The Glenn Beck Program - Ep 37 ｜ Mike Lee ｜ The Glenn Beck Podcast

00:00:00.000 My guest on the podcast today has got to be one of the only people in the world who is friends

00:00:04.500 with both me and Bernie Sanders. We'll talk about that. We'll also dig into his passion for our

00:00:10.520 nation's founding documents, the lifeblood of America. He came to his passion, honestly,

00:00:15.320 when you grow up hearing about the founders and the Constitution around the kitchen table

00:00:19.040 and watching your father argue cases before the Supreme Court, you're probably destined

00:00:23.880 for a law career. But he is a former federal prosecutor, served as a law clerk for Supreme

00:00:30.460 Court Justice Samuel Alito. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010. He serves on the Judiciary,

00:00:36.280 Commerce and Energy Committees. He is currently the chair of the Joint Economic Committee. He is

00:00:42.300 consistently one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate and also is one of the nicest

00:00:47.940 and probably most well-liked on both sides. He's also the New York Times bestselling author of three

00:00:53.240 books, including his latest, Our Lost Declaration, America's Fight Against Tyranny from King George

00:00:59.660 to the Deep State. We talk about Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution all the way to John Roberts on

00:01:07.220 the Supreme Court. And I saw a side of Mike Lee I haven't seen before. And also the socialist Democrats

00:01:14.960 that are running that he works with in the Senate and Donald Trump. Surprising interview with Senator Mike

00:01:21.720 Mike Lee. Mike, the words we hold these truths to be self-evident has really bothered me lately

00:01:46.860 because I'm not sure that we have any truths that we find self-evident anymore.

00:01:55.660 If those aren't self-evident, what is?

00:01:59.720 But you know, I guess I used to think you could wake anybody up in the middle of the night. You

00:02:05.880 would say, hey, should you be free? Of course. Should the government pick you up in the middle of

00:02:09.940 the night? Of course not. Should you be able to write your own destiny? Should somebody be able

00:02:15.520 just to take your life on a charge and you don't have a way to respond to it? In the middle of the

00:02:22.900 night, people could be woken up and they'd be like, what are you talking about? Of course not. That's

00:02:27.720 that's OK. But that's not true in China. I could wake people up in China and they won't answer it the 0.99

00:02:34.940 same way. And we are losing our grasp on so much truth. Should somebody have a chance to defend

00:02:44.960 themselves and not be called in front of a tribunal for a witch hunt? I would hope most Americans would

00:02:52.120 get that one right, even in the middle of the night with some liability. Are we? Look at Me Too. Look

00:02:58.400 at Kavanaugh. Look at some of the things that we're doing right now. You don't get a trial. You're just

00:03:03.040 guilty. Yeah. So we've accepted the fact that in a formal legal proceeding, you have a presumption

00:03:10.180 of innocence. We started to stray from it in our interpersonal interactions and in even our public

00:03:15.620 interactions. So that is a disturbing trend. A chill wind blows. We will generally answer the question

00:03:22.500 right when asked the question in the right way. But I worry that cultural norms are eroding our

00:03:28.940 concept of what it means to have a presumption of innocence. So can a society have two standards?

00:03:38.040 No, and it shouldn't. And I think it's one of the reasons why in China for so many decades, 0.97

00:03:44.060 they've been really bad and gotten away with being really bad and mistreating their people.

00:03:50.080 I don't think there was the same type of cultural resistance to that sort of thing. I don't think the

00:03:56.640 Scottish Enlightenment had a chance to work its will on the Chinese people in the same way that 0.89

00:04:01.900 it did on the American people prior to the American Revolution. So we come from a different starting

00:04:06.680 point. And that's one reason why we should expect more of ourselves. But our starting point really is

00:04:12.560 the starting of everybody's life. You know, if you're not trained this way, if you're not brought up

00:04:19.240 this way, we've done such a horrible job at teaching our children, oh, they know about rights.

00:04:26.080 But how many know about responsibilities? How many know why those rights? How many can actually name

00:04:30.900 just the five rights in the First Amendment?

00:04:34.580 I suspect that most can't. And in fact, I saw one statistic suggesting there are maybe as many as 40%

00:04:40.440 of Americans can't identify which rights are protected by the First Amendment. That's troubling.

00:04:45.640 And I think one of the things that causes us to steer away from that is that we have

00:04:50.360 diluted the word right. We have started to embrace just in our language, in our day-to-day

00:04:57.240 conversation, we tend to associate the word right with things that we like. I have a right to be happy

00:05:03.860 is different than the fact that I have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Those are two different

00:05:10.500 things. Rights typically are things the government can't do to you. They are not things that someone

00:05:16.400 has the right to take away from someone else in order to give it to you.

00:05:20.620 Is health care a right?

00:05:21.540 Well, no, because health care is something that you consume. It's necessary, just like food is

00:05:28.660 necessary, just like a lot of things are necessary, but they are not the government's responsibility to

00:05:33.360 provide for you. And if the government takes away from A to give to B, that's not a right.

00:05:38.760 That's the transference of something, of a good or of a service.

00:05:43.180 So wouldn't, let's say food, health care. Health care is not a right. You have the right to access

00:05:51.340 health care, right?

00:05:53.020 Sure. You certainly should have the right to be able to access health care and to not have the

00:05:57.360 government interfering with your ability to access health care. And you should have the right to not

00:06:03.160 be systematically discriminated against in your access to that or any other service based on your

00:06:08.980 skin color, for example, or based on who your parents were.

00:06:12.560 So I remember reading a story and I don't remember where this was from. It's either in the Northwest or

00:06:16.820 the Northeast, a guy who was living on the land and he was fishing and he didn't want a fishing

00:06:23.120 permit or a license. And he said, I have a right to access this river because he was, that's how he lived.

00:06:29.920 I have a right to access this river and pull fish from this river without government

00:06:36.120 interference. Does that right exist? Is that a right?

00:06:40.700 I would ask who owns the waterway, who owns the bank on the river? What is his concepts of ownership

00:06:47.360 there? I don't know that you can consider that a right if someone else owns it, if somebody else

00:06:53.000 owns that property. Some of that requires us to look at property rights and at laws governing who

00:06:59.960 owns what. Well, it's private property, but if it's not private property, you know, if it's, I mean,

00:07:06.120 government public land, don't you have a right? The theory behind government public land is that it

00:07:14.080 should be public. It should be made equally available to all. And so if government owns a parcel of land and

00:07:20.360 it gives some people preferential access to that and denies all others access to that, that's a

00:07:26.200 problem. I still don't know that that's necessarily properly considered a right because it's more of a

00:07:31.760 license. It's more of an access, but it's also one of the reasons why we ought to question why the

00:07:36.440 federal government ought to own roughly 30% of the land mass in the United States. Because when the

00:07:41.700 government owns that much land, then it's the government deciding who gets the benefits. It's the

00:07:47.580 government granting, as if they were rights, something else. Nowhere in the Constitution does

00:07:52.640 it say we have a right to privacy, but we do have an inherent right to privacy in some regard. We have

00:07:59.560 a right to be secure in our papers, but just because they said papers, don't we have a problem with things

00:08:09.000 like the NSA? Even just collecting, not even listening, just collecting. I'm not secure in my own papers.

00:08:15.540 Right. And you should be. You do have a right to that. You have a right to have the government

00:08:20.460 not interfere with your communications or even intercept them. Your papers, your house,

00:08:28.780 your personal effects, those are things that don't belong to the government. They belong to you. And

00:08:33.160 they're not supposed to gain access to them without a warrant predicated on probable cause.

00:08:37.680 Have you seen the legislation out of Europe that is the right to be forgotten?

00:08:46.020 Yes. I've heard about it. I'm good. So the right to be forgotten, as I understand it, is

00:08:51.660 you make a mistake and there's a natural period where everybody might know about it. But after 10 or 20

00:09:00.320 years, nobody really remembers that. But because of the internet, it is a time machine. And so every

00:09:08.240 mistake that you've ever made is there forever. And they're like, you know, this isn't fair. I have

00:09:13.640 a right to be forgotten. They're declaring that right. Now, look, if you interact with someone,

00:09:20.160 if you go into a local grocery store and you buy your groceries there, presumably they can decide

00:09:26.900 what they do with their own business records with when you bought a tube of toothpaste and what tube

00:09:31.840 of toothpaste you prefer. I don't know that I would call that a right, a right that the government can

00:09:36.960 compel them not to keep track of what kind of toothpaste you like. But it does become a problem

00:09:42.360 the minute the government itself starts collecting that information or using others as agents to

00:09:47.240 collect the government for the government information about you. So let me go one, one more place on

00:09:54.360 this, then we'll change. Um, the, the right to privacy, the right to your be secure in your own

00:10:05.000 papers. I personally would like the president to be transparent, but, uh, can he be compelled or is

00:10:14.720 it right for the government to release information about his taxes because the people or the house demands

00:10:21.920 it? No. In fact, I think it's a terrible idea. I think it's a terrible precedent. I think it's a

00:10:25.700 precedent that if set by the Democrats, uh, many of whom want to get access to this, I think they'll

00:10:32.180 come to regret it in time. This isn't a good place to go. Uh, when, when you say that we're going to

00:10:37.780 subject someone merely by virtue of the fact that they serve as president of the United States to have

00:10:42.580 disclosed to the entire world documents that the government has considered private, that seems like

00:10:47.140 a very foolish mistake. So let's, let's change the topics here, um, to something a little more fun.

00:11:01.940 We have Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden. Anybody else

00:11:09.200 from the Senate that is running? Kirsten Gillibrand. Okay. All right. So those are the candidates and,

00:11:14.900 and you are so polite and, and, you know, you love everybody I know. Um, but let me just ask you,

00:11:22.700 if you had to pick one, just one to spend the weekend, just goofing off with.

00:11:30.460 That's a tough call actually. Cause I, I really like a lot of these folks. It might well be Corey.

00:11:35.640 It might well be Corey Booker. I, I, uh, he and I get each other, we get each other's sense of humor.

00:11:41.100 And, um, did you laugh at the, I am Spartacus? I mean, that was so over the top. Yeah, but we're

00:11:49.180 politicians, all politicians occasionally do things that are over the top. And, uh, I harass them about

00:11:54.840 it from time to time. All right. If you had to work on legislation, protecting constitutional rights,

00:12:01.340 which one of those? Um, Amy Klobuchar has a pretty firm grasp of the constitution, 1.00

00:12:10.260 even though she and I disagree on a number of issues, including some issues of constitutional

00:12:14.340 interpretation. I feel like among the Democrats running for president in the Senate, uh, she's one

00:12:21.080 who I can communicate pretty easily with on, on matters of constitutional construction.

00:12:26.640 That's interesting because you have done two things with Bernie Sanders and, and really the one in

00:12:34.380 Yemen is about the constitution. Yeah. I suppose it would depend on which part of the constitution

00:12:40.260 we're talking about. Uh, I've worked closely with Bernie Sanders on the war powers issue. He and I

00:12:45.560 feel very strongly that the U S government has no business fighting a civil war in Yemen as co-belligerents 0.96

00:12:52.880 for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And that this is an undeclared war. It's therefore an unconstitutional

00:12:56.740 war. It's very unwise, not to mention illegal for us to be involved in it. So the house passed and

00:13:02.420 said, where are they going to stop this? The Senate passed, said, we're going to stop this. The president

00:13:06.820 vetoed it. I, I, I was trying to figure out that day and I want, I still wanted to call you, but I,

00:13:12.500 I leave you alone as much as I can, uh, with stupid questions, especially I wanted to know what good

00:13:19.340 is the power of the purse from the house. If they can't buy themselves on something like war powers

00:13:27.820 say, sorry, dude, we're cutting you off. What good is the power of purse and anything to do with war

00:13:36.740 powers? If they can't stop it. It's not because that's ultimately the power that we have as a

00:13:43.840 Congress. The president can't spend any money without an appropriation from Congress. But if,

00:13:49.420 but if you can't override a veto, then that stands. Uh, yes, but we could refuse to pass the next

00:13:57.780 spending bill. If that spending bill includes funding for said war effort, nobody's going to do

00:14:02.760 that. This leads to the problem of the shutdown because in this day and age where we tend to

00:14:07.800 consolidate most or all government spending decisions into a single bill, anytime you say

00:14:14.840 let's defund this or that you're accused of causing a shutdown. They're saying you're, you're

00:14:20.860 flirting with a shutdown. You're threatening the lives of all these Americans who depend on this

00:14:27.180 funding stream based on your petty political concern. So besides dishonesty, why can't we separate

00:14:34.120 those things out? Why, why, why can't we separate them at least by category?

00:14:39.340 We can, we should, and I wouldn't even put it in category of dishonesty. It's almost too deliberate

00:14:46.020 from that for that. It's almost, um, deliberate neglect. It's a deliberate refusal to go through

00:14:53.600 what would otherwise be a very lengthy, painstaking process. It's easier to wait until the majority

00:14:58.820 and minority leader of the Senate and the speaker and the minority leader of the house, uh, all come

00:15:03.660 together and come up with some bill. They bring it forward sometimes with only hours or days left

00:15:08.940 in the spending period and say, here you go, either vote for all of it or none of it. You either vote

00:15:12.900 for this reckless government spending package or you vote to shut down the government. Which one do you

00:15:17.020 want? I, I, this is the first time that I think the founders were blind. The very first time they, 0.63

00:15:25.280 they didn't see a group of people willing to give up their own power.

00:15:34.520 Yes, I think that's right. I would rephrase it slightly. I'm not sure they were blind. I think

00:15:39.840 they were correct in their assessment of the culture and the nature of human beings at the time.

00:15:45.240 For the first 150 years, uh, their predictions were quite accurate about power being made to

00:15:50.800 counteract power. Something has happened over the last 80 years roughly in which members of Congress

00:15:57.980 have become less concerned with defending the prerogatives of Congress, uh, and, and more

00:16:03.080 concerned with avoiding criticism and achieving perpetual reelection. That's what the founders

00:16:08.440 didn't fully anticipate. And I understand why they didn't anticipate it because it wasn't part of

00:16:13.660 our culture at the time. No, especially with George Washington, um, there. So is, would this be

00:16:19.760 solved by constitutional term limits on you guys? I believe it would be substantially helped. And

00:16:25.620 it's one of the reasons why I support the idea of a constitutional amendment that would limit members

00:16:30.200 of Congress to 12 terms in either house. I wasn't going to go here. 12 years. Sorry. No, 12 terms.

00:16:34.720 12 terms. Really long. Um, let, let me, let me just pursue this here for a second. My problem with,

00:16:42.600 uh, term limits. The only problem I think it's right. The only problem I have is then you've got

00:16:47.900 a bunch of bureaucrats who are serving in the deep state that aren't going anywhere who say, no, no,

00:16:54.300 no, look, you don't know how this is going. You've all, you're just got here and you're just have

00:16:59.160 another set of corrupt people who are not even voted for, who are really running. Can you do term

00:17:06.180 limits for, would it be wise to do term limits for all, uh, public positions?

00:17:13.480 I think the best way to solve that problem is to cut back on the administrative bureaucracy itself

00:17:18.140 and to cut back on the amount of power and discretion they have. There would be no need

00:17:22.700 to limit all of their terms if we didn't have so many, if they didn't have so much power.

00:17:26.520 That's the reins act.

00:17:27.580 Yeah, that's the reins act. You know, for the last 80 years, Congress has been passing law

00:17:31.680 by platitudinal statements. We shall have good law in area X and we hereby delegate to

00:17:37.400 department Y the power to make and enforce good law in that area, make it. So then they go and do

00:17:42.580 that. It wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't delegate that power to begin with. And you're right

00:17:48.720 in your concern that there are some downsides to term limits. It's just that the downsides to the way

00:17:53.900 we're doing things now is keeping us in this very bad path. Uh, the democratic politician that you

00:18:02.400 would be least likely to, uh, appear in a buddy film with. Appear in a buddy film with. Yeah. Um,

00:18:10.740 I, I don't know. I, I, I don't imagine Elizabeth Warren wanting to appear in a buddy film with me. 0.92

00:18:18.640 That's, that's hard for me to be a very uncomfortable buddy film. I wouldn't be unwilling

00:18:23.360 to do so. I can't imagine she'd be enthusiastic about it. All right. Um, person on the democratic

00:18:28.440 side, uh, that you would be most likely to leave your children with if you had a gun to your head

00:18:34.760 and you had to leave it to one of these people running. Okay. One of the people, one of the

00:18:38.080 Democrats running for president who were in the Senate. Yes. Um, probably Kirsten Gillibrand.

00:18:44.820 Uh, I've seen Kirsten Gillibrand with her own kids on many occasions and she's a great mother. 0.79

00:18:51.260 I'm sure they're all great mothers and fathers. Those who have kids, but I've seen her with her

00:18:55.860 kids a lot and she loves her kids. She's very friendly to kids everywhere. She's met my kids.

00:19:00.660 She's always nice to them. If you had to, if you were in the fight for your life and it all came down

00:19:06.980 to absolutely tell the truth and you were defending the truth and you could pick one person.

00:19:14.820 Who would be the one person that you would pick? Okay. Am I picking them to be president or am I

00:19:20.940 picking them to be the nominee for their party? Uh, no, I'm having you pick one of the people who

00:19:26.320 are running that you had to, you're in, for some reason you're in the fight for your life and it

00:19:31.900 has to, the truth has to come out. Who do you pick to defend the truth with you?

00:19:37.360 Fight for my life. For truth. For truth.

00:19:42.200 Oh, I think I'd go with Klobuchar. She's a prosecutor. She's dealt with the truth. She's

00:19:49.280 brought out Q and A through Q and A through cross-examination. I think I can trust her with

00:19:54.160 that. I want to take a quick pause from the podcast, um, and tell you about something that

00:19:58.660 we've put together, a cruise through history. I'm going, uh, Bill O'Reilly will be on the boat

00:20:04.120 with me. Uh, that'll be crazy. Uh, Stu, Rabbi Lappin, David Barton, all really focused on history,

00:20:11.240 but we're going to the Mediterranean. We're going to start in Venice. Then we go to Croatia,

00:20:15.620 Greece, and Israel. And this cruise through history is on a beautiful cruise ship. It happens next

00:20:22.280 spring. We are going to spend time learning about, you know, what made the dark ages end and bring

00:20:28.840 into the light and reason. And what is a Republic in Greece and Athens? And what is our faith really

00:20:34.860 all about? It's going to be an amazing trip. All you have to do is go to the website,

00:20:40.080 comesailaway.com. Find out all about it happens next year. Please join us. Comesailaway.com.

00:20:46.840 So Mike, I want to turn to the green new deal, uh, or this, this report on global warming.

00:20:54.820 And this is, um, the resolution here. I'll give you a copy of it. The resolution here for the green

00:21:00.560 new deal. And I want to just ask you a couple of things. Um, first of all, you've read it.

00:21:06.580 No, no, I'm familiar with what it does, but I have not read the game. Um, if you, uh, look on page five,

00:21:14.560 paragraph E to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future and repairing

00:21:22.440 historic oppression of indigenous people, communities of color, migrant communities,

00:21:27.800 de-industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low income workers, 0.99

00:21:33.440 women, the elderly, the unhoused people with disabilities and youth. Um, what does that,

00:21:42.300 just that paragraph do to us? Well, first of all, I am confused because I thought we were talking

00:21:49.180 about climate change. I thought we were talking about global warming. This seems to be talking about

00:21:52.060 something very different. Very different. This is different than the talking points from which

00:21:56.400 I've gleaned many of their, um, their own talking points, FAQs on this. This seems to be talking

00:22:02.600 about something different, a type of, uh, social justice, uh, effort rather than simply a climate

00:22:09.940 effort. If you believed that the world was going to end in 12 years, 11, 11 now, uh, would you,

00:22:20.180 uh, be worried about any of those things? What would you be doing? If you were really truly,

00:22:24.520 if you really truly believed we had 11 years to fix this problem, what would be your priority?

00:22:31.340 Well, okay. So if, if I believe the world was going to end as we know it within 11 years,

00:22:36.860 unless we did something in place, some drastic, um, uh, greenhouse gas emissions legislation,

00:22:43.920 I think it would focus on getting that enacted into law as quickly as possible. I'm not sure

00:22:48.960 that I would focus on the secondary, uh, social justice ramifications of that because I'd probably

00:22:56.200 be more concerned about saving the planet, saving human lives. Now, if they do believe that I

00:23:01.080 understand a lot of their passion that goes into this. And yet I find it difficult to believe that

00:23:06.880 any law, the government, any law that Congress can pass is going to make the difference between us

00:23:13.260 existing and ceasing to exist in 11 years. I can't imagine it, uh, to achieve the new green

00:23:18.060 deal goals and mobilization, uh, green new deal would require the following goals and project

00:23:22.780 providing and leveraging in a way, this is on page 10, providing and leveraging in a way that ensures

00:23:29.000 that public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital,

00:23:35.880 uh, including community grants, public banks, and public financing, technical expertise,

00:23:41.420 supporting, uh, policies and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations,

00:23:45.740 federal, state, local government agencies, businessmen working on the green new, uh, the

00:23:50.360 green new deal mobilization. What did, what, what does that mean? We're, we're all becoming

00:23:56.580 shareholders in. I think so. Now they're using some terms in here that I'm not familiar with. Um,

00:24:02.260 public banks. What's that? That's sort of like a municipal church or a, uh, federal family. I mean,

00:24:09.520 these are concepts that don't really exist in our system of laws and within our constitutional

00:24:13.740 structure. Public bank. That wouldn't even be the fed, would it? Yeah. I, it sounds to me like it's

00:24:21.040 some sort of government office that redistributes wealth perhaps. Is there any doubt in your mind,

00:24:27.640 Mike, that the people that we're talking about that put this together, all of these people who are

00:24:33.880 running endorse this? Are they serious? I don't think they can be serious about endorsing this

00:24:42.600 because at least the colleagues who you referenced who are currently serving in the United States

00:24:47.580 Senate, not one of them voted for it. We, we brought up the green new deal bill for a vote

00:24:54.400 in the Senate. And, uh, in fact, uh, this is the one we voted on. If this is the same bill that was

00:25:01.500 introduced in the, what kills me is they said by you saying, let's vote on it, that you were all just

00:25:09.460 playing a game with them and tricking them. Oh no, quite to the contrary. We were wanting to

00:25:15.980 demonstrate that legislation isn't a game. Uh, that's not a game at all to say, okay, you've proposed

00:25:21.760 this. Uh, those of you who say you support it, which as I understand it, all of them do ought to be

00:25:27.600 able to tell us whether or not you'd be willing to actually vote. Yes. Not one of them did not one

00:25:34.200 of them. But is that because they're wearing a mask? I mean, you don't draw this up if you're not

00:25:41.040 serious. One would think so. I, although many of them responded to it by saying, um, that this,

00:25:49.940 yeah, this is the Ocasio-Cortez bill, just to be clear. And this was the one we did vote on.

00:25:54.440 Um, I think they're saying we agree with the concept, but we're not ready to vote on it because

00:26:01.200 maybe it's not yet ready, but I don't really know what that means. If they support the concept,

00:26:06.660 then why wouldn't they vote for it? I don't know. Tell me about your, um, tell me, first of all,

00:26:14.840 tell me, can America be a socialist country, uh, and still be constitutional?

00:26:26.400 I don't think so. Uh, but let me qualify that by saying, I think within our constitutional structure,

00:26:33.020 you probably could have a state or its political subdivisions choosing to go in a different

00:26:39.920 direction, choosing to go in a more collectivist direction, at least having much higher tax rates

00:26:45.240 and things like that within our constitutional structure. They couldn't deprive people of,

00:26:49.600 uh, of their fundamental rights. They couldn't deprive people of property and take that for

00:26:55.700 public purposes, uh, without just compensation. But I think there is probably some more room to

00:27:02.600 move in a progressive direction at a state and local level than it is there, than there is at the

00:27:06.120 federal level. Because in addition to any due process and property rights type protections

00:27:13.840 that we have in the constitution that applied to governments generally, we have additional

00:27:17.400 restrictions that apply to the federal government. Restrictions that say you basically have to have

00:27:24.020 an affirmative grant of authority within the constitution for the federal government to act

00:27:28.700 at all. Most of those authorities are found in one part of the constitution in article one, section eight.

00:27:33.180 And if it's not in one of those 18 clauses or, or, or in one of a few other affirmative grants of

00:27:39.240 authority to Congress within the constitution, we can't do it. There's nothing in there that I see

00:27:44.220 that says that, uh, the Congress should have the power to make things equal, uh, to, uh, provide, to be the

00:27:51.060 healthcare provider or the insurer of first or last resort. It doesn't work. And I don't mind. Um, I mean,

00:27:58.320 I don't like it, but I don't mind if, if California wants to be crazy and do all of those crazy things.

00:28:05.560 Okay, well, I'm not going to live there. Um, but why is it that they won't do these things on the

00:28:12.400 state scale? They insist that everything be done on the national scale because they're winning.

00:28:18.560 They're winning on the national scale. And they have been since the 1930s, since April 12th, 1937,

00:28:23.900 when the Supreme court decided a case called NLRB versus Jones and Laughlin Steele, basically

00:28:28.220 anything that Congress can dream and Congress can articulate in a way that satisfies this very

00:28:33.960 loosey goosey formula. If they're regulating something that affects interstate commerce in a

00:28:39.940 substantial way, then the sky's the limit on Congress's ability to regulate it. And so why

00:28:47.140 wouldn't they continue with that? They've had a real nice long progressive winning streak by

00:28:53.040 nationalizing everything. It'd be one thing if they had been losing at the federal level,

00:28:57.240 then it would make sense for them to play it state by state. But I think deep down,

00:29:01.300 they know number one, that they're winning. Number two, that if states have a chance to compete,

00:29:04.960 people will vote with their feet. They're already doing it. And that will make a difference. But I've

00:29:09.580 said for a long time, I think it'd be better for everybody. Most of the people in Vermont would prefer

00:29:13.180 a single payer health care system. Let them knock themselves out. Let them do it. They could do so 0.99

00:29:17.760 a lot more quickly and effectively and efficiently at a state level than a national level. We ought to

00:29:21.620 let them do it. So I am totally for that. I am a 10th amendment guy. You, you can do whatever you want

00:29:27.400 in your state. Here's the rule though. You can't force me in another state to pay for your mistakes.

00:29:34.080 Right. And, you know, is there any role for, uh, you know, all government, you know, federal

00:29:42.540 government rolling all these things out because they know it will fail on a federal, on a, on a

00:29:48.500 state level and they will not be able to afford it and they'll be held for it. So bump it up to the

00:29:55.540 federal government because the federal government can run deficits and just print money. And that is

00:30:00.320 effectively what we do. That is effectively what has been happening now for decades. And it's very sad

00:30:06.740 because, uh, within our federal system, we, we, we know that people can't just move to another state

00:30:12.840 and avoid all of this. Uh, and we also know that, uh, we're better off in the United States than we

00:30:19.560 are in most other countries. Most people aren't going to move to another country over this, but it still

00:30:24.460 means that we're falling short of where we could be and we're still holding people back. And I think

00:30:28.460 at the end of the day, ironically, Glenn, this disproportionately adversely affects America's poor and

00:30:33.120 middle-class more than anyone else. The poor and middle-class are those who are being most harmed

00:30:38.260 by this mindset that says, if anything in government is going to happen, it has to be at the federal

00:30:43.040 level. We're all worse off as a result, but especially the poor middle-class.

00:30:49.600 It was in 2005, I think, maybe 2004, that I did an interview with your former senior senator,

00:30:59.560 Orrin Hatch. And we were talking about the border and he was given the, you know, usual blah, blah,

00:31:05.920 blah about the border security. And I said to him at the time, I said, you know, Senator,

00:31:11.780 there's going to come a time where people will be sick of this. You have to come through at some point.

00:31:25.800 And he said, oh, I know, I know, I know people are getting upset. And I said, no, no, no,

00:31:32.040 there's coming a time to where they'll come for you. And whether that's at the election box or with

00:31:40.460 torches around the Capitol, they'll come for you because you can only be lied to so many times.

00:31:47.280 If you see what's happening, did you see the election in Ukraine, the new president?

00:31:54.720 Tell me about that.

00:31:55.620 He's a comedian. He played a comedy president on their television set. The people were so sick

00:32:03.640 and tired of the politicians. He ran. He gave no proposals. He had no policies, gave almost no

00:32:14.440 interviews. Any of these he did give. He wasn't serious. He had the two competing, you know,

00:32:21.820 interviewing newspapers or television stations. They had to pay, play ping pong. And the one who

00:32:28.400 won the ping pong battle got the interview. He won 75% to 24.

00:32:36.200 Do you sense that the people are not you? Do the people in Washington, are they getting the

00:32:49.340 understanding at all that the people are sick and tired of this?

00:32:56.900 In a sense, yes, because we're all keenly aware of the fact that as an institution,

00:33:01.300 we have an approval rating that hovers between nine and 11%, makes us less popular than Fidel Castro

00:33:08.100 in America and only slightly more popular than the influenza virus, which inexplicably is gaining

00:33:12.880 on us as we're falling. So yeah, they get it. But I think there is a tendency to think, well,

00:33:19.260 we're just going to have to do more good stuff then. Neglecting the fact that part of the reason

00:33:25.460 why we're held in such low esteem is because so much of what we touch has the opposite of the

00:33:30.480 Midas effect, the reverse Midas effect. Things we touch sometimes turn out very, very badly.

00:33:36.460 Some of them view it though as let's touch more things. Let's get the federal government more

00:33:40.860 involved. And I think that's what we're failing to grasp. It's the concentration of power in

00:33:45.860 Washington and then the delegation of power within Washington from the people's elected lawmakers

00:33:49.940 to unelected accountable bureaucrats. That's making everything worse. And at the time when the

00:33:53.980 people are fed up with that, we're doubling down. We're stepping on the accelerator and that's

00:33:58.900 going to create problems. So let me, let me go back to the border here. I think that the border,

00:34:04.880 the cry for a border wall, it's not racism. It's not, it is, uh, it's not even about security really.

00:34:16.120 It's about, they've been asking, they've been asking politely, they've been asking, can somebody

00:34:23.360 care about these things? Cause we really do care. They've been told now by both sides that they do

00:34:29.580 care about that. And yet they've been shown by both sides. No, they don't not at all. And so the border

00:34:37.340 wall is the American people saying enough with you, enough with you people in Washington. I want

00:34:44.560 something permanent because you guys tell us one thing and then you do the exact opposite. I want

00:34:51.240 a wall. That wall is a demand and, and a statement to Washington. It's not about Mexico. I don't trust

00:35:01.340 you.

00:35:01.880 If we have a wall, it makes it harder for people to look the other way. It makes it harder for people

00:35:12.540 to sneak across the border for drug cartels and people otherwise who do not wish us well outside

00:35:19.040 of our country. You lived on the border for two years. I did. I did. And what I experienced down

00:35:24.140 there, and this was 25 years ago when the caravans didn't exist like they do today. But even back

00:35:33.240 then, I sensed that those who were most impacted, most personally, most adversely by uncontrolled

00:35:39.640 illegal immigration were poor people consisting in many cases of recent immigrants whose jobs,

00:35:48.900 whose livelihoods, whose neighborhoods were all put in jeopardy, potentially as a result of

00:35:55.920 uncontrolled illegal immigration. Today, the problem is so much worse. And we've got drug cartels. We've

00:36:01.960 got people who want to subvert our form of government, bringing people across the border. We've got people 1.00

00:36:06.980 engaging in human trafficking of children across the border, and we're not stopping it. That's to our

00:36:13.540 everlasting shame unless we fix that promptly. You and I felt very much the same about Donald Trump,

00:36:32.320 I think. I was concerned, and I'm still concerned, about the public behavior of the president.

00:36:44.540 However, I will tell you, at times, it feels really good to see him just punch people in the face.

00:36:50.440 You know, and that's not, I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it, it, you have that human reaction.

00:37:00.080 When I was judging him for the election, I was judging him on that and what record he did have,

00:37:07.660 and none of it was conservative. The president's not a conservative, but he has done and accomplished

00:37:14.940 some amazing things. Israel probably being paramount on that. How is your relationship with

00:37:24.480 Donald Trump? How is, how, how, what do you, how do you, how do you view him now going into this next

00:37:31.160 election? You're exactly right. I had some concerns with him, and I was probably more vocal

00:37:38.220 than many would have been at the time at expressing those concerns. I have been pleasantly surprised at

00:37:45.080 what he's done. Now, I don't agree with him on everything. There are some things he says that make

00:37:49.220 me nervous. I disagree with him, for example, on trade policy. Big time. But I have great respect

00:37:53.900 for the fact that he came to Washington and actually did what he said he was going to do.

00:38:00.140 Yeah. More so than any president in modern U.S. history. People wouldn't be asking for a wall if

00:38:05.660 more people did what they said they would do. Exactly. And I, you know, I think I fundamentally

00:38:10.240 misunderstood him at the time. I think I was viewing him through the same lens that I view other

00:38:15.080 politicians. He, he is different. I still don't agree with him on everything, but he's done exactly

00:38:21.260 what he said he was going to do. I have a friend who, toward the end of 2016, pointed out to me

00:38:27.360 something that helped me understand the phenomenon. He said, imagine that we're all in a bar and

00:38:33.060 everybody senses that a bar fight is about to break out. Um, I, and all of a sudden there's,

00:38:38.260 there's, there's one guy who's big and strong and tough and he takes out a beer bottle and he breaks

00:38:42.480 it across the table and he holds it up and brandishes, it brandishes it against those who

00:38:46.980 were opposing him. Everybody has to decide which person to line up behind. They're probably going

00:38:51.520 to line up behind that person. I think that resonates with what happened in 2016. I think

00:38:57.720 people had had enough and they wanted somebody who would go in and knock over a few tables. 0.99

00:39:04.680 And I think that's where the left is now. I mean, the right is still there, but the left is there

00:39:09.600 now to the same. We need a bottle breaker. Right. Right. And which makes for an interesting

00:39:14.820 inflection point when we've got a choice. And I think that choice is going to force us

00:39:19.220 either to become a more conservative nation, a nation that recognizes and trusts in the dignity

00:39:25.160 of individual human beings and communities and churches and neighborhoods and synagogues

00:39:29.500 and civil society, or a government that marches to the progressive drumbeat, federalizes more power,

00:39:37.080 essentializes more power in Washington, D.C. That will be the choice that we've got to make

00:39:41.580 in our next election cycle. And I hope we choose the right, the right option.

00:39:48.480 Are you willing to say you would or would not vote for Donald Trump?

00:39:53.020 Oh, I'm going to vote for him. I'm going to vote for him. I'm going to support him.

00:39:56.640 I think he has proven that he's willing to drain the swamp, even when it doesn't want to be drained.

00:40:03.060 And so it makes me more comfortable with him than I was in 2016. I didn't really know him at the time.

00:40:09.980 I've gotten to know him since then. We've actually become friends since then. We talk on a very

00:40:15.580 regular basis. And, you know, for the first year, he would routinely remind me of the fact that I

00:40:21.500 was hard on him in 2016. It finally stopped toward the end of 2017 when I said, look, that's behind us

00:40:27.560 now. Well, we've worked together a lot and he doesn't bring it up anymore is. Let's let's talk

00:40:34.660 about judges a bit, because I know you and Ted Cruz have been instrumental in helping shape the

00:40:42.920 judiciary beyond the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken. And that has been pretty remarkable.

00:40:51.380 He has because Obama did not fill a lot of the judgeships. Is that the right word? Judgeship?

00:40:58.980 Yeah. Because he didn't fill a lot of them. I think he came into office with 150 openings. Is that

00:41:06.320 right for federal? It was a lot. It was a lot. And I think he's he's going to have the opportunity

00:41:13.060 to appoint more judges on the lower bench than anybody else in history, except maybe of FDR who

00:41:21.480 had four terms. When you're when you're looking at that. Tell me the effect of the the appointees that

00:41:31.780 he has made and what it means for the future. One of the things that I loved most about this country

00:41:41.900 is its judicial system. When I speak to people across the country and even in other parts of the

00:41:47.960 world, I like to point out that despite its flaws, the federal court system is one that I would put up

00:41:54.140 against any of its counterparts anywhere in the world. And it would stack up favorably, warts and all.

00:41:59.860 Um, we are making it better. President Trump is making it better. And the judges that have been

00:42:06.800 confirmed to those positions and the justices confirmed to the Supreme Court are making it

00:42:10.740 better by doing a very simple thing, which is focusing more attention on finding those who

00:42:16.820 actually want to judge rather than engage in social policy. Those who want to use the judicial robes

00:42:23.760 as an opportunity to be social justice warriors. We just want judges who will read the law

00:42:29.660 and interpret the law based on what the law says. There are tools judges have

00:42:33.300 canons of statutory construction and constitutional interpretation that help guide their their reading

00:42:42.040 of the law. And that's all we want are people who are willing to say the law says X, it should do X

00:42:48.220 and decide what that law actually means rather than what they wish it meant. Right. And if you don't like

00:42:53.220 it, then people go work to change it. Exactly. And as simple as that sounds is somewhat revolutionary

00:43:00.360 in that it, a few decades ago, this sort of thing, uh, uh, what I've described is, is essentially what

00:43:07.160 we call textualism and originalism. Um, these concepts were somewhat foreign 30 years ago. Now

00:43:13.540 they're commonplace. And in fact, in this administration, there are more or less prerequisites

00:43:17.720 for getting a robe on the federal bench. The United States will be better off as a result.

00:43:24.500 Uh, I'll just throw this out at you. I think that John Roberts should be impeached.

00:43:32.140 And here's why. If something wasn't right on that decision about Obamacare, it just, you could see it,

00:43:39.900 you could see it, you could read it, uh, in his decision. You can see there was a last minute flip.

00:43:45.920 I mean, it, it didn't even make sense. And then we find out just here recently that if your gut said

00:43:55.140 that it was right. And he went in and he bargained and horse traded and he was trying to save the

00:44:03.500 reputation of the Supreme court. That is not the job or the role of a Supreme court justice. Is it?

00:44:13.440 It's not. In fact, it's directly contrary to the oath he took to administer the law even handedly

00:44:19.760 and without regard to external considerations. So shouldn't he be impeached?

00:44:26.320 It's hard to draw the line between him and other members of the court who have also made decisions

00:44:31.500 that I would consider wrong. But if we don't start impeaching people, I mean, I don't think the

00:44:36.580 impeachment process, especially for the Supreme court was meant to be as hard as it, it is.

00:44:42.060 It look, you never hear about impeachment for judges. When these judges go offline, you know,

00:44:49.020 I'd like quite, quite honestly, there's several people in, in the Senate and the house that I

00:44:52.820 wouldn't mind impeaching because you are violating your oath. You are to protect the constitution

00:45:00.180 against all foreign and, and, uh, and, and domestic enemies. I see people making decisions all the

00:45:07.800 time. That is absolutely unconstitutional. But when you have a sitting judge and it is revealed

00:45:15.640 the horse trading that went on, that's just another political house. Now it's wrong. And that's one of

00:45:23.000 the things that differentiates that from just other members of the court with whom I sometimes disagree

00:45:28.680 in, in their interpretation of the statute or the constitutional provision before them.

00:45:33.660 In this instance, we now have evidence. I widely suspected at the time wrote and did extensive,

00:45:38.840 uh, uh, media interviews about it at the time that something had gone terribly wrong. I wasn't sure

00:45:44.060 what it was, but now we know, but now we know, right. So you can't say, well, this is a difference

00:45:48.780 of opinion or maybe we now know, shouldn't he be impeached? Perhaps he should. I have never given

00:45:56.420 serious consideration to that until this very moment. It's something worth considering makes

00:46:00.820 up for the fact that it'll never happen. I mean, first of all, this house of representatives,

00:46:05.580 impeachment proceedings are initiated in the house and then they require a two third super

00:46:10.020 majority, uh, to bring about removal. It never happened. Isn't it worth having the conversation

00:46:15.940 about to, for a definition of what it means? Maybe so. Maybe that would send a signal that needs to be

00:46:24.360 sent that if you engage in, uh, consideration of extraneous factors that are inappropriate to be

00:46:32.700 applied in that case, if you rewrite the law, not once, but twice to save it from an otherwise

00:46:36.900 inevitable finding of unconstitutionality, you are a political branch. That's what he's done.

00:46:42.280 He's made it a political branch. It is not a political branch. These are unelected officials

00:46:48.180 that are, are acting like politicians. That's not their job. And in fact, it's so slaps America

00:46:57.980 and the constitution across the face. It's obscene. It's in some ways, much more obscene than what the,

00:47:05.560 the Democrats and the Republicans have done with healthcare, because I mean, at least that's dancing

00:47:10.680 around the edges. This is completely foreign. Right. And I think what bothers me the most about 1.00

00:47:16.000 it Glenn is the fact that at the time he did this, it brought him praise, not just from the left,

00:47:23.180 but from many who call themselves Republicans or, or at least, or, or not avowed leftists people who

00:47:29.820 said, Oh, this was so statesmanlike, so strong of him to do that. But in calling it statesmanlike,

00:47:35.460 they unwittingly described it as exactly what it was. Yes. It was an act of political

00:47:43.100 insurrection. It was an act against the legislative branch and against the constitution. And you

00:47:49.540 couldn't say, I mean, I said, when that happened, I'm like, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't

00:47:54.600 make any sense. And then we saw the, his, his decision. We're like, this looks like it was

00:47:59.500 rewritten in haste, right? This is not what his decision was. What happened? Because, because it

00:48:04.640 was, and, uh, having clerked at the Supreme court and been involved in, uh, assisting justice Alito

00:48:10.920 with drafting opinions, uh, I've seen the way this works and that what came out as the dissent

00:48:18.620 read, like a majority opinion, read, like a majority opinion that in the, the, the final days or weeks

00:48:24.820 before it was released suddenly had to be turned into a dissent. So then don't we, if we don't stop

00:48:31.100 this, um, and I have to tell you, I disagree with justice Ginsburg and she has said, and I think this

00:48:38.600 is an impeachable thing, but she said, I don't look to just our constitution. I look to the,

00:48:44.200 the new African constitution, which is now, you know, grabbing land from people. Well, that's not 0.85

00:48:50.060 your job, Ruth. You're not supposed to look at the African constitution. You're supposed to look 1.00

00:48:54.800 at our constitution. I didn't come on here to defend her point of view. I think in that

00:48:59.500 circumstance, she said, if I were drafting a new constitution, I wouldn't look to the U S

00:49:03.400 I would look to the South African conversation. I'm actually, I'm actually defending her in some 0.79

00:49:08.880 way. I can't, I have not seen something where she didn't have some sort of constitutional underpinning 1.00

00:49:19.020 that I think is screwed up, but it's underpinning of the constitution. I have not seen anything like

00:49:26.260 that. This one is, and if we don't stop this now dead in its tracks with this evidence, you're creating

00:49:36.160 a new political branch that is the most powerful of the three and it's political and unelected.

00:49:45.620 Uh, that is a fair point and worthy of consideration. I doubt that it will ever come

00:49:51.400 to fruition with that. Um, but it's worthy of consideration. It's also worthy of bringing up

00:49:57.400 in connection with future nominees to the lower courts and especially to the Supreme court.

00:50:01.900 I think it's significant that since then, uh, when Donald Trump ran for president, for example,

00:50:06.820 he ran by saying, I'm going to appoint people in the mold of Anthony Scalia of Samuel Alito,

00:50:12.020 uh, in the mold of, of Clarence Thomas. And he did not say of, of John Roberts that by itself

00:50:19.700 will have an impact. And I think that by itself will help deter future Republican presidents from

00:50:25.760 putting someone on the court who would do that for the, for the sake of political expediency or

00:50:30.640 whatever it was that was motivating him there. Last question on the Supreme court. Uh, why was

00:50:35.560 Kavanaugh added to this list at the last minute? I don't know. I want to get back to that. I want

00:50:40.840 to get back to the, uh, South African constitution thing for a second. Uh, the fact that she said

00:50:46.660 she would look to the South African constitution is itself very disturbing. I point that only to

00:50:53.020 clarify what she was saying. If you read the South African constitution, which I did a short time

00:50:57.160 after she made that statement, you'll understand why it's very disturbing. It has a whole lot of

00:51:02.220 concepts that are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of government,

00:51:06.000 uh, South African constitution, which is like, I mean, and I believe it's been changed since then.

00:51:12.740 It's very different from our own. Yes. We'll just say, uh, as to why Kavanaugh was put on the list,

00:51:18.000 I don't know. Um, uh, I, I know that, uh, a number of people, uh, within the white house and those

00:51:25.380 advising the president knew him and thought well of him. Um, he had clerked for justice Kennedy and,

00:51:31.900 uh, perhaps they wanted to make sure this is rank speculation on my part. I can't,

00:51:37.400 I don't know this and I can't know. Um, but I wonder whether they wanted to find somebody who,

00:51:41.960 um, would make justice Kennedy feel uncomfortable, uh, feel comfortable with the decision to retire.

00:51:48.320 If he knew that whoever they were replacing him with, with someone he knew and trusted,

00:51:52.480 maybe that made him feel happier about stepping down. Is that the right thing to do?

00:51:58.680 Um, no, but, uh, I, I, you're not in the circle. You asked for my speculation. I offered him and,

00:52:05.860 and I want to be clear. It is nothing but speculation. I know of no reason to believe

00:52:09.240 that's what happened. So I, I I'm concerned because are you concerned by the way he's been

00:52:13.720 voting and he's kind of like teaming up with justice Roberts at all? Did we blow an opportunity?

00:52:18.620 I think it's way too early to predict that they never get more conservative. Um, yeah,

00:52:24.120 that's, that's right. But even still with justice Kavanaugh, he hasn't been on there long enough

00:52:29.040 for us to have a fair snapshot. In many instances, it takes years. Uh, some would say a decade or more

00:52:37.260 to be able to get a clear picture of where they are. Uh, remember when, um, David Souter was put on

00:52:43.400 the Supreme court, a lot of people said he was a conservative and continued to insist that he was

00:52:47.260 a conservative. Um, he turned out not to be, uh, so is there anything in, in Kavanaugh's record at

00:52:53.440 this point that make you concerned at all? There's nothing in his record at this point that causes me

00:52:58.580 to believe that he will not, uh, fall under the category of justice Alito, justice Thomas, justice

00:53:04.820 Scalia, uh, and, uh, and so forth. Um, it's, it's too early for us to say that he is outside of that

00:53:12.460 fold. Uh, I hope he is squarely within it. I mean, I believe he is. Um, um, so let's, let's hope that

00:53:21.000 holds. Can, can we, let's talk about the declaration of independence? Sure. Cause that's the name of

00:53:25.140 your, your, your book is the lost deck declaration. Why the lost declaration? Because we've lost not

00:53:32.420 the physical document itself. Um, um, but we've lost some of the concepts in it. We've lost the language

00:53:38.680 of it. There are a lot of people who are unfamiliar with what it says, what the message is behind it.

00:53:44.980 A couple of years ago, NPR tweeted out line by line, a series of excerpts from the declaration of

00:53:51.300 independence. A lot of people freaked out, uh, thought that it was, um, uh, referring to the

00:53:57.040 president of the United States rather than King George the third, but more importantly, they didn't

00:54:00.420 recognize it as our founding document. That is itself troubling because the declaration of

00:54:05.520 independence informs us of who we are. It, it provides this, the, the concept essential to

00:54:12.040 our constitutional system called it the mission statement. It's the mission statement. It's who

00:54:16.260 we say we're going to try to be. Yes. Um, I just, I love the first two paragraphs of this document.

00:54:25.500 I think it's the most beautiful thing I think I've ever read. I mean, I think it's

00:54:30.300 Annabelle Lee by Edgar Allen Poe is just beautiful to me. I think this is poetry, um, the way it was

00:54:39.320 written. Now tell me about this copy here. So this is the copy of, this is the first draft of the

00:54:47.100 declaration of independence. I'll show it to you. Um, what's amazing is, uh, it's written and wherever

00:54:54.400 it is taken out, you will see a little notation. I think that says Franklin. Wow. Okay. Adams. And

00:55:02.720 what they did is they scratched it out and Franklin made that and he had to just, it's, it's kind of

00:55:07.720 like a shared word doc where you have to say, okay, I made this, this change. Wow. Okay. Do you get

00:55:14.300 this? This is an original from a guy named Mark Hoffman. No, I did not. Uh, this is, this is a 1830

00:55:20.980 engraving of the, uh, of the first draft. I think this is what needs to be studied and I'll show you

00:55:29.480 why notice, notice when you look at these two pages, what is capitalized? The United States of

00:55:38.580 America. That's it, right? Yeah. Nothing else. There are two words in the four page version that add to

00:55:47.700 those. And it is fascinating. Uh, see the word men is in all caps. Yes. Um, there's another one that

00:55:55.380 is, is not caps, but it is printed. Christian. Christian. Read what that's about. Notice that

00:56:03.920 the chain, the handwriting changes here from anything else in this document in Jefferson's

00:56:11.520 own hand. What's it say? Can you read it? The opprobrium of infidel powers is the warfare of 1.00

00:56:18.200 the Christian King of great Britain. Okay. He's talking here about what he does is he takes, 0.98

00:56:27.800 let's see here. He, uh, um, he has determined to keep an open market where capitalized, where

00:56:35.260 men should be bought and sold. So he is directly tying back to the front. All men are created equal

00:56:44.220 and he is capitalizing the words men. Slaves are men. This is Jefferson. Yes. This shows Jefferson was

00:56:55.900 passionate about this. This was his clause that he put in. And he's basically saying, how dare you call

00:57:04.720 yourself a Christian? This is a Christian King where he will put men for sale in the open market. And 0.99

00:57:13.580 then he goes on. It is, it is an excoriation. You think the long list of, of, uh, your usurptions are

00:57:22.180 bad. You add this one in. It is the longest paragraph of the usurptions. And he talks about how we've been

00:57:30.400 trying to stop it. And he stops us every step of the way. And then this good Christian King comes

00:57:36.400 around and what is he doing? He's violating them twice. He stole them from another land and sold them

00:57:43.280 into slavery. And now he's now paying them and trying to coerce them to go kill the people who are trying

00:57:53.340 to free them. It's awesome. It's a pretty darn good indictment. And, and this from a guy who owns

00:58:01.840 slaves, right? This from a guy who was from a slave state and he was putting a lot on the line

00:58:07.980 in the first place. Uh, one of the things I discuss in, uh, our last declaration is the fact that,

00:58:15.100 um, he like all of them really was putting not only his reputation, but his life and his fortune

00:58:23.020 all on the line to do this. So what is his initial draft? It made a lot of sense that as long as he

00:58:29.180 was going to put that all on the line, why not go all the way and, and, and put slavery on the 0.98

00:58:34.480 chopping block as well. He had done that as a young lawmaker as well in, in the, uh, Virginia

00:58:40.100 colonial legislative body. Um, sadly it didn't survive, didn't survive his effort in the

00:58:47.560 legislature. It didn't survive his effort in the declaration, but I have to respect the fact

00:58:52.780 that he tried, he tried to get it in there.

00:59:10.100 It's a civil war inevitable after the constitution was drafted and we didn't, we failed to correct

00:59:20.180 it here. And then we failed to correct it a second time with the constitution. This time

00:59:26.140 when they didn't do it, they said, because the King would tear us apart. The second time

00:59:31.900 they failed to do it, they just didn't really want to lose those two States or three States

00:59:36.900 at the time, um, because they were the economic powerhouse. It's harder to excuse it at the

00:59:42.080 constitutional convention. Um, but their excuse again was, well, we are, we're being progressives.

00:59:49.920 We're taking a little baby step and we're outlawing the slavery market, uh, for new slaves. You

00:59:59.160 know, what was it? 1807 was the civil war inevitable.

01:00:03.140 Some type of conflict, uh, bringing about the end of slavery was inevitable. I don't

01:00:10.080 think it had to culminate in a war. I don't think it had to last that long at any given

01:00:14.920 moment. It could have been prohibited. It could have been banned. I wish it had happened at

01:00:20.860 the declaration stage. It didn't. I wish it had happened at a constitutional convention

01:00:24.700 stage. It didn't. Um, we did end up banning us, banning it, but it took a lot longer than

01:00:31.080 that should have. And Abraham Lincoln is killed right after. And nobody wants to talk about

01:00:37.520 it. Nobody wants to, nobody wants to Abraham Lincoln. We're losing every battle, uh, until

01:00:44.480 about halfway through. And he said, God, what do you want? And he's reading the scriptures

01:00:49.900 and he realizes this isn't about saving the union. This is about slavery. And so he declares

01:00:56.160 a day of fast mourning prayer and repentance, humiliation, I think is the word he used,

01:01:03.220 uh, where we all had to beg for forgiveness. And he said in, in his inaugural address, if,

01:01:09.320 if the Lord deems that all of our treasure be piled up in one heap and it's all gone because of

01:01:15.440 slavery, so be it. He's killed after that. And we look the other way and we, we let the infection,

01:01:25.520 don't we just, we're so close. We've lanced it. And then we let it just kind of heal back

01:01:30.820 because we don't push the poison out. Same with Martin Luther King. We don't push the poison

01:01:38.280 out. We're so tired of the killing and the riots and everything else. Does America have

01:01:44.340 to have a moment of, of struggle and then pushing that poison out? Sometimes it does. Uh, sometimes,

01:01:57.340 uh, human beings being fallible, being self-interested, being covetous, sometimes have to be brought

01:02:04.720 to a level of humility by forces external to themselves. Uh, sometimes by force and sometimes

01:02:11.460 by privations of every sort. Uh, it's unfortunate that it took, uh, the civil war in order to bring

01:02:19.380 about that next phase. And it's also unfortunate that it took another a hundred years, uh, beyond

01:02:24.300 that, uh, to get beyond Jim Crow and, and to, uh, bring about really what was the vision

01:02:31.640 of the civil war amendments, uh, adopted in the wake of that conflict. But we got there. It says

01:02:38.940 something about human nature that sometimes it has to get that bad and people have to be brought

01:02:44.860 to a state of poverty and humility before they can make the right choice. It again goes to the

01:02:50.600 brilliance of this document because it says prudence indeed will dictate that governments long

01:02:58.520 established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly, all experience

01:03:02.840 has shown that mankind more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than write themselves

01:03:09.880 by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed to. But after a long train of abuses, I mean,

01:03:16.160 it's saying that we don't, we won't do these things. We won't do the hard things unless we are just

01:03:21.720 punched in the face repeatedly. Right. I've always appreciated the fact that he emphasized the fact that we

01:03:26.620 don't do this sort of thing for light and transient reasons. This isn't something to be done casually.

01:03:31.800 And in my view, while we struggle with things in our society and our government today,

01:03:38.860 we're not dealing with the same sorts of things that they were dealing with and that we have a

01:03:42.920 structure, we have a culture, we have a system of laws that if we will stick with, it can do the job

01:03:51.280 of restoring and protecting the dignity of the human soul. But we've got to do better.

01:03:57.040 So the concept of the Declaration of Independence is who we try to be. Constitution is telling us how

01:04:06.520 to the framework that is will best support this idea. Right. Correct. Right. Yeah. The Constitution

01:04:13.220 is the picture frame. The Declaration is the picture. Okay. So can you just go over the second?

01:04:19.880 Yeah. Yeah. The paragraph of this. I'd love to go over it with you really line by line and

01:04:25.460 just get your thoughts on what everything means. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men

01:04:30.780 are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable, it says inherent, crossed out

01:04:37.680 inalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Tell me, tell me things

01:04:44.820 that we should learn from that. It's a Lockean principle. A lot of this derives from the teachings

01:04:51.700 of John Locke and a lot of it's an outgrowth of the Scottish Enlightenment.

01:04:55.920 Tell people who John Locke is. You don't know who John Locke is.

01:04:58.240 John Locke was an English political philosopher who talked a lot about the inherent rights of human

01:05:06.780 beings in necessarily entailing life, liberty, and property, and that governments are there to

01:05:12.940 protect life, liberty, and property. Jefferson, in his rhetorical flourish, made the choice to

01:05:19.880 cast that as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which actually has a catchier ring to

01:05:24.600 it in some ways, especially since we're talking about the picture rather than the frame.

01:05:28.180 We'd be a lot different if it was property, though.

01:05:30.300 Well, but we used property in the Constitution, and we framed it in terms of property. I don't

01:05:35.220 think we lose anything by virtue of the fact that he said life, liberty, and the pursuit

01:05:38.220 of happiness. What we do sometimes lose is when people confuse the Constitution with the

01:05:42.720 Declaration and like to use the pursuit of happiness as if it were whatever progressive

01:05:50.160 dream the Speaker has in mind at the moment, and then say this means that we are entitled as

01:05:56.220 a Congress to commandeer the nation's health care system or something like that.

01:05:59.440 Anyway, so what Jefferson was giving voice to was this belief, this understanding that many of us

01:06:08.100 now take for granted, but that's been an important part of our culture, of Anglo-American law

01:06:14.100 and constitutional structure for hundreds of years, that people have rights that are given to them by

01:06:21.340 God. They exist before the state. They exist before any government comes about and separate and apart

01:06:28.020 from that universe. That's a sphere. It's a it's a cell that cannot be penetrated by government.

01:06:33.600 Talk to somebody who doesn't believe in God and tell me how I mean, because

01:06:40.500 I believe in God. So it's easy for me to say, no, those are divine. They do not come from man. And so

01:06:48.800 it's easy for me to order things. Yeah. God, man, government. Yeah. But if you don't believe in God,

01:06:56.060 how do you make this case that these rights belong to you and you are over the government?

01:07:05.880 Most people I know, at least most Americans I know who themselves don't believe in God

01:07:11.240 have a pretty easy time grasping this, even in the absence of their belief in God, even if they're

01:07:18.460 agnostic or or atheist, in part because it's become part of our culture to understand that

01:07:23.720 you have worth because you exist, regardless of whether God exists and regardless of what

01:07:29.620 your vision of God is or how you understand God to exist. You have worth because you live

01:07:36.100 and you breathe. We as a society still accept and embrace that. I don't know that we realize

01:07:41.700 the extent to which that's rare, even in today's world. And even though it has been eroded in American

01:07:48.360 culture, it's still more a part of us than it is in most countries throughout the world.

01:07:53.580 We should be grateful for that. We should celebrate it. But as much as anything, we need to protect it.

01:07:57.880 And that's one of the reasons I wrote our last declaration is I want to give

01:08:01.220 I think most parents and grandparents today understand that their children and their

01:08:06.020 grandchildren aren't being educated in the same way they were, that they're not being taught civics.

01:08:11.140 They're not being taught these basic principles about life, liberty and property or the difference

01:08:15.620 between life, liberty and property and the articulation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

01:08:20.940 They want their kids to be able to learn that. And so it's one of the reasons I wrote this book.

01:08:25.120 I want to make sure that we don't lose it. It's like a torch. It's like a flame that once it's

01:08:30.260 extinguished is very difficult to reignite. But it's also easy to keep it lit if we just

01:08:35.560 keep it intact. That governments are instituted among men. That's a totally different idea from

01:08:44.960 anywhere else back then. Never. Nobody had ever done that, right? Right. In fact, it was directly

01:08:51.060 contrary to it. As I point out of the book, they believed in the divine right of kings. The king

01:08:56.300 of England, including King George III, believed that he had been divinely appointed by almighty

01:09:01.520 God himself to rule. So governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the

01:09:08.780 consent of the governed. Another wild concept. Here's where I want you to comment on that whenever

01:09:16.560 any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or

01:09:24.260 abolish it. Now there's a comma here, but I'm going to stop. What does that mean?

01:09:28.800 It means when government mistreats you, especially when informed by the language that we see later in

01:09:34.500 the declaration about the fact that you don't undertake these things for light and transient

01:09:38.580 reasons, when government becomes destructive of these ends of, of protecting these inherent inalienable

01:09:44.700 rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that continues all over a long period of time.

01:09:48.300 It is the right of the people to get rid of that government. So explain why people say that secession

01:09:54.740 is not possible and it's settled law because of the civil war. Yeah, I don't, I don't know what that

01:10:01.820 means. The fact that they would say that any government has the right to exist in perpetuity and not be

01:10:09.340 thrown off, even if it interferes with the rights of the people and degrades them and erodes them.

01:10:16.800 That's nonsense. And it goes against everything we understand. Governments are themselves earthly

01:10:22.220 institutions. We made them. Correct. Even though you and I weren't alive, at least I wasn't,

01:10:27.560 uh, uh, the time this came around, um, we, we, uh, inherit a land that, that, uh, where people entered

01:10:36.880 into this covenant with their government, but it's an earthly construction. It's not an eternal one.

01:10:42.960 It's not created by God. And so the people themselves necessarily have the right to throw

01:10:48.840 that off. Okay. So it's a comma here, the right of the people to alter or abolish it comma and to

01:10:57.200 institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such

01:11:02.360 a form as to them will seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Is that comma and

01:11:09.580 as important as I think it is? It means to me, we can't just abolish people who say we got to tear

01:11:17.240 the system down, just tear it up. No, no, no, no, no. You have the right to abolish it or to change it,

01:11:23.700 but you have the responsibility to come up with the system that will better enhance the security

01:11:32.360 of these rights because that's what they did. The end is very important in that sentence.

01:11:39.760 I think it would still have the meaning without the comma, but the comma followed by the end

01:11:44.420 makes clear that it follows in that order. You don't just throw it off. And like that scene in

01:11:50.480 the lion king where they say, no king, no king. You've got a responsibility at that point to put

01:11:57.100 together a new system of government, one that takes into account the practical realities on

01:12:01.240 the ground and one that's most likely to ignore to the happiness and wellbeing of the people.

01:12:05.800 Of the people, not the, not the principles here, not the liberties and well of, of the people

01:12:11.380 taking into account those principles. In other words, um, uh, for a second, I thought you were

01:12:16.260 asking about principles with an, with an AL. No, I mean, no, no, no. I mean you, that you have

01:12:22.880 to, uh, replace it with a government that will best protect those life, liberty and pursuit of

01:12:30.120 happiness, those human rights. And you can come up with a government that will most secure those

01:12:36.540 things, your happiness and your safety. All right. That is the whole point of government. It's the only

01:12:42.140 reason we have it. It's the only reason we tolerate it. If you think about it, Glenn, governments

01:12:46.960 are nothing fancy and we do ourselves a disservice when we try to convince ourselves that there's

01:12:52.520 something omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent about governments. We, we, we actually slouch

01:12:59.040 towards Gomorrah when we do that. We actually start engaging in a form of idolatry when we engage

01:13:04.400 in state worship, when we, in effect, reverence government as though we're some holy institution.

01:13:10.480 Sure. It's to be respected and honored as far as it goes, but it's an earthly creation. We must never

01:13:17.280 lose sight of that. We must never worship it. And we must never conclude that it's not there to serve

01:13:23.240 us. In writing the book, what's the biggest surprise you, you felt? What was the thing that you went,

01:13:49.880 like when I found this, I'm looking at it one day and somebody, Stu came up behind me and he said,

01:13:56.680 where are those words capitalized? And I said, gosh, I don't, oh my gosh.

01:14:04.740 What was the thing that you took away in your research of the, for our lost declaration that

01:14:11.100 you thought this is game changing? Yeah. I think for me, uh, uh, there were a couple of things.

01:14:17.680 First being the extent to which Jefferson really did try, uh, to work this into the declaration

01:14:24.780 itself and was pushed back. I knew that he had reservations about it. I didn't know the extent

01:14:29.660 to which he had tried in the Virginia legislature. And again, in the declaration, I was also, um,

01:14:37.280 quite inspired to learn a little bit more about Thomas Paine. Uh, uh, develop a lot of the discussion

01:14:43.020 in parts of the book around Thomas Paine and I learned more about his background. You know,

01:14:48.320 he grew up in a community in England where he routinely saw acts of government overreach,

01:14:54.800 not just of a bureaucratic sort, but really nasty, ugly stuff. He routinely saw people

01:14:59.960 being executed by servants of the King. He routinely saw women being stoned.

01:15:04.820 And he was tortured by these thoughts when he, he was encouraged later in life, um, to come to

01:15:14.900 America, encouraged by Benjamin Franklin himself. He took this long voyage over. I, I imagine what

01:15:19.960 might've been going through his head as he was on this horrible journey over to the United States.

01:15:24.120 Once he got to the United States, he still had within his soul, this yearning for freedom and this

01:15:33.280 resentment for the kinds of abuses, uh, against everyday citizens in England by King George III.

01:15:41.600 He knew he had seen behind that curtain. He'd seen there was nothing magical. There was nothing

01:15:46.820 mystical. There was just a guy pulling some levers and that guy was a fallible, flawed mortal. He

01:15:53.340 wasn't willing to give the God save the queen, uh, uh, reference too much reverence. And so he wrote

01:16:01.440 common sense. And I think common sense has much to do with the, uh, American revolution and with the

01:16:07.840 declaration of independence as any other single document. Oh, I agree. You know, his, um, his book,

01:16:15.160 is it rights of man, the one that he supposedly declares there is no God and all of this. It's in

01:16:23.380 one of his documents where he is, he's defending the French, French revolution. And, um, and people

01:16:31.000 say that he's an atheist. We found and have a document in his own handwriting that proves that's

01:16:41.400 not the case. He was against religion. He was not against God. And he, and he's, he's writing this

01:16:49.980 beautiful, impassioned letter to Benjamin Franklin. And he says, you, I've been hearing the things that

01:16:57.820 are being said about me. It's untrue. He said, you have to understand in France, they hate the church.

01:17:08.380 They hate it because it's been used as a lever to oppress them. And when they were going after the

01:17:16.860 church, I kept saying to them, I agree with you, I agree with you, I agree with you, but don't throw

01:17:25.720 God out, separate those two. It's, it's phenomenal. And in some ways, the way I feel about our own

01:17:40.780 churches right now, they're me there, that that's man, that's man and man, it might be doing the best

01:17:47.880 that he can, but separate your church from God. That's different. And certainly separate your God 0.61

01:17:57.820 and your faith from the blunt instrument that is government. Government ultimately is force.

01:18:04.740 And, uh, you're exactly right. I think this is one of the reasons why our revolution stuck.

01:18:11.960 It is.

01:18:12.300 And the French revolution didn't. We didn't throw God out.

01:18:16.280 Uh, the French did. And I think a belief in God, uh, benefits society generally. Not that everyone 0.99

01:18:24.220 should be coerced by government to do it. I don't think the government should have anything to do with

01:18:28.160 it. When people believe in God, it makes possible for these twin aims, these things that seem to be

01:18:34.800 in conflict with each other, equality and Liberty have to live side by side. They're the yin and yang

01:18:40.360 of the political universe. They keep each other in check. We yearn for equality, but a quality

01:18:47.060 properly understood is equal treatment under a just law. It's not radical egalitarianism where the

01:18:53.000 government makes everyone equal in their outcomes. That kind of radical egalitarianism is like crack

01:19:00.200 cocaine for the political soul and it cankers the soul and it causes equality to swallow Liberty. 0.76

01:19:06.400 They can't coexist, but they're much more likely to be able to coexist, to live peaceably together.

01:19:13.200 If the people believe in God, I think that's the problem. Honestly, um,

01:19:17.600 in many ways with race relations, I think, look, once you start saying reparations,

01:19:26.800 it, nobody's going to engage in that conversation. Nobody's going to engage. But if you could convince

01:19:33.620 people, look, I'm not, I don't want anything. I don't want anything. I don't want anything. I don't

01:19:37.040 want anything from you. You don't want anything from me. We just have to have this conversation.

01:19:42.680 That's becomes almost a spiritual cleansing of the soul conversation. And that's a good conversation

01:19:51.760 to have. It is. My, my wife, Sharon, and I were talking recently. She's a very profound person. And,

01:20:01.560 uh, there's a good chance. Anytime I happen to say something profound that it came about it in one way

01:20:07.280 or another, as a result of a conversation with Sharon, she pointed out to me that one of the

01:20:12.880 reasons is so devastating. It's so harmful when governments treat people differently on the basis

01:20:17.860 of the race is that that's one thing in their life they can't control and it makes them feel 0.81

01:20:25.220 desperate. And it leads to all kinds of horrible problems when governments pit people against each

01:20:31.720 other on the basis of classifications over which they have no control, have nothing to do with their

01:20:36.440 conduct, with their character, only something that they cannot change. It's a reason to reflect back

01:20:43.420 on the declaration of independence and on the fact that long before we fought and the right side

01:20:49.040 prevailed in the civil war, long before we had the equal protection clause, uh, as part of the 14th

01:20:54.960 amendment adopted following the civil war, we had this principle stated by Thomas Jefferson in the

01:21:00.920 declaration of independence that all men are created equal that helped give birth, uh, to, uh, the system

01:21:08.640 of government that we enjoy today. In many ways, I believe it's entirely possible that our best days

01:21:14.280 are ahead of us. We've made a number of right choices. We've overcome a lot of obstacles that they

01:21:20.160 were still grappling with at the time of the revolution. We just have to complete the project.

01:21:25.320 Why has, why has the Senate failed 24 times to pass a pro-life statement about babies that have been

01:21:39.980 born? This is one of the great mysteries to me that I find it most difficult to unravel on, on most

01:21:48.160 issues, even where I disagree strongly with a political opponent, I can at least explain what their viewpoint

01:21:54.160 is. I, I, I, I can explain their viewpoint on the green new deal, on taxes, on Obamacare, on their role

01:22:02.000 of government and this, that, or the other. This is one area where I struggle with even the finding the

01:22:09.340 right words to explain what could there be their justification. Are we going to descend to the level

01:22:16.040 of a civilization who worshiping Moloch handed infants over to a red hot, uh, uh, uh, statue, 0.95

01:22:24.160 idol, uh, in sacrificing them? Have we sunk to that level? I, I, I can no more fathom or justify

01:22:32.000 voting against something like this than I can that kind of irrational, hateful, uh, society that I

01:22:40.320 described that we just described in the old Testament. I think it is to our everlasting shame

01:22:46.120 that we have not as a society evolved to the point where we're willing to say at least once

01:22:53.760 a baby has been born, that is a human being. All men are created equal and that means and includes

01:23:02.400 babies. We shouldn't treat them differently simply because they're the most vulnerable among

01:23:07.840 us. I can't justify that. I can't even explain it. I said, years ago, and I still mean it.

01:23:17.480 If we lose this, you know, I happen to believe in God and I know you do too. And I believe in a

01:23:24.860 opposing force of Satan and Satan, he doesn't have an original idea. He just perverts that, which is

01:23:34.780 good. He can't create anything. He can only pervert it. The, and the bigger, the force for good

01:23:43.160 when it falls, the more perverse and dangerous it's going to become.

01:23:53.100 And I remember saying, if we fall, we are going to make the Nazis look like rookies with our 0.91

01:23:59.180 technology, with what, what we have in our arsenal, look out world and look out our individual souls for

01:24:10.800 allowing that to happen. And I see this with abortion to the point where we're not talking 0.69

01:24:18.040 about, is it a baby or not? No, we know it's a baby and we know it's right there and it's alive

01:24:23.860 and it's separate from mom. It's no longer part of her body. It's a baby. And because I know my

01:24:32.940 history, I know that this exact thing happened in Germany and the German people stood up against

01:24:42.320 Hitler and told him, no, it's the only thing that I know of that they said no on that he listened.

01:24:52.120 Well, he just went covert with it, but they were openly doing this to children who didn't have

01:24:59.960 a meaningful life. And the German people stood up and said, stop that right now. He continued it 1.00

01:25:09.300 in hiding in all of the hospitals, but the people were upset about it. Mike, where are we?

01:25:18.260 Years ago, I heard my friend, Neil Maxwell say that if India is the world's most religious nation

01:25:28.060 and Sweden is the world's least religious nation, America can be analogized to a nation of Indians

01:25:34.200 governed by Swedes. And I think that's part of what explains what's happening here. 80% of the 0.74

01:25:40.020 American people agree with you and me from what I've been able to pick up at least 70%,

01:25:45.260 probably as high as 80%. I agree with, with you and me on this issue, but it's our system of

01:25:53.320 government. It is ironically that part of our government that has been the source of so much

01:25:59.740 of our strength. That is our independent judiciary that has manipulated and distorted our constitution

01:26:05.820 to the point that it not only justifies, but it enables infanticide. We can't let that bring us

01:26:13.560 down. And which is why the people have got to continue to push it forward. Nor can we afford

01:26:18.920 to sit back and say, oh, those barbaric judges without us ourselves trying to do something about

01:26:24.340 it, which is why I'm glad we've voted on this as many times as we have. And why I hope that we will

01:26:29.500 continue to vote on it again and again and again. They can only look the American people in the eye so long

01:26:35.360 and say, these aren't people. They can only look them in the eye so long and say, these people

01:26:41.000 wouldn't have had a meaningful life. So it was okay to let them expire or to facilitate their

01:26:46.480 expiration. They can't do it much longer. If we keep voting, we will win. Mike, God bless your soul.

01:26:55.840 God bless your wife. I know how hard it is, especially, uh, at least I think our wives are an 0.92

01:27:04.800 awful lot alike. When we get punched, they feel it more than we do. And they want to, they're bears,

01:27:11.080 they're bears. Uh, and sometimes they see it coming before we do too. I know, I know. Um, but I have so

01:27:18.720 much admiration for you and I'm thrilled to be your friend and thank you for spending this time.

01:27:23.460 Thank you. Likewise. I appreciate it very much.

01:27:31.120 Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it

01:27:37.160 can be discovered by other people.

01:27:53.460 I appreciate it very much.

01:27:55.240 Thank you.

01:27:57.300 Thank you.

01:28:01.300 Thank you.

The Glenn Beck Program - May 18, 2019

Ep 37 ｜ Mike Lee ｜ The Glenn Beck Podcast

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript