RADIOMay 04, 2022

WHAT'S NEXT: Could packing the Supreme Court END America?

Thanks to the recent leak of a drafted Roe v Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will ‘never be the same,’ Kelly Shackelford tells Glenn. ‘I just think it’s going to damage the court permanently,’ the President & CEO of First Liberty Institute explains. ‘We’ve crossed that Rubicon now.’ So, with a ‘damaged’ court, what comes next? Well the left already is pushing to pack the Supreme Court — something Shackelford says could be the END of America as we know it: ‘When [court packing] happens, that first time, you’re done. You’re tyranny.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty. How are you, sir?

KELLY: Great, Glenn. It's great to be you with you.

GLENN: First of all, is it illegal to leak this document?

KELLY: I'm not aware of any criminal violation.

GLENN: Okay.

KELLY: Obviously, it's -- it's a really, it's an attack upon the institution of the court. And I don't know if people understand. I mean, the court will never be the same.

I don't know what they're going to have to do now, but the ability of all the justices to have -- these are some of the brightest young attorneys in the country. They bring in new ones.

And the ability just with your own clerks. The opinions you're working on.

I mean, I just think it's going to damage the court permanently. And there's a reason why this has been never happened.

And it's -- we've crossed that Rubicon now. And the court will never be the same.

GLENN: I'm not sure it will change forever, if they put the hammer down on anything that was involved. Wouldn't that send a strong enough message to bring it back?

KELLY: I hope. I mean, number one, are they going to figure out, who it is? I think it's highly likely to be one of the 12 clerks, or the three liberal justices.

I mean, you know, what if, God forbid, it ended up being involved with the justice.

I mean, to me, I think that's impeachable. I just think that people don't understand the -- this is why sort of shooting a rocket, at the Supreme Court, is -- it is something that could -- that we might not return from, as far as the court being able to be what it is.

Which is the ability for justices. I don't know if people know this, Glenn. But what happens is, there's a majority a a dissent. And they voted, just a few days after the argument. They vote. And they start to write on the opinion. The majority writes there. And they share votes.

And people end up being convinced. This is the marketplace of ideas in a different way. It's very important. They want to know what the law is. What does the law really say?

Oh, my gosh. I didn't really think of that. And people switch.

And there's lots to that, that's happened. Where people go to a concurrence, or a consent, or a consent to the majority. And if you can't share the opinions and have that discussion, without people, you know, taking what's being written and taking it out in public, to try to use it as a political tool. I mean, you just destroyed the internal deliberation, going on, and the exchange of ideas.

It's a really horrible thing, what this person did.

GLENN: What about -- what about the idea that it might have been a conservative clerical, that thought maybe they're going to switch to the other side. This will lock them into position.

KELLY: It doesn't make sense on a lot of levels. I understand people think it's really, really cute. Because it locks them in.

Number one, the whole point is that conservatives don't do that. Conservative justices actually restrain themselves -- and no matter what I believe, I'm going to follow what works. What is the original meaning?

The whole philosophy of those people, is not just warp the court into what they want it to be. That's a liberal approach.

GLENN: Right. And that is clear in this -- in this ruling. I mean, that is mentioned several times. That we're not a political body. We can't acquiesce. We have no idea what this is going to do with the American people. But we can't care about that. We have to do what our job is.

And that is to interpret the law against the Constitution.

VOICE: And here's the thing about that, Glenn. Nobody talks about that.

This is a deal. Talk about populism. This is a massive return of power to the people. And away from a few oligarchs who control everything. In a darkroom in the Supreme Court. They weren't supposed to.

It's not the Constitution.

So this is a huge return of power, to people, at the United States. To make their decision, to decide what they think is right or wrong. And not have just a handful of people, tell them what morality is. So it's not talked about that way. But it really should be. This is what the Founders meant.

GLENN: It really is incredible. Because I saw signs last night. Power belongs to the people. And they were protesting. No. That's -- that's what this document says! Now, can -- can this go to -- we know it can now go back to states, as it should be. And they can vote and do whatever they want.

Does this -- can this also just go back to Congress, and have a federal law?

KELLY: They can. They can, if they can pass it. Because, again, the Constitution doesn't speak to it, and therefore it's up to the people. So they can pass a law. But they would -- they would have to do one of two things. They would have to -- you know, in the Senate, get 60 votes. In order to -- it's called filibuster. It's really cloture. They can either get 60 votes. Which they will not be able to do. Or they can destroy the filibuster. And that will be a permanent damaging of the Senate. I mean, the last time they didn't have a filibuster was before Thomas Edison. You know, invented the lightbulb.

So we're talking about. This would be -- change the Senate forever.

Because the reason the Senate is considered probably the most well-known deliberative body in the world. Is because you can't just pass it with raw political power. You have to get some consensus of the other side.

It takes that 60 votes. And it slows things down.

So you only have one party taking over, flipping the country, one major direction to the other. The Senate kind of stops that and makes there be some consensus.

If you take -- if you destroy the filibuster, we're going to see court packing. We're going to see Puerto Rico becoming a state. DC. I mean, we're not going to recognize our country.

I think I've mentioned this before, with your audience, even, Glenn. But if people don't understand -- once you do court packing once, your country is over.

