Congressman Keith Self on Ukraine and the Fentanyl Crisis 53:01

It's the new year and time for the new you. You've thought about running for political office but don't know where to start. Before you start any planning, you need to secure your name online with a yourname.vote web domain. This means your constituents will know they are learning about the real you when they surf the web. Secure your domain from godaddy.com today.

Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your hosts Sam Stone and Chuck Warren. Our first guest on the line with us today, Congressman Keith Self, currently serving his first term in Congress as the representative of the 3rd District of Texas. For folks who don't know him, Keith was born in a military hospital during his father's service in the United States Army. He then went on to graduate from West Point.

and began a 25-year career of service, and that's part of the reason we want to have him on today. He's recently made a visit to Ukraine and has some kind of unique insights we think you all would enjoy hearing. So, Congressman Keith Self, thank you and welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. Look forward to it. Congressman, so you were out in Ukraine. What did you see that you don't think people are understanding about Ukraine?

Well, we stopped first at the Munich Security Conference in Munich, of course. Then we went to Poland to see some remote maintenance there. Then we went into Ukraine. So we took the overnight train into Kyiv.

We met with the president. We met with some of their parliamentarians. Then we made a trip to Bucha. Now, Bucha is where the Russian war crimes were committed. Very sobering pictures, horrific pictures, actually, of the war crimes that were committed in Bucha. And I don't think many people understand just how brutal some of the fighting is

to include the war crimes that were committed. So I think that's the thing that I would like to highlight. One of the things I've heard, Congressman, and maybe you can tell us whether this is really going on or not, is that the Russians are very deliberately now targeting medics, and they're targeting the people that are responding to extract wounded people off the battlefield with timed follow-up attacks. Right.

Well, I've not heard that particular, but that makes sense because that's an old and dishonored tradition in some militaries to actually wound people and then target the people that come after them because that takes out more than one person. So that is a very dishonorable practice that is not new. I believe it. I have not heard that, but I can believe that that might be happening.

What did you think about President Zelensky? I know some on our party, a small group, you know, they're just very hesitant about this conflict. Sam and I believe you just can't let Russia go take over a country. It's just it's just not good for anything in the world. What are your opinions after meeting him, shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes?

Well, he's very sober. Our meeting with him was very sober. I don't know what most people's impressions are, but we spent a lot of time with him. We actually preempted his next meeting because it went so long, talking to him about his priorities.

talking to him about specific weapons systems, what they need to do. But your last point was very important because I spent a large part of my military life as a military planner. And starting back in, I planned 1004 against Iran decades ago. But I have to tell you, I think China is already a major player in this.

The belligerents on the battlefield are Russia and Ukraine. Obviously, the West, led by the U.S., is supporting Ukraine now. But China is giving Russia non-lethal support, but they're talking about lethal support. So there's a couple of issues with China. One is they are watching this very carefully to see how the West does and maybe even develop their strategy based on our response to this war. But two...

becoming an active, uh, uh,

provider of lethal support to Russia would be another step forward for China. So I am very concerned about this war because what it might lead to worldwide in the geopolitical realm. Congressman, I mean, what you're talking about is potentially, obviously, we've heard Zelensky very recently call and say that he sees the distinct possibility that you will end up with American troops on the ground in Ukraine at some point.

or at least he would like to. We're skirting with a real world war at that point, especially if China is directly engaging and providing lethal help and that sort of thing. I mean, how much consideration of that do you know is going into the decision-making in Washington right now? There is no consideration, and I will not support American troops on the ground in Ukraine. That is not...

That's my intention. That's not my hope. In fact, I will be against that from the beginning. We want to keep this war on the battlefield. It's on now between the belligerence that's on. And I will tell you, I don't think that's in Putin's mind either.

But it is certainly in the mind of the Eastern European allies. The three Baltic states are absolutely terrified right now. You saw that Sweden and Finland ran for NATO cover as soon as this invasion happened. Poland is all in. I mean, their people are all in, their military's all in, their politicos are all in.

So the Eastern European border states there understand how serious this is. But I don't think Putin wants a war with NATO, because if he attacks Poland and they've made that threat, if he attacks Poland or the Baltics, then that brings Article 5 into play, and that's a NATO war. He does not want that, I don't think, because his military has already showed that they are not ready for a prime time.

Where, if you know, are Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in this? I mean, what are they thinking and what's, what are their concerns right now? Well,

They're terrified. You talk about three small states that are on the front lines. They're up around four or five or even more percentage points of their GDP in defense spending today. They are arming as fast as they can, and they are very, very concerned.

So that's where they are. They are concerned about themselves and Russia trying to take those three small nations next. It seems – what is Putin's endgame at this point? Because it seems highly unlikely they're going to be able to finish the conquest of Ukraine. It just doesn't seem to be in the cards. That's a great question because this war will end.

All war's in. And that's the question. Because he's not going to conquer all of Ukraine. He's just not. So then you have to start thinking, what happens at the end of the war? Because there's still going to be neighbors. They're still going to have a long border.

What does that look like? Will he be allowed through negotiations to keep part of Ukraine? Will Ukraine be able to reclaim all of their land? No one knows at this point. So, I mean, that is a great question. What does Europe look like at the end of this war? And nobody knows right now. But again...

So war's in. Putin is not going to achieve his strategic goal of defeating Ukraine proper. Let's switch topics since we're on all these sunshine topics. Let's talk about fentanyl for a minute. So as of August 2022, there were 107,000 deaths due to drug overdose, and two-thirds of those were caused by fentanyl. You know, I think this is the one frustration, right?

with those in the conservative branch of the party, that, yes, okay, we need to be doing what we're doing in Ukraine. Why is not this presidency putting the same amount of effort in making sure our border is secure and we're stopping these drugs from coming into the country? Because that's their policy.

That is the national policy of the Biden administration. He changed the national policy with a stroke of a pen on day one. He opened the border. This is by policy. We conservatives look at it and say it's a failure. The administration looks at it and says it's going exactly as we planned.

So discontent, so distrust, so lawlessness, and hopefully that will lead to greater government control over every aspect of our life. Plus, all these people may become Democrat voters, given the short memories of Americans here in five, seven, ten years, whatever. What do you think –

Is it that they just don't care or are they just dumb? I mean, you know, you basically have one American overdosing every five minutes. It's causing our economy one point five trillion annually. What are they not understanding? It's the second leading cause of death in America. I mean, COVID is around. It's just what what are they not getting about this?

I have no idea. That's a great question. When you're killing a large airliner number of people every single day with opioid overdoses, what don't they get? What don't they understand? I have no idea. We only lost 55,000 soldiers in Vietnam. We lost 107,000 in the last year's numbers. I don't get it.

Congressman, one of the things we had a guest, the attorney general of Montana, Austin Knudson, on the program some time ago. One of the things I think people are underestimating is the wave of suffering that comes from all these fentanyl overdoses. He pointed out.

that their foster care system is being overwhelmed by fentanyl orphans and by people who are ending up just disappearing onto the streets because of this. There are huge consequences for parts of our society that people don't seem to understand are being affected.

Well, every person that either becomes a drug addict or overdoses and dies leaves a string of suffering around him or her. There's no doubt about it. There's only been one major country that has ever solved a major drug problem. It was China back in, I think, the mid-1800s or something. They solved their drug problem. Now, they were brutal about it, but they solved their drug problem

But we have a major drug problem in America today just by the numbers of deaths. And that's just the numbers of deaths. How many other people are being impacted by it? And you haven't even mentioned the open border sex trafficking, the indentured servanthood that comes from the open border. I mean, there are consequences on the border because of the open border well beyond the fentanyl.

Yeah, absolutely. We have just about a minute left here before we go to break. Then we're going to be coming right back with more from Congressman Keith Self of the 3rd District of Texas. Congressman, before we go to break here, how do folks follow you and your work and stay in touch with all the things that you're trying to do for the state of Texas and this country?

Well, thanks for the opportunity. They can go to KeithSelf.House.gov and sign up for my newsletter. I won't flood their inbox, but we do tell them what we're doing. Or they can follow me at RepKeithSelf.

At Rep. Keith Self. Either way works. Appreciate the opportunity. Yeah. And those folks, those newsletters are a fantastic opportunity to get insights into Congress members from across the country. Senators also highly, highly encourage you to go there and sign up. We are going to be coming back with more in just a moment for Breaking Battlegrounds. This is Sam Stone with Chuck Warren. Back in a few moments.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. Folks, make sure you go to BreakingBattlegrounds.vote. You can download all of our episodes there. And we're back with more from Congressman Keith Self of the 3rd District of Texas.

Congressman, we are – everybody's a border state now. Sam and I taped this show out of Phoenix, so we are well aware of what this causes regarding taxpayer sources, the lives of people, and so forth. But in Texas, you're spending $717 million annually on medical care for illegal aliens, $152 million to house criminal illegal aliens in prisons.

$63 million on education for these unaccompanied children. I mean, look, we're Americans. We're just not going to let them rot, right? But this is really becoming a difficult task for local and county and state governments. What do you think needs to be done to secure the border and just stop this human suffering and the exhaustion of taxpayer resources?

Well, the first thing is to change the national policy we talked about before. People know it's open. They know they're going to get across the border and they're going to be taken care of all the ways that you just mentioned. So the first thing is to change the policy and start enforcing the laws on the books today. Give the border patrol the resources they need. That's the simplest thing to do is just change the policy and start enforcing the law. Then we need to build a wall because walls work.

They don't have to be perfect. Don't be led down the red herring of a wall has to be perfect. It has to be good. It has to stop. And the policy and the wall would do a great deal of stopping what's happening.

Then in Congress, we've got something that all but one Texas Republican congressman or woman has endorsed, which is the Texas border plan. And we negotiated in the first weekend office that it will be heard on the floor of the House at some point this year.

Then I'm working on trying to see if we can use El Chapo's $12 billion that we have sequestered, if we can use that $12 billion to build the wall down there. That would be something that I could support. Best use of that money in its history.

Absolutely. Better than use those ill-gotten gains for something useful. And then my last point would be we need to really get past this idea that we can't use the military because of posse comitatus. The posse comitatus says that you can't use the military for internal police action.

But securing our border, our international border, is not internal police actions. It is our military securing our sovereign nation. So I think we ought to have a discussion on posse comitatus and using the military on the border. But that's what gets thrown in our face is posse comitatus. Congressman, I'm going to throw out something else because you brought up the example of China in their war on opium many, many years ago. But

One of the things that I think is missing from our drug policy is some sort of actual repercussions for the drug users. You can target the – and I'm not talking about jail, but maybe it's community service programs that will really make it inconvenient to be a drug user and try to benefit society along the way because I don't know how you stop this problem with such an enormous profit incentive just from the supply side. Yeah.

It's a good point. I would be willing to have the discussion. I don't know what that would be.

I don't know where we would go with that, but I'm certainly willing because it's kind of like military service. I think that everybody ought to have some sort of national service. So I think your idea merits discussion, and I'd certainly be willing to include it. Sorry, I throw these things at folks sometimes and straight out of left field, but it's just one of those problems that here in Arizona at least, and I'm sure from your perspective in Texas –

You're dealing with organizations that make an enormous amount of money and don't really care if they lose the people that they're using as mules and traffickers. Those are just casualties of the system along the way to them. Yeah, absolutely. But I will point out that apparently the sex trade coming across the border is now more lucrative than the drug trade. Let that sink in. That's horrifying. Yeah.

Asa Hutchison believes the U.S. should designate the drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. You as a former military planner, how would that work if we did that? What does that mean?

Well, that means that we could go after their money wherever it is. And we know how to do this. First of all, I agree with the concept. We need to do that immediately. But what that means, aside from, and people think that we're going to attack into Mexico because of that. We wouldn't have to do that. What that allows us to do is to go after their money wherever it is in the world. We know how to do this because we've been doing it for 20 years with the terrorist organization. Wow.

So once you designate that, then you can go find their money and take it and simply stop all this profit that they're making as soon as we can find it and run it down.

Yeah, absolutely. You bring up the issue with posse comitatus. I agree that has been totally misinterpreted because if it was interpreted the way these folks are pretending it is, we wouldn't have been able to fight the War of 1812. I mean – That's right. That's really kind of a silly statement. And we do have a history, quite frankly, successfully of helping –

uh, Columbia battle off their cartels during the Pablo Escobar era. So this isn't unprecedented in any way, is it? No, it's not. No, it's, but again, it's national policy. We've got to, this, this is why the executive branch is so important. Uh,

The legislative branch, Congress, can pass all the laws it wants, but if the executive branch changes the national policy with a stroke of a pen, we then have to get into very detailed bills in the next budget cycle or fence their money now to force them to change. We can't fence their money temporarily, even authorized and appropriated funds. We could fence their money, but I'm not sure there's a willingness to do that for this issue.

Yet it seems like this is really just all about political will and there's a desperate drive on the left to conflate immigration with border security. And they really are two entirely separate issues or should be, right? Yeah.

Oh, yeah. If you're talking legal immigration, there's no doubt we need legal immigration reform. But remember, Ronald Reagan kind of got led into this trap back in 1986. He agreed to limited amnesty in exchange for the border closing. Well, they got the limited amnesty.

But the border didn't close. So that's a lesson that I learned, that I'm not going to be led into the same trap. Absolutely. Well, fantastic. Thank you, Congressman, so much for joining us today. We really appreciate having you on the program. We would love to have you back again in the future. And keep up the good work. We appreciate the fight you're in. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Take care. Thank you.

Well, folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility, especially with Joe Biden in office? What if you can invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market, a portfolio where you'll know what each monthly statement will look like with no surprises? You can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle if you need your money back at any time. Your interest is compounded daily. You're paid monthly and there are no fees.

This is a secure, collateralized portfolio that delivers a high fixed interest rate. And by investing, you can actually do good. You're helping people pay off their student loans. So, folks, call Y Refi at 888-Y-REFI-24 or go on to the website at investyrefi.com. That's invest, the letter Y, then refi.com. Or, again, call them at 888-Y-REFI-24 and make sure that you tell them Chuck and Sam sent you.

Breaking Battlegrounds is going to be coming back in just a moment with more. We have Congressman Eli Crane of Arizona joining us next, so be sure you stay tuned for that. And again, folks, if you're not already, make sure you subscribe to the podcast. We have a nice little extra segment for you with every show. Breaking Battlegrounds, back in just a moment.

You deserve a home that's beautiful and stylish. At Overstock, you don't have to choose between low prices and quality. Find new on-trend home goods that reflect your taste and don't compromise on value. You can be proud of your home and design a space where you feel like you, all under budget. Plus, you get free shipping on everything in the continental United States. Overstock is where quality furniture and decor cost less.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren. On the line with us next, Congressman Eli Crane in his first term in Congress representing Arizona's 2nd District. Congressman, welcome to the program. Hey, thanks for having me, guys. I appreciate it. Congressman, what has surprised you being in Congress? You've been there now a little over two months. What has been the biggest surprise to you?

This is kind of sad, but I think the biggest surprise to me, it's been twofold. It's been watching people that I know campaign as conservatives

fiscal conservatives talk about the debt problems in Washington, D.C., and then behind closed doors watch those same individuals refuse to do anything about, you know, the spending issues that we have or cutting spending. That's been one of them. And then also it's been watching media personalities, conservative media personalities that I've heard talk

rant and go after the establishment in the swamp for years. And then when Republicans actually fight against the swamp, not only did they not provide us any air cover, but they were dropping bombs on us. So that's always disappointing, but I guess it should be expected.

So let's talk about the debt. We have a debt ceiling coming up here this early this summer. Senator Joe Manchin yesterday made the following comment. My Democratic friends don't want to say a word about our out of control spending and our outright refusing to even talk to Republicans about reasonable and responsible reforms. We're going to pay our debts. We have to pay our sins of the past.

But can't we at least sit down and discuss? Can we even talk about that and see if there's a pathway forward? What do you think is a pathway forward? I mean, at the end of the day, $31 trillion in debt has to be paid. How do we do it?

Well, yeah, I mean, you're right. And it is a very big hole that we've gotten ourselves into. But I'll just give you one example. You have to start saying no. You have to be willing to cut things. And sometimes you're going to have to cut things that might not be

Might not even, you know, might not even be horrible programs. But, you know, it's just like when, you know, if you or I got ourselves into personal financial trouble or debt, you know, if you guys have ever listened to Dave Ramsey, you know, Dave Ramsey, you know,

Coaches people and talks them through Getting into debt And how to get out of it And you'll often hear him tell individuals That call into his show Hey you better not see the inside of a restaurant For the next year

There's nothing bad about going into a restaurant, but if you've gotten yourself into massive amounts of debt, you have to make cuts. And this country is going to have to do the same if we're ever going to get out of debt. And so one of the things that many of us, 51 of us in the House tried to do in conference before even we had the speaker vote was we tried to eliminate earmarks because earmarks

You know, though they can be a good thing and they can be used for good community projects are often used for support and special interest and things that the American people, most American people would never vote on to begin with. And so we try to get rid of earmarks. And 51 of us in the Republican conference voted to get rid of them.

And that's not to say forever, but while we're in this kind of debt, we need to start making cutbacks to spending. And the vast majority of our conference would not do it. And go ahead. Congressman, we have just a couple of minutes before we go to break here. But that actually brings us back to a point because you took a lot of flack, a lot of heat as a freshman congressman holding out on the speaker's vote. But that action has made an enormous difference in the

how this current Congress is functioning and its ability to fight for the things conservatives are asking it to fight for, right? Absolutely. Yeah, no question. Yeah, I mean, if you've got a specific question, I'll answer it. But yeah, I did take a lot of flack, and that's one of the things that I told you was one of the most disturbing thing in watching people that I had watched in the media for years rant and rave about, you know, how bad the establishment in the swamp was and when Republicans were actually –

Trying to push this conference back towards, you know, our conservative, you know, constitutional roots and, you know, fight for single subject germane legislation, try to bring back the motion to vacate, which would hold any speaker, you know, accountable, you know.

And Nancy Pelosi was the one that actually got rid of that, and we didn't want to bring it back. So yes, to your point, that fight was about a lot more than Kevin McCarthy. It was about taking power away from...

centralized, top-down leadership and trying to restore more of it to the individual members of the House and therefore, thereby, giving it back to the people of this country where it's supposed to be. Yeah, fantastic. We're going to be going to break here in just a moment. We'll

We're coming back with more from Eli Crane of Arizona's 2nd Congressional District. Congressman, thank you for joining us today. Folks, stay tuned and make sure if you aren't already, you're downloading the podcast at BreakingBattlegrounds.vote. More in just a moment.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. Folks, if you're concerned with stock market volatility, especially with Joe Biden in office, and if you're not, you certainly should be. You need to check out investyrefie.com. That's invest, the letter Y, then refie.com. Or you can go to investyrefie.com.

Thank you.

then the letter Y, then refy.com or call them at 888-Y-REFI-24 and make sure you tell them that Chuck and Sam sent you. And now back to the program with more from Congressman Eli Crane. Congressman, again, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Congressman Crane, you are on a veterans committee. What do you think Congress and this nation should be doing differently for our veterans?

Well, you know, obviously, you know, our veterans, you know, need a lot of support because of the sacrifices they've made, you know, for this country. But I also think that we need to we need to really be careful about how we're spending money. And, you know, that that that's.

That doesn't exclude some of the monies paid out to some of these veteran service organizations. And so we're going to be going through some of the funding, seeing if we could do a better job in supporting our veterans.

and looking at more, I would say, you know, cutting-edge technologies and services that might give them better services than what they actually have now at a cheaper price. But one of the things that I want to specifically look at is, you know,

giving or looking at reinstating some of our veterans who were forced out of the military because of, you know, COVID and also reinstating some of their benefits that many of them have lost because of what went on during COVID-19. You know, we've talked to a lot of folks in Congress. You're the first one to really break that point up. And thank you for doing that, because I personally know service members who are separated from service against their will at that time.

I think that's a really critical point. But I want to go back to another point you were you're just making. Cutting and getting serious about our debt crisis means cutting some things that maybe Republicans like to write. We have to compromise. We can't just say it's the other side stuff that gets cut.

No, you're absolutely right. And on your first point, you know, my little brother was went to the Naval Academy, then went and flew helicopters in the Marine Corps. He flew attack helicopters, the Cobras. And then he was he was forced out at 19 years and eight months, four months shy of his retirement because he would not take the COVID vaccine. And I think he made a great choice in not taking it. And I think we're seeing, you know, all sorts of side effects.

We see cover-ups on what's going on with that. And so I think there are many of us who are going to try really hard to make sure that my little brother and other veterans just like him get the benefits that they deserve. But here's the thing, guys.

I sit in meetings all day long, whether I'm sitting in meetings and we're talking about our border issues or veterans affairs or small business or education or the Second Amendment, whatever it is. We never have groups come in and say to us, you know, we just were getting too much money. We need you guys to really rein in and cut some of the spending. The only thing we ever hear is the exact opposite.

And meanwhile, in the back of your mind, you know that we've got over $31 trillion in debt in this country and no appetite up there in that town to cut any of it because it feels so good to say yes. And that's what everybody wants to hear from you. Well, the fact of the matter is if enough of us aren't courageous and willing to actually look at some of these things –

that we're spending money on and look at look and see if there's actually better more effective less costly ways to do them then we're never going to get out of this hole and so yes and that includes with veterans affairs and a lot of people there's a there's a few things in this country that seem to be untouchable because nobody wants to offend anybody and expect we definitely don't want you know we don't

especially one of offend our veterans, right? Well, I can tell you as one, somebody that joined the Navy after 9-11, we have to look there as well, because there is, you know, there is fraud, waste and abuse all over this government. And, you know, how we spend money in that department, you know, there's plenty of it in there, too. So we have to be courageous and we have to look at those things.

So the U.S. government in 2022 brought in almost $5 trillion. I mean, when Trump was elected in 2017, it was like $3.3 trillion. So we've gone over almost $2 trillion new dollars in tax revenue. Do you think being there and looking at the budgets you're seeing, that if we really went and did a cross-the-board cut of, say, 5%,

If it's done right, would people notice any difference in services?

If it's done right, I don't know that they would notice a difference because I think that I think that there are ways I think that there are ways that not only could you cut spending, but you could also offer better services like, you know, in the private sector. Or let's just say let's just say all the money we're sending to Ukraine right now. Right now, obviously, that's

you know, can be a polarizing issue. There's Republicans and Democrats, bipartisan support for that money that's going overseas. I don't think we should be sending that money overseas. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I don't have any compassion for Ukrainians, because I most certainly do. My argument is this. I'm an America first candidate. We're $31 trillion in debt.

We can no longer – this paradigm that we are the world's global police has to come to an end. Why? Because one, we can't afford it. Two, I don't think we have the leaders in place to do it even if we could afford it. I mean keep in mind this is the same administration that pulled us out of Afghanistan.

So we're pushing towards World War III in Russia. We've spent over $100 billion in Ukraine that we don't even have, that we're printing money. And that's just one example right there. I could give you example after example after example of money that we're spending that I don't think

many of the American people who actually, you know, send their tax dollars to, you know, Washington, D.C. would approve of. And I don't think it's being responsible with their with their money. Congressman, I'm going to throw out something that I don't think it's talked about in Washington enough, but I've seen it up close here in the city of Phoenix, local government, the state government and the federal agencies we interact with.

They are not over bloated with people on the actual service delivery end. They're bloated with middle and upper middle management.

And everyone always says you can't fire government workers. Why aren't we looking at just shifting a lot of these office people into actual field service roles? Maybe a few of them quit, but at least regardless, they'd be contributing something productive instead of just sitting around finding ways to create more of themselves and replicate more bureaucracy. Yeah.

Well, the problem is, is I think that you're looking at it through the lens of common sense and rationale when the government, both often at the state and the federal level, they look at

They look at things through the lens of power control and retention, holding on to it. And the more people that they can get on the government seat, if you will, the more people that they can insulate their operation with,

it tends to be better for them in retention and holding on to those, you know, those dollars and that power and that control. And it really doesn't behoove them. Like, let me give you an example. When I was in the military, uh,

I was in the SEAL teams, and we used to regularly have individuals in leadership come into the platoon space and say, hey, guys, it's the end of the quarter. I need you to get me a list of whatever shoes and sunglasses and jackets and whatever knives, whatever nonsense you guys want, because we haven't spent all of our budget. And if we don't spend it, we're not going to get it next time. So the government...

typically doesn't look at, you know, budget and, you know, management and personnel in the same way that a private business would because it doesn't have to. And it is kind of complicated.

Go ahead. You're making me laugh because I had a friend who ran one of the A-10 squadrons at Davis-Monthan, and he was talking about the same thing. They got to the end of their budget year, and they had a bunch of unspent money. And so he was told by his leadership, go out and find it. So he bought a bunch of computers, right? And then they boxed up the old ones, didn't know what to do with them. And someone said, oh, you just put them in the warehouse with the others. Right.

So he goes and they have an entire warehouse full of computers that have been bought over 20 years. Most of them still brand new in their boxes. You know, IBM's from 1988. Just ridiculous.

No, you're exactly right. And so when I talk about cutting spending, it starts with, you know, and if you even say that what I said on this show to open up and I started talking about looking into budgets of things that we hold dear and sacred, right? Like taking care of our veterans. If you start talking about that, what type of commercials do you think they're going to run against Eli Crane and Cycle?

You hate veterans. I hate veterans. I don't want to take care of them. And it's like, or whether it's law enforcement or whatever it is, and that's why a lot of individuals who run for these seats won't talk about anything. And they just regurgitate the same talking points. Oh, we got to take care. We got to take care of these people and we got to give them whatever they want.

And we can't ask any tough questions and we can't look at where the sausage is made. We can't look in that warehouse to see if there's computers stacked up on that shelf for the last 20 years because we got to take care of, you know, we got to take care of our war fighters. Right. And you hear it over and over and over again. And again, we're thirty one trillion dollars in debt. Nobody has an appetite to cut spending and nobody has an appetite to ask a tough question.

And it's very alarming, especially for those of us that are parents and want our kids to be able to buy a house one day or a car or not try and operate in an economy that has inflation and rising interest rates and everything that we're seeing going on right now because of your responsibility. We have about two and a half minutes left with your time. What do you think we should be doing about the cartels who are

really causing chaos at the border, not only with fentanyl, but with human trafficking. What should be done? Well, we used to have a saying in the SEAL teams, and the saying was crawl, walk, run. Okay, so the first thing I think that we need to do is we need to reinforce our borders, right? We need to bring back policy that actually works and

And I think we saw that under, you know, some of that under the Trump years. I'd like to start there. And then I'd like to, you know, see some of the same, you know, some of the same policy where we get tough with our neighbors from the South and basically say, hey,

If you guys don't help us out with this problem, there's going to be repercussions. I think you also saw that with President Trump. And I know that not everybody loves President Trump. Look, I get it. But I'm going to say, you know, I'm going to say I saw I saw him do some things that were very effective because he often functioned as a businessman and not a politician.

And so you have to get tough with those folks. It's just like dealing with the cartels is kind of like dealing with terrorists. They only speak one language. You're not going to love them to death. You're going to have to be tough with them. And that's, you know, I mean, I know that sounds...

you know, cliche, but it's the, it's the only way to operate with those folks. I know I've seen some of my colleagues, you know, talk about, Hey, um, designating them as, you know, terrorist organizations. You know, I, I would be open to considering that. I think one of the, one of the concerns is people are already weary of an overreaching government. And then they,

They don't want to see a government who's designated these cartels as terrorist organizations then start to weaponize and turn their probes or their attacks

into the United States. So I think that's something that you could absolutely look at, but crawl, walk, run, floor up that southern border and bring back some of the policies, you know, that we saw working under President Trump. Fantastic. Thank you so much, Congressman Eli Crane of Arizona. Eli, how do folks stay in touch with you and your work going forward?

Guys, you can follow me on social media at Rep Eli Crane. Fantastic, folks. At Rep Eli Crane. Make sure you follow him. He's bringing good common sense to Congress. We need more of that. Breaking Battlegrounds will be back on the air next week, but make sure you tune in for the podcast-only segment at BreakingBattlegrounds.vote. Thank you so much for listening.

Welcome to the podcast, the only segment of Breaking Battlegrounds. Folks, we're going to start with a little clip that has me hot under the collar. Go ahead, Jeremy. There was a moment when we were very unclear about whether domestic pets or not could transmit the disease. In fact, there was an idea at one moment that we may have to ask the public to exterminate all the cats in Britain. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had wanted to do that? And yet there was, for a moment, a little bit of evidence about that. So that had to be investigated and closed down. Yeah, that...

That is just insanity. It shows you how ridiculous, Chuck, that everything got around COVID with our governments around this world. They lost their minds. Well, it sounds like a plan that a bunch of dogs put together, had a ghostwritten memo and sent. I think it's like the Cruella de Vil plan for COVID. You and I have always taken, I feel, a very reasonable approach to COVID. It was real.

People got sick from it. And I think in the first month, I think a lot of public officials, because people are screaming for were in the fog of war. But as time came on, they knew a lot of this didn't work. And.

You know, and I, you know, for example, they still are captured by this fear. I mean, I got today when I fly international long trip and it's expensive, I buy travel insurance. Today, they sent a whole email about COVID that we're going to cover COVID now.

And it just it comes to a point you're wondering when this insanity is going to stop and they are actually going to follow the science. Well, yes, absolutely. But going back to your statement about the fog of war, here's the thing. You do not want generals who get confused and turned around in the fog of war. I mean, that's everyone who was. I understand the fear. I get it. But everyone who was should no longer be in a position of public health leadership.

I agree 100 percent. 100 percent. I mean, it just you know, you you failed that test. I've talked before about a situation we had with a police officer here in Phoenix, who I believe panicked and shot a shot a citizen at their door.

And, you know, that person might be suited for some duty in the police department, but not on the street anymore carrying a gun. These folks have a much bigger weapon. They have public policy and none of them who advocated for this kind of stuff should be allowed to remain in those positions.

I agree 100 percent. Sam, let's talk a little bit. You've got a little over a week until your election. Yeah. How are things going? How are things going? Well, I mean, it's really a turnout battle right now. The numbers so far that are being turned in because ballots are already out there. If you've gotten a mail in ballot, turn it around today. But yeah.

numbers are going to come down to who actually turns in their vote. I think this is a very close race, but it could end up being a 20 point blowout in either direction, just depending on who shows up. And right now, I mean, honestly, Chuck,

I'm very worried about Republicans who have lost faith in the mail-in ballot system because historically that's like 99 percent of the ballots that will be cast in this race. So, Sam, when you go out and you're talking to Republican voters in your city council district, how many of them have completely lost faith in the mail-in ballot system? When I'm talking to Republicans, it's a good third. And I have to work with each one of them to get over that.

And, you know, look, it's really easy to find a reason not to go to the polls on Election Day, even during a normal November election. But when you're talking about a standalone election in the middle of March for one seat on a city council, I mean, that's really easy. And so I don't think our side has thought enough about how, you know, this distrust that's been created in early ballots really harms our lower level candidates. I mean, it's a huge impact in this race. Yeah.

Well, I think those who created this fear don't care. I mean, I'm a call for what it is. I mean, they're doing it to feed their ego. Yeah. I mean, you know, I think I think there's an ego element, but I also think there's an element of just not understanding the processes and the potential vulnerabilities. And I don't think Democrats have been right to just stonewall the issues with our elections by any means, because there are no right. You know, but but at the end of the day, you know,

We have a, you know, just clean your voter rolls. You're really not going to have any problem with any kind of elections issue if you do that. Now, Arizona has not. And we are seeing something interesting because we've now hand-mailed over 25,000 letters out to voters. And I got to tell you, Chuck, there's a lot of duplicate registrations we're encountering that are coming back. There's a lot of people who have moved out of state that those letters are coming back. So we're seeing that there is a huge rate of

ballots that are being sent out that people aren't there anymore to receive them. That's amazing. As we finish up this podcast portion, this today, Al

alex murdaugh he was the disbarred south carolina attorney who was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for killing his wife and his son the judge if anybody saw it did a wonderful job and judge newman discussed the death penalty before he handled down a lesser sentence said he was reflective that over the past century your family

including you, have been prosecuting people here in this courtroom, and many have received the death penalty, probably for lesser conduct. Kylie, did you find out why they did not have the death penalty? We're turning to our true crime reporter, Kylie Kipper, bringing the sunshine today. It's less than exciting. The simple answer is the state did not seek it, and that is an answer that only the attorney general can answer, which he has declined to answer why he did not. It wasn't even on the board.

So, so folks, as you know, I, I'm a law and order conservative. Um, I support the death penalty. I can't understand what the reasoning would be for not pursuing the death penalty in this case. I mean, these, you know, in crime, they like to use the word heinous a lot. This was heinous. I mean, what he did, what the jury found him guilty of is just, there's no words for it. No, you're, you're absolutely right. It's,

It was brutal beyond imagination and it was clearly premeditated. The jury didn't have to deliberate very long. I mean, I guess you could make the argument that it's generally easier to get in conviction without the death penalty. And maybe that was a consideration. But quite frankly, that element smacks of some sort of insider element.

Well, well, here's the other thing, too. I don't know. This is part of it. So I was watching. I believe it's a Nancy Grace, the true crime person. Yeah, that's so she was she was asked a question this morning and the reporter asked, have you ever seen a trial where the jury despised a defendant so much?

And she said that was a great question. She hadn't thought of it, but her answer was no. They truly disliked the man. And I wonder almost if the prosecution thought this would be a cause for appeal because they were such known factors down there. There are a lot of animosity. I think as we close this, there was a comment here by the judge, which I found interesting.

So true in so many ways. As Murdoch was, you know, being ready to take an off, he goes, I respect this court, but I am innocent. And then Judge Newman said, it might not have been you. It might have been the monster you became when you take 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 opiate pills. Oh. And I just thought that is such a what an insightful comment by the judge. Yeah, it is. That's that's.

He cut to the heart of an issue that's changing all of America right now. But, man, that is a sharp comment. Absolutely. Well, folks, thanks for joining us this week. We hope you enjoyed both our congressional guests, and we look forward to being back with you next week. Visit us at BreakingBattlegrounds.vote and share it with your friends and family. Thank you.

The political field is all about reputation, so don't let someone squash yours online. Secure your name and political future with a yourname.vote web address from godaddy.com. Your political career depends on it.