RADIO

Glenn CAN'T TAKE Biden's Hypocrisy After the Supreme Court's Trump Immunity Ruling

President Biden spoke after the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity ... and Glenn couldn't believe what he heard. Biden slammed the Court's ruling, which granted former president Donald Trump absolute immunity for presidential actions and presumptive immunity for "official" actions. Biden followed the lead of dissenting Justice Sonya Sotomayor, claiming that the Court basically allowed the president to do anything, including go after his opponents ... Wait? Like Biden is doing right now?! Glenn reviews Biden's speech line by line and highlights all the hypocrisy within it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I just don't know what to say. I watched the president's speech last night. And everybody coming out and saying, he could go after us. He could shut us down. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled. Donald Trump, if he's elected, he will come in and he will start putting people in jail.

Huh. I want you to remember that here in just a second. We will get back to it.

Here's what the president had to say last night, at a press conference.

It's cut nine.
(music)

BIDEN: The presidency is the most powerful office in the world. It's an office that not only tests your judgment. Perhaps even more importantly, it's an office that could test your character.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BIDEN: Because you not only need moments where you need courage for the full power of the presidency. You also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the presidency.

GLENN: Yes. Stop there for a second. So, Stu, what would some of those limits be?

Because it's an awesome responsibility, to be president of the United States. But you can't just do anything. Right?

Like, what would some of the limits be. You couldn't just go out and kill people, right?

STU: I don't know. That's not what I have been hearing, Glenn. Over the past 24 hours.

GLENN: Really. Wow?

STU: My understanding is the Supreme Court gave James Bond license to kill, to the president of the United States.

GLENN: No. No. No, I don't think that's true. But we'll continue to listen.

STU: Yeah. Immune. Immune. Immune.

GLENN: I didn't hear the whole speech. So we'll go on.

I was thinking something smaller, like -- like maybe you say, hey, you have student loans.

I can't help you with those. That would be the -- the constitutional thing. But the president couldn't just say, I'm going to just forgive all student loans.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That -- you're thinking of the old-timey America.

There was a version of America, where the -- you know, the head of the executive branch couldn't just spend $500 billion on a whim, without Congress.

But those days are long gone, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. But it would go to the Supreme Court. If it was wrong, it would go to the Supreme Court. And they would tell a president to stop it. And he would.

STU: No. He would just do it again.

GLENN: Oh, it went to the Supreme Court.

STU: Yeah. They shot it down.

GLENN: Awesome.

STU: So he just did it again.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And then in a slightly different way. Like 1 percent different.

And then sends it through the courts again.

And, again, it will get rejected again.

Then he'll just do it again.

GLENN: Right. So that's weird. It's an awesome power. And, you know, it shows character. You know, when you restrain yourself from doing those things that you can't do. Anyway, I digress.

BIDEN: Respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency.

Legislation was founded on the principles. There are no kings in America. Each. Each of us is equal before the law.

No one, no one is above the law.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. Stop for just a second here.

Stu, are we all equal under the law here?

I mean, is that true?

STU: It doesn't seem true. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Like, for instance, if you were held in contempt of Congress.

Right? You would go to jail. Right?

Like Steve Bannon just went to jail yesterday.

STU: Sure. Another Trump adviser who said, no. I can't share that. That's executive privilege.

They sent him to jail.

STU: Navarro. But it's all equal, right?

I mean, let's say, somebody was -- yeah. Not releasing tapes of testimony.

And they say, well, that was executive privilege.

And they were in contempt of Congress. They go to jail as well, right?

STU: No.

I mean, I don't know what you're talking about specifically. But what you just described does not sound at all like something you would go to jail for.

GLENN: Okay. Well, let's say you were the head of the DOJ. And Congress said, you have to produce this information, and then you didn't.

STU: Right. Totally fine.

GLENN: You would be in contempt of Congress.

No, no, no. You don't go to jail?

STU: That doesn't seem like a jailable offense at all.

It's like, I can see where you're getting confused here.

Like, for example, if you were to -- like, riot at a federal building.

Right? That's something you would go to jail for. It's wrong!

You don't do those things.

GLENN: Right. Right. The darkest day.

STU: Yeah, and then there's another separate scenario, where let's say you were to riot, at a federal building. You don't go to jail for that.

GLENN: Oh, wait. Was it just a federal building?

STU: If you're rioting at a federal building, you're going to jail.

If you're simply rioting at a federal building, you don't go to jail.

GLENN: So is it kind of like -- it's a very subtle difference, it's kind of like, when you're praying in front of an abortion clinic. You would go to jail.

STU: Jail.

