Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

GLENNFebruary 20, 2017

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.

(chuckling)

STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.

"The Most Dangerous Place on Earth Right Now!" - SHOCKING Details of Nigeria's Christian Genocideplay icon
RADIO

"The Most Dangerous Place on Earth Right Now!" - SHOCKING Details of Nigeria's Christian Genocide

Across Nigeria, Christians are being hunted, churches burned, and entire communities wiped out — yet the world remains silent. In this powerful discussion, Glenn Beck and Rep. Riley Moore uncover the horrific truth behind Nigeria’s Christian genocide and the shocking indifference from global leaders. This silent war on faith is one of the greatest humanitarian and moral crises of our time. Will America stand up for its brothers and sisters in Christ before it’s too late?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Riley, let me talk to you about Nigeria, and what's happening in Nigeria. It's the scariest, most deadly country in the world, if you happen to be a Christian. And nobody seems to -- to be talking about it. And, you know, you have been involved in, you know, urging Secretary Rubio to say Nigeria is a country of particular concern, which I don't what an that means exactly. What doors does that unlock?

RILEY: Yeah. So that is -- that designation actually fits in the U.S. Code. So it does unlock 15 different Levers for the President when a country is designated a country of particular concern. That could be holding development money, that could be going to international institutions to free assistance through there. That could also halt security assistance, which would be arms sales and training and things like that, that have been going on in Nigeria. We could sanction individuals. It gives the President the authority to do a number of different things that can really, I think, leverage the Nigerians to actually start caring about our brothers and sisters in Christ, who are getting murdered for the professions they're facing in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So I think this is a good first step, and we're going to see how the Nigerians react to this now. I've been having meetings with Departments of State.

We are going to meet with the Nigerians here at some point as well, here in DC.

So we're going to see what they're going to bring to the table. But also the President, who always puts all options on the table, has said, if they don't start fixing this, they're there couldn't potentially be kinetic military actions on -- in Nigeria.

GLENN: What does that mean?

Boots on the ground?

RILEY: No. To me, it does not mean that. To me, you have -- you have complex issues that are going on, over there. Where you have in the middle band of the country. This is where the Fulanis are. And these are herdsmen. And this is where you get this radical strain, obviously. Islamic terrorists, these Fulanis. These are herdsmen, tribes, and they have been attacking Christians in that middle band. In the northern part of the country is mostly Muslim. Southern part of the country is mostly Christian.

So that middle part, where they graze their cattle and all that, is where you see a lot of these flash points and murdering going on. But then in the northern part of the country is where you have ISIS, Boko Haram. They are operating there. And where they're taking over towns and communities, as we saw in Syria, right? Previously. Same type of thing.

GLENN: Yeah.

RILEY: CAIR is enfranchising, going on over there, all through the Lake Chad region, actually. So that's where I think, if it made sense to have some type of military action in forms of an airstrike or something like that, to -- to be able to tamp down some of the leadership and break up some of that structure in there.

That's something that would make sense. But to me, just speaking for myself, I want to try to work with the Nigerians, for them to do the right thing here.

President Trump obviously I mentioned, on Truth Social. Needs to specifically look into this. Which we are doing here in Congress. I want them to do the right thing.

I think the Nigerians actually have the chance right now to actually strengthen their relationship with the United States, if they're going to do the right thing.

But we can't allow to continue the slaughter of Christians where we have over 7,000 just this year, have been killed, for being Christian.
We can't allow that to continue, as a Christian country ourselves, which we are.

I know we're -- you know, some may debate that. I promise you, and nobody knows more about the founding of the country than Glenn Beck. Is that this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian values.

And we have to stand up for these people. Because nobody else is paying attention to this. Other than you, and some folks at Fox news. And that's really about it.

GLENN: Oh, I tell you, you know, I was planning on bringing my cameras with me. And I was going to go to Nigeria in the first quarter. And I have had briefings and warnings from the highest levels. Do not go.

You are not going. And I said, yes, I am. I want to bring this story.

You can't go. I've been to war zones. And this one, they're like, this is the most dangerous place on earth right now!

That's pretty remarkable, that nobody is really talking about it.

RILEY: It really is, and it's this silent genocide, that has just continued on since 2009, where we've had in between 50 to 100,000 Christians murdered for their faith. Our brothers and sisters over there, suffering, and no one has done anything about it. You might remember the bring back our girls movement around 2012ish, '14.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

RILEY: Seventeen of those girls have still never been brought back. People forgot about it. It's fine. Boko Haram just has them. It's not fine.

It's not okay. And there are a lot of Levers that the administration is able to pull here, I think to get the Nigerians on the right course.

It's not that they don't have resources. This is an oil rich country. With a lot of critical minerals.

They have the means to be able to do this, at the end of the day, it's a question of prioritization. And what their goals actually are. And we need them to focus on this. Or the President will start to focus on it.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, 19,000 churches have been burned.

And yet, from what I'm hearing, there are some in the Nigerian government that are like, no. This is not what's happening. This is not about genocide. It's not about Christians. It's just squabbles.

Really? Fifty to 100,000 people. And 19 thousands of individuals people have been burned in little squabbles, that don't have anything to do with radicalized Islam?

RILEY: Exactly. And this is the excuse I've gotten from people on the ground, look, do terrorists kill other people other than Christians? Yes, of course they do. But we're talking about five to one is the ratio, Christians versus non-Christians are being killed over there right now.

Secondly, I want to point out for everybody, President Trump has a designation in Nigeria. It means his first term.

It was taken off by the Biden administration. Because they claimed the killings had more to do with arable land and herders, and actually the root cause was climate change.

GLENN: Climate change.

RILEY: Yeah. That's why these killings were happening. Because of climate change. Where that's why we saw the murder rate just skyrocket during the Biden administration.

And President Trump, who cares very deeply about these issues, he's not going to allow that to persist anymore.

GLENN: He said, if there is an attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet. Just like the terrorist thugs that attack our cherished Christians.

I will tell you, I've -- you know, been reading up on it. And doing our homework.

And, you know, it reminded me of how the Germans went into Poland. Where they would just take whole communities. They would put them in the church. And lock the doors. And burn it to the ground.

That's what's happening in Nigeria. They're doing the same thing. They're burning churches. Not just burning churches. They're gathering Christians up. Putting them in, locking the doors, and then burning it down so that all of these women and children and men die in a fire in their church. And it's horrific. It's horrific.
What does the average person need to do?

RILEY: Yes. The average person needs to call their number of Congress and elevate this. And make this an issue that is on their radar, that they care about.

I'm introducing resolution which would be a sense of Congress, that we support the President. And we support the people and the Christians of Nigeria, and their plight.

And we condemn what the Nigerian government is doing, in action around this. That resolution should be getting introduced here soon.

So that would be something that would be hugely helpful.

GLENN: Wow.

It will be interesting to see who votes for that, and who doesn't.

That would have been -- that would have been a no-brainer 15 years ago. Just a no-brainer.

And now, I wonder if you can even get that passed. That's sad. Sad.

RILEY: It's sad. And I think we need to put it to the test. Put it to the test.

Certainly, if I'm whipping the votes, I don't have Ilhan Omar in my "yes" column.

But, you know, let's -- let's put it to the test here.

The TRUTH about Zohran Mamdani and communismplay icon
RADIO

The TRUTH about Zohran Mamdani and communism

Is New York City’s new mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani a socialist or a communist? Glenn Beck takes a look at history to explain why it doesn’t really matter: BOTH lead down the same road …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, we've been talking about socialism, and Donald Trump is getting pilloried in the press for calling Mamdani a communist. And I find this ritual here, that we're going through is just, you say the word socialist, and, you know, 25 years ago when I said that these people were socialist, everybody said, "Oh, my gosh. You can't call them socialists. That's an outrage." I said, "The mask is going to come off, that they can't wait to tell you they're socialists."

Now Donald Trump said, you know, Mamdani is a Communist. And everybody is like, oh, my gosh. Look at this hysteric from the Cold War. He's just -- he's out of the Cold War radio drama.

So let me just clear this here. Because the difference between the two terms, you know, is really not some great firewall of virtue here. As if one leads to like Scandinavian candles and the other leads to gulags. That's not what's happening.

What we've forgotten here is what always is forgotten. And that is how Karl Marx actually talked and saw the two. He didn't draw, you know, polite little distinctions. He described socialism as the transition. The necessary scaffolding that leads to communism. That's Karl Marx. So socialism for Karl Marx was the road, not the destination.

Communism is the end of that road. He wrote -- he wrote an essay, the Critique of Gotha Program. And Marx said, under socialism, from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Under communism, to each according to his needs. The only difference here is timing. It's not philosophy.

It's not goals. It's just how far along the revolution you are, okay?

Socialism is the bridge to communism. According to Karl Marx, don't take it from me. Communism is the completion of socialism. It's -- it's the antithesis of a free market system. Even Lenin called socialism the first and necessary phase of communism. So it's not partisan rhetoric. Okay?

This is the literal architecture of Marxist thought. But can we get out of the theories of all of this?

I mean, history gives us warning. Much more vivid than any theory. You know, we would like to imagine that the worst horrors of the 21st century came from one beast alone.

And we think that's Hitler. But actually, a bigger beast was Stalin. But if you want to look at Germany from 1930 to 1945. You see something really uncomfortable.

A socialist movement that curdled into something monstrous, while it never called itself communist. In fact, the Nazi government. The national socialists. The Nazis were not communists. They were against the communists.

They killed communists!

But they shared the same foundational belief. That the rid is disposable, and that the state defines the truth.

They both believe that rights are not given by God, but administered by political power. And that dissent on any of this, has to be crushed for the good of the collective.

That is the -- that's the definition we should care about!

Socialism doesn't to give full marks communism to become catastrophic. It just has to replace the individual conscience with the will of the state. And don't you see, that's what's happening here? They'll crush you! They'll destroy you. You disagree with them, they'll destroy you. Even if you've been on their side. I am going to share eye story with you, from 1979 that happened. That I don't think most people understand. And in New York, you better understand it.

When a society accepts the premise, that premise, history shows the -- the slide can accelerate from a utopian promise to industrialized cruelty. Horror show.

Like that!

Germany saw it. Russia saw it. China saw it. Cambodia. North Korea.

Cuba. I mean, it's all right there, just different flags. Different slogans. But it's the same structural error.

So can we stop with this mocking of the language?

You know, people laughing. Oh, you said Mamdani is a communist, but he's just merely a socialist. You're missing the point entirely.

The issue is not whether the label is technically perfect. The issue is the philosophical DNA is exactly the same. Collectivism over the individual.

State control over personal agency. Central planning over free will.

And that the belief that human nature can be engineered by a political force. That's where it always goes wrong. It doesn't understand human nature. So you can argue all you want, about where socialism ends and where communism begins, but honestly, that's like, hey, kids, memorize the date of this war.

Why? Why? I'm never going to use that fact again. What difference does it make? The thing we should care about is, why was that war fought? What happened at the end of that war? When communism and socialism, we should be saying, where does that road lead?

I can tell you that the road always begins with the state controlling your choices. Okay?

It will control your choice of energy, money, your children's education. Your speech.

Your job. What you drive. And it always ends with never greater liberty. It always ends the same place. In a society that has forgotten that freedom is fragile.

That power concentrates. That people are the same over and over and over and over again!

Human beings. They go bad! Especially when you give them power, and they're told they're part of a grand collective. Humans are willing to commit horrors they would never do as an individual.

That's the biggest thing. You get these horror shows of 100 million dead, because it's a collective!

We're all doing it. I'm not doing it. Everybody is doing it. That's the warning.

That's historical. And we ignore it at our own peril. Now, the problem here is, is that socialism is on the rise. And communism will be next.

Remember, when I first started talking about Obama, they -- I was -- I was raked across the rolls -- the coals, every day for even suggesting he might kind of like socialism. Now, socialism is fine!

So that road is still going to -- we're going to continue rolling down that road. And any country that goes into socialism -- we're not talking about a capitalist. We're not talking about Sweden anymore.

In fact, we are actually talking about Sweden. Look at the road they're going down now.
I mean, they're going into their own kind of authoritarian rule with Sharia law.

That is coming to Sweden. We are not talking about this friendly socialism. We're talking about the complete abandonment of the free market entirely. We've been this stupid little hybrid, that doesn't work. It only causes misery. We've been this hybrid.

And it doesn't work in a country this large and a country this diverse.

But look if you're -- you know, if you grew up after 9/11, where have you seen capitalism work for you?

Okay? You've seen, I know I've seen it. I've seen the rich get richer. And I don't mean the rich.