So this is the kind of stuff that would happen, if they do get rid of the filibuster, as Bernie Sanders and others are advocating today. Because they know they'll have to do that, if they're going to push through a new law. A new Roe v. Wade by federal mandate.

GLENN: And is court packing just one justice? Or does there have to be several? I don't know who would go five to five.

KELLY: It's four. They already filed a bill to add four justices to the Supreme Court.

So it would add four. Which would then make the liberals have the majority. And they would just start doing whatever -- basically, like a super legislature. But the problem is within once you do it, the court is over. It's just a subsidiary of the majority party in power. And there's no rule of law anymore. And you don't have any rights anymore. You have whatever right the majority party wishes for you to keep, and that's why --

GLENN: And you never really go back.

KELLY: You don't. You look at -- and people wonder what happened to Venezuela. That's what happened.

Argentina. We can go through lots of countries. People don't understand. But when it happens, that first time, you're done. You're tyranny.

And really, a dictatorship is where you go. So it's something they tried in 1936, '37. FDR did. Because he did not like the fact that they were not getting his new deal through. But even his own party turned against him, before it was over.

And said, this is tyranny. We're not going to do this in this country, and it failed.

But it's very dangerous. And it's something they can only do. If they destroyed the filibuster, which would be what they had to do to pass a Roe v. Wade in federal statute.

GLENN: So that is the thing that, you know -- you know, I'm looking at here.

I'm not sure they released this to do anything, but to pour fuel on the fire, right now.

Why wait until summer? Power fuel on the fire right now. To get court packing done. And the end of a filibuster. I think it has more to do with that, than the judgment from the court. Would you agree?

I think it's both. Probably. They're hoping that they can intimidate one of the justices. This is the beginning of what I've been predicting for months. I think we were just together recently.

And I said, this is coming in June. When these decisions start coming down.

And I think they're going to go for court packing in a frenzy. I think this is going to be their new election approach. Because they obviously are not working well under the current polling, and et cetera.

And I think this is going to be their attempt. And we're seeing just a sort of release of that. In addition to, I hope they can intimidate one of the five justices, that supposedly are on this opinion.

It only says Alito, but, again, part of the leak was that four other justices, not the chief. But four of the other with them. So my hope, is that they can pick off a Kavanaugh, or a Barrett, who will lose their nerve. I don't think that will happen. I think this would entrench them even more. It will just destroy. Everybody would know that they changed their -- their principled opinion, because of pressure.

So I don't think that's going to happen. So I agree with you. Long-term, this is their strategy, and this is what they're going to do.

GLENN: Kelly, can you hang on for just a second?

I want to talk to you about the other cases that are coming up in June, and the impact that they will have.

We will do that in 60 seconds.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford is on the board of trustees of the United States Supreme Court historical society.

He's earned his law degree from Baylor University.

And he's also the president and CEO of First Liberty Institute.

If you are thinking about donating money to any cause, I can highly recommend First Liberty Institute. They can use your money, and they are winning and actually leaving permanent marks.

It's FirstLiberty.org. So, Kelly, we have been in front of the Supreme Court. We were talking. And you said to me, we're probably more free. By the end of the summer, we will be more free, religiously speaking, than we have been in our lifetime.

You also said, because of Roe vs. Wade, and the other opinions that you think are coming down the pike, that the left is going to lose their mind. What are the other cases?

Well, obviously you've got Dobbs. Which is the Roe v. wade, which we're now seeing the precursors too. And, by the way, the way this works, is the court issues all of its opinions by June, because the session will end. And they will mostly leave the country and speak and teach and stuff. Other places. So the opinions are out by the end of June. You would expect Dobbs to be issued that last week, probably.

GLENN: Hang on. Let me ask you a question. Why don't they just finish it now, and make it official?

KELLY: They might. They might. I don't know how far along they are. Because what we saw was an early draft. But if I'm the chief, I think I might move it along now. And say, we'll get this out quickly. So all this nonsense will stop. But it normally will be late. But in addition to Dobbs. You've got a Second Amendment case, which will be -- I think in favor of the Second Amendment. And against the New York restrictions. On guns.

GLENN: Which will do -- which will do what?

KELLY: It will just bolster the Second Amendment, and say that these types of restrictions are unconstitutional. Because there is a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And this violates that fundamental right. I think you're going to get that kind of -- I think we're going to -- we argue it's a major school choice decision in September. And, you know, it's expected, the way the argument thing. That we're going to win that case.

GLENN: Which would mean, what?

KELLY: Which means any time, there's any school choice program, anywhere in the country, you cannot exclude religious schools or religious choices from the parents.

And that will make clear, that school choice has to be fair. And that everywhere it's going on. And there's a lot of programs out there. The exclusion of the religious schools is over. And so at a -- that will cause a lot of religious schools to come into being, because now there will be resources, that the parents have to choose what they think is best for their kids.

So that will be a big decision. Because the Kennedy case, which we just argued a week ago, Monday. That's a huge case. And it looks like, it's going to be even bigger than expected. Depending upon how they write the opinion.