GLENN: And but if you burn down an abortion clinic. You don't go to jail.

STU: Depends on -- are you burning it down, because they're not doing enough abortions? If you're burning it down because they're frequently aborting enough kids, then yes. You cannot go to jail. But if you burn it down because you think they're doing too many abortions. Then obviously, you go to jail.

GLENN: Okay. So if you burn down an abortion clinic, you would go to jail, if you disagreed with them. But if you burned down the people's business, where they were pro-life, I also go to jail.

STU: Well, they're pro-life? The owners of the business. Yeah. No. You would not go to jail for that.

Why would you go to jail for that? That's stupid.

GLENN: Okay. I want to understand, that I understand equal justice under the law.

I think we have it. Go ahead with President Biden.

BIDEN: Not even the president of the United States. Today, the Supreme Court decision. On presidential immunity.

That fundamentally changed. For all. For all practical purchases.

Today's decision almost certainly means that that there are no limits to what a president can do. It's a fundamentally new principle. It's a dangerous precedent.

GLENN: Yeah, dangerous.

BIDEN: Because the power of the office, will no longer be constrained by the law. Even the Supreme Court of the United States.

GLENN: Wow. Stop for a second.

That is news, isn't it?

Especially to the Supreme Court.

That is news. That no matter what the president does. Even if it breaks the law, you're not going to have pay a price for it.

I didn't know that. I didn't know that.

See, what the left is afraid of right now is what they're saying is, he is going to silence speech. Donald Trump will silence any dissent.

And that's not happening now. Uh-uh.

Or he would put his -- he would put his -- you know, former allies -- I mean, his former foes in jail.

For instance, let's say, you're running against a guy who Donald Trump didn't think he could beat. Then he would just make up some charges.

And then get the guy arrested.

And then keep him, you know, in the court system, until you finally got him into jail.

That's what Trump could do. Trump could do that.

Because of yesterday's rulings.

So that's pretty -- pretty frightening.

You know, I think if we're really going to go all the way. What should be terrifying, is that Donald Trump could just round up a whole group of people, because he didn't like them.

You know what I mean?

Just round them up.

And then put them like in a concentration camp. Kind of like FDR did with the Japanese. And that wouldn't be legal. You know, he would get out of office. And he would never pay the price. that FDR had to pay.

STU: Which is that he named our best president.

GLENN: Well, yeah. That's weird.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: Yeah. The guys who would violate these are always the progressives. Always.

The deep, deep progressives are the ones, who violate all these things.

Now, when it comes to just killing people, or doing something illegal, the Supreme Court case laid out it must be constitutional. So if the -- if the president acts in an unconstitutional way, then you can get him!

But unless it's -- unless it's unconstitutional, he can't do it. So it would be unconstitutional to round up the people that disagreed with you.

It would be unconstitutional to silence those who oppose you!

It would be unconstitutional to go after your opposing political foe, and try to put them in jail. All things that Joe Biden is currently doing.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's funny, this ruling is coming from Roberts. Who is an institutionalist. Right?

If anything, we've complained about him a million times, because he's so unwilling to shake up things. Just because, you know, it happens to be the constitutional way.

I mean, Obamacare is a great example of that.

It will shake things up. I don't want to give the impression, that we're too impactful on society.

He's always doing these things. That's in a way, what this ruling is.

What he's saying is, hey. We shouldn't have -- I mean, in a way, it's designed specifically to protect Joe Biden.

Because everybody knows, if there's no immunity. What do you think Donald Trump will do when he's president of the United States, after what he's just been through. He will go in there, and find everything that he can. And go after Joe Biden on that.

He promised to do with Hillary. He didn't do it. He now says he regrets not doing it.

And now they've done it to him! So you think he will just sit back and say, you know, let me show you what I will do as president.

It's a shoulder shrug. I don't think that's the way it will go down. In a way, Roberts is protecting both sides from this back and forth that can easily come.

GLENN: However, what the president has done, is not constitutional.

And he should go to jail. Not for the things that he's done in office.

I disagree with all his policies. The whole thing, of, you know -- of, you know, taking away your student loans. And things like that.

You know, that's unconstitutional. But I don't think that's something that you go after.

However, the business dealings with China?

Yeah. I think that should be prosecuted.

STU: At least as far as we know.

GLENN: That didn't happen as president.

STU: As far as we know, none of that happened while we were president. That wouldn't help at all. I think what Roberts is doing here, is just setting a high bar.

GLENN: That's what he's saying.

STU: Of course you can go after a president for the worst things in the world. However, there's a high bar for you to clear. So don't bother bringing up your BS nonsense every ten seconds because it's not going to work. That's beyond the fact that we all knew what he said was true.

Official acts would be -- you would be having immunity for. Like you're not able under the law, Glenn, to kill people. Right?

Like you can't just -- like, you couldn't send a drone to start murdering people, in other countries.

The president, with his powers, as commander-in-chief, has -- powers that we don't have.

Like, we all know that. There was some sort of implied immunity for official acts. We all knew that. We all knew unofficial acts would not be covered here.

There was nothing new in this ruling. It was blatantly obvious. Yet they have to do this charade every single time. And act, oh, SEAL Team Six might come and just start being utilized to kill people. You know how many -- how many different layers of checks and balances would have to -- including SEAL Team Six, just going along with this.

Which they would not be covered to do. They would all get prosecuted. They would all be put in prison. But we're supposed to believe, that Donald Trump would be fine for doing this.

It's insanity.

GLENN: All right. Well, let me just end with this.

As the president was saying this, two things happened yesterday. Christian pro-life father of 11 is now facing over a decade in prison.

He will be sentenced today, okay? For a peaceful protest in Tennessee. It was a violation of the Face Act, you know. They were praying in the hallway.

What he said, yesterday, is this: Quote, it's real easy for me. I can go and go to battle and go to jail as an individual. And it's not a big loss.

The challenge comes, when you're leading your family through it. When you're talking to your 3-year-old and your 23-year-old and your other family. Von said that he wanted to pray to God, quote, every day. And get up ready to take on the day, with whatever circumstances believe my way, with a humility and a grace and a spirit-led life. That represents all of us in our society. Represents him and our community around us.

How many politicians order their life after truth and justice, versus power, greed, negotiation, and negotiating principles?

So here's a guy who said, I believe what I believe. God will be with me.

I'm going to go to jail. At the same time, Bannon also went to jail.

For contempt of Congress. There are now 15 -- I believe 15 people in the Biden administration that have been deemed in contempt of Congress.

None of them are being prosecuted.

But Donald Trump's people are. Bannon said this, and I don't like Bannon. Okay?

I don't agree with Bannon on everything. I think he's -- a thought leader, that I really strongly disagree with many times. But he should not be going to jail.

He said, I am proud to go to prison. If this is what it takes to stand up to tyranny, if this is -- if this is what it takes to stand up to the corrupt criminal DOJ. If this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, then I am proud to do it.

You have people crying that they might go to prop. While they're putting people in prison, for the things that they have done themselves.

Please, Mr. President, don't talk to me about out of control tyranny from the Supreme Court. They have done exactly the opposite.

They have protected the presidency, while they are dismantling the administrative state.

RADIO

Why Biden's Corrupt Pardons CANNOT Stand... And Why it STILL Matters!

A new wave of sweeping “pardons” has triggered one of the most urgent constitutional alarms Glenn Beck has ever raised — not because the individuals involved are controversial, but because the actions themselves may not even qualify as pardons at all. Glenn Beck breaks down how these broad, immunity-style declarations can bypass investigations, rewrite laws by fiat, and push executive power into territory the Founders explicitly warned against. With mass clemency increasingly used as a political shield and executive actions replacing the legislative process, America is drifting toward a model of governance that no longer resembles a constitutional republic. This episode exposes how the pardon power is being stretched beyond recognition, why Congress has surrendered its role as a check, and what must happen before the nation crosses a point of no return. The question now is unavoidable: Who will stop this before the Constitution becomes optional?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

CALLER: I wanted to talk about the pardons. Hunter's pardon was legitimate. He was actually accused of a crime. I know you're plugged in with the president. I haven't heard anybody say this anywhere. I have been watching everything.

These pardons. Forget the auto-pen. The auto-pen doesn't even matter. Because these were immunity deals. These were not pardons. None of these people were under investigation. None of these people had any crimes they were accused of.

So you can't pardon somebody for something they may have or may not have done. That's an immunity deal.

Again, I've watched everything. I don't hear anybody bring that stuff -- I don't think the auto-pen matters. I just think those things are null and void from the jump.

GLENN: Who --

CALLER: Like I said.

GLENN: Who do we have besides Mike Lee? Because Mike is always hard to get a hold of at this time. He's like, I'm working on Senate stuff, Glenn.

Who do we have that is a Constitutional scholar that we can call real quick, and see if we can get an answer on that before the end of the show? At least put a call out to Mike Lee, will you?

But I would like to know that happen at that. Because the president has. And Stu and I have talked about this for a while. This has gotten out of control. These pardons are out of control. Out of control.

It's something Constitutional. It's been there since George Washington. The President has always had this right, and it's a privilege of his. But you're right.

These things where, wait. I can't investigate this? What that does is if you're as a president doing something that you shouldn't be doing, all you have to do then is say, I pardon everyone in my administration for anything that they might have done wrong.

That can't stand. You're absolutely right on that.

STU: Yeah. You have the immunity deal. Which again, I think is -- I don't see -- I don't see how a pre-pardon is even possibly covered.
Like, it's just such an insane concept.

The way that Biden. He's right that Hunter Biden actually committed a crime and pardoning him from that in theory, obviously, outside the family interest was the way that that was supposed to work.

But they also pardoned him for multiple years of question marks, whether he committed crimes or not. Right? That was all included on that.

To go a step farther on this, I am on a bit of a personal jihad against the pardon. I'm done with it. I'm done with it personally. There's reasons the Founders were very, very smart. But the Founders were smart enough to also have a process for Constitutional amendments. And I would support one, getting rid of the part in power completely. I'm done with it.

GLENN: Wait, may I just interrupt for a second. I just want to point out. We now have verification, not only is Stu a Canadian spy, but he's also a hidden Nazi. Noticed the word he used, jihad, which translates to my struggle. Hitler's book, My Struggle, Mein Kampf. I just want to point it out.

JASON: Exposed.

STU: Just to be clear, I'm not planning a genocide on the power of pardons.

But I'm against it, strongly. But the other part I would say that I think is every worse and is never discussed, are these types of pardons where they say, you know, all marijuana crimes. They're -- everyone -- there are 17,000 people.

That is just you legislating. If I wanted to New Jersey and say, hey.

I think marijuana should be legal. I could theoretically be president.

Saying, everyone convicted of a marijuana-related crime is now pardoned.

And that's just you making laws. It's you going completely around Congress. And the entire process we have there.

At the very least. It should be massively restricted from the way it's being utilized. Not only -- several presidents in a row, I would argue.

But it's -- it should just -- I think it should just go away completely. It's the most king-like power the president has. And it doesn't make any sense to me.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So I'm looking this up here.

Barack Obama did this.

He gave clemency for anybody who was convicted of a non-violent federal drug crime.

With no significant criminal history, while serving extraordinarily long sentences. And anybody who was a violent offender was not eligible.

And it was -- it wasn't a -- a true mass pardon. But it was pretty close to it. You know, it was -- it was mass in scale, but not blanketed.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I think there were like 2,000 people that he parted on that.

STU: It was a law. Creating a new law.

GLENN: Yeah. You're saying, oh, by the way. That law that I personally disagree with.

We're not going to -- it's gone.

STU: The whole law doesn't count at him. We have a whole process to make laws. When someone -- when they pass a law, you can't say, eh. And shrug your shoulders. And say, I don't particularly like it.

And for some reason, that's the way the pardon power has been translated.

GLENN: The problem is the President can. The President has just always had the restraint not to do that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Because it was bad for the country. And bad for laws.

You know, you don't just -- you don't do this. We're becoming more and more of a king. In our administration.

And it's not Donald Trump.

This has been about to go for a long time.

Barack Obama I think got really, really bad.

But this was going on before him. Obviously.

But Barack Obama kind of set something off.

And then because we couldn't get any legislation passed. We had Donald Trump try to do executive orders, to combat Barack Obama's executive orders.

Then Biden did it. And Trump. It's got to stop.

Because here's the problem. One of the things I said in our special on Wednesday.

Which was, biggest stories of the year.

And predictions for next year. I said, you will start to see rolling brownouts in places like Texas in 2026. Texans, wake up. Wake up.

But you're going to start to see rolling brownouts. But I also made another prediction. And I've just lost what I was going to say was the prediction.

Oh!

This massive swing. We're getting whiplash.

You can't -- you can't run a country like this.

You can't run a country where it's all being done by executive order.

Because look, we were all the way over to one side. When Trump was here. Then we swung way farther than that. With Biden.

Now Trump is bringing us back this way. If you don't pass laws, it's just going to swing.

And you can't -- you can't run a country like that.

This has got to stop!

We have to pass laws. Congress must do its job.

RADIO

Why the Australia beach shooting should terrify EVERYONE

Two shooters opened fire on Bondi beach at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration. Glenn Beck reacts to this horiffic act of evil and also to the heroic act of a man who tackled one of the shooters.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just cover the headlines really quickly: Brown University, yesterday, there was a shooter. Two are dead. The only one that has been named so far is the Republican Club Vice President Alec Cook. There have been nine that have been injured. They thought they had the shooter. But turns out, it's not him. He has been released. And there's just some questions on this one that are weird.

Also, al-Qaeda struck and killed US soldiers over the weekend in Syria. There will be a military response to that, I am sure. And yesterday -- yesterday, on the beach, Sydney's eastern suburbs. Sydney, Australia, it's summer there. There's locals. There are people that are coming from all over the country, all over the world, for the warmth of summer and the community celebration of the first night of Hanukkah. The rest of the world is the darkest days of winter. On the other side of the globe, it is still sunlight because it is in the middle of sunlight. But it was a dark, dark day yesterday despite the sun being up.

There were families with children. They were chasing the waves. The smell of grilled food that was drifting across the sand. Music, conversation, laughter in the air. And then around 7 o'clock, laughter was replaced with screams of terror. Two men dressed in black and armed with high-powered firearms positioned themselves atop a small concrete pedestrian bridge. It arched over the Campbell parade near the Bondi pavilion. They stood on top in the center of this bridge and rained bullets as they fired into the crowd. Shots rang out. Astonished the crowd.

VOICE: Get down. Get down. Boys, get down. Oh, my God.

GLENN: It just went on and on and on. Thousands had been gathered for Hanukkah by the Sea. They're now ducking for cover. Some trying to push children to safety, others frozen in disbelief as friends and strangers alike fell all around them.

The carnage was unbelievable. For ten minutes, these guys fired off this bridge. The beach, usually alive with surfers and sun seekers, just transformed instantly. Bodies were trampled. Frantic dash for some sort of shelter and protection, as the waves just continued to lap innocently at the shore while people were screaming for help.

Now, in the chaos, there were acts of individual courage. A fruit vendor, later named by the media as Ahmed al-Ahmed. He saw one of the gunmen firing his weapon. And in a moment of pure resolve, he vaulted from behind a nearby car, tackled the shooter from behind, and wrestled the rifle away. It was an unbelievable scene. Witnesses say -- and it was all captured on tape. There he is. Witnesses say, his bravery likely saved countless lives.

Police arrived, they started shooting at him. They shot at the two that were up on the bridge. They wounded both of them.

15 people had been killed by the time it was over. Dozens wounded. Young children to the elderly. Cherished members of the Jewish community, including Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a British-born assistant rabbi. He helped organize Hanukkah by the Sea.

The beach won't be looked at the same ever again. As the suspects went down, people from Australia just ran up on to the bridge.

And what I thought was an amazing, amazing moment that spoke volumes of our culture! The police were on top of these men, trying to administer care to keep them alive. While citizens, understandably, came up on the bridge and just started kicking them.
Police jumped on those people and pushed them away. And said, stop, stop, stop. And they did.

Because we're not a culture of death. First suspect, 50 year old, Sajid Akram, 50 years old. He's a dad. The second suspect is his 24-year-old son. Both in critical condition. Now in the hospital under police guard.

Let me ask you to imagine just for a minute, what it must feel like to be Jewish today. Not in theory. Because we -- we had an incident stopped in Amsterdam over the weekend, in Germany over the weekend, in LA, somebody, a drive-by just shot at a Jewish home with the Hanukkah candles in the window, screaming, "F the Jews." You want to know what -- you want to chant, "Bring the Intifada here," this is what it looks like.

It is here now. So what does it feel like to be Jewish today?

I don't know. I can't relate. But I want you to imagine, not as a talking point. But in quiet moments, when the phone would light up with another alert, another headline, another synagogue guarded by concrete barriers, armed police.

There's a particular fear that comes with memory. Jewish people carry history. Not as abstraction, but as inheritance. And it lives in names that are whispered at dinner tables, and photographs rescued from ash. And stories that begin with, "And we thought it would never happen here."

Europe told itself, that very thing once. So did Germany. So did France. So did polite society, everywhere, right before it happened.

And the world has been saying that for decades now. It would never happen here. And here we are again. And here we are, the worst we've seen in America.

Shadows that all of us hoped were buried forever. Hatred with organization, ideology. Hatred with teeth. Violence. Justification.

They're no longer whispers. They're shouting it now in our streets. They're shouting it in the streets of Australia. They're shouting it in the streets of Germany. And England and France. And Norway. They're burning flags. They're firing guns. They're chanting not only death to the Jew, but death to the West, death to Canada, death to the US. Death to Europe. This is no longer confined to the margins anymore. And the West is tolerating it. The west has explained it away. We have minimalized it. We have said it was a lone wolf. Sometimes we even excuse it.

Just for the day, let's just stop and look at Australia for a minute. For years, Jewish communities are warned the officials.

Anti-Semitism isn't theoretical. It's here. We're living it. We're seeing it. It's not just graffiti or angry words.

