Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Senator Mike Lee: "Heaven help us all" if President can use drones on US soil

March 07, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Joining in the filibuster effort were a handful of other supporters in the GOP, interestingly they were mostly the new guard. The new guard consists of those who actually value the founding principles of this country and it’s founding documents, namely the Constitution. Senator Mike Lee is part of that new guard and talked about the filibuster, Holder, and battle for the soul of the GOP on radio today.

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Sitting right behind Ted Cruz was Senator Mike Lee who is on the phone with us now. Senator, how are you, sir?

LEE: Doing great. It's good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Is that the most incredible? You were ‑‑ I mean, I was watching your face sitting next to Ted Cruz. Your mouth was open, part of it just like, oh, my gosh. Is this the most incredible thing you've heard?

LEE: Yeah. But, you know, Ted's always great. Ted always is able to get to the heart of the issue.

GLENN: No, no, no. I mean ‑‑

LEE: ‑‑ very, very quickly.

GLENN: I didn't mean from Ted. I mean from the attorney general.

PAT: That he can't pin down whether or not it's constitutional.

LEE: I was ‑‑ I was shocked. When Ted gave him what I thought was a very clear hypothetical, a very clear opportunity for him to say, "Yeah, that would be unconstitutional, that would fall outside of all kinds of constitutional boundaries," and he didn't. You know, he eventually got there sort of, but only after a lot of prodding and even then it wasn't entirely certain what he was saying or why he was being so difficult to get there.

GLENN: Senator, is this, the drone business, you know, having the president issue an order to kill somebody, you know, with a drone without a warrant and without a trial, is there any ‑‑ is there any use to the Constitution at all if the president has claimed this ability and executes it?

LEE: Well, certainly not on a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. I mean, one can fathom circumstances in which an individual engaged in an act of war against the United States outside the United States might become the casualty of an act of war by the United States defending itself. But what Cruz was talking about here was an American citizen on U.S. soil sitting in a cafe with a friend and so, yeah, one cannot conceive of a scenario in which that would be appropriate or constitutional.

GLENN: But the question is, is there any use for the Con ‑‑ does this president, is there ‑‑ is the Constitution and the constitutional republic as we know it of no use if the president can claim this power? Which he seems to be doing.

LEE: Yeah. Look, if the president can claim this power, if the president in fact were to utilize this power and to utilize it in the manner that was discussed yesterday at the hearing, yeah, heaven help us all. I mean, one would wonder what would be left of any of us. If your question is, is there anything left that's intact in the Constitution today? Certainly, yes, there is. But in order for that to remain the case, we've got to continue to stand up and we've got to continue to identify problems when we see them. And we've got to identify them early become ‑‑ before they become bigger problems.

GLENN: Right.

LEE: So that when we see something like this, when we see statements by this administration, reckless statements suggesting vast, vast power by the chief executive to snuff out human life without the due process of law, we've got to have people who are willing to stand up and say, no, that is not okay.

GLENN: So are you surprised? Because TheBlaze is putting together a slide show of the websites last night. We have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the New York Times. None of them at 12:05 had anything at all on the front page about Rand Paul and the stand against the drones. None of them had that. Huffington Post did, TheBlaze did, the Drudge Report did. Even MSNBC had this as the lead. But the mainstream media had nothing. Are the ‑‑ A, is the mainstream media, are they so disconnected from anything at all anymore that they don't recognize what's happening with the drones; and B, are the American people even there anymore?

LEE: Yeah, Glenn, I can't figure out whether they're really smart or whether they're really dumb for not airing this. I tend to lean, of course, toward the conclusion that they're really dumb because the American people are concerned about this. This is an issue for many, many tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans and so they shouldn't be ignoring it. To the extent they continue to ignore this issue, they do so at their own peril.

The only argument for saying maybe they're really smart is if they really are that focused on protecting incumbent Democrats in congress or in the White House that they don't want to report it.

GLENN: Well, let me go ‑‑

LEE: They know that this is an issue where Republicans are standing up for individual liberties and Democrats are standing on the sidelines and trying to ignore it.

GLENN: That's another thing. That is truly remarkable to me. I mean, some of us, I mean, I have come to the party awfully darn late on some of the things like the PATRIOT Act. I asked for sunsets the whole time, but I actually believed that people in congress were more like me and more like you, that we were all decent and we were just trying to do the right thing and we would never ‑‑ you know, we'd never do things without warrants, et cetera, et cetera. What a fool. What a fool to give people in power that kind of power. However, the Democrats have been the ones the whole time that have been saying, "We stand up for the individual and this grotesque growth of power," and one ‑‑ wasn't it one yesterday? One stood up and joined your ranks on the floor of the Senate last night.

LEE: Well, no, we ‑‑ by the end of the evening, we had quite a few members of the Senate. But you're exactly right: We had only one Democrat who joined us and that was Ron Wyden of Oregon. Ron is a man of principle. Ron stands by the principles of the Constitution and especially when it comes to matters of individual liberty. I was thrilled to have him join us and I hope his willingness to join us will be a signal to others that will cause others on the other side of the aisle to join us as well.

GLENN: For anybody who doesn't believe that drones ‑‑ you know, I guess, I guess ‑‑ I was trying to drive in this morning and thinking what the hell is wrong with Americans? How can they not understand what this means? And I thought to myself, okay, let me put myself in the reverse shoes. That I have friends who are very, very big Barack Obama supporters and I know one of them is coming into ‑‑ one of them is coming into town today. He's my photographer, George Lange. He's darn near a Communist. I mean, he's a ‑‑ but he's a great guy. Oh, I've already ‑‑ nevermind. So he's coming into town, and I know I'm going to have the conversation with him, and he's most likely going to say, "I didn't know about it." But then when we talk about it, he'll say ‑‑ I'm guessing here ‑‑ "He'll never do that. The president will never do that. He wouldn't do it." How do you convince people that this does matter?

LEE: Well, first of all, to the extent they become aware of it, people will come to that conclusion on their own because when they hear about it, when they hear it discussed, when they discuss it with others, they will come to that conclusion on their own. But they have to hear about it first, which is exactly why it's so troubling that so many of these mainstream news media outlets were just showing nothing but radio silence on this issue.

But this, Glenn, is why you're seeing such a shift away from the mainstream news media. This is why you're seeing the ratings of some of these outlets dipping on the broadcast media side while simultaneously you've got ratings of Fox News doing well, you've got TheBlaze doing really well because people are realizing that there are other sources of information and they're coming to those sources because they realize they can get the truth from those sources and it won't be filtered in such a way as to protect one party and hurt the other.

STU: Senator, I heard Rand Paul over and over again through this filibuster say things to the effect of, "I just hope the president comes here and says what I think is in his heart, that it is not constitutional to kill Americans that are noncombatants on American soil." He said things like this over and over again in an effort to be cordial and keep the debate as civilized as possible. But if it were true that it was in his heart, wouldn't this be a really easy process? I mean, this is not a high hurdle you've set for this guy to clear.

LEE: Yeah, that's right. I really don't know why he didn't come forward because I think Rand Paul is right. I think the president probably does know that in his heart. I don't know. It may be that some of his political advisors were telling him that this wouldn't be a big deal, he didn't need to bother himself with something so trivial, perhaps that the Republicans would look foolish if the filibuster continued at what happened, it wouldn't surprise me.

GLENN: You are being a good, loyal, decent member of the Senate and also of your faith, Mike.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Stop it. In the heart of hearts, this president will absolutely use a drone on American citizens who he deems is a threat to not the Constitution but to what he believes America should be.

PAT: No comment on that.

GLENN: No comment. Okay.

STU: Very well advised.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You're very smart for not responding to that.

PAT: Doing the right thing there.

GLENN: Mike, I wish you the best of luck. And is Brennan going to be confirmed?

LEE: You know, I suspect he will be confirmed. But at the end of this process we will see that a lot more attention has been brought during this confirmation process.

GLENN: Are you going to go ‑‑

LEE: With an issue that a lot of Americans ought to be concerned about. And I'm very happy with that.

GLENN: Are you going to vote for Brennan?

LEE: No, I'm not.

GLENN: Do you understand ‑‑ because you are a very strong constitutionalist. Do you understand Rand Paul's stance on this of, he says "I'm standing on the Constitution, I totally disagree with him but I have to do it because of constitutional reasons"? Do you believe that?

STU: His justification for voting for Hagel essentially.

GLENN: Yeah. Which, he's going to vote for, he's going to vote for ‑‑

STU: We don't know this yet.

GLENN: He said it to us on the air. Do you understand his constitutional objection?

LEE: I don't, to be perfectly honest. You mean that part with regard to not voting no?

GLENN: Yes.

LEE: I don't share ‑‑

PAT: I don't either.

LEE: I don't share that view. I respect Rand a lot and we agree on most things on the Constitution but we don't share that view in common. I don't think there's anything that requires me to vote yes for a nominee that I don't want to support.

GLENN: Thank you, Mike. I appreciate it.

PAT: I agree with him.

LEE: Thank you.

GLENN: God bless.

PAT: I've never seen anything in it that requires you to go ahead and approve every single person he nominates.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.