Skip to main content

tv   Life Liberty Levin  FOX News  October 4, 2020 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT

5:00 pm
recovers from the coronavirus, please keep it here on your local fox station and fox news channel. and that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you next fox news ♪ ♪ ♪ well america i'm mark levin. this is life, liberty and levin. we have a great guest, ted cruz. how are you senator. >> i'm doing terrific, how are you. mark: i'm doing very well. we have a number of issues i want to discuss with you and you're the perfect person to discuss this with. you have a great new book one vote away how a single supreme court seat can change history. did you coordinate this with the court for the president to have your book come out at a
5:01 pm
time like this. >> it was a bit serendipity. i wrote the book the spring and summer during coded lockdown sitting on my living room and on my laptop. i knew the election was coming up but i had no idea we would have a supreme court you can see in the month of october. the book just came out this week so the to coincide really a perfect storm. i will say this mark, i'm glad i didn't write a book on thermonuclear war. that would've been a much worse outcome. mark: let's jump right into this. this is the hot campaign issue. it's a hot issue in the united states senate. it's a hot issue from's sea to shining sea. amy comey barrett has been nominated on the seventh circuit briefly, she tart as a professor at notre dame, she's got seven children, two adopted from haiti, one special-needs, her husband is an attorney so she's a mother,
5:02 pm
she's an accomplished professor, she's an accomplished federal judge and she's under brutal and vicious attack by the democrats. they're attacking her catholicism, we even have some attacking the fact that she adopted two haitian children. why the hate, why the attacks and why do the democrats conduct themselves this way when there's a supreme court vacancy? >> it's twisted and arranged. they are coming after her hard, they're coming after her family and i think it will get worse. sadly this is a pattern we've seen. it really started with the confirmation hearing of robert bork. when he was nominated in 87, were you at d.o.j. in 87. >> yes, we were there. >> it was the democrats, joe biden, ted kennedy, they decided to declare war and they went after gemma bork was
5:03 pm
one of the most accomplished lawyers and judges. he was solicitor general, a leading professor, by all measures one of the most qualified nominees to the court ever, and that hearing featured ted kennedy blooming in robert bork's america and then he laid out this parade that ended up destroying, destroying him so much so that his name be became a verb. it continues to this day and it's this personal dishonest, deceitful attack. we saw them replicated, even uglier with clarence thomas and what the democrats did to clarence thomas. at the time justice thomas referred to it as high-tech
5:04 pm
lynching and it was. justice thomas defended himself and made it through. we saw them do it again with sam alito, the same brutal, ugly attack. i just still remember justice alito's wife reduced to tears as the democrats went into the gutter and we just saw with bret kavanaugh recently. there is a ke pattern. we don't do that to democratic nominees. there's never been a democratic nominee. will engage with them on substance and issues, but the kind of slime and personal attack, for bret kavanaugh, he's got two young daughters. the agony and the pressure that was put on this family was really disgusting and now with judge barrett, i sat down with her this week in the capital and visited with her and one of the things i talked with her quite a bit about was how her kids were doing. seven kids, were already seeing democratic operatives
5:05 pm
attacking her young children which is despicable and should be totally off bounds, but the left views the court and central to their agenda for america. it really goes back to the 1960s when leftists discovered and seized upon the court as a way to implement their agenda that the american people wouldn't vote for. they found it was hard to actually win elections on their ideas because their ideas are bad. i was much easier to get five unelected lawyers, philosopher kings and black robes to decree leftist policy outcomes and starting from the 60s, accelerating into the 70s it got worse and worse and worse. one of the reasons the left is losing their minds right now with this vacancy is that they feel their hammerlock on the court is in danger of slipping away and it's about power.