It's metastasizing into something ideological and organized and deadly. And in Australia, the officials told them, calm down.
Trust the institutions. We've got it.

Somehow or another, multi-cultural harmony would manage itself, but it didn't. Because it doesn't.

Ideology doesn't dissolve when it's ignored. It consolidates. It grows he has and it has across the Western world entirely. Europe, Britain, Australia. Canada. The United States. It's the same pattern!

Violent anti-Semitism rising Jewish schools like fortresses. Your families wondering whether visibility itself is now a liability.

And yet, all across the West, officials hesitate, to name the problem. Clearly!

So let me do it. Precisely. Precisely.

Truthfully.

Islamism.

Islamists. Not Islam. Not Muslim. If you're a Muslim, you want to live peacefully, worship freely. Raise children. Continue to, you know, live and contribute to a society. You know, and you're not an enemy of the West. I'm totally good with that. Look at the fruit cart guy. He apparently didn't hate Jews. He wasn't part of the culture of death.

He stopped it.

And millions do that every single day. But Islamism, Islamists, that's something entirely different.

Islamism is a political ideology.

It's not about faith. It is about power.

It's the belief that society has to be governed by religious law. Sharia law.

That freedom of conscience is illegitimate. That women are subordinate, that dissent is heresy, and that the world and everything in it has to submit. And it's very clear about all of this. It writes it down. It teaches it. It shouts it from the public square. For the love of Pete, it's everywhere. It chants it. It doesn't hide its ambitions. It doesn't hide behind anything. But here's what it doesn't do: It doesn't co-exist with open societies.

It replaces them and has been replacing open societies for centuries.

Any culture built on individual liberty, freedom of speech, equality before the law, it can't survive alongside an ideology that views all of those principles as sins or as an affront to Allah! In that scenario, one side must yield, or one side will be destroyed!

And history is very clear on which one does. You know, we're very different people. Even the difference between us and Canada. And us and Europe.

It might be seemingly starved. It might be we're very different. But when you look at us as a civilization, we're very different. Together, we're very different from the rest of the world.

We don't understand these things. Because we project our values, on everybody else.

We assume that everybody ultimately wants to live. And to compromise. Live side by side. We assume violence is accidental. We assume that it's a lone wolf. We assume that words like to do and dialogue mean the same thing to everybody.

But they don't! And so we tolerate politicians and newscasters and everything else that explain things away. They explain the stabbings and the truck attacks and the shootings and the riots. It's isolated incidents. They're not! We talk about finding the root cause. But we won't -- we won't name the root itself!

We call it extremism, as though it sprang out of nowhere, as though it was a weather event, instead of a worldview that's been around for centuries! I ask you to think about what it feels like to be Jewish today because of the Jewish people.
But also because, you're next. Jewish communities always pay the price first.

They always do. And believe me, you're on the list. You!

Your freedom. Your children are on the list!

And history shows this, with brutal consistency.

When a society begins to rot, from ideological cowardice.

The Jews are always the early-warning system.

They're the canary in the coal mine.

When they're targeted openly. And the state responds with hesitation.

That society is already sick and in the hospital.

It's already in trouble.

And make in mistakes.

The science is not far away.

It is already here.

Synagogues attached. Jewish students harassed on campus. Jewish neighborhoods guarded like war zones. Public celebrations requiring armed protection now. This is not normal, and it's not sustainable. And the West likes to believe and understands freedom.

But freedom is not a five! It's not a comfort. It's not the absence of conflict. Freedom is costly! And it requires moral clarity, and it requires the courage to draw a line and say, this doesn't belong here! And if we refuse to do that work now, our children will have to do it later under far worse conditions! They will have to fight, not to preserve freedom, but to recover it. And history always shows, that's much more costly. America, you're closer than you think to losing not only our country, but countries that took centuries to build!

Not through invasion. But through erosion. Through silence. Through the polite refusal to speak uncomfortable truths.

If not you, who?

If not now, when?

You're running out of time.

RADIO

"You're being PLAYED": Glenn Beck exposes the TRUTH about Illinois' new MAiD program

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has signed a bill legalizing "medical assistance in dying" (MAiD) for certain terminally ill patients. Glenn Beck rages against this "culture of death" that is sweeping America, even after it ravaged Canada.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So JB Pritzker in Illinois signed into law a bill on Friday, that will allow doctors in Illinois to prescribe the deaths of their own patients. First, do no harm. I'm having a hard time with that, doctors. Maybe you can tell us how you're getting around this. First, do no harm.

That is a very important concept, that our doctors are to buy into. And that we all believe.

First, do no harm. If you don't have that, all kinds of things can follow. Especially when they're couched with compassion.

And that is exactly what this is always couched in. Compassion.

Okay. So this new law goes into effect in September of next year. Terminally ill patients over the age of 18 are going to be able to get a suicide drug from their doctor. This is the 12th state in the country, that is allowing assisted suicide. And there are about 25 others that are standing in line for it. What a surprise.

Illinois is the -- is the one -- the first of this -- this batch of them coming in to say, I want to kill people!

It is a culture of death. And we are -- that's what we are battling. No matter what anybody tells you, we're not battling the Republicans or the Democrats.

It's not politics.

It's not Marxism.

It is a culture of death, that we're battling. It is evil. It is evil. A culture of death.

When you look at -- when you look at what people are saying about global warming, what is the solution?

Fewer people. How do you do that? Well, culture of death takes care of that. Right?

When you look at -- when you look at, you know, just about anything now, health care, abortion, culture of death.

Islam, culture of death. Marxism, honestly, it is a culture of death. Why would I say that know.

Well, because it eliminates people who disagree with it. And first, it just pushes them off the sidelines.

But eventually it ends in camps. But also, look what's being taught to our kids. They are killing themselves, because they're so depressed. Because it has no meaning. It completely rejects the you human aspect of humanity.

Culture of death. That's really what we're fighting. Make no mistake.

Now, Illinois and Pritzker, they're saying, well, no. No, no, no. This is going to be -- we're going to be very, very careful. You have to have two doctors. Okay. That's good. That's good.

Germany had three doctors, to give you permission. You're not even up the line of Nazi Germany, but congratulations on that. And they have to be diagnosed with having six months or less to live.

Okay. Okay.

I want you to know, Illinois, America, Western world, you're being played. This is not compassion.

I'm going to be real clear with you.

This is preparation for when the system can no longer afford to fulfill its promises, that's what this is.

They are preparing the system to be able to have the way out. And they're preparing you, so you look at this as compassion and so when it gets worse and worse, up until the very end, you don't recognize it. I mean, they're beginning to a little bit in Canada, to see what's coming their way. And why is it happening? Because they can no longer afford socialized medicine. They can't afford to fulfill the promises.

Let me just say, can America afford to fulfill its promise, that it's made for generations on all of this socialized everything?

No. In fact, there are people now, trying to double down. We can't afford anything. They're trying to double down and expand those programs, which will only collapse us faster.

When they collapse, you know, nobody likes. Well, rich people can get surgery. And as I've said to you before, I don't like that either. I really don't like that. But how else do you do it? How else do you do it? Well, we have a committee. And we -- we ration things. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Here's where you're not going to like that. You're not going to like that, because that's not the way humans work. When they ration things, either people with money or the people with power, always find a way to short-circuit so they can get to the top.

So the one that you're saying now is the poor, helpless waif that's not getting anything because of the rich people, when the system changes, that poor lonely waif is still not going to get any help because the powerful, the ones that are connected, they'll get the medical care, and the waif won't get medical care. People will find a way to short-circuit the system because people generally suck.

And when you give all the power to people, it's not good. It's usually not good. So you may not like the, you know, pay for it kind of system, but it is the best one out there. And you really don't want to give a bureaucracy the -- the ability to kill you if you become expensive or inconvenient.

Now, I know that's not what they're saying. That's not what we're doing. We're giving people out of compassion, help them end their lives. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. That's exactly what happened in Canada. Let me just tell you. It was called C14. Let me just look up the facts here. C14 in Canada. It happened in 2016.

And it -- what it -- what it meant was, you could get compassionate care, if you had doctors. Three doctors approved.

You had a terminal, I don't remember what they called it.

But basically, you could see the end in sight. Okay?

There was -- there was no way for us to repair your body and heal you.

So we could see that.

Basically, you know, you were terminal.

We could see that.

In the future. Near future.

And three doctors agreed.

And then you had a waiting period after you requested it, the doctors would approve.

And then there were ten days, before you would administer. Ten days before you would back out.

That's what it started as, okay?

That's not what it's become. 2016, that's what it was. And you had to be 18 years or older.

And you had to have full capacity. So you couldn't listen to, you know, friends or family.

You had to make the decision. And you needed full capacity.

Okay.
Then things started to fall apart.

Then we had COVID. Then we had all these expenses. Then we had people move into the country.

This is Canada. Same thing happened here. COVID. Hospitals are overwhelmed.

Medical care goes to hell.

And then you start bringing in people from all over the world.

And now you don't have hospital care. Everybody is crowded. The doctors are overwhelmed.
And so in 2021, they decided the Quebec court decided, well, you know, death in the foreseeable future. Is that really necessary?

Excuse me?

I mean -- I mean, the reasonable foreseeable natural death requirement. Do we really need that?

The court said, no, we really don't.

There are two tracks! Those who have natural death in the foreseeable future. We're going to make it a little easier for them. So beyond the request, the three doctors and the ten-day waiting period. We're going to get rid of some of that because it's not necessary.

I mean, if you're in the reasonably foreseeable future, you don't need all those safeguards. And then people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Well, we're going to make them do all of those things. Oh, okay.

And, by the way, we're removing the ten-day waiting period too. Once the doctor says, you're good, you're good.

Okay. All right.

That wasn't far enough. Now, they have a new bill, C7.

Canada bill seven.

When they -- when that removed the foreseeable requirement, they added a temporary exclusion for people whose sole medical condition was a mental disorder.

Oh, wow. So now we're into mental illness.

So your death isn't in the foreseeable future.

But you really want to die.

So does this apply to mental.

People with mental problems?

Oh, no, no, no. No. We're not going to ban it. We're just going to put a temporary ban on that one?

Why would you put a temporary ban on that?

Why would you put a temporary ban on something like that?

Let me give you the answer and you tell you what else it's done and bring it home for you here in just a second.

Okay. So why would you -- why would you remove the restriction on the mentally ill?

Remember, the first thing was -- the first thing was, you've got to be -- you've got to be fully there.

You have to be competent and aware of what you're doing.

Then they said, well, the foreseeable future thing.

Your death is inevitable. We're going to take that away.

But we're going to put a temporary restriction on mental illness.

The only reason why you would make that a temporary restriction, is because you're just trying to get the rest of the society to catch up with what you're going to do.

That's the only reason.

And that's why, it has been extended.

Okay?

It was supposed to end in 2023.

Then it was extended to March 2024.

And now, it has been pushed to 2027.

Okay?

So you're not eligible for MAID until March 2027, if you have a mental illness.

Hmm.

Huh! Now, they may push it forward again, to give it more time to convince everybody that that's what they have to do.

And how do you convince people?

Well, you convince people, because there's shortages and be that person doesn't have the capability to think they're mentally ill. They might want to tie. They're very, very depressed. They're very depressed, and so they want to die anyway.

They want to die. I need the doctor. Okay?

That's what's going to happen. That's what's going to happen.

Unless we remember who we are. Unless all of a sudden, we -- we're like, you know what, that's -- you know, that's not who we are.

That's not the West. The West is not defined by its technology.

Even by its freedom or its wealth.

Everybody thinks, oh, the West. They're wealthy.

No. That's not it.

What makes us unique in the West. The entire West Canada, included. All of Europe. This radical idea that the individual has inherent value.

That nobody is expendable.

And not because they're useful, not because they're productive, not because they're convenient.
They have an inherent right to exist, to live.
If you look at the past, you look at Athens and Rome.
Oh. I mean, they just put you -- you this put babies that were not boys, that were girls. Where they were deforming.

They throw them on a garbage barge. These barges would go down the river. With screaming babies on them. They just let them die, okay?

That's the way it does. But West through Judeo Christian ethics taught us, that's not right!

And we build hospitals before skyscrapers.

We put limits on -- on force. We teach doctors to heal. Not to calculate.

When a society like ours stops choosing life, it does not become more compassion.

It becomes more efficient. Not compassionate! Efficient!

And efficiency has never given birth 20 moral virtue.

Efficiency kills it. If that's your goal. It kills it.

Fighting this culture of death, it is the most important thing we can focus on.

A lot of people will focus on politics and everything else.

And what JB Pritzker is doing here, there, and everywhere else.

I don't even care about politics.

We have to convince one another, we have to start standing up for the principles that made the West, the West.

Because without the choice to protect life at its most fragile, we are no longer a civilization worth saving! We're just another system deciding, eh, I don't know, is that worth the trouble? And history is very clear where that society ends. That's why, last week, to me, it was so personal, and so important.

To help this woman, not just because it's the right thing to do. And because every life matters. And this happened to be a life that came across my path.

And I'm like, we've got to stop that! But because, this goes to something bigger! And it is infecting us right now. And if we buy the lies, that this is for compassion. Look! I understand. I understand pain. I understand end of life. I don't want to be in that situation.

I know, you don't want to be.

I mean, I know what it feels like with my dog, putting my dog down. It kills me. It kills me to put my dog down. So I get it on the dog level, let alone, you know, a parent level or a spouse level. I get it.

But you cannot as a society go down this road. Because once you open this door, all the other doors just start to swing open. When there's trouble!
The first sign of shortage, all those doors open up. And guess what we're headed for. Shortages.