GLENN

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs recently won the state championship --- the female state championship --- amid controversy that caused some competitors to forfeit rather than wrestle the junior from Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. Beggs, who is transitioning from a girl to a boy, has been taking regular doses of testosterone.

"Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second, and we'll just talk about how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone --- for a girl, right? --- would be able to compete at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Many argue that the high levels of testosterone, which build strength and muscles, give Beggs an unfair advantage. Begging the question, if it's Beggs' choice to transition, shouldn't she make concessions during the interim to maintain a level playing field? Concessions like not wrestling until the transition is complete?

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: We've had this situation where there is a girl who is transitioning to a boy. And she's 17 years old. She's a wrestler. And so she wanted -- apparently, she wanted to wrestle in the boy's division this year, right?

JEFFY: Correct. Correct.

PAT: Because she's making that switch. So she's going from boy to girl.

STU: And the Texas rule is, you compete in the gender that you were born.

PAT: That's on your birth certificate.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Especially I guess as long as you have that genitalia, which she does. She's a girl.

STU: Yeah, I don't know -- if you've gone through the full transition, I don't know -- again, if you're talking about kids, this is a pretty new development. I don't know if they have a rule for that.

PAT: Yeah, I don't either.

STU: I think the rule is the gender you had when you were born.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So that's the rule in Texas because it's hateful. How can you possibly ask somebody to compete in the gender category they were born into, how can you ask that?

STU: You can't, Pat. You can't.

PAT: You can't. Because what if you feel differently? Anyway, she does.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: But she was made to -- she was put in the girl's category for wrestling. So she just won the tournament last week.

JEFFY: Yeah, she won the championship.

PAT: She won the championship.

JEFFY: The -- one of the issues is, is that she is actually going through the transition and taking the prescribed medicine to make the change. And so it's working.

PAT: The testosterone.

STU: Right. And, by the way, this ends any argument of all time as to whether men or women are better athletes. Just -- because this whole thing of -- the old Billie Jean King thing back in the day. Let's be honest about it. You take testosterone, you become better and stronger at sports.

PAT: Right.

STU: Sorry.

PAT: Now, that is science. That is science.

JEFFY: That is science.

STU: So sorry. I guess we have to apologize for that.

PAT: Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. You can -- I guess you can try to deny it and say that women are just as strong in every instance as men. It's just not the case.

STU: No, they're better at certain --

PAT: Yes. They're just not built the same way as we are. And that's a good thing. It was supposed to be that way. We're supposed to be different. And we are. And we are.

STU: Stunning. A stunning development that everyone knew at a level of 100 percent until very recently.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This is insane. And, by the way, if a man were to take testosterone in the -- in Major League Baseball or the NFL --

STU: I like how you're saying this as a crazy hypothetical.

PAT: I know.

STU: If in some circumstance somehow --

PAT: And they do.

STU: -- some at least decided to take performance enhancing drugs --

PAT: I don't remember who it was. But your testosterone as a man in the normal range is 400 to 800, maybe up to 1,000. And that's fairly normal. I can't remember who the baseball player was. It might have been A-Rod. He had a testosterone level -- and I shouldn't mention him because I don't remember who it was. But I remember their level was 4,000. So clearly they had been --

JEFFY: That's a man.

PAT: No man takes -- or has that much natural testosterone. So clearly, they had been taking testosterone, so they were better at what they were doing than they otherwise would have been. So it works on men as well as girls transitioning to men. So obviously, this girl is going to become stronger, she's going to be faster. She's going to be better able to wrestle than she was as a girl with no testosterone.

JEFFY: Right. And the argument also from the other parents that are suing the school board is that, hey, she is taking this medicine. That's making her into a boy. We don't want her wrestling.

PAT: And in Texas, you can take -- you can compete if you've been prescribed the testosterone by a doctor, and she was.

JEFFY: Correct. And there are several -- there are three or four other things on that list that the Wrestling Association says it's okay as long as it's prescribed and that would not be okay if it was not prescribed, for sure.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And the reason for that, by the way, quickly, steroids are like standard treatment for a lot of illnesses.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes. Right.

STU: If you break out in a rash or if you have -- if you're sick in any number of ways.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: One of the first responses is to give you a shot of steroids because, you know, it works. It's pretty effective.

PAT: It reduces swelling, aids in healing. It just -- it calms down infection. I mean, it does a lot of different things. I've taken steroids quite a bit. Because I've been sick lately. And it helps. They help.

STU: A lot.

PAT: So it kind of makes sense that there are certain circumstances under which -- you know, because if you're taking anabolic steroids, that's one thing. But if you're taking steroids that a normal doctor would prescribe for an illness that's a different deal.

JEFFY: Which is pretty much what they were covering when they made the rules, before this.

PAT: Right. So, anyway, Stu heard this interview on the way in by Chris Cuomo. And is it the lawyer representing the other girls in the tournament?

STU: No, this is Ben Ferguson, who is a talk show host. He's a CNN contributor, so he's there to take the evil right-wing side of this argument. Chris Cuomo who purpose or it is I guess to be a journalist. I don't know that for a fact. But it seems like he wants to come off as evenhanded on the show is a straight-out activist on this show.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And the reason is because he's in the middle of his own personal issue with the transgendered argument, which is last week someone tweeted to him -- when talking about the transgendered issue, what do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn't want to see a man's unit in the locker room?

So a 12-year-old girl is in the locker room, someone changing next to them, takes down their pants and has a guy junk. Right? He's got guy junk.

What do you tell that 12-year-old girl? His response was, I wonder if she is the problem.

PAT: Good gosh.

STU: Or her overprotective and intolerant dad. Teach tolerance. That was his response.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

STU: Now, look, that's unbelievable, to put that on the 12-year-old girl.

PAT: Unbelievable response.

STU: A 12-year-old girl is not equipped to -- even if this were the most logical thing in the world, is not equipped to make that determination. She's going to be interested in what she's interested in at that age. That's going to be -- it's a moment -- it's an era of discovery, right. And so that is not something that you would necessarily want -- that's why they have separation.

Because honestly, with this standard, why bother with two different bathrooms? Why bother with two different locker rooms for any reason? Why bother? Why not just be tolerant of male genitalia all the time for 12-year-old girls? Why is it only when someone else outside of their decision-making process makes a decision they identify a different way. Right? Someone else has done that, that doesn't affect the 12-year-old girl in this scenario. She hasn't made any judgment, well, I identify that person as a female, therefore the junk that I'm looking at is not male. That's not her determination. It's someone else's determination. So that is -- it's an absurd argument on its face.

But he got so much heat for that tweet, blaming the 12-year-old girl and her intolerant dad of not being accepting of penises in the locker room, which is essentially what he said: You should be tolerant of the penis.

