Verdict with Ted Cruz - March 24, 2025


Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked


Episode Stats


Length

34 minutes

Words per minute

154.7896

Word count

5,347

Sentence count

340

Harmful content

Misogyny

6

sentences flagged

Toxicity

21

sentences flagged

Hate speech

7

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joins Sen. Ben Fergus (D-NJ) to discuss nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump and the radical left's attempt to block him from being re-elected. They also discuss an anti-American radical who has had his student visa revoked.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:00:02.540 Guaranteed human.
00:00:05.180 Good Monday morning.
00:00:06.560 Welcome.
00:00:06.980 It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you as always.
00:00:11.000 And Senator, we've got a lot to talk about on today's show,
00:00:14.340 including nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump.
00:00:19.420 Well, this is the latest evolution of lawfare.
00:00:22.280 And the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat state attorneys general,
00:00:26.760 the plan from left-wing activist groups is sue, sue, sue and go to left-wing activist judges,
00:00:34.040 particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put on the courts,
00:00:37.980 and use them to try to shut down the entirety of the Trump agenda. 0.70
00:00:43.680 It's not going to succeed, and it is unprecedented.
00:00:46.340 We're going to do a deep dive and explain what's going on
00:00:49.400 and how it is so far out of step from what any other president has faced.
00:00:53.480 We're also going to talk about the fact that yet another anti-American, anti-Israel radical
00:00:59.340 has had his student visa revoked.
00:01:02.200 The Trump administration, President Trump, is serious that if you are an enemy of America,
00:01:07.140 they are going to remove you from this country. 0.85
00:01:09.380 You do not have an entitlement to have a student visa and to be here
00:01:12.820 and to threaten other students to threaten violence.
00:01:15.180 We're going to break that down as well.
00:01:17.160 Yeah, it really is shocking.
00:01:18.420 We're going to dive into all that in just a moment.
00:01:20.220 I want to talk to you real quick, though, about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
00:01:25.200 and the work that they're doing and the help that is needed for the people in Israel.
00:01:30.180 After more than a year of war, terror, and pain in Israel,
00:01:33.740 the need for security essentials and support for the first responders is still critical.
00:01:40.060 Even in times of ceasefire, Israel must be prepared for the next attack, 0.88
00:01:45.200 wherever it may come from, as Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides.
00:01:49.880 That is where you come in, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
00:01:54.560 is working on the ground to continue to support those that are in need.
00:01:59.660 The people of Israel with life-saving security essentials are so important right now,
00:02:05.000 and your gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters,
00:02:09.580 armored security vehicles, and armored ambulances,
00:02:13.220 firefighting equipment, flak jackets, and bulletproof vests, and so much more.
00:02:18.480 Your generous donation today will help ensure the people of Israel are safe and secure in the days to come.
00:02:24.860 So give a gift to bless Israel and her people by visiting supportifcj.org.
00:02:31.500 That's one word, supportifcj.org.
00:02:35.500 Or call to donate now, 888-488-IFCJ.
00:02:40.820 That's 888-488-IFCJ.
00:02:44.680 888-488-4325.
00:02:48.140 Or supportifcj.org.
00:02:51.120 Senator, so let's remind people of how we got to the point where this is like the new phase of lawfare.
00:02:59.200 Democrats weaponized our government and the court system and the DOJ when they were in charge, 1.00
00:03:06.980 when they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump, even raiding his home in Mar-a-Lago.
00:03:11.540 But now that he's the president again, the tactic has changed,
00:03:16.100 but the outcome they're hoping is still going to be in essence the same,
00:03:19.460 which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
00:03:21.820 Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system to try to subvert democracy.
00:03:27.400 Understand, the four times Trump was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy.
00:03:33.000 This is while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks, claiming to be defending democracy.
00:03:38.580 But the reason they brought those indictments is they were terrified the voters were going to do what they in fact did,
00:03:44.440 which was re-elect Donald Trump.
00:03:46.240 And Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to do that.
00:03:50.920 Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump.
00:03:53.820 The voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a Republican House.
00:03:57.260 And the left, they don't care.
00:03:59.440 They're angry.
00:04:00.300 They're angry at the voters.
00:04:01.620 And so they're going to the courts to try to prevent the president and the Congress
00:04:07.340 from following through on the mandate from the voters.
00:04:09.480 Now, let me lay out some numbers to give you just sort of a level of comparison.
00:04:15.180 Listen, in the entirety of the George W. Bush administration, two terms, the Barack Obama
00:04:23.200 administration, two terms, and the Joe Biden administration, how many times do you think
00:04:29.900 there have been nationwide injunctions issued since 2001?
00:04:34.760 I'm going to go like zero to one.
00:04:37.060 No, no, there have been more than that.
00:04:39.640 There have been 32.
00:04:41.120 32 against Bush, Obama, and Biden.
00:04:44.880 Now, how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been in the first two months
00:04:49.740 of the Trump presidency?
00:04:52.800 I'm going to not even try to guess because I know I'm going to be wrong.
00:04:56.500 37.
00:04:57.720 Wow.
00:04:58.260 So we've already outnumbered all those other, like, presidencies combined, in essence.
00:05:03.060 So in two months, we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight years of Bush, eight
00:05:09.140 years of Barack Obama, and four years of Joe Biden.
00:05:12.280 Now, that in and of itself, both of those are a huge shift from what it's been historically.
00:05:19.020 Now, in the entire 20th century, how many nationwide injunctions do you think there were?
00:05:24.260 No clue.
00:05:25.320 27.
00:05:26.320 Wow.
00:05:26.620 So in 100 years, there were 27.
00:05:31.340 Then in 20 years of Bush, Obama, and Biden, there were 32.
00:05:38.780 And now in two months, there have been 37.
00:05:42.180 This is a dramatic shift.
00:05:44.100 And look, let's go back to the history.
00:05:47.200 Before we had a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had the British, the common 0.91
00:05:55.900 law, and in English equity, which is before we had the founding of the United States, you
00:06:02.220 couldn't have injunctions against the crown.
00:06:04.540 A judge could not enjoin the crown because the chancellor was part of the crown.
00:06:09.580 It was the same authority.
00:06:11.260 And that continued for the first 150 years of the United States.
00:06:15.580 Now, what happened, it used to be that there was an explosion of executive powers in the
00:06:23.000 New Deal, and that led to a lot of injunctions.
00:06:27.380 But those were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect to the
00:06:33.300 parties to the case.
00:06:34.560 Now, all right, let me ask you something, Ben.
00:06:37.900 One of the two of us has a law degree.
00:06:39.540 Let me ask a simple question.
00:06:40.720 What do you think an injunction is?
00:06:44.420 An injunction is where a court steps in and says, you can't do that.
00:06:48.340 We are stopping you from doing what you said you were going to do.
00:06:52.260 So that's actually, that is quite good.
00:06:55.140 An injunction is ordering someone either to do something or not to do something.
00:07:00.560 But it is an order from the court for someone to comply with its order.
00:07:05.320 And that is in distinction to an order for damages.
00:07:09.540 So you think about a civil suit.
00:07:12.760 You know, if I run over your cat and you sue me, the court can say, all right, pay Ben
00:07:19.420 $1,000 for his cat.
00:07:22.500 That would be an award in damages.
00:07:27.580 An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties of the case.
00:07:33.060 So for example, if, if I keep running over your cats, if you have 10 cats and I run over
00:07:40.420 a cat a week, that's a, I have way too many one-liners.
00:07:45.540 Keep going.
00:07:46.060 I don't want to, you're a cat guy.
00:07:47.780 I got to be careful here.
00:07:49.860 No, I'm a daughter guy.
00:07:51.320 Let's be clear.
00:07:52.040 So, so, so I do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters.
00:07:55.900 And in particular, I have my eldest daughter.
00:07:58.320 So she has three cats and I love my daughters.
00:08:00.920 And so we have three cats in our home.
00:08:04.660 You're a boy, dad.
00:08:05.840 And, and, and, and so cats are not a part of your life.
00:08:08.760 Yes.
00:08:09.040 Thank you.
00:08:09.920 And it's one of the best blessings I've ever had from them.
00:08:13.280 Keep going.
00:08:13.840 Well, an injunction could be, let's say a court might order me to not drive my car within
00:08:24.760 500 yards of your house.
00:08:28.440 That would be an injunction against the parties of the case.
00:08:32.760 Now, what is different, and by the way, so, so for example, and, and you would have those
00:08:40.000 injunctions against the government, but again, they were limited to the parties.
00:08:43.840 So, so, so for example, there were 1600 injunctions issued against the enforcement of, of one
00:08:50.440 statutory provision, which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
00:08:56.500 But those were each dealing with individual parties.
00:09:00.600 So you had a party who, who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing this, this statutory provision,
00:09:07.640 this processing tax on me is contrary to law.
00:09:10.880 And 1600 times judges agreed and ordered the government, don't enforce the law with respect
00:09:17.080 to Ben.
00:09:18.200 But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce that law with respect to you
00:09:22.860 doesn't mean that I was protected by it.
00:09:25.400 And if I wanted to fight it, I had to go to court too.
00:09:27.480 So that used to be the way it would happen.
00:09:29.920 And then there were, there were judicial reforms in 1937 that Congress took a, a, a unusual
00:09:41.880 mechanism, which is a three judge district court.
00:09:45.560 So ordinarily in the federal courts, you have district judges, single district judges, then
00:09:51.460 you have courts of appeals, then you have the U.S. 0.80
00:09:54.360 Supreme Court, well, Congress created this weird hybrid that was a three judge district
00:10:00.860 court.
00:10:01.320 So it was three different judges, but they were a district court.
00:10:04.100 And if you were seeking injunctions against a federal statute, you had to go to a three
00:10:10.380 judge district court and then you had a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
00:10:14.500 So it skipped, uh, it skipped the courts of appeals altogether.
00:10:18.200 However, that ended in 1976 and that ended in, in significant part because the Supreme Court,
00:10:25.540 their caseload was growing dramatically because of that.
00:10:28.540 And, and so now just about every lawsuit starts in a, in a federal district court.
00:10:34.960 If you're in the federal system, then goes to a federal courts of appeals.
00:10:37.980 And then the Supreme Court has discretionary review.
00:10:42.140 They don't have to hear it.
00:10:43.200 They can, that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of a three judge district court was 0.99
00:10:51.760 no longer there to limit how often an injunction would be given.
00:10:55.040 And then it has been really, it's been the activist judges that Obama and Biden had put
00:11:04.260 on the courts that has led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions.
00:11:11.840 It's one thing to say this party in front of me, I'm issuing an injunction, uh, concerning
00:11:17.080 the government's conduct about Ben.
00:11:19.280 It's another thing to say, I'm enjoining the government.
00:11:22.920 You can't do X against any person in the United States of America.
00:11:26.940 That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by one single judge.
00:11:31.620 So you, you look at this expansion and it's very clear that this is now war and it's war
00:11:41.700 that's been declared by these judges.
00:11:44.100 Then what is the remedy here?
00:11:46.220 We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges.
00:11:48.960 We've heard that this is one of those moments where it's in essence, unprecedented, the number
00:11:54.500 of judges that are trying to have nationwide power instead of, and really overstepping.
00:12:01.040 What is this strategy here?
00:12:02.920 And what does that look like to fight back?
00:12:04.660 Because it's very frustrating.
00:12:06.380 If you're a voter and you voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins.
00:12:10.320 The majority of Americans support the agenda.
00:12:12.760 And now you see these judges who were in many cases elected by no one, uh, who are now saying,
00:12:19.120 no, no, no, we can, we can Trump Donald Trump in the entire country with one ruling.
00:12:23.660 Well, to be clear that the, the judges were not in many cases elected by no one, and they
00:12:28.280 were in every single case elected by no one.
00:12:31.080 Uh, the mechanism that every one of these judges became a judge is they were appointed
00:12:35.500 by the president, whoever the president was at the time, and they were confirmed by the
00:12:38.860 United States Senate.
00:12:39.660 And so no federal judges elected, um, there is, there are a number of checks and balances
00:12:45.040 on judges.
00:12:45.680 One check and balance, uh, is impeachment.
00:12:49.260 However, impeachment unfortunately is not going to be effective against this.
00:12:53.660 Abuse of power.
00:12:54.460 And I'll tell you why, even if so, impeachment would take, it actually operates very much
00:13:00.120 the same way as impeachment operates against the president or against an executive officer,
00:13:04.040 which is the house impeaches and it takes only a majority in the house.
00:13:09.700 So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could impeach one of these judges.
00:13:15.300 Now, impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge.
00:13:20.160 It, it, it is the equivalent of bringing charges.
00:13:23.320 It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal
00:13:28.520 charges against someone.
00:13:30.280 Impeaching is the same thing.
00:13:31.640 And a majority of the house can impeach any judge.
00:13:34.060 If the house chose to do so and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge.
00:13:38.420 But the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide
00:13:42.960 injunctions are, are 0.00%.
00:13:46.480 Now, now, why is that?
