming to your center.
Go to play our guitar and saying you a contrast sound.
Sean Hannity.
The new Sean Hannity show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Always an honor to be in for my friend Sean Hannity, taking the well-deserved day off today, in with Linda McLaughlin, the executive producer, of course, and Ethan is on the board.
Getting it done for us.
It is your boy Joe Pags.
Go to Joepags.com, J-O-E-P-A-G-S.co and the power of this radio show.
We gained like 500 followers on X a little while ago.
Joe P Joe Talk Show on X J O E T A L K S H O W over on Instagram.
It's also Joe Talk Show.
If you would just want to check out everything that we do, Joe Pags.com, and of course, everything Sean Hannity's at is at Hannity.com.
Linda, we're we're up and running, and and we know about Michelle Wu at a Boston.
For some reason, all of Massachusetts is run like through one central hub, which is Harvard.
She's a Harvard person, she's a protege of Elizabeth Warren.
Um, this Claudine Gay thing, which is which is big news.
We're gonna have uh Dr. Carol Swain on about that.
Harvard has its teeth in everything in that area.
It was leaked out that an assistant to the mayor, Michelle Wu, sent out an email by accident to everybody, which was only meant to go to electeds of color.
Linda, had you ever heard the word the word elected used as a noun before?
Uh, there's a lot of things I haven't heard before, though.
That was I was like, what is this?
Electeds of color were invited to the holiday party, and when they were caught, because the assistant accidentally sent it to everybody, Michelle Wu said, listen, we have inclusive parties for everybody.
We're gonna enjoy that party and enjoy the next party.
And the one thing that she forgot to tell everybody is that the no whites allowed holiday party.
Well, she brought her husband.
And her husband's a big white guy.
I love you saw this.
So she's identify as a white guy, clearly.
He just identifies as a person of color's husband.
Because otherwise he wouldn't be not allowed in.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
This is why I learned so much from you.
Well, as I'm known to do, I couldn't not do a Pags parody to bring the season in right about this.
Again, keep in mind.
Here are the details.
This is in Boston, Massachusetts.
The um mayor there is an Asian American or American of Asian descent, Michelle Wu.
She sent out a letter to the electeds of color, which means no white people allowed, to come and enjoy a holiday party just for them.
So we're going to segregate.
And I had to do a song on this because I found it to be hilarious what they're trying to do, and the fact that her husband is white and she brought him.
This is We're ending all your white privilege, a Pags parody.
Let's go.
We ending all your white.
Privilege.
We'll keep your white S out of he.
We'll have food.
Fun and spirits.
That whiteness will clear it out of our eye sight without feel.
Come on now.
Ending all that white.
Privileged.
We'll leave you out with all our mind.
We will party deep into the night.
No wing I skin tone is in white.
And then we notice that she brought her husband.
We gotta go there.
Who screwed up and brought some big, white dude?
Who is that catsper-looking guy?
You could see him coming, his skin unbecoming.
Why?
Why is he wearing that dumb tie?
I don't know how to make fun of the guy's tie.
I don't know why.
Bring it on.
What do you mean?
That is her husband.
She married him that just ain't right.
Turns out she's not sharp nor bright.
Was she drunk?
Did she not see why?
I think it brings joy for the holidays.
A Pags parody ending your white privilege.
Little some for you.
Linda, thumbs up or thumbs down.
You can be honest.
Listen, man, it's you singing.
It's Christmas and it's calling out wokeness.
I give it a ten out of ten all day every day.
I appreciate you.
I appreciate you.
Thank you so much.
If you want to, if you want to see that, you can go to Rumble.com slash Joe Pags.
We actually have it up there as we aired it the other day on my show.
I want to get into an interview uh quickly.
I'm I'm gonna give you part of my interview with Dr. Carol Swain.
Dr. Swain is uh is somebody who's been honored and renowned as an incredible um mind when it comes to education, when it comes to calling out a wokeness, when it comes to telling the truth about what's happening in our society since the early 1990s.