That was the word they used. He got so much heat for that. He's now in, I've locked myself in the corner, and I'm going to be defensive on this point no matter what. Which, it brings out the best in Chris Cuomo. Because he's now so desperate to prove that this wasn't a mistake, he'll say anything.

PAT: Yeah. Listen to this.

VOICE: What's your take on the tournament, my friend?

VOICE: Well, first off, I think this -- take the transgendered issue out of it for a second. If you are taking testosterone, which is a performance-enhancing drug in sports, you shouldn't be able to wrestle.

PAT: Correct. There you go.

VOICE: And this gave a completely unfair advantage to this participant. You can talk about that whether you are in your age-group or in your sex group that are associated with. If you're taking something that is performance enhancing, you're not a real champion. You cheated and you won.

Now, the state I think has some blame for this, by having it where they're even allowing these testosterones to be used if they're prescribed by a doctor. That's where I think the big fix probably needs to come.

STU: Stop for a second. Because this is -- so, first of all, this is his first response. Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second. And we'll just talk about you how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone for a girl, right? Would be able to compete at all. So taking out the transgendered issue, it's still wrong. So he's already won the argument at this point, right?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: But not with Chris Cuomo who can't possibly accept this.

CHRIS: If there was acceptance, we wouldn't have had this issue because this kid would be wrestling against boys.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

STU: So here's his argument: So Chris, he falls back to --

PAT: If there were acceptance.

STU: I don't know what level we're going to fall back to on this. It's going to be hard to keep track of. But he falls back to, if there was -- if we taught acceptance, this wouldn't be an issue because she would be able to wrestle the boys like she wants to.

PAT: And in that eventuality, we wouldn't be talking about the story at all because she would have lost in the first round, and it would be over.

STU: Right. That's true.

PAT: It would be over.

STU: That's true. However -- however, we still would be talking about the issue. Why?

Because in a liberal state, let's say California, there would be a -- it would go the opposite way. You would have a boy who was transforming to be a girl and wanted to identify as a girl and then went into the girl's division and then destroyed all the girls. So the issue would still exist, it would just be in a liberal state and the opposite way. So he's completely wrong there to say the issue goes away if -- if we, quote, unquote, teach acceptance. The issue still exists, it's just on the opposite side.

VOICE: We know. And for those as you're learning about -- just so people know.

VOICE: Here's the thing.

VOICE: But hold on, Ben. Let's just clarify one thing: The science, you have to be careful about.

STU: This is argument two.

PAT: The science now.

VOICE: The amount of hormone that this kid is given is the minimum standard they can give to replicate the output of a boy.

STU: Okay. Stop. There's so much there.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Does he know the amount she's being given?

STU: First of all -- yes. So that was one of his big arguments in this. I assume he knows it because he quotes -- he kept saying, you have to look it up. You have to look it up. So, again, that's a bad assumption on my part.

PAT: Look it up, Jeffy. See how much testosterone --

STU: However, it's not the minimum amount that a girl would have, right? It's actually way more than a girl would have, which is what makes the transition happen.

PAT: Yes. Way more. It's the minimum amount for a boy.

STU: For a boy. Now, let's just say that that's true. So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating --

PAT: So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating.

STU: It still would be cheating as the girl. So his point is, well, then they should allow him -- her -- him to wrestle with the boys, right? Because he wants -- she identifies as a man. So we should think that she's a man. We should allow her to wrestle with the boys. Because she's not getting -- his point there is, he's not getting so much -- she's not getting so much more testosterone than the boy would normally have. So she's not a superhuman boy, she's just a boy, right? First of all, his wording is interesting there. The amount to replicate a boy.

If she's a boy, you do not need to replicate the boy.

If you're replicating something, you're replicating it because it's not actually happening. Therefore, your whole scientific argument is flawed. The thing that you're saying you want to happen isn't happening.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not a boy. So if she was a boy, you would not need to replicate it.

PAT: Yeah, if you need to talk about science, what is she scientifically? She's a girl.

STU: She's a girl.

PAT: She's had no surgery. There's nothing been changed on her body. She's a girl. So if you want to talk science, she's a girl. And then -- so it's unfair for the girl to be getting testosterone, when the other girls aren't getting it.

STU: Right. Exactly. Now, his point seems to be, what he wants to happen is that she wrestles against the boys and then loses because she is getting only the appropriate level for a boy of testosterone.

Again, it's a ridiculous argument in and of itself. But if you're going -- even if you're going to entertain it, the point is, getting performance-enhancing drugs -- it's not to say that you let everyone come to the same level of testosterone. The point is, you don't get additional testosterone as to what you have naturally. That's the point of the rule. It's enhancing. Whether you think it's enhancing it only to equal, it's not the point. The point is, you don't enhance it to what you have naturally.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: She has very little naturally. And they're enhancing it to get a higher level, regardless of what level.

PAT: And all we're talking about here is -- the level of the other competitors is what we should be talking about, not the level of the boys.

STU: Yes. Right.

PAT: Because is it unfair for her to have beaten all these girls whose level of testosterone is ridiculous?

VOICE: Kids are going to be superhuman -- it's the opposite.

PAT: No, it's not the opposite.

VOICE: Scientifically, that is the outcome. If you look and do the research as I have, you'll see that.

STU: Oh, God.

PAT: What a condescending ass.

STU: Yes. Remember, this is a guy who is in full standing in the Douche Hall of Fame. And this is him showing off why he's there.

PAT: Exactly.

STU: And, by the way, on Pat and Stu today, a vote on Chris Cuomo as the Grand Nozzle after this interview. Because he deserves it from Harry Reid.

VOICE: If this state allowed this kid to wrestle against boys, which is what he wants, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

STU: Right. This case. You would be talking about a different case in a different state that went the opposite way. The issue would not go away at all based on that. You would just be arguing the opposite side of it.

PAT: True.

VOICE: But you also have to look at, there has to be a standard. And I think it's not insane or crazy for a state to say that you compete with the sex that's on your birth certificate. That's what I would refer to as logical. It is illogical to somehow imply that this kid is a victim because he decided to do something or change something and therefore you change the entire sport around it. That is the part that I think many people are sitting here and saying, "Hey, if you want to compete in a sport, period, then you cannot be taking performance-enhancing drugs and do it." But to say that we should change the entire way that sports is done because of one person and their decision to do something, that is unrealistic.

VOICE: Right.

But the premise is flawed. Because the logic requires --

STU: We got to come back. We're not going to have time to get it --

VOICE: I disagree. That's why we're having a discussion. That transgender doesn't count. But it does count, and that's why we're having this bigger debate about what you allow trans kids to have access to and what you don't.

PAT: He goes on to say that she identifies as a girl.

STU: Yeah, but we have to come back and play -- because that part is unbelievable as well.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: His scientific argument is that she identifies. Well, that's not science.

PAT: That's not science. Now you're talking feelings. You're not talking science.

STU: As you said, they're replicating it. She's identifying. You're laying it out -- subconsciously, you're saying the truth. You can't help yourself. You can't help yourself. You keep saying the truth.

PAT: I can identify as a gerbil, if I want to, but I'm not. I'm not one. And I won't fit into the little thing with the wheel that goes -- spins around and around. So...

STU: Right. And any other circumstance, this argument would be completely bizarre.

Is the Ark of the Covenant's Location KNOWN?
RADIO

Is the Ark of the Covenant's Location KNOWN?

With some in Israel preparing to build a third Jewish Temple, and news of the possible sacrifice of a red heifer, many are asking: how much is about to change? And when the third Temple is built, will it require the Ark of the Covenant to be found? Can it even be found? Shoreshim Ministries founder Bill Cloud joins Glenn to explain it all. Plus, he reviews 4 places where the Ark is rumored to be and how likely each of those locations are to house the Ark: Is it in Ethiopia? Mt. Nebo? Outside the Old City? Or is it hidden in tunnels under the Temple Mount? Plus, Bill and Glenn discuss whether anything would have to happen to the Dome of the Rock for the Temple to be rebuilt.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So does the dome of the rock have to be destroyed for the third temple?

BILL: That's what most people think when they consider, you know, a building of the temple. Although, not everybody thinks that that is necessary.


And because there is some dispute about where the temple actually sat, where the Holy of Holies was.

There's a lot of religious -- where the dome of the rock is.

There was a gentleman, excuse me, back in the late '80s, early '90s.

A professor at the University. He felt that the holy of holies was actually a little north of the dome of the rock, at a place called the dome of the tablets of the spirits.

So most people believe that the dome of the rock has to go. There are some who believe that it's possible, that the temple could have -- it's not just north.

And technically speaking, could it be on the same platform. There's even a passage in revelation chapter seven. Where John is told to measure the temple of God. To leave the court outside. Leave that out.

The Gentiles. So some people have thought, well, maybe that is suggesting that there is going to be a temple, alongside either the dome of the rock.

Or the mosque. And, you know, I don't know. I find that problematic for a lot of reasons.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Kind of like the burning of the red heifer right there, you know, in Arab territory.

It might be a problem with that.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: So, you know, the Ark of the Covenant is where they kept the Ten Commandments. And I know it was real. I know it existed. I never, ever thought, we're going to find that.

We're going to find that? Is that important for the rebuilding of the temple?

BILL: Well, technically speaking. The second temple.

This is the one that was built after the Babylonian captivity. And then Herod expanded it. That, we did not have the Ark of the Covenant in it. And it was still considered the house of God.

So there's historical precedent for rebuilding the temple and not having the ark. However, there's prophecies that talk about, how the glory of the latter house is going to be greater than the first one. Referring to Solomon, which is referring to the Ark of the Covenant.

So technically, they could rebuild it without the ark.

However, there have been those in Israel, since the reunification of Jerusalem, who not only do they want to build a temple of the Temple Mount, but they want to find the Ark of the Covenant.

And there are a lot of traditions, as to what happened to the Ark of the Covenant.

Some say, that it went to Ethiopia, which I don't believe.

Some people say, that Jeremiah hid it in Mount Nebo which is Jordan. Some people believe it's outside the old city, buried. And then there are quite a number of people. And particularly, people close to the idea of rebuilding the temple.

Who believe it's buried somewhere, and underneath the Temple Mount.

That's not really a big secret honestly. It's all oar the internet.

GLENN: No. But I find, if you know something about the Temple Mount.

We'll come back to this in just a second.

Because there's somebody a labyrinth of temples underneath, et cetera, et cetera. But I can't see how those have not been, you know, exhaustively gone through by those of the Muslim religion.

We'll give more of those in just a second. Stand by.
(music)

GLENN: So for the Biden administration, running the American economy is just like shooting fish in a barrel. Except, you and I are the fish, and the American dollar is the barrel. And it's getting shot full of holes every day. They're engaged in ongoing war between bad foreign policy and bad domestic policy. To see, I guess, which one will bring us down first.

And if you don't see the need to shore up your hard-earned money with something that will act as a firewall against economic disaster, you're not looking very hard.

I want you to get the -- the booklet out, that you can get from Lear Capital, free.

It's a wealth protection guide.

They will also credit your account $250 towards the purchase of any gold or silver. I so highly recommend that you do this.

Gold is being sold at record numbers right now.

Because people who are paying attention, know, this doesn't end well. Please, just find out if it's right for you and your family.

Call Lear Capital now. 800-957-GOLD. 800-957-GOLD.

It's Lear Capital.
(music)

STU: You can now save 30 bucks off your Blaze TV subscription. Go to BlazeTV.com/Glenn. Need to use the promo code secure 2024. Thirty bucks off Blaze TV.
(OUT AT 10:29 AM)

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We're glad you're here.

We're talking to bill cloud, as passover comes up on Monday.

We're talking about Biblical prophecies. Because there's a lot of stuff happening in the world right now.

Where a lot of people are going, you know. I think eye read about this someplace before.

But. No man knows when.

I mean, it could be a thousand years from now.

But it will happen at some point.

And we need to be aware. And I want to make this really clear. And, Bill, I think you'll back me up on this.

The Lord was not. He didn't look at Scriptures and was like, man. It doesn't have a snappy ending.

I want part two of this. So let me leave them on a scary cliffhanger.

The Book of Revelation was written, not to scare us.

But to say, look, all of these things will come to pass.

And it's almost. I think it's a blessing, that he says, and, you know, at this point, the seven-year clock starts to -- to tick off.

And he's telling us, this -- I'm not -- don't be shocked by these things.

They're going to be bad. And they're going to seem like they're never-ending.

But they're not.

And I'm telling you these things, so you have faith. And can make it through those times. Is that how you read it?

BILL: Absolutely. When you go to the Book of Revelation, by the way. And you look at the heading.

It says, the revelation of Jesus Christ. It does not say the revelation of the Antichrist or the tribulation or bold judgments and vile judges. It's about the Messiah. In fact, it says, in that book, that the essence of prophecy is the testimony of the messiah. The spirit of prophecy is about the messiah.

So everything about all this bad stuff, ultimately, it will point us to the messiah. Because all the bad stuff is just the Satan, and those who practice wickedness. Trying to stop the messiah from returning and sitting upon his throne in Jerusalem. To rule and reign.

So, yeah, it doesn't end on a bad note. It ends on what mankind, those who love and holiness had been longing for, since Adam was exiled from the garden.

A return, to be with God and God be in our midst. So that's the greatest thing that we could ever hope for. And all these things that we would see, is pointing us to that. So it's an excellent observation on your part.

It tells us these things. In fact, when he sat down on the Mount of Olives with his disciples. This is a -- by the way, Mount of Olives is where they will burn that red heifer when they do it. But anyway, he sits down on the Mount of Olives. And he says, tell me all these things, as you said, so you know this will happen.

But don't be dismayed. Don't fall in despair. I'm telling you these things, so that you will not be deceived.

I'm telling you these things, in advance, you won't be impulsive, and running after things that you shouldn't be running after. So when these things happen, keep your focus.

You know, kind of stay the course on what you know is true. So absolutely, I agree with you.

GLENN: Growing lawlessness is the sign of the last days. And we're seeing lawlessness, like I've never seen before.

Now, this has happened over and over again. Where societies have been lawless, and they collapse.

But lawlessness in the last days, it gives birth to the lawless one. Which is the Antichrist. Right?

BILL: Right. Exactly. That's exactly right. You know, a lot of people have thought, that the Antichrist have come to power. And he will create this lawless environment.

I believe a lawless environment gives birth to the lawless one. The final prediction of the Antichrist.

GLENN: To me, that -- that is -- makes sense.

We're -- you know, it was about 2000, oh, six. I was talking to Condoleezza Rice. And she used very specific language. She was on my show. And we were talking about, you know, what things look like now.

And, you know, what's coming our way. And she said, these things are birth pangs. Of the things to come.

And I thought, that was -- you know, rather unusual language for somebody to use.

Because it's very Scriptural.

BILL: Yeah. That's Biblical language for sure.

GLENN: Yeah, it is. And we are giving birth to something. I don't know if it's the -- you know, the Antichrist. Or the end times. Or just really, really bad times.

But there -- everything that we're seeing, these are like contractions and birth pangs. When things happen, you're like, ow. That hurt. And they're becoming faster and faster and closer and closer to one another.

We are giving birth to something.

BILL: Yeah. Well, in Hebrews, it's the birth pangs of the Messiah.

The Messiah is -- and his rule and reign, over the earth, that's what is -- that's what's being birthed. That's what's coming to fruition.

It's just in the process, the earth and everybody in it, has to go through these birth pangs.

Paul talks about how the earth is groaning and producing this travail and birth pangs. So that the sons of God will be revealed. That goes hand-in-glove with the messiah and his return. That's what's being birthed.

But just like in any birth, something that is wonderful. There's all this yuckiness, and pain and suffering.

Unfortunately, that pressure has to be there, to get those who are listening to the voice of the Lord, in the place that he wants them to be. And that is, not giving in to the lawlessness. Not giving in to the just crazy stuff, that society is pushing down our throats.

But to stay true, based on what Christians say.

So that's what's being birthed, as far as I'm concerned.

GLENN: Let me go back to the Ark of the Covenant. It seems like an Indiana Jones movie. It doesn't seem rule in some ways.

I know it is. Or I know it was.

But then it just kind of disappeared.

Nobody really knows what happened to it. People have been looking for it, forever.

And people are saying, it will be revealed. And some people believe it's under the Temple Mount.

I've stood, at the place where they say, right behind these stones, is where they think the holy of holies is.

Which is where they think the Ark of the Covenant is.

And it's a labyrinth of passageways and everything, underneath there. At least it used to be. But why -- why would it -- how could it possibly be still there, when, you know, the Muslims have been digging underneath the Temple Mount for a long time. And taking truckloads, of -- of dirt and antiquities out and just dumping them.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, how could it still be there?

You know, I don't know that I have the answer to that question. I will just say, my faith would say, if God wanted it to be there, it will still be there. He has a way of watching over things.

GLENN: Right.

But is it prophesied that it will be found and come back, or is this just something that some people think?

BILL: Well, the last time you see -- or you see a mention of the Ark of the Covenant. Is when Josiah tells the priest to take the Ark of the Covenant and put it in the house that Solomon had prepared for it. And, by the way, there are people who read into that. Well, the Ark of the Covenant was already in the temple. What is Josiah saying? Some people say, well, he was hiding it, because he knew the Babylonians were coming. And that's where some people think, well, it's hidden in somewhere around Jerusalem.

Most people close to the temple, are -- our rebuilt temple. Motivation. Think it's under the Temple Mount.

But, you know, it disappears from the record, is the point.

And the next time you see anything mentioned. It's in the Book of Revelation, actually.

After all this other stuff is over with.

All the bad stuff.

So, yeah. It is a big mystery.

I will tell you a quick story. Ninety-two.
I and another gentleman, along with an Israeli friend, we went to the office of Rabbi Yehuda Getz, who at that time was over all of the holy places in Jerusalem.

And to make a long story short, Rabbi Getz did not believe that the Ark of the Covenant was in Ethiopia. He did not believe it was there.

He felt very confident, he knew where the Ark of the Covenant was. And he did not tell us. But our Israeli friend, later told us, that in the early '80s, along with a lot of the men who were participants, in the relitigation of Jerusalem. '67. Actually, when these excavations begun, they were looking for the Ark of the Covenant. Because they believed that it was under the temple mount somewhere. I've even heard reports, that it was supposedly -- saw the place where it was kept. Now, I don't know that to be a fact.

So there are people who do believe it still exists. There are people that are in Jerusalem, who would love for that to be revealed. And I would suggest that if that were -- if you think the red of her will cause --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I mean, I can't imagine how that could be revealed, and the whole world not taking real significant note.

Whether you believe that the -- what's ever in it. Or that the remnants of the Ten Commandments. Or not.

It doesn't matter.

For the Ark of the Covenant to be revealed and come back.

That would say a lot, about Israel. About Jerusalem. About the times we live in. I mean, pretty much everything. Pretty much everything.

GLENN: Well, it still exists. And this is just my opinion. That's all it is, just an opinion.

I tend to believe that if it does exist, and it's going to be revealed.

Then it probably will coincide with the Messianic age, with the Messiah's return.

And I think that would probably be more likely. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who would be very, very excited to be -- to have an opportunity. To find it, look for it. And if they could, bring it out.

And that would cause World War III, most likely.

GLENN: It probably would.

It's weird, Bill. When you're over there. You don't understand highway this little patch of land has caused so much turmoil really, in the world.

Why everybody seems to be -- you know, centered on that patch of land. Because it's not very big.

And it's almost like it's a pulse, you can feel it.

That Temple Mount. There's something about that area.

It's God's throne. And you can feel it.

It's amazing. It's amazing.

BILL: Exactly. Exactly. That, what you just said, is prophetic. Prophecy said, he will make Jerusalem burden themselves. And even more -- more so, the Temple Mount. Because that is where God's presence kissed the earth.

And the Ark of the Covenant was basically God's throne on earth.

So, yeah. It's a very contested piece of property, and it will be at the heart of conflict. Yes.

GLENN: Bill Cloud, thank you so much.

If you would like to follow him, you can follow him on his website at BillCloud.org. That's BillCloud.org.

