GLENN

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs recently won the state championship --- the female state championship --- amid controversy that caused some competitors to forfeit rather than wrestle the junior from Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. Beggs, who is transitioning from a girl to a boy, has been taking regular doses of testosterone.

"Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second, and we'll just talk about how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone --- for a girl, right? --- would be able to compete at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Many argue that the high levels of testosterone, which build strength and muscles, give Beggs an unfair advantage. Begging the question, if it's Beggs' choice to transition, shouldn't she make concessions during the interim to maintain a level playing field? Concessions like not wrestling until the transition is complete?

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

PAT: We've had this situation where there is a girl who is transitioning to a boy. And she's 17 years old. She's a wrestler. And so she wanted -- apparently, she wanted to wrestle in the boy's division this year, right?

JEFFY: Correct. Correct.

PAT: Because she's making that switch. So she's going from boy to girl.

STU: And the Texas rule is, you compete in the gender that you were born.

PAT: That's on your birth certificate.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Especially I guess as long as you have that genitalia, which she does. She's a girl.

STU: Yeah, I don't know -- if you've gone through the full transition, I don't know -- again, if you're talking about kids, this is a pretty new development. I don't know if they have a rule for that.

PAT: Yeah, I don't either.

STU: I think the rule is the gender you had when you were born.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So that's the rule in Texas because it's hateful. How can you possibly ask somebody to compete in the gender category they were born into, how can you ask that?

STU: You can't, Pat. You can't.

PAT: You can't. Because what if you feel differently? Anyway, she does.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: But she was made to -- she was put in the girl's category for wrestling. So she just won the tournament last week.

JEFFY: Yeah, she won the championship.

PAT: She won the championship.

JEFFY: The -- one of the issues is, is that she is actually going through the transition and taking the prescribed medicine to make the change. And so it's working.

PAT: The testosterone.

STU: Right. And, by the way, this ends any argument of all time as to whether men or women are better athletes. Just -- because this whole thing of -- the old Billie Jean King thing back in the day. Let's be honest about it. You take testosterone, you become better and stronger at sports.

PAT: Right.

STU: Sorry.

PAT: Now, that is science. That is science.

JEFFY: That is science.

STU: So sorry. I guess we have to apologize for that.

PAT: Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. You can -- I guess you can try to deny it and say that women are just as strong in every instance as men. It's just not the case.

STU: No, they're better at certain --

PAT: Yes. They're just not built the same way as we are. And that's a good thing. It was supposed to be that way. We're supposed to be different. And we are. And we are.

STU: Stunning. A stunning development that everyone knew at a level of 100 percent until very recently.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This is insane. And, by the way, if a man were to take testosterone in the -- in Major League Baseball or the NFL --

STU: I like how you're saying this as a crazy hypothetical.

PAT: I know.

STU: If in some circumstance somehow --

PAT: And they do.

STU: -- some at least decided to take performance enhancing drugs --

PAT: I don't remember who it was. But your testosterone as a man in the normal range is 400 to 800, maybe up to 1,000. And that's fairly normal. I can't remember who the baseball player was. It might have been A-Rod. He had a testosterone level -- and I shouldn't mention him because I don't remember who it was. But I remember their level was 4,000. So clearly they had been --

JEFFY: That's a man.

PAT: No man takes -- or has that much natural testosterone. So clearly, they had been taking testosterone, so they were better at what they were doing than they otherwise would have been. So it works on men as well as girls transitioning to men. So obviously, this girl is going to become stronger, she's going to be faster. She's going to be better able to wrestle than she was as a girl with no testosterone.

JEFFY: Right. And the argument also from the other parents that are suing the school board is that, hey, she is taking this medicine. That's making her into a boy. We don't want her wrestling.

PAT: And in Texas, you can take -- you can compete if you've been prescribed the testosterone by a doctor, and she was.