She had no idea that Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, was accused of uh plagiarizing her.
In fact, before I played the parody, I saw Fox News had a headline.
There are 40 new allegations of plagiarism against Claudine Gay that just came out today.
So I want to give you part of my interview with Dr. Carol Swain.
Talked to her just the other day about this.
She is in the center of a firestorm.
She didn't even know what's coming.
Great to have you along for the ride.
Thanks a lot for stopping.
I'm really sorry about what's going on right now.
You told me before we started that you're a bit exhausted, as you should be.
You've been uh in the media for a week or so now because of this whole Claudine Gay thing from Harvard.
I did not realize until probably four or five days ago that the person she allegedly stole from was Dr. Carol M. Swain, who by the way has got a book out called Adversity of Diversity, How Real Unity Training Can Promote Healing and a Post Affirmative Action World.
Go and get that book.
I urge you to do that.
When did you find out that you were sort of in the middle of this whole thing?
Sunday evening, a week ago, right after church, I got a phone call from um, I guess it's okay to say, well, I won't say his name, but uh a famed economist who um when he called, I said, what's wrong?
You know, I I didn't know he doesn't normally call me at home, so I didn't know what was going on.
And he said the president of Harvard University has been acute uh has when she's been accused of plagiarism.
And guess who she plagiarized?
You wow.
And then I got several phone calls, one from a former student who was living in Hong Kong, and also uh texts and emails, and I went to Chris Rufo's uh Twitter page and I read the articles.
And until then, I was not aware of the controversy, nor had I read her dissertation or followed her work.
I didn't realize how closely her work uh paralleled my work.
And initially I did not want to rush to judgment.
Right.
People asked me about it, and I said something like imitation is the highest form of plattery.
Right.
And if this is true, her committee, her colleagues, and other people bear some responsibility.
That was my Sunday evening response.
I said, I need to investigate.
Monday morning, I had articles pulled, some of her articles.
I did not get the dissertation until yesterday.
But with the articles, I saw that she was actually writing about congressional representation and descriptive representation in areas where my work was considered pathbreaking.
Right.
She would have a citation in the bibliography, but there was no way if you were reading her work, you would know that she was building on my work in Black Faces, Black Interest, the representation of African Americans in Congress.
It was my first book.
It won three national prizes, was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Library Choice magazine selected it as one of the outstanding books of 1994.
And it was considered a pathbreaking book, which you had to have at that time in the Ivy League to get tenure.
I got early tenure on the basis of that book.
And I was uh said on Monday when I realized that she had plagiarized, but I was saying for myself because I felt like she had cheated me out of um citations and in academia, citations matter.
If she's not citing my work adequately, then other people are not aware of it, they come behind her, her students.
Right.
Uh, and then it's a ripple effect.
So I went from, you know, trying to be calm on Sunday.
I was very calm on Sunday.
I joked about it, said on Monday, and live it on Tuesday.
When the uh Harvard Corporation said that they were going to stand behind her, she was going to get to do a do-over.
She's not going to be held accountable.
Then I was livid.
I almost never get upset.
Almost I'm always calm.
But I'm telling you, I had a rough 24 hours of anger.
I was seething uh at the whole idea that they would try, Harvard would try to redefine what is plagiarism just to keep someone.
When I looked at her tenure record, the articles she would have put forth, it was mediocre.
There's no way that should have gotten her tenure in the Ivy League, much less a rise to the rank of the Harvard president.
So I was pretty upset.
Well, I can imagine and rightfully so.
The latest book from Dr. Carol Swain is Adversity of Diversity.
Go and get that.
So I nobody's ever plagiarized me, so I just want to figure out how it works.
From what I understand, and and the definition of plagiarism is you're taking somebody wholesale, taking what they did, and calling it your own.
But but you said cited me a few times.
Had she done that and then cited you in the bibliography or in the index, whatever, um, would that have been enough?
Or or should she not have done what she did to begin with?
Joe, let me say that she uh I was not the only scholar affected, and she um stole from the best of them.
Most of the people she stole were people she took ideas from were people that were at prestigious universities like me.
Yes.
Uh in my case, there are two passages that are pretty much verbatim.
One is from the prize winning book, Black Faces, Black Interest, and another is from an article that I published in Congressional Quarterly Press uh in 1997.
And so my larger argument, the one that I've outlined in today's New York Times, uh well, yeah, in Monday's New York Times.
Yes, is that because I was the person who had completed the seminal work in that area on black representation, districting.
Uh my book was considered uh, you know, the pathbreaking book.
Her not acknowledging it adequately.
I I don't think it's adequate uh just to have it in a string of citations when you're writing articles on the exact same area.
So part of my complaint is not just two instances or verbatim, and I've been told by some people that there are more instances of her pleasurism of my book, but I have not completed reading her dissertation, so I I can't say, but some people are saying that there's more evidence, but it's clear that her whole dissertation, her early research record was motivated by my work, and I don't think that she gives sufficient attribution.
In fact, there are places where she damn plays and says that you know that work has not been done in this area.
Well, but I am listed in the I'm listed in her bibliographies.
Uh and but the particular places where it was plagiarized, it was they were not cited.
And plagiarism, the way we uh defined it mostly is if you take verbatim from someone, or if you uh paraphrase and not cite you know, if it's a loose paraphrase.
Right.
And in the cases where she got in the most trouble, uh cases where it was just direct plagiarism, it seems to have been laziness as much as anything else.
What's amazing about this story to me is that Claudine Gay is being supported by the left in this country because she happens to be a black female.
For those who aren't watching, those who are just listening, and that entire interview is up on Rumble, Rumble.com/slash Joe Pags.
Dr. Carol Swain happens to be a black female, but she's the wrong kind of black female for those who are attacking her and those who are attacking the idea that you should get rid of Claudine Gay.
She's not left wing, she's not woke, she's not social justice warrior.
She tells the truth, and she's an incredible, incredible professor who deserves to have the stuff that's being used that she wrote and came up with of her own mind and her own research.
She deserves to have that recognized and cited the right way.
That entire entire interview again, rumble.com/slash Joe Pags, really enjoyed having her on.
I had no idea when this first broke that she was who gay is alleged to have plagiarized from, and it blew my mind.
Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity.
back after this.
Sean Hannity talks to the people involved in the top stories of the day.
Every day.
Sean Hannity is on.
Is all.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes, inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes, inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up!
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
It is, of course, the former U.S. Representative, former judge Ted Poe.
Ted, how are you?
Good to see you.
Doing great, Joe.
Thanks.
Merry almost Christmas.
Can you believe it's almost Christmas?
What is that?
It's hard to believe.
But you wake up.
You wake up and it's Christmas time.
That's right.
Very, very odd how fast the year has gone, but it's been a year jam-packed, full of stuff.
We want to talk Ukraine.
We want to talk about Israel.
We want to talk about Hamas and Hezbollah and how many hostages do we have and not.
But I want to start with a legal question for you.
As President Trump faces 91 counts in four different indictments, they're all really stupid.
I mean, on their face, they're just dumb.
Um, but Jack Smith is probably the guy, the prosecutor uh assigned in Washington that has the best chance of getting anything as far as the conviction, probably on a document that Trump allegedly showed some reporter, and he said, Hey, I probably should have classified this, although he's still allowed to have all those documents.
But the one case about January 6th, how he somehow incited what happened on January 6th, that Trump can't keep saying that the president had immunity because January 6, 2021, he was still the president of the United States.
Jack Smith, I guess, tired of hearing that claim, takes it to the Supreme Court.
Ted, I think he's gonna lose.
Uh, why would this guy take it to the Supreme Court if he wants a conviction?
I don't know, but that's Jack Smith.
I I think uh the president had immunity.
It it has to be that way that the president had immunity because if he did not have immunity, all future presidents are gonna have a lot of trouble by decisions that they make that somebody doesn't like, specifically uh the Justice Department or some state attorney general or some local DA can indict the president.
He had immunity.
I think that's the uh uh ruling that the Supreme Court will take.
Well, I mean, it's it's actually kind of simple.
All you have to let's say he didn't have immunity.
As he's standing there giving that speech that day, he says, I know you're going to go to the Capitol, go patriotically, go peacefully.
What at what point does somebody take away the First Amendment rights of the president of the United States?
He had the right to say those words.
He had the right to gather and and do something peacefully.
He had the right to say, hey, I know you're gonna go do this, go do it peacefully and patriotically.
Let's say the Supreme Court is all drunk that day, and you never know.
Um and they decide he didn't have immunity.
What's the case?
Do you know?
There is no case.
There's still no case, even if he didn't have immunity, because he did not, in my opinion, his words did not create an insurrection.
The left says, well, he thought about some things that might have caused insurrection.
Thoughts are not criminal under our law.
So uh I I don't think that I think he had immunity.
Uh, the words that he used uh has free speech, uh, but you know, people see it differently, and um that's where we are in this country.
Ted, is there something that you could do if you were still the Congressman that would make the judge the Justice Department stop this?
Clearly, they're interfering with with the election next year.
That's what I mean.
Nobody who's got a brain thinks otherwise.
They're clearly interfering, trying to hurt this guy as he's on the campaign trail.
I mean, Jack Smith has a court date that's the day before Super Tuesday, for God's sakes.
I mean, this is they're they're clearly trying to affect the outcome next year.
Can Congress do anything?
Well, they can.
They can stop the money.
They can cut off all the money to the Justice Department, but they won't do that because they they don't have the spine to do that.
But that is the power of Congress.
Cut off the money.
They've it's a rogue justice department, in my opinion.
It it looks like that they are going after conservatives and conservative officeholders, conservative individuals, whether it's uh parents in the school uh situation or uh religious individuals cut off the money.
That can be done, Joe, but I don't think Congress has the intestinal fortitude to cut off the money to the Justice Department.
It's always hard to it's uh former representative Ted Poe, go follow him at Judge Ted Poe on on Twitter.
Um it's always confusing to me.
Can the House of Representatives that we keep hearing has the purse strings?
They control the money.
Can they specifically say, we're taking Jack Smith's money out individually?
Can they do that?
Or do they have to do what you just said and defund the entire Justice Department?
I think in the the situation they would have to defund the Justice Department.
Uh specific uh agencies in the Justice Department.
But they can do that.
They can pass legislation to not allow any taxpayer funds to go to specific parts of the Justice Department or all of the Justice Department.
But they don't do that.
They have had that power since the Constitution was written.
And my opinion, they're spineless, they won't take the avenue that they have to stop this uh rogue justice department from going after conservative individuals in the United States and people, basically, who are exercising their free First Amendment, free speech rights.
It is uh Ted Poe.
We appreciate the time of the access, Ted.
Let me ask you one other question about Congress.
Uh Hunter Biden was subpoenaed by by the House, I believe it was the oversight committee.
Do I if I get a subpoena from Congress?
I guess I just learned something new this week.
Am I allowed to say, I'll come, but you've got to do it the way I say do it.
You gotta put it on camera.
You gotta have all the cameras in there.
I've got to be able to say anything I want to say.
And if you want to do it some other way, I'm just gonna get in the car and leave.
Can I do that?
Well, you can say that in your arrogance, like Hunter Biden said it in his arrogance, but that's not the rules.
The rules are when Congress subpoenas somebody, they gotta show up.
And they have to have first, normally the situation is it's a closed hearing by Congress, as was done in the January 6th hearings, and then there's an open hearing.
That's the way it is normally done.
You don't set the rules when you're subpoenaed, nor does your lawyer.
Congress sets the rules.
