RADIOJanuary 23, 2024

Is THIS why Amy Coney Barrett sided with BIDEN on the border?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration CAN cut Texas’ razor wire at the southern border. But why would Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett side with Biden on this issue? Senator Mike Lee joins Glenn to give his thoughts: Is this all a political game? Sen. Lee also reminds listeners that this SCOTUS decision doesn’t stop Texas from doing anything — it only allows the White House to thwart Gov. Abbott’s actions. “Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face going to say, ‘cut the wires?’” Sen. Lee asks. And how should Texas and Americans react if they had to decide between securing the border and defying the rule of law?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee.

Because I will lead and not follow.

I believe and not doubt. I will create, not destroy.

Because I'm a force for good. I'm a force for God.

I'm a leader. And we can defy the odds.

I need your help today.

In understanding the news, and where we go from here.

Because if it's -- if it's not this, it will be something, because we're facing constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.

And I am -- I am not sure how to react.

But I know there's a lot of people saying, this is out of line. We should ignore the Supreme Court.

But that makes us them. But what else are you going to do.

First, let's go over what the Supreme Court decided yesterday, Mike.

MIKE: Okay. So yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an order, not an opinion. Just a very brief order, undoing an order that was released by the US Court of Appeals, for the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th.

Now, remember, the Courts of Appeals are -- are numbered throughout the company.

The Fifth Circuit includes the state of Texas.

And the -- the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th. Had issued an order, enjoining the widen administration.

From taking down barriers, put in place, by the state of Texas.

The state of Texas wanted to make sure that -- that they restore some semblance of the rule of law in their state. So put up barriers along the border. Say, we don't want to do this. The Biden administration started taking actions indicating its plans to take down the concertina wire and the other barriers.

So Texas brought suit against the Department of Homeland Security.

And others in the Biden administration.

And said, we want an injunction, telling them, telling the Biden administration, that they may not take down these barriers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals, on December 19th, issued such an injunction.

And immediately, the Biden administration, went to the Supreme Court.

And filed an emergency application, to vacate that injunction.

In other words, to undo it.

And they offered a portion of the order from yesterday.

Is just found in a sentence.

It's inclusive of a total of four sentences.

But this one is the operative language.
The December 19th, 2023, order of appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated. That's it!

And there's a separate line that says, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would have denied the application to vacate the junction.

So with that, the Supreme Court of the United States undid this.

What this tells this. It was chief justice Roberts, along with Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson, who was in the majority on this.

And that's all we know about their rationale. All we know about what happened.

So all of a sudden, Texas, having won this litigation.

The previous round of litigation in the Court of Appeals.

Is back to square one. Being told, you lose.

And yet, we don't have the analysis as to why, and what this means.

And everything is in a state of disorder.

GLENN: So, first of all, can you explain Barrett's joining the other side.

I mean, any guess to what she was thinking.

MIKE: Yeah. So all I can do is guess. All I can do is offer conjecture. Because there's no analysis.

If I were to guess.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Before you go on. Is that up usual. That there was no analysis?

MIKE: It's not unusual. Given the procedural posture in which they find themselves.

In other words, this side of the court's docket. The emergency application court's docket. Is itself something that the justices have to do. As they're doing their other ordinary business. If they're writing opinions in other cases. And they -- they -- because the nature of it. It's a yes or no, up or down thing, most of the time.

So that part is not surprising.

But it's surprising, given the nature of this dispute. And the complexity, and urgency of this. That we would have this.

It's at least difficult to figure out what to do.

So if I had to guess, as to what her analysis might have been. And that of Chief Justice Roberts, it would be that they reached some kind of conclusion. That, you know, we don't want the courts to be weaponized.

We don't want to be perceived certainly as justices as playing only on the team of the political party of the presence who appointed us. And therefore, I, we, speaking, you know, either as justice -- either as chief justice Roberts, or justice Barrett, or both of them.

We're going to decide to side with the Democrats on this one. So that we don't overpoliticize this. But I really find that difficult. To grasp. That they would do it in that circumstance.

And yet, I don't see a good reason. I don't see an explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

It goes much beyond that.

Because I don't understand why it's a bad thing, to have the state of Texas, trying to protect the people of Texas from these swarms of people, who are pouring from across their borders.

Without documentation.

And destroying property along the way. Converting property. As if it were their own.

And destroying it, as they -- as they cross in illegally.

I don't understand what the compelling need is.

Or what principle of law would be violated, by the state of Texas.

Trying to protect the people of Texas.

GLENN: Let me ask you something, the Constitution says that it is the -- the federal government's job to protect the borders.

But they're not doing their job, obviously.

In fact, they're enabling those people trying to come in. And they are enabling drug cartels. Drugs coming over. Killing our citizens.

Criminals coming over. We know terrorists have come over now.

They're enabling those who rape and sell into sex slavery.

I mean, it's -- it's bad stuff. It's not even close.

And what the justices are saying is, Texas, you don't have the right to protect your own borders. That's our job.

Let me -- let me ask you: If a military came over. Let's say these 10 million people all had military uniforms.

But, you know, only a few of them had guns.

Examine it was clear this was an invasion by an army.

And the federal government decided to say, eh. No. They can keep crossing in.

Would they have the right, to say to Texas, or anybody else, you don't have the right to have a militia, or, you know, call up your National Guard. And push these people back?

Is the Constitution a suicide pact?

MIKE: Certainly not. And specifically, in that kind of circumstance, it wouldn't be. There are two separate provisions of the Constitution, to tell us this.

One is found in article four, section four.

Which says, that the United States shall guarantee every state or Republican form of government

And on application of a state, typically the legislature.

Shall protect each of them from invasion.

So that's an affirmative obligation by the United States.

To protect each state from invasion.

Now, if there's also a -- something that defends in the Constitution. Separate right of the state. To stand up for itself. Upon being invaded.

And that's found in article one, section ten. Clause three.

Once in the provision, that tells the states, a bunch of stuff, that they can't do on their own, without the consent of Congress.

But then contains a carve-out for circumstances in which a state is actually invaded.

GLENN: Yeah. But the only the difference in one scenario -- the only -- the only difference is, in these two scenarios, is 10 million people are coming over.

Not in uniform.

But that's it. I mean, it's an invasion.

MIKE: Right. That's right. And it's no less of an invasion simply because they're not organized formerly, as a military or we don't think of them. They were not a military.

But it's an invasion, nonetheless.

Throughout history, there have been instances of invasions of many countries, around the world. Some are armed, organized invasions. Others are not.

But it's an invasion nonetheless. They are being invaded by people who don't belong there.

And people who have threatened to subvert the order of things.

And the rule of law. As they enter. So the fact that there is an invasion, and the fact that the state of Texas feels the need to protect its own citizens from this. Puts Texas, in my view, in a very solid position.

Now, I assume, that for the four justices who dissented, that is, for Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, that was their rationale. We are all still grasping to understand what the rationale of the majority is.

Other than as you say, immigration is the thing, that is done by the federal government. And it's not done by the state of Texas.

Therefore, case closed. But that doesn't answer the question. That doesn't answer the article one, section ten. Or the article four, section four question, that we just discussed. And as a practical matter, it leaves the state of Texas, in an untenable position.

GLENN: Okay. So now, Mike, I -- I -- we have to have a serious adult conversation.

And we have to start modeling these conversations, and having these conversations.

And have them as rationale, reasonable citizens of a republic. And as adults.

And if you as a listener can't handle that, then you should go away. Because I think some questions need to be asked. And if not now, very soon on whatever the next topic might be.

You know, Mike, there was a guy named Martin Luther King. I know you know.

And he -- he taught people how to resist peacefully.

And nobody is teaching that. Nobody is pushing for that. Pastors are all out to lunch.

But there are people now, who are saying, we need to go. In fact, could you read Tucker Carlson's tweet? From yesterday.

STU: I don't have that handy, but --

GLENN: Look for it. Basically, he says, where are the men of Texas, standing up.

Well, the men of Texas standing up, I don't know exactly what that means, Tucker.

Because many of us are standing up, and we're speaking out.

At what point do people, are people justified at all to say, yeah. It makes me kind of like them. But we have to stop this.

So, in other words, defying the Supreme Court, and just doing it anyway.

I don't like that.

MIKE: No. But look, the rule of law is important to us.

It's the whole reason why Texas is trying to take this action to begin with. Is to preserve the rule of law.

And for that reason, everything possible needs to be done to comply with the rule of law. And if it means going along with a court order, that one doesn't like, and finding other ways to be persuasive to get something done.

But keep in mind something, Glenn. The Supreme Court's order from yesterday, does not order the state of Texas to do anything.

As I read it. All it says, is that they vacate, the fifth circuit's order, from the 19th of December.

Which had itself, enjoined, the Biden administration from taking down the barricades.

So there's nothing affirmatively that the state of Texas has to do in order to comply with this order from the Supreme Court.

It just lifts the legal impediment from the Biden administration.

That previously told them, don't take down the barricades.

GLENN: Right.

MIKE: So one interesting question is, what exactly will the Biden administration do now?

Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face. Are they going to say, yes. Cut the wires. Remove all the concertina wire and do all that?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

MIKE: Glenn, remember something. We have seen in the last month, more people pouring across our border, unlawfully.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: Than has ever been observed.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: In our nearly two and a half centuries of existence as a nation.

And our Border Patrol agents, and everybody else, who works with them, on this. They're all overwhelmed.

I've been down at the border. Just in the last few weeks alone.

I've lived down at the border. For two years.

I know this area well.

Are they really going to say, this is where we want our efforts focused to be going New Testament, removing barricades. Whose sole purpose is to protect people in the state of Texas. And, frankly, even people who are being human traffic along the border.

Are they really going to say, that's where they are. Bring up the wire cutters. Stop everything else. Stop everything that you're doing.

GLENN: They've already done that, Mike. They've already done that. They were cutting the wires in Texas.

What makes you think they won't do that.

MIKE: They were cutting them. They had to stop for three weeks. In the meantime, Texas put down a whole lot more wire.

And they've got more wire now.

I mean, this really would be a massive undertaking.

And if after -- after the month of December, 2023. Just last month. Are they really going to go back in, and undertake that huge effort again?

If so, this raises all kinds of other questions.

And if so, I think this could end up being the very best thing that a single greatest momentum of producing exercise for the Donald Trump campaign.

Because this is a president of the United States, who loves lawlessness, if this is true the way he wants to do it. And we have to make that point loud and clear.

Caught on Camera: Tesla Vandals Exposed as Hypocritical Activists

Teslas are being vandalized all over the country by leftist “activists” who, Glenn points out, aren’t that smart. Not only do they fail to realize that they’re committing the “hate crimes” they claim to despise, but they’re vandalizing cars that have cameras all over them! Glenn and Stu review the tape of one vandal who completely changed his tune when the car’s owner confronted him. Then, Stu crunches the numbers: Are leftists who burn Cybertrucks doing more damage to the environment than people who drive gas-powered vehicles?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to play a couple of things. First of all, I want to -- Stu, if untilled. We will describe this video here.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: This is a vandal, working some arc on a Tesla. Go ahead. Play this.

There he is. Describing. He's getting out of the car.

STU: He's hiding. Which is always --

GLENN: He's hiding. Now -- he --

STU: Again, these people don't realize that Tesla have cameras. Every angle.

GLENN: Just so stupid.

Okay. So he's hiding in that. Now, he was caught on camera. And so the person that -- who had the Tesla. It was -- his car was keyed. He confronted him in the parking lot. This is satisfying.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Tree service. Free service. (?) how about you pay for the repairs.

Write a check. You bought a Tesla. (?)

VOICE: No. It is a hate crime, sir. Did you write a swastika on there?

VOICE: I'm sorry you're upset. It didn't even work.

VOICE: Did you write a swastika?

VOICE: It's a key, sir. We see it on the video.

VOICE: It's not a keep I was putting my keys in the --

VOICE: Is there a key (?)

VOICE: Yes. Is it a swastika. It's at the police right now. It's being fingerprinted.

VOICE: What do you mean, (?) thankfully, Facebook tracked you down. So your business, your freaking livelihood, everything now. Because you chose to write -- tell Facebook that you're sorry for writing a swastika eye Tesla. (?)

VOICE: I said, I'm sorry.

VOICE: For what? For what?

VOICE: I apologize. I have nothing against the car. And I have nothing against I.

VOICE: So why did you put a swastika against a Tesla?

VOICE: Obviously that's.

VOICE: Because (?) it was bought and paid for. It was bought and paid for a long time ago.

VOICE: That's why it's misguided. And obviously I did not intend to.

GLENN: Total change. What do you mean it's at the police? They're finger printing it? (?), boy, was that, oh. Wow. I feel completely different.

STU: Yeah. His explanation at the end there, say good one.

For like a mean tweet.

Right?

Like, you know, you're right.

I shouldn't. I got carried away.

And I'm upset.

I shouldn't have done that.

You're keying a car. I mean, he says he wasn't keying it.

A lot of people have crayons on their (?)

GLENN: Come out of car. Holding it like a key.

STU: Yeah.

Are Illegals Getting "Maximum" Social Security Benefits?

Elon Musk and Valor Equity Partners CEO Antonio Gracias recently announced a shocking discovery made by DOGE: over 4.8 million “noncitizens” have been given Social Security numbers since President Biden entered office. Even more shocking was the discovery that “the defaults in the system, from Social Security to all of the benefit programs, have been set to max inclusion, max pay for these people — and minimum collection,” according to Gracias. And some of these noncitizens even registered to vote! So, how many were legal immigrants on work visas, and how many were illegal immigrants? Musk and Gracias noted that under Biden, applying for asylum became much easier and there was “no interview” required to obtain these Social Security numbers. Glenn and Stu discuss the story …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Let me get into the SSI thing.

Social Security insurance.

So Elon Musk and a friend of his, they were out in Wisconsin. Doing a -- doing a rally or a town hall.

And they were talking about how -- how they -- what they found on Social Security, is just horrible.

The government was giving away Social Security numbers. And it wasn't haphazard. It was planned. People were coming across the border.

And they were handing them a Social Security number.

And it was clear, I don't remember the numbers. But it's a very high number.

We are paying people who came here illegally. We're giving them Social Security.

When our -- when our old people can't afford to eat, we're just giving this away, to people who are here illegally.

That's crazy!

Crazy! So, you know, we don't survive as a nation. Without some accountability.

And without some common ground. And I don't know -- again, when did it become okay, to cheer or jeer. For somebody who is stopping corruption in our government.

When did it become okay? I mean, how did we get here? How did we get to the point to where people actually cheer the idea of our government, secretly, and denying it, if you ask them.

Giving them taxpayer funded benefits like Social Security, to millions of people, who are here illegally. And most people don't even blink now.

How did we forget? Forget politics.

Forget red team, blue team. Just let me say this. Let me ask your friend. Ask yourself this question.

If the people who you trusted the least were doing this, would you be okay with it?

That's to my son. Would you be okay with it? I would be fine, if you had an Elon Musk in there, doing this.

Would be totally fine, and exposing all of this.

Yep. It's not a gotcha. It's a principle. It's critical thinking. Would you be okay?

You know, critical thinking really needs to make a comeback. Because when we stop thinking critically. We start defending nonsense. Because our side is doing it.

And we lies something bigger than an argument. We lose trust. We lose connection. We lose the ability to have any kind of honest conversations with the people that we love.

So how do you talk to your friends and family, who just don't seem to see, what we see?

Well, it doesn't start with confrontation. It starts with curiosity. Which brings us to questions you can ask.

You ask them, can we just look at them, as if we didn't know who was in office?

Because then we can find our principles.

Would you still feel like this was okay?

What's the limiting principle here?

If this is allowed, for the government to deny that they're doing this, but give all of this money. All of these benefits to people who are here illegally, while denying they're doing it. And it's not within the bounds of the law!

If we can just do this now, is there any limiting principle? What can't we do?

What happens to a country when the law no longer means what it says? Don't accuse. I -- we just need to start inviting people to answer these questions. Show respect for their mommy. Because deep down, most people don't want to be hypocrites.

They don't.

And that's the conflict they're having in their head right now.

Okay. They want to be consistent.

They want to be fair. But sometimes they need a little help connecting the dots. What they'll say is, well, Trump did. Stop them right there. It's not about Trump. It's about policies and principles right now. Can we judge this on its own merits. The dishonest ones will end the conversation there, and they will want to just go back to the outrage machine. But you stay in reality, because we can't see our neighbors as enemies, just because they see the world differently.

But the first step to helping each other is ask honest questions.

Have the courage to listen to their answer. Not be thinking. Oh, good. They said that. Just listen. Even when it makes you really uncomfortable.

Because we have to find our way back to actual truth. We have to find our way back to logic. Because it's not political.

It's just about right and wrong.

And if we can't do this, then the fight isn't about left versus right anymore.

It honestly isn't even about good and evil.

It's about sane versus the insane.

Gaza Turns on Hamas, But Will it Last?

Anti-Hamas protests have sprung up in Gaza after the ceasefire with Israel ended. Is this a sign that Hamas’ days are numbered, with both Israel and the people of Gaza standing against them? Glenn speaks with “Israel and Civilization” author Josh Hammer, who explains why “we still have a way to go to get to a Hamas-free Gaza.” Plus, he explains how this connects to the debate over Trump’s decision to deport Hamas-supporting Green Card holders, like former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil and another student at Tufts University.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Josh Hammer from Newsweek. Senior editor-at-large. Host of America on Trial.

And the author of Israel and Civilization.

Kind of a small topic on that one, Josh.

How are you?

JOSH: Glenn, my friend, I'm doing great.

How are you, sir?

GLENN: Good. First of all -- tell me about the Gaza protests.

I mean, what kind of guts does it take to do that?

JOSH: Well, it takes tremendous guts. And it's tragic that I can some of the individuals, that we've seen thus far. Who have risen up against Hamas.

Have been thrown into prison already.

Or at least -- potentially one or two have been killed by Hamas.

I mean, this is not the -- unfortunately, Glenn. You're dealing with a totalitarian death cult.

That is trying to take Gaza back to the seventh century. And have

And, frankly, take whatever territory they can. And back to that time period as well. It takes tremendous guts.

Unfortunately, we still have a ways to go.

The West, that is, still has a way to go. To get to a Hamas-free Gaza. But ultimately, a Gaza that is totally rid of the Hamas jackboot, is the only kind of Gaza that can play any role for anyone! Jew, Arab, Christian, anyone there.

So Hamas will have to go. It will be a little bit of --

GLENN: Have you ever seen this before?

Because I don't remember this ever happening.

KEVIN: Honestly, I would really have to think. I mean, like nothing comes immediately to mind. Right?

I mean, they had their Civil War back in 2007. So Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Unilateral withdraws. One of the most tragic short-sighted decisions in retrospect in all of Israel's history. And then two years later, there's this bloody Civil War on the streets of Gaza between Hamas and Fatah. That's the purportedly more moderate group, led by (inaudible), if not particularly more moderate there. In fact, then around that time, during the Palestinian Arab Civil War in Gaza, you had anti-Hamas demonstrations. But for the most part since then, Glenn, and we're dealing with roughly 18 years at this point.

They have ruled with such an iron fist and a totalitarian jackboot, that demonstrations like this are certainly few and far between.

GLENN: Tell me about Tufts.

JOSH: Look, you're dealing here with people that have to go.

I mean, whether it's a situation. Whether it's this kidney doctor at Brown University. Whether it's Mahmoud Khalil. Whether it's this researcher -- I saw headline's out of New Haven, Connecticut.

I'm actually flying to New Haven tomorrow and giving talks at Yale University. I saw Yale Law School, is now cutting ties with a senior researcher there.

I prefer her questionable ties to a terrorist organization.

I mean, first of all, Glenn. What does it say, about our upper echelons of American education?

Tools like Yale, Columbia, Tufts, which is no academic slouch in its own right.

I mean, what does it say, that we're dealing with the level of miscreants and jihad connected actors on these campuses, that we're even having these conversations.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. I've been following Yale for years.

Yale had this going right after 9/11.

They were bringing people in that were jihadists.

STU: Incredible.

JOSH: They certainly were! And I think back to those first days as well in Harvard. After October 7th there, when there was thirty-two, 33 Harvard student groups. Whatever the exact number was, that came out in unison, to blame Israel for their own Nazi-esque pogrom that was inflicted against them there.

I mean, Glenn, sometimes I actually pause, and I'm not even making this up. I actually ask myself: If 9/11, God forbid were to happen today, would the faculty lounge at Harvard, Yale, and the schools like that, actually cheer for the United States, or take the other side?

I think it's an entirely fair question to ask. I genuinely don't know the answer.

Ultimately, these deportations proceedings, whether it's Mahmoud Khalil, whether it's the Turkish student at Tufts University, the kidney doctor at Brown. The law in this is pretty straightforward: If you're not a United States citizen, if you're anything from a short-term travel visa, all the way up to an LPR.

I.e. a green card. If you are anywhere on that spectrum. If you're an alien, you don't have the permanent right to be here.

You are simply here at the discretion of we, the people.

And as Justice Robert Jackson, who was actually the dissenter in the Japanese internment case of Korematsu. They called him the great dissenter because of that.

Even he said, in a separate 1953 case, called Shaughnessy at the Supreme Court.

He said that due process does not entail any alien with the right to remain here in the United States, against the national will. So the law is actually pretty straightforward.

What we're seeing here are the paracisms of this sprawling anti-Trump judicial insurrection. But over the course of time, these folks are going to get deported. I feel pretty confident.

GLENN: So I am very worried about.

For the first time, now. I think it's 47 percent of the American people are now backing Israel.

That's not good!

Especially when you look at -- I mean, your book talks about it.

Israel and civilization.

Israel goes down, those who don't support Israel.

It will not go well for you. Israel is fundamental to the west!

JOSH: And the book, Glenn. Israel and civilization.

Which you have such a beautiful blush for. And truly can -- thank you so much for that. The word Israel in the title is of something a double entendre.

Where it refers to the state of Israel. But also, to the children of Israel. The Jewish people.

As people understood, all throughout history.

You come for the Saturday people first, as a near steppingstone to get to the Sunday people.

So Karl Marx is actually a great example here. Karl Marx, one of the 19 century's most infamous self-hating Jews himself.

Has this infamously anti-Semitic treaty. It's called Omni-Jewish Question, which he publishes a few years prior to the Communist manifesto.

He's not mincing words about his dripping disdain for Judaism, the actual religion. But what was Karl Marx's actual goal? His ambition.

And thank God, thus far, an unsuccessful goal, has been nothing less than the overthrowing of Western capitalism and Western Christendom. These civilizations that Christians have built, off of the Judaic Jewish Foundations there. So Hamas and their charter from the late 1980s, the anti-Semites are very clear.

Again, you come for the original people in the book. And then eventually, you will come to -- to quote, the many years ago, referred to as the great Gentile offshoot of the original -- Moses, the children of Israel there.

And then looking at the geopolitical chessboard, the capitalist state of Israel is just the geopolitical version of this exact argument. They come for the state of Israel.

Whether that's the economic forum or the World Health Organization. The nine nations. The globalists, the transnational folks there.

They come for Israel because, again, Israel represents a shining beacon of the geo-Christian Western civilization. But another interesting point that I argue in the book, Glenn. They also come after Israel is because they are globalist. They hate the nation state. They hate nationalism. Isreal is actually the world's first real nation state, I argue. Going back to Biblical times.

When they unite the tribes of Israel in Jerusalem, that's the predecessor in antiquity to the modern post-1648 West nation state. So their diabolical credit, they're actually being kind of logically consistent here.

If your goal, à la George Soros, Open Society Foundation. Klaus Schwab is to eradicate all borders. I call it the geopolitical version of the John Lenin song Imagine, the worst song of all time. This notion that we're trying to eradicate all the things that makes us human.

It actually makes a lot of sense, that you would start with the oldest nation, that is the nation of Israel. So for all these reasons, and then more, Glenn, people who care about the West. Who care about the nation state.

Jews, Christians. All those who care about our joint shared intelligence.

You have to care about this stuff.

STU: Well, I mean, it's because of Israel, that we have in the Old Testament. That we have a personal one on one relationship with a God, that is personal to us.

Listens to us. Speaks to us, as individuals.

It's the beginning of the power of the actual individual, and the power against totalitarianism.

And kings, that are dictators. I mean, that's the source of all freedom. It starts there, in the Old Testament.

JOSH: It does. I mean, I argue in the book, Israel and civilization. That today what we call Western Civilization, actually begins with God's revelation to Mt. Sinai. The day that he brought his revealed word to a people there. And that so much that we take for granted today is directly downstream of that.

You know, Glenn, I have a very interesting example that I like to talk about.

Sometimes, in the past. Does and it's all horrible

But one thing we've heard from the left, Glenn. Over and over again.

They love to say. Nobody is above the law.

I agree with that.

I totally agree with that. Even more important, I have to ask our friends on the left. Do you guys know where that principle comes from?

The notion that no one is above the law. The king is not above the law.

That literally is from the book of Deuteronomy.

I sometimes wonder, if they actually understood that. If they understood the Biblical origins of everything today, just much more depressed they would be there.

The point of this book, Glenn. To call on Jews and Christians. To remember where we came from.

And to engage in nothing less ambitious than a joint and Biblical restoration project.

Because without that inheritance and without understanding that and doubling down on that, I genuinely do fear that we will not be able to turn back the tide against these very real hegemonic forces.

Wokism. Islamism. And what I call global and neoliberalism today.

GLENN: We're talking to Josh Hammer. He's from Newsweek, the editor at large. Also, his book is Israel and Civilization.

You know, I'm watching what's happening over in Europe.

And I just don't know what it's going to take. I don't know if you saw this.

But Marine Le Pen was -- was banned from running. They put her in jail, and then banning her from running for office in France.

That's not good.

They're just going to keep pushing people further and further and further, until you get really scary people.

And, you know, you've got these countries being overrun by Islamists. Not Islam.

Islamists. People who believe in Sharia law, and their way or the highway.

And, boy, I mean, how long before they will wake up, and do they wake up in time?

KEVIN: So I did see the Le Pen news. I wish I could say, I'm shocked. Unfortunately, I'm not shocked.

Because I have a high threshold for being shocked at this point. But whether it's France. Whether it's a very similar situation in Romania to their right-wing politician, a man named George Escue. Whether it's Donald Trump and the lawfare that we were just talking about here. Whether it's in Israel. Bibi Netanyahu is facing his own version of Deep State lawfare against him as well there.

All around the world, you see in these first world democracies, the Deep State, in overweening judiciary. They are dramatically overstepping, ironically, Glenn, in the name -- or the purported name of, quote, unquote, democracy. That may be the most ironic part of all of this there. When you see people like these judges and prosecutors in France, the prosecutors here in the United States.

People like Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith. They're always saying that what they're doing is in the name of the people. That what they're doing is in the name of democracy there.

But, you know, this too can relate back to I think the Biblical inheritance there.

Ultimately, when you understand, you were just saying, that there is a God. He is real. He is created in his image. And we can have a personal relationship with him, that he reveals his word. His truth. And so forth there.

When you understand this and you live your life according to that, according to those manners and those precepts and those values and so forth there, it puts your head in a fundamentally different place. And you're going to be much less likely, I think. To dramatically overstep your bounds there.

The American founders totally understood this, by the way.

And all of media said, American founders totally understood that without this Biblical foundation, where you understand that what happens here in this world is important, because we have free will. And you are endowed to free will by your creator.

But ultimately, it's subservient to something much more powerful there. That's why George Washington in his farewell address, that religion.