Again, this is a coach. She was fired for going to a knee after the game, to say a 20-second prayer, thanking God for the privilege to coach the young men, he coached. It's the first time the court has ever had a case, on the free exercise. Or religious freedom rights, of a teacher. A coach. Anyone. So there's never been a decision on this. So it will affect a lot of people that way. But what people didn't expect. During the oral argument within the court the bottom into a discussion about possibly ending the Lemon case. Which has been around for 50 years. And if people wonder why our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes, and menorahs, and veterans memorials with religious symbols. And Ten Commandments monuments, and all that.

It's not because the Founders said anything about that. It's because of this really bad case 50 years ago. And it's been the weapon of choice. For secularists now. For 50 years. To wipe our society clean of religion. And it's pretty clear that maybe a majority of the justices are about to say, that's over. And that's a sea change. If that happens as well.

GLENN: Jeez.

KELLY: So those are just a handful. And there's some others as well.

Finance. There's the border case that was argued this last week. So all this stuff is coming down, at the end of June. And my guess is, the Marxist left is not going to like these things.

GLENN: It is amazing to me, as -- as we are traveling down this road, where the country seems -- the government seems to be going in entirely the wrong direction.

And you're kind of losing hope.

That the Supreme Court now rides in, and is doing remarkable things, that, quite honestly, I think would find favor in the eyes of good. It's -- I mean, hopefully it buys us some time.

KELLY: Yeah. And, you know, what it's doing -- is these justices aren't themselves. Politicians. They don't go one way or another. But they're going back to the original meaning of the texts of the Constitution. Which takes us to our founding.

GLENN: Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute. You can find it and donate at FirstLiberty.org.

I highly recommend that. That's the thing about constitutional judges, it doesn't always cut your way. Because it's all about freedom, and rule of law.

The REAL Reason for Trump's "Unconditional Discharge" Sentence

Judge Juan Merchan has sentenced Donald Trump to "unconditional discharge" in his New York hush money trial. This means Trump will remain a felon, but receive no punishments. Glenn rips apart the joke of a sentencing that perfectly sums up the joke of a trial that this was. Trump never should have been charged with ONE felony count, Glenn argues, never mind 34! This sentencing is just another piece of evidence that New York's real goal wasn't to give Trump a fair trial, but to keep him from winning the presidency - a goal that utterly failed. So, should Trump continue to push back and appeal this verdict?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. The sentence has been handed down by the judge in the Donald Trump felony.

Remember, 34 felonies!

And he was given unconditional discharge. Not to be confused with premature discharge. This means the judge -- this is usually combinative for somebody who, you know, has broken a minor, minor law.

And that's when they -- you know, they're like, okay. Yes. You did cross the street. And jaywalk

But there's no punishment here. Just don't jaywalk again. So it's usually used for very light sentences.

As I read it, Stu.

Is that right?

STU: Yeah. That's what I've been reading as well. Typically, given for minor offenses, where the judge deems formal punishment unnecessary. However, the conviction is so recorded, and it may appear on your criminal record, depending on your jurisdiction. So they --

GLENN: So, in other words --

STU: They'll say he's a convicted felon. They can still say all those things.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. But he doesn't need to serve any time, because he's president of the United States, and he failed on our real goal, which is keep him out of the office of the presidency.

We don't want to get him into any more trouble. So we'll just say, okay.

Well, he's a felon. But it doesn't really matter that much.

It's unbelievable.

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe this judge has tried new Grudge-i-tol. Grudge-i-tol works fast within 24 hours. You'll feel like a whole new person.

Capable of eye rolls. Sassy comebacks, and even declining invitations you don't want to attend. Grudge-i-tol. Not for everyone. Side effects maybe include excessive passive-aggressiveness, overuse of the phrase "not my problem."

And a sudden urge to start every sentence with, well, let me start you right there.

Some patients reported being too good at holding grudges, and refusing to forgive minor transgressions, like spilling salsa on the carpet. Ask your therapist if Grudge-i-tol is right for you!

Remember, it's your boundaries. It's your rules. Grudge-i-tol. Maybe he had some of that.

STU: Maybe he did. Maybe he did.

It seems like he's been throwing those things back like crazy.

He did go through a long dissertation on the extraordinary powers, granted to the president of the United States when it comes to immunity.

And -- and so he's -- he was basically saying, I would have loved to have punished him with more. But there's not much more I can do. So this is what I'm going to do.

GLENN: Yeah. There's not much more legally I can do. Because really, the whole court case was a farce of legality.

STU: Well, that's the truth. That's the truth. That's not what he was saying though.

He was trying to make the opposite case. That we got him on 34 felonies. I can't do anything.

So this is all --

GLENN: I can't do anything. I can't do anything.

What a weasel.

This -- this -- how much did this trial cost the state of New York?

STU: Oh, my God.

GLENN: How much did they spend?

STU: Millions of dollars.

GLENN: Millions of dollars.

How much time did the state of New York, the officials spend. Instead of tracking down killers and everything else.

On running this case against Donald Trump. Which was -- which was a complete farce, from the beginning.

The statute of limitations didn't even apply.

Nobody has ever been tried for this!

Okay? The 34 felonies are just because they kept counting the same felony over and over again. Yeah. Well, he did that on Tuesday, too.

Well, he did it on Wednesday and Thursday.

STU: Even worse than that, Glenn.
It was each count of this. Each payment, right?

The payments are going to Michael Cohen. Essentially what they're saying is a crime.

Again, it's idiotic. But each --

GLENN: It's a monthly payment.

STU: Right. A monthly payment.

So really what we're talking about a monthly payment. There's one instance of this, if you really want to go into it.

They decided to expand it on 12 monthly payments. And on top of that, they said the payment. The -- the invoice was a separate crime.

For each payment. And then I think, the recording of it in the ledger was a third crime for each of these.

So it came to 34, because a couple of details on a couple of the months. The bottom line, that's how they came up with 34 felonies.

They just wanted that number to be high. And they wanted that number to be high enough, so that you in Pennsylvania. Or you in Nevada, would not vote for Donald Trump.

This, of course, backfired, enormously.

And, you know, you're left with unconditional discharge.

GLENN: Which is so funny.

Is so funny.

I mean, that's just -- it's the perfect ending for this. Perfect ending.

STU: It is!

GLENN: Except, it shouldn't be the ending.

Donald Trump should pursue this. And have his record wiped.

So he should pursue this. So he doesn't have 34 felonies.

I mean, I won't sit that with that on my record.

I want to expose the bums for what they did.

So I think he should pursue this. And maybe then, give the judge some of that discharge.

And see how that works out for him.

STU: I do think for the country though, the best-case scenario would be that none of this ever happened.

But now that it has happened. Now that they have convicted him. I know Trump was fighting the sentencing.

Didn't want it to occur.

Now that we all know that it was absolutely nothing.

I'm glad that it was over. It would be hanging over -- they would still be bringing it up. As soon as, they get out of office. They will sentence him. And who knows. Maybe they will sentence him to something more seriously.

This is over.

If he wants to challenge it. I think that's great.

I think if he just wants to get it expunged from the record.

I hate to say expunged when we're talking about.

GLENN: I've had to use that sponge. Those are the sponges, I have one on my sink right now.

STU: New Pfizer. Yeah.

GLENN: Expunged.
(laughter)

STU: I think there is a real argument for him to pursue this -- just for his legacy. And just because it's -- it was wrong from the beginning.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But at least there's not a possibility.

GLENN: You have to fix the country. Yeah. I mean, here's the thing. I was having dinner with some of my friends. And we were talking about the Epstein case. The January 6th case. Don't mention discharge here.

STU: No, I'm not. I promise I won't go there. But I just want to highlight, I was having dinner with some friends, we were talking about the Epstein case, is such a Glenn Beck thing to say.

GLENN: What?

STU: And then we went into how big is the room in your bunker that you're protecting yourself from the nuclear apocalypse.

And this is --

GLENN: No. We were talking about the January -- we were talking about the January 6th case. We were talking about the P. Diddy case. The Epstein case.

And -- and the question was: That I posed. Was are any of -- is the truth ever coming out on this know.

Is Donald Trump going to release this?

Because of the danger that I think anyone who is involved in exposing that. Is going to be in.

I mean, this is -- this is Jason born level stuff.

To where, you've got all of these names. Of the most powerful people on earth.

Epstein did not kill himself.

You have all the names of the most powerful people on earth, that can make things happen!

And you're going to put that case together? And then try it. Or put that case together.

And then try to find the journalists that are going to release all of this?

I mean, that's a dangerous job.

And I wondered, because it's going to affect both the Republicans and the Democrats, are we ever going to find out about these things?

And I think, what would make Donald Trump Abraham Lincoln, would be to take it on!

And release all of the raw facts of all of it.

And let the chips fall where they may.

That's the -- you have to lance a boil, if -- and that was a good phrase to use at dinner last night. You have to lance a boil, that is on our country. And that is, all of this infection of lies and deceit and corruption, we have to get that out of our system. And the only way to do it, is to just walk through that fire.

STU: He is -- he is Lincoln-esque, in that his political opponents keep trying to kill him. So we have that going on.

GLENN: Yes. Never in a play though.

STU: No. No. I don't think he's a big Broadway guy. For as New York friendly as Donald Trump is. Big Manhattan guy. Don't see him on Broadway a lot.

Do you think he will do this?

Look, it's something he promised. Right?

He ran, during the campaign. I would say, it was his most prominent promise.

But he has run on releasing all this stuff, and being that transparent president we were promised back in the days of Barack Obama and never received!

He wants to get all of this stuff out there. He says he has. He was going to. Now, I know he said that about Kennedy, in the first term. And then some stuff comes up.

So that's why I wonder, at this point, whether that sort of thing will be what we see here.

Because you're right!

There's a lot of people that he knows were involved in this. Not all his enemies, either.

GLENN: And I don't think it's -- see, that's the thing. I think if Donald Trump is really, truly wants to be the transformative president.

Part of transforming our nation is resetting it. Resetting it on truth!

And so you have to expose all of those lies. So it can't be. And I'm not sure Donald Trump is the one who will say, hey, I will protect you, because you're a friend of mine.

I think he's the type that would look at this as, how much trouble will this cost? Will it be worth it? Because that will just cause turmoil like crazy all over the world.

