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.

Biden's Farewell Address, Rewritten by Glenn Beck

President Biden’s farewell address was filled with all sorts of irony. Perhaps most shocking was his warning that an “oligarchy” of power-hungry elites “literally threatens our entire democracy.” Surely, he isn’t talking about the progressive elites, right?! Glenn decided to rewrite Biden’s farewell address to better reflect the reality of his administration’s legacy. No joke!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So Joe Biden. And I know this is all going to come as new news for you, Stu.

Because I'm not going to lie. It came to me as new news this morning.

When I read it in the show prep.

This is not something, I would even care about. From this president.

But I think it's important just to notice how he's leaving office.

And there's a couple of things. One, have you ever seen a president who nobody gives a flying crap about more than this one?

STU: I don't think so. I mean, have I?

No. Has it ever occurred in American history is more the question.

GLENN: Right. It could be like John Tyler, or Taylor.

I don't even know.

STU: Tyler. That was the one I didn't even know existed. John Taylor, I think was the basis for Duran Duran. John Tyler, former president.

GLENN: Okay. Right. So former -- so I care about what's happening in this administration, just a little bit more than John Tyler!

STU: Or John Taylor. Right.

GLENN: Or John Taylor. Either.

I mean, I care a little bit more about John Taylor. He had some great songs.

STU: He had some great songs.

GLENN: So, I mean, I just don't care.

The only reason I do care. Is because what is he doing today, to destroy our country?

STU: Yeah. We've been doing this series of Biden's parting shots on our show.

Stu Does America, by the way. Blaze TV.

And there's a lot.

You could say, he's not doing anything. Because you think he's incoherent. And falling asleep on the job.

GLENN: No. He's not doing anything.

STU: It very well may be true. It also doesn't matter. He's doing a lot to the country here, as he walks out the door.

It does not seem that anyone seems to care.

GLENN: There was another 500 billion-dollar forgiveness of loans, yesterday.

STU: Not that much.

GLENN: How much was it?

STU: He did 150,000 people. And then another 200,000 people. I believe over the past few days.

GLENN: A lot of money and a lot of people.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And this one he's saying, because the university scammed them.

Oh, Lord.

Okay and -- yes?

STU: I think that's just -- amazing. You go through a legal proceeding. That's how they get their money back.

They don't get the money back. We don't have to take that on as a country. And again, none of this is legal. None of this is constitutional.

Most of this will be overturned after he's out of office. Most of these poor people who believe they no longer have these loans, will wind up having these loans.

GLENN: Right, but they're still going. They're still going. They're filing all kinds of suits in court, and you're like, that's not going to stand in court. They're not going to pursue that.

It's just -- okay. Well, then stop it. Spend the time to stop it. That's what he's doing. He's just lighting little brushfires everywhere.

Thank goodness, Donald Trump is not California.

He'll put them out quickly, I think.

Now, the -- Biden gave a speech, and I -- I just rewrote it.

I'm sorry. I rewrote the speech.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Because I said everything that he said, but I added a little bit of the truth.

Okay?

So let me give you what he said, last night.

First, do we have the -- the Hail to the Chief?

Or something that makes it sound official? Because it was very official.

It was in the White House. I'm not kidding.

He was sitting on a pillow last night.

Yeah. No. Real one. And just go ahead. So he's -- and now a message from the president of the United States.

My fellow Americans, folks, I'm serious. This is it.

This is my last address as your president.

No joke!

I've been in public service. For 50 years, now.

Maybe more.

I've seen a lot in my time.

But I've got to tell you, still believe in America.

Well, there's some things that we need to talk about. Things that really worry me.

I'm not kidding.

This is serious stuff.

First of all, the oligarchy thing.

Yeah. It's bad!

Folks, we've got billionaires and corporations running the shows right now, and it's dangerous. Come on. We can't have people, billionaires, who think they can run everything. Like George Soros.

Well, no.

Probably, he deserves a medal, but other people like that, that vote differently than the way we want them to vote.

That's just got to stop. Got to stop. Okay?

He's a good guy mostly. And big tech. Don't even get me started, folks.

Don't. Don't.

It's like my dad used to say. When I was growing up in Scranton, you know, just an average scrappy kid, hanging out with black people and minorities mainly.

You know, my dad used to say to me, don't trust big tech. He was way ahead of the game. Way ahead.

I loved my dad. I will cry. By the way, California, I can relate. Because I had a kitchen fire once.

Anyway, back to big tech. Don't even get me started. We had to work with them. You know. You know, to protect democracy. That's why we had an open line to Facebook and Twitter. Some people called it censorship. That's malarkey. Okay?

It was just, what's the word? Guardrails. Yeah, guard rails for democracy.

That's what that was. And misinformation.

Folks!

I'm serious.

It's everywhere. No joke!

Americans are buried in misinformation.

But let me be clear. We weren't part of that. Okay. Maybe a little bit. But not very much.

I mean, not that you know of.

It's coming out?

Okay. Well, all right.

Maybe a little. We did say Hunter's laptop was fake. Turns out, wasn't. That was a surprise.

No joke, people. I had no idea.

Maybe we had a few things wrong about COVID. You know, like the origins, the lockdowns, the vaccines. But come on! Folks, I'm serious.

It was confusing. You keeping it straight.

Come on.

Look, I know some of you are mad about my family making a few bucks overseas. But, folks, let me tell you, that's how business gets done sometimes.

You know, what are you going to do?

My son, Hunter, good kid. Smart as a whip. Oh, my gosh. What a talented painter he is. Did you hear? Five hundred million dollars of his paintings have been lost in the fire!

Damn it! But a good thing we had insurance on all of that art.

You know, he got some deals. China, Ukraine. Whatever. But it was all aboveboard.

I mean, I'm serious, folks. It's fine. Totally legit. And here's the thing about AI. It's scary.

Artificial intelligence. That's what they call it. I don't trust it. One day, you're talking to your phone.

The next thing you know, it's running your life.

That's why I wanted Congress to ban stock trading for government employees. No joke.

No joke. You can't have senators buying stocks when they know stuff about stocks!

It's just wrong, folks.

Never. I mean, not recently.

I have not recently benefited from stock trading. No joke.

My family made it the old-fashioned way. Through bribery.

That's what we did. All right.

That's America. And let me tell you about America and unity. Folks, we need unity now more than ever.

But you know what is stopping us?

And I mean it!

People who don't listen. They spread lies. They stir up television.

Some of them need to vote for the other guy, and I'm not kidding.

These people are dangerous. Folks, I'm not kidding. Makes me so mad. I could -- I don't know.

You know the rest. Now, I know I've made mistakes. Nobody is perfect. I mean, I'm pretty Tam close. But come on, folks. Give me a break. I'm just doing what's right.

You have to trust me on this. In closing, I want to remind you of the statute of liberty.

That lady has been swaying in the wind for years. But she never falls. Just like America.

She might lead a little to the right or left. But she stays upright. No joke.

It's a miracle. They wouldn't let me change that torch to an ice cream cone. Which I think that would have been great. You know, on her feet, we should have given her some socks or something. Because her feet has to be cold. They're made out of metal, seriously. Seriously, folks.

I'm not joking. What's her hair smell like?

So now it's your turn to stand guard.

Keep the faith. Protect democracy.

And remember, I love the little children.

Hey, God loves the little children.

He keeps them in the palm of his hand.

I've got my palm of my hand on little children.

It's good. Folks, come on!

I'm being serious.

It's real. I love it. I'm serious.

God bless you.

And God bless something else, I don't remember what it was.

So that is a summary of his speech last night.

And --

STU: He's good.

GLENN: Then he walked off into the sunshine.

With the -- and they're pretty close.

He had the seniors come this. You know, from his senior center.

And it was regulated. Ow! That one hurt there. But, hey, he was trying. No, folks, seriously, they're trying their best.

They're seniors. And look at them go. Look at them go.

STU: The Joe Biden players. Ladies and gentlemen.

GLENN: And we're going to miss it. We're going to miss them.