Why Congress Keeps HURTING Americans to Fund Endless Wars
RADIO

Why Congress Keeps HURTING Americans to Fund Endless Wars

The Senate has passed a $95 billion war package, which will mostly fund Ukraine. But, although Congress somehow snuck the TikTok bill into it, they also took out one of the most important parts! So, what do we have here, Glenn asks? Another bill that moves us in the direction of endless wars. But this isn't just the Democrats. A good chunk of Republicans was also for this. The real problem, Glenn argues, isn't Republicans or Democrats. It's that BOTH sides have abandoned the Constitution. But we CAN fix this, Glenn argues: "Nothing will change unless something changes." However, the solution is NOT a civil war — in fact, PRAY that we don't have one!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Let me see. Last hour, I was -- I was telling you about what happened in the Senate, last night. The Senate passed a package, $95 billion.

It does not secure our border. It goes in, and takes more money. And straps your children and your grandchildren with another $95 billion. It gives money to Taiwan, which hacks off the Chinese. And that's fine. But, gang. Let's be honest.

We are not going to fight a war in Taiwan.

Maybe one day, we would have, but we cannot do it. It would stretch, just -- just -- just this alone, would kill and cripple the United States. We don't have the supply lines. So if we wanted to protect Taiwan, our supply line would take all of the assets we have all over the world, just to supply everything we need for Taiwan.

Now, I -- I am sorry, but that's the truth.

I think Taiwan should be its own nation.

I don't want to see China, gobble up another nation. But we cannot do it. The days of us saying, we can protect everywhere, and do everything.

Those are over. They've been over for a very long time. We won the Cold War. And then we lost the peace.

And, quite honestly, I'm going to blame a lot of this on people like me.

Okay?

We won the Cold War!

Yeah. Tear down that wall!

And then we just thought it was okay.

And then we continued on, all of these endless wars.

We listened to presidents like George H.W. Bush. Who was a spook. We have listened to the State Department.

Over and over again.

Have you noticed that since the United Nations happened, things are not really much better? With war?

Yeah. We haven't had a global war yet.

But we're setting everything else on fire.

And since tragedy and hope, a book that was written in the 1960s.

That explained, there will only be police actions. And no clear winners in war, anymore.

It will end kind of in a standoff. It will end like it did in Iraq, like it did in the Gulf War, like it did in Afghanistan, like it did in Vietnam. That's the plan now! And it's out in the open. It's not some pastor. That's the way we fight wars now.

I don't want to fight a war. I don't want to spend 20 years fighting a war, and have it end like Afghanistan. You and I both know, the United States of America, could -- could have gone in there, and we could have kicked Afghani's ass, and got out. But that's not what we do.

Because we now have to nation build. I don't want to nation build.

Have you noticed how much the world resents us?

Why does the world resent us. Well, for one thing, new information, we're giant hypocrites!

I always thought that Americans were good and gracious. And we were going over to help people.

You're not going over to help people, when you go into very, very religious countries, and say, hey, by the way. You want any of our aid, you have to have your kids aborted.

You have to have drag queen shows. You think they're going to like us, or resent us?

You think they're going to like us, when you -- when you say, oh, we don't torture. We're beyond that. We don't. We definitely tonight torture.

And then we ghost plane people? To a regime in Egypt, that we kept propped up forever? So they could torture people for us?

The policies of the last 100 years, don't work.

They don't work.

Stu said last hour. Glenn, you know, 45 percent of Republicans want the Ukrainian aid. And because I said, when are the Republicans going to listen to their base?

Well, it's fairly split. Fifty-five-45. Okay.

So I'll never be able to make the case, to the Lindsey Grahams of the world. Because I don't know Lindsey Graham. I mean, I don't know. I haven't seen his bottom line. Is he rich from Raytheon?

I don't know. Or is he just a war hawk, that just wants war all the time because he actually believes it? I don't know. But I will tell you this: The world is changing. And if you don't recognize that, you are going to be left in the dust.

Now, everything is changing. And that's what everybody keeps telling you.

Well, the biggest thing that is changing is, our politicians are not following the Constitution. That's the root of all of our evils.

We are not following the Constitution of the United States. Congress is no longer in charge of the purse. Congress doesn't pass the laws. It's all left in the hands of bureaucrats. Who make all these little edicts. And all these little changes. And they turn this little dial by 10 percent. And this dial by 25 percent. And before you know it, you're a freaking slave.

And who do you go to?

It doesn't matter who you vote for. Because they don't make the laws anymore.

So you have a new Speaker of the House. What does he do?

He completely abandons everything. Because he said briefings now. Well, you know what, if they've changed you that much, I think you should brief the world.

I think you should brief the United States. I keep hearing how dangerous the world is. No crap!

Really?

It's dangerous. You think it's more dangerous since Joe Biden got in, or less dangerous?

It's been getting more and more dangerous, for the last 25 years. Why?

Because the last 25 years. The last 75 years, the State Department has been running everything. They don't care who the president is.

It started with the creation of Israel.

The State Department threatened, threatened the dually elected president of the United States. Harry Truman.

You're not going to make that statement. Yes, we are.

No, you're not.

I'm the president of the United States. So I will dictate policy. He beat them to the microphone.

That's the only reason. Why the state of Israel exists.

Because the dually elected president, who had the responsibility to set the pace, beat the State Department. And the Deep State, to the microphones.

So, yeah. We are changing.

And it is popularity to change, but Stu was right.

It is important for us to state why we're changing.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing, and expect different results. I could be here all day, giving you examples of this.

The fed. The fed comes up with a plan. It makes things worse. So we go back to the fed.

They make a plan. And it makes things worse.

So we go back to the fed. And they make a plan. And it makes things worse!

We need to protect ourselves. So we go to the Department of Homeland Security. And we lies rights. And things don't change.

So we go to the Homeland Security.

And we make changes, we're not protected. We lose more rights. And nothing changes.

Look, this is so simple, it's ridiculous. Nothing will change, unless something changes.

I say to that my kids all the time. Nothing will change, unless something changes. Dad, how come this keeps happening to me?

Because, nothing will change, unless something changes.

Unless you change. Unless you do something different, it's going to keep happening.

Everything in our country, we're losing more and more rights, and so what do we do?

We elect the same kind of people over and over again, and we lose more rights. And so we're like, yeah. Well, we need some more people.

And we hire the same kind of people. And we lies more rights. What's missing in this?

I was just in South Carolina. By the way, thank God South Carolina.

I mean, you didn't vote for George Washington.

You voted against the anti-slavery thing in the Declaration of Independence.

And you did start the Civil War. Can you get this one right?

And I think the answer is, yes.

I met with some of the leadership of South Carolina, the Freedom Caucus, and all the people standing.

And I asked every single one of them, look, can I get your endorsement.

I don't endorse anybody. But let me ask you this: Where do you stand on the Constitution.

And if they didn't say, it's everything. It's the root of everything I believe in. It's the only thing worth fighting for, I'm not interested.