Will it be worth it, in the end?

I believe it is, because truth has to be restored.

And we have to know who the bad guys are. I mean, if -- if -- if this, you know, P. Diddy stuff is happening in Hollywood, we went after with the Me Too movement. We went after people, and, you know, we got Harvey Weinstein out. Now, why didn't we get P. Diddy out? Why didn't we get other people out?

Weinstein was just the one that everyone targeted. And they did get some. A couple.

But we haven't cleaned that out. Why were we willing to take on that?

Why were people brave enough to step up and say, this is what's going on with Weinstein because we were all disgusted by it.

But why won't they continue to do that?

And I think it's because I think there are too many very, very powerful people. Weinstein in the end, they made it seem like, he was really the only one.

And then there was a couple of others. But it wasn't widespread. But I think this stuff is widespread.

STU: Yeah. To be fair, to our justice system, a little bit.

Which takes a decent amount of beating. Deservedly so. You know, Jeffrey Epstein died in prison.

How you think he died or not. He died in prison.

P. Diddy is in prison.

Right? Some of this stuff is happening. We should be able to get some of these answers. We have -- we have received a lot of the answers on Epstein. This was covered widely by the media. As much as we bash the media. If they did actually uncover this, after the justice system failed us the first time. He went, quote, unquote, quote to prison. Where he would just basically hang out in a building that he was paying for.

That all went down. And we did eventually find out.

I just think, it takes a long time. Number one.

And number two, it never really feels like we get the full story. Like, I think we do know a lot about what Jeffrey Epstein did.

We know a lot of his quirks.

GLENN: We do.

STU: We have a lot of these accusations against P. Diddy. But we don't know all the people involved in the periphery. And that's what people want.

GLENN: Correct. They want to know -- look, if this was happening to the average person.

If this was just a ring of people who weren't famous or powerful, every single one of those. Their names would be known. Their pictures would be known.

And they would number jail.

And that's what America needs. And must have. On all of these cases.

We've got to fumigate and start from Catholic Church.

You've got to -- if you want to reset it. You cannot let the infection be anywhere in the body politic.

LA Mayor's Ties to VIOLENT RADICALS Exposed After California Fires

Many liberal Californians, including Hollywood elites, are turning on Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass after she stayed in Ghana instead of immediately heading home once wildfires destroyed the Palisades. But should the people of Los Angeles be surprised? Glenn reviews Mayor Bass’ radical history, as laid out in a short documentary by Errol Weber. She visited Cuba multiple times during the reign of Fidel Castro as part of the Venceremos Brigade, a Marxist training program that taught insurgency and guerilla warfare. She praised Castro, even when he died. And her government has defunded firefighters to fund NGOs. Once again, Glenn says, who you vote for matters.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to take you back to November 7th 1983. Ronald Reagan is in office.

Do you know the date, November 7th, 1983?

It a night that echoes in the halls of American history.

It is the date that a radical group, known as M19, bombed the north wing of the United States capital.

They bombed it. It went off.

You don't know that date, November 7th, 1983.

I mean, isn't that the day that democracy almost died?

It was worse than the -- worst than the Civil War. Oh, no.

Sorry, that was January 6th, which all of us know, January 6th.

Why not November 7th, 1983. Now, the group that did it, M19, claimed they were fighting imperialism.

What they were really fighting for, was the threat to the foundations of democracy. These were radicals. Now, why am I bringing this up today?

Because if you're going to understand today, and the future, you have to understand the past.

And one name is out right now, that people are talking about, that you need to understand, who this individual is.

This individual is currently the mayor of Los Angeles.

Her name is Karen Bass. Now, this is the same mayor that was over in Ghana. And when she got back with the fires, she was asked, you know, do you have any comment?

You were over in Ghana. Is this dereliction of duty? What were you doing?

Do you have any message to the people of Los Angeles? Listen to this exchange.

VOICE: Do you owe citizens an apology for being absent when their homes were burning? Do you regret cutting the fire department budget by millions of dollars, Madam Mayor?

Have you nothing to say today?

GLENN: She's standing in the airport.

VOICE: You have nothing to say to the citizens today?

Elon Musk says you're utterly incompetent. Are you considering your position?

Madam Mayor, have you absolutely nothing to say to the citizens today who are dealing with this disaster? No apology for them?

Do you think you should have been visiting Ghana when this was unfolding, back home?

GLENN: Now, he's standing, you know that part, you know, where it bends, to go right into the -- right into the airplane.

You know, right as you're going into the ramp.

And then bends into the airplane.

She's standing right at that bend.

She was actually looking through the window, the glass, at security because she gets special treatment.

She gets to not go through the airport. She can just go down those stairs, and a car will pick her up and whisk her away. So she's standing there, looking at security, like open the door.

When are you going to open the door? Finally, she just looks through and shakes her head. And gets instruction. Just go the other way. So she leaves.

Now, what does she -- what does she have to say?

Well, not a lot. Not a lot.

But let's understand who she is, and why she doesn't have a lot to say. Karen Bass built her career, as a community activist. Oh, there's a code word we now understand what it means. The activism is a polite term now for her history. She's an activist.

