[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West. You are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Ted Cruz in a big scandal. And is it murder? Happy to have you along my fellow Americans. I'm Sam Bushman. Dr. Scott Bradley's with me, freedomsrisingsun.com.
[00:00:30] And this is a freedom-loving, faith-filled, fantastic. We're taking America back one heart, one mind, one issue at a time. Friday, welcome to the show. So Ted Cruz in a very interesting, I would call it a huge ethical scandal. The problem is that, you know, according to the quote legalese, nothing is wrong. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, those of you who claim there is, you're straining it in that because legally they've dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's and everything is okay.
[00:01:01] The problem is it's not, ladies and gentlemen, not even close. Dr. Bradley? Well, yeah, your assessment of this thing is kind of, it's deep and wide, but here's the deal. Ted Cruz back in 2022 started a podcast and there's a, I guess, a commercial program that's going on called I Am Israel on it.
[00:01:26] And the podcast, by the way, Ted Cruz's podcast is associated with the iHeartRadio media group, the Empire. It's syndicated the podcast. And anyway, so the deal is that, you know, it's against Federal Election Commission rules to, for somebody to fund directly a podcast or radio program or anything like that, that would facilitate the election of that person.
[00:01:55] Now, by the way, the company has given about one and three quarters millions of digital revenue to this pack since 2023. So in the last three years, you know, do the math on that, that's $600,000 a year. And the thing is that this I Am Israel group is paying I Heart to run the commercials.
[00:02:24] iHeartRadio has committed to pay this pack that is seeking the re-election of Ted Cruz. Now, Ted Cruz doesn't get elected. Well, let's not put it so assumptively. Ted Cruz is not up for election again until 2023 because he got elected in 2024, which means that in his, since he started his podcast two years before that, I'm assuming. Yeah, 2030 is when the election's up again.
[00:02:51] But he got elected in 2024, but he started his podcast in 2022. And they have been taking these funds, but they're being, shall we say, laundered that this I Am Israel group. Yeah, but you can't say laundered because every I is dotted and every T is correct. Legally, there's no problem with the money trail, doctor. You're right. And that's, that's what the Federal Election Commission, it says, no, I don't see. Five to one said that, right?
[00:03:20] No viable information did the cage Cruz solicited, directed, received, transferred, or spent the funds I Art paid to the pack. He did not, the FEC ruled, solicit any funds directly. Okay. But maybe. So let me explain the problem in real terms for people. Now, legally, they've done nothing wrong because you can play games with legalese all day. They basically, in my opinion, manipulated the laws to allow this to happen. And here's what's going on.
[00:03:50] Dark money is, by definition, a term that says you can't know where the money came from. But this is like dark money in plain sight. So I don't use the dark money term in a legal reality. I use dark money to illustrate the point. But it's in plain sight. And what I mean by that is this. You can legally have a company like Israel advertise in the media. That's legal. You can have a media company decide to fund a pack. That's legal. You can have the pack promote Ted Cruz. That's legal.
[00:04:20] Ted Cruz didn't get any money. Ted Cruz didn't control it or manipulate it or do anything like that. It didn't go into his campaign because it's always separate, et cetera. And so legally, all the I's are dotted. All the T's are crossed. Legally, it's not dark money. It's in plain sight. The reason I'm using the term dark money not in a legal way but in an understanding, explanationary way is to say that, yes, the fact is it's dark money because the average voter has no idea that this all happened.
[00:04:46] Israel funded a company who ran commercials, who then that commercial company then took the money and funded a pack. And that pack is backing Cruz and has nothing to do with Cruz's, quote, campaign, if you will. But what you've got is on the legal side, no problems. Everything public, everything is good. But what you've got on the voter side and the campaign side is a promotion for Ted Cruz
[00:05:10] with millions of dollars, unrelenting, multi-years-long promotion of Ted Cruz, and a money tree behind it all that, again, legally has no harm, no foul, but factually has, in my opinion, a huge moral crisis behind it. Israel is funding Ted Cruz, in my humble opinion, to which I'm entitled. The problem is then what they'll do is they'll fund other politicians that are pro-Israel too. So now you can't say he's funding Ted Cruz at all.
[00:05:38] In fact, there's no correlation of the factual dollars going to who, what, when, where, why. So it's basically dark money in plain sight is the only way I know how to describe it. Funny money, whatever you want to call it. But there's no way to get anybody in trouble here. But the laws have been created in the promotion, the, you know, using these laws has been very intentional to say, hey, there's no harm, no foul here. You guys have no case. Factually, legally, they're right. Morally, they're as wrong as you can get, doctor.
[00:06:08] Well, here's the deal. Senators are elected by American people and they take an oath of the Constitution. Cruz, when he came into the Senate, he stated up front, he supported him. He says, I came to the Congress 13 years ago with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate. He's worked at that every single day.
[00:06:32] And so here we have, it's like, it's no man can serve two masters. They love the one and hate the other. This idea, and I'm pretty confident that he has U.S. citizenship only and probably not Israeli citizenship. There are many that have joint citizenship. I think that ought to be absolutely illegal. If you're in, you're in. You're out, you're out. This idea that you can serve two masters, the Savior was very direct on it.
[00:07:01] It's a very succinct statement. You can't serve two masters. And the problem is, is that he's been instrumental in facilitating Israel's position through the United States Senate. Does he represent his oath to the office to uphold the Constitution and keep his actions within that? Or is he trying to facilitate? These are questions that his constituency needs to ask. And unfortunately, he's not up for election this year.
[00:07:31] It doesn't happen again until 2030. And so he's racking up the war chest. And that's another interesting thing that I find is the war chest goes towards the election. However, if you choose not to use it or you get out of office, whatever's left in the war chest can be claimed as the person for their own personal funds. They just have to pay taxes on it. You know, I've been down this road running for office.
[00:08:01] And I think I've got $5 left from the last time I ran for office. And it's still in a fund because I don't want to say anybody say I took it for my own personal use. But most of the people, if you've got a $6 or $8 or $10 million war chest for election and you no longer seek office, you rotate out of office, you pay your taxes on that. And it's your money, baby. What a retirement plan.
[00:08:25] Anyway, I just find it rather disheartening that there are individuals that are so blatantly. I mean, Thomas Massey got ousted because he wasn't in Israel's pocket. And there's plenty of others that saw that happen and now realize, duck your head, bow your head and say yes. That's their way of approaching that. So this is a big concern to me. And we're calling it out, ladies and gentlemen,
[00:08:53] because something needs to be done to change the laws to stop this. This is literally, in my opinion, you know, like I say, it's dark money in plain sight is what it really is. And the problem is the voter has no idea these transactions are all taking place unless somebody like Dr. Bradley or myself or somebody calls a halt to the con game and exposes it for what it is. What they're going to come back and say is you guys have no claim. And legally, they're factually right because of the way they play this game. But at the end of the day, we know that there's, you know, pay-to-play going on.
[00:09:22] And this is how the dots connect. And they've learned to connect the dots very, very carefully so that no one's in trouble. It's all, quote, on the up and up. But yet, in my opinion, it's very, very dangerous because what happens is then the voter has really no say. Yeah, they can vote for who they want to. But all they get is propaganda, propaganda, propaganda till the cows come home. And so they can't really see what the truth is. Because, you know, if you were to blatantly knock on every single door and say you realize Ted Cruz is involved in this scheme
[00:09:49] that benefits his campaign at the behest of Israel, taking this dark money in plain sight, if you will, a term I created, by the way. And, you know, then I think people might turn against Ted Cruz. But the problem is people can't see it and don't know it unless somebody connects the dots. And even when they connect the dots, then all Ted Cruz and company are going to do is go, look, there's nothing illegal here. We're obeying the laws. Everybody does that with the IRS. You obey the laws. But yet, you know, work the system. That's all we're doing here. No harm, no foul.
