Glenn likes a candidate who studied under Cass Sunstein?

April 19, 2012

Writer

There are only a handful of candidates that can help turn the country around - and Glenn believes that Dan Liljenquist is one of them. One of three survivors of a tragic plane crash that claimed the lives of several friends - Liljenquist came through the tragedy and realized “we don't have time in this life to wait.” But would you believe that he also studied under Cass Sunstein when he was in law school? It's an unbelievable life story that you have to hear to believe. Watch it in the clip above!

Rush Transcript Below:

GLENN: Dan Liljenquist, he is running against Orrin Hatch for Senate in the State of Utah and, Dan, is your name on the ballot?

LILJENQUIST: Well, the convention is this Saturday, Glenn. We have 4,000 Republican state delegates who will narrow down the field to one or two candidates and ‑‑

GLENN: But is it ‑‑ what I'm asking you, is it going to be a write‑in? Because I'd never be able to spell your last name. It's got a J in it and it's silent.

LILJENQUIST: Yeah, well, my name will be on the ballot if I get reported for the Senate between 40 or over 60, then I will definitely be on a ballot. You will not have to write in Liljenquist.

PAT: And what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of you getting over the 40% threshold?

LILJENQUIST: We feel very good about our chances. We just completed our 101st delegate meeting since March 15th and we're finding that we have a lot of momentum going into this thing. Look, with a last name like Liljenquist, you have to do a lot of legwork to get people to be able to be even to pronounce your name right. So we feel good about our chances.

GLENN: Right. And you're going up against Orrin Hatch who is a machine. I mean, this guy is an absolute machine when it comes to, you know, winning elections and has all of the power structure behind him and, you know, has served America loyally and faithfully for a long time. I like Orrin. He's a nice guy, but I think that he is ‑‑ it's time for a change in there and somebody that really, truly recognizes what is ‑‑ what we're facing right now. Tell me about what we're facing. Tell me why, why you would be different than Orrin Hatch.

LILJENQUIST: Well, look, Senator Hatch is going to go down in history as one of our greats here in Utah. But we have a fundamentally different philosophy on what the role of the United States Senate is. The United States Senate is meant to be a check on the president's power and on the executive branch and is also meant to be the work for state sovereignty. Now Senator Hatch over the years, I think there are some things I disagree with him significantly on. The role of advise and consent in the Senate is not to be a rubber stamp for the president's appointees. It was to advise and consent or not consent. And with respect to some of the recent appointments of President Obama like Cass Sunstein, I would have not consented. Look, I know Cass Sunstein. I received my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. I took a class from the man. He is a nice guy, but he's very, very liberal. And since most of our laws in this country are now being written by the executive branch to regulation, that was an irresponsible move to approve of Cass Sunstein and ‑‑

GLENN: I will tell you, Dan, sorry to interrupt you, but I will tell you this, that I called Orrin Hatch while he was, you know, approving Cass Sunstein and said, what are you doing, man? What are you ‑‑ this is crazy. Do you not realize who this guy is? And he said, Glenn, he's assured me that was just all academic stuff, he's not going to move down that role. And I said you're ‑‑ with all due respect, Senator, you're wrong on this. It's not an academic exercise. This man believes these things. So I'm glad to hear that you would go against Cass Sunstein. How would you stop all this regulation?

LILJENQUIST: Look, the regulatory environment, what has happened over the years is congress has outsourced its job to the executive branch. The executive branch is now judge, jury and executioner. They write the laws, they adjudicate the laws, and they administer the laws. That is what's happening. When you have a guy like Cass Sunstein say we don't need any more laws passed by congress, we can do everything we want to do with regulation, you know congress has outsourced a job. There's very simply a couple of things the Senate has to do in particular: One, you do not vote for a presidential appointee that has the influence to change the course of this country as an unelected bureaucrat. You do not vote those people through. You could stop that in the Senate, and the Senate needs to stand up and do its job. But I also think ‑‑ and you're going to need a Republican president to do this ‑‑ that congress has to re‑exert its control over the regulatory environment in this country by doing something, one simple thing, Glenn, and that's this: That no new regulation goes into effect until congress votes on that regulation. They granted the authority to executive branch to write regulations; they can pull it back and have a veto power. That's going to require legislation through congress. But if we have a prayer of ever getting a hold on the regulatory environment in this country, congress has to re‑exert itself over regulations by not allowing any new regulations to go into effect until congress approves of it.

GLENN: Plot to yourself on the ideological spectrum. Are you Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitt Romney?

LILJENQUIST: I am probably more along the lines of Jim DeMint for a whole bunch of different reasons. He has been out there saying the spending is reckless, that too much control is in the executive branch, that constitutional government was always meant to be a balance of powers between the states and the federal government. He understands the role of the United States Senate in particular in that balance, and I align much more with, along the lines of Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and, you know, Marco Rubio and others who are taking control over the Senate.

STU: Dan, can you help me explain? Because we were looking at this from outside of Utah. Explain the comments from Orrin Hatch when he's talking about people who are opposing him and thinking that maybe he's not the right guy to go. He says these people are not conservatives, they're not Republicans, they're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it. I despise these people." I mean, this is a guy who told us, this elder statesman, what's going on with him on these, with these comments?

LILJENQUIST: That's a pretty ‑‑ it's pretty remarkable environment. You know, as I go around the state, universally people in Utah, everybody I talk to is concerned about debt and spending. And the groups that are involved in this race, my preference is that everybody would stay out so that we could run our own race, but we can't force them to do that. But the groups are involved in this race who are opposed to Senator Hatch are deeply concerned about debt and spending. I am running personally because Senator Hatch could be chair of the Senate finance committee, not in spite of it. He's had 18 years on that Senate finance committee and in that time we have expanded and he has used the power of that committee to expand government programs. Not retract them. And so the people involved who are involved in this race really want government spending under control and want congress to stand up and do its job to think about the future of this country and not just the next election. So there's a whole bunch of people who are disappointed with the record of congress and not just Senator Hatch's record but Republicans and Democrats over the last 40 years who got us into this mess.

GLENN: All right. Dan ‑‑

LILJENQUIST: So, you know, those are the words I would not have chosen but I understand that's how he speaks.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't ‑‑ I don't understand that the libertarians are offensive and ‑‑

STU: Despise them?

GLENN: And despise.

PAT: I believe he feels that way.

GLENN: Oh, I know he does. I know he does.

PAT: He believed that when Bennett was booted out two years ago that he was next and it scared the crap out of him.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think he ‑‑

PAT: And so he ‑‑

GLENN: Unless Dan ‑‑ unless Dan wins on Saturday, he's not next.

PAT: Thought at the time.

GLENN: Orrin Hatch goes back. That's really ‑‑

PAT: At the time with the Tea Party the way it was and the political environment the way it was, he was afraid he was next.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: And so he lashed out and still continues to lash out at people who are more conservative than he is.

GLENN: I will tell you that ‑‑ I will tell you, Tea Party, if you don't organize and come together behind a candidate and Orrin Hatch gets in, he is not a guy who forgets, and he's not going to forget. He's not going to forget. And if he's ‑‑ if he thinks that you're despicable or he despises you now, he will despise you then and just recognize the power we're giving people in Washington.

All right. One last question, Dan, because the first time I talked to you, I talked about your soul and your condition of it and why anybody who was decent would want to go there, and you told me about the experience that really led you here was a plane crash. Can you explain?

LILJENQUIST: Yeah. Glenn, it was in 2008. I had been ‑‑ I was running for the state Senate. I had won my primary and I was heading to the general election in the fall. In my company, we do a lot of humanitarian work. We were on a humanitarian trip to Guatemala. Got on a plane with 14 people, took off on a beautiful, beautiful Sunday morning to fly to this little town in Northeast Guatemala, and about 45 minutes into our flight, our engine burned up over the middle of nowhere. I mean, I had four minutes sitting in the back of that plane to really think. And I'll tell you where your mind goes to. Your mind goes to the state of your own, your own soul but also you think about your family. And I ‑‑ I realized at that moment that it was my life came down to that moment. I know everybody on that plane felt like they were going to die, and 80% of us were right. But I came through that. But for when we crashed and ‑‑ crashed into this field, it was when I was sitting on the plane that really saved my life, but also two farmers who saw us falling, ran around the corner and pulled me out of the plane. I was on fire, my leg was burning, my legs were shattered, but they came to me first, risked their lives to pull me from that plane. All four of my dear friends and employees died on that plane. I spent five weeks in a hospital bed, in a wheelchair, in a walker and met with each one of these families individually and, you know, I realize that we don't have time in this life to wait. And it's important, if you feel motivated to do something, to do it now. I'm running for the United States Senate because this time and history of this country, we are on the edge of a knife. We can either fall one way and complete the job of moving to a federalized executive branch‑driven view of the world, or we can have the United States Senate stand up and do its job to rebalance our constitutional government and to take control of what they granted too much power to federal governments to take the lead. And I'm running for the Senate to do that. I don't feel like we have time to wait and I feel like this is the election. With elections like mine and Ted Cruz in Texas and John Mandel in Ohio and Richard Mourdock in Indiana and these good people who are standing up all over the country to take control of the Senate, whether or not we survive as a people may just depend on this election cycle. And so I'm standing up and running. I'm very motivated to do it. People said you're crazy to take on Senator Hatch. We have been outspent 30:1, but we are a couple of days away from forcing him to a primary for the first time in 36 years and we think we're going to do it. So make every day count is the message.

GLENN: The web address is DanforUtah.com. DanforUtah.com. This is a very important battle in Utah and in America. Do we send Senator Hatch back or not send Senator Hatch back? It's up to the people of Utah. You've ‑‑ you had a chance to weigh things out. It is critical, critical that you get involved and don't just pass this election by on Saturday as, oh, just something that, you know, whatever. DanforUtah.com. Thank you very much, Dan. Appreciate it.

LILJENQUIST: Glenn, thank you. We'll see you.

GLENN: You bet. Good luck. I have to tell you I talked to him a few weeks ago. I hadn't really talked to him before. I talked to him a few weeks ago and I think the guy is genuine and what really got me was the, you know, eight out of ten people die right next to him and he's pulled out and he asks himself, why am I here. Why am I here. What am I supposed to do? We're all born for a reason. We all have time on Earth, and anybody who sees this may be my last day and I'm going to do something important and right and righteous and stand up for the truth and I'm not going to back down, because I've already faced death. I've already been in the death plane. Nothing frightens me anymore. I am going to use every day that God has given me to do something right. That got me.

Sponsor ‑‑

STU: We need to start having our politicians get involved in fake plane crashes like scare them, like they get into a plane, they think they're on a plane and, oh, my gosh, oh, wow, looks like it might crash, everybody. And then, you know, of course everything's fine and then it will just scare them and then they will be great politicians.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

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

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

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

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep