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

BLOGOctober 27, 2017

Why Is This Halloween Decoration in Texas ‘Tearing the Neighborhood Apart’?

Yet another protest against the Trump administration has divided neighbor from neighbor.

A yard decorated for Halloween and featuring a tombstone designated for President Donald Trump is causing controversy in a Texas town.

On today’s show, Glenn voiced his frustration over this story, which reflects so much of the unnecessary conflict we see every day in our own communities.

“This little rift in this small town in America … is a micro-chasm of what’s happening in our entire country,” Glenn said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The tombstone reads burn in hell. Now, that's a rather harsh epitaph. You would have to be a despicable human being to deserve, burn in hell, on your gravestone. Just think, the person was so odious, that someone actually spent money on the gravestone and engraved, burn in hell. Wow, what did you do in life?

Thankfully, it cost Fabian Verrega only ten bucks at Party City. The tombstone is a Halloween decoration on his front lawn. The scene is complete with bright yellow caution tape and a fake corpse rolled up in garbage bags. It's a half-hearted attempt, as far as Halloween decorations go, at least in Texas, which I don't -- I mean, people have been constructing stuff on their homes for like the last two weeks. It's -- Texans do things big here.

Anyway, his yard has -- has caused a controversy in his neighborhood.

In fact, it's tearing the neighborhood apart. Why? Because the burn in hell thing is only part of the tombstone. Up above Burn In Hell, it says President Donald Trump.

Okay. For the love of God. Now, Fabian's neighbor, Teresa, was so disgusted by the scene that she called the town to see if they could force Fabian to remove the headstone. She said, I want to know how far freedom of speech goes. Quote, Fabian needs to be removed from the neighborhood, end quote.

Okay. I think freedom of speech goes a little farther than you think it does. Fabian responded to his neighbor's threats by saying, quote, I'm doing it for fun. It was a joke. I like Halloween. So I don't think anything is wrong with that.

It's a free country. Well, this little rift in this small town in America, over stupid Halloween decorations is a microcosm of what is happening in our entire country.

And, America, you need to hear this. Fabian, Teresa, stop acting like -- no, you're not even acting -- that's an insult to children. Stop it. Knock it off.

It is distasteful to make a display about any president's death. And, quite honestly, if anybody would have done that about Barack Obama, it would have been on the front page of every paper. And I would have said the same thing.

It's wrong. Don't joke about a president's death. Even on Halloween. And burn in hell. That's not cool, man. Come on, what are you doing?

But Fabian is entitled to do what he wants. It's his house. It's his property. It's his life. As he said, it is a free country.

Now, Teresa, you're wrong because you don't have the power to eject someone from your neighborhood because you don't like them or you disagree with them.

How far does the First Amendment go? Much farther than you think.

The only reason we have the First Amendment is to protect the speech that the majority doesn't like. The First Amendment protects Fabian's free speech. And that is the way it is and always should be. But that's on the ropes.

I hate that I even have to tell this story. Now, here's another point: Can we please leave politics out of kids' holiday? Please. It's a stupid holiday for kids.

Let's remember Halloween is for them. And, quite frankly, they don't give a pixie stick about your political agenda. Give them the candy and move on with your life.

Should Taylor Lorenz & BLM Leader Be SILENCED For Celebrating VIOLENCE?
RADIO

Should Taylor Lorenz & BLM Leader Be SILENCED For Celebrating VIOLENCE?

The only speech that needs protecting is the speech we hate to hear. That’s why Glenn must defend the right for people like Taylor Lorenz and BLM chapter leader Hawk Newsome to say awful things, even if it kills him to do so. Speaking to Piers Morgan, Lorenz said she was “joyful” that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered. And speaking to the press, Newsome called for “black vigilantes” to rise up after the acquittal of Daniel Penny. So, is this speech, which glorifies violence, protected under the First Amendment? Glenn explains the “fire in a crowded theater” Supreme Court case that provides the answer.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I will play some stuff.

Got to be said.

And I want you to know. What I'm going to say to you here, is only -- I'm only saying it, because it is absolutely true.

And it only counts, when it takes everything in you, to say it.

It's easy to say, well, we have the right.
It's easy to say that. It only counts, when you hate saying it!

And I hate saying this.

With that, let me play a couple of clips of audio.

Let's first play, Taylor Lorenz, as she was talking with Piers Morgan, about the killer of the United Health Care, CEO.

STU: Why would you be in such a celebratory mood about the execution of another human being?

Aren't you supposed to be on the caring, sharing left?

Where, you know, you believe in the sanctity of life?

VOICE: I do believe in the sanctity of life. That's why I felt along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately.

VOICE: Joy? Seriously? Joy at a man's execution?

VOICE: Maybe not joy, but certainly, you know -- certainly not empathy.

VOICE: We're watching the footage.

How can this make you joyful? This guy is a husband. He's a father. And he's being gunned down in the middle of Manhattan.

VOICE: What about the tens of thousands of Americans that are being murdered?

So are the tens of thousands of Americans -- innocent Americans who died because greedy health insurance executives like this one push policies of denying care to the most vulnerable people.

GLENN: Nonsense.

VOICE: Hang on.

VOICE: Okay. Probably not joyful.

VOICE: You said you were feeling joyful.

VOICE: Yeah, I take that back. Joyful is the wrong word here.

VOICE: You think? You think joyful is the wrong word? I'd say it is.

VOICE: As I clarify, sure. Sure. Sure. But celebratory because, again, it feels like justice in the system, when somebody responsible --

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

STU: No. Please, let her keep talking. That was awesome.

GLENN: I can't take it anymore.

STU: Are you sure, joy isn't the right word? It's amazing.

GLENN: Now, let's go to Daniel Penny. Daniel Penny is found innocent.

I think anyone looks at what he did.

What he tried to do.

The spirit he tried to do it in. He was not trying to kill anyone.

He was trying to protect people.

BLM of New York, which is only sold, I think -- the only thing they do is sell hats. You know, that say, F the mayor.

You know, whatever. They came out. And this is what they -- this is what the head of BLM New York said, after the Daniel Penny trial.

VOICE: We need some black vigilantes. People want to jump up and choke us!

And kill us, for being loud. How about we do the same?

When they attempt to oppress us. I'm tired.

VOICE: Right.

GLENN: Boy, am I tired.

STU: Don't get tired. It's important to make sure you're well-rested.

GLENN: Yeah, get your rest. You might get a little cranky. You might do and say some crazy things.

Okay. So let me talk about those two statements quickly.

If I said this and said, it's time for some vigilantes.

Not even white or black. Just, it's time to get some vigilantes.

They would do everything they could, to get me off the air.

Everything. And I wouldn't say that.

Because I don't believe in that.

I believe in the Constitution. But here's a guy who can say that, and no one says a word except amen.

No one on the left. No one in the media. Well, he's got reasons to say that, you know.

Okay. But I would be blackballed. I -- my life would be over, if I said that.

Taylor Lorenz, she's out of her mind nuts. Okay? Out of her minds, nuts!

How many times do we have to hear this woman, say crazy things like, I don't feel joyful?
Just celebratory. Because somebody was gunned down in the streets.

Because she thinks health care is murdering people in America. Okay. Here's -- here's what I -- I -- oh, my gosh.

Stu, you have aspirin on you or anything?

Because if I have a stroke while saying this. Please, just put some aspirin on my tongue, so I might survive a little bit on this.

All of these people have a right to say that. Here is -- you can't cry fire in a crowded firehouse.

I don't know. They were just in a courtroom saying, we should kill people!

Like him.

I don't know.

Here is the actual court ruling. This is from 1969.

Court said, there's a two-pronged test to evaluate speech.

One, speech can be prohibited, if it is, quoting, directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

Now, you can say, we have a vigilante. Why don't we kill people?

That is inciting. It is! Inciting people to go and take lawless action.

But it isn't imminent lawless action. If somebody then picked up guns and started mowing down black people or white people. Or people that have bad acne or perfect faces or whatever it is.

Then that speech, he would be responsible for it.

But the court says, it is such a -- such a fine line here.

That it -- you have to go so far before your speech is banned.

It has to be one, directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

And two, likely to incite or produce such action.

Two standards!

Both of them have to be met.

I am only spitting this out, because I hate what these people have said.

I despise what these people say.

I believe with everything -- every -- every piece and every cell of my body, what they're saying is evil.

But because I'm an American constitutionalist. I defend their right to say it!

And it only matters to say these things, when it kills you to say it. And it's killing me to say it!

For all those on the left, that claim, that they are the banners of justice. They believe in the Bill of Rights. They believe in freedom of speech.

But it has limits.

Yes! Those are those two limits.

That's as far I have seen people go in a week. Maybe in my lifetime!

And I'm not calling for them to be silenced.

And if you'll notice, nor is most people on the right.

No one is saying, get them. Because we hold certain truths to be self-evident.

Rand Paul GOES OFF on Rumor that Biden Will Pardon Dr. Fauci
RADIO

Rand Paul GOES OFF on Rumor that Biden Will Pardon Dr. Fauci

Rumors are circulating that President Biden will issue preemptive pardons for many people he believes Donald Trump will go after as president, including Dr. Fauci. Sen. Rand Paul, who has been trying to bring the truth about Fauci to light, joins Glenn to explain how devastating a pardon for Fauci would be. Sen. Paul also comments on why he’s excited for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and Trump’s cabinet picks, including RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel. Then, Glenn and Sen. Paul discuss the war in Syria and Sen. Paul’s plan to end the endless emergency declarations.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have Senator Rand Paul on with us. I have to talk to him about a couple of things. A, staying out of war in Syria. Two, Anthony Fauci, is he going to be pardoned?

But let's start with DOGE. The Senate Republicans, hopefully are ready to just slash government spending, and hopefully we do it in the fashion that Calvin Coolidge did it back in the 1920s.

Senator Rand Paul, welcome to the program.

RAND: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So how serious do you think this DOGE thing is?

RAND: You know, I think it's very helpful. Because, you know, the problem is not just Democrats in Washington, it's big government Republicans. And I think Elon and Vivek bringing attention to this, we've already offered up. I've been for ten years, collecting and arguing that we should get rid of waste.

We sent them 2,000 pages worth of waste that can be addressed immediately. Some can be done through executive action.

I think you can let people go. You can fire people. You can fire people for cause. You can also change the contracting.

You know, one of the things that Elon did at SpaceX, was he started bidding on things. They started doing it through competitive bidding as opposed to cost lost.

The big companies, Boeing and Lockheed would get their contracts, and would say, oh, we bid a billion dollars.

Oh, sorry, we came in at 2 billion. Well, you get 10 percent of whatever you came in at. So, in fact, there's an incentive to come in over budget. There's a lot of things that can do. And will do.

On spending reductions, there's a special procedure, where if we send a billion dollars to the administration to build a ship, and they build it for 800 million, they can send the 200 million back to us. Through a special procedure called rescission.

And it gets an immediate vote. A privileged vote. And it's a simple majority. Most of the problems we have is getting to 60 votes, to undo bad things the Democrats have done. But with this case, rescission, reducing -- that sent back to us by the president.

It's a simple majority. However, we tried to do this in the first Trump administration. With a very small bill. 15 million-dollar cut, and it failed because Republicans voted with the Democrats to keep the spending.

So we have to do this. We will have 53 in the Senate. And only one or two majority in the House. We have to see if we can actually get the majority of Republicans to vote for spending cuts. If they all do, we can as you sit here significant spending.

GLENN: Would you agree with me that Donald Trump is different than he was in 2020. If we would have had him in 2020, it would have been a different situation entirely.
RAND: I think he's much more focused now. His picks for his cabinet I think are light years ahead of what was going on in 2016 for sure. And he really wants to disrupt. He's not going to allow the status quo.

He saw the status quo use the apparatus of government to come after him individually. And he realizes that in 2016. But again through 2020. That our intelligence agencies were being used against him.

Both retired. And I go I believe active. Went after the whole Hunter Biden thing to say it was Russian propaganda.

And it turns out, the propaganda was actually US propaganda calling it Russian propaganda.

And the FBI needs to clean house.

Kash Patel, I think, can do it. DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, I think can do it over there.

And he hasn't picked, you know, moderate, weak-kneed Republicans.

He's picked strong people. On the COVID front, picking Marty Makary, a doctor from John Hopkins. And Jay Bhattacharya, a doctor from Stanford.

Who have been leaders in pointing out this nonsense. These are people I would have picked. So I'm over the moon. I'm over the moon with some of these picks.

GLENN: So what do you think is going to happen?

I mean, you know, the White House is saying that Fauci may be pardoned in advance of anything, which doesn't seem like you could do that.

But they'll try it anyway. The -- I mean, at least it has to be -- everything just has to be dumped and exposed.

RAND: I've said referrals. Criminal referrals on Anthony Fauci twice to the Department of Justice. Without really response. Merrick Garland hasn't done his job. He's probably the most partisan attorney general we've ever had.

I will send those referrals again. If they preemptively pardon Anthony Fauci, it will seal his fate as the architect, author, and godfather of the pandemic. He's the one who funded it. He's the one who funded the research in Wuhan. He's the one that allowed the research, not to be scrutinized.

I don't get this. There was a safety committee that was supposed to scrutinize dangerous research. It was set up because of fear of exactly this happening. There have been scientists talking about this for 20 years, worried that this is going to happen. Anthony Fauci side-stepped the safety committee. And allowed this research to go on.

Then when it came forward, that he had done.

He said, oh. Nothing to see here. We didn't really do it.

Oh, well, we funded EcoHealth. And they funded Wuhan. But, oh, nothing to see here.

And then he had the gall to say, it wasn't gain of function, and it wasn't dangerous. That's all a lie. All that's come out. And really, we haven't -- we have him in private saying, we know it's really dangerous there. We know they do gain-of-function research. We have them dead to rights. If the president pardons him. I think it will just cement his role in history as being the architect of gain of function surgery.

GLENN: So, but will we release?

This is the one thing that I'm hoping Kash Patel does.

I hope he releases just the raw evidence that's been gathered. Kind of like the Twitter files.

Where we can see all the stuff that has been classified. That should be seen by the American people.

RAND: With regard to COVID. We voted unanimously. To declassify all of it. This was over a year and a half ago.

The FBI did do their job. They did a report. And they said that they thought COVID came from the lab. That the virus and the pandemic started with the lab leak. But they haven't released their report.

They were told to declassify it. I truly believe Kash Patel will look at it.

And the way you declassify it. If there's a name in there. You don't want someone to have a name or source.

Take that out of the report.

In fact, you know when I read and see classified things. I almost have never seen a name or a source.

Which I think is good. You protect your sources.

But I think you should get to see all the information. And really, in this case, the American public should see all of the information.

Anything to do with Russiagate, anything to do with the abuse of the FBI to go after Donald Trump. All of that has to be publicly released as well.

GLENN: Well, on Friday, here in Fort Worth, Texas, there was a judge that ordered Pfizer, to release and produce all of its emergency use authorization file. To a group of scientists, that want to look through it. And they have been saying, well, we can't do it. We can't do it.

The judge finally just said, do it now.

VOICE: Yeah. We've never had someone like Donald Trump. Or like these appointees.

That's why first line of battle is getting them through. There are many established Republicans. You know who they are.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Who are weak-kneed, or frankly just no better than Democrats, who are looking to destroy Donald Trump's picks.

And so I'm going to be working very hard for Robert Kennedy. For Tulsi Gabbard. For Kash Patel.

These are -- you know, those three -- at the tip of my mind, have a lot of establishment Republicans, questioning. And we have to make sure that we get them through.

We have to make sure everybody listening to the radio.

Everybody out there. Is calling their particularly Republican senators. And saying, Donald Trump needs his team.

GLENN: How long do you think -- I mean, do you think he's going to get these -- what do you call them?

Out of session appointments? Where -- because it took him like two years to get all of his appointments. He didn't even get all of them in two years. He needs them right now.

But I hate the precedent that that would set.

RAND: The vast majority would be very quickly. I can tell you, I'm hopeful I will be Department of Homeland Security. So Kristi Noem's nomination will come to my committee.

My plan is, if elected in the next couple of weeks in January to be the chairman, I will have a hearing for her before the inauguration, as soon as he officially appoints, or after the inauguration. I maybe have an appointment that day.

Sometimes we will -- so while some of it was slow in 2016, the Secretary of State, Homeland Security. Several of these important positions were filled pretty quickly.

We plan on doing that again. I would be surprised in the first week. If we don't have four or five cabinet level people. Appointed and voted on in the first week.

GLENN: Let me switch topics to Syria. The president made it very clear, that this is not how -- you know, I went back this weekend. And look at a story from 2016.

Where the CIA was supporting one side. And the Pentagon was supporting the other side in Syria. And they were fighting each other.

Now the president, the current president. Whoever that is.

You know, bombed Syria over the weekend.

And I just had this bad feeling, that the industrial complex, the military-industrial complex wants to have a war, somewhere.

And Donald Trump is coming out and saying, it isn't any of our business. I know where you stand on war. What do you see coming?

RAND: I agree completely with Donald Trump on this.

And the people who took over. The rebels who won. Their new name say new name given to an old, old group called al-Nusra, which were associated with al-Qaeda.

So they were Islamists. Meaning, they were for a radical, fundamental sort of nature of Islam. That doesn't treat women well. Doesn't treat Christians well. Et cetera. A very primitive form of Islam. Well, they have been fighting there for a long time.

There's also another group called ISIS, that is actually somewhat the same. Fundamental Islamist.

And then there are also other groups there as well. There have been the Russians there. There have been Iranian proxies there.

There have been answered there. Caught in the mix are hundreds of thousands of Christians who have always had sanctuary. Since the time of Christ frankly. And are at risk.

And so we have 900 soldiers. 900 soldiers isn't enough to organize a parade. I mean, 900 soldiers is not -- you can't go to war with. You want to go to war in Syria.

You can put five, ten, 100,000 troops in. You don't put 900,000 troops in there.

They become targets, not -- they're not deterring anything. But if someone were killed. And I hope this doesn't happen. Then maybe all of a sudden, we're drug into the middle of a Civil War, where there are no good people on either side of it.

GLENN: Let me ask you one final question about -- you have a bill coming out, similar to the South Korean law. Which I don't know what happened in South Korea.

I'm still confused by that. Where the US Senate would allow presidential emergencies to continue only with a majority vote in Congress. Which I 100 percent back.

What does this mean, to all of the emergencies that we have dating way, way back. That are still in effect.

RAND: They expire. And currently, if a president has an emergency, the emergency can only be stopped by Congress.

If Congress votes to stop it.

But then the president would veto it.

So it really takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to stop an emergency.

My bill would actually change it. It's a simple majority. We don't to have vote to stop it.

It stops automatically by statute.

GLENN: Right.

RAND: We had this in Kentucky. Our state government. Our government shut down hotels. Made it illegal to travel. Made it illegal to go to church during COVID.

And legislature couldn't stop him because they were in session. So when they finally came back in session, our Kentucky legislature said governor's emergencies last 30 days, then they expire, unless affirmed by a majority of the legislature.

So this reverses it. Instead of needing two-thirds to stop a crazy governor or a crazy president, it actually takes a civil -- you have to have a civil majority to affirm it! So it really completely flips it on its head. And it's what we all wanted. And some people will say, oh, this is against Donald Trump. No. I've had this under Harris. Under Biden. I've had this bill for years.

And both Mike Lee and I fought on this, out of principle. Nothing to do with who the president is.

GLENN: I don't want any -- I don't want any president to have this kind of power.

We have got to reduce the power of the president of the United States.

And if he goes in, and does everything by executive order, we lose!

Because the next guy will come in, and do exactly what -- what Biden did. And just cancel it all.

We've got to get back to a debate, to reason. And to Congress. And the Senate. Actually doing their job.

RAND: This is something that people need to realize. It's not new. Because people get caught up in the situation. They think it's one person or another.

The you Constitution position of conservatives and limited government advocates have always been that as Madison said. We divided the powers.

We separated the powers.

And we wanted to pit ambition against ambition.

In other words, the ambition of people trying to take power. Would be pitted by the people trying to keep them from taking power.

Over the last 100 years. Since FDR. The power of presidency. Has gradually expanded.

What we need now is a stronger legislator. And less power for the central authority. To balance that power again.

This was sort of Montesquieu saying, that when the executive legislates -- when he has the power to execute and legislate, that's when liberty fails. That's when tyranny arrives.

And so I don't know. People just need to realize.

This has nothing with an individual. A new president. An old president.

It has all to do with constitutional principles, that have always motivated those of us who believe in limited government.

GLENN: I think there are a lot of people awake to exactly that message.

And your time is right now, Rand. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Senator Rand Paul, from the great state of Kentucky.

Dershowitz: Joe Biden Made a HUGE MISTAKE Pardoning Hunter
RADIO

Dershowitz: Joe Biden Made a HUGE MISTAKE Pardoning Hunter

President Biden may have thought that issuing a blanket pardon for his son Hunter Biden would end any investigations into his or his family’s crimes. But attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn that it may have actually done the opposite. Dershowitz explains how Hunter can still be questioned and the truth unearthed. He also weighs in on the acquittal of Daniel Penny, which he believes was the correct ruling in a case that should never have been tried.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So probably -- well, he's definitely the most famous lawyer, of my lifetime.

And I think, the most important lawyer, in my lifetime, maybe in the last 100 years.

Alan Dershowitz.

He's a Harvard Law school professor, emeritus. He's also the host of his podcast, the Dershow.

And we wanted to get him on, to talk a little bit about Daniel Penny and a few other things.

Hello, Alan. How are you?

ALAN: First of all, will you send my very best to Senator Lee. His father and I were co-clerks together, 60 years ago, in the Supreme Court. And we had launch together every day. Why?

Why? Because he was a Mormon and couldn't have coffee, and I was an Orthodox Jew. And couldn't have almost anything. So we set the table.

And we were -- and we would schmooze and talk about everything.

And his father, you know, Rex, who was the solicited general, was a great, great man. And I think Senator Lee is a great man too.

And I hope he plays a major, major role, in the coming administration.

GLENN: I tell you, I hope he becomes a Supreme Court justice.

I -- I -- I think he truly cares about what the Founders meant and about the Constitution.

I mean, everything he does, it's all based in the Constitution. I will definitely pass it on.

ALAN: Yep. And it's based on his father. I can tell you that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

His father was an amazing constitutional scholar. The dean of Brigham Young Law School.

You know, the guy was -- he would have been the greatest Supreme Court justice. Unfortunately, he died very young.

So, Alan, first of all, how have you been?

I know -- I think you came out and said, you couldn't vote for Joe Biden.

I know things got really ugly for you. Have things gotten better at all for you?

ALAN: Well, I'm in Florida now. Everybody loves me in Florida. As long as I'm in Martha's vineyard, I'm doing great.

You know, my hat is split. Half the people come up to me, yell and scream at me.

And half the people come up to me and tell me how much they admire me. I wear a hat in New York saying, proud American Zionist.

And --

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: And, you know, I get people talk to me about that, as well.

So, you know, when people come up to me and say, I hate you. I never know. Is it for Trump? Is it for Israel?

Is it for who I represent?

I never know.

GLENN: I love that. I love that.

ALAN: That's what happens when you're a controversial lawyer.

GLENN: Yeah. So let's start with Daniel Penny.

ALAN: Before you do that. I want to wait. After I get off the air. I want to hear you defend Black Lives Matter.

I don't know if you heard yesterday, the head of Black Lives Matter. Turned to penny in the courtroom, and said, hey, buddy. This is a small world.

And then he went outside. And he talked about strangling people. And being violent.

I'm not such a big fan of Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: So I'm not a fan of -- I can't defend what he said, personally.

To Daniel Penny?

But when he said, what would happen -- you know, they -- there's no justice. No peace.

What would happen, maybe we should start, you know, killing people every time they oppress us.

I believe that's constitutionally protected speech.

It's ugly. It's awful.

But what is that -- that test called?

Stu.

STU: The Brandenburg.

GLENN: The Brandenburg.

ALAN: Look, I agree with you. But he said it in front of a crowd of people. That were surrounding white people.

Then it would be an incitement. But if he said it in the abstract. In an interview. It's just despicable and disgusting.

It reminds me of what you Justice Brennan once said.

Justice Brennan wrote an opinion saying, that the Constitution protected to burn the American flag.

And he was -- what would you do, if you saw somebody burning an American flag, and Justice Brennan, who was about five-three tall. Said, I would walk up to him, and I would punch him in the mouth. And then I would defend his Constitutional rights.

GLENN: So that is -- so let me ask you. Because we've had a debate here. Before we went on the air, where I told Stu. I said, I think I'm going to use this as an example.

Because people, they always say, oh, you know.

Speech has limits. And, you know, you can't cry fire in a crowded.

Yes, you can!

Unless it leads to, you know, a stampede.

ALAN: Or is likely. Is likely. It doesn't to have lead. But it's likely to lead.

No, I think you're right. And I think you're right also from a conservative point of view, to be defending free speech for all. We can't live in a world in which it's free speech for me. But not for thee.

GLENN: Exactly right.

ALAN: I defended the right of Palestinian kids to put up a flag -- Palestinian flag to commemorate the death of Yasser Arafat.

And then when they put up the flag, I defended them. And I got them to be able to put up the flag. I hated that.

And then I got up there and I said, well, Yasser Arafat died.

It was too late. If he only died four years earlier, there might have been a resolution in the Middle East.

So I'm with you on the very expansive view of free speech.

GLENN: Yeah. Do you think we're moving -- I -- sense a shift, that maybe some of this craziness, is -- we're waking up to it. Do you feel that way?

ALAN: I wish you were right. I hope you're right.

Not on the left. The left is so goddamned self-righteous. They think that free speech.

Due process. The right to counsel was written for them.

They have Harvard law school, defending them.

Try believing the Constitution. It was written to promote the Democratic Party.

And every constitutional issue he's involved in. You know what his position is going to be.

Is it good for the Democrats?

If it's good for the Democrats. If it's good for the left. For the radicals.

And the constitutional Framers and candidates.

And fits bad for them. No. We can't have that for the constitutional law.

I don't think we're gaining any ground.

But the university campuses -- but I think we're gaining ground in the general public.

Now, I think maybe the Penny result shows that.

GLENN: Yeah.

RICHARD: I think Penny -- I think the case in Minneapolis, might have been decided a little differently today than it was years ago, when he was convicted and still is in jail.

I was thrilled by the -- by the verdict in the -- in the Penny case. And I think it sends a powerful message. I also think that the hung jury, you know, I thought the hung jury might have been six-six, five-seven. But obviously, the quick verdict on Monday morning, suggests that the hung miss on Friday, was probably ten to two or 11 to one in favor of acquittal. So that I think -- you know, look, that case should have never been brought. And the district attorney should not be the district attorney.

He should be defeated. He, not only brought this case. He brought that made up case against Donald Trump. And now he wants to prevent Donald Trump from appealing, by saying, well, we'll put the sentence off for four years.

We will hold the sort of Damocles over your head for four years.

I'm going to able to campaign for office, saying, I've got a conviction against Donald Trump. And he didn't get it reversed on appeal.

And I think it's -- it's disgusting. He's the worst districting district attorney in my lifetime in New York history.

And, remember, that's an office that had -- that had -- that had -- and now it has Alvin Bragg! Oh, my God. It's a disgrace.

GLENN: So let me ask you. Because we were talking about what he did on Friday. And what the judge allowed.

You have to have -- if you have a hung jury, on the first count.

You can't move to the second count.

It's a hung jury, and you have to have a retrial, right?

It's a mistrial.

ALAN: Unless, the defense asks to you consent for it.

Which often happens. But it didn't happen in this case.

So he dismissed the higher count. And allowed the jury to deliberate the lower count.

Look, in the end, that was good for Penny. Because there's double jeopardy there. You can't be tried on either counts. Because the first count was dismissed. To have

It wasn't hung. It was dismissed.

And that means it was jeopardy, and the second it was an acquittal.

So he's free. It's a civil lawsuit against him. But he will win that civil lawsuit. It will probably never get past the motion to dismiss because the person bringing it, it wasn't a father who had nothing to do with the son. He had no relationship with the son.

He became the father only after the killing. In order to gain publicity from it.

GLENN: So he has basically no standing. Is that what you're saying?

ALAN: I don't think he has a real standing to bring the lawsuit. And what's his damages?

You know, it's very hard to figure out, what they are.

And more over, a jury found, that there was no causation of death.

There was justification.

So I -- I don't think that the lawyer is interested in the money.

Or even a publicity at this point. Are going to want to bring that case forward.

I think it will be dropped. It's not like a DOJ case. Where clearly there was a strong civil case after he was acquitted.

And he won the civil case, although he didn't collect any money.

GLENN: Let me switch to politics here.

There are things. Like, I believe Anthony Fauci should be investigated. They've already investigated him in Congress.

But it should go through a court of law. And if he's found to have done the things that we now believe he did.

There should be some sort of penalty for him. And anybody else that was involved.

I don't care, right, left, Republican, Democrat.

We can allow this kind of stuff to happen.

Now, Biden is -- they suspect. So we're just speculating here. That he may pardon him in advance.

Is that even possible?

Before you're charged.

ALAN: Where a connection was pardoned. Not only before he was charged. But before there was any criminal investigation.

He was charged -- he was pardoned.

And the pardon power, as you said in your introduction.

Why don't we have a kingly pardon power?

It's the only residents of the British rule over the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

ALAN: There's nothing else in the Constitution, which so emulates the absolute power of kings, than the power to pardon and commute. It's without restrictions.

And it's without the need to explain.

And, by the way, you don't even need a document. As soon as President Biden said, I pardon my son, that act was completed.

And, by the way, you don't have to accept the pardon. Even if you reject the pardon.

And, by the way, there are some people who have already said, that if Trump pardons me, or if Biden pardons me, I will reject the pardon. Because a pardon makes it sound like I did something wrong.

GLENN: Wrong. Yeah.

RICHARD: The Supreme Court under Oliver Wendell Holmes in about 1926, rendered a decision, in a case called Bittle versus Petrovic (phonetic).

Which said, you can't reject the pardon. The pardon is an act of government. It's like immunity. If you're given immunity, you can't reject immunity. You have to testify, if you're given immunity. If you're given a pardon, you also have to testify.

I think Biden made a big mistake by pardoning his son.

He should have commuted his sentence. By pardoning the son. He opens the son up to asking any question at all.

About his criminal background. And his association with anything else.

Including his father.

Whereas, if he gave only a commutation of the sentence, it would mean he doesn't go to jail for a single day, but still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.

So I think it's a blunder on the part of President Biden who is a lawyer, but didn't understand the consequences of a pardon.

As distinguished of the consequences of a computation.

GLENN: Do you think anybody is going to go after him though?

Because there's nothing politically to gain.

I think this is extraordinarily important on principle.

We cannot have people selling the power of the office.

RICHARD: Look, I agree with you.

And it's been part of politics for a long, long time.

I have to tell you, I think Trump has a warm spot in his heart for the Biden family.

He showed some sympathy. For Hunter Biden.

For his addiction. For all of that.

I don't think he will try too pile on. Now, you know, whether or not traditional committees -- get the choice of being held in contempt or perjury.

That's a different question. But I don't think Trump will do it. I think he's going to move on.

He wants to have a great four years. I want him to have a great four years.

You know, I'm not a Republican. But I'm a patriarch. I want to see every American president succeed. I have helped every American president. I have consulted and advised them since Jimmy Carter.

And I will then continue to do it. Any president that asks for my help, done. I'm giving it.

GLENN: That's the way it should be. Thank you so much, Alvin. I really appreciate it your friendship. And it's an honor to know you.

Really is. To have you on the program.

ALAN: Well, you're a great man.

And it's great to have a conservative who so believes in the Constitution and free speech.

And, again, send my best to Senator Lee. He's a great man.

GLENN: I sure will. I will. Thanks.

Alan Dershowitz. You can find him on the Dershow. The website is Dersh.Substack.com.

NBC News Leaves Out CRITICAL Context in Trump Interview
RADIO

NBC News Leaves Out CRITICAL Context in Trump Interview

President-elect Donald Trump recently sat down with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” for his first sit-down interview since winning the 2024 election. Glenn and Stu review his statement on birthright citizenship and the CRITICAL context that interviewer Kristen Welker left out: The 14th Amendment doesn’t say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens.” The real quote includes a major qualifier that could allow Trump to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants without having to change the Constitution. Plus, Glenn and Stu review Trump’s comments on the war between Ukraine and Russia.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. And welcome to Stu Burguiere.

STU: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You're welcome, Stu.

STU: And Donald Trump went on Meet The Press this weekend. This is what you're supposed to do if you're --

GLENN: Is it?

STU: Yeah, apparently so.

We're supposed to just reflexively go to NBC News whenever --

GLENN: Those days are over.

STU: Well, I thought they were too.

GLENN: Well, he has to do them.

STU: Well, does he? Does he have to do them?

GLENN: Yeah, I think he should do a little of everything.

You know what I mean? I think you shouldn't just go to podcasts. It's what Barack Obama did.

Remember? And he was doing interviews with -- who was that woman in the bathtub? And you're like, okay. This is ridiculous.

You don't have to do the bathtub one. But I think you should -- you should go on places, where you know --

STU: It's adversarial.

GLENN: It's adversarial. You won't get a good interview.

I think that's required as president.

STU: I agree with that. I --

GLENN: As president. Not necessarily as a --

STU: Even as a candidate, I think it's something you should do.

I mean, I think Kamala Harris shouldn't have done an adversarial interview at the campaign at some point, which she did not do.

GLENN: She didn't do interviews.

STU: In fact, she wasn't doing anything for a very long time.

And they switched strategies. And it did not help. In fact, it went the opposite direction.

I do wonder, there's the alternate world, what that election would have looked like, if she just continued to do nothing.

I think it would have been closer. I think if she never did an interview, it would have been closer.

GLENN: I think you're right on that.

I think you're right. The more she spoke.

The more you're like, oh, dear God, no.

STU: Don't do that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because I think they correctly realized that there were a certain amount of people, who were very worried about a candidate that couldn't do an interview.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Right?

So they tried to solve that, by doing interviews.

And what they should have done was let those people go. Realize, they're not going to vote for you, and hope.

GLENN: Has anybody noticed.

And I am biased because I've been talking to him, off-air.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And watching him talk to a lot of people, you know, without cameras around.

And his -- his grasp on deep subjects, has changed a great deal. Have you noticed Donald Trump in interviews is not the same guy he was in 2020?

STU: Yeah. I think that's true.

He certainly seems to be more focused and has a real plan, as to what he's going to do. As we know it's directly project 2025. Which he commissioned. We should remember, of course. Yeah. No.

It does seem like, you made the description.

I think it was last week, which it has been sticking with me.

Which, after 2020, he spent four years, thinking, this isn't going to happen to me again.

Like, I'm going to make sure these things -- if I get a president -- if I'm able to become president again. I'm not going to be able to be hit by all of these --

GLENN: I won't be surprised ever again.

STU: Right. It seems like he's coming in, ready for this.

GLENN: Yeah. He's ready.

The other thing that has happened to him. That I think has cut down on his slams and everything else.

I mean, he still does.

You'll notice he's not as crazy on things. And I think that's --

STU: What do you mean not as crazy on things? Just not as worried about --

GLENN: You know, name-calling. You know what I mean?

He's not like that, as much.

Because I think he -- this is just my speculation.

Put yourself in his shoes.

In 2014, everybody on both sides, loved him.

Right?

Maybe not as the president. But they -- they loved him.

STU: As a celebrity.

He was a big celebrity.

GLENN: And he's a great guy. A philanthropist.

He's done so much.

And then he gets in, and everybody that -- that were his friends.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That knew him, and knew what he was like. They all of a sudden, turned on him.

And I think that just took him by absolute surprise.

And he just kept -- he had to keep punching and punching and punching.

And I think now, a couple of things have happened. One, he just stopped caring. Because you -- you do care. No matter what anybody says, you do care.

He stopped caring. And then I think when he was shot, I think he found his purpose. And I also think in the following months, he kind of became cool again.

He became the guy who could go on Saturday Night Live, and make fun of himself.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? And everybody would accept him.

He became kind of mainstream again.

So I don't think he feels that he has to punch anymore.

STU: Hmm. That's interesting. Yeah. I -- I have noticed a difference in him. I think getting shot. No matter what that is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. That was critical. That was critical.

STU: It was.

GLENN: It has to change.

STU: Yeah. It has to change. So he's going into this with a real plan.

One part of this plan, this will be clip four. Is his plan to end birthright citizenship.

This is -- obviously, highly controversial. Many people on the left, do not like it at all.

They asked him about it, on meet The Press. Was it Wexler?

Christine Wexler.

GLENN: Yeah. Somebody who you've never heard of.

Because everybody you've heard of, has no credibility.
STU: There you go.

VOICE: You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one, is that still your plan?

VOICE: Yeah, absolutely.

VOICE: The Fourteenth Amendment says, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the Fourteenth Amendment, with an executive action?

DONALD: We maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. We're the only county that has it. You know we're the only country that has it.

Do you know, if somebody sets a foot, just a foot. One foot. You don't need two. On our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.

Yes, we're going to end that because it's ridiculous.

VOICE: Through executive action?

DONALD: Well, if we can through executive action, I was going to -- we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you. We have to end it.

GLENN: Okay. So notice -- notice what happened here.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: She comes with the 14th. Stu, tell me why the Fourteenth Amendment was first written. What was that really about?

STU: I mean, is it wrong to say slavery?

GLENN: No. Slavery.

STU: You looked at me --

GLENN: No, no, no.

It was written for slavery.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It was written because all citizens could vote.

And you have certain rights.

Blah, blah, blah. And so the southerners.

The Democrats said, well, they're not citizens.

They're not citizens.

They're from Africa.

STU: So they can't vote.

GLENN: So they can't vote.

Yeah. If you were born here. Even if you were born a slave, you're a citizen.

That's what that was about. That was not --

STU: About illegal immigration.

GLENN: That was not illegal immigration.

Come over here, get into a hospital. Have a baby.

And congratulations. Everybody is a citizen.

We are the only one that has it.

And the only reason we do have it is because of slavery.

It was a way to make sure that Democrats didn't just cut blacks out of the vote again.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That's what's so crazy.

And so notice he says, we may have to go back to the people.

Can you just change that?

Well, no. It's a constitutional amendment.

So we may have to go back to the people.

He says that first.

Her immediate response is, through executive action?

No. I just -- I just said, we may have to go back to the people.

STU: There are several parts in this interview. Where she doesn't -- it doesn't seem she listens to him. She has the idea of what Donald Trump says in this moment.

Already acted it out with her producers multiple times. So she's just not listening.

GLENN: That's right. That's why none of them have any credibility. Because there's not an honest exchange.

There is no honest questions.

He just said, we may have to go -- he volunteered. We may have to go back to the American people, for that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So you're suggesting that maybe it would be a constitutional amendment? Well, yeah. I think we would have to do it.

I might -- if I get stuck, I might find a way to do it with executive action. But it is a constitutional amendment.

So, yes, that's an honest conversation.

STU: Right. No.

GLENN: That's not what she did.

STU: No. Do we have this clip handy again, to play it again? I want to see if you catch this one little of this. This is clip four, again.

Listen to her verbiage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

VOICE: Do you promise to end birthright citizenship on day one?

Is that still your plan?

DONALD: Yeah. Absolutely.

The Fourteenth Amendment says though, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the Fourteenth Amendment?

STU: Okay. Stop.

Is that a quote?

All persons born in the United States are citizens?

That's what she said the Fourteenth Amendment says.

GLENN: You know, now that you ask me, I doubt it is. Have you looked it up?

STU: I have it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, she leaves that out. But not necessarily important to the conversation.

But the next part is, comma, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, comma, are citizens of the United States and of the state written they reside.

The whole Fourteenth Amendment argument. And you might disagree with this part of it, is that that phrase, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, means that illegal immigrants are not included.

Now, I --

GLENN: How? How?

STU: Well, they're not subject to that jurisdiction.

GLENN: So, in other words, the -- well, if mom --

STU: They would be.

GLENN: If mom and baby, were there. Then they would be subject to that jurisdiction.

But the family would not be. Because they're someplace else?

STU: I think the argument, and again, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the Fourteenth Amendment argument here.

GLENN: I'm going to tell you.

I am absolutely so far away from an expert. You might as well talk to a fisherman.

STU: What I have heard, people make this argument before.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: And the argument is basically to be subject to that jurisdiction. Is it not mean that you -- everyone, of course, has to follow the laws of a country, that you move into.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: To be subject of that jurisdiction. Means you have to have a basis in the country.

So it's not like you just cross the border. And, hey, I'm now a subject of this jurisdiction.

You're a visitor, right?

Or in this case, a criminal. And I'm crossing the border.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So you would not get necessarily those protections.

Of -- of that Fourteenth Amendment.

GLENN: May I just say, the only thing I hate the Founders for, is their use of commas.

STU: You know, it's a good point.

GLENN: Stop with the use of commas.

Could you please, for the love of Pete, the right to keep and bear arms.

Comma.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Under a well-run regulated militia.

Comma. Shall not be infringed.

Can you stop with the commas? It makes it too complex now. Stop with the commas.

STU: Very true.

But I think, regardless of what you think about the argument, of the 14th amendment. And people who are -- who believe illegal immigrants would not be grandfathered into that.

If it's foundational to the argument, why would you skip it?

Right?

GLENN: Right.

STU: You have to bring that up. Because --

GLENN: Could you do me a favor?

Could you have ChatGPT? Or something like that?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Type that in, and ask what that means.

STU: Sure. It will take me a second, obviously.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. All right.

STU: Do you want to go on to the next clip.

GLENN: Yeah. Let's go to the next clip.

STU: Okay. Next someone on Ukraine.

And what needs to happen with Ukraine.

This is, again, Trump on Meet The Press.

There are people being killed in that war, at levels never been seen before.

You have to go back to the Second World War. And even that, if you take a look and you know what it is, it's the soldiers, largely. The cities have been emptied out and demolished.

The country has been demolished.

If I won that election. Which you know how I feel about it. I won't get into it.

Because we don't need to start that argument.

I think it was an easy argument.

It was really proven even more complicit than the win I had on this one.

Yeah, but that's your opinion, but I disagree with it. Had I assumed -- kept control.

Number one, Israel wouldn't have happened.

Number one, Ukraine would have never happened.

It would have never happened in Ukraine and Russia.

But the number of people being killed. Soldiers. Young, beautiful soldiers.

Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed.

And, you know, it's very interesting.

It's level. Totally level the battlefields.

Totally level.

The only thing that stops a bullet. Is a body. A human body. And the people being killed. Hundreds of thousands on both sides. Russia has lost probably 500 thousand. Ukraine has lost higher than they say.

Probably 400,000.

You're talking about hundreds of thousands of bodies, laying all over the fields.

It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

And it should have need been allowed to happen.

Biden should have been able to stop it.

GLENN: Amen!

He's absolutely right.

And when this is over, and the body count is actually revealed, and when you see. And when you see BlackRock there, rebuilding.

When you see all of these friends of the Bidens rebuilding.

When you see BlackRock owning the farmland.

Then maybe you will start to have some idea of how grotesque, this really was.

All right. More in just a second.


STU: Let me tell you about the best gift, you can give yourself or someone else this holiday season.

Maybe looking years or even decades younger.

Well, if you want that, 'tis the season to tighten up that jaw line. Introducing the Genucel jaw line treatment with dual peptide and MDL Technology.

Genucel's most advanced ever. It tightens sagging jaw lines, and plumps the layers of your skin to contour and define the jaw line and neck area within just minutes. People go, you know, abroad all the time. And they spend thousands of dollars, to get rid of this kind of thing. But you don't have to. Give Genucel a try first.

You will see results in minutes.

And, you know, they get better every day. Why not give it a shot?

Just in time for Christmas and holiday season. You can save 70 percent off, Genucel's complete skin care package, featuring the jaw line treatment.

And Genucel's immediate effects. You can get Genucel XV wrinkle treatment, included for Christmas.

Genucel.com/Beck is the place to go to get this. You can start looking years and even decades younger tomorrow, for those family gatherings. It's guaranteed. So there's no risk there.

Give it a shot. As a special holiday gift, every package ordered, includes a bonus beauty box with two skin care best-sellers and free priority shipping. It's Genucel.com/Beck. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com/Beck.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So let's go to Chat GPT.

And just see what it says about the Fourteenth Amendment and that particular phrase, between commas.

STU: And I will say our robot betters seem to have summarized this the same way that I understood it. So historically, the consensus among most legal scholars and historical practices has been the phrase, excludes only a few categories. This is the phrase of "not subject to the jurisdiction in the United States."

Those categories are children of foreign diplomats, enemy soldiers, and some Native American tribes, who maintain their tribal jurisdiction.

Legal precedent has largely supported the view that children born in the US to foreign citizens are indeed US citizens.

Regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

Then some conservatives argue, subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, excludes individuals who are in the country, illegally, as they are not legally subject to the jurisdiction in the same way as lawful residents or citizens.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They claim that because illegal immigrants have not entered the country, and remain in it legally, that they or their children should not automatically receive citizenship.

That is my understanding of the debate. And, again, you can say, you disagree with the conservative side of that debate.

GLENN: Right.

STU: You know, many do.

But to -- to actually skip the phrase, that is important to the debate. When talking to the man, who is arguing the conservative side of that debate. Is journalism malpractice, at the very least.

And I think it's intentional.

I believe it's intentional. But I don't know.

GLENN: Wait. I think it's NBC.
(laughter)

STU: It's not intentional. It's NBC.

GLENN: It's NBC.

STU: It's just what we are.

GLENN: It's just what they do. Of course it is.

STU: Yes! And that's, again, like -- it goes back to our original conversation, as opposed to whether you Meet the Press or not.

Do you need to go to a place that is intentionally doing things like that?

I mean, that is -- that is inexcusable for the one phrase that's important to the debate, you leave out of the amendment?

I mean, that's obviously intentional.

GLENN: I like the fact that the president was calm, cool, collected. Didn't name call. Went through that whole thing.

Wasn't a fair interview. It was exactly what you would expect. But at least he went and talked to the other side.

STU: Yeah. I think it's worth doing to talk to the other side.

I think it's worth doing adversarial interviews.

I wish he had a little honesty.

I feel like when you went back on the show with Russer. That's what you got.

Was -- it wasn't an interview liked. A lot of times, he took things, and took the democratic side a little unfairly. But you wouldn't eliminate the part of the amendment, that is the debate.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: He wouldn't have done that.

GLENN: No. And he would have given you -- there were times, that Ruser -- you would be pissed off at him. Because it was your guy. But you would also be cheering for the other side. Because he was fair. He was even-handed.

It was all that really, we asked for.