And I will tell you, that the progress they're making in South Carolina, the bills that they have shut down and the Republicans hate them. Hate them.

How can you possibly make Mike Lee into an extremist?

Have you ever talked to Mike Lee? He's the furthest thing from an extremist. Mike is the most mild mannered, sweetheart of a guy, I've ever met.
He's so nice, he is so not throwing people under the bus. Ever.

He pisses me off, at times!

Because I'm like, stop it, you're making me look bad!

Because I don't have the restraint you do.

He's known, in the state, as an extremist.

How is that possible? He's so extreme, he says we should play by the rules. He's so extreme, he keeps checking this document, and going, oh, I can't do that. Because it's not in this. What document is it? It was a document of a revolution. It was a revolutionary -- it was a Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! How can this guy be a radical!

It's time to change, gang. And it's not time, to have a Civil War. You should pray -- pray, that we don't have a Civil War.

Do you -- do you know what that's like? Do you know what that's like? Do you know what would happen?

We Balkanize. Do you know what your life is like?

You don't want any of that. Anybody who is like, it's time we -- we split up!

First of all, I ain't going anywhere. Because I'm not leaving my country. I'm not leaving my country.

Well, my country left me. No. You would be leaving. Because they have Washington, and all of the documents! I'm not leaving without the documents.

I didn't band everything that the monuments stand for. I am still for them.

I am not wearing a mask in public, because I'm not shouting death to America. You're not the revolutionary. You may have changed. But that's because you're waking up!

When you wake up, you start seeing, wow. This doesn't work.

Well, what doesn't work?

The Constitution? Or the people who are ignoring it.

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of
RADIO

WATCH: Biden SAYS What the Media Falsely ACCUSED Trump Of

Remember when the media went nuts and accused Donald Trump of praising Nazis when he said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally (although he WASN’T referring to the neo-Nazis)? Well, President Biden just had his own “very fine people” moment. Glenn reviews how Biden’s answer to a question about anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University was EXACTLY what the media accused Trump of. But yet, there’s no outrage… Glenn also reviews the message of a Jewish professor at Columbia who was barred from campus after his participation in a pro-Jewish rally.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I've learned from the president. That why focus on the negative?

Here's President Biden about what's going on in Columbia university.

Yesterday.

VOICE: End the anti-Semitic protests at college campuses.

VOICE: That's why I've set up a program. I also condemn voters who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians.

VOICE: Should the Columbia University president resign?

VOICE: I didn't know that.

GLENN: So wait a minute. Hang on. I think what I heard here was, you know, there's fine people on both sides.

STU: Very fine. I would call them very fine.

GLENN: Yeah. Very fine people on both sides. It's almost like what happened with Donald Trump. Except when Donald Trump said that, he was a Nazi. He was a Nazi sympathizer. He was reaching out to the Nazis.

Nowhere, do I read how he's a Nazi. That Biden is a Nazi. For saying the same thing about the same kind of people. They were calling for the death of Jews.

STU: It really is fascinating.

GLENN: It's fascinating.

STU: You pointed this out, just because you came on the air.

I can't believe the parallels.

It's exactly the same thing.

GLENN: It is!

STU: It's just a left-wing version, and I have listened to tons of coverage and watched a bunch of coverage on this, over the past 24 hours. And now that I think of it, the entire tone of the coverage was, there are very fine people on both sides.

GLENN: Very fine people on both sides.

STU: It's like, yes, some of these Jewish students have been walking down the street and being attacked.

You know, one woman said that she was trying to go to class. And someone came up to her with a sign that said, we hope Hamas comes here next.

GLENN: Oh.
STU: And then they went to a protester on the Palestinian side. Who said, look, we know there's been some bad incidents. We're here peacefully protesting. There's no question, as to whether that was appropriate to do. To cover. Because I don't remember, on let's say, during Charlottesville.

When they found people in the crowd, who are like, yeah. I don't know what these nut jobs with the Tiki torches are, I'm just here for the statue thing.

GLENN: You know, there's another case like that, that comes to mind.

STU: Really?

GLENN: It wasn't just Charlottesville.

STU: Thinking, calculating.

GLENN: Oh, January 6th.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I never heard anybody say, yeah. Well, there were grandmothers here. Nice people here. That's not what they were doing. There were some really bad people there. We should condemn them. But not the others. I don't remember that.

STU: No. I don't remember that either. There was 100,000 people at the speech. All of them seem to be painted with the very broad stroke. That's awful.

GLENN: That's weird.

You know who does that? Who used to love doing that?

Hitler. Yeah. He used to do that all the time.

STU: You went right to Hitler. Seeming, his ideals are living on today. And seeming in all these protests.

GLENN: You know, I'm not going to tolerate anymore people saying, oh, you know, you're bringing up Hitler. Of course, you're going right to Hitler. Hitler.

Yeah. Because you're saying exactly the same things, that Hitler said.

STU: You are basically quoting Mein Kampf in every one of these protests. It's not that crazy.

That's a fascinating.

GLENN: By the way, I hope Hamas comes here. What do you mean by that.

You want the rape? The killing, the slaughtering? The burning of children. The chopping off of heads.

Is that what you're looking for?

STU: A chant just yesterday of a long live October 7th.

I mean, maybe they just had something else going on that day on October 7th. We don't know. It could be anything.

GLENN: I think the press should find out. I think they could find somebody who said, no. We were just talking about that wonderful, wonderful concert that was happening.

Because there were good things that day. And some bad things.

STU: And a couple bad things. A couple thousands of individuals bad things.

GLENN: Yeah. You know what this looks like, at Columbia university.

Well, first of all, could I just play -- this guy was locked out of Columbia. He was an associate professor.

And he was locked out. From the campus. Because they were afraid. You know, it would get out of hand. So he was just standing on the street, in front of Columbia. And he was speaking. And I just -- I mean, want you to hear what he had to say. It was very radical. Very radical.

VOICE: I know you're afraid.

I know you're a victim. Bravery. Bravery is not, not being afraid. Bravery is showing up when you're afraid. That's what courage is about. Showing up. And you all showed up. And you will keep showing up. And next time you show up, bring a Jew friend. Bring five friends, bring ten friends. A Jewish and non-Jewish friends, we need to make the world understand that being Jewish in public is a safe thing. Right?

It shouldn't be something that is contested. We are not fighting just for the Jews. We are fighting -- we are fighting for everyone. We are fighting for the rights of African-Americans. We are fightings for the rights of Hispanics. We're fighting for the rights of women and LGBTQ and the trans community. We are fighting for everyone.

Because it always starts with the Jews, and it never ends with the Jews. So I am here for all of you.

GLENN: Boy, you could see why Columbia University locked him out of -- they deactivated his key card, so he couldn't get back into the university. Because he's an extremist, clearly.

STU: The hatred.

GLENN: But don't just take that as the entire movement. Because there are some very fine people on the other side. As well.

