Best of the Program | Guests: Sen. Mike Lee & AG Ken Paxton | 1/29/24

For a limited time at McDonald's, get a Big Mac extra-value meal for $8.

That means two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun, and medium fries, and a drink.

We may need to change that jingle.

Prices and participation may vary.

I think we hashed out a lot today.

I think we fixed the world's problems.

Yeah, I mean, we do that every day, but then they keep popping up.

Like new ones keep popping up in between.

It is really annoying.

We are here to fix it and

stop screwing it up, okay?

Just stop touching our stuff.

Yeah, you know?

Right.

And by our stuff, I mean, I mean, okay, so yes, we sound a little like the people in Davos, but we're smarter than they are, so we'll not only control you, but also them.

We wouldn't have a problem, Stu and I think you agree with me.

We wouldn't have a problem with all these people, right?

If there weren't any people.

Right.

I mean, just us, we could, that's good.

We can run this thing.

You get the southern hemisphere, I'll get the northern hemisphere.

Or vice versa.

We'll just...

And then we'll go to war about the equator, right?

Like, you know, the Galapagos Islands, we're going to have troops all over that thing.

I'm like, absolutely.

It'll be great.

Absolutely.

But it'll be your fault because I'll have found out that your half of the world has been sending money to the turtles on the island.

That's right.

You know, and then it starts.

Six billion dollars.

He just couldn't do it.

You couldn't stop yourself, could you?

So we talk a little bit about the border, about war.

What else is on there, Stu?

We talk a little bit about the games.

Yeah, that happened over the weekend.

The NFL games.

Oh, my gosh.

And Carin Jean-Pierre.

Some more brilliance from her.

No, she is great.

She is really smart.

She does a good job.

Yeah.

We have Mike Lee on with us as well today, so you don't want to miss a second of today's broadcast.

And it begins in just a second.

First, let me tell you about pre-born.

One of these days in our lifetimes, hopefully, you'll see the abolition of abortion.

But hearts have to change.

Our history books

are going to write about this time.

The generational trauma, the breakdown of families, the destruction of basic morality,

and how we ended it and survived or didn't.

But that's yet to be written by each of us.

So what role can you play in bringing God's favor upon us?

For now,

the best thing we can do is join, I think, the Ministry of Pre-Born.

They stand every day for the helpless among us.

They provide free ultrasounds and post-natal help for up to two years.

They're helping move the needle tremendously.

When an expecting mom hears her baby's heartbeat for the first time, chances are she'll choose life for that baby.

The chances double, but then she still has that, but I don't have any help.

I don't know what to do.

Nobody supports me in this.

That's when they say, we're there for the next two years for you and the baby.

This is a tremendous service.

One ultrasound is $28.

To save a life, just dial pound250.

Say the keyword baby.

That's pound250.

Keyword baby.

Go to preborn.com slash Glenn.

That's preborn.com slash Glenn.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenback program

from CNN.

President Joe Biden is embracing tougher border measures, including shutting down the U.S.-Mexico border, marking a stark shift from his early days in office as he tries to fend off former President Donald Trump's attacks on immigration policy.

Hours after Speaker of the House Mike Johnson warned on Friday that the emerging border deal in the Senate was dead on arrival, Biden offered this message to House Republicans.

CNN translates, securing the border through these negotiations is a win for America.

For everyone who is demanding tougher border control, this is the way to do it.

If you are serious about the border crisis, pass a bipartisan bill and I will sign it.

Now,

CNN goes on to explain.

Over the course of his administration, Biden has leaned on more restrictive measures to try to stem the flow of migration.

Which administration is this?

I'm sorry.

What?

But Friday's statement revealed a tougher stance as the president tries to control the issue that's dogged him.

Is he too tough of a person?

Almost too.

I think he might be too tough.

Well, I have worked all weekend long on a bipartisan bill.

Okay.

Okay.

Now,

I'm going to do something that the politicians won't.

I'm going to show it to America, and then we could debate and discuss it.

Not sure about that tactic.

All

So here it is.

Now

listen carefully.

I've written it down and I'm waiting for the president's signature.

