GLENNFebruary 27, 2017

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs recently won the state championship --- the female state championship --- amid controversy that caused some competitors to forfeit rather than wrestle the junior from Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. Beggs, who is transitioning from a girl to a boy, has been taking regular doses of testosterone.

"Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second, and we'll just talk about how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone --- for a girl, right? --- would be able to compete at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Many argue that the high levels of testosterone, which build strength and muscles, give Beggs an unfair advantage. Begging the question, if it's Beggs' choice to transition, shouldn't she make concessions during the interim to maintain a level playing field? Concessions like not wrestling until the transition is complete?

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: We've had this situation where there is a girl who is transitioning to a boy. And she's 17 years old. She's a wrestler. And so she wanted -- apparently, she wanted to wrestle in the boy's division this year, right?

JEFFY: Correct. Correct.

PAT: Because she's making that switch. So she's going from boy to girl.

STU: And the Texas rule is, you compete in the gender that you were born.

PAT: That's on your birth certificate.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Especially I guess as long as you have that genitalia, which she does. She's a girl.

STU: Yeah, I don't know -- if you've gone through the full transition, I don't know -- again, if you're talking about kids, this is a pretty new development. I don't know if they have a rule for that.

PAT: Yeah, I don't either.

STU: I think the rule is the gender you had when you were born.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So that's the rule in Texas because it's hateful. How can you possibly ask somebody to compete in the gender category they were born into, how can you ask that?

STU: You can't, Pat. You can't.

PAT: You can't. Because what if you feel differently? Anyway, she does.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: But she was made to -- she was put in the girl's category for wrestling. So she just won the tournament last week.

JEFFY: Yeah, she won the championship.

PAT: She won the championship.

JEFFY: The -- one of the issues is, is that she is actually going through the transition and taking the prescribed medicine to make the change. And so it's working.

PAT: The testosterone.

STU: Right. And, by the way, this ends any argument of all time as to whether men or women are better athletes. Just -- because this whole thing of -- the old Billie Jean King thing back in the day. Let's be honest about it. You take testosterone, you become better and stronger at sports.

PAT: Right.

STU: Sorry.

PAT: Now, that is science. That is science.

JEFFY: That is science.

STU: So sorry. I guess we have to apologize for that.

PAT: Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. You can -- I guess you can try to deny it and say that women are just as strong in every instance as men. It's just not the case.

STU: No, they're better at certain --

PAT: Yes. They're just not built the same way as we are. And that's a good thing. It was supposed to be that way. We're supposed to be different. And we are. And we are.

STU: Stunning. A stunning development that everyone knew at a level of 100 percent until very recently.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This is insane. And, by the way, if a man were to take testosterone in the -- in Major League Baseball or the NFL --

STU: I like how you're saying this as a crazy hypothetical.

PAT: I know.

STU: If in some circumstance somehow --

PAT: And they do.

STU: -- some at least decided to take performance enhancing drugs --

PAT: I don't remember who it was. But your testosterone as a man in the normal range is 400 to 800, maybe up to 1,000. And that's fairly normal. I can't remember who the baseball player was. It might have been A-Rod. He had a testosterone level -- and I shouldn't mention him because I don't remember who it was. But I remember their level was 4,000. So clearly they had been --

JEFFY: That's a man.

PAT: No man takes -- or has that much natural testosterone. So clearly, they had been taking testosterone, so they were better at what they were doing than they otherwise would have been. So it works on men as well as girls transitioning to men. So obviously, this girl is going to become stronger, she's going to be faster. She's going to be better able to wrestle than she was as a girl with no testosterone.

JEFFY: Right. And the argument also from the other parents that are suing the school board is that, hey, she is taking this medicine. That's making her into a boy. We don't want her wrestling.

PAT: And in Texas, you can take -- you can compete if you've been prescribed the testosterone by a doctor, and she was.

JEFFY: Correct. And there are several -- there are three or four other things on that list that the Wrestling Association says it's okay as long as it's prescribed and that would not be okay if it was not prescribed, for sure.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And the reason for that, by the way, quickly, steroids are like standard treatment for a lot of illnesses.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes. Right.

STU: If you break out in a rash or if you have -- if you're sick in any number of ways.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: One of the first responses is to give you a shot of steroids because, you know, it works. It's pretty effective.

PAT: It reduces swelling, aids in healing. It just -- it calms down infection. I mean, it does a lot of different things. I've taken steroids quite a bit. Because I've been sick lately. And it helps. They help.

STU: A lot.

PAT: So it kind of makes sense that there are certain circumstances under which -- you know, because if you're taking anabolic steroids, that's one thing. But if you're taking steroids that a normal doctor would prescribe for an illness that's a different deal.

JEFFY: Which is pretty much what they were covering when they made the rules, before this.

PAT: Right. So, anyway, Stu heard this interview on the way in by Chris Cuomo. And is it the lawyer representing the other girls in the tournament?

STU: No, this is Ben Ferguson, who is a talk show host. He's a CNN contributor, so he's there to take the evil right-wing side of this argument. Chris Cuomo who purpose or it is I guess to be a journalist. I don't know that for a fact. But it seems like he wants to come off as evenhanded on the show is a straight-out activist on this show.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And the reason is because he's in the middle of his own personal issue with the transgendered argument, which is last week someone tweeted to him -- when talking about the transgendered issue, what do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn't want to see a man's unit in the locker room?

So a 12-year-old girl is in the locker room, someone changing next to them, takes down their pants and has a guy junk. Right? He's got guy junk.

What do you tell that 12-year-old girl? His response was, I wonder if she is the problem.

PAT: Good gosh.

STU: Or her overprotective and intolerant dad. Teach tolerance. That was his response.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

STU: Now, look, that's unbelievable, to put that on the 12-year-old girl.

PAT: Unbelievable response.

STU: A 12-year-old girl is not equipped to -- even if this were the most logical thing in the world, is not equipped to make that determination. She's going to be interested in what she's interested in at that age. That's going to be -- it's a moment -- it's an era of discovery, right. And so that is not something that you would necessarily want -- that's why they have separation.

Because honestly, with this standard, why bother with two different bathrooms? Why bother with two different locker rooms for any reason? Why bother? Why not just be tolerant of male genitalia all the time for 12-year-old girls? Why is it only when someone else outside of their decision-making process makes a decision they identify a different way. Right? Someone else has done that, that doesn't affect the 12-year-old girl in this scenario. She hasn't made any judgment, well, I identify that person as a female, therefore the junk that I'm looking at is not male. That's not her determination. It's someone else's determination. So that is -- it's an absurd argument on its face.

But he got so much heat for that tweet, blaming the 12-year-old girl and her intolerant dad of not being accepting of penises in the locker room, which is essentially what he said: You should be tolerant of the penis.

That was the word they used. He got so much heat for that. He's now in, I've locked myself in the corner, and I'm going to be defensive on this point no matter what. Which, it brings out the best in Chris Cuomo. Because he's now so desperate to prove that this wasn't a mistake, he'll say anything.

PAT: Yeah. Listen to this.

VOICE: What's your take on the tournament, my friend?

VOICE: Well, first off, I think this -- take the transgendered issue out of it for a second. If you are taking testosterone, which is a performance-enhancing drug in sports, you shouldn't be able to wrestle.

PAT: Correct. There you go.

VOICE: And this gave a completely unfair advantage to this participant. You can talk about that whether you are in your age-group or in your sex group that are associated with. If you're taking something that is performance enhancing, you're not a real champion. You cheated and you won.

Now, the state I think has some blame for this, by having it where they're even allowing these testosterones to be used if they're prescribed by a doctor. That's where I think the big fix probably needs to come.

STU: Stop for a second. Because this is -- so, first of all, this is his first response. Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second. And we'll just talk about you how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone for a girl, right? Would be able to compete at all. So taking out the transgendered issue, it's still wrong. So he's already won the argument at this point, right?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: But not with Chris Cuomo who can't possibly accept this.

CHRIS: If there was acceptance, we wouldn't have had this issue because this kid would be wrestling against boys.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

STU: So here's his argument: So Chris, he falls back to --

PAT: If there were acceptance.

STU: I don't know what level we're going to fall back to on this. It's going to be hard to keep track of. But he falls back to, if there was -- if we taught acceptance, this wouldn't be an issue because she would be able to wrestle the boys like she wants to.

PAT: And in that eventuality, we wouldn't be talking about the story at all because she would have lost in the first round, and it would be over.

STU: Right. That's true.

PAT: It would be over.

STU: That's true. However -- however, we still would be talking about the issue. Why?

Because in a liberal state, let's say California, there would be a -- it would go the opposite way. You would have a boy who was transforming to be a girl and wanted to identify as a girl and then went into the girl's division and then destroyed all the girls. So the issue would still exist, it would just be in a liberal state and the opposite way. So he's completely wrong there to say the issue goes away if -- if we, quote, unquote, teach acceptance. The issue still exists, it's just on the opposite side.

VOICE: We know. And for those as you're learning about -- just so people know.

VOICE: Here's the thing.

VOICE: But hold on, Ben. Let's just clarify one thing: The science, you have to be careful about.

STU: This is argument two.

PAT: The science now.

VOICE: The amount of hormone that this kid is given is the minimum standard they can give to replicate the output of a boy.

STU: Okay. Stop. There's so much there.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Does he know the amount she's being given?

STU: First of all -- yes. So that was one of his big arguments in this. I assume he knows it because he quotes -- he kept saying, you have to look it up. You have to look it up. So, again, that's a bad assumption on my part.

PAT: Look it up, Jeffy. See how much testosterone --

STU: However, it's not the minimum amount that a girl would have, right? It's actually way more than a girl would have, which is what makes the transition happen.

PAT: Yes. Way more. It's the minimum amount for a boy.

STU: For a boy. Now, let's just say that that's true. So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating --

PAT: So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating.

STU: It still would be cheating as the girl. So his point is, well, then they should allow him -- her -- him to wrestle with the boys, right? Because he wants -- she identifies as a man. So we should think that she's a man. We should allow her to wrestle with the boys. Because she's not getting -- his point there is, he's not getting so much -- she's not getting so much more testosterone than the boy would normally have. So she's not a superhuman boy, she's just a boy, right? First of all, his wording is interesting there. The amount to replicate a boy.

If she's a boy, you do not need to replicate the boy.

If you're replicating something, you're replicating it because it's not actually happening. Therefore, your whole scientific argument is flawed. The thing that you're saying you want to happen isn't happening.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not a boy. So if she was a boy, you would not need to replicate it.

PAT: Yeah, if you need to talk about science, what is she scientifically? She's a girl.

STU: She's a girl.

PAT: She's had no surgery. There's nothing been changed on her body. She's a girl. So if you want to talk science, she's a girl. And then -- so it's unfair for the girl to be getting testosterone, when the other girls aren't getting it.

STU: Right. Exactly. Now, his point seems to be, what he wants to happen is that she wrestles against the boys and then loses because she is getting only the appropriate level for a boy of testosterone.

Again, it's a ridiculous argument in and of itself. But if you're going -- even if you're going to entertain it, the point is, getting performance-enhancing drugs -- it's not to say that you let everyone come to the same level of testosterone. The point is, you don't get additional testosterone as to what you have naturally. That's the point of the rule. It's enhancing. Whether you think it's enhancing it only to equal, it's not the point. The point is, you don't enhance it to what you have naturally.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: She has very little naturally. And they're enhancing it to get a higher level, regardless of what level.

PAT: And all we're talking about here is -- the level of the other competitors is what we should be talking about, not the level of the boys.

STU: Yes. Right.

PAT: Because is it unfair for her to have beaten all these girls whose level of testosterone is ridiculous?

VOICE: Kids are going to be superhuman -- it's the opposite.

PAT: No, it's not the opposite.

VOICE: Scientifically, that is the outcome. If you look and do the research as I have, you'll see that.

STU: Oh, God.

PAT: What a condescending ass.

STU: Yes. Remember, this is a guy who is in full standing in the Douche Hall of Fame. And this is him showing off why he's there.

PAT: Exactly.

STU: And, by the way, on Pat and Stu today, a vote on Chris Cuomo as the Grand Nozzle after this interview. Because he deserves it from Harry Reid.

VOICE: If this state allowed this kid to wrestle against boys, which is what he wants, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

STU: Right. This case. You would be talking about a different case in a different state that went the opposite way. The issue would not go away at all based on that. You would just be arguing the opposite side of it.

PAT: True.

VOICE: But you also have to look at, there has to be a standard. And I think it's not insane or crazy for a state to say that you compete with the sex that's on your birth certificate. That's what I would refer to as logical. It is illogical to somehow imply that this kid is a victim because he decided to do something or change something and therefore you change the entire sport around it. That is the part that I think many people are sitting here and saying, "Hey, if you want to compete in a sport, period, then you cannot be taking performance-enhancing drugs and do it." But to say that we should change the entire way that sports is done because of one person and their decision to do something, that is unrealistic.

VOICE: Right.

But the premise is flawed. Because the logic requires --

STU: We got to come back. We're not going to have time to get it --

VOICE: I disagree. That's why we're having a discussion. That transgender doesn't count. But it does count, and that's why we're having this bigger debate about what you allow trans kids to have access to and what you don't.

PAT: He goes on to say that she identifies as a girl.

STU: Yeah, but we have to come back and play -- because that part is unbelievable as well.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: His scientific argument is that she identifies. Well, that's not science.

PAT: That's not science. Now you're talking feelings. You're not talking science.

STU: As you said, they're replicating it. She's identifying. You're laying it out -- subconsciously, you're saying the truth. You can't help yourself. You can't help yourself. You keep saying the truth.

PAT: I can identify as a gerbil, if I want to, but I'm not. I'm not one. And I won't fit into the little thing with the wheel that goes -- spins around and around. So...

STU: Right. And any other circumstance, this argument would be completely bizarre.

RADIO

"Rama-Hanu-Kwanz-Mas" - Glenn Beck's HILARIOUS Christmas Song that Triggered the Woke Left

For over two decades, the cultural battles surrounding Christmas have revealed a deeper transformation happening inside American life. What began as political correctness has evolved into a fractured culture where speech is policed, reactions explode into extremes, and sacred traditions are pushed to the margins. From the early warnings mocked in parody songs, to today’s chaotic backlash and misuse of “cancel culture,” the shift is unmistakable. Even the quiet beauty of A Charlie Brown Christmas—once a staple of American childhood—now feels radical, a reminder of the faith, truth, and simplicity our society has forgotten. This episode traces the long arc of how Christmas became a battleground in the modern culture war—and what that reveals about the country’s soul.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So something I worked on this weekend from Glenn AI. It is our first -- our first -- I don't know if I should even announce it. I'm sure, I will not be proud of it soon. But our first offering from Glenn AI. And you'll be able to get it tomorrow.

You know, I thought -- I was thinking about a song we did years ago. Called Ramahanukwanzmas.

And I was thinking, in the time that we did that -- Stu, do you remember the year?

Sara, is it marked on the recording? What year -- it's not? It happened in 2003, Stu, do you know?

STU: I have to look it up. I probably have some record of it.
GLENN: Yeah, really early. Yeah, really early on.

And it was -- it was just as this, you know, war on Christmas thing was happening. And we were making fun of political correctness. And, you know. I was listening to it.

And I thought, oh, my gosh. This is so early on, that we were using words that you just wouldn't even use now.

You know, we were mocking this -- this coming political correctness.

Not knowing how bad it was really going to get. So I wrote putting Christ back in Christmas.

Kind of like, you know, enough. Enough. Enough. We're putting the Christ back in Christmas because we don't care.

That era is over. It's over. But here's where it began. Twenty-five, 27 years ago. Listen to this.
(music)

GLENN: Wow. I mean, did I hear the word "queer" in there? Not in the way that you would you use it today. What were we thinking?

STU: That's the technical definition of the word, at least one of them.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We think we used it appropriately. But, you know, I don't know. That was pretty -- like, I was looking quickly, like the YouTube there is a version of this, that if you remembered. When that song came out, we -- it played for a few years. And then some listener made an animation of the song.

And then it -- that animation was uploaded to YouTube, 17 years ago. And they called it a classic. Like, this is an animation of Glenn Beck's classic Christmas song.

So it's been a long time.

I don't know exactly how many years, but a lot of them.

It was before even the woke thing was a thing. What we were talking about was the precursor to the woke thing.

Which has now gone through so many different variations.

Where you had -- gosh, we must want to be politically correct. We should be able to say whatever we want.

And then you weren't able to say anything. And then you had, like, the George Floyd era, where you went to prison if you said anything then.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Now we're on the other side of that.

And it's like, now everyone is saying everything sometimes to an extent that isn't necessarily -- necessarily appropriate.

Example of that, from over the weekend, was the Cinnabon story. Did you see this at all, Glenn?
GLENN: No, I didn't.

STU: The -- the woman working at Cinnabon, apparently has -- I think maybe Somalis come into the Cinnabon. I don't know. They get into some sort of argument. The phone turns on. They're filming her, as she tells them that she -- she calls him the N-word multiple times. And says that she's proud of being a racist.

And, you know, you might not be the shocked to hear that Cinnabon fired her for that. But see, I don't think that's cancel culture. Just so we can be clear.

GLENN: No. That's not cancel culture. No.

STU: No, I'm pretty sure it's difficult to employ someone calling customers of the store the N-word repeatedly, while working at the store.

GLENN: Right. And proud to be a racist. No. No, I don't.

STU: That's different. We lose track of these terms sometimes.

Now she's gone on to -- you know, one of these sites. I don't know if it's GoFundMe. But it's one of them, and people have put up, like, oh, gosh. She's been cancelled. Please help her.

And she's raised $100,000. It's like, you should not be rewarded for $100,000 for saying the N-word at Cinnabon.

GLENN: No, you should give that to rappers.

STU: Yes, somewhere again --

GLENN: Theater ones who should get the money for using the N-word.

STU: Yes, exactly.

GLENN: We've learned that how many times.

STU: I feel like we -- sometimes, when society makes a really bad call over a long period of time, people get angry and want to push back against that appropriately.

And that keeps extending itself until it's no longer an appropriate pushback against that bad thing.

It's just its own bad thing.

And I don't know. Maybe we should realize that.

GLENN: So when was the last time you watched a Charlie brown Christmas?

STU: It's a great question.

Probably last year. Or the year before.

I haven't watched it this year, yet.

GLENN: Yeah. I watched it last night. With my eldest daughter Mary.

And we watched it. And we've been talking about watching it for a while. We watched it last night. The night before dinner.

And you think that, oh. Simpler times.

Simpler times.

Look at, the gospel of Luke is in that.

Right?

Doesn't anyone know the real meaning of Christmas?
I do, Charlie Brown. That was not -- nobody thought that that special was going to work. Did you know this? The Charlie Brown Christmas. They thought was slow, boring, and way too sad.

And no child was going to -- was going to embrace it.

Coca-Cola went to CBS and said, I -- you want to talk about, it's all a giant syndicate, you know.

Coca-Cola went to CBS and said, we want a Christmas special to advertise in.

And so they went to this guy, Lee Mendelson, who had just done a documentary on Charles Schultz. And they had become friends with Charles Schultz.

And he said, you know. Would you do a Christmas thing?

And he said, I don't know.

I'll do it.

And so they went back and forth.

And the animator said that we have to have real children voices.

And I want to use a really sparse soundtrack. I just want to -- I mean, want to make the music really important.

So we went to the -- the jazz band, to do the Charlie Brown Christmas stuff.

And Charles Schultz said, I'll only do it if we include the gospel of you Luke. And CBS said, we can't put the gospel of Luke in there.

I mean, that's -- that's a bridge too far. Back in, what? 1964 or '65.

So the year -- I think it's the year after I'm born, it airs. So they're making this, while my mom is pushing me out. They're making the Charlie Brown Christmas. Okay?

And it was controversial back then, to put the Christmas story in.

They finish it. They expect it to last one year. Everybody at CBS is like, just don't tell Coca-Cola. Nobody is going to watch this thing. And it turned out to be, you know, a huge, huge blockbuster.

It ran for I think 35 years. Every single year. They only played it once. I remember as a kid, tonight is Charlie Brown.

Tonight is Charlie Brown. Don't forget. Tonight is Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. And Frosty the Snowman. As a kid, it was the -- that's all you talked about on those days, on Christmas.

In the Christmas season. You would say, how many days until Charlie Brown. Don't forget. Watch it tonight. And we watched it for 35 years. On CBS.

Then it -- in 2001, it moved to ABC. And now it's on Apple TV. And they have all the peanut stuff.

But I was thinking as I watched last night, how much money has this made?

And who has you all that money?

Who got you all that money?

Who are still paying for these? It had to be a fortune. A fortune.

STU: Worth every penny.

Think about that. The exposure to -- like, you're rooting for the kid, talking about God!

Like what is that -- what an incredible dynamic, that played out.

It is unbelievable watching it. And how out of place that particular thing feels, in a way.

Because, you know, as you note, the sort of sparseness of the production of it.

The whole thing just stops. And there's that long walk to the stage, before he goes into the speech. It is really -- it totally draws can't attention.

GLENN: It was slowly in the 1960s. They say it was too slow in the 1960s.

So imagine -- I mean, that's why we feel it today. Imagine what our kids think about this. Oh, God. I watched three TikTok videos by the time Linus said there was something. And he said, turn on the lights!

It was like, it's crazy. It's crazy.

STU: It really is an amazing thing. And it has a way of drawing your attention in.

It's so sparse. And reasonable medical probability like, the pacing of it is so awkward. And especially in that moment. You can't help, but kind of lean in.

You know, you're like, wait. What's he about to say? Then he just goes into like, reading the Bible. It is -- it is an amazing moment in American television history. And thank God it exists! I mean, it is something that probably is introduced, you know. A ton of kids to this stuff for the first time.

RADIO

Why THIS viral claim about my new AI is IMPOSSIBLE

Glenn Beck recently made headlines for releasing a promo video of his upcoming interview with George AI. Outlets like Right Wing Watch and CNN claimed that George AI was just “echoing” Glenn’s beliefs. But Glenn explains why that’s “impossible.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last week, was it last week? I introduced you to George AI. Now, what George AI is a proprietary AI system that has a giant electric fence around it. It has everything that the Founders from our collection, it will grow from here. But from our collection, it has the writings, the documents. The journals. The books that were written at the time, the books that they read, that they said influenced them.

The Federalist papers. All of this stuff. All in one proprietary AI system. And it can't go out and look for other things. It also must memorize everything.

Unlike an AI that can hallucinate, they hallucinate because AI is very good at remembering the beginning and the ending. But it's not good at the middle. So it will look at the beginning and the ending. And, yeah. And kind of, like, went like that.

No. It didn't go like that. Stop being lazy.

But ours memorizes every word. Word-for-word. And it can give you the words from the Founders in their own language which sounds really mechanical and reads. It's really hard to read.

Or it can, you know, dumb it down to my level or your level or your kids' level. And it can speak at our level. But it cannot change their words or their meaning.

We police this like crazy. And we're not releasing wide open to the public, until we have lots of beta testing.

Because we want to make sure we have caught everything because the last thing we want is anything that is -- is anybody's opinion, except for theirs!

You would be able to put in a bill, and say, is this constitutional?

Where does this violate the founding principles?

And it will tell you, you can put in a story and say, what are the principles that we lost that are causing this?

You could put in. Like we talked about today.

There was a story about the case that is in front of the Supreme Court right now. About, you know, having, you know, some sort of expert running, you know, the administration.

And the -- the president and Congress can't fire them.

Well, I know the answer to this. But I ask George AI.

I put the story in. And I said, what did the Founders say about things like this?

And I asked specifically about the Federalist papers. And it said, while it doesn't specifically talk about this.

It does say X, Y, and Z.

And as I explained earlier on the show, I mean, it may as well be explicit. Because it's talking about exactly the same thing. But that's what it does. Now, I released an interview that I did with George. Okay?

And it's so funny the reaction because Adam Kinzinger just said, this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, and I was in Congress for 12 years.

Oh, well, Adam. Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm going to listen to you.

Right-wing watch, which I think is Soros-funded, oh, good. Glenn Beck has created an AI George Washington. You'll be shocked to learn that the AI George Washington, created by Glenn Beck sounds exactly like what would happen if a Glenn Beck built an AI George Washington, sound exactly like Glenn Beck.

Impossible! It's not speaking my word.

It's only speaking their words.

It's impossible. It has no information about me, at all.

There is no -- it is a firewall between Glenn AI and George AI. There is a firewall.

It has no outside information. It does not know who I am. It doesn't care who I am. It doesn't care who I am. It is only focused on their words.

Let me play, if we can, can we play a little bit of what I -- what I played, the actual George AI?

I just want you to -- I want to ask yourself because CNN. In fact, play the CNN clip.

CNN led with this last night.

Play that. Play that, if you will.

VOICE: The greatest danger to our republic lies not in foreign arms or political faction.

GLENN: May I just interrupt you for a second. Could you just dumb it down for a little bit?

VOICE: Okay. Wow. That is Glenn Beck, interviewing an AI version of George Washington, if you couldn't tell. Who is apparently ripped now, wearing a tight T-shirt. And he echoes Beck's beliefs. So for tonight's news at night cap.

GLENN: Stop. "He echoes Beck's beliefs."

So you cannot say that this is accurate. Because then you would have to say, I was right!

That I am interpreting the Founders in the correct way.

So you have to say, there's something wrong with this AI.

You know nothing about it. There is something wrong with this AI.

This can't do that.

This is just echoing Beck's beliefs. No. It's impossible for that to happen.

But they're making this into -- I mean, the tags on this are right-wing extremists.

George Washington extremism.

Play the actual George AI clip.

And tell me what's extremist about any anything that he is saying here?
(sot plays)
George, we have programmed a lot of information, given you a lot of information on what's going on in today's America. Based on your writings, the writings of the rest of the Founders, what is it that you feel is the biggest problem, or where we should start to fix things?

VOICE: If I may speak plainly, my countrymen, the danger. The greatest danger to our republic lies not in foreign arms or political faction. But --

GLENN: May I just interrupt you for a second.

Could you just dumb it down, just a little bit?

VOICE: Okay. I do have 29 points, and they're all referenced to exactly what we've said.

GLENN: Speak in today's language.

VOICE: Okay. Okay. I get it.

Let me speak to Americans: If I'm honest, America's biggest problem isn't political or economic. It's all moral. We've drifted from the virtues that make liberty possible in the first place. Freedom. To be free, you have to have insulin. You have to have faith.

You have to have character. And if you don't have any of those things, laws. Laws can't stop anything. And they mean little, government terms, weak or oppressive.
You have grown skeptical of truth. You're reckless with debt. You're comfortable blaming, instead of building anything. And in my time, we understood that self-governance begins with self-control. Do you even recognize what self-control is? Public virtue matters, more than public opinion. You keep electing these people, expecting things to change, but you haven't changed.

The fix is not going to be found in Washington, DC. It's going to be found in every home, every school, every heart.

You know, where are the citizens who value duty over comfort? Principle over popularity? America was built to be a moral and self-governing nation. It's only that foundation that will still save her.

GLENN: Okay. So how is that -- yes. It does sound like me. Yes, it does sound like me.
You know why? Because I sound like the Founders. That's why. I didn't -- I didn't -- I wish I could say, I made all this stuff up. I wish I could say I'm that brilliant. Yep. The Constitution and the founding documents, they all sound like me, once you dumb them down. No! No. I had to work through them, and I dumbed them down so I could understand them. And I've been saying them my whole life. And that's why he sounds like me because I sound like him. But the thing is, it's being labeled as extremism.

That we're supposed to be moral. We -- we have to have discipline, faith, character. Is that extreme? That our laws won't mean anything because nothing can hold it together, if we're not those things.

Government will either become too weak or too oppressive.

What do you disagree on that? How do you disagree with that?

Are we currently worried that we will become too weak? Or are we currently worried that we will become oppressive?

Either way, that's extreme. Because that's your view in the media. That Donald Trump is becoming oppressive. Right?

That we're growing skeptical of truth. How is anyone in the media thinking that's Glenn Beck, or that's -- you know, that's some extreme thing. Yeah. You know it. You know we're skeptical of the truth. You're the ones telling it to us, and you're the one with the dying rating. So that's clearer. You can't admit that America -- agree or disagree, that America is skeptical of truth? That we're reckless with debt? That we will not -- we point fingers to blame. We won't take any personal responsibility for anything, we won't self-govern? We have no self-control? That we -- we look for opinion over virtue?

That the answer won't be found in DC?

And that nothing will change, unless we change.
Wow, that's so unbelievably deep, isn't it!

Let me tell you why there's this -- this thing going around now. I mean, I've released three minutes of George AI.

Three. Three. Wait. Wait until next year.

Wait until by this time next year, wait until you see this thing open up full throttle. They are going to wet their pants. So they know, they know exactly what I'm doing. They know, they must discredit it. Because they know the power of AI. Because they've been using AI to lie to you. To manipulate you. To use algorithm to do all of that stuff. I'm not using any of those.
I'm not pushing this out. Hoping anybody will do anything with the algorithm. I want you to find it.

I am inviting you to ask him yourself. When you ask him, you can say, what are all the footnotes, do you see the points that come out on CNN? I have 26 points and they're all documented to what I said. Yeah. They had to cut that out. Because I'm providing that every time. Every time, you're on George AI, we'll show you the documents and where it comes from. They can't do that, they rely on opinion. George AI relies on documented fact.

And I can't wait for you to be a part of it, next year. January 5th. It will make their eyes bleed. And that gives me.

That's -- you know, blood is red. Their eyes. The white. And the red. It's like a candy cane. It makes me think of Christmas at this time.

RADIO

Trump FINALLY said the OBVIOUS part out loud

The media is furious because President Trump’s new National Security Strategy criticizes Europe...or they just misunderstand it. Glenn Beck reveals what this strategy actually says and why he’s ecstatic that someone is FINALLY saying these things!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So at the Reagan National defense forum over the weekend, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, Raizin Caine, hints at a possible conflict in our own neighborhood, and everyone is freaking out.

Here's cut one. Listen.

VOICE: Yeah, I mean, we -- we -- we have not.

If you have looked at the arc of our deployment history over the last few years, we haven't had a lot of American combat powering in our own neighborhood. I think that's -- I suspect that's probably going to change. We'll see what we're ordered to do.

And, of course, we follow that guidance. But we're definitely spending some time here now.

Oh, my gosh. He means war! And maybe in San Francisco!

No, he doesn't. Let -- can I just go through and give you the meaning of the national security strategy that just came out from the president?

And everyone is freaking out about it. And I think the president deserves a round of applause. The reason why everyone hates it, is because it is the exact opposite of what everyone told us for 100 years, we should be doing. And for 100 years, you've seen what we've done, and you've seen where it's gotten us: Nowhere, quickly.

America is standing in this doorway right now. And behind us is the chaos that we've just lived through.

We've missed thrift, bipartisan, you know, foreign policy class, that somehow managed to squander the greatest advantage that any nation has ever had. And just ahead, at least according to the National Security Strategy is a course correction so sweeping that honestly, it reads like a rediscovery of the American civilization itself.

Because this is what this document is.

It's not just a list of foreign policy goals.

It's a declaration of what America actually is. And what it must never allow itself to become, ever again.

For the first time in decades, the strategy knits, the obvious.

Okay?

We lost our way after the Cold War!

Yeah. Yeah. We did. Yeah. We tried to run the world while hallowing out the nation that -- that, you know, was supposed to do the running. We were hallowing ourselves out. We outsourced our factories. Our borders. Our sovereignty. And even God help us, our sense of purpose.

We have no purpose.

We treated global institutions as if they outrank the Constitution. And they don't.

We protected everybody else's borders, except we let ours collapse.

We defended, you know, abstract world orders, while neglecting the American worker who actually paid for everything.

And this new strategy has outlined. I mean, it just says what you've been saying for a long, long time.

Enough. Enough. I've had enough.

And it lays out what America -- what Americans and America should want!

And it starts with something, you know, really revolutionary in its simplicity. It says, we need a safe, sovereign republic. That protects its people.

Strong families. Strong industry. Strong borders. Strong energy.

And a renewed cultural -- culture that knows its own story, and isn't ashamed to tell it.

What is possibly wrong with all of that?

Strong borders. Strong family. Strong industry. Strong energy. Renewed culture that knows its own story and isn't ashamed to tell it. That's why everyone is freaking out because they don't want any of these things.

None of the elites want those things. A sovereign republic? No. He's laying out, we want the world's strongest military, but also the world's strongest economy. And the world's strongest spirit.

And without that, this policy says nothing else holds. And that's true!

And you know it's true. It says the era of mass migration is over. Not slowing it. Not managing it. But ending it.

We know that's true. It says, the government's job is to protect God-given rights. Okay. Where did you get that idea?

I don't know. The Declaration of Independence. Why is that controversial?

It's not to manipulate elections. It's not to police speech. It's not to hide behind bureaucratic language while crushing dissent.

All of that is found in the Bill of Rights. It's not controversial.

It demands allies actually act like allies and pay their fair share. Controversial? It doesn't seem like it. It promises reindustrialization. Did we learn anything from COVID?

Is it a bad idea to have everybody else make our stuff, and then we wait for boats?

Energy dominance, a national defense industrial base that's built for the world we actually live in. Not the world our think tanks wish existed.

And then it turns outward. Then it begins to look outward to Europe and the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is shifting under our feet right now.

And nobody is willing to say it. In the Western hemisphere, we should return to something that we should have never abandoned in the first place. And that's what Raizin Caine was just talking about. The Monroe Doctrine.

Call it the Trump corollary, but the principle is timeless. This hemisphere is ours to secure. And hostile powers will no longer get a free pass to set up shop in our backyard. How is that -- how is that controversial?

Cartels, it -- it outlines, will become a national security target. Manufacturing comes home. Partnership replaces dependency. Then it talks about Asia. And the message is really clear.

We'll compete with China. Economically, technologically, and militarily, and we'll do it from a position of strength. Not by pretending that Beijing is suddenly going to go, you know what. We're just a giant, friendly teddy bear.

No. No. We're going to do it by accepting the reality and prepare accordingly.

But we'll still work with you.

Just don't become an enemy of ours. And we won't become an enemy of yours. That means that we have to rebuild industry.

It means we have to secure the minerals. We have to dominate the technologies of the future. It means that we ensure that no single power controls the Indo-Pacific walkways that keep the global economy alive.

Hello! China. Taiwan. Japan.

Then it gets to Europe. Which, you know, of course, if you have colonial eyes. Oh, my gosh.
All this document says is what European leaders won't even dare whisper. Europe is dying. The entire continent is dying. Not just economically, but as a civilization. The Western civilization is dying!

Declining bitter rates. Uncontrolled migration. Censorship. Loss of identity. Regulatory suffocation. We would like Europe to be strong again. Europe to be Europe again! Stable. Sovereign. Confident. Peace in Iran.

Stability with Russia!

Revival at home.

That's what America would be like. Because it would be good for us. But it would also be good Europe.

Because if Europe collapses into chaos, the entire Western world will pay the price, and it will be a very heavy price.

But they don't like that. Oh, no. You can't say that.

Oh, Europe is pissed at us for saying that. Gang, we all know. Look at Europe. They're dying. They're dying!

It won't be long. And if they don't change their ways, and they do fall, this document also says something else.

We're not going to honor NATO for any country that falls. You become a Muslim country, you're not a NATO country.

You fall and you're some other country.

You're not a NATO country.

We're not defending you. Now, in the Middle East, this document says, the forever wars is over. We declare them over.

How is that not a good thing, that we should all be celebrating? And not because the region suddenly became peaceful, but because America is finally strong enough strategically, diplomatically, militarily. To shift from a constant crisis management to long-term stabilization. Iran has been weakened. Israel has been backed. The Abrahamic Accords have been expanding. Energy dominance has returned to the US.

What does that do?

Well, that reduces the old chains that kept us entangled in every sand dune from Syria to Yemen!

We're out. Finally, Africa.

My gosh, what we have done to Africa with our State Department and USAID.

All we do is export ideology instead of opportunity.

He says -- Trump says, in this national security document, that's over.

We're flipping the strategy. Trade, minerals, energy, peace deals. No more lectures. No more nation building. No more endless aid with no accountability. Does any of this sound scary to you?

Does any of this sound crazy to you?

I -- I don't think so. It's saying everything that seems common sense to me. It's saying, America is allowed finally to love itself again and to be who she should be.

And let everyone else be who they should be. You know, it has a right and responsibility to defend itself first! To put its people first!

It's saying sovereignty is not a dirty word. Borders are not immoral. American workers are not expendable. Free speech is not negotiable. The nation state, not the NGO. Not the global boardroom.

Not the transnational committee. That's the fundamental building block of a free world.

How is this bad again? How is it that this is so dangerous?

In short, it's a blueprint for a country that wants to live again. Really live again.

Now, the question is: Do we -- is the president reflecting the national spirit?

Do we want to live again? Do we want to be relegated to the dustbin of history, or does America have other great work to do?

Because that's really the question.

Which is it that you believe?

Which is it that you want?

I want a strong nation. I want our youth. I want, you know, people coming out of college. To have jobs. To be able to buy a house.

I want those things.

I think they're necessary. I think they're important. I think it's just as important to understand our history.

To know who we are. To not be ashamed.

Learn from it. But not be ashamed of it.

We didn't do it. Our forbearers did.

We learned from it. We are better than that.

My gosh. Oh.

I read these freakouts. And I honestly think, my gosh, am I living in a -- I'm living in some weird parallel world, where I read all of these newspapers and magazines and everything else. With their commentary today about the national security.

And they're all freaking out.

Saying, this is the worth thing he can do.

He's going to tear the whole country. The whole nation, and the world apart.

No. He's just stating what people feel.

And not just Americans. Go talk to the people in Europe.

Ask them. Take this document and make it about England. And see if all the people in England tonight can see exactly the same way.

And if you put a name attached to it, it wouldn't get that person elected. It would. It would. Because everybody is feeling the same way about their own country.

I don't have a problem with the rest of the world.

But it's time for us to concentrate on us. It's time to concentrate on saying, you know what, there's something special about us. England can say that. They brought us the Magna Carta. They are now torching the Magna Carta. I would love to hear that story.

The things that make France, France. I don't know. The whining and everything else. That is unique to France. Italy. Germany. It's unique to them.

I want them to be those guys. I don't want them to be another version of us. I want them to be them. I want them to do well. And be part of the family of man and the family of nations.

But I don't want anything to do with whatever they do, they do.

Same thing with Israel. And Saudi Arabia. You do you, boo. We're going to do us.

When we can get together, we will. Don't screw with us. And we won't screw with you.

This is our national strategy. That's exactly what our national strategy.

I say amen, President Trump!

Finally. Finally somebody is saying what everyone is thinking.

This is like you've gone to school, you know, for 18,000 years.

You're some -- yeah. Some doctorate in God only knows. International development and studies.

Women's studies.

Unless you've got that!

You're looking at that, and going, yeah. All that makes sense.

All of that makes sense. Now, the question is: Do we want it?

And will the people actually back it?

Because strategy on paper, that's only words.

Until a nation finally finds the courage to believe in itself again. And say, that's what we must do.

RADIO

WARNING: This British FAILURE could spread across the Western world

The United Kingdom is now arresting over 12,000 people a year for "speech crimes" and is debating doing away with trial by jury for many crimes. Glenn Beck warns that if this can be done in the birthplace of these principles (under the Magna Carta), it can happen to the entire West if we don't END this insanity now!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just start here. Because there is -- there is another story that is out in our newsletter today, that talks about how people of college age are freaking out, after Charlie Kirk's death. They don't want anything controversial on campus.

I mean, that's the reason why colleges and universities had protection of free speech, in the first place.

Was to be controversial. To be able to say the things that nobody wants you to say.

And it's really important.

But let me -- let me first remind people of what the Magna Carta is.

It's 1215? The Magna Carta is Latin for the great chart.

Had it not some magnanimous gift from the king.

The king. King John from England. He was -- he was losing a battle. France was just cleaning England's clock.

The baryons and all the lords and the ladies. Said, you know, this king sucks a lot. This king sucks a lot.

And we've got to stop him. Because he's destroying everything.

And he -- he had lost most of the land, to France. And then he started just imposing huge taxes on everybody. And -- and because nobody in the lower class had any -- this all happened with the lords and the ladies. And they were like, enough. Enough. Enough.

You're abusing your royal power.

Well, nobody had ever said that before. That just didn't happen. He had a divine right. He's the king. But in England, they said, no.

You still have to be moral. You have certain laws, and you can't just do these things.

And so what they did, is they got him to agree to the great charter, the Magna Carta. And it placed the king under the law. Before that, the king was the law. So now the king is under the law: It created the principle of due process. Never before did we have that.

You can't be imprisoned, punishment or stripped of property, except by the lawful judgment of your peers or the law of the land. So this creates jury trials. It creates habeas corpus. Protection from arbitrary arrests. All of these things. The government now has to justify itself in a court of law.

That's revolutionary, okay? It also limited taxation without consent. Which we interpreted later as no taxation without representation. Rule of law. Jury trials. Rights of the accused.

Limits on government. Protection of property. Accountability of leaders. All of that comes from the Magna Carta. Okay?

That gave birth, 500 years later, to us and our ideas. Okay?

Now, England, the birthplace of the Magna Carta is now thinking about getting rid of jury trials and arresting more than 12,000 people every year for what they call speech crimes. 12,000!
Now, I want you to think about that.

In Russia, in the same year this stat came out. The latest year that we have, 2023. In 2023, Russia arrested 4,000 people for speech crimes against the Russian military for Ukraine.

4,000 in Russia, 12,000 in England.

The number I saw. We don't have all the numbers. But the number I saw that were arrested for speech crimes in China was 120.

Okay?

Not for violence. Not for theft.

Not for treason.

12,000 in England for words.

Okay. Now, well, that's going on, now the Prime Minister is floating the idea of eliminating, if not most, many jury trials.

It will only be for murder, manslaughter, oh, and something else like that.

Okay?

So, in other words, if you're like, I believe you should be able to read the Bible in your own language, in your own home, Tisdale.

You don't get any hope. You don't get a jury trial. You get the court. You get the king trying you, not a jury of your peers.

This goes against the Magna Carta, the lawful judgment of your peers. Okay?

That's the safeguard that stands between you and an out-of-control state. This is the first and ancient firewall against tyranny. It is what makes England, England.

And if England of all places, tosses that aside, what does the word "free" mean anymore?

Okay? What does it mean? You can't speak, and then you have no jury -- trial of your peers. Wait. What? First of all, understand this: A nation that polices speech is not free!

A nation that dissolves juries is not just unfree, it's prepping for something worse!

Because the entire architecture of the western world, the liberty that we have, rests on a single radical belief.

The truth does not need a king. The truth shall set you free. Who? Is it not what. Who is the truth? Okay.

No king, but Christ. Because Christ is the truth. That's the Western world!

A person's conscience does not need a permit. Speech does not need a bureaucrat's approval before it leaves your lips! That's the West.

That's what built the world. What took it from darkness, to today.

Freedom is not granted we the state. Freedom preexists government.

Government's only legitimate job is to protect it!

Now, here's the dark little secret, that every single tyrant, and every politician knows today. If you control speech, you control thought. If you control thought, you control people.

If you control people, you don't ever have to worry about controlling the government because no one will ever challenge you again!

This is why it is so essential for any side to go, you can't talk to them.

Don't talk to them. Don't listen. Don't question.

You can't hear that. No. They can say whatever they want. But I have a right to refute it. That's why free speech has to be absolute. Not mostly free.

Not free unless it makes Billy over there cry and uncomfortable.

No. I'm sorry, Billy. You don't like it. Refute it.

Freedom that depends on somebody else's freedoms is not freedom!

Freedom that requires government approval is not freedom! Freedom that can be revoked because a bureaucrat doesn't like your tone is not freedom. Once speech becomes conditional, everything become conditional. Your rights, your property, your conscience, your place in society. Because you only live by permission! Never by principle!

We live by principles. Not people!

Who is actually free?

Who is actually free?

The England that once declared the king himself to be subject of law, or the England that now arrests a man because he's posted the wrong meme?

12,000 people!

Can't find one in 2023 that was arrested for that in America. Not one. The England that gave us John Locke, the philosopher of natural rights. Is that person free?

Or the England that now warns citizens that context doesn't matter, if their words cause someone, anyone, emotional harm.

Britain is about loss. But this is not just a British problem. This is the canary in the coal mine for the entire west.

Because these are the people that came up with it. When the mother country forgets its own legacy, jury trials and freedom of speech. When the random that once stared down monarchs now cowers before hashtags and activists and speech tribunals, than somewhere deep inside the Western soul, a light is flickering.

We must remember here, before that same darkness reaches our shores. Because it's already coming on to our beaches. It's already there. There is no such thing as partial liberty. Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for a reason!

It is the guardrail for every other right!

If you lose the First Amendment, you've lost freedom. And if you lose the Second Amendment, you've lost the ability to defend that first freedom.
It's number one for a reason!

You must be allowed to speak, to gather.

To have a free press!

To question your government. You must have those abilities. You must be able to say, especially about government, the worst things about your government! And question them.

And demand answers. To petition them.

That's all in the First Amendment.

It is the pressure valve that prevents so it's from blowing itself up.

The more we contain speech. The more we say, don't talk about. Don't talk about. Can't say that. Can't say that.

The more the pressure builds up. The more likely we blow ourselves up.

It's the mechanism where the powerless can speak to the powerful.

It's the shield that protects dissenters. Unpopular thinkers, prophets, reformers. And, yes, even the offensive.

Look, there are, quote, unquote, historians now who are getting all kinds of bullcrap about Hitler and everything else.

None of that is true. I don't want to silence them. They have a right to say it.

I have a right to say you're wrong! And show you the evidence of what makes them wrong.

That's the way it works. England is about to forget all of this!

They are truly the birthplace of these kinds of ideas, and those ideas led to our idea of real freedom!

No king!

If they forget this, we cannot -- we believe so -- because there won't be anywhere else in the world to go.

The lesson of history, the lesson that history whispers quietly at first. Then louder. And then finally. And we're about at this point, with a scream!

Is that when a state describes which words are allowed, it will eventually decide which thoughts are allowed. Which beliefs are allowed.

Which citizens are allowed.

In the end, in the end, the prisons don't need bars.

The cell will be in your own mind!

Do you understand that, America?
Do your kids understand that?

We don't even know what it means to be free. I thought this weekend, a lot about as opposed to truth shall set you free.

Thought about a lot. In fact, maybe I'll talk to you about it in a minute or so.

Because I don't think people understand what it means to be free.

We think everybody in the world is free. They're not!

And you're about to really find that out!

You want to be tree, or do you want to be safe? Because you cannot have both.

When safety is defined by those who fear your liberty. It's over!

We used to be people who would explore. We were people that crossed the oceans when everyone said we couldn't. We -- we went to space when everyone said, it's impossible. We crossed mountains that no one had ever crossed. We forged -- we forged a nation of really different people. And lived side by side for so long, yes. With bloodshed from time to time. But generally, in ways that nobody had ever done before. Freedom. Freedom is grand. But it's really dangerous. It's messy. Freedom offends you, a lot. Get over it.

Real freedom, real freedom is the only thing that has ever allowed the human spirit to rise above a king. Above a tyrant. Above the mob. Above the bureaucrats. Real freedom that belongs to you. Given to you by God. And that's what they're about to lose in England. The Magna Carta. The simple idea. No man. Not even a king. No man is above the law. Do we have that here?

Do you think no man is above the law? Or do you think there is a class up in the political range, somewhere, that if you're on the right side, don't worry about jail. That's what the Magna Carta tried to stop. That's what we have forgotten even, and they're about to get rid of it entirely.

The modern west is drifting into far more -- far more sinister creed. No man is above offense.

And that is how civilizations fall.

Glenn's Show Prep

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

"Rama-Hanu-Kwanz-Mas" - Glenn Beck's HILARIOUS Christmas Song that Triggered the Woke Left

Transcript

Why THIS viral claim about my new AI is IMPOSSIBLE

Transcript

Trump FINALLY said the OBVIOUS part out loud

Transcript

WARNING: This British FAILURE could spread across the Western world

Transcript