00:13:48.940 The reason is because for the remedy that under the constitution, the impeachment trial occurs
00:13:55.340 in the Senate.
00:13:56.360 And in order to convict, whether it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge, you
00:14:02.920 need two thirds of the Senate.
00:14:04.340 Now we do not have 67 Republicans in the Senate.
00:14:07.440 We only have 53.
00:14:08.300 That means we would need at least 14 Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood
00:14:14.260 together.
00:14:14.980 The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left-wing judges for
00:14:21.720 issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are 0.
00:14:25.460 And, and, and understand why.
00:14:27.620 The Democrats in the Senate hate Trump.
00:14:29.900 These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the president, refused 0.97
00:14:34.780 to applaud for, for, for the mothers of, of, of, of, of women raped and murdered by illegal 0.99
00:14:40.220 immigrant criminals. 1.00
00:14:41.140 These, these are the same Democrats that refuse to applaud for a 13 year old kid fighting to 0.99
00:14:46.380 overcome brain cancer.
00:14:48.040 The Democrats are not going, they're cheering on these injunctions.
00:14:52.960 They want more lawlessness.
00:14:54.660 And so impeachment is not going to be effective.
00:14:57.100 Now, secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the federal
00:15:05.380 courts.
00:15:05.980 And, and Congress has broad authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
00:15:10.300 Actually, Congress could abolish the district courts. 0.88
00:15:14.180 There's nothing in the constitution that creates district courts.
00:15:16.900 The only court, uh, created in the constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States.
00:15:21.580 And Congress created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals to process
00:15:26.440 the volume of cases.
00:15:27.840 But Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
00:15:33.220 But again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster,
00:15:39.820 which means you would need 60 votes.
00:15:41.980 We have 53 Republicans.
00:15:43.740 The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges to
00:15:49.360 issue a nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero.
00:15:53.920 So those remedies are quite limited.
00:15:56.700 What does that mean the remedies are?
00:15:58.620 The remedies are, number one, sunshine, uh, drawing attention to it.
00:16:04.360 Uh, and, and, and listen, I am right.
00:16:07.140 I am the chairman of, of the judiciary committee subcommittee on federal courts, oversight, agency
00:16:13.400 action, and federal rights.
00:16:14.940 And, and so I am going to be chairing hearings, focusing on this, focusing on remedies.
00:16:19.080 And one remedy to consider, should we return to a system where you have a three judge district
00:16:26.420 court to consider challenges to, to, to, to the constitutionality of federal statutes?
00:16:31.720 I think there's a lot to be said for returning to that.
00:16:34.980 Now, again, I expect Democrats to oppose that.
00:16:38.860 Uh, but I think focusing on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is important to counteract
00:16:44.720 lawfare.
00:16:45.520 And then I think the real remedy is nominating and confirming good principled judges to the
00:16:52.900 federal courts, to the district courts, to the courts of appeals, to the Supreme Court,
00:16:56.240 and then reversing these adjunctions on appeal.
00:16:58.780 The legal process, it's going to take the Supreme Court stepping up.
00:17:02.240 I don't know if they're going to do so.
00:17:04.620 There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities right now.
00:17:07.880 But the most likely mechanism to rein in this abuse, uh, is going to be appellate review
00:17:14.280 because the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
00:17:20.380 So when you look at this and there's just a frustration and the frustration is how are
00:17:26.580 they getting away with this?
00:17:27.980 And are, is this going to be what it's going to be like for the next four years?
00:17:31.220 And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on?
00:17:34.580 And why is it that they don't have to play by the same rules?
00:17:38.600 Like, it seems like it's just lawfare run amok.
00:17:41.740 And every time the American people stand up.
00:17:44.380 So there's a, there's a genuine frustration here.
00:17:46.740 And, and I hear what you're saying, but for people that are saying, well, is there any
00:17:50.780 other option?
00:17:51.540 Like, how do we win?
00:17:53.340 And yet we still lose?
00:17:56.000 Well, look, there was a recent article in the Harvard Law Review by a professor named Samuel
00:18:00.740 Bray and, and he surveyed every nationwide injunction issued from 1963 to 2023.
00:18:07.780 So 60 years in that period, 127 injunctions, nationwide injunctions were issued.
00:18:14.620 Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump during his first term.
00:18:20.860 Um, and if you break it down, 64 were issued against Trump, 12 were issued against Obama,
00:18:28.020 14 were issued against Biden.
00:18:29.820 So, so those are the numbers for the first term.
00:18:32.800 And then, as I said, in the first two months, we've already had 37.
00:18:35.220 So the numbers are, are, are dramatic.
00:18:37.660 Now, here's an interesting, uh, stat from professor Bray's article of the 64 nationwide
00:18:46.380 injunctions issued against Trump policies in the first term.
00:18:50.840 How many of them do you think were issued by judges appointed by a Republican?
00:18:57.740 Oh gosh, I'm going to say not as many as the Democrats, but I could be wrong because there's
00:19:01.760 been some Republican judges have shocked all of us recently.
00:19:04.480 Well, that's true.
00:19:05.520 But, but, but here the numbers are pretty encouraging of the 64 nationwide injunctions issued against
00:19:10.280 Trump policies, only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican, which means that 92.2%
00:19:21.080 of injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term, against his policies, were
00:19:27.520 issued by judges put on the court by a Democrat, 92%.
00:19:31.280 And the pattern is, is very simple.
00:19:33.640 Uh, they're going and they're forum shopping.
00:19:35.720 They're going and they're looking for friendly judges.
00:19:39.360 They're going and looking for, for radicals, uh, who will, who hate the president and who
00:19:46.800 will issue injunctions trying to fight back.
00:19:49.000 Now, the fact that they're forum shopping, it's frustrating, but there's a, a longer term
00:19:54.860 remedy and a shorter term remedy.
00:19:56.460 The longer term remedy is put more good judges on the, on, on the courts and, and the, the
00:20:02.700 shorter term memory, uh, remedy is appeals and, and hopefully getting the court of appeals
00:20:08.860 to, to reverse it.
00:20:10.560 And, and, and for, for example, one, one case that's going on right now is a case called
00:20:16.580 Trump versus Casa and in, in January, President Trump issued an executive order revoking birth
00:20:24.240 right, right citizenship for illegal aliens and those in the country temporarily.
00:20:28.360 Now, the legality of that order is contested.
00:20:32.040 People disagree on that and that, that is going to be litigated.
00:20:35.480 Well, three different district courts issued preliminary injunctions in response.
00:20:40.500 Now, where were those courts?
00:20:41.860 One was in Seattle.
00:20:43.520 One was in Maryland.
00:20:44.840 One was in Massachusetts.
00:20:46.580 So there's a reason they're going to blue states and they're finding really left-wing
00:20:50.660 judges.
00:20:53.620 The Supreme Court has a chance to, to address the issue of nationwide injunctions.
00:20:59.740 And, and on, on March 13th, the acting solicitor general of the United States, Sarah Harris,
00:21:05.480 asked the Supreme Court to partially stay the preliminary injunctions.
00:21:09.060 And she argued the nationwide injunctions were overbroad.
00:21:12.280 She asked for them to be limited to the plaintiffs in each case.
00:21:16.580 Or at most, the residents of the states challenging the order.
00:21:21.060 So, so it should not be nationwide.
00:21:22.880 It should only apply to, to, to those litigating.
00:21:26.680 And Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the solicitor general's request by April 4th.
00:21:34.900 So this is being litigated right now.
00:21:36.820 Now, it's possible the Supreme Court will decide it on its emergency docket, which is the, the, the, the docket where you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait for, for full merits briefing.
00:21:50.040 And that could take months or even years.
00:21:53.020 But these cases could provide a mechanism, and I hope they do provide a mechanism, to limit and rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
00:22:02.400 So, let me ask you one other question on this, just layman's terms here.
00:22:07.380 If there is a loss by a judge who does one of these injunctions, does that then have precedent over other judges around the country?
00:22:17.340 Or can other judges then just say, well, I'm going to take up the torch and buy more time and be an activist as well?
00:22:22.980 Yeah, no, no, it can definitely be the latter.
00:22:25.980 And so, now, it depends.
00:22:27.660 It depends where the loss occurs.
00:22:29.560 So if a district judge issues an injunction, and it gets appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district judges in that circuit.
00:22:42.920 So there are circuits all over the country.
00:22:45.660 So, for example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in the Fifth Circuit.
00:22:51.540 On the other hand, if the case goes up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court issues a ruling, that precedent binds federal judges across the country.
00:22:59.620 So the real answer, hopefully, is to get this to the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
00:23:08.240 This is clearly something that is being abused, and it is crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
00:23:14.360 So do you think that in the near future, what are the odds this can go to the Supreme Court, and that this can at least have some sort of, like, precedent on the country so the president can do his job?
00:23:26.100 Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is at the Supreme Court right now.
00:23:31.300 The question is, are there five justices willing to rein it in?
00:23:34.520 And we have seen in some of these early cases, sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no.
00:23:40.160 And so it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts, it's going to come down to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
00:23:53.340 We'll see how they rule.
00:23:55.140 I feel very confident that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are more than ready to rein in the abuse of nationwide injunctions, but I don't know if there are five justices or not.
00:24:06.160 Canadian women are looking for more, more out of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world around them. 0.98
00:24:13.440 And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast.
00:24:17.160 I'm Jennifer Stewart.
00:24:18.340 And I'm Catherine Clark.
00:24:19.580 And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.
00:24:23.320 Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey.
00:24:29.060 So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us.
00:24:32.060 Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on iHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
00:24:38.140 Senator, I want to move to the other story that you mentioned earlier, and this goes in the category of promises made, promises kept for Donald Trump.
00:24:48.340 Another pro-Hamas protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a college campus.
00:24:55.560 This is making liberal heads explode, but this is exactly what the president said he was going to do, and he's making good on that promise yet again.
00:25:03.960 Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast you and I did at CPAC when we interviewed Pam Bondi.
00:25:09.960 And we talked about the fact that the Trump administration is going to go after these radical, anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Israel protesters.
00:25:17.580 And if you threaten violence against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you have no entitlement to be allowed into this country.
00:25:28.160 And it's interesting, you're seeing Democrats who have suddenly discovered free speech.
00:25:33.700 Mind you, when it comes to Americans speaking, they don't give a damn about free speech.
00:25:37.720 When it comes to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech.
00:25:41.280 American citizens have no First Amendment rights in the Democrats' bizarre lexicon. 0.95
00:25:45.580 But if you are a vicious anti-Semite, if you hate America, if you hate Israel and you're not an American, well, then suddenly they think you're protected.
00:25:55.640 And it is insane.
00:25:57.120 So the latest radical who had his visa revoked is a student at Cornell, and he's an individual named Momodo Tal.
00:26:07.260 Now, Momodo Tal, according to the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has called for the destruction of the United States, has celebrated the October 7th attacks by Hamas, and has said that he takes his, quote, cue from the armed resistance in Palestine.
00:26:30.380 Now, who is Momodo Tal?
00:26:33.180 He is a British and Gambian dual national, so he's not an American.
00:26:38.240 And he began studying in Cornell in 2022 on an F-1 student visa.
00:26:44.340 That student visa has been revoked.
00:26:47.500 Good.
00:26:47.920 And Tal received an email from the Department of Justice that said ICE invites Mr. Tal and his counsel to appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice to appear and for Mr. Tal to surrender to ICE custody.
00:27:07.420 And, of course, what did Tal do?
00:27:10.720 He engaged in lawfare and went and filed a lawsuit seeking to block it.
00:27:14.720 Now, what has Tal said?
00:27:18.720 Tal has said, number one, he's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues from the armed resistance in Palestine.
00:27:28.060 Armed, by the way.
00:27:29.060 Not just resistance, armed resistance.
00:27:31.200 He has also said, quote, we are in solidarity with the armed resistance in Palestine from the river to the sea.
00:27:39.960 He also said just just after October 7th, hours after, he said, quote, the dialect demands that whenever wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it.
00:27:56.800 Glory to the resistance.
00:27:58.580 Now, the dialect, look, this guy is a communist.
00:28:01.180 He's a Marxist.
00:28:01.980 We talked about how cultural Marxism, they divide the world into oppressors and victims.
00:28:08.920 And they actively cheer on the violent revolution of the so-called victims against the so-called oppressors.
00:28:15.700 Now, this is hours after October 7th.
00:28:17.600 This is as women and little girls are being raped, as 1,200 civilians are being murdered.
00:28:22.360 And here is what he's saying.
00:28:24.140 The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it.
00:28:29.360 Glory to the resistance.
00:28:32.460 That's not all he said.
00:28:33.800 When he applied for his student visa, he wrote, quote, and this is on Twitter, the end of the U.S. empire in our lifetime, inshallah. 1.00
00:28:47.760 Months later, the idiots in the Biden administration gave him his student visa. 0.99
00:28:52.600 And he wrote, student visa issued. 1.00
00:28:56.020 We are going to America, baby.
00:28:59.320 Alhamdulillah.
00:29:00.000 I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing it is not nice.
00:29:03.960 Shortly thereafter, he tweeted, my hatred of the U.S. empire knows no bound.
00:29:12.480 Wallahai.
00:29:13.740 Again, I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing, again, it is celebrating against America.
00:29:19.660 One other thing he posted, quote, when the enemy is U.S. imperialism, then absolutely anyone the U.S. calls an enemy is my friend.
00:29:33.040 Let me be clear. 0.92
00:29:35.200 This anti-American, anti-Semitic radical who hates America needs to get the hell out of our country. 0.98
00:29:42.160 He has no entitlement to be here, and we have no obligation. 0.99
00:29:45.580 We have no legal obligation.
00:29:46.740 We have no constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey, people who hate America, people who say, quote, anyone who calls the U.S. an enemy is my friend.
00:29:59.560 You know what? 1.00
00:30:00.340 If that's true, get your ass out of this country. 1.00
00:30:03.180 We don't need you here threatening Americans. 1.00
00:30:05.800 It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on college campuses, and we've seen anti-Semitism, for example, that has just skyrocketed on college campuses, and a lot of this is well-organized.
00:30:19.520 We continue to see that a lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups and pre-planning this around the country, and that has to be very concerning, I think, not only for college students, but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning for, I think, everyday Americans to understand that we've been allowing these people in, and this is what they're doing.
00:30:44.260 And understand the threats.
00:31:14.260 And many of these same folks who claim to feel scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF, BFFR.
00:31:22.660 I don't know what that means. 0.99
00:31:23.980 Every single Zionist is a sick, sick individual, and there can be no path forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism, materially and mentally. 1.00
00:31:40.360 And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are indeed the chosen people, chosen for hell. 1.00
00:31:49.080 Now understand one game that anti-Semites play, which is many times they use the word Zionist when what they mean is Jew.
00:31:58.920 And they just think it's like, oh, I'm pretending to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. 0.97
00:32:06.040 Look, they consider, and he actually at one point says Zionist slash Jewish students, this is an anti-Semite who hates Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism, by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. 0.99
00:32:21.720 And he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen for hell. 0.99
00:32:26.160 This is a bigot who hates America. 0.58
00:32:30.340 And you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved to deport this radical? 0.62
00:32:37.580 Leftists were protesting in support of him.
00:32:42.740 And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa?
00:32:54.140 No.
00:32:54.320 You had left-wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation on Thursday, and they were chanting, hands off, Momodoo, waving signs opposing mass deportation.
00:33:06.620 Listen, any reporter, every reporter ought to ask the Democrats, do you believe we have to give student visas to people who say they're enemies of America and hate America?
00:33:20.760 There's no legal basis for that.
00:33:22.560 And I have yet to see a Democrat explain why they cheer on pro-Hamas radicals, but I got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat, but not swept up in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome anger.
00:33:42.620 You got to ask why Washington Democrats, when they look at October 7th, when they look at the radicals on campuses, why the Democrats say we stand with Hamas and we stand with the pro-Hamas protesters?
00:33:54.620 That's got to make you wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat Party.
00:34:00.560 All right, don't forget, we do this show on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so hit that subscribe or that auto-download button wherever you're listening, and if you'll help us grow by sharing this podcast anywhere you are on social media, a lot of you have been doing that.
00:34:13.800 We want to say thank you, so if you're on Facebook or X or Instagram, wherever you are, True Social, share this episode by hitting that little forward arrow, and it'll show up and help reach new people.
00:34:25.820 And the center and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.
00:34:29.080 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:34:31.960 Guaranteed Human.