Let me take you way back into the time machine, of 1933.

New York City. In 1933. Hitler has come to power. The Nazis begin taking Jewish students, and speckle them. Dismissing the Jewish professors from the universities.

You're not German enough.

And the campuses across Germany. Nazis, and their sympathizers. They start burning the books. You know, written by Jews. And perceived enemies.

Including, what's weird.

On that list of books to burn, was a book by a -- a Columbia professor and anthropologist named Frank Boaz, but he was Jewish.

They had on their list, to make sure they burned his books in the universities, in Berlin.

Now, just months after the first book burnings, Columbia had a president, Nicholas Murray Butler. He welcomed hens Luther in. He was the German ambassador to the United States. And he said, you have to come to Morning Heights.

You crazy cats over there, you're being misunderstood.

You got to come over here. And then he told all of the students at Columbia.

I respect him. He deserves the greatest courtesy and respect.

Now, at the same time, Columbia was doing this.

Cambridge, the dean of the Harvard law school. He accepted an honorary free at the university of Berlin.

He was there over 1934. And he returns from a trip. And he -- he got that -- he got that special honor from Berlin.

And he -- he came back to assure people, there is no persecution of Jewish scholars or of Jews, happening in Germany.

You know, for those Jews who have lived in Germany for any length of time.

That's an odd thing to say. Butler, back in Columbia, responded, because there were some criticism on campus. The spectator, and other student groups. He had to respond to.

He emphasized that Columbia's relationships with the German universities, strictly academic. No political implications, at all.

And he then mocked the protests, that were standing up against the university, saying, hey. You know, there's bad things happening with Jews.

And he's like, this is just academic. This is academic -- we have nothing to do with any of the spooky stuff from the Nazis. And then he said, quote, may we next expect to be told, that we should not read Goethe's Faust, or listen to Wagner's Ring Cycle? Or study the picture galleries at Dresden? Because we so heartily disapprove of the present form of government in Germany?

Now, by the way, he was a long-time admirer of Benito Mussolini as well. And in 1934, he fired Jerome Klein. That's a weird name, isn't it? Klein. You know what I'm saying. Right?

So we know why he was fired. He was a young member of the fine arts faculty.

And he signed an appeal against the Luther invitation.

And he -- and he was fired.

Also, Robert Burke, a Columbia college student, he was expelled because he was participating in the 1936 book burning. And anti-Nazi picket on campus.

So you couldn't picket the Nazis.

You know.

But you could go to the big rally, at Madison Square Garden.

Held by the Nazis.

They loved that.

That was great. So what I think I'm trying to say is, why are we surprised

Why are we surprised?

Harvard was disturbing as well.

There was a warm welcome extended to Ernst Hanfstaengl.

Earnest Hanfstaengl here. Yeah.

He was -- he came to the commencement in 1934.

He was a Nazi leader. Good, good, close personal friend of Hitler. And Harvard, well, a lot of people were like, hey, Mr. Hanfstaengl maybe shouldn't be here, yeah.

Harvard, they loved it. The students loved it. The faculty. They were delighted.

In fact, the president of Harvard wrote, it's trillion shameful. It's truly shameful, that -- the -- the -- the most prestigious, prominent university is coming under attack. You know.

For this. Now, they're just trying to influence young minds. And, you know, we're not for the Germans, but we're not not for the Germans either. Isn't that right, Mr. Hanfstaengl?

Here's the problem: I can't believe in 2008, I said several times, the hatreds of the past, that we saw in the 1930s are going to come back with a vengeance.

We are going to see the same things that happened in Europe, in the 1930s, happening on our streets.

And if we don't stand up and stop it, if we don't choose to be -- to never forget, never again is the promise we made to each other.

We're going to make the Nazis. With our technology. We will make the Nazis look like rookies.

It's up to America now, to decide.

I personally think, I haven't spoken to Mr.Hanfstaengl.

But I personally think Jesus is coming.

Kind of soon. Probably.

STU: Glenn, there are very fine Hanfstaengls on both sides.

GLENN: On both sides, really? So there were the kill the Jews Hanfstaengls, and then the, eh Hanfstaengls.

STU: Hanfstaengls. Yes. You've got it. You've heard this story.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

Is NATO About to “DECLARE WAR” Against Nuclear Russia?!
RADIO

Is NATO About to “DECLARE WAR” Against Nuclear Russia?!

The House of Representatives has passed a $95 billion war bill that gives aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan (mostly Ukraine), with the help of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Now, as the bill heads to the Senate, Sen. Mike Lee tells Glenn that “this is an insult to the American people.” But why does it seem like everyone is so set on war? Sen. Lee explains why NATO’s promise to invite Ukraine into the alliance would practically be “declaring war against a nuclear-armed adversary,” Russia.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mike Lee joins us now, from Washington, DC. There is a vote coming up for Ukraine. And, you know, Mike Lee just loves Vladimir Putin. And so he's against that Ukraine bill. Hello, Mike Lee.

MIKE: Naturally. You know, I don't know how to say good day to you, sir, in Russian. But I'm still working on it.

GLENN: Yeah, right. $95 billion. It only will take 41 senators to stop it.

There are 49 Republicans in the Senate. But you saw what happened in the House. They had Ukrainian flags. It was disgusting, Mike.

MIKE: Yep. Celebrating a foreign flag, on US soil, in a legislative chamber in the United States Senate. Seems odd to me. But not nearly as odd, is the fact that we're shelling out $95 billion with a B. At a time, when we don't have that money. So it's borrowed, which means we're going to print it, which means it's going to contribute even more to inflation. It's already causing Americans to shell out an additional $1,000 every single month, just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. This is an insult to the American people.

When you ask the American people what they want, it's overwhelming, they say no. Look, regardless of what you think about what's going on, in Ukraine. And I intensely dislike Vladimir Putin. I would love for Ukraine to win this battle. But, you know, Glenn, we've spent $113 billion plus on this whirlwind. Why are we spending another $51 billion to that effort, when Europe hasn't stepped up. We have given more than every other nation on earth, combined. And this is in the backyard of our European allies, who, by the way, we've been backfilling their security needs for decades. Through NATO. This is their problem, more immediately, than it is ours.

We shouldn't give a dime. Especially when our own border is not secure.

While we have a 34 and a half trillion dollar debt. And while Europe still hasn't paid up, a sum, not just equal to. But greater than what we put in so far. This is shameful.

GLENN: I heard someone in the House is that I, that their border is our border. No, it's not. No, it's not. Our border is our border.

Their border is their border. I mean, we're not getting any money to protect ourselves. We have a real and present danger, because of our own border.

Everything that I'm reading, I don't even know -- I don't even know what this is about, Mike. Other than, money laundering.

Sending money over there. And it's all going to oligarchs.

We're funding this thing. We're sending the message, that we want war. We are talking about bringing Ukraine in. And making them part of NATO.