Ted, I thought that they were doing it because Hunter Biden thought he would look sympathetic to the public.
But it turns out that's not why.
If you look at procedure as you know better than I do, certainly, if you do it in public like that, it's five minutes for this person, five minutes for that question, five minutes for the other one.
When you do it behind closed doors in a closed session, where all the testimony is going to come out eventually anyway, they're not gonna hide it.
You they can take as much time as they want.
When Ivanka Trump was brought in, she had to testify for eight straight hours.
That's right.
So he's trying to avoid uh be these members of Congress going through with tooth and nail, just going through every single item.
He wanted to do it five minutes here, five minutes there, and he'll come out looking good.
Yeah, he wanted to change the rules.
But he can't he can't change the rules.
And you said it exactly right.
The reason it's behind closed doors is because those hearings are very lengthy, and the witnesses are questioned by both sides for a long time without the news cameras watching what everybody is saying, and so they can get into more detail.
And then, but then there is the open hearing later, and it works that way.
It normally works that way.
But Hunter Biden is special, Joe.
He wants to change the rules, so he goes out and he holds a press conference and he gives his statement rather than face the subpoena and follow the subpoena and show up in front of the House of Representatives.
He just he's arrogant and he doesn't think the law applies to him.
Imagine that.
Well, we have precedent, Ted.
We have um Peter Navarro, we have Steve Bannon.
They both, you know, were in trouble for not abiding by a subpoena.
So what does this mean that he's in contempt of Congress?
Can he be arrested?
Can he be forced to come and testify?
What's the next step?
Well, the next step is that the Congress can has to be a vote by all of Congress.
First, the Judiciary Committee or the Oversight Committee, and then it's the all of Congress votes on whether or not the person can is inheld in contempt.
Then with Congress says yes, you're held in contempt, then the person has to show up, but the person has a right to have that case removed to federal court and let a federal judge decide if the subpoena was accurate.
Remember, this all happened happened with uh uh Mr. Withholder back when he was attorney general.
He was held in contempt of Congress.
It was upheld by a district judge, he was ordered to produce the records then of the uh uh Benghazi situation.
Right fast and furious, maybe.
And fast and furious.
And and he did.
He he did.
The Justice Department they complied.
So uh that's the way it normally works.
But he he didn't show up uh uh in front of Congress.
We'll see what they do.
One last thing on Hunter Biden with uh former U.S. Representative Ted Poe.
Did you watch what he said outside?
Because he said something that was very, very interesting to me.
Did you see it?
Yes, I did.
He said his father has never been financially involved in his businesses.
Now he started with Joe Biden saying, I didn't know that Hunter was even on the Burisma board.
I don't know anything about his business dealings overseas.
And then he said, Well, I I have no involvement in his business dealings overseas.
Then he said, Well, I've never talked to his business partners.
Then the picture of him playing golf with them, and Devin Archer, of course, testifies that Biden was involved at least 20 times, he can remember, and now it's he's never financially been involved.
They're moving the goalpost, aren't they?
Yeah, they're changing the stories because then you know when you don't tell the truth all the time, sometimes you forget it.
Yeah, and then you say something else.
And that's what he's done.
But I don't think I think it's important That we don't lose sight of who the investigation really is about.
It's about the president.
It's not about Hunter Biden.
It's about the things that the president may have done.
And I think that we need to continue to focus on that.
Hunter Biden is just one episode in the conduct of the president.
Well, we have been talking about the border here in Texas, and it's U.S. former U.S. Representative Ted Poe for three years now since Biden came in.
Trump shut it down just by following the law.
The laws on the books that you guys voted for in Congress are still very, very good, very, very effective, as long as we enforce them.
Biden came in, bunch of executive orders, not going to enforce anything anymore, and the border is more porous than we've ever seen.
All of you saw the video out of Eagle Pass, just like you like yesterday, which blows my mind.
Thousands of people just ready to walk on in.
And Ted, it's not going to stop anytime soon.
So Texas has finally taken the step you and I have talked about, which is if you come into Texas illegally, we're going to we're going to trespass you and send you back.
This is a long time coming.
You know Biden is gonna the administration is now going to sue Texas for doing this.
What's the outcome going to be?
Can Texas do this?
I think they can.
I'm not sure how the federal judges will rule.
But isn't it interesting that you have the federal government taking the side of people illegally entering in the United States, and you have the state of Texas taking the side of the citizens of the state of Texas and the rest of the people affect affected by illegal entry.
Here's the way I think it might work.
It's a crime to trespass.
If you're illegally in the country, it's a crime to test trespass on Texas soil, especially private property.
Makes that a crime, and therefore the uh uh these court can send the person who came into Texas illegally right back across the border.
You know it's a good idea because the Mexican president is all been out of shape and screaming and hollering about this procedure, but it's uh I think it's something that can be done, especially if the individual voluntarily returns to across the border.
Uh so we'll see how that plays out.
I think it's it's proper.
Um you may remember, maybe you're too young, but when I was a judge, I uh I had a guy in court who was from Michigan.
That was back when everybody from Michigan was coming to Texas.
Right he committed a crime.
I gave him the option to go to uh go to prison or go back to Mexico uh go back to uh Michigan.
He took the option reluctantly uh to go back to Michigan.
He thought maybe the being in prison might be worse than or not as bad as going back to Michigan.
But he went back to Michigan, voluntarily went back, and so that that's a form of that when people basically volunteer to go back.
I think that will work.
Yeah on the not volunteering to go back uh as a consequence of the crime, and Texas did change the law, so the consequence can be taken right back across the border at the international bridge and go back into Mexico.
We'll see how that works.
But it's interesting.
The federal government takes the takes the side of the illegal trespass into our country and not the side of Americans and naturalized citizens and legal immigrants down on the Texas border.
And it's only going to apply to the border.
It's not applying all over the state of Texas.
It's not going to be up there in Amarillo or any place like that.
It's only at the border.
I think they can be sent back, and we're going to find out if if uh whose side the federal government is on, America's side or somebody else's.
It's uh Ted Poe.
Um uh again, former U.S. uh representative, also former judge, expert skydiver.
People don't know this about Ted Poe.
Uh Ted, I don't remember that case.
I'm way too, I probably wasn't born when that case happened.
But having said that, um it doesn't isn't it Article 4, Section 4, Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution that says the United States government shall protect the borders of this country, and if they don't, the citizens can.
I mean we're allowed to literally we can I'm not telling people to do this, but a militia can be formed and go to the border and say you're not doing it, we're gonna do it.
I think the state of Texas has that right to do that because of the uh seven million, seven million people that have just crossed over the border under this administration.
Seven million, that's the size of New York City, seven million.
That's how many uh Jews are in Israel.
Seven million have crossed.
It doesn't include the getaways or the gataways, Ted.
Absolutely.
When is it an invasion?
Do you know an invasion doesn't have anything to do with whether you have weapons or not?
It's an Invasion of people coming into the U.S. I think Texas and the other border states are within their rights to protect the sovereignty of their state.
If the federal government not only refuses to do it, they say they will not do it.
It is uh Ted Poe, former U.S. Representative follow them at Judge Ted Poe.
Ted, I've got like 20, 30 seconds.
Just tell me what should this administration be doing when it comes to the proxies of Iran that are attacking uh Americans around the around the globe right now.
Not just tell them no.
Show them no.
You cannot mess with us.
When they fire a missile into uh at one of the uh American bases, as they have done now over 75 times.
Right.
There needs to be a response immediately.
We can we know where those missiles come.
We're smart enough to know exact spot where those missiles come.
Lob another one over there.
Lob more than one.
Make them stop.
That's the only thing they understand.
Always appreciate the knowledge and the friendship.
Merry Christmas, Ted.
Merry Christmas, Joe.
Thank you.
All right, brother.
We're back after this.
Stay right here.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection