RADIOMarch 19, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Makes CRAZY Argument for MORE Censorship?!

During the Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to argue that the government’s First Amendment rights were under attack. According to her, the government should have the ability under the First Amendment to pressure social media companies to censor people. But Glenn had some other thoughts. If the government can violate your rights when there’s “trouble,” Glenn argues, then you don’t have rights. Glenn lays out how that’s NOT the US Constitution. That’s the SOVIET Constitution.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I don't know if you heard Justice Jackson yesterday.

But woo!

Was she -- she's in tune with our system of government. Here she is, yesterday, where free speech is on trial. The government is making the claim, that their free speech is being limited, because they want to tell social media what to do.

And their First Amendment rights, are being trampled on.

Just so you know, the government doesn't have First Amendment rights. The First Amendment right goes to the people. And it says, that the government can't tell you what you can say and what you can't say.

Here is justice brown Jackson yesterday.

VOICE: Justice Jackson.

VOICE: My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.

I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple of times, that the government can post its own speech.

But in my hypothetical. You know, kids, this is not safe. Don't do it is not going to get it done.

And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me?

Because I'm really worried about that. Because you've got the First Amendment operating.

GLENN: Okay. Sure. Uh-huh.

VOICE: In an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's perspective. And you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.

GLENN: Okay. Sure.

I would love to help you with that. I would love to help you with that. Let me help you.

And I appreciate your asking for help. Don't usually experience that, you know, cry for help on understanding any of the amendments, let alone the first one from a Supreme Court justice. But I appreciate your willingness to say, I really don't have a clue as to what I'm doing here.

See, we have a Bill of Rights, that was built -- our country is built, up like any other country in the world.

And our Bill of Rights came from a -- a Founding Era, where they had been really living under the thumb of a tyrant. And so they knew tyranny firsthand. And it made them very, very skittish about governments, and what they could do.

Because when governments speak, that's one thing. The government can speak, and say, hey. This is bad. You shouldn't do this.

But when governments coerce people, especially businesses, well, they've got an awful lot of power.

And that can turn into tyranny quickly.

Now, the -- the Bill of Rights was written, and especially the First Amendment, was -- was written, for those bad times.

You know, you -- I know you're worried about, well, these -- I mean, freedom of speech is great. Unless things are, you know, troubled.

Well, okay. But that's why think wrote this down.

Our documents are a negative charter of liberties.

So it means that the Bill of Rights, apply to the citizens, but not to the governments. The government cannot do anything to violate these rights. And if, you know, it changes when there's trouble, or when the government feels there's trouble, well, then, you don't really have the right, do you?

And I really don't have any shackles, on the presidency. The administration, or the government.

What you have, actually, is another Constitution, written in 1936. It was really great. Because of the way it -- I mean, it was way advanced.

All voting restrictions were taken off. Universal direct suffrage. The right to work.

Guaranteed by the previous Constitution. In addition, to 1936, and, by the way, I'm not talking about Germany. Okay.

1936. The Constitution recognized the collective and economic rights. Including the right to work. The right to rest. The health protection.

Care in old age. And in sickness. The right to housing and education and cultural benefits.

It was really a cutting edge Constitution. Because everybody wants that stuff, right?

You have a universal right to it.

And all of the government bodies, had to help provide those things, because you, the citizen have a right.

And they want right direct election, of all government bodies. And they -- they reorganized it, at 36.

And they just -- they streamlined the government. You know, so there wasn't a lot of red tape. So Article 122, in the -- in the Constitution, said that women, are accorded equal rights with men.

Now, this is 1936.

Think about how advanced this is.

Women have equal rights with men, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life.

In fact, they were really the first one to make sure that there was, you know, kindergartens, and a universal right to kindergarten, and maternity leave, and prematernity, and protection of the mom and her interests.

It was really, really good. In article 122. In 123. That was the equal rights for all citizens.

It was -- it was equity for everybody. Irrespective of their nationality or their race.

In all spheres of life. And they wanted to make sure that there was racial inclusiveness, and no hatred, or contempt. Or restrictions of rights and privileges on account of nationality or race.

And if you did any of these hate crimes, it was punishable by law. So this is now the -- the Soviet Constitution of 1936. And it was the longest running Constitution of the Soviet Union. And it was great. Article 124, guaranteed freedom of religion.

Including the separation of church and state. And school from church.

And 124, it ensured all citizens the freedom of conscience. Freedom of religious worship. And freedom of any anti-reckless propaganda, recognized for all citizens. Which was nice, and in 124, Stalin, in the face of real stiff opposition there, eventually said, you know what, maybe we should talk to the Russian orthodox church. Maybe we should allow them to exist. And he did, kind of. But it was all within the Constitution. Because see, this Constitution is a Constitution of positive liberties. Unlike ours, negative liberties. Telling the government what it cannot do. Theirs is a positive liberty. All the things the government must do.

And article 125. Remember, this is 1936. Article 125 of the Constitution, guaranteed freedom of speech in the press. And freedom of assembly.

Then they said, look, the Communist Party really needs to come together.

And we can have diversity in the Communist Party. But it's only one party in the free elections. So you could -- you could do that.

Now, this Constitution, was written in 1936.

And it was thoroughly democratic. Thoroughly democratic.

I mean, yeah. Once the writers of the Constitution. And the organizers, you know, finished it. They were imprisoned, and/or executed right after. Because they were counterrevolutionaries. And, you know, you have to get rid of those people.

There were some people that were just too radical. And they were the writers of the Constitution. But, you know, that's an old dusty document.

Sure, it was written last week. But they didn't foresee everything.

So they started the great -- the great terror.

Is what it's called.

I don't know what happened during the great terror.

But it coincided with the signing of the new Constitution.

But everybody was protected. You could say whatever you want.

You know, you could look at the great terror, or the subcategory of the great purge.

And say, hey. You know what, they're stepping on those rights. There. Those people.

But they are people that the state really doesn't. You know, the state really needs some authority to be -- sure, you have a right to speak. You know, you have the enjoyment of rights and freedoms of citizens. But, I'm just quoting the Constitution, not to the detriment of the interests of society. Or the state.

So if you saw something, you know, like Ketanji -- whatever her name is. Jackson brown. Jackson -- whatever her name is.

I love her. And she is right.

When the state has an interesting, because the state knows best, then we have to, you know, restrain people from saying things. So let me just -- let me just quote article 39. Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society, or the state.

Amen! That's what she's saying. I mean, they've been saying this since 1936 in the Soviet Union. Article 59 obliged citizens to obey all the laws and comply with the standards of the socialist society as determined by the party. So if the party said, you know, let's just say, we can mutilate your children.

You can speak out about that. I mean, you're going to have to go to jail for it.

Because it will be a hate crime.

In fact, hate crimes were even mentioned specifically, in that 19 -- they were so far ahead.

They were just -- they were just way, way, way, way, way ahead. Because they were already on those hate crimes. You know, you don't have a -- you don't have a right to say, you know.

For instance, here it is. Quote, the Constitution prohibits incitement of hatred or hostility on any religious ground.

So you couldn't just, you know, say to the Bible. Bible says this.

If it incited hatred. So -- and the Constitution, you know, gave -- you have a freedom of conscience. You can do that.

You can profess or not profess any religion.

And you can conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. As long -- and I'm quoting. As long as it's in the interest of the state. You see.

Because they know better. They know better.

So Ketanji, I just -- I'm trying to help you. Because you asked for help yesterday. Which I find just so refreshing. That a talk show host, that is a recovering alcoholic and former DJ, who is just completely self-educated, you know, knows this stuff, better than a Supreme Court justice. But I think that's great, that, you know, you're humble enough to say, I don't know my ass from my elbow. I think that's great. I really do. I really do.

So let's just remember, the government, you know -- we have inalienable rights. What does that mean?

I don't know. Something about aliens from space, Ketanji. No.

Means no man can change those rights. Alter those rights. Or take away. That's what inalienable means.

And in the Soviet Union, they didn't that have, okay?

They didn't have inalienable rights. You as a citizen can, and I'm quoting. Enjoy rights. When the exercise of these rights, do not interfere with the interests of the state, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they alone have the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society.

What a utopia that is. Man, if we could just model our Constitution on something as open-minded as this, we would certainly be fixed. Kind of in the way, my dog was fixed. But we would be fixed all right.

Can America survive if New York falls to Socialism?

New York City is likely to elect either Zohran Mamdani, a communist, or Andrew Cuomo, a failed governor, as mayor. Either way, it could destroy the city. So, how will this affect the rest of America? Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore joins Glenn to explain why he believes another mass migration out of New York is coming…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stephen Moore is with us now. Stephen, how much time do you have with me today?

STEPHEN: As much as you want, Glenn. Great to hear your voice. Great to be with you.

I disagree with you on something you just said.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Let's start there.

STEPHEN: You know, I do think -- look, New York has lost two and a half million people on net over the last ten years, to other states. Almost two and a half million people.

Which is, what? Four congressional seats right there.

So there's a mass. The big story in America, Glenn. Right now. And people should go on our website. Vote With Your Feet. And you can see, just click on any two states. You can click on New York. And you can click on Texas. And it will show you the -- where the moving vans are going to and from. And also, how much money they're taking with them because we know the income of these people as well.

So New York has lost two and a half million people. And, by the way, half of those people came from New York City. So if -- did they elect a socialist and they raised the taxes, again, New York City already has the highest taxes in the United States in North America. So if they raise them again, on, quote, the rich, they won't be there any longer. And I'll make another prediction to you, Glenn.

Are you in Texas? Where are you now?
(laughter)

GLENN: It's like a shell game.
I never really know. I just moved last week. I left my business in Texas.

Because I am never going to sever myself from Texas. I left my business in Texas. I promised my wife about 400 years ago, that some take we would live by the beach. So we moved to Florida. Business in Texas.

STEPHEN: You moved from no income tax state. To another no income tax state.

GLENN: Yeah. Are you crazy? I'm not doing anything else?

I would have dug a canal from the Atlantic, all the way to Dallas, if they forced me to move to a tax state. Anyway...

STEPHEN: So anyway, I'm in Dallas today.

GLENN: I know.

STEPHEN: Where are you in Florida?

GLENN: I'm not saying that on the air. But I will tell you that we're going to have dinner, Stephen. When you get back into dinner, Stephen, we'll have dinner.

STEPHEN: So, anyway, now I lost my train of concentration.

GLENN: So we were talking about the people that are moving and the tax base.

STEPHEN: Yeah. So basically, that's why I believe -- look, 1 million is probably a long shot.

But I think you're going to see a lot of wealth move out of New York. Now, here's the thing. You probably are aware of this. But about two months ago, the -- Texas has their own stock exchange. So we had the New York Stock Exchange for 150 years. Now you've got the Texas Stock Exchange, which I believe is in Dallas.

GLENN: I know.

STEPHEN: I believe, if they raise these taxes again, you pay 17 percent income tax in New York City.

GLENN: Jeez.

STEPHEN: Who is going to do that?

GLENN: My gosh.

STEPHEN: After 40 percent federal tax. So people will move. And I'll give you one -- one example.

Do you know Ken Griffin? He's the billionaire who created Citadel.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEPHEN: He's a big guy. Free market guy. And he was the single, biggest charitable giving in the city of Chicago. He gave to the Art Institute. He gave to the homeless shelters. He gave to the food kitchens and the museums and so on.

I mean, he was -- he was by far the biggest donor to all of the charities.

Well, finally, they kept raising, raising taxes in Chicago. And as you probably know, he moved out of Chicago. And he moved to Palm Beach.

Florida. And so then the interesting part of this story is, it put a 50 million-dollar hold in the Illinois budget.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STEPHEN: And all the -- there's a funny story in the Chicago business. That all of a sudden, charities like, why isn't he donating to us anymore?

Why isn't he living there anymore?

So my point is, you chase the evil rich out of your city and your state. You pay a high price for that. By the way, he took several thousand, you know, jobs with him. So when you -- when you hear stoke the rich -- you know, the rich are -- as the old saying goes, "The rich aren't rich because they're stupid."

GLENN: Right.

So let me ask you this, Stephen. Because it used to be that New York was -- I mean, was the capital of the whole world.

STEPHEN: Yeah. Yeah. Financial capital.

GLENN: And because of the stock exchange. How real is the loss of the New York Stock Exchange. As something like the Texas stock exchange?

Is that something that really could actually happen?

STEPHEN: Yeah. It could happen. And look, the truth is that the New York Stock Exchange, even today, isn't anything like it was '60s, '70s, '80s, just like I mentioned I'm from Chicago. Remember the movie Trading Places, they're trading. It doesn't really exist anymore. Because that's all done by computers and electronically. So the trading floors aren't the same as they were. So Wall Street is just a shadow of what it once was. But what I'm saying is, today in America, in Dallas, Texas, there are more financial services jobs than there are in New York City.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STEPHEN: That's amazing!

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

So --

STEPHEN: It's happening.

GLENN: So how long -- how much more, Stephen, how much more can New York take before it's -- it's no longer the financial capital?

How much more -- how many people have to move?

What has to happen, for it to really understand, wow. We made a huge mistake here?

STEPHEN: You would think they would have gotten that message already.

GLENN: No.

STEPHEN: And one of the things that you first did your show, many, many years ago. You were in New York.

So you're familiar with New York. And when was that? In the '90s when were you --

GLENN: In the 2000 -- 2000s. Mid-2000, you know, 2005. 2010.

STEPHEN: Yeah. Because I remember when Rudy -- this is an important point because I know you have a lot of listeners all over the country in New York and New Jersey. In the New York area.

So when Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor, New York was a mess. And you could see every week, because I was working at the Wall Street Journal at the time. Every week, you could see the improvement in the city. He got rid of the crime. He got rid of the graffiti. He got rid of the drug dealers. He got rid of -- he lowered the taxes. It wasn't complicated, Glenn. I mean, this wasn't rocket surgery.

GLENN: I know.

STEPHEN: This was obvious stuff.

And New York was New York again. And it was booming. And what's sad about this election that's happening today, is if Mamdani wins, they will reverse every single thing that Rudy did. And they will be back in the ditch. How stupid would people be to fall for that!

And part of the problem, Glenn, quite frankly, something you and I have talked about for years. Is our education system. You have 24-year-olds are voting, they think socialism works. Where? Show me. Where?

GLENN: Yeah. So what happens if he is elected? I mean, how -- what does it mean to people who have never gone to New York City?

Is -- is the loss of New York City to a Mamdani, is that going to affect everybody else's life?

STEPHEN: That's a good question. you're there in Florida.

Florida has gained. I really want people to go to this website.

Because it's amazing.

So Florida, under a great, great, great governor, Ron DeSantis. And you had a great governor, Rick Scott, before him. Florida, are you ready? Are you sitting down, Glenn? Florida has imported over the ten-year period, one trillion dollars of income from people coming in from other states. $1 trillion. It's the biggest mass migration ever in the history of this country.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STEPHEN: And, by the way, people are not just living in New York. What you know other states they're leaving?

California.

GLENN: I think New York is moving to Florida, and California is moving to Texas.

STEPHEN: Moving to Texas, exactly.

And so you're just bleeding these blue states. That's why I don't get it.

So the thing that worries me. I was thinking about this, a lot over the past couple of days. If these states vote the wrong way, the only way that New York even survives, fiscally is with another massive federal bailout.

GLENN: Bailout. I know.

STEPHEN: How are you they going to pay their bills?

GLENN: They're not. They're not. And, you know, that's -- this is what I've said for a long time.

You know, the Constitution is not a suicide PAC. And California and New York and Chicago are going to eventually need giant bailouts.

And why should I pay for that know. I didn't live in those places. I didn't live there for a reason.

STEPHEN: Right.

GLENN: Right. That's taxation without representation.

I don't want to bail them out.

It was -- it's their fault, they did this. I've always wanted to live in California.

I never have, because it was insane. I knew that it was not going to work. So why do I have to pay for it?

STEPHEN: Exactly. Bingo. And incidentally, you're right. You can understand why people might leave New York for Florida. You know, in Florida, it's beautiful weather. In Florida, and rains a lot. And probably in New York. But how do you screw up California?

I mean, California is one of the probably most idyllic places in the planet. And people are living. This is the first time in 250 years people have been -- more people are leaving California than going to California. That's never happened before!

STU: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

STEPHEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So can you spend some time with me --

STEPHEN: Can I make one more point about this?

GLENN: Yeah.

STEPHEN: The governor of California is now the lead candidate to run on the Democratic ticket for president: Gavin Newsom. The guy who is -- what's he going to run on? "I'll do for America what I did for California?"

GLENN: Yes.

And so many people will buy into it!

I mean, I don't know what's wrong. It's so frustrating, because you try to apply logic. And you're like, but none of this makes sense! None of it. What are you doing?

I would love to be able to sit down and have a conversation, but none of this makes sense.

Dick Cheney's life should be a WARNING for us all

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has passed away at the age of 84. Glenn Beck reviews some of the biggest lessons from Cheney’s life that America should have learned, from the Gulf War and 9/11 to the PATRIOT Act and even gain-of-function research.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me start here with Dick Cheney. You know, there was a time not long ago, where America was not sure of itself.

Like we are now.

The Berlin Wall had fallen. We had gone through the '80s, which was a big boost to our confidence. But we had done so much damage to ourselves in the '60s and the '70s, it took more than one president in eight years. Vietnam still you haunted us. The headlines were all about peace dividends. You remember that?

Berlin wall comes down. Now, we should have peace dividends. Downsizing. Doubt. We didn't know. We were arrogant, and yet doubtful.

The idea of a military, powerful military had been almost embarrassing to say out loud since Vietnam. Reagan had rebuilt us, but it was peace through strength. We never went to war. Thank God, we never went to war. But our perceived strength did all our work for us.

But we didn't know. Because the last time we had tanks rolling anywhere, was Vietnam. And we thought that was a really bad thing.

Well, George H.W. Bush came into office. And he brought with him a man who had five deferments in Vietnam. He had never served in uniform. And he picks that guy. A guy from Wyoming. Not loud. Not flashy. To step into the role of Secretary of Defense. That was pretty controversial.

Wait a minute. What?

Hold it.

The guy didn't look like a warrior. He looked honestly like an accountant that balanced books after the battle. He was quiet, soft-spoken.

But he was firm. He was very clear on what he believed, and he believed perhaps more than -- more deeply than almost anybody else in Washington, that a nation that can't defend itself isn't going to remain free.

And so Reagan had really built the military up.

And Dick Cheney kind of finished that off, with George H.W. Bush.

By restoring the faith in our military.

Faith in America's strength was not the problem. America's strength was the protector of liberty.

I'm old enough to remember the -- the opening night of the Gulf War.

CNN was the only news network at the time.

And on my living room screen. I was living in Baltimore at the time, there was this eerie green grain of night vision footage. Which we really hadn't seen before.

And missile strikes through the darkness. We had never seen war like this before. Not only in night vision, but not live in our living rooms. We had never seen anything like it.

And I remember we all kind of held our breath. And we watched this new kind of war, unfold.

And it was swift, it was surgical. It was divisive.

There was no draft -- or decisive. There was no draft. There was no chaos. There was no quagmire. For the first time in decades, Americans felt pride without apology when it came to our military.

And we still wondered, is it going to be a quagmire?

But it wasn't. It was very clear. The mission was clear. We liberated Kuwait. That was the mission, and then we left. There was, you know, no oil fields. No spoils. No empire building. Just a message to the world, we could be proud of! This is what moral strength looks like. Free a nation, and go home.

Now, when George W. Bush ran for president, I don't think anybody was really comfortable handing the nuclear codes over to this guy who had been the governor of Texas and really kind of, yeah, let me tell you. Yeah. Right.

I mean, I wasn't comfortable. He was the guy we barely knew. He seemed like somebody who was more comfortable in the stands of a baseball stadium, than even, you know, in the main offices of the baseball stadium, that he owned. You know.

And everything changed in 2000, in the election, when he chose Dick Cheney as his running mate. The reaction was instant.

And I think it was the sound of America kind of exhaling a bit. He announced Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. They were the ones who brought us the Gulf War. It was quick, decisive, and over.

And America said, okay. Okay. Okay.

He's got Dick Cheney behind him.

All right. The adults are back. Then came that blue September morning.

And the skies were clear, and the markets were opened.

And in an instant, absolutely everything changed. The world stopped! The New York skyline was filled with smoke, and fear filled the air, all over the world. Not just here in America. No one knew what was going on. And our president was reading stories to children in Florida, and Dick Cheney became the acting president for a while, until we could get the president to safety!

He was the one that was rushed down to the emergency bunker in the White House. He took over for a while!

He was steady. Emotionless. And firm!

He didn't tremble. He didn't panic. And in those hours, those first few hours, America needed that!

But fear, once it's tasted, it's -- it's hard to let go. And so we started a war. And it just stretched on and on and on.

And the mission became blurry. Freedom became a slogan, instead of a strategy. And freedom started to take a different meaning here in America. We passed the Patriot Act. We built the Department of Homeland Security. None of those things had anything to do with freedom. We created the FISA court. And airport lines that never seemed to end. And for a while, we told ourselves, all of this is worth it, it's the price we have to pay in a dangerous, dangerous world.

But when you give more to one God, the other gods will demand payment later. And something in those days, a seed that was far more darker was planted. The anthrax attacks, most people don't even remember them now. They rattled the nation.

Cheney, who was always the realist and the adult in the room. Always the sentinel told the nation's stop scientists, we can't wait for the next attack. We have to study it. We have to anticipate it.

And so it was Dick Cheney that urged Dr. Anthony Fauci. To push research further, faster. Into what we now call gain of function. And I'm sure it was born out of good intent to protect us. As history often teaches us, good intent can be dangerous as a companion to unchecked power. Or as my grandmother always used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And so bee beneath all of that calculation and control, there was a the different side to Dick Cheney. He was quiet. When his daughter Mary came out as gay, he didn't blink. Long before Clinton evolved, before Obama changed his mind, Cheney, the hawk, Darth Vader, the architect of war, said plainly, "My daughter deserves the same rights as everybody else." It was personal, it was brave, it was human, and as a politician, he stood almost entirely alone. Nobody gives him credit for that.

And he -- he belonged to a different time. A Cold War man in a post modern world. A deep believer in the chain of command. In America's dominance. In doing what has to be done, even if the world didn't approve!

He died last night. He had five heart attacks in his life. I think it was 2012, he had a heart transplant, doctor said it would give him another decade of life.

13 years later. Dick Cheney's life offers both a chance to give medals and lessons. The virtue of strength and the peril of excess. And he should have learned from the first Gulf War. He was the iron for many years in America's spine. After decades of doubt. But he was also a reminder that iron rusts, if it is left unexamined.

We needed his resolve when the towers fell. And raps, in the years that follow, we needed more in his -- more of his restraint from 1991, in the years that followed that. But we didn't get that.

So he leaves behind a really complicated legacy. Which I think is appropriate today, as I try to talk to you today about, what does it mean to be a conservative?

On all fronts. What does it mean?

Dick Cheney was a conservative for a man of his time. But he lost one of the main principles, and that is conservatives believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. He's a patriot, yes. But he's also a warning to us. He helped America find its courage. But he also taught us how easily courage can drift into control.

And he left us some lessons that we should learn. The Patriot Act. That has given our government tools to spy on its own citizens. On Capitol Hill, nobody is talking about this. But this is the biggest scandal probably in American intelligence and American corruption of all time.

The Patriot Act made all of it possible. The government -- government-wide scandal of a president spying on its opponent party, including senators and congressmen. And donors. And average citizens.

That's still being revealed. Nobody is talking about it. But that came from the patriot ability. That came him the power to do it. The FISA court as we know in a completely other scandal. The FISA courts were lied to. The FBI physically changed documents to falsify testimony to secure wire taps that they said they needed, that we now know were unwarranted and illegal. What else should we learn today? We paid a heavy price for never-ending wars in blood, in treasure, and faith.

We failed to learn the right lessons from the Gulf War. Define the mission narrowly. Execute it efficiently. And then get the hell out of there, and come home!

Enhanced interrogation. That's Dick Cheney. We called torture "enhanced interrogation." And we still refuse as a people, to have this debate. We either torture or we do not. And it's the people that should make the decision.

No one in the world looks to a nation who says one thing, but then farms out the torture to another dictator or authoritarian someplace else.

They don't look at that and go, you know what. There's a great nation.

We should also learn the lesson.

I mean, think of what we just learned. Enhanced interrogation. It's torture.

You believe so change the name. You can't change the meaning of words. Okay?

Enhanced interrogation is still torture. No matter what you do to a man surgically.

He's still a man. You can't just say, oh, no. That's a woman. Changing the words, does not change reality.

And the heaviest lesson, we have not learned a bit from is gain of function. It may be illegal, but it is still happening. Because there are those in the government, on both sides of the aisle, that think it's important.

It is not.

It has killed hills. And it's changed our world.

In that crisis, we saw blue states give new dictatorial powers that still haven't been corrected.

So Dick Cheney, believe it or not, I actually liked Dick Cheney, but I've changed. The times have changed, and I would like to salute his service to a nation for what he did, and he actually believed he was doing the right thing. And he did do the right thing, in his day. But things have changed. And his passing marks not just the end of his life, but close of that age.

An age of secrecy and steel and certainty. Honor Dick Cheney's service today. But can we learn from the mistakes? And can we remember one thing?

The strength of a nation is not measured just by its power to strike. But its wisdom to stop!

Glenn Beck EXPOSES NYC’s socialist nightmare in the making

New York City is on the brink and Glenn Beck says the choice between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani isn’t about who’s good for the city, but who’s less destructive. Glenn and Stu Burguiere break down why Cuomo’s notorious corruption may actually look mild compared to Mamdani’s open socialism. From “communist grocery stores” to Obama’s fading influence, Beck exposes how the Democratic Party is spiraling into radicalism and why every Republican should be paying attention.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: There was one poll that kind of showed up and was somewhat positive for Cuomo, if you think Cuomo being mayor of a major city is a positive in any way.

GLENN: It doesn't matter.

STU: Honestly, I don't even know. I get why people think that Mamdani will be worse. He probably will be worse.

But I don't think it's a sure thing. I honestly, don't even think it's a sure thing. These people forget how bad Andrew Comey is.

I think there's this coping mechanism that's going on.

GLENN: Does he want communist grocery stores?

STU: He probably doesn't want -- at least, outwardly saying he wants communist grocery stores. I guess if that's your line as to how --

GLENN: Does he believe -- well, it's not my line.

Does he believe that the 34,000 cops or less.

That's the lowest it's ever been.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: 34,000 cops or less. Because he says, it's really not about a number.

Is it -- does Cuomo believe in fewer cops on the street?

STU: It doesn't matter. He's terrible on that issue. And has been terrible on that issue the entire time.

It's possible. It's possible. And this is the one thing you get from Cuomo.

This is the upside case if you're in New York, and you really want Cuomo to win.

He's so incredibly corrupt. Some of his corruption will align with good policy. That is the only thing you get out of Andrew Cuomo. He is no better than Mamdani on most of these issues. But, for example, will have a guy who is in some form of corruption, will be helping him out, that will also help out the business sector. Right?

There's things like that, that align with -- with something that you might say is helpful to New York City.

GLENN: But see, this is -- this is why Mamdani is winning. Mamdani is -- is winning right now, I believe because it's not about the Islamic thing, it's not about the -- you know, socialist thing.

That's probably half of his support.

Maybe -- maybe three-quarters. But that's not what pushes him over the top.

What pushes him over the top is the -- the other Democrat.

They're not going to vote for a Republican.

The other Democrat is just so horrible, and -- and so traditional corrupt, that they're tired of that. They're tired of the corrupt democratic politician.

They're tired of it. They're not tired of Democrats. They're tired of the cronyism and all of that.

And so here comes a fresh face, nobody really knows who he is.

I mean, it is the Obama thing. Where, you know, hope and change.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, they -- they said that Obama -- do we have that clip?

They were saying that -- that Obama is very much, you know, the new -- or, the old school Mamdani.

No!

No. He's really not. And Obama pledged his support from Mamdani. And I would think that Mamdani would be like, no. Thank you. No, thank you.

Not because they don't agree on things, but because I think that Mamdani's voters will look at Obama and say, "You had your turn, buddy. You believe in the same things, the communist grocery stores. You know, the no cops thing. You know, hate Israel. You believe all of those things. You believe -- but you didn't do any of them."

Now, Obama looks at it and says, "Yes, but I moved the ball forward. That's as far as I could go. Progress. You know, progressive. That's as far as I could go."

But he's not accepted by the real, you know, zealots.

The real changers of the universe.
He was too progressive.

Where now, it's time for the real -- the hard-liners to come in. And that's what I think Mamdani is.

And I think Barack Obama is viewed by the Mamdani supporters, the real Mamdani supporters, as a real sellout. Would you agree with that, or not?

STU: Some. I think that's true.

I think generally speaking, Democrats are not like that.

I think generally speaking, tells me like Obama.

GLENN: I'm not talking about Democrats.

STU: You're talking about Mamdani-type supporters. Like real Mamdani-ites. Yeah, those people do see.

They saw -- they saw the result of 2016 as a part result of not going far enough.

They were -- they complained about Joe Biden for not going far enough.

Of course, that's what they want. And that -- that's the big thing, Glenn. Really? The difference when you look at this election in New York, is if Mamdani gets elected. You go one of two ways. We've seen this happen before.

He could be the communist we know he is in his heart. Right?

He could do all of these things that he's promising. And really descry up the city to no end.

Probably the best-case scenario for him, is he gets in there. He gets thwarted at times, bit corrupt Democrats that are around him, that can stop him.

He does is not have unlimited power as the mayor.

At least not yet.

We saw this with Bill de Blasio. Bill de Blasio was just as dedicated and communist as Zohran Mamdani is.

And his rein as mayor was really bad. It did not destroy the country. It was really bad for the city. It was a really bad time for the city. And they paid a lot for the things that he did. And this is a guy who went on vacation to the Soviet Union.

Right? This is not a guy who was not deck dedicated to the cause.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Mamdani, my suspicion on Mamdani is he will go even farther than de Blasio did. Because he's, you know, young and aspirational. Right?

I think de Blasio had been knocked down for a while, and felt he had to moderate some of those views to get elected. It's not really what the case is here, with Mamdani. I would be very terrified of him, if I were in the city. I would probably begrudgingly be hoping that Cuomo won this.

Because you would at least have an idea of what you're getting.

GLENN: Yeah. The devil you know.

STU: He's going to be terrible. He will be incredibly corrupt.

He will probably commit two to three crimes a day.

That is probably -- possibly much better than what you'll get out of Mamdani. You know, and be whatever reason, this city has moved now to a place where they won't even consider a guy who will do a good job. That's not even part of their consideration.

They're not even looking at Curtis Sliwa, who would actually be fine as mayor. And do a good job for the city.

GLENN: No. I find it interesting.

How do you think Mamdani is going to internally take the suggestion that, hey. I would love to be part of your counsel. I would love to be a sounding board for you.

I mean, he might like it, outwardly. But I don't think that went with his real supporters and his real team that, you know, want the communist grocery stores and everything.

I can't imagine that went over well.

STU: Yeah. I think --

GLENN: Like, making fun of it kind of bad, internally, I think.

STU: Yeah. Behind the closed doors. Yes. I think there's two ways to look at it. And I think probably people in his inner orbit looked at it both ways. Which is, one, you believe this guy.

You know, he wasn't early with us.

GLENN: I know. He let us down as president. He didn't go far enough. This is pathetic. And now he's trying to get into our good graces.

I do think a smarter analysis of this however, on their side is if we can get them to embrace us. It moves us to the mainstream of the party.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: You know, it's funny. I think both Mamdani and the entire Republican Party are going to be rooting for Mamdani to be the face of the democratic party.

That's going to happen real soon. The Democrats don't want that. The Chuck Schumer of the world don't want that. But every Republican should be doing everything they can, to make sure that people understand the future of the democratic party is Mamdani.

GLENN: It's interesting to me that you would say, because I think you're right. That he would say, hey. This would mainstream us a little bit more. Make us look a little bit more acceptable for the party.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Although, I think -- I think Barack Obama's legacy is not as solid as it would have been. I think he's going to age like Bill Clinton aged. Where Bill Clinton was popular for a while. And then as we got farther and farther away from it, we're like, that guy was corrupt and really bad. He's really not good. I can't believe people still like him.

And not really in with the Democratic Party. And I think -- I think Barack Obama, because the Democratic Party is becoming so radical, I think he's going to even be worse. Because he's going to look like a total sellout. A guy who at least his wife believed it. And he said that he believed it. But he never really got down and did it.

And they will not accept the, hey, he moved the ball as far as he could. They won't accept that.

And I think they will look at him, at least internally, just like we would look at George W. Bush coming in, you know -- you know, in late 2024.

And saying, you know what, I would love to be an adviser for Donald Trump.

You would be like, I don't think.

I don't think.

And there might be some that would argue. Hey. Bring him in.

Just bring him in. Let's go ahead. It will help bring the rest of the party in.

And it will widen the tent. But don't listen to him.

For the love of Pete. Don't listen to him.

And the hard-core Trump supporters, I would have -- would be like, don't. Don't. Don't.

Don't bring him in.

And I just have that feeling, that that's what's coming.

But we'll see.

China, ICE, and the shutdown: Everything Trump's "60 Minutes" interview revealed

President Trump gave a master class on negotiation in his recent “60 Minutes” interview with Norah O’Donnell. Glenn and Stu review Trump’s best comments on China and Taiwan, ICE raids, and the government shutdown.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

VOICE: I know you have said that Xi Jinping wouldn't dare move militarily on Taiwan while you're in office. But what if he does?
Would you order US forces to defend Taiwan?

DONALD: You'll find out if it happens. And he understands the answer to that.
VOICE: Why not say it?
DONALD: This never even came up yesterday.

STU: Why not say it? I don't know. Tough question!

DONALD: He never brought it up, because he understands it, and he understands it very well.

VOICE: Do you mind when I ask, he understands, why not communicate that publicly to the rest of us? What does he understand?

DONALD: I can't give away my secrets. I don't want to be one of these guys that tells you exactly what is going to happen, if something happens. The other side knows, but I'm not somebody that tells you everything, because you're asking me a question. But they understand what's going to happen, and he has openly said it, and his people have openly said it. He said, we will never do anything, while President Trump is president. Because they know the consequences.

GLENN: And they do.

Now, what's her name? Norah McDonald?

Or that Norah O'Donnell. I can't remember.

STU: It's Norah O'Donnell.

GLENN: One is a comedian, and one claims to be a journalist. I don't know remember the difference. But, you know, here she is. Why won't you just say it? I don't know!

Strategery!

I mean, why wouldn't you just say it?

Presidents never say that. They never say that. Can you imagine?

What a stupid question that is.

And if you think -- go ahead.

STU: I was going to say, you know, I think Trump sometimes does say stuff like that. Right? Like he does -- for example, with North Korea. Right?

He was like, hey. We're going to blow you up. And the fires of hell are going to rain down upon you.

GLENN: Because North Korea is not China.

STU: Right. He's making decisions based on strategy with different countries. And there's different decisions to make with each nation.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And when you look at something like this.

What he's trying to, I think communicate is he has communicated to China that they will be involved.

But he does not want to escalate it publicly.

And honestly, all of that being said, I don't know what his actual answer is. My suspicion is, we won't be involved if that happens. Honestly, like I know we promised it. But my suspicion is, if China actually goes in there, there's a good chance, we are -- we come up a reason to not be involved in it.

GLENN: We can't. We can't.

We can't be involved in that.

We will be involved in covert ways.

My guess is, we blow up all those chip factories. That's my guess. And my guess is, we have given the ability to Taiwan to do that. Long ago. I don't know.

But that's what -- that's what I would do. Because we don't have -- we cannot -- we cannot support a supply line, that far away. We just tonight. We're not capable of it.

So we don't have the supply lines. We couldn't get things there, fast enough. And they're going to overwhelm with drones. That's what -- this is going to be the fastest war ever. If they go into Taiwan. It will be over, by the time we ever get a ship or an airplane there. It will be over. They will just overwhelm the island with swarms of drones, period. So here's what the president is actually doing.

He announced a deal on economic and trade relations with China.

So here's what he -- here's the Chinese actions. You ready?

Suspend new rare earth export controls. Issue general license for exports of rare earth. Listen to what he got: Take significant measures to end the flow of fentanyl to the US. Suspend all retaliatory tariffs since March 4th. Suspend all retaliatory nontariff measures since March 4th. Purchase at least 12 million metric tons of US soybeans, and we lowered our tariffs by ten points and extended the expiration of Section 301 tariff exclusions until November 2026. Do you see what we've got? See what we gave up?

Let me just say that again. Do you see what we got and what they gave up?

The president -- it's genius how he got us here. He didn't just engage with China directly. He embarked on a massive, massive campaign, securing the rare earth minerals in all of their allies. Multiple countries.

He built an -- an alternate system that cuts China out, entirely.

Then went after Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. All the three of their major allies.

This was the equivalent of the American president, putting his foot down on the neck of China and saying, you want up?

You want up?

And China blinked because at this point, they had no choice.

China is not used to being handled like this. And he just handled them.

This is a good win for America!

So when the president is has done negotiation. Why would he go on 60 Minutes?

And insult them even more.

Why would he go and say, what you know we'll do?

We'll vaporize Beijing. And I have on good authority, that's exactly what the president said. You know, you want to do that, and I'll make Beijing disappear.

And Xi laughed at first. And what? What?

The president didn't laugh and blink. And Xi left going, he might just do it!

That's how you negotiate. That's how get all of the rare earth minerals. That's how you get this giant concession with from China. The guy -- I have to tell you, I mean, we've known this forever. How long has everyone on the planet, you know, now, of course, the left won't say it. You know, the Democrats won't say it. But everybody has always said, I wish we just had a good negotiator on our side. Wouldn't it be nice if we had somebody that looked at the country like a business. And could just run it like a business. And knew how to negotiate?

We have the best negotiator, I think we've ever had.

I can't think of anybody who is better than that.

Here's what he said, yesterday on 60 Minutes on the ICE raids. Cut ten.

VOICE: More recently, Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood. And the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raise gone too far?

DONALD: No. I don't think they've gone far enough. Because we've been held back by the judges, by the liberal judges, that were put in by Biden and by Obama.

VOICE: You're okay with those tactics?

DONALD: Yeah, because you have to get those people out. You have to look at the people. Many of them are murderers. Many of them are people that were thrown out of their countries because they were criminal.

GLENN: What do you think of that, Stu?

STU: Again, he's not going to back down from that policy, not a surprise.

GLENN: Uh-uh.

STU: Criminals, you know -- it is such a popular issue to get rid of people who are violent criminals in this country.

That he's going to lock into that, no matter what the tactics look like. As long as they don't look cruel to people who are innocent.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Right? That's the type of stuff he would get beat up.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: These are people here illegally.

And it's not -- like, you know. He's beating a mom to -- these people are beating moms to death in the streets. Of course, it's going to be something different.

What we're seeing is, what? They're getting arrested on their way to work?

I don't think that's going to be controversial at all to the American people.

GLENN: Seventy percent of the American people agree with the ICE raids.

Seventy percent. No matter what the mainstream media makes it look. That's the latest poll. Have you read another poll? Stu, you're looking at me --

STU: I have seen more negative polling on the issue, generally.

It is -- I think --

GLENN: I just saw one yesterday or today, 70 percent.

