The debate started over the start of the House-Senate budget negotiations. Senator Cruz objects to starting the negotiations unless Democrats take a debt limit increase off the table, while Senator McCain, on the other hand, wants the American people to ‘totally trust’ the GOP to cut spending and keep the debt limit down.

…because a current debt of 16 trillion+ is a reminder that they’re so trustworthy.

Cruz had a few things to say about the Arizona Senator’s advise to “trust” the GOP.

“The senior senator from Arizona (John McCain) urged this body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear, I don’t trust the Republicans,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “And I don’t trust the Democrats.”

Cruz continued, “Unfortunately, one of the reasons we got into this mess is because a lot of Republicans were complicit in this spending spree. And that’s why so many Americans are disgusted with both sides of this house. Because we need leaders on both sides…to roll up our sleeves, to compromise, to work together and fix the problem, fix the enormous fiscal and economic problems. Stop bankrupting our country.”

“And every Republican who stands against holding the line here is really saying, let’s give the Democrats a blank check to borrow any money they want with no reforms, no leadership to fix the problem,” he added.

“I love Ted Cruz,” Glenn professed after hearing Ted Cruz strike down John McCain’s statement.

“You have to thank the Lord for Ted Cruz, don’t you?” Pat asked rhetorically.

Ted Cruz is not only unafraid to stand against the Democrats, he’s more than willing to call out the GOP when they’re not following the principals they claim to uphold. And while this makes him incredibly popular among the American people — especially grass roots conservatives — the congressional leadership is Washington isn’t as receptive to his boldness.

Senator Mike Lee, another Senator actually fighting for the people in Washington, was the bearer of Senator McCain’s frustrations to the new guard of conservative Senators making life a little less easy for Republican leadership.

Like Cruz, Senator Mike Lee of Utah also objects to initiating the House-Senate budget negotiations unless the debt-limit increase is taken off the table which seems to be frustrating Sen. McCain.

Thursday, John McCain took to the senate floor to “lecture” Sen. Mike Lee (and others) for ‘paralyzing process’.

“Obviously you’ve got to ‑‑ you can predict the outcome.  The senator from Utah keeps talking about back room closed‑door deals.  It’s the process of the Senate to appoint conferees and the House to appoint conferees, and those conferees come to agreement and then subject their agreement to an overall vote of both bodies.  If the ‑‑ if the senator from Utah wants to get rid of the, quote, back room, all of the other adjectives and adverbs that he used, then what is, what is the process?  What is the process?  How do we reconcile legislation that’s passed by one body and the other body?  There’s ‑‑ that’s what we’ve been doing for a couple of hundred years. ”

McCain continued, “so all I can say is, has the senator from Utah got another way of reconciling legislation between the House and the Senate?”

“Yeah, my guess is he does,” Pat responded about Lee after hearing the audio of John McCain. ”Yeah, without the back room closed‑door deals.  I’ll bet you Mike Lee could come up with a way.”

“I bet you he can,” Glenn added. ”And to have John McCain lecture him on the rules and on the Constitution.  Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar.  And to have him be lectured by this guy who sold his soul to, you know, a party and a system years ago is obscene, and you should be ashamed of yourself, the senior extraordinarily, extraordinarily senior senator from John McCain.”

The statements McCain made about Senators like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz “paralyzing the system” by refusing to move forward with negotiations are why conservative and libertarian Americans find this new class of congressmen so refreshing. Americans are sick of the system. They think it should be paralyzed or at the very least ‘cleaned up.’ The ‘go-with-the-flow’ attitude of congressional leaders, on both the right and the left, have gotten the country nothing but more debt and more divisiveness.

Senators like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul understand that you have to meet in the middle on some issues…they also understand that you don’t have to comprise your principals to do that.

Read the full profile of Ingrid Loyau-Kennett HERE

“There was one individual that stood up. One,” Glenn said. “It was a woman that stood up. In fact, she didn’t stand up. She first had to stand up, reach up, pull the little string to ring the bell so the bus would stop that she was on, so she got off the bus because she saw blood in the streets. She looked around all the sheep being led right directly to slaughter and walked up to the guy with the blood on his hands.”

“This woman approached him, confronted him. She then looked back at the crowd with contempt and disgust. You know what made her stand up in the bus? She said her Christian belief. She’s a Catholic. Her Christian belief. When she found out it wasn’t an accident, why did she pursue him? Because she said there were children there and she didn’t ‑‑ better to happen to her than a child.”

“Where were the rest of the sheep?”

“Here’s the difference between us and the greatest generation. The greatest generation we had leaders, and the greatest generation we had God. There were things that were bigger than us. There were things worth living for and there were things worth dying for. What are those things worth dying for anymore? What are those things worth standing for anymore? Your job? Your car, your house? How many of us will sit down to save our children? I don’t want my children to live in a world like that.”

Glenn said that people have been taught to be sheep, to be silent, and to no longer stand up for things bigger than themselves.

“Why do you think these people are so bold? Because you have been taught to be silent.”

“What is the difference between the three airplanes that crashed on September 11th? The first two didn’t know what was going on and they thought they would be left to live. They thought it was a hijacking and that was it. They didn’t think anybody was crazy enough to fly them into a building. The third plane, because they had information, they knew, and Todd Beamer stood up. It’s better to go down fightin’ than go down like sheep. We’re gonna save people. And so they rushed, and they lost, but we remember their name.”

“I will never forget, I will never forget Todd Beamer’s name. I will never forget ‘Let’s roll,’ and I am ashamed to say I will never forget the sheep in the streets of London.”

“Choose you today who do you serve? Choose today life or death. Choose today what the future is you want your children to live under. Freedom? Freedom where, yes, at times we can be divisive; or death. Because that is your choice: Submit or die. As for me and my family, I choose God.”

“I want to leave you with a story this hour of Deidri Hernandez,” Glenn said. “She has a 7‑year‑old son she’s not sending to school today. She has a 7‑year‑old son that goes to Tippecanoe School For the Arts and Humanities.”

He continued, “They are holding their Switch It Up Day. Now, this was originally billed as Gender Bender Day, but Tippecanoe officials made the name change after they called the principal. She said, ‘I don’t have a problem with the title; I have a problem with the activity.’ She says, ‘it’s ridiculous and creepy to ask elementary boys to come dressed as girls and girls to come dressed as boys. Having the students dressed as transvestites is not what I’m sending my child to school for.’”

“But apparently in Milwaukee, it is, according to school officials,” Glenn said.

“Switch It Up Day. They changed the name. It’s no longer Gender Bender. It’s Switch It Up Day,” he said.

Full transcript of the interview is below:

we have a Colorado sheriff Terry Maketa on. He is a guy, he’s one of the 55 of the 62 sheriffs in Colorado who are signed on now to a lawsuit to stop the new gun control measures in Colorado. He says that they’re vague and unenforceable and he’s going specifically after the high‑capacity magazine ban and the background check. We had him on the TV show a couple of days ago and I want to make sure you heard of his cause and his name because I think these guys need some help and need some people standing behind them. Terry, how are you, sir?

MAKETA: I’m doing real well. How are you doing?

GLENN: Very good. How far is El Paso County from Denver?

MAKETA: It’s about 70 miles to the south, straight south of Denver. And what’s surprising to a lot of ‑‑ what’s surprising to a lot of people is we are the most populated county.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Really? What cities ‑‑

GLENN: What towns?

PAT: Yeah.

MAKETA: It’s Colorado Springs, and a lot of people don’t realize, but the Denver metro area is made up of numerous counties, and El Paso County, Colorado Springs has the highest population.

PAT: Hmmm.

STU: That’s interesting. We’re always told, Sheriff, that law enforcement is very much behind the left’s movement of gun control. They don’t want guns on the street and yet in your state it’s 55 of 62 sheriffs are standing with you, right?

MAKETA: That is absolutely correct. And one thing that isn’t talked about a lot is there are also a lot of chiefs of police that are behind us at the municipal level, but they don’t have the freedom to speak their opinions that the sheriffs have.

PAT: Now, this was brought on, Sheriff, by the fact that Colorado just passed, was it four gun measures, and two of them in particular you take exception to. What are those two? And can you describe them a little bit? What do they do?