JEFFY: Correct. And there are several -- there are three or four other things on that list that the Wrestling Association says it's okay as long as it's prescribed and that would not be okay if it was not prescribed, for sure.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And the reason for that, by the way, quickly, steroids are like standard treatment for a lot of illnesses.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes. Right.

STU: If you break out in a rash or if you have -- if you're sick in any number of ways.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: One of the first responses is to give you a shot of steroids because, you know, it works. It's pretty effective.

PAT: It reduces swelling, aids in healing. It just -- it calms down infection. I mean, it does a lot of different things. I've taken steroids quite a bit. Because I've been sick lately. And it helps. They help.

STU: A lot.

PAT: So it kind of makes sense that there are certain circumstances under which -- you know, because if you're taking anabolic steroids, that's one thing. But if you're taking steroids that a normal doctor would prescribe for an illness that's a different deal.

JEFFY: Which is pretty much what they were covering when they made the rules, before this.

PAT: Right. So, anyway, Stu heard this interview on the way in by Chris Cuomo. And is it the lawyer representing the other girls in the tournament?

STU: No, this is Ben Ferguson, who is a talk show host. He's a CNN contributor, so he's there to take the evil right-wing side of this argument. Chris Cuomo who purpose or it is I guess to be a journalist. I don't know that for a fact. But it seems like he wants to come off as evenhanded on the show is a straight-out activist on this show.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And the reason is because he's in the middle of his own personal issue with the transgendered argument, which is last week someone tweeted to him -- when talking about the transgendered issue, what do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn't want to see a man's unit in the locker room?

So a 12-year-old girl is in the locker room, someone changing next to them, takes down their pants and has a guy junk. Right? He's got guy junk.

What do you tell that 12-year-old girl? His response was, I wonder if she is the problem.

PAT: Good gosh.

STU: Or her overprotective and intolerant dad. Teach tolerance. That was his response.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

STU: Now, look, that's unbelievable, to put that on the 12-year-old girl.

PAT: Unbelievable response.

STU: A 12-year-old girl is not equipped to -- even if this were the most logical thing in the world, is not equipped to make that determination. She's going to be interested in what she's interested in at that age. That's going to be -- it's a moment -- it's an era of discovery, right. And so that is not something that you would necessarily want -- that's why they have separation.

Because honestly, with this standard, why bother with two different bathrooms? Why bother with two different locker rooms for any reason? Why bother? Why not just be tolerant of male genitalia all the time for 12-year-old girls? Why is it only when someone else outside of their decision-making process makes a decision they identify a different way. Right? Someone else has done that, that doesn't affect the 12-year-old girl in this scenario. She hasn't made any judgment, well, I identify that person as a female, therefore the junk that I'm looking at is not male. That's not her determination. It's someone else's determination. So that is -- it's an absurd argument on its face.

But he got so much heat for that tweet, blaming the 12-year-old girl and her intolerant dad of not being accepting of penises in the locker room, which is essentially what he said: You should be tolerant of the penis.

That was the word they used. He got so much heat for that. He's now in, I've locked myself in the corner, and I'm going to be defensive on this point no matter what. Which, it brings out the best in Chris Cuomo. Because he's now so desperate to prove that this wasn't a mistake, he'll say anything.

PAT: Yeah. Listen to this.

VOICE: What's your take on the tournament, my friend?

VOICE: Well, first off, I think this -- take the transgendered issue out of it for a second. If you are taking testosterone, which is a performance-enhancing drug in sports, you shouldn't be able to wrestle.

PAT: Correct. There you go.

VOICE: And this gave a completely unfair advantage to this participant. You can talk about that whether you are in your age-group or in your sex group that are associated with. If you're taking something that is performance enhancing, you're not a real champion. You cheated and you won.

Now, the state I think has some blame for this, by having it where they're even allowing these testosterones to be used if they're prescribed by a doctor. That's where I think the big fix probably needs to come.

STU: Stop for a second. Because this is -- so, first of all, this is his first response. Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second. And we'll just talk about you how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone for a girl, right? Would be able to compete at all. So taking out the transgendered issue, it's still wrong. So he's already won the argument at this point, right?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: But not with Chris Cuomo who can't possibly accept this.

CHRIS: If there was acceptance, we wouldn't have had this issue because this kid would be wrestling against boys.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

STU: So here's his argument: So Chris, he falls back to --

PAT: If there were acceptance.

STU: I don't know what level we're going to fall back to on this. It's going to be hard to keep track of. But he falls back to, if there was -- if we taught acceptance, this wouldn't be an issue because she would be able to wrestle the boys like she wants to.

PAT: And in that eventuality, we wouldn't be talking about the story at all because she would have lost in the first round, and it would be over.

STU: Right. That's true.

PAT: It would be over.

STU: That's true. However -- however, we still would be talking about the issue. Why?

Because in a liberal state, let's say California, there would be a -- it would go the opposite way. You would have a boy who was transforming to be a girl and wanted to identify as a girl and then went into the girl's division and then destroyed all the girls. So the issue would still exist, it would just be in a liberal state and the opposite way. So he's completely wrong there to say the issue goes away if -- if we, quote, unquote, teach acceptance. The issue still exists, it's just on the opposite side.

VOICE: We know. And for those as you're learning about -- just so people know.

VOICE: Here's the thing.

VOICE: But hold on, Ben. Let's just clarify one thing: The science, you have to be careful about.

STU: This is argument two.

PAT: The science now.

VOICE: The amount of hormone that this kid is given is the minimum standard they can give to replicate the output of a boy.

STU: Okay. Stop. There's so much there.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Does he know the amount she's being given?

STU: First of all -- yes. So that was one of his big arguments in this. I assume he knows it because he quotes -- he kept saying, you have to look it up. You have to look it up. So, again, that's a bad assumption on my part.

PAT: Look it up, Jeffy. See how much testosterone --

STU: However, it's not the minimum amount that a girl would have, right? It's actually way more than a girl would have, which is what makes the transition happen.

PAT: Yes. Way more. It's the minimum amount for a boy.

STU: For a boy. Now, let's just say that that's true. So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating --

PAT: So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating.

STU: It still would be cheating as the girl. So his point is, well, then they should allow him -- her -- him to wrestle with the boys, right? Because he wants -- she identifies as a man. So we should think that she's a man. We should allow her to wrestle with the boys. Because she's not getting -- his point there is, he's not getting so much -- she's not getting so much more testosterone than the boy would normally have. So she's not a superhuman boy, she's just a boy, right? First of all, his wording is interesting there. The amount to replicate a boy.

If she's a boy, you do not need to replicate the boy.

If you're replicating something, you're replicating it because it's not actually happening. Therefore, your whole scientific argument is flawed. The thing that you're saying you want to happen isn't happening.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not a boy. So if she was a boy, you would not need to replicate it.

PAT: Yeah, if you need to talk about science, what is she scientifically? She's a girl.

STU: She's a girl.

PAT: She's had no surgery. There's nothing been changed on her body. She's a girl. So if you want to talk science, she's a girl. And then -- so it's unfair for the girl to be getting testosterone, when the other girls aren't getting it.

STU: Right. Exactly. Now, his point seems to be, what he wants to happen is that she wrestles against the boys and then loses because she is getting only the appropriate level for a boy of testosterone.

Again, it's a ridiculous argument in and of itself. But if you're going -- even if you're going to entertain it, the point is, getting performance-enhancing drugs -- it's not to say that you let everyone come to the same level of testosterone. The point is, you don't get additional testosterone as to what you have naturally. That's the point of the rule. It's enhancing. Whether you think it's enhancing it only to equal, it's not the point. The point is, you don't enhance it to what you have naturally.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: She has very little naturally. And they're enhancing it to get a higher level, regardless of what level.