STU: I'll have to --

GLENN: Is it in the show prep today?

STU: I did see that poll somewhere.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I wouldn't say -- his border policy is among his most popular policy. There have been some more negative reactions. Not on the right. But on the left. And the -- and the -- and independent voters, who are concerned about these tactics generally.

Now, of course, what they've received about this is basically, this is the gestapo. So you would understand, that their analysis of what they're hearing in the media, is that it's a negative.

I think though, when you look at these individual cases. People wind up realizing, okay. That's not what's actually going on.

You know, I do think that generally speaking, this is a positive issue from him.

Certainly, it's one of the issues that he cares about the most. And he's not going to back off of it. I think there's this idea that the media can try to corner him. And he will try to back down. When does this occur?

This is not -- the only time Trump has ever really backed down on anything is when, occasionally you'll get a situation where his base says no. We can remember cases of this, with the Second Amendment. He said something to the effect of, well, we'll go in there. We'll take the guns first, and then we'll have a trial. His base said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's not the way it should work.

And he backed off of that. That does sort of happen occasionally. And you'll see occasionally, when it comes to economic consequences.

This is the -- you could argue, that, you know, he backs off on some of those stuff, when he sees the market crash or some of that sort. Really, with stuff like this. There's no sign of him backing down. He believes the policy is correct.

He believes these people should leave. And I think, at this point, most people who are border hawks, if they have any complaint about what's going on at the border, it's more than at that it's not enough. It's not been widespread enough.

It has been a situation where it's been focused on. You know, we have a lot of attention on the Maryland father who went to El Salvador.

When I think the issue is larger than a few of these cases. So that is probably the only complaint you would have from people who agree with him.

GLENN: One minute, ten seconds, and we're back to the show. Sometimes, sleep feels like a puzzle, you just can't solve, no matter how hard you try. You lay there, replaying the day. Your mind on a never-ending loop. And all of a sudden, morning is here. Comes too fast. Z Factor is a sleep supplement, designed to help you turn off that noise. Not with harsh sedation, but with a gentle, purposeful push toward real rest. It was created by the same team behind Relief Factor. And people understand how the body and the brain need different kinds of support. And Z Factor helps you quiet the rumbling thoughts so you fall asleep more easily, stay asleep more often, and awake feeling less fragile and more like yourself again.

Imagine going to bed without chasing sleep. Waking without that heavy fog, and having your day run, you know, on just fumes. This is about rest, that resets you, night after night. So tomorrow, is not a compromise. Because you just couldn't sleep last night. Z Factor, rest like you mean it.

First-time Z Factor buyers are going to enjoy 46 percent savings. 19.95 for a 30-day supply. Visit ReliefFactor.com. Or call 800-4-Relief.
(music)
Ten seconds, back to the show.

So let me take on now what happened with the shutdown. Here's cut 11. Trump on 60 Minutes last night.

VOICE: And the shutdown.

DONALD: Well, what we're doing is we keep voting. The Republicans are voting almost unanimously to end it. And the Democrats keep voting against any -- you know, they've never had this.

This has happened like 18 times before. The Democrats always voted for an extension.

Always saying, give us an extension. We'll work it out. They've lost their way. They've become crazed lunatics. And all they have to do, nor a,is say, let's vote!

VOICE: Senate Democrats say, they will vote to reopen the government if Republicans agree to extend subsidies for over 20 million Americans who use Obamacare for their health insurance.

DONALD: Obamacare is terrible.

It's bad health care at far too high a price.

We should fix that! We should fix it. And we can fix it with the Democrats. All they have to do is let the country open, and we will fix it. We have to let the country open, and I will sit down with the Democrats, and we'll fix it. But they have to let the country -- and you know what they have to do? All they have to do is raise five hands. We don't need all of them.

GLENN: Notice, I mean, he is pissed about this.

He wants to fix this.

He wants -- I mean, he does not like Obamacare. But he also is probably -- leans more. See if you agree with this, Stu.

Leans more towards the Democrat kind of fixing of health care than where I would lean. I would lean, shut it all off. Shut it all off. Get all of the government regulation out of insurance and everything else.

Let all of this stuff just be a free market again. And I think you would fix a lot of this.

I don't think that's Donald Trump's point of view. Do you?

STU: No. I don't think so.

Again, we talked about how the border say real passion issue for him. I don't think the health care thing is.

I just don't think that's central to his -- you know, his belief structure long-term.

You saw what happened. He tried to -- he did try, I think, at the beginning to get rid of Obamacare. I think there was a legitimate effort made. It did not work.

DONALD: Yeah. I don't think the Republicans did.

STU: Certainly, many did. Many did. Obviously, it failed. John McCain, famously.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

STU: Although, that's a little bit blown out of proportion, as the moment where it failed. If it had actually failed before that, regardless, it was something that he promised voters that he would try to do. It didn't work. And I think he's moved on from those sorts of real solutions, that I wouldn't favor. That you would favor.

GLENN: Right. Let me play one more. Cut 12, please.

VOICE: Government shutdowns in the past. And you did it by -- members of Congress, into the White House.

DONALD: I'm not going to do it by extortion. I'm not going to do it by being extorted by the Democrats who have lost their way. There's something wrong with these people.

VOICE: So then what happens on November 5th, when the troops --

DONALD: Schumer is a basket case, and he has nothing to lose. He's become -- I just like Japan. He's become a kamikaze pilot.

VOICE: Sounds like it's not going to get solved the shutdown.

DONALD: It's going to get solved. Oh, it will get solved.

VOICE: How?

DONALD: We'll get it solved. Eventually, they will have to vote.

GLENN: How?

Because I'm on the completely reasonable side, and you seem completely unreasonable.

How? How is this ever going to stop?

Because you won't give the Democrats what they want.

She is so -- she's so mainstream old-fashioned media. Just sickening.