Why Glenn Will Be the Happiest Man in the World if He Has to Apologize Every Day

February 01, 2017

WRITER

The country needs Donald Trump to be successful. And as long as he's leading and governing in a way that honors constitutional principles, Glenn will be the first in line to make apologies when he's wrong --- but there's one contingent.

"I will never abandon my principles for what I think might happen. Because too many times, as we have seen with Supreme Court justices, what I think will happen isn't what happens. I will stick by my principles because they are unchanging, and I will trust God to work it out," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Let me go to Ken in New York. Hello, Ken. You're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Hi. Hi, Glenn. It's great to talk to you.

GLENN: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I called you before Donald Trump's selection, and I argued with you that he needed to be elected because of the Supreme Court. And I was mad at you because you weren't promoting him. And I appreciate your apology.

It makes you a better man.

GLENN: Well, I told you --

CALLER: But now you're doing it again.

GLENN: Hang on just a second, Ken, I told you that I would. And the one thing that I -- and the only thing that matters to me is my integrity. I told you that I would, and I have. So I'm sorry that people are disappointed -- or, I mean, surprised that I would actually do that. It shows me that I --

CALLER: Oh, I'm not surprised.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Okay. So now I'm doing it again. How?

CALLER: I think you should buy one of those -- you should buy one of those Staples Buttons and change the wording to where it says "I'm sorry" because you're going to have to do it again.

GLENN: I'll be -- as I said during the election, I will be the happiest man in the world if I have to apologize every day because I was wrong about Donald Trump. I want him -- the country needs him to be successful.

CALLER: I agree.

The -- we have a famous president who was loved by all and endeared by all. And he made a quote one day, and that was, "Elections have consequences." And so our next Supreme Court pick, if it's Ginsburg who leaves us by hook or by crook, Donald Trump has every right to appoint a conservative constitutionalist again.

GLENN: Well, wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. If you think that I'm saying that Donald Trump shouldn't replace Ginsburg with a conservative, then I misspoke. What I said was --

CALLER: I totally misunderstood you then.

GLENN: Yeah. What if Ginsburg were the last radical, progressive on the court and it was a Democratic president, a progressive president, they would have every right and they should replace -- and I would look at that as fair. If we're looking at -- we're looking at a court now that really has no constitutional conservative on it, except Clarence Thomas.

The rest of them can go either way. And they'll all -- you know, John Roberts is absolutely useless.

STU: Alito is good. Alito is good.

GLENN: Alito is good. But if you have the lion -- if you have the lion of the side and your guy is in there, they should replace. If Ginsburg was the only voice that was really leading the charge, she should be replaced. We can't have a court that is -- that shuts out 50 percent of the country. We can't do that.

CALLER: Well, it would be nice if the entire court just believed the Constitution to be the rule of law and made their decisions based on the rule of law and the Constitution, and we wouldn't care what party and what affiliations they had.

GLENN: If you got strict constitutionalists that actually interpreted the Constitution as it was written, it would be the solution to all of our problems.

Unfortunately, we don't have those justices. If --

CALLER: No.

GLENN: But one of the reasons why we don't is because we have done a very bad job, not as conservatives, not as Republicans, but as Americans, of understanding and being able to teach and spread the word of the Constitution.

It's a lot like -- it's a lot like faith. Faith, many times, has become a tool to either get rich or to build a big church or to bring people into the fold that agree with you and then put a bunch of rules on them.

Faith, to me, religion, is used too many times to control people.

CALLER: Yes, sir.

GLENN: When you really understand faith, God has rules. But they're between you and him, not the organization or anything else. You and him.

And it is the most freeing thing. Those simple rules will free you and make you more free than you've ever been in your entire life. It's an amazing thing. The same thing with the Constitution. There are very few rules. Those amendments, if you just go with the Bill of Rights and we all really did that, no matter whose side it hurt or won for -- you know, well, now, wait a minute, that will hurt my religion or that will hurt my agenda or this or that.

No. You stick by those simple rules, and we'll all be free. And we'll all live happily ever after and together.

STU: That was one of the great things that he said. Gorsuch was, if you're not making decisions that make you feel uncomfortable, based on whatever your particular beliefs are, is because you're following the law, then you're not a very good justice. You have to be following the law. Sometimes that will disagree with what you want to happen.

GLENN: Absolutely.

STU: But you follow the law and the Constitution anyway. And sometimes that will make you uncomfortable.

GLENN: Right. And the Constitution is paramount. Not the law.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: The Constitution is paramount. You know, for instance, it makes me very, very uncomfortable to not be able to just tap people's phones who we just think, "You know, I don't know, that guy is shady. We should listen -- and especially if everybody in the room is standing around you, going, "Look, every other country is doing this. We got -- we got to be able to do those."

No, I'm sorry. And I will take the blame for this if it turns out bad, but I'm going to make the case that that is what makes us unlike all other countries.

No president or anybody else has the power to say, "You know what, put him on an enemy's list. Let's follow him. Let's destroy him. Let's tap him."

If we can gather enough evidence, guys, and go to a court and do it through the Constitution, as an individual, good, let's do it.

If you can't gather that evidence, sorry. That's really uncomfortable, if you're sitting there as the president of the United States and saying, "Gee, I don't know, man. Something happens, and if that guy gets away, then I'm going to be blamed for it." Yeah, you will be. Tough, isn't it? Because the one to really blame is the Constitution. And the Constitution is freeing in the end.

Otherwise, what happens? You say, "Oh, you know what, I don't have a problem."

By hook or by crook -- that's a quote -- we're going to pole vault into it if we have to. We'll do anything it takes to get this done, even though it's unconstitutional.

What does that lead you to? Somebody else that gets power in the Oval Office that says, "By hook or by crook, I'm going to do whatever I want by executive order." And all of a sudden, you don't like it.

The Constitution would take away everybody's need to protest in the streets.

CALLER: Are you still there?

STU: We are.

GLENN: Go ahead, Ken.

CALLER: I just want to say that during the campaign, you were very adamant about principle, that you didn't want to be drug into voting for something against your principle by voting for Trump.

And I'd just like to say again that I hope you'll rethink that philosophy because of the outcome of this election and how, you know, even I was wrong in some of the ideas that I thought was going to happen. But we really need to vote for the best president.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. I will never rethink -- hang on a second.

I will never abandon my principles for what I think might happen. Because too many times, as we have seen with Supreme Court justices, what I think will happen isn't what happens.

I will stick by my principles because they are unchanging. And I will trust God to work it out.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you, Ken. I appreciate it.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

Glenn's Show Prep