We really are. We really are.

You know, I was thinking, I really don't care except for the instruction.

And I think Democrats have it in the exact right place.

Because they don't care about the destruction, I don't think. At least the ones in Washington.

And they're not paying attention to him at all. They don't care what he's doing. They don't care, okay?

Isn't this exactly the way we should all feel about our president, all the time?

Without the fear of, good God, what is he doing behind the scenes?

Without that fear. He should not have that big of an impact. Nor should all of those clowns in Washington.

You know what I would like to do?

I would like to go back to doing comedy, like, remember, Stu. In the old days, 25 years ago, before 9/11. We were doing comedy.

Wouldn't that be nice? That would be nice.

Would love to do that. But we suddenly had to care. Because these people are out of their mind and out of control.

The way the Democrats care about Joe Biden right now is the way we should care about every president.

Okay?

They should have such little power. No. I'm not joking folks.

I'm not. I'm being serious.

Such little power. We don't care. Yeah.

Yeah. Now, let's go have some ice cream.

STU: I mean, that's -- what the Founders kind of wanted, right?

They wanted a country in which, where you didn't have to think about the cane all the time --

GLENN: Yeah, and you would say, shut up. Shut up.

That's what I think our Founders.

STU: Italian Founders. Yeah. Shut up.

Because, again, it's easy to think about now, as someone you probably like is coming into office.

So you might like the focus on them.

GLENN: Well, I like the focus on them. Because I will fix it. You know what I mean? And then we need to care enough to get those things out of an executive order. And passed as laws. Otherwise, four years from now. We can have somebody -- Karl Marx, they might bring back from the dead. And they will be like, Karl Marx, you know, his first time around didn't go well. But I'm serious, folks. He's great now. And look at that beard. I mean, that's a great beard. Especially for being dead for so long.

And they -- we can -- he will be like, I will do a few executive orders. What? What's the problem?

You know, no! We need to pay attention, so they actually pass these things, as bills.

STU: Interesting. A development on that front. The Republicans are trying to talk Trump out of doing some of these executive orders.

When he first starts. Because of a -- basically a technicality, that comes from this law that we want to pass, this reconciliation bill.

This is their one big bill. To do that. They can pass this bill with only 50 senators.

If it's cutting the deficit, essentially.

And so the -- what -- some of these executive orders that Trump wants to do, will help that. Right?

GLENN: But they need to have them in the pill.

STU: They need to have them in the bill to make sure the scoring is right, so they can pass it.

GLENN: You know, I have to tell you. I think there's more to cut than everyone thinks. Oh, gee, we've got to reduce the deficit.

And you will cut a lot of places. I think you could find more.

STU: I think you can. I think you can.

Again, if you're going to do it anyway. I would prefer, if it's a good measure. And it's going to improve the budget situation. I would rather have it in the reconciliation bill, than as an executive order, for the same reasons you're talking about.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. But I would like to not give away, the stuff that we could get through executive order.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know.

STU: If you can get it through the law.

GLENN: Get it through the law.

STU: Get it through the bill. Get it that way. If it's not available there. Then you go --

GLENN: Take it elsewhere.

Because there's a lot that can be cut. Gee. I don't know. We're a few hundred billion dollars away from being able to save the deficit. And pass this bill.

I don't know. Department of Education. Where are the keys?

STU: You can't do that by executive order.

GLENN: No. I'm saying Congress. I'm saying Congress.

We can't do it in the bill.

We can't just pass it with 50, because it's not enough.

Where are the keys to the Department of Education?

I would just like to see them, right now.

Let's put them in the pile. All right.

California Fires and New Jersey Drones: Government Secrets EXPOSED | Glenn TV | Ep 405

The secrets, lies, and utter absence of transparency from all levels of government are tearing our country apart. In just a few days, the Trump administration has the opportunity to change all of that and start a new era of accountability. Over the past decade, we’ve been lied to about Epstein, Ukraine, the Biden crime family … the list goes on! In this episode of Glenn TV, Glenn peels back the layers on two of the biggest stories right now that Americans are DEMANDING answers on: the fires in Los Angeles and the mysterious drone sightings that started in New Jersey but have since occurred all over the world. Then, journalist Michael Shellenberger joins to discuss how California failed to prepare for the Los Angeles wildfires, why there never should have been a dry reservoir, and where he believes the drones are coming from: Are they Chinese, UFOs, or the property of the U.S. government?

The TRUTH About Biden’s Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Deal

The ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas is already showing signs of falling apart. The deal, which includes the swap of 33 hostages for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, was paused after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas of breaking some of its promises. The Biden administration took plenty of credit for the deal, but also acknowledged Donald Trump’s role in its finalization. But Glenn explains why this is NOT Trump’s deal. When Trump takes office, he believes, we’ll see a deal that’s much better for Israel.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let's talk about this deal in the Middle East. Here is -- and remember, the State Department is -- is ground zero for everything bad. In the world.

I mean, I -- honestly, I think Marco Rubio should go in.

And he said fire everyone on the seventh floor. Maybe the sixth.

Just fire them all. You're all gone. I don't care if some of you are good. I don't have time to sort it out.

You're all gone.

Because it's been out of control since really FDR.

And they think that they're in charge of the world.

And it is the State Department, that has brought us these endless wars and everything else.

They've got to go. They all have to go.

So with that in mind, listen to the State Department spokesperson on the Hamas deal.

Listen to this.

GLENN: When it comes to the involvement of president-elect Trump's team is absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line.

And it's been critical. Because obviously, as I stand here today.

This administration's term in office will expire in ten days.

And one of the things we've always said about this deal.

When you get to stage one, to stage two. That the United States, Egypt and be Qatar. Are the guarantors of this deal. And Egypt and Qatar will push Hamas to stay at the bargaining table. And to get from stage one to stage two.

And the United States will push Israel to stay at the bargaining table from phase one to phase two.

Obviously, those are promises we cannot make on behalf of the United States for any longer than the next five days.

And so it's critical that all of the parties to the agreement and the other mediators see that when the United States is in the room, making commitments. Those are lasting commitments. That extend beyond this administration. Into the next one.

GLENN: Uh-huh. So stop.

They're long-standing commitments. They will go long past the five days.

Well, they must even make it to day two. Overnight, this deal has started to fall apart.

And it started to fall apart with Benjamin Netanyahu. And the Israelis.

Okay.

Well, wait. I thought that's the critical role that Donald Trump was playing. That's what he just said.

We can -- we can bring Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel to the table. Well, Benjamin Netanyahu did not go to the table, under Biden.

Didn't come to the table. Now, Hamas didn't come to the table because of Biden.

This has all happened, because Donald Trump has said this. Cut one.

VOICE: I think they heard him loud and clear.

It will get done by the inaugural.

VOICE: Before we take office.

VOICE: And don't release the hostages.

VOICE: Do you have to define it for you.

All hell will break out. If those hostages aren't back. I don't want to hurt your negotiation.

If they're not back by the time I get into office. All hell will break out, in the Middle East.

And it will not be good for Hamas.

GLENN: Okay!

So wait. How is Donald Trump responsible for a deal that looks like it's really good for Hamas.

And not good for Israel.

All hell will break loose.

This is the only reason why they're talking about this. And Joe Biden, eager to make a deal.

Made a deal that's good for Hamas, not Israel. So that's falling apart right now.

STU: Deal is falling apart?

GLENN: Yeah. Fell apart overnight. It looks like, it's not holding.

STU: Well, I mean, because it is -- obviously has some good in it for Israel.

And potentially America, right? Potentially American hostages released.

GLENN: But also potentially --

STU: We don't know. It's something like 33 for a thousand. Something -- as always with these deals.

It heavily favors Hamas.

GLENN: Correct.

It leaves Hamas in power.

All kinds of things bad for Israel.

STU: It does not end the war. It's a cease-fire. Okay.

That's important.

GLENN: Yeah. A cease-fire.

That's important.

So Donald Trump is the reason why something will happen. Okay?

Donald Trump has not been able to make a deal. Get them to the table.

He can make a deal. But it's a Biden deal. A bad deal.

He can make that deal with them right now. Because they all know, daddy is coming home.

We better stop our bickering.

Because daddy is going to solve it. And I'm not sure we're going to like the solution coming from daddy.

So they try to get into a deal.

Notice, if the Israelis are the ones pulling out, you don't think Benjamin Netanyahu is just springing that on Donald Trump.

He's not just like -- Donald Trump is not getting up today and going, wait. The deal fell apart. Benjamin Netanyahu and the Knesset doesn't want to deal with that? What happened? Uh-uh. They were on the phone with him, so he knows that.

No matter what the White House tries to do and rope him in, this is not his deal. It's moving because of him. But that's all.

And I take him seriously when he said -- I mean, let's talk about this in a week. Let's talk about this next Friday. Where will this story be next Friday?

Because I don't think it will be here!

You'll notice, he said, make a deal before I even get into office.

There's going to be a lot of talk with Hamas, on what exactly they have to do. And what the ramifications are.

Because I would not put it past Donald Trump, by Monday evening.

Drones, to be flying over Hamas.

He will -- he will release hell on them.

He is a guy, that keeps his word. Because he knows, if I don't, then I'm known as somebody who just bluffs.

And I'm not going to do that. Because that puts the United States. Into real trouble.

And he's been real clear on this, over and over and over again! Hell will be paid if you don't release the hostages, by the time I'm in office.

So we'll see, exactly what is coming on.

Female Veteran Says Pete Hegseth is RIGHT About Women in the Military

Congresswoman and Air Force veteran Anna Paulina Luna joins Glenn to clear up one of the Democrats' biggest lies about Trump’s Defense Secretary pick Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing: "Pete never said that he didn't want women to serve in the military. In fact, it's quite the opposite. But I have the same agreement in that there are certain roles that women SHOULD NOT be subjected to in the military." Plus, she discusses why she’s hopeful that the Trump administration will reveal the truth about UFOs and the mysterious New Jersey drones.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna from Florida. Welcome to the program. How are you?

ANNA: Hey, Glenn. Happy to be back on.

GLENN: Yeah, it's very good to talk to you. So you were in the Air Force?

ANNA: I was.

GLENN: And what did you do in the Air Force?
ANNA: I did air field management, and worked with actually my first installation, was the B-2 stealth bombers of flight plans, a lot of inspections, a lot of readings. Did not serve in combat.

However, I definitely have an opinion or two on women in combat.

GLENN: I would like to hear it.

ANNA: First of all, during the confirmation hearings. They were incredible.

And they were trying to walk them into these sound bites. The one thing I kept hearing from the Democrats was, they were taking his comments out of context, in regards to women in the military.

So Pete never said that he never wanted women to serve in the military. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

But I have the same agreement, in that there are certain rules that women should not be subjected to in the military. So in a lot of foreign countries, you will see there will be women-only sniper teams. And/or women-only teams that will see combat. Now, I preface this by saying, that there is a study that has been done. And shows that when women have been placed in harm's way. That the natural instinct for men was to protect that woman. And that's the right thing to do.

That's that, quote, unquote, toxic masculinity that the left tries to mess with all the time --

GLENN: That is human nature. We're born with that, but go ahead.

ANNA: Right?

And so when you have though, a woman that let's say, plays on a Special Forces team. They come under fire.

Hypothetically that woman gets hurt. Instead of focusing on the mission, as it would be, the men then would in turn, go to protect that woman.

And it could ultimately result in, A, more casualties, more people getting hurt, and then also jeopardize the success of the mission.

And so I think when we're looking at military policy as a whole, we need to take these things into consideration. But it's very easy because Pete is a white male. For them to try to demonize him and treat him as this anti-woman, you know, alcoholic womanizer, which is simply not the case.

Other thing, and the reason why I wanted to show my support for him. Was, look, Pete is a Christian. He has the Jerusalem cross tattooed on him.

That does not mean he's a Nazi. That does not mean he's a white nationalist. So what I've been telling reporters. If Pete was so anti-, you know, anti-minority.

Anti-, you know, anything to do what we stand for and value in this country, why would you have the same -- because they don't really have a response to us.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. So do you agree with him? Because I took from him yesterday, something else about the military. I have no problem with women in the military, with an exception of the natural order of things, where I think men -- I have to tell you, if -- if one of the guys was captured by, you know, al-Qaeda. I would do everything I can to make sure that one of the members of my team, you know, were safe. And I would do everything that we should do. However, it's different if I know that the woman member of our team, has just been captured.

I -- it takes on a different meaning to me. Because I know what's going to happen to her, in compared to Tom or Tim.

And I think that is a natural instinct, that you cannot get rid of. And you don't want to.

The second thing, that I think that Pete is talking about. And we saw this in the fire chief, in -- in Los Angeles.

Where she said, you know, I -- you know, I'll talk to people. They'll say, well, you can't lift my husband out of our burning house.

And her response was, well, you know, he got himself into a place he shouldn't be.

So why should I?

Okay. So that's ridiculous. As long as a woman can physically do exactly what is required of the male, then I don't have a problem with that. Do you agree with that?

ANNA: I would say, though, there's this aspect of psychology. And certain situations. Where I don't think women should be placed. So right now, what we're seeing, is -- you know, those are all great points, Glenn.

The military standards, currently. There are different standards for women and for men.

That's just a fact. But there are also different requirements for different jobs. Right?

If you can go in, for example, to be a fire firefighter, you're required to lift X amount, whether or not you're a man or a woman in the military.

But in that sense, I would say that, when you're talking about conditions where you're living in a field. When you're talking about conditions, when you know that there is going to be a psychological aspect and component. It doesn't mean that women aren't as good as men.

I think there's been cases, where women can be better snipers than men are.

Depending on what you're looking for job-wise.

What I will say, as far as my perspective is concerned.

I don't think women should be required to register for the draft.

I know that Senate Democrats were pushing that.

And I also think that women should not be placed in certain combat roles in the military.

GLENN: Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Let me switch topics with you.

You were one of the biggest advocates for the UAP. UFO disclosure.

Any updates on -- on that hearing, the updates on the New Jersey drones.

And were you able to get David Grusch into a skiff and get a classified briefing? And if so, what was your takeaway?

ANNA: So I was not able to get Grusch into a skiff. In fact, they were blocking that, by not re-activating his security clearance. And so I'm hopeful with the new incoming administration, especially because as of right now, you know, Marco Rubio led to his confirmation for Secretary of State.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANNA: And they have been in the Senate, one of the big advocates and supporters of looking into UAP's -- a/k/a, UFOs. And then everything else associated with that.

Now, what I will say, is that I've been grossly disappointed and disgusted by how the Biden administration handled what happened with the Chinese spy balloon, which to be clear is different than a UAP.

The fact is, some of these drones are likely tied to not just hobbyists. But probably more nefarious actors.

Even if we had that information, shared in the public. I don't believe that the Biden administration would have done that.

Because of how I saw, how they handled the drones.

In the United States. And collecting intelligence. Nonetheless.

It was a Chinese intelligence operation.

You know, I had one of my colleagues Van Drew, who actually made an admission on television, that it was adversarial drones. And then you saw the Intel community come out. But Van Drew would not just make something like that up.

So you're seeing kind of this rift occur with the intelligence community, and then people that do want the American people to simply know the case.

I think this is probably the topic of longer discussion. In regards to what a UAP is. What's interesting, Glenn. And I know you look at these things through a lens, as do I.

As a Christian, first and foremost. But what's interesting, when I was questioning Grusch.

I actually asked him, well, what would you consider, in so many words -- is this like a physical ST?

And he kept calling things inter-dimensional beings, if we're specifically referencing UAPs, and so I think that that just aligns in perspective, to think about this from.

I think there's a lot. You would have talked about this even ten years ago.

Your political career would have been over. People would have said you're a conspiracy theorist.

I can tell you, this is probably the number one question I get. No matter where I am at in the country, people come up. They appreciate it, because everyone is curious. So I'll leave you with that.

GLENN: So let me just -- let me just follow that here, just a little bit.

The inter-dimensional beings, that could be spiritual. That could be a quantum being. Any idea what he meant by that?

ANNA: You know, I actually tried to pull on his string. And he didn't want to go there.

And I can also tell you, when I was talking to him, with a group of other legislators on the phone, prior to the hearing.

That he did make the omission. That he was actually in fear of his life. And that something happened, where he tried to kill him.

So I don't know if that was associated. But he did not want to go into that any further.

And so based on my investigation. Based on what we're told in the hearing, I would say that it does not seem like it would be a good thing.

He gave me the impression. That this was nefarious.

So take it for what it's worth.

It's inter-dimensional.

I think quantum could be, you know,

GLENN: Right.

ANNA: We're on the same page there.

GLENN: So it is so bizarre that this kind of stuff is happening.

And we're not being told. Donald Trump said that he would talk about the drones. On Tuesday.

He said, give me a day, to get settled on office.

And he said, I'll find iota the drones. And I'll tell the American people.

If that's China. Should we know, the American people?

ANNA: I think it would be well within his wheelhouse.

And I think he wants the American people to start to trust their elected officials.

It goes to so much deeper than just have someone in the White House on your side. Right?

Because we know that -- and from what I've gathered, because remember, there's been bipartisan and bicameral meetings in the Senate, the House. And Democrats and Republicans have all been working on this together, to get some answers and information.

And there is a certain level of stovepiping that we've seen with information. And then also too, the aspect of, I as a sitting member of Congress. Who sits on oversight and foreign affairs, was denied access by a general at the Air Force base, to whom I responded. Who gives you the right and authority to tell a duly elected member and group of Congressmen, that they don't have access to a program that we write the damn checks for?

You have no authority to deny us access.

And so that conversation, probably not comfortable for that general.

GLENN: How did that end?

ANNA: Well, he left.

He actually got up in the middle of our meeting and went on TDY. Which any military member will tell you, never happened. He left the meeting.

He left the state.

He got up and left.

GLENN: Wow! Did you ever get an answer?

No. Representative Gaetz and Representative Burchett were also there to witness this.

I never seen that happen. And remember, I was in the military.

He literally got up and left in the middle of the meeting. Said he had orders in Georgia, and he never came back.

GLENN: Are you -- are you concerned at all about some of the conversations. We just saw another video from James O'Keefe.

Where he's talking to somebody who was -- I think he claimed to be in the FBI.

Said, he and others were meeting with generals. To make sure that they had a control on Donald Trump.

Are you -- are you confident at all, this time around, Donald Trump will be able to route that.

VOICE: Oh, most certainly.

And I will say, that has a lot to do with the confirmation of the Secretary of Defense.

You know, top down.

Last time president Trump was in office. I think there was a lot of trust in people, to do the right thing.

And then he realized that the Deep State was real.

And there were people running, regardless of whether he was a Republican. Or whether they're Republicans or not.

That they were working against his agenda. Because they didn't like what he stood for.

What we're finding, there is going to be a setup to go through these generals. That, A, discharge military members based on vaccinations. And boards.

The fact is, if you're a general and you're pushing wokeness ideologies.

Or you're trying to undermine subjective o the commander in chief, you have no place in the Department of Defense, period.

And so those people conspired, and I look forward to that. Because I can just tell you from a congressional perspective, Glenn. I actually had an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act to remove DEI for military training.

And I have friends still in the military. So someone at Ramstein Air Base actually sent me an email of an officer there, that was directly undermining what we did. Congress has removed DEI.
So we're renaming it. Please, proceed with the training.

Guess what, that person is also going to be fired. And that's really how you're going to be at the DOD --

GLENN: Good. Good.

If you could hold for 60 seconds, I need to take a network break and come back. I want to ask you about Cuba. What the Biden administration just did. And also about Tulsi Gabbard. And how you feel about her and her nomination.

Back in just a second with Anna Paulina Luna, Representative from Florida.