[00:10:18] So it's a very difficult thing to deal with. But if we don't get a handle on this in America, though, hey, it's really election fraud, in my opinion. Although they would say you're wrong, Sam. And they're right. Legally, they're right. I'm wrong. Factually wrong. But the point is it can't be overlooked and can't be dismissed. The fact is people are getting elected based on this big money and based on the propaganda campaigns run from this money. And so it's not election fraud, factually, legally, everything else.
[00:10:46] At the end of the day, though, the fact is the voters don't get their fair say and the voters don't get the facts and the real details of what's going on at all. And somebody else pulls the strings, funds the campaigns. And, you know, hey, whenever there's money, there are strings attached to that money. Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. And that's really the reason that we bring it up, doctor. And until the American people get insensitive enough to stop it, it's just going to continue and grow, doctor. Well, it seems to me that there should be integrity in the part of the candidate and the officeholder.
[00:11:15] And I don't know if you can remember 20 years back, Sam. You were pretty young at that time. But you might remember in 2006, the first time I ran for the United States. I was like 20 years back. How old was I, 39? Yeah, you're an old guy now, right? But at any rate, I did a radio program, you know, a regular weekly radio program, a talk program with you. Well, actually, it was my own program. Small Potatoes, as everybody would probably remember if they remembered at all.
[00:11:43] But when I signed up to run for the United States Senate, you and I had a conversation. And that conversation was that we wanted to make absolutely certain that we were absolutely squeaky clean, that no one could ever possibly claim that somehow I was manipulating the system on behalf of my candidacy. I didn't want to besmirch your organization. And I certainly didn't want to besmirch my own character.
[00:12:10] And, of course, I didn't want to be on the wrong side of the Federal Election Commission, which is basically a kind of an incumbent protection organization. But the fact of the matter is we had a conversation 20 years ago in which we said, no, we are not going to cross the line. And it was very similar to what George Washington used to write. I mean, I've got letters from him that he talked about his organization, his administration.
[00:12:35] Central focus was to run a constitutionally sound approach to things so that nobody violated their oath of office. And that was our conversation. And it just blows my mind when there's people out there that seem to think, well, if you squint your eyes just right, you can't see any problem here. Or in the people might say, I know, I don't want legal violations. This is fine.
[00:13:03] No, I don't want the appearance of evil, though. And you say, well, Bradley, that'll tell you what one of the reasons why you've never won an election. I mean, you know, there's a lot of reasons for that. I like the joke song says that'll never that'll never sell records, doctor. Right, exactly. And I've never sold a record because of that. But it's a sad tale to tell folks. And we wanted to bring it up because we really believe this is the problem. And especially if Ted Cruz is, you know, possibly in line for president or some bigger than senator position,
[00:13:33] whether he gets reelected in 2030 or whether he finds some other place to hang his hat. You know, there's a good chance that Ted Cruz will wind up in an administration of Marco Rubio or J.D. Vance or one of these other people. That's if we don't lose the whole thing to the Democrats and go AOC style socialism flat out straight out in America, which is another big threat as well. And again, there's dark money on both sides of this aisle. Just the same. And let's be very clear. There's also dark money in plain sight, a term I created to highlight this reality.
[00:13:59] There's no real words to describe exactly what they're doing, which is intentional as well, because you can't really just articulate it in one sentence where people will understand it. It just is a situation where they basically move money from one place to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next and get plenty of benefit. But yet it's never tied to them. And therefore, there's no harm, no foul. And that's the game they're playing, folks. And we're here to expose it is the bottom line. There's a big court case. Did she commit murder or was she just having an episode postpartum, doctor?
[00:14:28] Okay, this question had to do with this Lindsay Clancy out in Massachusetts. And she killed three of her children in a postpartum episode. That's what I'll call it. Was it psychosis or was it murder or what was it and everything? There's been trials and she's been in mental institutions. It just went to the case, I think it went to the jury yesterday. So they just added manslaughter as a potential jury option.
[00:14:57] So it's going to be probably a long, drawn-out deal. But this is an absolutely tragic scenario. She's 35 years old, former labor and delivery nurse in the Massachusetts General Hospital. After she killed her kid, she stabbed herself in the neck. She jumped out of a second-story window. She's paralyzed from the waist down. But there's so many strange things. I liken this almost to the case of Tyler Robison in Utah,
[00:15:27] where the establishment is so absolutely hell-bent on this thing. Absolutely, it's a travesty, a fantasy in so many levels. But they're just absolutely determined that they're going to ramrod and railroad this thing through. But this one has so many tragic twists in it. I mean, the postpartum issue is something that needs more attention. But, I mean, I know her time is always short.
[00:15:56] But one of the things that people need to think about is a... I guess it was an avalanche of pills that were foisted on her. And as I've read through the types of medications that she was taking, most of those I recognize as medications that ever since the Columbine school shootings back in the 90s,
[00:16:20] whenever we've been able to see or hear the medical history of these people that perpetrate these things, these medications have been in them. They have suicidal ideology that they seem to elicit in large cases and numbers. And they have some type of violent ideology associated with it as well. So there's two conversations here. One is this individual case and what should happen with that.
[00:16:47] And secondarily, then, this broader discussion about medications and what we're giving people, knowing the full side effects. Literally, you've had young men testify before Congress saying, Hey, I took my medications. I woke up later, found out that I had done some crazy violent acts. And thank heavens I was stopped. And I don't even know what I was doing. I totally blacked out on my feet kind of a thing from this. And I was violent. And I'm just shocked that even myself, it's not something that I would ever intentionally do.
[00:17:16] We've had testimony before Congress about this stuff, doctor. This isn't just our opinion on this thing. And so we know this happens. And so there's two discussions in my mind. What should happen in her case? And then secondarily, the broader discussion is, Should we be giving these medications that literally have this written in their side effects as a factual scientific reality? And then we see and have testimony of people basically behaving in ways that is against their normal conscience and intentions based on this drug that's almost like Manchurian candidate kind of stuff.
[00:17:46] It's insane. But those are really the two discussions, right? Well, they are. And honestly, I mean, she had 13 different drugs that she was avalanched with for four months. And they have this homicidal ideation and suicidal ideation. These things are at the center of these group assassinations that we have going on. So yes, absolutely. This woman is broken to the core.
[00:18:15] I mean, I have watched some of the proceedings. And my wife says, you know, they ought to just give her the death sentence because there's no way she can live after this. Her life is destroyed. And that sounds like a very inconsistent thing, but it's kind of like, you know, God will sort it out. And finally, the healing will occur with Christ's hands. But the fact of the matter is, this is a big problem.
[00:18:44] And a lot of these assassination drugs that are out there and have been and are always associated in every instance that we have the medications and the records, they're always associated with these people that go off the rails. And so, yeah, you're right. In this particular case, we have a broken woman. Absolutely. And I believe that my personal opinion is that she was pushed over the top by a whole bunch of things.
[00:19:13] And there are just so many things we don't even have time to even mention them. But the fact of the matter is, this is a challenge. And I think the medical practices oftentimes exacerbate the symptoms. And that's why we've got to have this broader discussion that I'm talking about, which we will not have, though. They'll fixate on her, and it's a clown show, sadly, in the media. And the woman won't get what she needs, and the broader discussions won't happen like they ought, and that kind of stuff. So it's a tragedy all the way around.
