'Rat' Lindsey Graham Endorses 'Ratatouille' Ted Cruz

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham endorsed Ted Cruz for president on Thursday, raising eyebrows for many who remember Graham as one of Cruz's harshest critics.

Yes, this is the same Lindsey Graham who said Ted Cruz could be shot and killed on the floor of the Senate and nobody would notice. He also said choosing between Cruz and Donald Trump is "like choosing between being shot or poisoned."

Makes total sense right?

Well, not for everybody. Friday on The Glenn Beck Program, co-hosts Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere struggled to understand why Glenn loves the endorsement.

"I heard it yesterday and I'm like, 'This is fantastic,'" Glenn said. "Pat reads it, and he's like, 'He should just shut up.'"

Pat couldn’t help but share what his response would have been.

"Yeah, I said he should tell him, 'No, thank you. No. I mean, that's really sweet and everything. No,'" Pat said.

Ever the pragmatist, Stu eventually came around.

"I mean, it is good that people --- you want the establishment to detest you, but eventually to be okay throwing the money that is donated to, you know, the party. And you want the apparatus behind you, if you can get it," Stu said.

Typically, you wouldn’t want to compare the candidate you are out stumping for to a rat, but Glenn shared his best Ratatouille analogy and took a slight shot at Lindsey Graham in the process.

FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP/Getty Images

"Here's you all have to know: In Ratatouille, there's a good rat. And there's some bad rats, okay? Just imagine that the bad rat is Lindsey Graham. Got it? I know that's hard to imagine Lindsey Graham as a nasty, weasely little dirty rat," Glenn said.

"Ratatouille the whole time was saying, 'Hey, I'm going to be a chef, and I'm going to work in the kitchen.' And all of the bad rats were like, 'We're not working in the kitchen. We're rats. We're going to steal the food. That's what we do. We're going to live in the sewers.' And he's like, 'No, we're going to clean our hands, and I'm going to work in the kitchen.'"

It’s actually not too difficult to picture Washington D.C. politicians as rats, but what would be a miracle is to get them all to follow a "chef" that actually knows what he’s doing.

"None of the other rats wanted to work in the kitchen. But at some point at the end, all of the rats were, 'Okay. Put me in the steamer. Clean me. Fluff my hair up. I'll work in the kitchen,'" Glenn said.

Leave it to Stu however, to take the analogy literally.

"But then the country gets their food made by a rat?" Stu said.

"Okay, it's got some holes in it. It's just off the top of my head. It's not something I worked out in advance," Glenn said. "Yeah, they washed their hands. They're fine. And everything works out in the end. I think they lose the restaurant and everything else because there were rats working in the kitchen. But, again, let's not think this through."

Featured Image: Senator Lindsey Graham is interviewed by Dana Bash during CNN's Politics On Tap at Walnut Brewery on October 27, 2015 in Boulder, Colorado. 25763_001 (Photo by Jason Bahr/Getty Images for CNN)

3,000 migrants just crossed the Honduran/Guatemala border en route to the United States. President Trump threatened both countries yesterday with pulling all financial aid if the two countries don't do something to stop it. Every year we give about 100 million to Guatemala with a good majority going to their military and security services. Over the last two years we've given Honduras over 260 million. Again, a vast majority goes to keep their military and security apparatus up and running. In short, if we stop writing those checks, both the Honduran and Guatemalan governments are going to have some very big problems.

FLASHBACK: Trump send troops to stop migrant 'caravan' headed for US — but here's who's funding the migrants

It's such a big issue that the Honduran President made a public address to his country yesterday. The foreign ministry also made a statement saying the government:

Urges the Hondurans taking part in this irregular mobilization not to be used by a movement that is clearly political.

Political? What does that mean? Well, it turns out that this caravan is different from the one coming from Mexico back in April. That previous caravan had serious backing in the form of manpower, organization and money from George Soros. It was a strategic political stunt that - at the time - dominated the media. That caravan was directed at causing waves here in the United States, but this current one isn't directed at us at all. This is all about radical left wing politics in Honduras.

As the three thousand migrants crossed into Guatemala, the Guatemalan government detained one man. His name is Bartolo Fuentes, and he's the organizer of this entire charade that - just like back in April - is beginning to get massive coverage... and even a tweet by President Trump. And this is exactly what Fuentes and his merry band of Leftists want.

Fuentes is the ex-deputy of the Honduran Liberty and Refoundation Party. Their members are supporters of the former Honduran President that was ousted by the military in a coup back in 2009. Saying they're Leftist doesn't quite give it justice. They wanted to form a partnership with both Hugo Chavez and the Castros to create some kind of South American Communist mega alliance. The former president was ousted on the eve of a special election where he wanted to rewrite the constitution to make sweeping changes. His followers, like this current caravan organizer, never forgot. They've been staging political stunts ever since to try and undermine the more right leaning government.

They want a showdown at the U.S. border. And you better believe they want the cameras rolling when it happens.

The use of these "migrant caravans" is only going to get worse. Leftists like Soros, and even this group in Honduras, have no qualms at all with using men, women and children in incredibly dangerous situations to further their politics. They don't really care about these people. They're doing the same thing that Hamas is doing with the Palestinians in Gaza.

They want a showdown at the U.S. border. And you better believe they want the cameras rolling when it happens.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Glenn Beck on Monday's show to refute the progressive narrative that America's founding documents, in particular the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, are irrelevant in modern-day America.

"Fact or fiction?" Glenn asked.

"Absolute fiction. It's the anti-truth. It's a false doctrine of the first order," replied Lee. "The Declaration of Independence is sort of the spiritual founding document of our country. It provided the feeling of the American people and still supplies that to this day."

"The Constitution is also important because it provides the structure," he continued. "The spirit of our country, what it means to be an American, is still in the Declaration of Independence."

The conversation turned to the question of slavery and how our Founding Father's could have believed that "all men are created equal" when many of them owned slaves. Glenn shared that he has acquired an 1830 engraving of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. According to this draft, Thomas Jefferson originally made a strong case against slavery, but the passage was removed in the final version.

"How is this not being taught in school?" Glenn asked. "How come we don't know that? Because it changes everything, does it not?"

"It certainly does," Lee answered. "I think it gives meaning, first of all, to the early lines within the Declaration of Independence, that these truths are self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted among men to promote and protect these ends."

Watch the video clip above to catch more of this conversation.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Well, it's officially official… Michael Avenatti is the worst lawyer in the history of ridiculously bad lawyers. I'm trying to figure out what "National Day" this should be, because with Avenatti it really could go either way. Right now it's a toss up between "The No Good Very Bad Lawyer Day" or "The No Good Very Bad Political Operative Day."

A federal judge yesterday seemed to be confused on that as well. Avenatti has been representing Stormy Daniels in a defamation lawsuit against President Trump. It all started when Avenatti, with his infinite superstar lawyer awesomeness, decided to build his case off of - get this…. A TWEET from the president. Trump tweeted this back in April regarding a man, allegedly sent by Trump, that had threatened her not to come forward with her story:

A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!

BOOM, Avenatti let loose the hounds of… well, a defamation suit.

But the judge yesterday couldn't tell if this was just bad lawyering or some kind of game of political football. Either way, he opted to rule it as both. The judge stated that the president's tweet was "rhetorical hyperbole", protected under the first amendment, and all or part of the quote "politics and public discourse in the United States."

So forget for a moment that a federal judge has just highlighted that a defamation lawsuit between a sitting U.S. President, a pornstar, and a political activist - masquerading as a lawyer - is now considered normal and business as usual. Consider for just a second that this "lawyer", is actually considering running for president. A man that has shown no qualms at all with parading women (first Daniels and then Swetnick) in front of the entire world, embarrass them, and do it all for his own ugly political greed.

To everyone that donated, you just paid President Trump's lawyers over half a million dollars.

The federal judge ordered the case closed, and Stormy Daniels to pay for all the president's legal fees. And this might be the funniest thing to come out of all this. Daniels set up a Crowd Justice page, kind of like a Go Fund Me, back in April to pay for all her legal fees. As of today that page has raised five hundred and eighty-six thousand dollars. So, to everyone that donated, you just paid President Trump's lawyers over half a million dollars.

As the kids these days say… L-O-L

Wait, 'white woman' is now a disparaging term? I can't even.

Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images

Feminism began in the 1830s as a revolution by affluent white women who wanted birth control and the right to vote. As feminism developed, it expanded its focus so that women of every sort were included. It has even expanded further beyond women, to "marginalized communities." Lately, it's gone a step further and started doing some "marginalizing" of its own.

The madness of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was a watershed event. The entire country got an up-close view of what feminism has come to. It has become remarkably anti-truth, or at least unconcerned with truth. Instead, it's about destruction.

RELATED: Kavanaugh might be the force to turn back the blue wave

A lot of women sided with Dr. Ford, because they saw Ford as a symbol of womanhood, just as many people saw Kavanaugh, not just as a man, and not just a white man, but as the symbol of the system they claim to fight, the patriarchy.

For many reasons, the term "white man" has become derogatory, an honest-to-God insult that is not applied to any other race or gender, not in that openly insulting way. The indenting-obsessed feminists and activists have led an untiring charge against white men, and, until now, he's faced the outrage alone, quietly. White women, on the other hand, were part of that struggle against white men. They, like their fellow marginalized people, were the victims of white straight cis-gendered men. But postmodernism and social justice don't stop until the entire house collapses, so now they're going after white women as well.

A recent article in National Review titled "'White Women' Becomes a Disparaging Term" examines this shift.

Today, white women are being lumped together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation. They're being told to step back and know their place by writers in the New York Times ("white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain"), The New Yorker ("despite the enduring legacy of testimony by black women, white women have often played the protagonists in the history of sexual violence, and black women have been relegated to the supporting cast") and NBC News ("white women who voted for Trump . . . clearly have no issue with the president's openly misogynistic behavior, his demeaning of female reporters and his mocking of [Christine Blasey] Ford).

The author adds that:

A writer for The Root castigated Taylor Swift because "like some white women, she uses her privilege to not be involved until she's directly affected." Talia Lavin, the New Yorker fact-checker who resigned in June after erroneously suggesting that an ICE agent (who turned out to be a combat-wounded Marine Corps veteran) had a Nazi tattoo, continues to contribute to The New Yorker and tells her 51,000 Twitter followers, "patriarchy won't protect you no matter how hard white women fight for it." "White women use strategic tears to silence women of colour," ran a headline in the Guardian. On the basis of five phone calls, plus the story of what happened to Emmett Till in 1955, Rolling Stone published an essay entitled, "Why White Women Keep Calling the Police on Black People," blaming them for "a new 21st-century version of Jim Crow."

The mainstream media, like 4th wave feminists—and, believe me, there is a serious overlap—has become interested in activism. They want to destroy everything that they disagree with—the most horrible person to them would be the cis-gendered straight, able-bodied, financially-independent white man who is politically conservative and Christian, especially if he voted for Trump and listens to Kanye.

The Left's kind of activism is dangerous, too, because it's a postmodern form of activism, so truth doesn't matter and language is a weapon used to attack whoever is deems "oppressors," which has, until now, been mostly white men and anyone who tries to defend them and anyone who disagrees with the postmodern politics of the Left. Anyone who has tried to stand up and say, "This isn't right, you're being sexist and racist by accusing 'white men' of all these things, and calling them sexist and racist." But that doesn't matter. And it doesn't work. These people have literally accused Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, of antisemitism, and called Candace Owens and Kanye West, who are black, white supremacists. They call Christina Hoff Sommers, who is a feminist woman, a misogynist. We could spend all day going through examples, but you know plenty already.

These activists can say whatever they want and attack whomever they please and nobody can stop them.

These activists can say whatever they want and attack whomever they please and nobody can stop them. As anyone who has so much as disagreed with them will tell you, they are ruthless. White women used to be part of their tribe. But now, they are finding out how ruthless their former allies can be. Hopefully, there's enough sanity left among enough people in that tribe to realize what's going on. Hopefully, they realized that maybe they'll be next.