I mean the really, really, really rich. The ones that the Democrats never really talk about. They say they hate the rich. The rich have to pay their fair share.

But they're hanging out with George Soros. They're hanging out with the Ford Foundation. They're hanging out with Bezos and all of these other people. Because that's -- that's -- that's real control! Okay?

They don't hate those guys. They never do anything to affect their taxes. They don't pay taxes. Because they have the money to put it into trusts and everything else.

You don't have that!

So when I say, I've seen it happen. I've seen the rich get richer.

You know who the rich are?

Citibank. These banks that have been taking our money through bailouts, when do we get that money back?

When do you get that money back?

You don't!

You don't. That's why this is working. That's why you can say, socialism is neat. Because nobody knows the killing machine that socialism actually is. Nobody has any idea. Look at the killing machine. Look at the killing machine that's being built in socialist Canada right now.

What is it? MAID is the third or fourth biggest killer. It kills one in every 20 Canadians. Why is that happening? That's not out of compassion. That's because they're running out of money for health care. That's what that's about. Get them off the dole! Stop it. Now, if they're earning a lot of money, get them in, because we can still get their money, but let's make sure they're making money. If they're getting old, if they are cripple, if they fought in a war and just can't has come it themselves, if they're super, super young, if they have an expensive cancer, let them die. Help them die!

That's because they're looking at the collective, not the individual. And that's -- that's the beginning of the dark killing machine in a socialist country. And Canada is -- is -- I mean, it has socialized medicine. The problem is, it's all failing. Socialism always fails.

Capitalism has -- has taken people out of poverty. Solved problems. Healed people. Given people heat and houses and cars and airplanes. All of that is because of the free market. All of that is the free market.

You get rid of the free market. You put it in the hands of governments. And you have monsters. Monsters. And we know it, because we've seen it over and over and over again.

But our -- if you're -- if you -- if -- if you don't remember, or barely remember 911, you've never been taught any of this.

You've never been taught what it actually means. So you're seeing this play out, over and over again. Look at that guy, look at, he's not going to have to pay a price. He's just going to get away with it. And he's taking all of our tax dollars. Okay. I hate all of that.

This capitalist system, it's corrupt!

You're seeing that play out in real time. You're not seeing anybody actually go to jail for these things.

Of course, you think that it doesn't. I don't think it works the way it is right now!

But then you're -- you're given this false utopian promise. Without any information.

Read the warning label on socialism!

Where has it ever worked?

Show me where it has worked!

And don't say Sweden. Sweden.

Sweden is falling apart right now. Do you know why?

Because Sweden, everybody was blond hair, blue eyed, they were all related to each other. It was a small, little country.

You can do it when everybody is the same, and it's small. It will work in -- to some degree!

But the minute you start going diverse, the whole thing falls apart. So you want to be Sweden?

Go ahead. Look at Sweden today.

I don't want to be Sweden.

Read the warning label. That's our job, to show that warning label.

It's our job to teach what's not being taught. This is a death cult.

Stay away from it. Warning. Warning.

Could Comey FINALLY go to JAIL thanks to this smoking gun?play icon
RADIO

Could Comey FINALLY go to JAIL thanks to this smoking gun?

Is this the 'smoking gun' evidence that could put former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey behind bars? Just the News CEO John Solomon joined Glenn Beck to reveal some shocking new revelations, including Comey’s own emails allegedly authorizing anonymous leaks to the NYT on the Clinton case, potential handwritten notes proving he KNEW Hillary’s team approved the Russia collusion hoax, and a possible email from Comey referring to Hillary Clinton as “President-elect Clinton." Will a Northern Virginia jury hold the Deep State accountable? Or will politics bury the truth again?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Solomon is with us. He is the CEO and editor-in-chief. In chief of Just the News. If you don't check that every day, you're really missing out on a really great news site. Justthenews.com. John, I have made a promise with my audience a long time ago, I do my best not to waste their time.

And as I'm looking through the things I want to talk to you about, I have to start with this question: Is any of this going to mean anything in the end, or is this -- are we just spinning our wheels and wasting our time, talking about how the deep this scandal with James Comey is becoming?

JOHN: That's a great question. And I don't think history has an answer yet. It will really depend on the tenacity and the focus of the Justice Department, the prosecutors, and the jurors that are going to catch these cases. Right? Are they willing to rise above politics and say, "We don't want an FBI that goes after people based on their political color, not the quality of the evidence against them."

And that is what began on 2015 on James Comey's watch, a different type of FBI that seemed to go after Donald Trump and his associates, regardless of evidence, and protect Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, even though the evidence against them was pretty strong, as we ultimately found out from the IRS whistleblowers. So we don't know yet. Listen, these are going to go to trial if the judge lets them go to trial.

The judge in the Comey case seems to be giving the prosecutors a hard time there already. But that's going to be litigated. I'm going to go up to the Supreme Court. It will be a long battle.

But the question is, is the fight worth it?

I think if you don't punish the people that created this mentality, you have deficits in America for a long time.

Banana republic, prosecution arc. And I think that's not what Americans want. They want to say, the FBI is above politics. It hasn't been in the last texted, until the last few months, under Kash Patel.

GLENN: Okay. So let's talk about what the new evidence is the -- the burn bags.

The hidden rooms. And the evidence that now has been found that -- that shows Comey looks like he was lying. To Congress. When he said, no.

I didn't know anything about it.

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. So let's remind people what the alleged lie is, what he's been accused of and indicted of. He told Congress in '17, and then reaffirmed, unequivocally in 2020, that he never asked any of his staff to provide information to the news media. The government, Kash Patel found significant documents that go to the contrary. They chose not to go after James Comey. So in the Bill Maher administration, they knew the same evidence, but they didn't go after him. What is the lie?

He told Congress, I didn't -- one, I never authorized anyone to leak to the media anonymously about the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump cases. And, two, I don't think I knew anything about an intelligence intercept that Hillary Clinton was setting up a fake Russian collusion hoax, that we ended up investigating.

Well, we now know, first, his own emails, with his own top lieutenant, Daniel Richmond. A former lawyer who he brought into the special government. The FBI. There's an FBI employee, showed that James Comey, told him, good job, and make them wiser as he was briefing them on how he was anonymously trying to spin the New York Times and provide information to the New York Times about the Hillary Clinton case.

So directly on point to the testimony he gave. I didn't authorize him to leak about Hillary Clinton in their emails. So this guy was leaking it. He was affirming it, and saying, go ahead. And he was encouraging him to make that reporter wiser. In other words, give them more information anonymously.
So that's the first lie. The second lie -- and, by the way, the grand jury bought that evidence, that we believed he lied.

GLENN: Okay.

JOHN: And that is what we call the Clinton planned intelligence. Was Comey, as John Brennan claimed. And as other evidence -- did Comey know, did he pay attention, did he have some awareness that as the FBI was starting to investigate the Russia collusion ruse, the hoax, that Hillary Clinton had been interpreted, or her people had been intercepted, showing that she approved the plan. He said, it doesn't ring true. I don't think I knew about it.

Well, in a locker, in a burn bag, they found some handwritten notes of James Comey, that appeared to include the briefing from John Brennan where he clearly knew, that Hillary Clinton had been intercepted -- or, her team had been intercepted, saying she approved this plan to hang a fake Russian shingle on Donald Trump's campaign house. Now, those are handwritten notes.

GLENN: Yeah. That is in his handwriting, that he clearly understood. And so now you've got him on -- on two really significant lies. That show that this whole thing was -- was -- they were in collusion with one another. And all of this was bogus.

And they knew it from the beginning.

JOHN: Yeah. That's exactly right. That's why, when you look at this. And then take the third bag of this. Those notes were never produced in earlier subpoenas to Congress or other investigations. They were found in a room, where it appears, according to the government, there is an effort to get rid of or hide this evidence.

So it hadn't been hidden from prior subpoenas, according to the government, according to Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor. And then, two, it looked like they were in burn bags. Meaning, they would never be there.

Now, some other people said, oh, well, there's electronic records of it.

It turns out according to the government, there was no electronic record of the note. Meaning, if they had been burned or destroyed, it would have never happened.

Now, why would James Comey want to lie about this? Because as we see in these same emails, it appears he had a motive.

His motive, as he wrote, his colleague is, I fully expect to be working for president-elect Hillary Clinton. She's talking this way, before the election in 2016.

He thought Hillary was going to be his boss. And as he wrote Dan Richmond, he said, I think Hillary Clinton will be, quote, unquote, pleased by the way I handled her email chase. In other words, he reopened it and cleared her a second time.

And when the smoke cleared, Hillary would like to keep him out as FBI director. That's the insinuation of those notes. So --

GLENN: Yeah. I want to get the exact. I want to give the exact phrase he wrote. A president-elect Clinton will be very greatly.

JOHN: Yeah. Grateful, I'm sorry.

GLENN: Wow.

JOHN: Yeah. Grateful. So he expected it -- that's his mindset in the fall of 2016.

And he opens up an investigation on Hillary Clinton, what we now know to be a ruse. Bad evidence. An agency had to lie to the FISA courts to get the FISA warrants. If his motive was that, or his thinking was that. He probably does not want to admit that I was warned, that maybe this was all a joke before I allowed this investigation to go forward. Before I affixed my name to a FISA warrant that the courts have now said was misleading, false, and violated the law. So that is the context at which the prosecutors are going to try to bring this -- bring this case. Now, it's going to be in northern Virginia, where there are a lot of federal workers and a lot of anti-Trump sentiment.

Can they get a conviction? We don't know. But is it worth trying to do it? Most people I talk to said yes, because the alternative is you have by inaction a sanction, which is what Bill Maher and John Durham did by not bringing this in 2020.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. All right. Can I switch topics. There's something that came out today. James Comey's daughter, and the Epstein case. Apparently, James Comey's daughter sent a message to Epstein, that if you don't have to prove it. But if you can show us anything that ties Donald Trump to this, it's going to go a lot easier for you.

Can you give me this story?

JOHN: Yeah. I've seen it. I've not been able to corroborate it. In this world of media today. I've been super careful. It's hard to know if things are true. I haven't found anyone yet who seems to know the proof on it.

It's possible. Who knows? I mean, prosecutors make these sort of deals all the time. And as we know, it seems in the last decade or two, I think when you have to go back to the era of the Ted Stevens prosecution. The IRS pursuit of conservative groups. And maybe the prosecution which turned out to be malicious and wrong of Virginia governor McDonald.

There is a culture that began at the beginning or around the time of the Obama era. Where winning for prosecutors is more important than winning fairly or on the face of the evidence.

And that's why these cases ultimately got overturned. That mentality exists in the Justice Department.

And then when you add the nature of politics, the Trump Derangement Syndrome that seems to come in, in 2015. You have a very dangerous prosecutorial and law enforcement system that's easily weaponized and can easily cheat.

And unless you got multi-million lawyers, you probably will get hosed, because very few people will find the grounds to overturn this.

And that it is crushing power of the state, that Jim Jordan talks about. Chuck Grassley talks about. That Donald Trump wants to reform.

And I don't know, in this case, whether Mr. Comey did this or not.

Because I can't confirm it yet. But if I knew, I'll come back to you.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: The scenario does go on. And we've seen it. And it's very, very troubling.

There's a case coming up in New York, where the FCC has to admit that there were journalists writing fake stories that were then used to justify investigations of companies.

A system of cheating to get a consequence regardless of whether it's warranted, is something we all have to take a deep breath. We have to fix it. Or we won't be any the different than rectangles and Iran.

GLENN: I will tell you, that I am so glad to say, that you said, I can't confirm this.

I haven't found a source to confirm it.

Because when I read that story, it looks as though one of the people that is telling this story is the guy who was in jail, with Epstein, who would also have motive for making something like this up. So, you know, I don't want to exonerate her.

And I don't want to condemn her. I just want the truth.

And he doesn't seem like a reliable source.

JOHN: Yeah. I think we have to get the evidence, and try to -- listen if the lead is something -- let's check it out and true -- find out if it's true.

We learned that Russia collusion wasn't true. I think we'll learn that most of Ukraine impeachment wasn't true.

And I think today, we just have to dig in first. Get the facts.

But we will -- we will do that. I promise, I'll get back to you, as soon as I know what I can find out for the government.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you, John. I appreciate all your hard work.

John Solomon from Just the News. Go to JusttheNews.com. Follow him. John Solomon. JSolomonReports on X. But he is an old school journalist. Investigative reporter. Has worked for everybody, until everybody was like, you can't say those things. That's our side!

And then he just left and did his own thing. And I'm very grateful for it.

Editor-in-chief of Just the News. John Solomon