Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

NRA President David Keene weighs in on 2012 election

October 31, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Will an Obama victory mean a huge spike in gun sales? That's the prediction that Glenn made on radio this morning before he interviewed David Keene, President of the National Rifle Association. Glenn explains his prediction and talks to Keane about Tuesday's election and where Romney and Obama fall in terms of the second amendment.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: I'm going to make a prediction. If Wednesday Obama has won the election, the biggest day of gun sales in the history of the world will be that day. There will be more ammunition and more guns sold in the United States than any place at any time in the history of the planet next Wednesday. And let me make another prediction: If Obama wins, you are going to be very angry that you didn't buy your gun in advance because they're going to be hard to get, and ammunition will be hard to get. Because there will be a run on ammunition. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think anybody ‑‑ anybody who is an NRA member has any doubt on how much of a friend President Obama is to guns, and everybody will want to be grandfathered in.

David Keene, he's the president of the NRA. He's with us. How are you, sir?

KEENE: Just fine, Glenn. Glad to be with you.

GLENN: Do you agree with the prediction that I just made?

KEENE: I sure do. You know, right after his election in 2008, because of his history and because of what he said during that campaign and because of what he said right after the election about wanting to reimpose the Clinton gun ban and tax ammunition and the like, gun sales went way up because people were fearful that he was going to go after their guns. And the same thing's going to happen now because even though for the last year and a half like most liberal politicians, he's tried to downplay his position on the Second Amendment, during that town hall debate he got a question, as you remember, and I don't think he expected it. But he came out of the closet. It was if he said, okay, regardless about what I've said about supporting the Second Amendment, I don't. I'd like to reimpose the Clinton gun ban, I'd like to go after sidearms and when I get reelected, I'm going to do it.

GLENN: You know there's ‑‑

KEENE: So gun owners and everybody that believes in the Second Amendment who saw that debate knows that this is the same guy who campaigned against guns last time, who was an anti‑Second Amendment activist back in Chicago, long before he ever thought of running for public office and that if he gets an opportunity, he's going to go after the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Let me ‑‑ let me ask you this: Why is it so close in Colorado with so many gun owners in Colorado? There's no ifs, ands, and buts on the friendliness to guns with Barack Obama, and anybody who says, "Hey, transmit this to Vladimir; I'm going to have a little extra flexibility after the election," that's frightening.

KEENE: You know they did essentially the same thing to Sarah Brady of handgun control. He told her, "Right now, right now I have to operate under the radar, but I'm going to deliver for you." That's essentially the same thing he told the president of Russia: Let me get past this election and then watch my dust.

GLENN: Where's Mitt Romney on guns?

KEENE: He's committed to the Second Amendment. You saw that in the town hall debate. When Barack Obama said I want a whole bunch of new gun control laws, Mitt Romney came back and said we don't need any new laws. We need to prosecute criminals, we need to support the Second Amendment. Not only that but he's got on his ticket Paul Ryan who, you know, I thought about this the other day. I'm a Wisconsin boy and I grew up about 15 miles from Paul and I've known him for a long time and he's probably the most genuine outdoorsman nominated for either office on either ticket since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

GLENN: Wow.

KEENE: I mean, this is a ticket that will be good on the Second Amendment and I think will be very good in terms of expanding the outdoor opportunities and the hunting opportunities and sporting opportunities for the American people. So I think there's absolutely no choice for anybody who's interested in the shooting sports or anybody who supports the Second Amendment or for anybody who's interested in being active in the outdoors.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't ‑‑ I mean, you know, I know everybody makes the, you know, outdoor and the hunter, you know, claim but that's not why the founders put that in there.

KEENE: No, it is not. It's not the reason.

GLENN: Yeah.

KEENE: It was put in there, as George Washington said at the time, a free people ought to be armed. And, you know, Glenn, whenever I think about it, I think about a banquet that took place in Moscow a few years ago honoring General Kalashnikov who during World War II invented the AK‑47 and it was on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Mr. Putin got up to toast the general. He's one of Russia's few heroes. And when he finished the toast, General Kalashnikov got up, looked him in the eye and said, "Mr. President, my dream is of a country like the United States governed by men and women not afraid of an armed citizenry.

Think about that. Most people in this world can only dream about the kind of country in which we've lived since the founding. And it's that that distinguishes us from the rest of the world.

GLENN: Well, we're sitting here now, we're looking at Department of Homeland Security and everything else and we just take it at the airport. We just take it. When they come to our houses, you're like, well, what am I going to do? Because they've lost their fear of the American people. And the more you regulate guns, the more we ‑‑ I mean, the first thing that happened is what's happening now: We disconnect from the Constitution. We don't know our rights, we don't stand up for our rights. We don't even talk about our rights. We talk more about your rights than our responsibilities, and we've lost the founders' understanding of the Constitution. But the only ‑‑ the other thing is carrying a gun, having a gun ‑‑ having a gun makes the government fearful of its citizens as it should be.

KEENE: Well, that's what the battle about the Second Amendment is really about, Glenn. It's not about crime. If it were about crime, then the folks who are anti‑gun would look at the empirical evidence of, for example, the fact that in every jurisdiction that has allowed concealed carry, violent crime has dropped.

GLENN: Well, I mean ‑‑

KEENE: They would realize that in those jurisdictions where guns are restricted, what they've done is they've disarmed victims and allowed predators free reign, Chicago being a great example. But it's not about guns, it's not about crime.

GLENN: Exactly.

KEENE: It's about the values that the Second Amendment and an armed citizenry represent to a government that does not believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions.

GLENN: We have a ‑‑

KEENE: That's what it's about.

GLENN: We have a real split in America. I mean, it's amazing how half of America's going one way, I'd say even a third of America's going one way and, you know, the remaining part of America's going the other way. Today in Oklahoma, I think it's today, you can now carry it openly. Now it's not concealed carry anymore. You can wear it on your hip in Oklahoma.

KEENE: Well, there are a number of states where that's legal. 49 states allow concealed carry in one form or another. Barack Obama has said in the past that he favors a federal law that would ban concealed carry in all 50 states, including the 49 that now have it. I don't know about the other seven ‑‑

GLENN: Holy cow.

KEENE: ‑‑ that he has in his mind.

GLENN: Wait. So you mean that he's for the holster?

KEENE: No, he's not for the gun.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

KEENE: He doesn't ‑‑

GLENN: Because I'm okay with that, too.

KEENE: This is a guy who has said in the past, Glenn, that he doesn't think any American citizen has the right to privately own a firearm. He supported legislation that would ban the possession, sale, and manufacture of handguns in the United States. This is a guy who has been committed to stripping Americans of their gun rights throughout his entire professional and political career.

GLENN: But he is smart enough to know that he's never going to get around ‑‑ and this is what people say: Oh, he'll never get around the Second Amendment. Yes, he will, by doing things like supporting the 500% increase on the tax on ammunition and gun sales.

KEENE: Yeah, exactly. A lot of people don't realize that all of this is of a piece. If you increase the taxes on ammunition 500%, 1,000%, whatever, you're making it more and more difficult for average Americans to own firearms and use them, to be involved in the shooting sports, defend themselves. You can do the same thing by taxing guns, as his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel wants to do for gun sales now in Chicago and Illinois.

GLENN: And bullets.

KEENE: Do all of those things, or you can eliminate gun dealers. And he's been harassing gun dealers and reduced the number of them since he's president.

GLENN: Big time.

KEENE: Think about this: When the Supreme Court issued the Heller decision which guarantees the right to individually and privately own firearms and said that in the District of Columbia ‑‑ because the original decision was about the district ‑‑ that you have a right to defend yourself by keeping a firearm in your home. The District of Columbia government said, "Okay, we recognize that, but you're going to have to buy it here in the district." The problem was there were no gun dealers that would sell to the general public in the district. And without the gun dealer, that right became an academic rather than a real right. There are all kinds of things. If you ban the manufacture of firearms, then what good does the right if you can't get them. In other words, there are a dozen, more than a dozen ways by bypassing the legislature, through regulatory harassment, through licensing, through executive orders, through a UN treaty that the president of the United States, if he's hostile to the Second Amendment and has a government that follows his orders, can get at the Second Amendment. And this is a guy who, if he can, will do just that.

GLENN: David Keene, president of the NRA. Thanks for being on and thanks for all of your hard work in this election season.

KEENE: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. The NRA has done an awful lot in trying to get the word out because the Second Amendment is up for grabs. If this guy gets on again, mark my words: You better be at the gun store first thing on Wednesday if you want to be able to get one because they are going to go ‑‑ they are going to fly off the shelves, fly off the shelves. Ammunition. And as he continues his second term with more latitude, you will find things harder and harder to get. If you're smart, you might want to ‑‑ you might want to do it this week.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.

Is Trump repealing the 14th Amendment? Here's the truth.

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Trump really promise to put an end to the 14th Amendment, or is this just another mainstream spin?

This past weekend, President-elect Donald Trump sat down on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his first interview since the election. As one might expect, it was a particularly hostile interview, but Trump handled it with grace. The biggest takeaway from the interview was when the interviewer, Kristen Welker, pressed Trump on his immigration plans, specifically his plans to end birthright citizenship.

Despite Walker's claim that the 14th Amendment protected birthright citizenship, Trump defended his stance with the backing of legal scholars, who argue that birthright citizenship has to be granted within the proper "jurisdictional scope." As Glenn reiterated on his show this week, the 14th Amendment was enacted in the context of slavery "not illegal immigration. The 14th Amendment doesn't say, "Come over here, get into a hospital, have a baby, and congratulations, everybody is a citizen."

The media still pushed the narrative that Trump is trying to overstep the 14th Amendment.

But what is the truth? What is birthright citizenship, and what does the 14th Amendment actually say about it? Here is everything you need to know about the "birthright citizenship debacle" below:

The media outrage

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

If you have glanced through any mainstream media articles, they would convince you that Trump will repeal the 14th Amendment altogether and catapult the country back 200 years before slavery was abolished when Congress passed the Constitutional Amendment. But how do these accusations stack up to reality?

What the 14th amendment actually says

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

To get to the bottom of this, we have to understand what the 14th Amendment actually says and the context in which it was created.

During Trump's NBC interview, Welker "quoted" the 14th Amendment as "all persons born in the United States are citizens," but anyone who took a government class in high school can tell you that is wrong. The actual14th Amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Notice that Welker conveniently left out "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This was no simple oversight.

First, let's define what birthright citizenship actually is and how it relates to the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is an interpretation of the previously quoted section of the 14th Amendment: that by simply being born on U.S. soil, you are automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This has been the historic interpretation of the amendment. However, the border crisis has been incentivized by an abuse of birthright citizenship, which is colloquially called "anchor babies." This refers to when a pregnant woman crosses the border, gives birth, and is granted residency since her child is automatically given U.S. citizenship.

However, Trump says the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could enable the federal government to crack down on this abuse of birthright citizenship. If a person is here illegally, then they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore, their child would not be given automatic citizenship. This would not apply to legal immigrants who have secured citizenship, despite any claims to the contrary.

What Trump actually said

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

When questioned about the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship and the possibility of using executive orders to get around the 14th Amendment, Trump's first suggestion was to pose a potential amendment to the 14th Amendment as a national vote. When Welker pushed back, Trump stressed the importance of ending birthright citizenship and conceded that, if necessary, he would use an executive order.

As usual, the mainstream media has spun a mountain out of a molehill and blown the entire issue out of proportion. They have spun Trump's reasonable and legal proposition into a dictatorial decree that would send the country back 200 years.