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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Democrats Can't Make Gorsuch Into a Monster Because He's Too Humble

March 21, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Democrats are doing their best to come up with something on Judge Neil Gorsuch to derail his nomination as a Supreme Court Justice. Today, the first day of questioning, they tried to use an unsubstantiated --- and now debunked --- claim from a former law student in an ethics class.

RELATED: Amid Charges by Former Law Student on Gender Equality, Former Clerks Defend Gorsuch

"The image they want to create for him just doesn't work because he's a humble person. He's a restrained person. He's got 3,000 opinions. He's got liberals who are endorsing him because they think he's just such a good person," said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, who joined Glenn Tuesday on radio.

To watch the Gorsuch confirmation hearings and get analysis, go to TrumpNominee.com, a website created by Shackelford’s organization.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Kelly Shackelford. How are you?

KELLY: Good. Great to be on, Glenn.

GLENN: Kelly has all the information at TrumpNominee.com. TrumpNominee.com, where you can follow it, see the videos, and get all of the background on Gorsuch.

What did you think, Kelly?

KELLY: You know, what I expected. A lot of preening. Speeches given by senators. Really, today is when it started. It already has started, the hearing. And that's when they're going to try to catch him. And, of course, they dropped their bomb -- the best they could do today. NPR dropped a story attacking him having some student that was in his class making claims that now all the other students are saying are false.

GLENN: What were the claims?

KELLY: That he teaches a class at the University of Colorado Law School. And they said that in the class he -- this one student said that he had said something about women taking advantage of maternity leave in the workplace. And a number of other students just totally disputed that. It's an ethics class. And he was talking about the different things that people are pressured by. And he gave that amongst many other examples. And then gave the arguments and counterarguments for both sides. But the attacker that was used by NPR didn't bother to say that.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

KELLY: So, you know, they don't really have much on him. So the attacks are very weak. And they almost always fall apart within seconds. But that's -- I think their only hope is during the questioning and answering, you know, which has already started already today, that they can catch him saying something. Otherwise, I think they're really in an uphill battle.

STU: I was looking at the article you mentioned, which I had not seen, Kelly, from NPR, which begins now with this: Editor's note, since the story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk's political affiliations. And those political affiliations are she used to work for a Democratic senator. That's the person who is accusing Gorsuch of this. A staffer of Democratic senator Mark Udall of Colorado.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: So this is, you know, nonsensical.

GLENN: Well, first of all, it's in an ethics class. Of course, you're going to say things that are unethical in an ethics class. You're exploring ethics.

KELLY: Yeah, the Socratic method is kind of what you do when you're teaching these sort of classes.

GLENN: Yes.

KELLY: And, by the way, one of the people that came forward supporting Judge Gorsuch was a very liberal Democrat student who totally disagreed with what NPR was saying. So I guess that's why they are updating it. They've even got people who are on the far left wing.

I do find some irony in the fact that NPR -- you know, meanwhile, we have President Trump cutting some of the money to NPR and these types of groups. And here they are, a somewhat government-funded entity that is attacking, you know, somebody to be on the Supreme Court. There's some -- I don't know. There's something really bizarre about all of that. And I think it gives extra credence to why maybe government money shouldn't go to groups who are going to do that.

GLENN: Let me -- let me ask -- the question that was asked of me over and over again yesterday was how -- how nasty is this going to get. Is this going to go to the nuclear option or not?

And I think we touched on this yesterday. I can't imagine they're going to do that because he's not -- I mean, if you listen to him yesterday, he's a very reasoned, soft-spoken -- he sounds like books on tape. He's just not that kind of a caricature, that I think the American people will be afraid of. And, you know, Chuck Schumer yesterday was calling for chaos in the streets. I mean, this is nuts.

Are --

KELLY: I agree with you, Glenn. I think he's -- they can make him a Bork. They can't make him somebody into -- the image they want to create for him just doesn't work because he's a humble person. He's a restrained person. He's got 3,000 opinions. He's got liberals who are endorsing him because they think he's just such a good person.

You know, one of Obama's head solicitor general came out and endorsed him. Said, you have all these people that recognize what anybody does when you look at him, which is not this monster that they would like to create. So I think they're in a struggle though. I think the base really wants these Democratic senators to bring out the knives. So I think that's why we see them saying some of these things. But when push comes to shove, you have all these senators that were in states that were carried by Trump. And when they vote, that could cost them their seat. Because their seat is coming up. A third of the Senate is coming up in this next election. And a number of those were carried by Trump, those states. So I don't think we are going to see the filibuster.

Now, I think many conservatives kind of hope we do. Because if there is a filibuster, it's so unreasonable in this situation, that I think most people think that they will use the nuclear option, what they call the nuclear option and just change the rules and say, "Okay. There's no need for a filibuster. This is abusive." And that will make the way for the next time when it is going to be a huge battle about who controls the court, not using the filibuster. So many people kind of hope they do overplay their hand, but I just don't think they will.

GLENN: So, Kelly, do you think that the American people are going to sit through -- for instance, what Schumer is talking about is he's said, this is -- all the stuff that's going on with Trump. And he brings up -- he ends up with immigration reform. And he said, "You know, if this -- if this isn't solved -- you know, you want to build the wall. Maybe we should say, we're going to shut down the government." This is a quote, "We're going to shut down the government. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform."

Well, wait a minute. That is exactly what they said was irresponsible and was anti-government. Do you think people are even going to remember that, or do you think people will call bullcrap on both parties for playing this game?

KELLY: I think at this point -- I think people, you know, voted for some pretty dramatic change. They felt like the government was broken. And they wanted to see something get done. So they did something pretty drastic. And I think somebody just obstructing for obstruction's sake doesn't go over well right now. I think that's sort of the politics that people are tired of.

So I think that -- I really think that people like Schumer are playing to their base, which want them to do this kind of thing, but I think with the regular American, it's not something they like. And, again, they look at Gorsuch, and they think, this is the kind of guy I want on the court, you know. He's very mild mannered. He seems to want to do the right thing, just follow the law. So I think they're going to have a real hard time. You know, I'll tell people, Glenn. Watch for themselves. At TrumpNominee.com, where we've got our website there, the first link is just watch the hearings. And I think you'll see pretty quickly why they're having a hard time.

But that's their only hope, again, in my opinion -- their only hope is to catch him in something in these hearings. And, again, I think that would be a surprise to a lot of people, but I think that's what they're hoping for, knowing that otherwise, their arguments really do seem to fall apart whenever they really start because they just don't have much.

GLENN: Anything in particular we should watch for today?

KELLY: I just watch the Democratic senators -- obviously the Republican senators are going to say nice things, prop him up, do that. I'd watch the Democratic senators and see -- you might have some ask him about judicial philosophy, which might be very educational to people. But I think the real thing are the Democratic senators are going to try to go after him. They're going to try to force him to state where he stands on abortion and a number of issues which I would guess he's not going to answer. Because judges typically don't answer about policy issues that might come before them. They would want to see the facts of a particular case. So they don't want to prejudice themselves or look like they're prejudiced. So my guess is they're going to try to force him to answer, and they're going to complain. And he's not going to take the bait. And we're going to have a couple of days of this. And then eventually in, what? Three weeks? Four weeks? or whatever, we'll have Gorsuch on the court.

GLENN: Great. Kelly, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

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:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

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.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

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.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

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.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

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:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

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.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

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.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

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.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

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.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

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.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

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:

Strategic Military Position

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.

Untapped Resources

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.

Polar Silk Road

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.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

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?

The Election

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.

Georgescu's Platform

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.

What Happens Next?

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.