[00:19:43] Do you think the death penalty is the way to go for her? No. I think she should get grace. I believe that the healing power of God needs to enter her life. And I think that, you know, you say, well, the state has to implement whatever it has to implement. But the fact of the matter is, justice and mercy can be combined in some of these things. And I personally believe that... And you can give her some kind of a place where she doesn't belong out on the streets, where she can harm others,
[00:20:11] but you can put her in a position where she could live a relatively decent life. And I don't think we should do the death penalty and just say, hey, let God sort it out. I think we should be on the mercy side ourselves, especially when we have such a flawed system. And, again, I think we need to have the broader discussion of, hey, how did we get her there? How do we get the Columbine shooter there? How do we get these psychiatric situations this off the rails?
[00:20:35] And we really need to dig deep about what the physicians prescribe, about what we know about the medications, about, you know, we just want to hand it off and we think a pill is going to fix every ill, et cetera, et cetera. And we ignore the signs along the way. And then, you know, nobody wants to take responsibility here, doctor. They don't. And it's going to be brushed under the rug and justice will not be done, I don't think. And I'm, again, going back to the Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk thing.
[00:21:03] I think that they're so completely, you know, completely running this running away train that the truth will not prevail in that either. So the system really is something that sometimes it's a trap and truth isn't brought forth, I don't believe. But it needs to be, and that's why we're here to bring it up. The broader discussion, in my opinion, is even more important than this specific case.
[00:21:29] Not that I minimize this case, but that I do want you to realize whether it's, you know, the guy that killed Charlie Kirk, whether it's this, whether it's and we can point to Columbine or we can point to the example after example, even the case that I mentioned where the young man testified before Congress about what happened to him. And thank heavens, less harm was done in his case because I think he had a pretty good religious background that he was able to be talked down to a great degree and kind of backed out of some of those things where others may not be so easy to dissuade.
[00:21:56] But nevertheless, I think the bigger discussion must happen, and I would plead for that to happen. And if it doesn't, then we're going to have more blood on our hands and more sad realities in the future because I believe this is just going to continue to escalate. The longer these people are on the drugs, the more drugs we mix, and this cocktail of psychosis that we create, the greater problems that we're going to have. So that's a tragedy. Any final tidbits before the end of the hour that you covered last night, Doctor? Oh, my heavens.
[00:22:24] I mean, the economic war against Iran and the fact that, you know, we talked about, and the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers were a personal wink and a nod to myself because the essential elements of understanding of government and what went into founding this nation is found in both of those things. And people, you know, I'm a Federalist Paper guy or I'm an Anti-Federalist Paper guy, and we have these people throwing rocks at each other across the aisle, and it's kind of like, wait a minute, we need both of them, baby.
[00:22:53] If you don't understand what the concerns were in 1788, you don't understand why we got the problems we got today and what the solutions are. And so there's that. But the economic thing— And really a blending of both sides of those debates or where the founders landed? We got the Bill of Rights because of the Anti-Federalist Papers. I mean, come on, people. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those people.
[00:23:17] But the Bill of Rights attempted to corral, if you will, a broad spectrum of concerns the Anti-Federalists had because it wanted to further clarify that there was nothing beyond what was written in the Constitution that could be assumed or usurped by those that were in office. They were strictly bound by this contract. A double-down effort to say, hey, here's your limited authority, and then here's your do not touch, if you will.
[00:23:46] And that was kind of the intent of the founders, and we need to understand that. On this economic reality, I know we've only got seconds left, but I want to highlight, we're going to add insult to injury on this one, doctor. I hate to admit it. And it will not get the results that everybody's claiming. It's absolutely going to solidify and cause the people in Iran to rally, and it's going to maybe bring China into the fight. But that's, it's a really broad question. All right, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. freedomsrisingsun.com. Check out his incredible webinars every Thursday evening.
[00:24:15] Check out also his collegiate series to preserve the nation and more. For Dr. Scott Bradley and I'm Sam Bushman. Ladies and gentlemen, we're available everywhere. Spread the word, share the love, and God save our constitutional republic.