Making other states part of NATO.

That is kind of a red line for Vladimir Putin.

And now, I read today. I think it was Poland, that says, they're ready for nuclear missiles in Poland. What do you think Vladimir Putin is going to do?

Exactly what we would do, if you put those in Acapulco.

MIKE: Right. First of all, Glenn, you're wrong about the border issue. We all know that Kyev just a few miles away from Laredo.

So you're mistaken there.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: But, look, the idea of adding Ukraine to NATO, is itself an idea about declaring war. The United States declaring war, against Russia. Because Ukraine, of course, who is at war with Russia.

And if we brought Ukraine into NATO, we would have an Article V obligation to fight Russia. So let's just call this what it is. Those conversations are about declaring war with a nuclear-armed adversary. I know Russia, economically and militarily is not on par with the United States. Nonetheless, their nuclear arsenal is.

Their nuclear arsenal is massive. In part because they have cheated on us like crazy for decades on our nuclear arms treaties.

And consequently, you've got to tread lightly in this area. And nothing says the opposite of tread lightly, quite like declaring war on a nuclear armed adversary.

GLENN: It is insanity. It's insanity.

We are -- we are in so much. If we don't turn this around with elections, in the House, the Senate, and the White House, if -- if we don't turn this around, we're done. We're absolutely -- this is -- these actions are the actions of madmen. Who are -- I mean, if I was being charitable, would say, they're just horribly wrong, at everything they do.

But I -- I mean, I just don't know how to -- how to explain it.

And then the Republicans. I mean, what happened to -- to Johnson. Speaker Johnson.

I've always heard he was a good guy. He was devout. He really understood the Constitution. And he is just like, I mean -- he is part of the borgue.

MIKE: Well, he's Churchill. CNN literally -- literally called him Winston Churchill.

He had his Winston Churchill moment.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

Let me give you the CNN headline.

By passing Ukraine aid, Johnson became an unlikely Churchill.

MIKE: Yeah. Last I checked, Glenn, Winston Churchill defended and protected his country while it was under attack, and threatened with invasion. He didn't send America -- British treasure to another continent and call that border security for his own home country.

This is absolutely crazy. But this is part of the fantasy land that we live in.

A lot of these guys, want to think of themselves as Churchill. And they think, this is the way to do it.

By printing money we don't have. And putting on the backs of hard-working Americans. Who are made incrementally poorer, and a lot less safe, every time we do crap like this.

GLENN: All right. So we want you to call your senator today.

Call your senator.

You call all 50 or 49 senators from the Republicans.

And respectfully, nicely. Kindly.

Tell them, not to spend this money, in Ukraine.

And I will tell you, I have talked to a lot of people. There are more and more good guys up on Capitol Hill.

They're still outnumbered. But there are more really good dependable guys.

And I hear from them every time.

When the audience calls, it makes a difference.

So please call. And -- and tell them, no! No more spending money on Ukraine!

No!

Spend it on our border.

Keep us safe. What are you doing? Stop it.

One other thing I want to talk to you about, Mike. Is I don't understand. The president just doled out, I think it was another $7 billion in the last couple of days. On relieving student debt.

30 percent of that money, I think is going to people that make over $300,000 a year.

What the hell -- how -- how do you -- when somebody says no to the Supreme Court and does it anyway, and says, I know I don't have this power.

And the Supreme Court just told me, I have this power.

But I'm not stopping.

What has to happen, to get a president who thinks he's just the king, from spending our money and giving it to people, who don't deserve it!

They -- they took out the loan. Not me.

MIKE: Yeah. So in the first place, I think the most obvious answer is, don't elect to the presidency, someone who is manifestly unfit for office.

There's also a deeper question. That we all need to assess, which is, decades of congressional forfeiture, of fundamentally legislative authority, to the executive branch.

Have to a degree empowered this kind of action.

Whenever we enact vague loosy-goosy language that gives a degree of discretion, to the president. And the bureaucrats who work under him, in the executive branch.

Who are handing over a loaded gun, to people who we have to assume, will from time to time, behave as imbeciles. And so we've got reverse that trend.

And, yes, it's lawless what he's doing. He tried to do it under a the different legal theory. A while back. And was shot down by the Supreme Court.

But as soon as that happened, it's a sad commentary, on the law in our country. Without a hint of hesitation. He just said, okay.

Well, I'll find another legal mechanism, by which I could do it.

I believe he had the authority to do it. Last time, I don't think he had the authority to do it this time. But we have to clean up our laws, so that we get rid of any kind of vague delegation of power of the president.

Because they can't be trusted. This is why we can't have nice things. And this is why presidents shouldn't be given vast discretion.

GLENN: On both sides.

STU: Senator, isn't it true. I mean, when you have a thing like the student loan situation. Where he's ignoring the Supreme Court.
And just trying to jam all this through.

He did this with the -- with the eviction moratorium as well. Aren't these examples of specifically what the Founders were talking about, when they were introducing the idea of impeachment? I mean, I understand the pragmatic limitations of that politically, with something like this.

But isn't this, shouldn't this be included in the impeachment inquiry?

MIKE: Yes, without question. And, Stu, you are right. Except, remember, with the new definition of impeachment that we had after last week, basically nothing is impeachable.

I mean, you can lie to Congress, knowingly, intentionally, under oath.

And according to new Senate precedent set by Senate Democrats last week, that's not impeachable. So too, if you take legislative authority that commands you to do X, and not Y. And you instead do Y and not X.

And that is also not impeachable. So it begs the question. What is impeachable anymore?

I don't know. According to the Senate Democrats, nothing is. So this is really troubling. Yet another reason why we have to focus on who we elect as president. I hope we elect Donald Trump as president this fall. And I hope we elect a new raft of lawmakers, not just Republicans, but Republicans who understand the vital pressing need to right size our federal government, to restore the vertical protection of federalism, and the horizontal separation of powers.

There is no other way to save our republic than that. And yet, that gets if a terror, too, little attention from Republicans these days.

Because they're just too damn busy, spending money on wars that aren't ours with money we don't have.

GLENN: Mike, 30 seconds.

Any comment on the Trump case going on in New York right now?

MIKE: This is just a sad display of lawfare, of the weaponization of our legal system. There isn't anybody who thinks this would be going on, were he not the presidential frontrunner from the Republican Party.

They would never be doing it. And so speaking of things that need to go differently in elections, I hope that the people of New York will see this as the embarrassment to the Empire State that it is. And see that this as something that does not bode well.

If you have a business in New York. I -- I wonder how long you can handle this, knowing that, you know, sure, Donald Trump is the target today. Who will be next?

GLENN: Yeah. And they can take a misdemeanor and make it into a felony.

A misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has run out on. And somehow or another, make that a felony, and bring that into court.

No one is safe. No one is safe.

Thank you so much, Mike. I appreciate it.

Senator, Mike Lee.