It just says, we will enforce

all federal laws at all borders at all times.

And then he just puts a signature there.

That's.

Wow.

Yeah.

So we can debate.

We can debate.

Is it too much?

Is it too little?

Is there any pork in there that you see?

Right.

Well, what if we just don't do it on the southern border?

You said all borders.

No, it says all borders.

No, no, but I'm trying to negotiate with you here, Glenn.

What do I think?

What about some of the times?

No, how about none of the times?

How about that?

No, I think he should sign this one.

How about we won't enforce all federal laws at all borders?

No, it says we will enforce all businesses.

I'm just trying to help you get this thorough.

Are you a member of the administration?

Because that's what they'll do.

After he says, I'm the gang of eight.

Yeah, you're the gang of eight.

I'm the gang of eight.

I look like eight people combined, and I'm the gang of eight.

Well, there it is.

So it's now, there has been some talk in committee.

Yeah.

The committee that lives inside your head.

Yep.

Yep.

There's lots of us in here.

And

Bill was saying, well, I don't know, Mr.

Beck, because

what year is it in your head?

It's like 1824.

And I'm just looking at this, and I see it's signed by President Joe Biden.

And I said, yes, sir.

And he said, but he tends not to enforce the laws.

And I said, I know that's why this is a pinky promise that says he will enforce the laws.

Right.

Okay.

I'd like to make an amendment.

So I

had, I have an amendment I would like to offer from one of the voices in my head.

And so he signs this one.

That says, you know, I'll enforce the law, the federal laws at all borders at all times.

And then he signs this one into law.

I will actually enforce the law I just signed by Joe Biden.

I feel like we might get into a little bit of a Russian doll situation here where I go just

bill after bill after bill.

Right.

I think it would improve the situation.

You do.

Yeah.

So I just don't think that, you know,

that we need any of those special emergency powers, you know.

And, you know, NBC made me feel better.

These are just akin to the ones that were introduced during COVID.

Oh!

Oh, okay.

Oh, yeah.

Wait, so first of all, the laws like COVID, you mean the ones that the Biden administration fought so hard to overturn?

Why?

Because I remember Trump did put in a bunch of restrictions.

Right.

And the entire debate of the early administration was how fast he could get them removed.

Right.

And then how

this is just giving them the emergency power to put those or any other kind of things that they might think of in.

And, of course, that doesn't affect people who

are saying they're persecuted.

No, those people can still come in.

Come on, come in.

Come on.

And if you come in the front door, we just don't want you climbing through the windows.

Right.

Yeah.

So you can come in.

By the way, you know, some would think,

hey, this sounds really bad.

Some,

including, you know who, this sounds to me like a Mexican standoff.

And I was in my head going, hey, stop that language.

This is not a Mexican.

What year are you from?

I will say, I want to see the animated film Inside Out about your head and all the different personalities in there having these arguments.

That would be a great sequel.

It would be good.

Anyway,

you know, we are at a place now where the federal government,

you know, at any time could say, hey,

we don't appreciate it, Texas, and do more than, oh, I can't even say that.

That is so wrong of me.

My gosh, I have grown so callous that I would even suspect

that Friday, the President coming out and saying, we're stopping all natural gas exportation from the United States of America for the next year,

not only really pissed off our allies because they need it,

but I was just about to go down this very callous road.

And I apologize in advance for thinking that that may have happened on Friday because the two states that would be punished

would be Texas and Florida.

Now,

to assume the President would do something like that is just to have him say,

I think I'm gonna bring everything.

CNN would translate, I want to make things better for the people in Texas.

That's why I'm going to shut down 30% of all of America's supply just coming out of Texas.

I think

I could have felt targeted by the president, but I don't think that's what he's doing at all.

Always looking out for the best for all of us.

That's the Joe Biden way.

I think people believe that.

So, you know, he's got Border Patrol that he commands.

He commands.

And then we have Greg Abbott, who he commands the National Guard.

And then we have the president who says, no, I'm the leader of the National Guard.

And so he's saying, I'm going to federalize them.

And if he federalizes them, then, and this is a really great soldiers love this when they're like, um,

okay,

I'm kind of in the middle of this.

And

I kind of agree with this guy.

Doesn't matter which guy.

I kind of agree with this guy.

So I think I'm not going to do what the other guy tells me to do.

Soldiers love ambiguity.

They love it.

That's very important for a military.

It really is.

You got to make sure you have different orders from different people and letting them decide individually.

And then, well, they can't decide.

You know, if they decide, well, then they should be tried.

And it's like the Border Patrol.

You know, the Border Patrol,

are you going to shoot the Texas National Guard or the Texas law enforcement?

Especially since you guys really agree.

In fact, they came out.

Rank-and-file Border Patrol agents are not going to start arresting Texas National Guard members for following their lawful orders.

That's fake news.

Texas National Guard and rank-and-file BP agents work together and respect each other's jobs, period.

The Texas National Guard members have lawful orders, and they have to carry out those orders.

So the rank-and-file of the Border Patrol is kind of on the side of Texas.

Now,

this is where that crazy ambiguity thing happens.

It's so fun.

It's so fun.

Well, you know, if you wanted direct orders and, you know, and you wanted this to be so much better for yourself, all you have to do is stop whipping migrants on horseback.

And

that's a huge problem.

And you know what?

The Texas Border Patrol, they appreciated that.

They appreciated when the president came out and said,

What I like, too, is how they, after it was proven without a shadow of a doubt, that it didn't happen, they didn't bother correcting it.

Now, I think that's important for a military's morale.

MAGA extremists.

Is that what you said, Mr.

President?

MAGA extremists?

Or sorry, ultra MAGA extremists.

I'm sorry.

You know, it's how the MAGA is.

It's like the marketing isn't working on new MAGA.

Right.

Ultra MAGA.

Super, super huge, scary MAGA.

Yeah.

Like it didn't work when just saying they were MAGA, and then it didn't work when they said it was MAGA extremists.

Now it's ultra MAGA extremists.

It's ultra MAGA extremist now with

now with ESG.

Is that like MSG?

Kind of.

I feel like we're going to go to ultra MAGA MEGA Doppler

extremist

very soon.

And then we we just keep upping it from there.

Extra spicy mega.

It's like what they do with global warming, right?

Like they come out and they say, well, in 50 years, this could happen.

And then when people are like, okay, okay,

tell me, get in touch with me in 49 years.

And they're like, it's actually happening right now.

It's worse than ever.

Do you believe that?

No.

Oh, my God, it happened last week.

Time to be out.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Attorney General Ken Paxton joins us now.

Hello, Ken.

How are you?

Thank you.

I'm well.

Good morning.

Good morning.

So

I just have to say,

I read your letter to the general counsel of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

This particular paragraph, I would like to quote.

You are talking to a man who the Department of Homeland Security and the federal government has said, we have government land and you're not letting us use and access our government land so we can get down to the river.

You said, second, you say the United States acquired a perpetual easement from the city of Eagle Pass in 2018.

What I said last week about the 2015 MOA, I'll say again now about your latest claim.

Quote, Texas never approved that transaction as required by Article 4, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution.

Your federal agency cannot have something that it was not the city's right to give.

You are invited to read that document here, you know, hyperlink to the Constitution, but even if the 2015 MOA were somehow valid, you're not seeking access consistent with its terms.

The non-exclusive exclusive easement from 2018 is attached for your convenience.

It express purpose is to allow maintenance of a road along the river, including the right to trim trees or other obstacles within the roadway.

Elsewhere, the 2018 easement prohibits the United States from making any permanent improvements other than roadway without written city approval.

If your federal agency wishes to help municipal officials with tree trimming and road maintenance chores, I suspect they would appreciate the help.

The 2018 easement, however, nowhere contemplates allowing the federal government to deploy infrastructure that President Biden will use to waive thousands of illegal aliens into a park that will continue to be and used and enjoyed for recreational events.

I found your clarity enjoyable.

Me too.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, it's just, it's not complicated, and they keep misstating what actually is true.

And you know that about the border.

And then about this particular case, because the law and the facts do not back them up.

And so they make unfounded claims about how it's their property and how they have an agreement with the city that's obviously not based in any fact.

So anyway,

it's the way they operate and it's how they've operated for three and a half years.

And we're going to hope that the electorate gets it and realizes how bad this is.

So

there's been people that are saying that

none of this constitutional stuff was argued with the last case that was in front of the Supreme Court.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's true.

You're arguing an invasion backed up by eight different letters given to the president.

He ignored all eight of them.

This is an attempt, I think, to get them into the Supreme Court, is it not?

Yes.

So, you know, it was, what, 10, 12 years ago that Obama sued Arizona over their law, which tried to protect Arizona, and Roberts and Kennedy, and the three liberal judges came in and said that's, you know, it's preempted by federal law.

But it is true also that we've seen a very different border than we've ever seen, and the consequences of that decision have had a...

a dramatically negative impact on the country.

I don't even know if you could measure it, both socially and economically.

But it's also true that it wasn't argued that there was an invasion.

So this is a different argument in front of a very different court.

And we're hopeful that we can get at least the five justices that are not Roberts and maybe even Roberts if he starts realizing how bad that decision was.

So the, I mean, you have a

the only case that I think that they could make

that the American people would understand is, well, this is not an invasion.

That's not what the Constitution meant by invasion.

And we could argue that point all day long and win a thousand times.

However,

you're not the only one saying it.

Now you have 25

governors saying it, and the state of Mexico is now saying that they fear there's an invasion of their

country coming in from the southern border, their southern border.

Well, you're right.

There's more people saying it, more recognizing it.

It's becoming common knowledge and common understanding.

It's also true.

I don't think that any of these states would have joined the Confederation

or signed on to the Constitution.

And I don't think Texas, surely at that time, would have signed on if they believed that the federal government could pass laws about

people coming across the border and then somehow not enforce those laws.

And then the state would be prohibited.

from defending their borders and they would have to allow all kinds of crime and who knows who can coming across the border, including terrorists.

I cannot believe that was the understanding of the time.

So

it's difficult for me to believe that's what the founders meant, and that's what really matters here.

What did the founders envision?

So I want to go back to this because Ken Cuccinelli and others have said Paxton and Abbott are not asserting the invasion clause in the border fence case.

They did in the Bowie case, but not this one.

This is separate, correct?

Yes, they're separate cases.

One, we were sued by the federal government.

The other, we sued the federal government.

So we had different arguments for different cases.

We've made the invasion argument.

The governor has declared an invasion.

You can quibble over how we use it, when we use it.

I guess if Ken wanted to write the briefs, he could come in and try to help us.

But the reality is, you know, we've got a pretty good team that's been pretty successful against Biden administration.

So I guess you can always say, well, they're not perfect.

They don't get 100% of the wins.

But guess what?

We don't decide the cases either.

So I don't necessarily think that, you know, if Ken had the pen on every case, that he'd get it all right either or that we'd necessarily agree with him on every particular point.

And it does, but it's my,

and excuse me, I'm

way, way

out of my league on this one.

But it seems to me that this is

something entirely new.

What happened last week after the decision, that this is entirely new and you're trying to either get the government to sue you or you in a place where you have to sue the government?

So this is entirely separate, is it not?

That's correct.

And we also have another law going into effect.

So we got the Buys case.

We got the Constructino Wire case, which is still going despite the fact that the Supreme Court stopped the injunction.

We still have that case going in the Fifth Circuit.

We also have, we're going to have, we've already been sued by the federal government and the ACLU

over a law that was was passed that goes into effect passed by the legislature state legislature goes into effect I think March 5th and it says that Texas can start deporting on its own so that all of all of these cases are going to be opportunities for us to make the argument hey we're being invaded hey this decision that you made in the past cannot be right given the consequences to our state the federal government shouldn't be able to pass laws then not enforce them and not not not enforce them they're they're actually aiding and abetting the cartels they can't be allowed to to help the cartels, and then we have to sit on the sidelines and suffer the terrible consequences of that decision.

Ken, what happens if the president says I'm going to federalize the National Guard?

So he has the right to do it.

His numbers on the immigration issue are not good.

And if he takes over our National Guard and makes it even harder for us to protect the border, then I think that hurts him in the upcoming election.

So he's got to make a choice here.

Does he want to continue to damage his reputation and his standing on the immigration issue?

Or is he going to go forward with this policy that he has for the last three and a half years, which is dismantle every law that we have in place and help the cartels accomplish their goals of getting as many people here as possible and building their network in our country.

And he would probably have to nationalize the National Guard for 25 different states because they're sending their National Guard, right?

Yeah, so every state that sends National Guard, I would assume, I mean, that he would have to take them too.

So it's going to be very confrontational.

It's going to be very directed at the states.

And it's going to be very directed at helping the cartels continue their operations on the border.

Do you think the LNG decision that came out

this weekend about natural gas sales being curbed for overseas for the next year, do you think that was directed to Texas?

Oh, I have no doubt.

That was at least a

side part of it.

Obviously, they don't like any fossil fuels, even if they are clean-burning fossil fuels.

They've enriched many people doing all this alternative stuff that doesn't work yet.

At least

it's not affordable for

most Americans.

But but there's no doubt in my mind they were like probably enjoying the fact that it would hurt the texas texas economy but i also think that's what the border is about they want to not only is it about hurting that's the long long-term thing but the other part of what they're doing is they're bringing people into our state so that we have higher costs we have law enforcement costs health care costs we have education costs and they know that and they know that the republican states have been successful versus the democratic states and that's proven by people voting with their feet and I think they're doing their best to damage and harm in any way possible, even if it means higher crime, the Republican states.

So, Ken, this is a crazy conversation we're having.

It is.

It's hard to believe I'm saying this.

It sounds so conspiratorial, but I don't have to.

I can see what they're doing.

It's not like a secret.

It's all out in the open.

So for me to say that, I'm just commenting on nothing secret.

I'm commenting on what I see.

And it's pretty obvious this hurts our state.

It's pretty obvious they're bringing these people in because they want them to vote and they want to be able to use it in their congressional drawing.

And it's pretty obvious that they know this will, that they'll bring these people to Republican states and they'll hurt the Republican states.

So Friday, there was this moment when the president said, you have 24 hours.

That it sounded like, wait, 24 hours for what?

And giving people the,

I mean, we're entering times.

If things go awry, and like god help us i don't want this but if things go awry you're going to have the ambiguity of wait do i answer that law or this law and it's i mean this is what a constitutional crisis looks like um

do you do you

have you guys talked about that being a real possibility that he does something really foolish that causes

real trouble?

Yeah, I mean, we've certainly talked about it.

We've certainly thought about it.

It's hard to imagine that he would somehow try to create some armed, violent conflict.

That certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.

And if you think about it, people on the border, the border patrol agents, they're on our side.

They don't like what Biden's doing.

None of those people,

they're all working together.

They're all friends.

They know each other, whether they're National Guard, state police, Border Patrol, they all have the same goal.

They're just being forced by Majorkas and Biden to not just ignore the law, but to, as I said,

it's more than ignoring the law.

It is actually

dismantling it and telling the cartels, we'll help you.

Don't worry about hiding people anymore.

That's the way, you know, they used to try to sneak across.

Now it's like, we just bring as many people as you can.

We'll make it very efficient for you.

So, you know, they're making $10,000 to $12,000 a person.

So it's very helpful to the cartels now, the Biden administration is doing this, and they know that.

And that's why they're incentivized to get as many people here as possible.

What do you think of the trucker convoy?

Is that helpful?

Oh, I'd love to see the border shut down.

I mean, the reality is anything that makes Biden blink and stop doing this and economic consequences when things are not being shipped back and forth have an economic consequence.

And that's why we do economic sanctions.

And if this is the only way we can stop the terribleness, I don't have a problem with anything like that that affects commerce and sends a message to the Biden administration.

It's like a strike.

It sends a message.

I worry only because,

you know, up in Canada, look what they tried to do to those truckers and did.

But this is in Canada.

And as long as there's no infiltrators there,

they'll be fine.

But again, this is in Canada.

The law enforcement will not be looking to pick a fight.

with the truckers.

They will actually, I think, be more in line with if there is somebody out of line, they'll arrest them quickly, but not necessarily blame it on the truckers unless the truckers were doing it.

But I doubt that.

Right.

No, I agree with you.

I don't think we have the same mentality as the Canadians.

And, you know, I'm not saying we.

I'm sure the Biden administration does.

They're in line with the Canadian government.

There's no doubt about that.

But I'm saying in general, law enforcement is not sympathetic to federal law being violated and the cartels being enriched and helped.

What are you saying to the other 25 states?

And is there a chance any of the others, like Denver just said,

we're out.

We have nothing.

We can't, you got to get out of our homeless shelters because we can't afford to keep this.

Are any of the other states possible on joining?

Yeah, look, I think this is going past Republican Democrat.

You can see, you know, these sanctuary cities were created during the Trump administration to complain about Trump's immigration, enforcing immigration law.

Then when Biden came in, all suddenly they start getting a trickle, I say trickle compared to what we have to deal with, and suddenly they're realizing, wow, this is really expensive and it has high costs both economically and socially.

And they realize this is not a good thing for our city.

And I think you're going to see more and more cities because they literally just not enough money to pay for the entire cost.

of millions and millions of people moving into our country.

And we're all going to be suffering for this for a long time.

And I think this hurts Biden in the upcoming election.

It hurts the country for obviously much longer than that.

I know you don't have any of the details.

Nobody does, and that's always a special surprise in these things.

But the bipartisan bill that Biden is trying to get through, any thoughts on that?

I'm very suspicious.

I don't want to give in and start allowing people in in violation of our current laws.

That doesn't solve the problem.

It just supposedly you get a deal for something that actually hurts the country.

So

I'm not against immigration, but let's make sure that it makes sense and we're not caving

because the Biden administration has violated the laws for the last three and a half years.

And we're going to say, well, because he's letting in

millions a year, we're going to just say he can only let in a million.

Well, that's not the way to answer this.

They should follow federal law.

And if they want to change the law, make it something that's good for America.

Make it something that makes the system more efficient.

Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General on Texas' constitutional right to protect its border.

Ken, Godspeed.

Stay safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

All right.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Now, we've asked Mike Lee to tone it down just a little bit to come on the program and had to remind him that he is on an FCC regulated broadcast.

Senator Mike Lee, how are you, sir?

I'm doing great, and I'm a party animal.

Just as you described me to your cast.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

It's almost uncomfortable when you say that.

So I'd request that you don't say party animal again.

I'll be careful.

I'll be careful.

So Mike, I wanted to get you on because

nobody knows what's in this

deal for the border.

And

I'd like to start there.

Isn't that a problem?

Well, yeah, it's especially a problem because we're already being told that Republican senators who dislike it are just opposing it to score cheap political points at the expense of national security.

We're told that this is a huge win for us by such

Republican allies as the Washington Post.

We're being told all across the spectrum,

from Chris Murphy to Kirsten Cinema.

that

this really is a clarion call for border security.

Now, if Chris Murphy had ever been on the cutting edge of those clamoring for border security over the years, perhaps this would be easier to take it seriously.

Really?

I haven't seen it.

I haven't seen them doing that.

But more importantly, Glenn, as you point out, I haven't seen the bill.

This is one of the most frustrating things in Washington, but I cannot emphasize enough that

the inflation is an idea.

I know you like old-timey America as much as I do.

But do you remember seeing those Kineoscope reels where there were debates on the floor of the House and the Senate?

When did we stop doing those?

Was that 1940 or 1840?

When did we stop that?

Well, we stopped doing kineoscopes when we developed videotape, but that's a different story.

But yeah, look, as far as telling the truth through the news media and the entertainment media, about what happens in Washington and trying to have a degree of objectivity,

it's hard to find these days

because it seems like so often those who are wanting to tell the story are wanting to tell it from one angle and not necessarily give the whole picture and not necessarily give a lot of detail in general.

And so that's kind of concerning.

And then it gets more concerning the more complex the bill gets.

This one that they're talking about is pretty darn complicated.

Now, why would it be?

I wrote one earlier today that you could please introduce.

It just says, we will enforce all federal laws at all borders at all times.

And then just he could just sign that.

It doesn't seem like it has to be very complex and include, quote, emergency powers.

Yeah.

I'm a little skeptical of giving emergency powers.

Yeah, so

if they were to pass the bill that you just wrote, they would add air quotes or real quotes

to all all border enforce emergency and powers.

And then that would leave it up to the executive branch to decide what exactly those things meant on that particular day.

The emergency powers one is especially concerning.

Anytime you grant emergency powers to exempt out or add to the powers that you are giving to the president, you run into a lot of problems, which is why Congress needs to start passing real legislation rather than just sort of platitudes.

Go ahead.

Well, look, this is part and parcel of the problem with this bill.

It's been written in secret by two or three, maybe four people.

Nobody has seen it.

And yet it seems like half the country, or at least close to half the Senate, is now saying, yes, I want to pass it.

And these are the people who haven't read it.

That's really scary, Glenn.

It doesn't make any sense at all.

There might be some good stuff in here.

They've only told us a few minor details about it, things they've told us about.

You know, some of them seem like they could do some good, but they're offset by the fact that

they also contain language,

other provisions that could be abused.

And we could confirm or refute how disturbing these things are if they'd give us the bill, but they won't give it to us.

So,

what happens is they give it to us at the last minute, so you got to pass it.

Yeah, and a lot of members call for that.

Don't.

Does this also supposedly

contain extra money for Ukraine?

Oh, yeah.

I mean, that's the whole point of it, Glenn.

The whole point of this bill, it's the supplemental appropriations bill.

First and foremost, it's there to appropriate or spend money.

It contains $106 billion that we're going to spend.

And of that $106 billion, most of that is going to go to Ukraine.

Now, didn't Ukraine just this weekend announce that they're missing $40 billion that we gave them?

It all went to corruption in

the military and the government?

$40 million, $40 billion.

Who's watching, Glenn?

You know, this is where

you channel Avida.

Critics will claim a little of the cash has gone astray, but that's not the point, my friend.

Andrew Lloyd Weber had that right.

Just don't worry about the details.

Don't sweat it.

Okay.

Yeah, this is a problem.

And also included in that Ukraine money is $11.75 billion

that goes just to supporting the Ukrainian government, most of it to pay the salaries of the Ukrainian government civil servants and also pensions.

So this is just backfilling the probably what is the most significant cost of their government for an entire year.

Why does that make sense?

Now, I've asked some of my colleagues, why would we want to include that?

Still haven't seen text on this, by the way, but we're told that it's in there.

And my colleagues, to my astonishment, said, well, Mike,

it's expensive to be at war.

These guys are having a tough time.

Well, yeah,

no doubt.

I have no doubt about that.

But why is that our responsibility?

Look, we've given more military aid to Ukraine than any other country on Earth.

In fact, we've given more military aid to Ukraine through this conflict than every other nation on planet Earth.

combined.

Why is all of this our responsibility?

Well, it is ours when we make it ours and when we print the money to do so and others don't feel like doing it.

It's that simple.

Okay.

I assume there's a lot like you that will, if this bill comes out and contains all that stuff,

that you will stand against it.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

The question is how many we'll have.

And one of the things that I've been saying is that

it's important for Republicans to remember that the Republican Party, the Republican Party in the Senate, we've got 49 of us.

Any subset of 41 of us could decide to hold this thing back and to make sure that it doesn't get any votes at all, at least until such time that we're promised we'll be given enough time to read it and enough time to amend it and vote on amendments.

We owe ourselves, each other, and the American people nothing less than that.

So let me switch gears.

We've had a nice, nice run here for a while with Iran after we gave them billions of dollars, said that they weren't really a threat.

They helped orchestrate.

We find out now with the help of the UN, the October 7th massacre,

and now...

because they have been lobbing missiles or they've been using drones like this weekend, killed three of our people, injured another 25.

Now all the hawks are saying, we got to go in.

Mike, you know me.

I'm fine with using military power when we can or should use military power.

I think it's ridiculous not.

If somebody punches the United States in the face, I'm going to punch back and break your nose.

Don't do it again.

But this is not that kind of an administration.

We seem to be eager for war of some sort.

I don't think we're even choosy at this point.

Are Are we going to war?

There are certainly those in Washington clamoring for it, and a case could be made for that.

But let me tell you what is the biggest, most troubling thing to me right now.

You've got a lot of people in at least two different branches of the federal government who are saying, go hit them now, bomb, attack.

My copy of the Constitution says that Congress has to declare war.

The president can't just take us there on his own.

Now, no, I know, I know, it's true.

The President's Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces under Article II of the Constitution.

That's great, and that's clear.

But

the minute we're going to

undertake any kind of sustained attacks on foreign soil, as opposed to a discrete action at one moment in order to repel an attack on us, on our people, on our personnel, for example,

It goes beyond that, where you're repelling, immediately responding to an attack in motion.

But again, it's.

You really do need an authorization for use of military force from Congress.

Right.

And the people who should be making that case are the ones calling for the president to do something.

I mean, it's amazing.

You know, September, sorry, December 7th, 1941, the very next morning, the president was at the Capitol making the speech, December 7th, 1941, a day who shall live in infamy.

He gave that speech to a joint session so they could go back into their chambers, debate, and vote for war, yes or no.

I mean, that's right.

That's right.

And you didn't have members of Congress out there saying

attack, attack, attack, with silence by the president.

In some ways, we've got the worst of all worlds.

You know,

it'd be helpful to

the president saying to come.

They finally did it.

They finally got him.

They took him out.

Finally silenced.

Oh, yeah, you know who did it.

I know who did it.

You know who did it.

Oh, those people that control the world, you know, just behind the curtain.

Yeah.

Here they go and I'm thinking.

Well, enough party time anyway with Mike.

He is, he gets obnoxious at times.

It's like, oh, is he back on?

We have more party time with Mike.

Mike?

Yeah.

Yeah, so

we lost you.

I think the NSA didn't like what I was saying.

Yeah, I have a feeling.

So you were just saying we have the worst of both worlds now.

And I would go back.

You know the temperature in the rooms more than I do.

Are we going to war?

I think there is a possibility of that, but it is very difficult to predict how Congress will react

when the question is finally put before Congress.

And Congress actually has to have the debates.

We typically will bring in

experts from the Pentagon, the CIA, from

the State Department, other places

where people study these things and give us analyses about what the war would look like, what the strategy would be,

what the cost would be in terms of both blood and treasure, and

other considerations.

And at that point, we make a decision.

But, you know, there was a time back in 2013, I believe, when President Obama decided at the time, I think we should go to war in Syria.

And to his credit, he did the right thing.

And he said, I think Congress should come back and Congress should consider the matter.

And if it agrees with me,

then we should have an AUMF on Syria.

We came back to Washington

because

we were in recess at the time, and we studied the matter quite thoroughly.

At the end of that,

it was quite a consensus among and between members of Congress that this was not our war.

This is not a time for us to go to war.

And so that's why I'm cautious in predicting where it's going to go.

If we do this the right way, it's very difficult to predict because war ought to be...

a steadied, careful analysis.

I understand what happened in 1941, and that made sense for them to do it as quickly as they did.

That, given what was at stake there, given the fact that Pearl Harbor had been an attack on a U.S.

territory, a very, very big one, no less.

And I don't mean to minimize attacks that have been sustained on U.S.

forces in recent weeks, but you've got to consider every circumstance differently.

And

I think there is a possibility of war here.

But if we're going to do it, we've got to do it the right way.

Mike Lee, as always, thank you, you, sir.

God bless you.

Appreciate him.

Thank you.

You bet.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game?

Well, with the name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills.

Try it at progressive.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Price and coverage match limited by state law.

Not available in all states.