MAKETA: Well, yeah, there were four bills passed. And of those four, there are two that the sheriffs really have a problem with. The first is the background check, which was really sold to the public in vague terms as a universal background check under the auspice of “We’re trying to keep ‑‑ stop criminals from buying guns.” And the reality is that it is not limited to just the sale of private firearms. It’s far overreaching and it extends to, I like to give the example of a real life scenario of a military friend who goes off on deployment, leaves a firearm with his fiance with whom he shares the house and they are violating the law not only because he doesn’t obtain a background check every 30 days but because the magazine possesses more than 15 rounds, which leads me into the second law, and that’s the magazine ban. And they banned ‑‑ they set the number arbitrarily at 15 rounds when so many very common firearms are sold and designed with magazines that hold more than 15. But more importantly is they put language in there that if, if it has a removable base plate and can be modified. And when you get into language like that in law, it just subjects law‑abiding citizens to being criminalized and that’s really the problem we have with those two in very general terms.

STU: Is there any possible ‑‑ this is interesting because I can’t think of anything, in any category of anything you could possibly own that could not potentially be modified in some way. Of course it ‑‑ but anything you buy can be modified if you wish to modify it. How can that ‑‑ I mean, how can you add a restriction like that?

MAKETA: Well, that’s our contention is number one, there’s some other language that says, you know, what was the intent of the manufacturer? Did they design it with the intent that it could potentially be modified? How is law enforcement supposed to know the intent of the manufacturer? And, I’m not familiar with a magazine that does not have a removable baseplate. They all do because of maintenance and cleaning and so forth. And then for a family ‑‑ or let’s say you have a 30‑round magazine. You can never transfer them. I think that’s an infringement on your property rights. I mean, we’re all ‑‑ we all share a common goal of keeping criminals from obtaining guns. But to be honest common sense should tell us criminals usually don’t go to the retail outlets and subject themselves to a background. And when I talk about the lack of empirical evidence to support it, look at how many people are prosecuted who are turned down for checks and it’s a dismal, dismal number.

STU: I always find it fascinating. There he an a law in New York that passed, there’s this sort of new flurry of gun control laws after Sandy Hook obviously and the one in New York was fascinating in that it said you can have ‑‑ you can’t have over, I believe it was seven ‑‑ ten rounds in a magazine, I think it was ‑‑ or seven rounds in a magazine. But, of course, a lot of these guns had a 10‑round magazine. So they had to adjust the law that you can have a 10‑round magazine but you can only put seven bullets in it. That is ‑‑ there is absolutely no way a law like that can have an effect on a criminal. It can only have an effect on a law‑abiding citizen. No criminal is going to stop loading bullets at seven when he’s going to shoot up a school. He’s going to load as many bullets as he can into there. I mean, do you see any other motivation from these laws, of these laws other than just to take guns?

PAT: Criminalize.

STU: Is there any sort of law enforcement purpose that could possibly be applied to these rules?

MAKETA: Absolutely not. I mean, that is what is absolutely ridiculous is there is absolutely no fact to back these laws, to arbitrarily set numbers at 7, 10, 15 is absolutely absurd. And that clearly shows there’s an agenda. And what we saw in Colorado probably is a Republican indication of what occurred in New York, where facts were not allowed into the debate. It was purely emotional and it was purely political posturing and agenda‑driven with one goal in mind: To disarm law‑abiding citizens. Let’s focus on the criminals, let’s pass laws that hold them accountable and not punish law‑abiding citizens for the actions of one.

And I’ll tell you another thing that was forgotten in all of the tragedies involving mass shootings is in most cases the gunmen had multiple firearms. They didn’t just have one weapon that they had to reload. They had two and three and four weapons.

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

PAT: That’s not important to those who are just trying to take our guns, though. They don’t care about any of the facts. They skip over them. They ignore them. They lie about them. But your contention is right now that not only are these laws unenforceable but you and your fellow sheriffs have no intention of ever enforcing them, right?

MAKETA: Well, we’ve made that position clear because you can’t enforce them without violating citizens’ constitutional rights.

PAT: That’s fantastic.

MAKETA: Under the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.

GLENN: How do you expect this ‑‑ how do you expect this to end up? I mean, we are headed on a collision course here.

MAKETA: Well, I’ll tell you I think we’ve assembled a phenomenal group of people to defend the citizens and their rights and I think we’ve raised some very key points in our lawsuit, and I’m pretty confident that this could be a pivotal time, a historic time at least in Colorado to start pushing back. And we’ve got tremendous ‑‑ it’s shocking how much citizen support we have. But I think we’re going to be successful ‑‑

GLENN: How can we help you?

MAKETA: And I think the lie told in the legislature is going to come true. And to answer your question, I think the key is to get the word out, get the truth out, and I think citizens will apply the common sense and say, okay, not only was I misled on what these laws are but the facts just don’t ‑‑ the facts they were sold to us on just don’t add up.

GLENN: All right. Thank you so much and, Terry, let us know how we can help El Paso County, Colorado sheriff Terry Maketa who is leading the fight, new lawsuit now to stop the new gun control measures in Colorado.

You know, as I’m listening to him, I’m thinking the sheriffs like him are going to be the first that are targeted. You know, the ‑‑ I don’t know if you saw those pictures on TheBlaze a couple of days ago when there was the small protests that were happening around the country at the IRS offices and these protests were happening and there were police cars there, and in very fine print it said “Homeland Security.” In big print it said “Police.” And I thought when did we have ‑‑ when did we develop a national police force? When did that happen? We’ve never had a national police force before. We don’t want a national police force, a national police force that would report right directly to the president. You need a national police force, that’s the National Guard. And they are called out by the governors, not by the president. By the governors. What they’ve done is they’ve destroyed the Tenth Amendment, and this national police force is going to be there to back the other police force, and the first ones that they will bust will be the sheriffs. And the sheriffs are the only ones elected by you. They are elected directly by you. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And these guys are going to be outlaws. They really are. I really, truly believe they are going to be in real trouble. Preachers, look. Follow their lead. Follow their lead. If you are a preacher or a pastor or a rabbi, if you are a so‑called community leader, if you don’t ‑‑ if you don’t know in your heart of hearts that if a tyrant, left or right, ever took control of this country and you don’t know that one of the first doors that would be knocked on would be yours, you are not doing your job. You’re not standing for man’s freedom. What is it you are doing? If you’re not the first to be targeted, what purpose do you serve?

I want to go over something I went over last night on the TV show. It’s a really simple question, really simple question. With these scandals that are going on around the White House, it’s time for the American people to use some logic and ask themselves this question: What if the president and the top officials in his administration are actually telling the truth? Let’s take the man at his word, and it’s really hard to do seeing that this ‑‑ the truth keeps shifting six or seven times just in the last few days. It makes it quite a leap of faith to believe anything that they say. But today I really want you to take him at his word and let’s say they really didn’t know about any of these scandals. The story line the administration wants you to believe, and they want you to believe it because that somehow or another is better for them. If it’s really the truth, does it matter? It’s really hard to believe that this is the truth, but I’m going to give it to you just as they have laid it out and then ask you if you believe it and then ask you to believe it for a second and ask what does it say. Where does it leave us? What does it say about the future of our country? What does it say about this president? Are we headed in the right direction? Will we and our children be more safe or less safe? Let’s follow their lead. Let’s take them at their word. The mantra of this administration in the face of all three of these scandals is “We don’t know, we weren’t aware, I don’t ‑‑ I don’t know exactly, I certainly didn’t know anything and there certainly was no knowledge at the White House.” Those are all quotes. So pull back and think about those things. Three huge scandals and no one in the White House or around the president knew. That’s what they’re asking you to believe. But I want to ask you to believe it for a second. What does that mean if it actually is the truth? On the IRS the president wants you to believe that even though the IRS commission visited ‑‑ the commissioner visited the White House 118 times and the IRS commissioner knew about the scandal for over a year, that most of his senior White House staff knew of the scandal for over a year, the media was reporting on the targeting, TheBlaze had broken the news in 2012. And I want you to know we know for a fact. We know for a fact that this president is very aware of the things that we say. We know for a fact because we know people who have been in rooms. We know for a fact that this president discusses the things that we discuss on this program. So despite the fact that not only us but the media was reporting on the targeting in February 2012, this president had no idea. The charges were brought up at a congressional hearing last year. He always seems to find out things from the news. That was in the news. No one told him. He didn’t ask. His own team was debating internally at the White House with IRS officials on how to manage the public relations fallout, and somehow or another he didn’t know. Despite all of this swirling around, despite the fact that a president is also a political animal, politics matter, no one went and cracked open his door and said, “Mr. President, we have a problem.” No one asked him anything. He still doesn’t know anything. Carney has said “We weren’t aware of any activity or any review.” Really? The president has said “I can assure you I certainly didn’t know anything.”

It’s virtually impossible for the president to have not known anything about this scandal. It’s virtually impossible… unless he is completely isolated. There are millions of ways he could have found out: The news, his staff, 118 visits, little coffee klatches, actually listening to people. But he didn’t know. Let’s take him at his word. What does that mean? That means that this president, the IRS commissioner reports directly to the president. The IRS commissioner was meeting at the White House 118 times. It’s under the treasury. He meets with the treasury. It is literally down the hallway. You’ve got to go downstairs and through a hallway underground and you’re in the treasury building. The treasury is next door to the White House. It’s not across town. They report directly to the president, and he didn’t know. The only way that’s true is he’s out of the loop, he’s disengaged, he’s not in charge of his people, he has said “I’m going golfing; you guys take care of it.” He is more his wife who says she hates the White House, she hates politics and she doesn’t want anything to do with it. It’s ‑‑ he’s really asking us to believe that golf is ahead of knowing what’s going on. If that is true, if it is true that he doesn’t know, why? How can he effectively govern if he doesn’t know? And if he’s not the one being informed and updated, if he’s not the one setting the course, who is? Because we elected him to oversee. We elected him to get to the bottom of it. We elected him, not somebody else. He appoints all of these people. Did he give them carte blanche and do whatever they want and then don’t call me about it; I don’t want to know. I’m busy golfing. What is the story?

Being that our government is made up of elected representatives, the American people have the right to know who’s calling the shots. Is it the president or is it not? And if it’s not, fine; just tell us who is calling the shots. Is keeping the president out of the loop, is that intentional? I mean, remember with the Iran contra thing, the problem was they intentionally kept the president out of the loop. That was one scandal. This seems to be everything in his administration. This president doesn’t know what’s going on.

If the president president’s story line is accurate, either he’s not in charge or big government is failing… or, you know, the other, of course, we won’t accept for the purpose of this monologue as being true: He’s lying. The Associated Press, this thing shifts so fast, I don’t know how you can figure out what they’re saying to you. But the Associated Press and Fox News and CBS scandals where they’re wiretapping, they were wiretapping the phones of journalists. Once again, the White House just doesn’t have a clue, other than ‑‑ and this is a quote ‑‑ from hearing the press reports. Wow. Why even have an executive summary in the morning? Just pop on the TV. The man in charge of the DOJ, the attorney general, Eric Holder, doesn’t have a clue. He claimed he didn’t know anything about the AP, yet today we can report that he is now, new information, the guy who ordered the hit on Fox. But for the AP, Holder said he certainly didn’t alert the White House. Really? The reason why he did the AP is because he said it was the third biggest leak, one of the top three biggest leaks he’s ever seen, since 1973. It was vital to the nation’s interest and one of the most dangerous internal leaks he’s ever seen.

Now, I don’t know about you, but if we’re ‑‑ if we have dangerous leaks and one of the top three and the guy who reports directly to me ‑‑ remember, Eric Holder’s boss is the president. There’s nobody in between him and the president. Eric Holder’s boss is the president, and he never decides to go over in all of his meetings and crack the door and say, “Mr. President, we have the most ‑‑ one of the top three most dangerous leaks I’ve ever seen.” He never briefs the president on it? Not once? What does that mean? If the president didn’t really know, was your life put in harm’s way because they didn’t alert the president? He called this one of the most serious leaks of all time. If it was such a serious threat to national security, you didn’t alert the president of the United States as to what was happening? Americans were in danger and this president wants us to believe that for some reason, I don’t know what yet, but for some reason he was so detached from the office of the presidency, either campaigning or campaigning for gun control or playing golf or going on vacation or planning another party at the White House, that he didn’t even know a serious leak, one of the top three, was actually threatening American lives. If the president is not informed on serious threats to national security like this, who is being informed of these things? Who is calling the shot? Who does Eric Holder actually report to? What other security threats is he not being informed about? What else is he missing? What else doesn’t he know? Does it make America less or more safe? What does it mean for free speech that the president, who’s the one who lifted his hand and said to protect and defend the Constitution of America, what does it mean? Does the president’s indifference and disconnection from the issue promote free speech or stifle it? Does it keep the government in check? What message does it send if the president shows no interest in the stopping of the systematic targeting of whistleblowers and members of the press? Will it cause more people or less people to risk their livelihoods in order to keep government accountable and tell the truth? If less people are willing to speak out against the government, does that increase or decrease government power is this does it increase or decrease government abuses of that power? Is it good for you and your family if there are no whistleblowers?

On Benghazi, on top of ‑‑ on top of all of these things, the top officials in the White House had no earthly idea that trouble was on the horizon in Benghazi. All of them have said they didn’t have any intelligence prior to, but the facts now show they had plenty of intelligence on it. The president said he didn’t know that there were requests. He was, quote, personally not aware of any requests. No one in the administration knew. They weren’t told that they wanted more security. Well, who was? Who was? If the administration could miss all of the intelligence warnings that came in advance of the Benghazi attacks for September 11th, the day of any day we have to be more prepared and they weren’t aware of those attacks, they didn’t hear the voices crying out from the desert in the most dangerous place, if they couldn’t hear that, how did they miss that? If the president and the secretary of state didn’t have any information, any connection or apparent interest in the safety precautions for Benghazi at that time on September 11th, are public servants less safe or more safe today? Is America less safe or more safe? If they’re willing to go against the intelligence reports and concoct a bogus story about a video while claiming it was the best available intelligence, which it wasn’t, we now know, but they say they ‑‑ that’s all they saw, well, don’t you think we need to find out who put that bogus intelligence in and then claim to the president that’s the best we have? Shouldn’t we be firing that person right now? Shouldn’t the president be smoked beyond belief? Let’s just say that he still doesn’t get it. If he still doesn’t get it and he really didn’t know and he’s not really interested in finding the person that really put that bogus intelligence in there and then said that that was the best intelligence available, what else is this president being fed lies about that he’s gullible enough to believe?

For the purpose of this monologue, what else is he willing to be ‑‑ to believe because he’s just so disengaged? And in seeing that they haven’t been outraged by the YouTube video lies and haven’t fired the people responsible, does that make it more or less reasonable that they understand the security of the United States of America and your family the way you do? Seeing that the leaders around the world, including the president of Libya, came out on television the very next day and said “This is ridiculous; this was obviously a terrorist attack” and then we send Rice all across the television to tell the lies, the president did from the rose garden. Will the rest of the world trust us and our vision and our common sense more or less? And if the president laid out, you know, went to bed, as Leon Panetta said, had a quick briefing with him at 5:00 and then went to bed and then never heard any ‑‑ never heard a peep from the president or the White House, nobody contacted to find out what the Pentagon was doing. The Pentagon made all of the calls; the president was uninvolved; does that make you comfortable? Let me ask the left: That means the military industrial complex is not being watched over a guy you elected. That means the president of the United States said, “You just take care of it. Whatever you want.” Really? You’re comfortable with that? Because even a hawk like me, I’m not comfortable with that.

The president exercised his executive privilege and claimed Eric Holder was not aware. He and Eric Holder of Fast and Furious, he says he has complete confidence in that. Now here’s ‑‑ this is a gun‑running operation. Really? Help me out with that. Help me out. What does it mean? The president of the United States and the top man at the DOJ have no earthly idea that their own people are literally arming drug cartels with thousands of guns. Does that make Americans and our neighbors in Mexico less safe or more safe? If some rogue government underlings can get away with arming deadly drug cartels with guns and escape the notice of the management of the United States, what other dangerous activity are they engaging in that they don’t know about? How can the president lead if the president doesn’t have a clue on what’s happening around him? He doesn’t know what’s going on at the IRS; Americans become victims. He doesn’t know what’s going on at the DOJ, and both American citizens and members of the American press become victims. He doesn’t know what’s going overseas and Americans are victims, murdered in cold blood. He doesn’t know what’s going on with Fast and Furious and American border patrol agents like Brian Terry become victims, murdered, and people across the border are killed by the guns that were run by the DOJ.

This is the scenario that our president is asking you, hoping that you will believe, a scenario where through their incompetence and indifference Americans suffer as they get to the bottom of it. But they haven’t gotten to the bottom of it. There’s been celebrity parties and vacations. There’s been campaigning against the Second Amendment, and there’s been a lot of golf. You tell me. If that’s what they want you to believe, how bad is the truth?

Brace yourself – Weiner humiliation in 3, 2, 1…

Cruz said:

The senior senator from Arizona urged this body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear: I don’t trust the Republicans, and I don’t trust the Democrats, and I think a whole lot of Americans likewise don’t trust the Republicans and the Democrats because it is leadership in both parties that has gotten us in this mess.

You know, my wife and I have two little girls at home. They’re 5 and 2. When Caroline was born, our national debt was $10 trillion. Today it’s nearly $17 trillion. In her short five years of life, the national debt has grown by over 60%. Madam president, what we are doing to our kids and grandkids I think is immoral. Now, I commend the Democrats in this body for their candor. The Democrats and President Obama have been very explicit it is their intention to raise the debt ceiling and to do so with no conditions whatsoever, just to keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing money without any structural reforms to fix the problems. That is an intellectually consistent position, I think it is a dangerous position but it is at least candid and that’s the reason why every day for 60 days the Democrats have opposed taking the debt ceiling off the table in this discussion. But unfortunately one of the reasons we got into this mess is because a lot of Republicans were complicit in this spending spree and that’s why so many Americans are disgusted with both sides of this house.

“Wow, is that great stuff,” Pat said, “And true, every word of it.  And who else will stand up and say that, and who else will stand up and take on their own party leadership is this who else will do an ‘in your face’ to John McCain?  They all cower in fear of him for whatever reason.  But Cruz stands up and puts him in his place:  ’You told us to trust Republicans?  Well, I don’t. That’s fantastic.”

Radio host and friend of TheBlaze Dana Loesch happened to be one of them.

Piers Morgan was not.

Given all of the scrutiny the mainstream media and the Democrats pour on the NRA for violence in the U.S., Dana had a few things to say about such a gruesome attack happening in a country with some of the most strict gun laws in the world.

Was the guy with the machete a member of the NRA? Asking for a friend.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 22, 2013

This quickly erupted into an epic Twitter brawl where Piers, in his typical fashion, put words in Dana’s mouth, accused her of doing things she wasn’t, and, of course, made himself out to be a giant hypocrite.

You think the beheading of a soldier is something to be glib about??? > RT @dloesch Was the guy with the machete a member of the NRA?

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) May 22, 2013

A bold statement coming from a man who was fired from his job as an editor in the U.K. for publishing fake photos of soldiers being abusive.

FLASHBACK: Editor sacked over ‘hoax’ photos news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/p… cc @piersmorgan

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 22, 2013

Stay classy, Piers.

Piers, a man from England who provides commentary on American politics for a living, clearly didn’t enjoy when an American commented on England’s stance on guns and other weapons, which left one of their own soldiers defenseless against terrorists. The heated Twitter exchanged ended with Piers Morgan banning Dana from ever appearing on his show again. Oh, and he “unfollowed” her.

…the nerve…

This morning Pat and Stu revealed the sheer depression Dana must be suffering from now that she has been banned from his show and its 11 viewers.

“I’m sure she’s very upset by this,” Stu said.

“Oh, my gosh. How do you even go on once you’ve had a tasted of the Piers Morgan show and then you’ve been banned from it!” Pat joked. “She must be distraught.”

The spat with Piers — who claimed to be outraged over ‘disrespect towards the troops’ — brought on an avalanche of violent and disturbing tweets Dana’s way from his Twitter followers. The defender of respect, ironically, had nothing to say about the individuals that followed his lead in the attack on Loesch.

I now believe that @piersmorgan wholly supports the death, rape threats he sent my way, plus horrific sexual slurs. twitchy.com/2013/05/22/dro…

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 23, 2013

Dana’s many supporters were quick to defend her, and earlier today launched the hashtag #DanaLoeschPenalities. A clear jab at the idea that being “banned” from Piers’s show would somehow be a major loss.

Ironically, Piers (or his staff) must have been far more distraught at the thought of Dana no longer appearing on his show, because earlier today Dana tweeted this:

Relatedly, I heard from Morgan’s awesome producer yesterday. Texted me to laugh about spat, said they’d probably be calling in a few weeks.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 23, 2013

Stu and Pat suggested they send Dana flowers. No word yet on weather they are for sympathy or congratulations.