Well, okay. Her history is tied to radicalism. Marxism.

And a dangerous ideology, that bled from the fringes, into the mainstream here recently.

Let's start with the facts on her. Back in the 1970s, Karen Bass was not just a casual traveler to Cuba.

Were there any?

When she went to Cuba, many, many times, she was a devoted participate in what's called the Venceremos Brigade.

What is that? I've never heard of it.

Well, it's a Marxist training program, directly tied to Fidel Castro's regime. Between 1969 and today, this group has sent hundreds of young Americans to Cuba.

Not for a vacation. Not for cultural exchange. But for radicalization.

You don't join the Venceremos Brigade because you want to learn -- what's the emoji with the salsa dancer? That's not what that is about. It's not about good Cuban coffee.

You join because you're a confirmed Marxist Leninist. A Los Angeles police investigator testified before Congress about this group. He said, members were trained in guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and bomb making. These are not idealists. They're insurgents in training. Karen Bass, she was not just a participant. She was a leader.

She visited Cuba repeatedly, she said, every six months.

We can verify eight times. She praised Fidel Castro, the dictator of Cuba, who was imprisoning dissenters, left a legacy of poverty and fear.

In fact, this is not just her youth. She's still there. When Castro died, she was one of them who called his death a great loss to the people of Cuba. Really?

A loss to the same people who risked their lives fleeing his regime, trying to get out of Cuba?

This is Karen Bass. She's the Los Angeles mayor, one of the largest cities in the United States of America.

So let's fast forward to the president. 4 million people. A city on fire. Literally, and figuratively.

Wildfires, raging across the city. Firefighters begging for resources. Like water!

Mayor Bass had other priorities. Instead of supporting her own fire department, she cut their funding. Where is the money going?

To NGOs. Nongovernment institutions.

That will be understood. NGOs. Nongovernmental institutions or organizations. That will come to know.

That's code for leftist activists, most times.

And she gave the fire fighting money, to homeless NGO, who are fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants.

Oh. Now, they're packaging that as she gave money to fight homelessness.

Okay.

Well, homelessness is a crisis. But let's not kid ourselves.

Los Angeles has poured billions of dollars into solving this problem.

And it ends up in tent cities. Open air markets. Streets lined with garbage and human waste. Chaos spreading. And wait. What does she do? She defunds the people who are fighting fires.

That's not. You don't take money away from the firefighters in an area of the country, that's known for fire fighting.

They don't even have enough firefighters. Okay. First responders, the people that run into buildings, and instead, she's in a different building in a different hemisphere.

She's in Ghana, attending the swearing in ceremonies of the -- I guess the president of Ghana, who I don't know anything about. Stu, I asked to look it up, maybe give us an update here in a second.

So her city was burning. And Mayor Bass was thousands of miles away, rubbing elbows at a presidential inauguration in Ghana.

Is that leadership, or is that dereliction of duty?

I mean, you can go. But was she on taxpayer funds going into Ghana? Why was she there?

Anyway, let's go back to the radical history for a moment. Because it didn't end with the Venceremos Brigade. M-19, the same group that bombed the Capitol in 1983, had direct ties to Cuba and the brigade.

Remember, she's a leader, in this.

Now, Susan Rosenberg, she was one of the women that Travolta Cuba. And returned as a domestic terrorist. Shared the same ideological roots as Karen Bass.

And I'm not saying Karen Bass planted the bomb or anything.

But let's be clear. She was part of exactly the same radical network. She called Fidel Castro, charismatic. She praised the dictator who was brutalizing his people. She aligned herself with a movement that believed in revolutionary violence, including the bombing of the Capitol.

Now, she of some reformed. She hasn't come out and said, oh, my gosh, have I learned my lesson?

That was really bad. I was a stupid kid. No. No.

She's held on to those things. And, in fact, she was considered a front runner for vice president under Joe Biden.

Her record was so toxic, so troubling, that even the democratic party said, can we do that?

When your Marxist roots are too bad, too heavy, for the Democrats, the progressives in Washington, DC, today!

That says something. So here we are, 40 years, since the Capitol bombing. Something that people just don't remember, because, well, the media didn't make it into a big deal.

And the ideology that fueled that bombing is alive and well. And sitting in the mayors office in Los Angeles.

Karen Bass is just using new words. She's fighting for justice, or equity. She's fighting for the people. But what has her leadership actually brought?

Homeless encampments. Not housing.

Tent cities. Fires burning out of control.

Fire departments stretched to its limits. Millions are funneled to political pet projects.

And all the while the city is spiraling deeper and deeper into chaos.

November 7th, 1983. I want you to remember that date because the seeds of radicalism planted then are still bearing fruit today!

And Karen Bass? Well, she's not just a relic of that radical past.

Had he in many ways, is a torch bearer.

By the way, I got tipped off by this, by a short documentary, I saw. On Karen Bass, from Errol Webber.

Errol Webber is a very smart guy.

We did a great, great job on this.

We tried to contact him, to get him to tell this story on the air today. We didn't get a call back. He lives in Los Angeles.

And we hope and pray that we just missed each other, and it's not because he is in jeopardy or his family is in jeopardy, or his home and neighborhood is in jeopardy because of these same fires.

The BIGGEST LESSON From the California Wildfires

The California wildfires that have ripped through the Palisades and other parts of the Los Angeles area have been unbelievably devastating. Many have lost their homes, including famous celebrities. But was this tragedy avoidable? While Glenn doesn’t want to make this about politics, he says we must note that “California has been playing with fire, literally, for a long time.” The state has neglected its forests for decades thanks to bureaucracy, politics, and “eggheads” from the cities. Glenn also explains how the region’s water infrastructure has also been neglected, which has led to fire hydrants running dry. Finally, Glenn addresses what is likely the biggest lesson for California: “How you vote matters.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All righty. So -- so let's talk about what's happening in California. And my heart is truly heavy for those people, who have families in California. The people in California, that have lost their homes or are still faring that they might lose their home.

You know, this is a -- if you've never seen a forest fire, you can't really describe it.

It's almost like a tornado.

Unless you've been in a tornado, or seen the damage after his, you really don't know what you're talking about with the tornado.

It's unlike anything I've ever seen.

Same thing with a forest fire.

We had a small forest fire here, up in the -- up in the mountains, of Idaho last summer.

It was just about, oh, I don't know, 2 miles down the street for me.

Luckily, the winds weren't there.

But if the winds had kicked up, it probably would have burned my house down. I mean, it is -- you cannot describe a forest fire. It is -- when it's out of control, you have no chance. Just get out of there.

And my heartbreaks for people, who are going through this, right now. And breaks for the people of California.

I -- let me address that person right now, if you happen to be in California. Know that you're not alone.

You may feel like the flames have stolen everything from you.

But -- and, boy, I was thinking about this, well, this summer, when I came back from that forest fire. And thought, all of this could be gone.

The things that you have in your house, they are just things. But there are certain things. Memories, pictures. Things that you have collected over the years, with your family. That can't be replaced.

And I know what that must feel like.

But two things: One, you're alive. You have your family.

And help is on the way. My charity, Mercury One is along with the Red Cross and everybody else.

Is working tirelessly to bring relief and comfort and assistance to those who are affected right now.

We are -- we are doing what our government is asking us to do. We don't want to get in the way of forest. Or firefighters.

They have enough trouble.

But I -- I -- I want to talk to you first, with compassion. About why this keeps happening.

And what California needs to do about it.

This is not my state. This is their state. But if you're asking for our help, you know -- one of the hardest things I've ever had to do is -- I had a friend I went to church with.

And he called me. One time. And he said, Glenn, I really need -- I don't remember what it was. Say a thousand dollars.

Because I have to get home. Some family stuff.

And I -- I was about to say, yes.

But in my -- in my faith, we -- it's the largest welfare program, I think in the world.

And we take care of, you know, not just our own. But anybody who lives in the district of that particular church.

The bishop is responsible for them.

And we have to take care of our neighbors.

And so with that, it's very orderly.

You know, when you have a problem with or if there is a problem with is the neighbor or something. You go to the church. Hey, my neighbor. Who is not a member of the church. Is really in trouble.

Can you help? And they usually will. But with that, there are certain things you have to do.

You just don't get free money. You know, you have to change can't life.

You'll take classes on how to, you know, manage money. Or whatever the thing is. So I said, to this person, I was just about to say yes. And I said, hey, have you talked to the bishop yet?

And he said, no. No. I haven't.

Now, that's unusual, in my faith, if you have a big problem. Especially with money, you normally would go to the bishop.

And I said with be okay. Let me call you back. And I called the bishop.

And I said, hey. So-and-so just called me. And I can do this.

Is there anything I'm missing here.

And he said, Glenn, I'm so glad you called me.

He said, yes. This particular individual is struggling, and we've been helping for a while.

But he won't connect with the problem. And correct the problems.

And he said, he's doing this from time to time. He'll call people. And they'll just give him money. And that hurts it.

So I ask you to do the thing. This is probably the hardest thing you've ever done. I know you have the money to help. Please don't. Because it will help set him back, and not help him feel the full ramifications. So I had to call my friend back and say, I can't right now. And I felt awful. I felt absolutely awful about it.

But if we don't talk and face the problem, you're never going to solve it. Now, this, again is not my problem.

California, you're not my problem.

Okay? I mean, I want to help. And as a citizen of America, you're another citizen.

You're my neighbor. I want to help. I want to help people all over the world. But first, you have to help yourself.

You know, natural disasters, most times are out of our control.

The extent of the destruction, in California, you know, could be mitigated. If we made smarter choices about how, you know, Californians manage their land. And their resources.

Examine their votes. California has been playing with fire, literally for a long time.

Their forests are full of underbrush. Dead trees. Dry vegetation. Which is kindling for those flames.

The material builds up on the forest floor. It's a perfect condition. For fire -- if you're going to start a fire, go to California. Because that's a perfect condition.

I'm not saying that literally, by the way. But it doesn't have to be this way.

You know, you go to places like Sweden or Finland or Austria. Countries that have large, vulnerable forests.

They understand the importance of forest management.

Can they prioritize the clearing out of underbrush. And the clearing out of trees.

And because they're a little socialist in nature, they do it in a sustainable way. They partner with local industries, that will take that material, from the forest floor.

And they use it as bio mass energy for other products.

So it doesn't just reduce the fire risk.

It creates jobs. And a healthier ecosystem.

Here in America, some states do it right.

I mean, Florida has fires. But not like California.

Why?

Because they do controlled burns.

Forest thinning.

Routine practicing. You know what, honestly, God does this.

Lightning.

Before we would put forest fires out, or could.

Lightning would strike.

That would burn the forest down. And it replenishes the soil and everything else.

We don't want to do that. Because our houses are surrounded by trees and forest and everything else. So we either have to do a controlled burn, or we have to go in and take all of that stuff, that lightning would have taken out, to replenish everything.

But California's won't do that.

Why? The answer lies in bureaucracy. And priorities.

And -- and really, honestly, egghead.

You know, these people from the cities, that want to manage our forests have no idea, it's common sense.

The environmental regulations. The lawsuits that block or delay, any kind of forest management.

Ideology has gotten in the way of the practical. The lifesaving solutions.

And this has to change, California. It has to.

You see devastation every year. And, you know, honestly, I -- I really don't like insurance companies.

But insurance companies, what they do, it's -- honestly, it's legal gambling.

They are gambling, that you are going to pay them more money, than they have to pay out. As a collective.

Somebody's house might burn down. You might have something catastrophic. Cancer or something that costs a buttload of money. But they're betting, that all of the people in their community, they're sharing the risk.

And not everybody is going to get cancer at the same time.

That way, they can make money. It's legalized gambling.

Honestly, it is. Well, that's the way insurance works. And I don't like insurance companies.

Because many times, they're scamming people, or hurting people. However, let's not blame the insurance companies for getting out. If I'm a company and I have to make a bet, I'm pulling out of California. It's landslides. It's fires. It's floods. It's every year, whole swaths of the state are -- are -- are burning down to the ground!

What kind of bet is that? How do you keep a country -- now, what they'll say is they'll do what they did, when you couldn't get flood insurance, on the coastlines.

We used to say, well, then don't live there. Or if you live there, accept the risk yourself.

Okay.

Instead, we didn't think that was fair. So we came up with government funding.

If you couldn't get flood insurance. No longer was it, don't live in a flood zone!

Build your house somewhere else.

I don't know if you've seen the country, but there's lots of open space.

Don't build in a flood zone.

Instead, we wanted to help everybody, live their dreams. On now, we pay as a federal government, for insurance, for the coastlines.

Why? Okay.

The other issue is water. And let me tell you what the problem is in California.

Now, we know what the immediate problem is: They don't -- firefighters don't have water coming through the fire hydrants. Why is that?

GLENN: We all know that -- I mean, when we look for life on another planet. We look for water.

Because water is essential to life. At least the life we understand.

And that is a major issue, in California, and has been for -- forever.

However, California, take responsibility for the fires to some degree.

You haven't built a new major reservoir, since 1979.

That was four decades ago.

Now, I don't know if you know this. But 40 years ago, the population of your state. Was not the population that it was now.

So the reservoirs, that you had, 40 years ago, is way out of step, with your population, and your needs today!

Your water storage capacity is exactly the same as it was, almost half a century ago!

And on top of that, and this is something Trump has addressed recently. Billions with a B. Billions of gallons of rainwater, flow straight to the ocean every year. Because you haven't built the infrastructure, to capture and store the rainwater.

Now, imagine what could be different, if you had reservoir and aqueducts and desalination plants, to store and provide water for all of the dry seasons!

Water is life. California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure, while prioritizing projects that make no meaningful impact on people's lives. This is not a failure just of government. It is a failure of vision.

When the -- when the -- the -- when a leader is not around. When the people lack leadership, there is no vision. And without vision, people perish.

That's what's happening.

Now, on leadership, I'm sorry to make this about politics. But you have to learn the lesson. It has to be said.

How you vote matters. Look at Los Angeles. The progressive mayor cut the fire department's budget. To fund other programs, to give money and housing, they say for the homeless. But it's also a legal program since she gave it to NGOs.

Now, these NGOs, they're not fighting fires in the -- in comparison of the cost of lives, homes, and communities that have been lost in these fires. Those NGOs. There's no comparison, dollar for that are. You have to have leadership that prioritizes the safety and the well-being of the citizens, over their political jeopardize.

And that's not happening in Los Angeles. Okay?

It wasn't happening in Lahaina either. Same goes for the environmental policies. Progressive leaders block sensible forest management practices. Because they're more concerned about pleasing activists, than protecting lives. They're more concerned about the dead trees in the forest, than they are about the live animals who live in that forest!

It's not compassionate. It's dangerous.

Now, Mercury One, we help everybody. I don't care where you come from. I don't care who you voted for.

We are there to you. But we're also in North Carolina, and other areas, reeling from the hurricanes.

We're also still in Lahaina. And no one is talking about those guys. And they will be out of a home for years!

They're not the celebrity influencers who can afford to stay in a luxury hotel.

God and the universe for those in California, require us to do everything we can to help our neighbor.

But help ourselves, before we expect others.