Not just fate, or not just morality. But actually revealed Biblical religion is the most indefensible safe guard for truth and Republican self-governance there.

And I do fear that we're starting to lose that, which is part of the reason I wrote this book. Israel and civilization.

France JAILS Right Wing Leader Marine Le Pen

A French judge has just sentenced right wing leader Marine Le Pen to jail for 4 years and barred her from running for president in 2027. How convenient, since she has been leading in the polls. Glenn takes a look at the case, in which she was found guilty of embezzling EU funds, and compares it to the Biden administration’s prosecution of Donald Trump during the 2024 election. Maybe the French should have learned a lesson from America: people don't like it when you try and take their choice away.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This story just caught my eye. This morning, just breaking that the French far right leader, Marine Le Pen has been barred for running for president in 2027 after a court found her guilty of a vast system of embezzlement of European parliament funds, banned her for running for public office with immediate effect.

Now, that seems pretty convenient, doesn't it? Really convenient.

STU: Really convenient. Luckily, all the people that were going to be running against her, where she was the actual favorite, they now don't have to worry about that because of her crimes!

GLENN: Yeah. But it had nothing to do with that. It was all crimes. It was all crimes.

STU: No, it's just incredibly convenient for them. You would think, it's really hard to win against a particular -- it's like, I don't know if you know this, the Super Bowl champions. Philadelphia Eagles. They ran the Super Bowl this past year.

And now they're trying to ban the play, that they do better than every other year.

It's kind of like that! It's kind of like, hey. What if we stop them from doing something they're doing at? What if we stop the candidates that are running against, and accuse them of crimes. Then throw them out. So we don't have to run against them.

GLENN: Now, wait a minute, to be fair. With France, Nicolas Sarkozy was convicted in 2021 of corruption and influence peddling. Remember that? Yeah. Yeah. He could still run, however.

STU: He can. He's not a threat though at all to win again.

GLENN: No. No, no, no. The former Prime Minister in 2017, presidential candidate was convicted in 2020.

This is Francois Feldman, he was convicted in 2020 of embezzlement and creating fake jobs for his wife.

STU: Did he get banned from --

GLENN: Well, he was five years. Three years suspended. But yeah. He could still run.

He could still run. He could still run. But not Le Pen. She somehow or another is different.

You know, this is serious crimes. Even though, the other two were serious crimes as well.
But she can't -- she can't run.

So we've got that. Well, it seems to be happening a lot in Europe.

Where they just seem to be finding these crimes. Or they just have found some elections. They're like, you know what, we just don't think that's right. We don't think that's what the people really meant to do.

Let's overthrow that election!

You know, Stu. You know, I'm not a historian, but I am a thinker.

And it doesn't seem like these things ever work out well. Yeah.

I mean, I don't have to go back to Nazi Germany. Which I could. Where they threw Adolf Hitler into the clinic.

Which made him a hero. I mean, I could go there, but I don't have to.

Did anybody notice the election of Donald Trump?

STU: Hmm. When did that happen?

Is that recent?

GLENN: I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

But I think there was some funny business there. Where they were trying to throw him in jail and trying --

STU: You know why that doesn't work?

I honestly believe this.

Is because the people get pissed off that you're trying to make the decision for them. It has nothing to do with whether the person who got thrown in jail or threatened to be thrown in jail is a good he person.

I don't know if Marine Le Pen is a good person or whether she should be president of France. No rooting interest. I heard her Dad was pretty bad. But I don't know. Who knows.

GLENN: Not French. Don't really care.

STU: Not French. Don't really care, and not following all that closely.

But the French people get annoyed by that, I think.

At least I know the American people do.

GLENN: I think all people do.

STU: I think so too.

GLENN: The number one I put on the list on don't do this too.

Germans. I don't know why I think that. You know, let's not have them, you know, recently. What you know they're doing now?

They've decided, you know what, we need to build an army. Okay.

I mean, let's not piss the people off, while they're building an army. What do you say? What do you say?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: It will be a bad thing.

STU: It will be a double-edged sword on building the army thing.

GLENN: What happens is you're exactly right. It galvanizes people. Because they no longer trust the system. They're like, what the hell? Why are you taking my choice away?

STU: Yeah, don't take it away. Let me make the choice. I think the American people, certainly, and I think the French people probably say. I can look at these allegations.

I can look at what's going on here. And make the decision myself.

People, by the way, did that. With all the allegations against Donald Trump. And they said, you know what, I don't see anything here. Right?

They were just like, no. I don't think this is going to happen. We're going to make this instigation. We talked about it all the time.

The largest jury in the world was just around the corner. There was no reason to try to throw them prison. Let the American people decide whether what they think, whatever he did with Stormy Daniels was big enough for him not to be president. They made a decision.

GLENN: No, no, no. We know better. Well, we don't know better. The judges know better.

The judges always know better. You know, they did this Erewhon. Does anybody remember?

Aren't they like a spooky state now, with Erewhon? Isn't he somebody that we should keep our eye on?

What happened? I think he either recited a poem, or published a poem deemed to be anti-secular. That's against the Constitution. So he was imprisoned. And what happened?

Because he was anti-secular in a largely Muslim country, everybody was like, he's my man.

The ban was lifted on him. And he became, you know, the Prime Minister again. And look at what happened.

Look at turkey now. Friendly nation. I don't think so.

Good news, it's in NATO. So something happens with them. We need to send our boys to protect them.

That's -- good news.

This is not going to work out well.

I mean, they just keep -- they just keep poking and poking and poking the bear.

Have you seen. Did you see what happened in Sweden this weekend. With all of the protests.

All of the things going on. It's becoming an Islamic state.

The whole place is becoming an Islamic state.

Look at what happened in England alone.

They're what, ten years away? Just from birthrates. Ten years away of being the -- the major population? Twenty years.

And that's if everybody stays cool. And wait a minute. How come you're throwing all of the people standing up going, hey. I don't have a problem with Islam.

I do have a problem with -- you know, they're banning -- not machetes. The -- the Japanese knives. Sword. Yeah. Samurai sword.

Why?

People are being beheaded. Why?

I don't know. I mean, it's just a -- it's not going to -- again, I just -- France, I know insular speak your language.

STU: You do, I have heard you.

You have done that before.

GLENN: Yeah. You wake up now, huh.

STU: That's perfect French.

GLENN: You should probably wake up. Because hmm. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.

Oh, by the way, there's another story out today, that is in our show prep, that is kind of reminiscent of this.

You know, the -- the judge that is -- is banning, you know, Trump from doing everything he wants to do.

STU: He was the judge that wanted the Venezuela flights to turn around midair. Mid-flight.

GLENN: Yeah. Boasberg.

Okay. I don't know. I mean, you know, he has been instrumental in a lot of things.

For instance, he was the guy who was like, you know, what do you mean?

What do you mean the FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith? Falsified information to get the -- to get the FBI wiretap going for Donald Trump.

Sure, he -- yeah. Okay.

So what?

He falsified information. What's the big deal then?

So he's the guy that let him off without any prison time for falsing information without a FISA court.

Not a problem.

I mean, this is just. It's comical.

It's absolutely comical.

He also is the guy who happened to hear the case of Ray Epps. And was like, oh, well. No.

He didn't do anything wrong.

You have him on tape. Saying, you know what, you should riot. You should go in there, and storm the Capitol.

He didn't mean that! He's the guy that let Ray Epps off the hook.

I don't know. I don't know. Maybe -- maybe we should talk about impeaching.

You can't do that! Yes, you can. Yeah, that's what's in the Constitution. Why is it that Justice Roberts, and all of these politicians just don't want to use things that are actually in the Constitution?

Well, it's never been done before. Yeah. You know what, I've never used the life vest on an airplane as a flotation device.

It doesn't mean if we're in the water, we shouldn't try it. Oh, you've -- we've never done this before. This has never been done before.

Well, wait. We've never been in the ocean. Floating around, needing a flotation device. I don't know.

Maybe that's an emergency thing that you use. That's why impeachment is there for the justices, in case things go badly!

STU: And the Founders actually thought it was going to be more useful and more common.

GLENN: Yes!

STU: They didn't see it as -- that's what it's turned into with the president, unless you could be Donald Trump. Which is a weekly occurrence.

When it's supposed to be -- it wasn't always supposed to be only this gigantic thing that happened every 15 years. It's something that was utilized a little bit more than it was.

GLENN: They thought people would be like, I don't know, that one was really bad, maybe we should get rid of that guy. Instead, we were passive.

We were, no. That's not so bad.

And in some ways, that's good.

In others, if you live that way, you then are in such bad trouble. By the time you pull that out, that it is an emergency crash landing.

It is the little wait, I have to blow into this little red hoes. And blow it up myself. Okay. This doesn't sound like it will keep me up above water.

But okay.

That's what those things are there for.

And I don't know, I think we should start. This guy, Boasberg.

Ray Epps.

All I need to say.

Ray Epps. Let me show you the video.

Here he is. Hey, everybody. You should go into the Capitol.

Get him. And nothing?

Because of that judge?

Hmm. Hmm. I can't wait until he has to hear a case on somebody with a burning up of a Tesla. Or rioting in the streets. Or beating up an old lady.

I'll bet. I'll bet he has examples there up his sleeve. Where he says, that really doesn't count. That doesn't count.

But I would love to weigh in on Marine Le Pen. I say, if she ever comes here, we execute her!

Okay. Judge. Thank you.