Senator Mike Lee: "Tell them to fund the government, not Obamacare"

July 25, 2013

Writer

This morning on radio, Senator Mike Lee joined the program to talk to Glenn about the growing effort in the Senate to block any continuing resolutions that will fund Obamacare. According to Senator Lee, and the Senators standing with him, this could be the last chance to stop the unpopular law from fundamentally changing the country and the role of government in our daily lives forever. Senator Lee believe that the reason he and so many others were elected to office in 2010 was in direct response to the passing of the health care law. If they don't stop it, they've failed, so he says it's their responsibility to try.

If the American people understand what's on the table, Senator Lee thinks there is a real chance of success. Will the American people take action to stop Congress from passing any continuing resolutions that will fund Obamacare? Watch the full interview above or read the transcript below to see what the Senator says you can do to get involved and help stop funding for Obamacare.

Full Transcript:

GLENN: let's go to Senator Mike Lee who is on with us. He has ‑‑ he and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, have put together a movement that really does need to become a movement, and I'm asking the TEA Parties, I'm asking the churches, I'm asking the 9/12 project, I'm asking anyone within the sound of my voice to get involved and lead this. This has to be a movement. By September 30th, the Senate has to be convinced. 41 Republicans ‑‑ or 41 senators need to be convinced to defund the president's healthcare. This is coming in a continuing resolution. Harry Reid is going to say the Republicans are trying to shut down the government, et cetera, et cetera. Not true. It's not even trying to ‑‑ in my view not even trying to shut down universal healthcare but trying to make sure that the Constitution and our system is protected. The president is picking and choosing what parts of laws now to enforce. He can't do that. This was passed as a package in a certain way. It's falling apart, so he's saying without congress, "Well, I'm only going to do this part and this part." Well, that's not what the law ‑‑ that's not how it works. And Senator Lee is making this case, but he needs you to call your senator and get involved. And Mike Lee is here to talk to us about it just a little bit.

Mike?

LEE: It's good to be with you, Glenn. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Did I ‑‑ am I miscasting this at all?

LEE: No, no. That was perfect. I mean, look. We were elected, a whole bunch of Republicans, to the House and to the Senate in 2010 with one very simple mandate: Get rid of ObamaCare. Stop it. And since we took office, we've passed CR after CR that continued to fund ObamaCare. I understand why that happened, even though I didn't vote for those. You know, a lot of people thought the Supreme Court would strike down ObamaCare. It didn't. A lot of people thought we would elect a Republican president and he would stop ObamaCare; that didn't happen, either. We've got one last shot. This is the final stop on the ObamaCare Express Train before these things kick in on January 1st. We've got to defund it, we've got to defund it now. We've got to have all Republicans who purport to be against ObamaCare to say that they will draw a line in the sand they will not cross and that line is they are not going to fund ObamaCare.

GLENN: I was talking to a senator the other day, and he told me that the Republicans are worse than you think, Glenn. He said they're doing the same old thing and what one Republican suggested in, I guess your meetings or whatever, what one of these guys suggested was that they just pass a nonbinding resolution to stand against universal healthcare and said, just do that because the president is just going to continue to fight. He'll die on his sword on this one. We've got to give up because he never will.

LEE: That's right. And that would make the Republicans in congress much like the unarmed English bobby who upon seeing the commission of a crime yells "Stop or I'll yell stop again." We've become totally Feckless and we can't law that to happen. That would be devastating to the Republican Party, to the conservative cause and to the country as a whole.

GLENN: You said, Mike, when I first talked to you, somebody had told me that you were going to run, and I didn't know you and I said "I want to talk to him." And I called you and you pulled your car off to the side of the road. You and your wife were driving in through a canyon and you were going to lose the phone connection. And I asked you a pretty pointed question about how was your soul, and you answered in the right way. And then we started ‑‑ I said, what do you know about the Constitution? And you started talking to me about how you were raised on the Constitution. And it sounded to me like you were brought up for this time or times like these to protect the Constitution. Forget about ObamaCare here for a second and tell me a little bit about the Constitution and why, why this has to be stopped because, do you believe at all that it is going to put the final nail in the coffin of congress or in the Senate to where the president doesn't need approval, doesn't even really need to go to you guys; he can just interpret laws the way he wants?

LEE: Yes. That's a big problem. So this strikes at the heart of two very big problems in our republic. One is the problem of federalism being ignored. Federalism refers to the fact that most of the power under the Constitution is supposed to be retained by the people, to be exercised locally and at the state level. Only a few powers are supposed to go to the federal government, and the power to tell us where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it and that we have to buy a certain kind of health insurance is not among them.

The other part of that power, separation of powers that you were just referring to, the laws are supposed to be made by congress, not by the court which rewrote ObamaCare twice in order to uphold it after finding that it was unconstitutional as written, and not in the president, who has now amended ObamaCare twice, once in saying individuals have to comply with the law during the first year but employers don't. And then it's saying we're not even going to require people to prove their income based on their eligibility, in order to establish their eligibility for ObamaCare subsidies. And so this really is about the Constitution, Glenn. It's not just about a single policy. This is about the protection of an institution that has made this the greatest civilization the world has ever known. This document was put here to make men and women free. It was written by wise men who I think were raised up for that very purpose, to establish and protect freedom. This is being threatened actively by our president and we as Republicans will be complicit if we vote to fund ObamaCare yet again before it kicks in.

GLENN: Okay. Mike, the American people are tired, they don't believe most people in congress, they don't believe their voice makes a difference, they've marched, they've talked, they've done all kinds of things. Somebody's calling Pat the right now to say, hey, I'm ‑‑ I'm part of that. Some of us would turn our phone off in a broadcast, but ‑‑

PAT: Some of us probably thought it was.

GLENN: That would only be one of us. Anyway, so the people are tired and they think ‑‑

PAT: That's not mine. That's not mine!

STU: That was Glenn's the whole time?

GLENN: I don't own a phone. I don't own a phone. So it's not mine.

PAT: I just threw mine out.

GLENN: No, you didn't.

PAT: Oh, no, I didn't.

GLENN: It's right there.

PAT: There it is.

GLENN: Oh, it is yours!

LEE: What do you mean you don't own a phone? You rent with an option to buy?

GLENN: I don't carry a cellphone. Anyway, the thing that I wanted to have you address is people don't believe that you guys ‑‑ and I'm not saying you, but many in the congress and in the Senate are not serious, that this is some sort of, you know, nonbinding resolution, that their voice won't make a difference, et cetera, et cetera. Please address to the people what you think they need to do and why this time it will make a difference and this time it is imperative that you do it.

LEE: Okay. This time it will make a difference because the people can express in clear unequivocal terms that they understand Republicans in congress are in one of two camps: Those who are for ObamaCare and those who are against it. If they really are against it as basically all Republicans in congress claim to be, then they must indicate that they are against it by agreeing that they will not vote to fund ObamaCare. They won't vote for any continuing resolution that contains money for further enforcement and implementation of ObamaCare.

There are a couple of ways you can get that message across: First, call your senators and call your congressmen and tell them in those very simple terms "Don't vote for any CR that contains ObamaCare funding."

GLENN: CR is continuing resolution?

LEE: Continuing resolution. Don't vote for any funding mechanism that contains ObamaCare funding. Number two, you can sign a petition that we've got going on my website, Lee.Senate.gov. Go to Lee.Senate.gov, and click on the link that says "Don't fund it." You click on that link, you can sign a petition. You can sign up with a letter that I've written that I'm having other senators sign. You can join that same letter telling Harry Reid that we don't want any funding mechanism to fund ObamaCare.

GLENN: And you think Harry Reid ‑‑ I mean, let me just play this out. Harry Reid is going to with the president say they are going to try to stop congress, they are going to shut down the government. These Republicans are out to destroy the government. They want to shut it all down." That's what they'll do.

LEE: Sure. Maybe that's where they will go because that's where their political instincts and their reflexes tell them to go. They are so used to saying that, it just comes out naturally. But the reason that this petition is so important at Lee.Senate.gov and these phone calls are so important is because once he sees that that's where the people are and that's where their elected representatives are, he will see that it's going to have to be him. It's not us trying to do that. We don't want a government shutdown. We shouldn't have a government shutdown. We want to avoid that. And what we're saying is if he wants a government shutdown simply because he so badly wants to push through the implementation of a law that is so bad for the American people that makes health insurance costs go way up that's made fundamentally unfair because corporations don't have to comply with it but individuals do, once he sees that, he will realize he's going to have to shut down the government and I don't think he can do that, not for a law that's this unstable, that's this unpopular.

GLENN: Mike, I appreciate it, and I appreciate the stance that you and a handful of senators are making. You need 41 from either side to stand with you?

LEE: Yeah, we need 41 senators to stand with us on this. And I don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats, but we need 41 senators who are willing to say we're not going to vote for are any continuing resolution or other appropriations bill that contains ObamaCare funding. In other words, the message is fund the government, not ObamaCare. That's what we want to do. That's what our movement is about.

GLENN: How bad is the pressure on both sides?

LEE: Well, it's intense. It's intense. You know, already you've got Democrats, the White House and Democrats in the Senate accusing us of going where they themselves would take us according to their words, and you've got a lot of Republicans who don't agree with the strategy so far. But I think once they think about it, once they realize what we were sent here to do, I hope and expect that a lot of Republicans will decide to join onto this effort because it's what the American people demand and it's what the country needs.

GLENN: Well, Mike, I've talked to many senators and many congressmen in the last couple of weeks and I have never seen their concern as great as it is right now and I think we are ‑‑ we're at the end of the road. Our Constitution hangs in the balance unlike it ever has before. I would think that you would agree with me on that.

LEE: I do.

GLENN: And this is it. And by September 30th, this really could be it. This could be it.

LEE: That's right. And we've got to help people understand that so that we can resist the impulse that Republicans in congress seem to have. It's almost an epidemic, Glenn. The impulse is always "Let's live to fight another day." Better said, it would be let's live another day so that we cannot fight another day and say live to fight another day. This is the fight, and if we give up on this fight, the reason this is so important is that I think Republicans will lose power if we don't do this because the people will look at it and say, "Look, there's no difference anyway. Why should we trust those guys to power when they promised to take power and stuff off ObamaCare and then all they do are make symbolic votes in that direction."

PAT: Now, Mike, are you guys prepared to stand up and defend this when you are accused of trying to shut down the government? "That's all these people want to do is they're anti‑government and that's all they want to do is shut down the government," who's going to step forward when that begins and fight for this thing?

LEE: Well, we're already facing that right now and so this is nothing new to us. People are already saying that. And our response is this is not about a government shutdown. We don't want that, we don't need that, we're trying to protect against that.

PAT: Yeah

LEE: We're saying you can protect against that if only you will fund government, not ObamaCare. That's what we want, that's what we demand, that's what the American people are going to demand and I invite all within the sound of my voice to join me in this effort, contact their senators and congressmen. Tell them to fund government, not ObamaCare.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep