BLOG

Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gun Control Senator Has Double Standard on ‘Slaughtered’ Babies

What happened?

In the wake of the school shooting on Wednesday, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) made some comments about gun violence that were unintentionally ironic.

What did she say?

“When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding,” Harris told MSNBC while calling for gun control. “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered (emphasis added).”

Pat’s take:

Can you really say you care about “babies being slaughtered” when you have a 100 percent positive rating from pro-abortion group NARAL? In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been around 60 million abortions in the U.S.

“There is no bigger slaughter [in the U.S.] than the slaughter of American babies in the last 45 years,” Pat said on today’s show. “Biggest slaughter in American history.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: It's Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 888-727-BECK.

I don't know that I've ever heard a less self-aware, more outrageous, or hippally ironic statement than the one that came from senator Kamal aHarris. (?) it is just absolutely astounding, what she said about this shooting. And you might think when you hear what she said, she was actually speaking about something else, but, no, she's talking about -- she's talking about gun control, of course, in the wake of this shooting. Here's what she had to say.

VOICE: As a prosecutor for years, in appreciating homicide --

PAT: Kind of a strange statement. She appreciates homicide. Wait. Who appreciates homicide? Very strange statement. Vise.

VOICE: I took autopsy photographs. (?) when you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body -- and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding, this cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical. I support the Second Amendment.

PAT: Oh, sure, sure. Sure.

VOICE: But we have to have smart safety gun laws. And we cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride, when our babies are being slaughtered.

PAT: We -- wow.

We can't support a society or live in a civilization with any level of pride, when our babies are being slaughtered. Hmm.

They don't seem to have any problem with 60 million babies having been slaughtered in the last (?)

STU: You can't use the word babies, when you're pandering (?) it's not a good word for you.

PAT: Right. Right. And when you have a 100 percent rating from in aral, you shouldn't be talking about babies and the slaughter thereof. There is no bigger slaughter than the slaughter of American babies in the last 45 years.

Literally, 58,000,050E phi 500 (?) 56 abortions since 1963. Nothing on earth has killed more people, other than communism.

STU: Communism. And infectious disease.

PAT: Maybe infectious disease.

STU: Yeah, that's about it.

PAT: This is -- and nothing in the United States of America, nothing has killed more people than 58 million.

STU: And I will say too.

PAT: It's the biggest slaughter in American history. There's no question about that.

STU: And as you point out, (?) if you put a global number, it does he can seed. (?)

PAT: I'll bet it does.

STU: And it exceeds.

PAT: Infectious disease. Maybe in the last century for sure.

STU: For sure. For sure.

PAT: I mean, you wouldn't include the middle-ages with that. (?) nothing. Nothing has slaughtered more babies, to use their term. I mean, that is phenomenal. That she chose those words, when she has no problem with the slaughter of babies.

STU: Because she's all about looking at autopsy photos. Which you look at the fetus truck photos.

PAT: Right.

STU: The truck that drives around at the Super Bowl, that has the big picture of a fetus, that had been dismembered on the side of it, to try to impact people on abortion. Does she look on those?

PAT: That's really fascinating. Because she says a bunch of things here, that we should adopt and use in this discussion. Let's listen one more time and really kind of dissect what she's trying to say.

VOICE: This might sound harsh?

PAT: No, this doesn't sound harsh. (?)

VOICE: As a prosecutor for years, in appreciating homicide and being able to talk with the judge about it and a jury about it, I had to look at autopsy photographs. When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body --

PAT: Uh-huh. Yeah. Right.

VOICE: And especially the body of a child.

PAT: Or a baby. An infant. A fetus.

VOICE: Maybe it will shock people into understanding.

PAT: Maybe it will shock people into understanding. This is exactly why (?) this is exactly why they do it. To shock people into understanding. And yet, they're treated like freaks. Is Kamal aHarris going to be treed (?)

VOICE: This cannot be a political issue?

PAT: Oh, and I love that. This can't be a political issue. Abortion can't be a political issue.

VOICE: We have to be practical.

PAT: We have to be practical about this. We've slaughtered 58 million babies in 45 years. We've got to stop the slaughter of babies. It's not a political issue. This is not about left or right. This is about right and wrong. This is about the slaughter of our children. This is about the slaughter of minorities, in a place like New York City, where more black babies are aborted than born.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: We've got to stop that slaughter. We've got to stop it.

STU: It's true. It's funny because they -- there's that constant call from the left to call Republicans racists, right? People who are on the right, racist. Let's implement all of our policies. The craziest fringe stuff from all of our policies. There is no race-based preference at all. They talk about that with affirmative action, or preference in schools. You know, getting admission into colleges. What if we repealed all of that. What if all of that went away? The other part of that is that you have (?) so millions and millions of black people who are currently dead --

PAT: Would be alive.

STU: Would instead be alive. So your policies are ones that result in black people being dead. Our policies result in them being alive. Who is racist here? It's such a ridiculous argument from the left.

PAT: Uh-huh.

VOICE: I support the Second Amendment.

STU: No, you don't.

VOICE: But we have to (?) I support choice.

PAT: I support the choice of a woman. But we have to understand that there's another life at stake here. There's a whole separate DNA strand inside your body, which is a separate body from yours. We have to understand that. Never now, I support your choice. But you made that choice when you got pregnant.

You know, in most -- in most cases.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: If you didn't make that choice, then, you know, we've got a different issue. But I support your right to choose, at a certain step. But we got to have some common sense about this too. Because we can't consider the slaughter of 58 million babies.

VOICE: And we cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.

PAT: Wow. She's just giving us all kinds of ammunition there. All kinds. 888-727-BECK.

Can't support the slaughter and we can't be proud in a nation that allows the slaughter of babies. Fascinating. Just fascinating. But we're the bad people. We're trying to take away people's right to choose.

EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Explains His FIERY Rejection of Spending Bill
RADIO

EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Explains His FIERY Rejection of Spending Bill

According to the media, there’s a big fight going on between Republicans over the House’s new slimmed-down continuing resolution spending bill. Some, including President-elect Donald Trump, wanted the bill to pass. But others, like Texas Representative Chip Roy, argued that it still wasn’t ready. However, is the Republican “unity coalition” really crumbling, like the media claims? Rep. Chip Roy joins Glenn to explain what’s really going on. He argues that he IS trying to give Trump and DOGE a 100-day “runway” to fix the country. But he makes the case that, by increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion without agreeing on other cuts, this bill gives bad actors the ability to be an “obstacle” to Trump’s agenda further down the line. Plus, he reveals to Glenn that he believes some of these bad actors LEAKED false information about his stance to Mar-a-Lago.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

I think we have a great opportunity today. To show you how to have a -- tough conversation, with friends, friends. Where you deeply disagree on something.

But you know that their intent is good. They know my intent is good. Or our intent is good.

And we actually have the same end goal, but we disagree on the path. And we're going to walk away friends.

Chip Roy is joining us today. And, Chip, I love you. And I always will. And I agree with your, we've got to cut spending. We have to. But Liz Wheeler is with me. And we've been talking about it all morning. It's the -- the -- the -- the system of DOGE and Trump, the call-out to the world, in saying, you've got to surrender the Capitol. You know, the bad guys are in and about to take all the money.

Surround, and tell them, come out with your hands up. And that happened. And we scored a massive win, in an entirely new way.

Ask then you stood on principle, one we both agree with.

And it failed!

And so here's -- here's what Liz and I were talking about. Here's what we want to say to you.

And then get your response.

LIZ: Hi, Congressman Roy, this is the way I see it. I want your take on it. I love you. I think you're one of the best members of Congress. I disagree with you on the process that's happening. And I think that is the difference. The process. We elected Donald Trump to be a disruptor. Because Republican members of Congress for decades have been telling they're fiscal conservatives. They want to decrease the debt SEAL. It hasn't happened.

It hasn't -- it hasn't been done. And so Donald Trump comes in with Elon Musk, and uses this DOGE process to first identify these pieces of garbage in the first 1500-page bill. And take those things to the people. We took them to members of Congress. Congress said, okay. We'll listen to you.

So that new process was very effective.

And my question to you is: Once that process was proved to be effective. Which I think is exciting and wonderful.

How do we bridge this divide, with you, to say, okay.

Let's put some faith in this new process. And trust Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the Dow Jones process, to eventually address the debt ceiling, but get this done right now?

GLENN: And not blind trust. Chip.

CHIP: So appreciate you guys. Appreciate being on the show. Particular order. I have to go through a couple of things.

GLENN: Yep.

CHIP: Number one, it's important to remember that my job and my duty is to the Constitution, to God, and the people I represent. I told them, when I came to Washington, I would not -- I would not let the credit card and the debt ceiling and the borrowing of the United States without the spending restraints necessary to offset it.

GLENN: Okay.

CHIP: Right now, all we have are promises and ideas and notions. What I know, that neither of you respectfully no, and that none of your listeners respectfully no are the people that are in the room, that I was in with yesterday. And the day before, who are recalcitrant.

And do not want to do the spending cuts that we need to do.

That I believe the president and the DOGE guys. And everybody want to do.

My job, is to force that through the meat grinder. To demand that we do our damn job. Okay?

GLENN: Okay. So hang on. Okay. So wait. Wait. You're right. You're right. You're right. Go ahead.

CHIP: Number thee, when we were going through the bill, I'm glad the bill dropped from 1,550 pages to 116 pages. Three-quarters of Twitter or X or whatever you want to call it, have been out there spreading false facts that we supported a bad bill and didn't like the better bill.

That's not true. But let's be Lear. The 1400 pages that were cut out. It's a panacea.

There were some good stuff in there. There were some bad stuff in there. There was a lot of disinformation.

There wasn't a $70,000 pay raise. There was a 3,000-dollar pay raise.

I didn't support any pay raise. I didn't support a lot of the stuff in there.

But there's a lot of misinformation. And here's the thing: The 116 pages that were left, and I opposed violently the first bill. I was leading the charge on fighting and killing the first bill.

GLENN: And I love you.

LIZ: The second bill for 116 pages. Turned off -- turned off the pay go requirement. That we slash 1.7 trillion automatically.

And added a 5 trillion that are increase.

My view was, I could not support that, without a clear understanding of what cuts we would get, in mandatory spending next year. And undo any of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The undoing of the student loans. The undoing of the crap with the food stamps.

And everything else. I yield back.

GLENN: Okay. I yield back.

Chip, you're not in a hostile room. We love you. And we agree with your end goals. It's our end goal too. We didn't make that promise that you made to the people that voted for you. So we have more wiggle room here.

But you say -- I think our big difference is, you say, I know the guys in the room.

You're right. You do. And we -- we ceded that earlier today on the show.

You are -- one of us is wrong on trust.

I don't trust any of the weasels in Washington.

But I think Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have earned enough trust, to get a grace period, here for the first -- maybe the first year.

Or at least six months.

To turn the economy around, and also reduce the size of the government.

And totally flip this thing.

And I know, as somebody who is -- you know, run a company, mainly into a ground. But run a company, and have to switch it, in the middle, and totally reshuffle. That -- that actually costs money, while you're doing it, to bridge the gap.

Because you have to fill up holes while you're filling in the gap.

You don't trust the people in the room. Neither do we.

But we do trust the system that worked on Wednesday with DOGE and Donald Trump.

Where do we disagree?

Can you give them --

CHIP: We don't disagree. And yesterday morning, I was making that precise argument in a room full of conservatives and then a follow-up room with people who will call it, less conservatives.

GLENN: Republican. Yes.

CHIP: And so we were making this argument. And then someone infamously. Something leaked out of the room, somehow out to Mar-a-Lago. That I was being resistant. Because I was negotiating trying to get the agreement to achieve the objective that you just said. I was trying to get, okay. In fact, yesterday morning, I made the argument to a group of conservatives. We need to give the president runway. We need to give him his first 100 days. We need to appreciate JD, and Vivek, and all the people -- and everybody involved. For the president to achieve the objective.

But to get there. We have to make sure that the guys in the room, that are an obstacle to that, don't have the ability to block it.

Because information flow matters. And when those guys tell the president, they can't achieve X.

Then the president will not achieve X. Our job was to force and demand, guys, we need actual understanding of what the cuts will be.

And because otherwise, we're asking us to accept a 5 trillion-dollar limit in our credit card increase. In exchange for nothing!

Literally, in exchange for nothing, but -- but hope.

So our job was to force that change.

Unfortunately, while I was trying to make the argument that we needed something in order to get the votes, someone leaked that down to Mar-a-Lago, and the president reacted.

But now I have to now manage that.

GLENN: Right. I know. I know.

CHIP: They're trying to enforce change in town.

GLENN: So hang on.

We have to leave this. Because I'm going to run against the clock.

I could talk to you all day about this. You were in a meeting this morning about J.D. Vance. Can you tell us anything about that meeting?

CHIP: That meeting happened, because despite what happened yesterday, I'm trying to get this done. Last night, talking to JD, we worked to get this meeting done. We had some good progress this morning.

But there still remains people concerned about spending. That we can work out, what agreement we can reach. On what spending cuts. We can actually get next year, in exchange for giving the vote on a debt ceiling increase.

So it remains fluid. Progress was made. But we have to keep working on it.

And I left that meeting to talk to you. Soil get an update in a minute.

GLENN: Thank you for that, by the way.

I hear there is a new bill that may be coming today.

Is that the one you're talking about?

Or is this another bill that could be another nightmare?

CHIP: Despite other people leaking crap, I refused. I can't say, because it's not been decided by the speaker.

And it's not right to talk about things they're talking about in private meetings.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's -- it's this speaker. I mean, is he really the speaker anymore, Chip, really?

CHIP: We need to hear what bill we need to get forward. And I can't talk about the private meetings. But, look, I'm going to keep fighting for what I promised people that I represent.

I'm going to fight to cut spending. I am going to represent article one.

I'm going to support the president's agenda, but we've got to do that together.

GLENN: Okay.

Chip, thank you.

I think we can -- I think we agree, but I await to see what that means to you. Because we may just have to agree to disagree on this.

But I love you. And I still want you to replace Cornyn.

CHIP: The short version is, for inflation's sake, we cannot increase the debt ceiling $5 trillion without knowing what we're getting for it.

And I don't think anybody should disagree with that.

GLENN: But you don't disagree that Elon Musk and Trump and Vivek are serious about gutting the system.

CHIP: I believe that is their objective. I believe there are obstacles to that objective. And I need to know the sincerity of how we deal with those obstacles, both structural, and human. And we have to figure that out. And that's my job.