GLENN: President Trump may just be the master media manipulator he is after all. I have to tell you, I'm watching this in awe and sometimes aghast from both sides. I'm just watching this as a casual observer of history, and I can't believe what I'm seeing.
And I haven't figured it out yet. It could be that Donald Trump is the -- is the best watch the other hand guy I've ever seen. Remember, we used to say that about Barack Obama. Right, right, right. Stop arguing about that. What is the other hand doing?
We'll see. But also, he is overwhelming the system. Exactly what happened last time with Barack Obama, to the -- to the right, Donald Trump is doing to the left. There's no way you can keep up with all of this.
Tonight, at 8 o'clock, he's announcing his SCOTUS pick. In typical Trump fashion, don't miss must-see TV, Wednesday night. Is it Wednesday today? Or is it Tuesday?
STU: Tuesday. It is Tuesday. At least for the whole day.
GLENN: It's Tuesday? Wow. Wow. It's only been -- really? Yesterday was only 24 hours. It seemed like 48.
So tonight, don't miss. Ensuring as many eyeballs are possible on him tomorrow night, according to the sources close to our program, out of the 21 candidates that Trump has released prior to the election, it's down to three, and more likely, it's between two of the three men.
But here are the three finalists and what their nominations could mean to the future of the Supreme Court. Coming three at number three is William Pryor, the partisan, if you will. He is right of Alito and left of Clarence Thomas. And Pryor is the judge from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. He's the oldest of the possible choices, but he's still only 54. He still has a long career ahead of him on the bench.
However, he is by far the most outspoken of the three and the -- and definitely the least liked by the Democrats. Choosing Pryor would fit the mold of Trump about not caring about what anybody says, but the president would be in for a fight, if he was going to get him confirmed.
Chances are, he'll get him three, but he would spend an awful lot of political capital, which remains to be seen, if that even matters for this administration.
One sticking point for the evangelicals was when he, as attorney general of Alabama, had judge Roy Moore ousted for refusing to obey a federal court order and removed the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building.
Pryor said at the time, I'm just following the court's order. But this was a knock on him for the far right, and they have held on to that. As well as his recent support for transgendered rights.
He is not afraid to say what he believes, which is why the left calls him a bomb-thrower and considers him a cultural warrior. Many on the right see him as a rising conservative star, and he is a fierce critic of Roe vs. Wade. He has upheld the Georgia voter ID law and has called for sectarian prayers for opening a local commission meeting constitutional. He's probably not Scalia in waiting, but who is?
He is more in the mold of Alito, but all of this may be moot if the reports are correct, because he is, out of the three, the one who is really on the outside looking in.
Second one, the centrist, Thomas Hardiman. He is left of Roberts. Wow. Let's think about that one for a second, Stu. Left of Roberts.
STU: Yeah, I've been thinking about it.
GLENN: And right of Kennedy.
STU: And you might say to yourself, why the heck would Donald Trump appoint a centrist? Well, you know, there's a lot of reasons for it. But the one they're talking about now, as far as the way these games work is the rest of the court, they believe, will take a signal by -- as to who Trump nominates here as to how Trump is going to treat this situation. So if he goes for someone who is really right-wing and crazy, then people like Kennedy might say, "Well, I don't want to retire and let him name another crazy person to the bench."
So they're thinking -- the thought is -- and, again, this is all crazy inside-the-Beltway speculation, but the thought is, if he were to name a centrist, then Kennedy would feel more comfortable in his departure. And then if he departed, they could name a conservative to replace him.
I know that's a lot of --
GLENN: You know what that sound like? Honestly, you know what that sounds like to me? If I were sitting in the seat of the Oval Office, I would say, "Progressive BSer, get behind me."
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: That sounds like something that a progressive would say to an incoming president who is really trying to get the president to pick a centrist.
STU: Right.
GLENN: Look, I'm telling you, if you do this, this time, what will happen next time -- I mean, that just sounds like bullcrap.
STU: Right. But the question is, which progressive are you talking about? If that progressive happens to be Anthony Kennedy, then it might be a viable thing. I would not risk it.
GLENN: I wouldn't either.
STU: If you lose a Scalia and replace him with someone who as this article talks about, left of Roberts, you're in -- you're in for some trouble there. That's not a good sign. And if Kennedy doesn't step down, you have no conservative rulings potentially --
GLENN: Yeah, you have nothing. You have nothing.
STU: That's a huge problem. You think with Trump too, all his progressive sort of things with executive orders and all these big changes he wants to make, the last thing he wants to do is put the Supreme Court up to risk. There was obviously a reason that a lot of people who were very skeptical of him voted for him anyway. So, I mean, going for a centrist here is risky.
The one thing about this, which is -- we mentioned it I think yesterday is that he works with Trump's sister. Trump's sister knows him very well, and --
GLENN: I bet you this is the guy. I bet you this is the guy.
JEFFY: That's a big in. That's a big in.
GLENN: Yeah, that's a huge in.
STU: Because that was his initial reaction, right? I would name my sister. She would be a great judge.
And then obviously, over time, he kind of realized that that was just reactionary.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: But here's a kind of way you can do it. He's got to have inside information on this person from his sister.
GLENN: Yep.
STU: He's going to know -- now, assuming his sister likes him. Maybe his sister hates him. But he's lasted this long on this list. You think he's got to be fairly well liked. They sided together on a lot of major decisions. So, you know, this one is -- it's interesting. He was not really one of the ones talked about, up until the last couple of weeks.
GLENN: I bet you it's him.
STU: It could be.
JEFFY: That's a good bet.
GLENN: This is exactly the kind of guy that every Republican president always nominates.
STU: I know, but that's not supposed to be what Trump does. Right? So maybe he won't.
GLENN: I know. I know. All right.
So the name again is Thomas Hardiman. I hope this isn't the guy. More moderate than the other choices. He's left of Roberts. Right of Kennedy.
Many conservatives are wary, after Kennedy and Roberts haven't turned out the way they hoped. He is only one of the candidates or sitting members of the bench without an Ivy League pedigree. He grew up in public schools, blue-collar family. Went to Notre Dame -- or, Notre Dame. And put himself through law school at Georgetown by driving a cab.
Is he the Catholic of the group? Can you find out if he's Catholic?
STU: Sure.
GLENN: He fits the bill with pro-life stance. He's strong on the Second Amendment. But he is seen as government-friendly. He has sided with Big Brother on censorship issues. He's 51 and would have influence for decades to come. He might be the most confirmable of the three, having been confirmed 95 to zero on the appellate court, receiving votes from Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein. Stein. Stein.
Former -- he's a former trial judge who has been serving on the Third Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Happens to be the same court as President Trump's sister. He receives a glowing recommendation from her, and he is thought to have -- and she is thought to have significant influence on her brother.
This may be the nominee.
The number one pick, according to GlennBeck.com, is Neil Gorsuch. He's a Libertarian. He is -- listen to this -- right of Scalia and left of Clarence Thomas.
STU: I'm comfortable with that. If that description is accurate, I am comfortable with that.
GLENN: I am so comfortable with this. This would be the guy. Out of these three, this would be the guy.
Gorsuch is not a name that many people know outside of political junky circles. He has quickly risen to the top of the list over the past couple of weeks. He's 49 years old. So he has the best chance theoretically of having the longest lasting influence. He is pro-life. He has sided against assisted suicide, but he has yet to rule on an abortion case. But they believe because he has stated pro-life and he has gone against assisted suicide -- which I don't understand how a Libertarian does that. A Libertarian should be for -- should be pro-life, if they think it's murder. Which I do. So it should be protecting -- the rights of the unborn child. But then to protect the rights of the living, should be able to say, "What you do with your own life is your business."
STU: And I don't know that he's -- I think they're describing him as a Libertarian. I don't know that he's stated that I am a Libertarian. You know --
GLENN: Well, I doubt he's stated he's a Libertarian. You're not going to get elected.
STU: Right.
GLENN: This might help win some votes from the Democrats, while conservatives can still feel relatively comfortable on where he stands. His lack of record makes him less likely to be borked than the Pryor nomination could.
I will tell you that where we get in trouble is people saying, "Hey, he doesn't have a record on these things," and so we guess on what their record is going to be.
STU: Yeah, that is an issue. And, by the way, also, a big issue with Hardiman -- I mean, I think his record is even thinner than Gorsuch. You know, they're both on the younger side, as far as justices go. They don't necessarily have the really long record of an older judge. But, I mean, you look at the -- there's a sentence in the longer profile of Hardiman, which says he's never had any abortion rulings either. So the only one -- you can be pretty darn sure that Pryor is going to be on the right side of that one, of these three.
And I think Gorsuch, reading in context, I mean, he has ruled in cases that would -- you know, one of the big things about Gorsuch, which I liked was, this was the guy we talked about who is -- he doesn't seem to be friendly to things that aren't in the Constitution.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: The Dormant Clauses, like the Dormant Privacy Clause, which leads to abortion or the Dormant Commerce Clause. And that's why there's a large indication that he would be pro-life. But it's true. The record is not extensive on the topic.
GLENN: If you look at his record that we know -- and there are some disturbing things in there, but if you look at the record of the things that we know, he has the best chance I think of being game-changing for the Supreme Court.
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: Let me finish.
Let's see: He has sided with Hobby Lobby. He also sided with Little Sisters of the Poor, in upholding their right to follow their religious belief when it came to mandatory birth control for the nuns. And he's believed to have the Libertarian streak of Scalia and the style of Roberts. He has stated that he's an originalist, meaning he believes in the interpretation of the Constitution as written, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views.
STU: It's amazing that there's another side to that argument: Have a written or how you might think it might be because of your political views -- which one do you think? How should we rule on this? Ugh.
GLENN: I know. Right.
So we don't know. You know, there's speculation that Justice Roberts was blackmailed at the last hour. That is something that I would really like to hear some -- if there are any good facts on that one. Because that ruling from Justice Roberts was just bizarre.
STU: Bizarre.
GLENN: Bizarre. And the fact that he showed up with puffy red eyes -- it was obvious that he rewrote it in the middle of the night because of the way it was written. It shows that he was actually on the other side and then just changed things. But it was rushed so quickly, he didn't change all of it. It was just bizarre.
But, anyway, he is a champion of small government conservatism like Antonin Scalia. Chances are the nominee will stand in the vast shadow of his legacy and never eclipse the works that he was able to accomplish. That being said, there will be a nominee, and it appears to be one of these three.
According to conservative circles, Hardiman is the least liked. Pryor is beloved by some, questioned by others.
And when the dust settles, Donald Trump lands on Neil Gorsuch. Conservatives could do much worse. But let's see what happens.
STU: Yeah, that's all up on GlennBeck.com, by the way. You can read that whole analysis.
GLENN: Right.
STU: And this is assuming, by the way, the purports are right. Who knows? Maybe Trump goes a totally different direction.
GLENN: Yeah. And it will be interesting because this is the one the religious community said, "This is the most important." And they put all of their eggs in this basket and had been telling him, "We want our pick." And it is not Hardiman. Let's see if it's paid off.
Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?
In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.
Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:
Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images
Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.
The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.
Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.
IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images
The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.
The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.
Historical / Contributor | Getty Images
Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.
A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.
After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."
Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.
If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.
Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.
Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.
Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images
Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.
ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images
Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.
PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images
Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.
Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.
PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images
To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.
Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?
During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.
The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.
The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:
THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images
For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.
After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.
The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.
OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images
While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.
Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.
mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images
In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.
With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.
Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.
This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.
The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.
But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.
The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.
Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images
Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.
Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.
Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.