5:06 pm
it's about power to control america without actually having to convince voters. the hard left views most american voters as ignorant rubes. they think were to dumb to govern ourselves and we should , our leaders should set the rules for us. that's what drives the rage in this context. >> you know ted cruz, this goes back to the progressive ideology that woodrow wilson wrote a lot before he was governor, before he was president about progressivism. he said the courts are where the action should be. you can get around the population and the checks and balances, use the courts for revolution. that's what they been doing. i want to mention a few things to you and get your response. number one if the president of the united states had not nominated somebody, he would be the first president in the united states to not nominate
5:07 pm
somebody in the last year of a first-term or a second term. as you well know 22 presidents before him had done exactly the same thing. 29 nominees in virtually the exact same position as amy comey barrett and so the democrats are saying with chuck schumer leading, if the president of the united states doesn't do something that no president have ever done they will destroy the supreme court, though try to pack the supreme court and packed the senate for one party rule for a generation. though destroy the filibuster to get bernie sanders, joe biden manifesto past without any opposition. they're talking about eliminating electoral college. they're going to burn down our constitutional system. isn't that what they're saying? >> that's exactly right. the left, they believe in
5:08 pm
government. they believe in totalitarian control. the left are willing to use force. you want one of the simplest differences between left and right. the left is much more comfortable using force to enforce compliance. when it comes to, for example speech, the left wants to censor everyone who disagrees with us. a lot of people say both sides do it. that's not right, you and i aren't calling for bernie sanders or aoc to be censored. i'm perfectly fine for them to yap her on incessantly. their ideas are foolish and dangerous and i think the best way to respond is sunlight and more attention, but the left is willing to use force. they're willing on the court. i think the threat of packing the court is very real. i think if they take the majority in the senate and win the white house they will pack
5:09 pm
the court. i don't think it's a bluff. joe biden is trying to hide from it. at the debate he ran away screaming when asked i think that's where the democratic party is and it's about power and enforcing compliance. i think we need to take that threat very seriously. mark: you talked about the bork hearings and the thomas hearings. there were others for circuit court nominees, the second level of courts and the man who was in the middle of all this, who basically destroyed the confirmation process that used to be based on tradition, a discussion of ideas and typically unless there was some horrific issue in their background or criminality the nominee would go, the man who led it was joe biden, wasn't. it was joe biden. he was chairman of that committee often. he was the one who would leaks to the media all the time, joe biden is the guy who graduated
5:10 pm
near the bottom of law school and plagiarized and so forth and so on. early on in this process over the decades that he's been senator, he helped lead this effort to undermine confirmation process, hasn't he? >> that's exactly right. mark that's one of the things i traced in my book one vote away. the last chapter is on judicial nomination and i trace the history of supreme court nominations going back to dwight d eisenhower. on the democratic side they get it right virtually every time. what i mean by that is virtually one 100% of their nominees vote exactly as democrats would want them to vote in almost every single case. on the republican side, republican presidents have been terrible about supreme court nominees. we do not even back 500. many of the worst judicial activists were republican
5:11 pm
appointees. earl warren, william brennan, john paul stevens, david souter, harry blackmun of the author of roe versus wade was a republican nominee and there's a reason for that. a lot of people are frustrated and want to know why we keep getting it wrong. i try come in the book, to analyze when we get it right and when we get it wrong. if you look at the justices who stayed faithful to their oath and the constitution, giants like antonin scalia and clarence thomas and sam alito and chief william rinker west, every one of them had a similar pattern. every one of them had served in the executive. every one of them had long championed conservative principles uncritically, every one of them had been excoriated in the press. pounded in the press and they hadn't wavered. that's what i look for the most.
5:12 pm
do you have a proven record and have you been through the fire. on the other hand where republicans get it wrong is when main nominate a stealth candidate who doesn't have a proven record, whose avoided controversy and hasn't been criticized but someone says trust me, they'll be great and over and over again it turns out to be a disaster when we follow that pattern. i think there's a great virtue to nominating people with proven records. i'll give an example. mark levin supreme court justice, i have no doubt you would follow the constitution no doubt and why do i think that because you have endured the fire and you don't give a damn if the new york times is praising you or not. i also said in my book i want to supreme court justice that doesn't want to go to d.c. cocktail parties, that all the social pressure is moved to
5:13 pm
the left. you go to cocktail parties, your praise, as you know, the former new york times supreme court reporter was a woman named linda greenhouse and there was something referred to as the greenhouse effect which is justices like anthony kennedy would move left because when they did linda greenhouse would praise them in the pages of the new york times and they wanted to be popular at the cocktail party. they wanted the press to say nice things about them and it's destructive of the rule of law. we need justices whose allegiances to the constitution and not to whatever the new york times or the washington post had to say about them. mark: it's a great book. once you weigh how a single supreme court seat can change history. this is one of the main reasons this election is so crucial. we'll be right back. my way to . and i have sofi to thank for that.
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
welcome back. senator cruz, let's get into specifics now. president of the united states nominates and originalist. someone wants to follow the constitution to try to discern what the framers of the constitution intended. chuck schumer wants to pack the court, stack it with activists. their position is let us
5:18 pm
impose our personal policy preferences men tried. ten the constitution supports our poodle visions. that has a real effect on the second amendment, on the first, give us some examples. >> let's start with free speech. fundamental protection in the bill of rights. all of us care about free speech. i have an entire chapter in the book on free speech. it talks about the citizens united case. most of us have heard of citizens united but a lot of folks don't know what the case was about. we know the democrats hate it but we don't actually necessarily know the details of the case. that case was about whether we as americans have the right to criticize politicians and citizens united is a small nonprofit group that made a movie that was critical of hillary clinton in the obama justice department took the position they could punish them and find the group for
5:19 pm
daring to make a movie that criticized hillary clinton. the case went all the way to the u.s. supreme court. at the supreme court the most chilling moment of the oral argument was justice alito asking the obama justice department, set under your theory of the case could the federal government ban books, could you ban books and the obama department of justice said yes, yes we the government could be on books. we can ban and punis punish booksellers if they dare criticize a politician. now, if you look at the text of the first amendment, if you look at two centuries of our nations history protecting free speech, the answer to the question kim government ban books or movies that criticize politicians should be really easy which is of course not. now thankfully that ended up being what the court concluded
5:20 pm
but it concluded it 5 - 4. there were four justices ready to conclude the government have the power to ban books, beyond movies, and it's a chilling position and what's even more chilling about it was hillary clinton and joe biden have both explicitly pledged to nominate justices who would vote to overturn citizens united and one of the things i recount in the book is in the wake of citizens united, senate democrats introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment, to repeal them and replace them with the first version of it would have given the government plenary power to regulate political speech. that's a fancy legal word for blanket power to regulate political speech under their proposed new first amendment. if a little old lady spent five dollars to buy a posterboard and put a yard
5:21 pm
sign in her yard that said vote for trump or vote for biden, the federal government could make that a crime and put her in jail for it. i was the ranking member on the constitution subcommittee at the time, the democrats have majority. i led the debate against this proposal to repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment. we went back and forth, back and forth. ultimately it was voted on in the senate. every single senate democrat voted to repeal the free-speech protection of the first amendment. that's how radical they are. they want the power to silence you and punish you if you dare criticize them and they've got four votes for that position. they had four votes in citizen united. if they get one more hour free speech rights are in real danger. >> and of course if they pack them and stack the court,
5:22 pm
that's exactly what'll do. let's pick another area. the second amendment. what was this heller case all about and how could that be overturned? all of this is in ted cruz vote one vote away how a single supreme court seat can change history. were barely touching the tip of the iceberg. tell us about heller. >> dick anthony heller is a federal police officer living in d.c. who actually carried a gun at work but under the d.c. gun law it was illegal for him to have a gun at home. he cannot have an operative firearm. he can have a pistol, they were banned on a long gun either a shotgun or rifle under the d.c. law had to be disassembled or an operative at all times no matter what with zero exception so literally if he had a disassembled shotgun in his closet and someone broke into his house and was about to assault his family, if he assembled the shotgun he would have committed a criminal offense in d.c. trying to defend his family.
5:23 pm
so, it's crazy laws, but those are the laws the leftists want. heller filed a lawsuit challenging matt and raising the obvious claim that this violated the second amendment. the case went up to the u.s. supreme court. i was the solicitor general of texas at the time. i led the states, we brought together 31 states in defense of the right to keep and bear arms. i argued the companion case to heller in the d.c. circuit, the court of appeals. the central issue on heller is important to understand. heller ultimately was 5 - 4. the possession of the defense or's --dash position of the defense, the four dissenters didn't argue that some gun control would be okay.
5:24 pm
reasonable mind could differ on that and have a discussion about what's the right policy outcome on gun control measures. the position of the dissenters was much more radical. they argued the second amendment protects no individual right whatsoever. that it protects instead what they call a collective right of the militia which is just a fancy term for a nonexistent right because if the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right, it means the federal government or the state government or the local government can ban all guns, make it illegal for you or me to it own a firearm, can say they will lock you up and put you in jail if you have a gun and if the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right you and i have no ability to challenge that in court, no defense to the criminal prosecution. it quite literally erases the second amendment from the constitution. it takes away our protection. that was the position of the
5:25 pm
four dissenters. one added to that and the second amendment goes away. joe biden when he was asked if you are elected president are you coming after people's guns. items answer was bingo. that's what they want to do and it's not some possibly reasonable minor alteration, it is destroying the right altogether is what their agenda is at the court. so the public needs to understand the people viewing this program need to understand this is just campaign rhetoric. your bill of rights will be under attack and turned inside out. the power of the central government will be unchecked. they want to ram through legislation and bring lawsuits all the way to the supreme court and control the supreme court. it will be a left-wing democrat. the independence of that court will be destroyed. this is what they are running
5:26 pm
on and what they're saying and exactly why joe biden will not release his list of potential nominees so we could all discuss exactly what they're going to do to us as individuals, our freedoms, our family, our faith and our constitution. the book is one vote away how a single supreme court seat can change history. we'll be rightoo back. choose coricidin hbp. the brand with a heart. for powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. with priceline, you can get up to 60% off amazing hotels. and when you get a big deal... feel like a big deal. ♪ priceline. every trip is a big deal. ♪ here's another cleaning tip from mr. clean. cleaning tough bathroom and kitchen messes with sprays and wipes can be a struggle. there's an easier way. try mr. clean magic eraser. just wet, squeeze and erase tough messes like bathtub soap scum...
5:27 pm
and caked-on grease from oven doors. now mr. clean magic eraser comes in disposable sheets. they're perfect for icky messes on stovetops... in microwaves... and all over the house. for an amazing clean, try mr. clean magic eraser, and mr. clean magic eraser sheets.
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
live from america's news headquarters i'm tom scott.
5:30 pm
president trump making a surprise trip. his motorcade took us trip around the medical center. he could be seen inside his car wearing a mask and waving to fans. white house physician doctor sean connolly said he might be discharged as early as tomorrow. armor vice president joe biden testing negative for the test. this is his second negative test in two days. he will participate in the debate as long as safety precautions are taking. they said they pulled all negative ads once th the president was hospitalized on friday. the trump campaign said it was a publicity act and that negative ads continue to run. i'm tom scott. now back to life, liberty and levin.
5:31 pm
>> we are back with senator ted cruz. the book is one vote away, how a single supreme court seat can change history. it's a fantastic book. it's right on topic. you can go to and get your copy. it's a smart book, and understandable book. senator cruz you've argued cases in front of the supreme court. you've clerked for one of the great chief justices, william rehnquist of the supreme court. my question to you is this, you've heard the democrats like schumer say things like if judge barrett gets on the court or any trump nominee gets on the court were going to lose our rights and moves obamacare, lose abortion, they go down a whole list of agenda items. they say were going to lose all this. whose job is what when it comes to our federal government and what are they talking about losing all this. >> well, under the constitution policy issues are supposed to be decided in the elected legislature.
5:32 pm
that's what we have a congress for, that's what we have 50 state legislatures for. so something like obamacare, obamacare is a policy i think it's been an absolute disaster. it's made health insurance unaffordable for millions of americans, but it's interesting, the democrats have decided their number one talking point against judge barrett is, if she is confirmed she is going to be a henchman for donald trump to take away healthcare for pre-existing conditions. i think the fact that they're focusing on obamacare and pre-existing conditions shows that they recognize how out of touch they are on every other issue. they don't want to talk about free speech and how they want to take away our first amendment rights. that i want to talk about the second amendment and how they want to repeal the second amendment. they don't want to talk about religious liberty, and they don't even want to talk about roe versus wade. they recognize their views on life are extreme. instead they want to talk about pre-existing conditions.
5:33 pm
now, i don't know how the supreme court is going to decide the particular case that is up there about obamacare, but however the court decides it congress can act, and all 100 senators agree that pre-existing conditions should be protected and will be protected. now, there's a debate about how to do that and what the best means is. i think the best way to do it is with lots of choices, lots of competition in a way that drives premiums down so that people's health insurance is personal and portable, it goes with you from job to job. that is a policy debate that it shouldn't be five judges in a row deciding. it should be people who are elected by the voters making those determinations and weighing the pros and cons. but the democrats don't want to have to go through that messy problem. they just want, they want the judges to decree it and force
5:34 pm
it on everyone. mark: it amazes me that in the real world deductibles are through the roof, premiums are through the roof and in many cases people can't choose doctors so it's built on a pile of lies, this entire obamacare. in many states you have no choice. it's one or no insurance. the democrats claim there for choice. why do you think, the only choice therefore is for abortion. otherwise they want centralized decision-making and impose their will on us. what kind of psychology is that. >> that is absolutely right. i'll give an example. i've got an entire chapter in the book on school choice which, i think is the most compelling civil rights issue of the 21st century. school choice, i don't think the court should dictate demand school choice as much as i support it. the right way to put past
5:35 pm
school choice is through the elected legislature, either congress or state legislature but the book chapter talks about the case dolman versus simmons harris which was a challenge to the school choice program in ohio. it went up to the supreme court. they upheld it 524. my old boss chief justice rehnquist wrote the opinion but what was stunning is form the justices were prepared to strike the program down and strike down every school choice program in america. their position was you couldn't have a penny of taxpayer dollars go in anyway to a scholarship for any religious school. that would mean on that principal you couldn't get a pell grant to go to in notre dame or brigham young. it's not a principal in the constitution that kids and parents can't have scholarships, but you want to talk about a sleeper issue that people don't realize, if joe biden wins in those four votes become five, they become a majority, the court could and i think would strike down
5:36 pm
every single school choice program in america and take that opportunity away from low income african american kids, low income hispanic kids that desperately want a chance to get an education. we ought to leave that to the people in it shouldn't be judges playing legislators stricken down programs like that. >> i'm well familiar with that case in the milwaukee case because the group i used to be president landmark legal foundation is involved in although school choice and you're exactly right. we'll be right back. ♪ smooth driving pays off with allstate the safer you drive the more you save ♪ you've never been in better hands allstate click or call for a quote today
5:37 pm
however, there is one thing you can be certain of. the men and woman of the united states postal service. we are here to deliver your cards, packages and prescriptions. and also deliver the peace of mind knowing that what's important to you-like your ballot-is on its way. every day, all across america, we deliver for you. and we always will.
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
welcome back america, one vote away on the supreme court. this is how crucial the selection is. if this president doesn't win and we don't hold the senate, this country will change in so many substantive, fundamental ways you won't recognize it anymore. one vote away on the supreme court will be completely
5:41 pm
transformed outside the constitutional structure. let me give you some examples and asked ted about it. they keep talking about eliminating the electoral college, bu suppressing mail in boating. this whole thing that they want to do to our system, what would this do to our country? >> for them it's about power. the electoral college, if we got rid of the electoral college, it would mean many of the red states would essentially be ignored, that if it was simply the popular vote it would mean that candidates on both sides would devote all of their attention just to big states, to california, to texas, to new york and rural states would get an ignored. the midwest would get ignored. smaller states would get ignored. it would be the big cities, new york city and los angeles and houston and dallas and chicago were all of the energy would focus. that's a very different
5:42 pm
representational model than what the constitutional pads. part of the brilliance of the constitution was to stitch together what were then 13 different states and is now 50 different states with different interests and a whole lot of america would be ignored doing that kind of radical change. for them it's about one thing. it's about power. it's also why chuck schumer, if he takes a majority will, in all likelihood, add two new states, the district of columbia and puerto rico because the democrats believe they get for democratic senators if they did that. it is about one thing, power consistently. mark: in the senate you talk about, it's already been changed since the early progressive in the 1900s were senators were selected, most of them by state legislatures. now there's a direct quote, now they want to pack the senate. this is the thing.
5:43 pm
when we conservatives and republicans, we lose, we get ready and fight another day. we tried to convince the elective, we have better candidates, better arguments, were defending the constitutional structure, even in cases where it advantages our opponents. these folks don't really like the constitution that much when they are piercing the 1619 project with the different missing founders and a bunch of slaveholders, and so isn't it a little schizophrenic when the democrats talk or the left talks about in waves around the constitution but on the other hand is burning it? >> look, they don't believe in democracy and they don't trust the voters. i have an entire chapter in the book on democracy and election and it talks about bush versus gore. in 2000 i was part of the legal team representing george w. bush. i was a young lawyer in austin texas on the george w. bush campaign. that's actually where heidi and i met. we were down in cubicles down the hall from each other.
5:44 pm
if you look at what happened in bush versus gore, on election night george w. bush one. they counted the votes and declared him the winner but then the election was closed and al gore sent in an army of lawyers in florida to challenge the election. i was in tallahassee. i was on the ground for that chaos that was the recount. i still remember, i recount in the book how we had in the war room we had a whiteboard on the wall and there were seven simultaneous lawsuits, any one of which which could upend this presidency of the united states and we went to the u.s. supreme court twice. the first time we went to the supreme court we want unanimously, 920. the supreme court said the florida supreme court got it wrong. florida supreme court was a partisan democrat court and they said they got it wrong, they vacated their decision and sent it back. the second time we went to the supreme court on the critical issue of the remedy, the court
5:45 pm
ruled for us 524. what the court concluded is they said, look, the ballots have been counted four times. bush has won all four times. enough is enough, you can't just keep counting and counting and counting until you reverse the results. it's over, we have a winner. that took 36 days. the country didn't know who the president was, the world didn't know who the president was and it was utter chaos. i think that battle is highly relevant right now today for this election in 2020 because if joe biden doesn't win an election, they are going to do the same thing. they will challenge the selection and it may not just be one state, florida, they may do it in four, five states simultaneously and it's all about saying the voters don't get to decide, we want judges deciding and we will keep fighting until the judge's decree we win. it's about power at the end of
5:46 pm
the day and we've got, we are one vote away from the ability of the voters to make the choice, democracy being taken away. the interesting thing is ted cruz here in so many other instances, they wrap themselves in the will of the court and they go to court to present their will. we'll be right back powerful relief so you can restore and recover. theraflu hot beats cold. to stir that fire, university of phoenix is awarding up to one million dollars allth
5:47 pm
i'm voting for proposition 19
5:48 pm
because it strengthens prop 13 for seniors, disabled veterans, wildfire victims, and family farmers. prop 19 also protects the right of parents to pass on the family home to their children at the current property tax rate. you worked hard for your house and you should be able to give it to your children without a tax penalty. that's why taxpayer advocates, firefighters, veterans, and small business owners are voting 'yes' on prop 19.
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
welcome back. we are talking to senator ted cruz. the book is one vote away, how a single supreme court seat can change history. fantastic book. incredibly important. senator cruz, you have been each each on the president sorshortlist as a potential supreme court nominee and you has said each time i like what i'm doing. tell us about that. >> that's right. it's one of the things i talked about in the book, conversations i've had with the president, starting in november 2016, right after he was elected where i spent about four and half hours with him at trump tower and he talked with me very seriously about the justice scalia seat that went to judge gorsuch and i told him then, i reviewer the court but i don't want to be a judge.
5:51 pm
the reason is, a principal judge stays out of political and policy fights. a fire every judge i would do that. i don't want to stay out of those fights. in fact, you look at the fight were having right now to confirm judge barrett, that's exactly why i want to stay in the fight because we need leaders in the elected realm in the senate to lead the fight, to stand up for conservative principles, and i hope to be part of confirming two, three, four, five great principled constitutionalist justices. i just don't want me to it be one of them. mark: god forbid if joe biden is elected president of the united states. do you agree he'll bring that same superficial, vicious mentality and extraordinarily political to the selection of supreme court justices which will be rammed through a new, increased majority in the united states senate.
5:52 pm
>> what, i think that's exactly right, justices joe biden would put on would be radicals, they would take away free speech, the second amendment, religious liberty which is something all of us care deeply about. there has been up for justice radical left minority on the supreme court that is ready to order god taken out of the public square. one of the cases i litigated at the supreme court was defending the texas ten commandments monument which stands on the state capital ground. we 1524. we preserved the monument but there were four justices ready to say send in the bulldozers, tear it down. there were four ready to say bring in the sandblaster's and take the crosses and stars of david off the tombstones in arlington cemetery and four justices ready to go after hobby lobby, go after the little sisters of the poor. a catholic convent of nuns that the obama administration
5:53 pm
wanted to find and punish because they wanted to force them to pay for abortion inducing drugs and others. we are one justice away from the government persecuting you for your faith and it is dangerous, it is radical, and by the way joe biden has pledged if he is elected he is going back after the little sisters of the poor, and the beauty of the constitution, it protects all of us. it doesn't give government the power to do that. >> senator, i want to thank you for banging the pots and pans and underscoring this incredibly important issue. this is on the table in this election. one vote away and he's not kidding, how a single supreme court seat can change history. senator ted cruz we appreciate having you sir. >> thank you mark, thank you for all you do. >> god bless you. we'll be right back.
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
mark: welcome back america.
5:58 pm
i get so frustrated with the debates that take place on television and radio and most places. did he interrupt too many times, was he too hot, did he call names, did he do this or that. this is our country. this is our election. everything is on the table here. the democrats want to change this country. they want to turn it into a post constitutional, post republican type of society. bernie sanders agenda is on the table. they are telling us, they're telling us what they're going to do. they're not hiding it from us. they will burn down the supreme court. by packing it. this was tried and denounced before. they're going to do it. they're going to add for democrat senators to the senate. why? because they can have the power to do it. they will change the way we legislate so nothing could be slow down. nothing can stop them.
5:59 pm
they want to change our electoral process so only democrats are represented and only democrats have power to elect the president. rural, suburban, areas of the country that produce food and energy will have no representation. this isn't a joke. this is serious. it's a heart attack. this is what the election is about, the 1619 project, it exists to destroy the minds of our kids, to brainwash them against this country. you've seen what happens in the streets. they don't even acknowledge the present dental nominee doesn't even acknowledge the existencexistence of antifa, an organization that wants to destroy our country and burn our streets. this election is a big deal. if you're still on the fence i don't know what kind of fence you're sitting on and if you're leaning toward joe biden, he said i am the democrat party. he ain't kidding. if you're leaning toward him, this is what you're going to get.
6:00 pm
there's a reason he won't tell you whether or not he supports stuffing the supreme court because he does. there's a reason he won't tell you about the nominees he has in mind because the radicals. this election is crucial. are you thomas paine, are you paul revere, now's the time to speak up. i will see you next time on life, liberty and levin. >> breaking tonight, president trump releases a new video message confirming his rapid recovery. watch. >> it's been a very interesting journey. i learned a lot about covid. i learned it by really going to school. this is the real school. this isn't the let's read the book school. and i get it and understand it. >> the president then took a short drive around walter reed to acknowledge the crowds of supporters outside. good evening and welcome to "the next revolution". i'm steve hilton. this is the home of positive populism. pro-work, pro-family, pro-community, and espe cially pro-america. we will


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on