PAT: And all we're talking about here is -- the level of the other competitors is what we should be talking about, not the level of the boys.

STU: Yes. Right.

PAT: Because is it unfair for her to have beaten all these girls whose level of testosterone is ridiculous?

VOICE: Kids are going to be superhuman -- it's the opposite.

PAT: No, it's not the opposite.

VOICE: Scientifically, that is the outcome. If you look and do the research as I have, you'll see that.

STU: Oh, God.

PAT: What a condescending ass.

STU: Yes. Remember, this is a guy who is in full standing in the Douche Hall of Fame. And this is him showing off why he's there.

PAT: Exactly.

STU: And, by the way, on Pat and Stu today, a vote on Chris Cuomo as the Grand Nozzle after this interview. Because he deserves it from Harry Reid.

VOICE: If this state allowed this kid to wrestle against boys, which is what he wants, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

STU: Right. This case. You would be talking about a different case in a different state that went the opposite way. The issue would not go away at all based on that. You would just be arguing the opposite side of it.

PAT: True.

VOICE: But you also have to look at, there has to be a standard. And I think it's not insane or crazy for a state to say that you compete with the sex that's on your birth certificate. That's what I would refer to as logical. It is illogical to somehow imply that this kid is a victim because he decided to do something or change something and therefore you change the entire sport around it. That is the part that I think many people are sitting here and saying, "Hey, if you want to compete in a sport, period, then you cannot be taking performance-enhancing drugs and do it." But to say that we should change the entire way that sports is done because of one person and their decision to do something, that is unrealistic.

VOICE: Right.

But the premise is flawed. Because the logic requires --

STU: We got to come back. We're not going to have time to get it --

VOICE: I disagree. That's why we're having a discussion. That transgender doesn't count. But it does count, and that's why we're having this bigger debate about what you allow trans kids to have access to and what you don't.

PAT: He goes on to say that she identifies as a girl.

STU: Yeah, but we have to come back and play -- because that part is unbelievable as well.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: His scientific argument is that she identifies. Well, that's not science.

PAT: That's not science. Now you're talking feelings. You're not talking science.

STU: As you said, they're replicating it. She's identifying. You're laying it out -- subconsciously, you're saying the truth. You can't help yourself. You can't help yourself. You keep saying the truth.

PAT: I can identify as a gerbil, if I want to, but I'm not. I'm not one. And I won't fit into the little thing with the wheel that goes -- spins around and around. So...

STU: Right. And any other circumstance, this argument would be completely bizarre.

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED
RADIO

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?


KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion
RADIO

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has allowed District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former president Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case … and Glenn has a few words for him. “I have never seen a clearer case of perjury,” Glenn says, after the world watched Fani Willis defend her relationship with her special prosecutor “friend.” Glenn warns that if this judge can ignore GPS evidence in this case, how many criminals will this allow to go free? But why did Judge McAfee issue this ruling in the first place? Is he a “coward” who is afraid of repercussions from the anti-Trump left?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

All right. We just had some breaking news here.

STU: Yeah. We have our Fani decision.

Fani Wilson. Remember, the course, what was on the line was, is she going to leave? Is she going to be forced out, and they will have to find an entirely new situation, basically restart from scratch? Was what was on the line here.

GLENN: Because she perjured herself.

STU: Again, and this is, of course, the case against Donald Trump in Georgia. And the judge, Scott McAfee, has come out in a 23-page ruling issued.

He said that the defendants failed to meet their burden, in proving Willis' relationship with the special prosecutor, named Wade, was a conflict of interest.

Enough to merit her removal from the case. The judge did find an appearance of impropriety. And said, either Willis -- and her office may leave the case. Or wade must withdraw from the proceeding.

So basically, what will happen here is the dude will get fired. And she will be able to keep going. Now, this is not the a --

GLENN: That's unbelievable!

STU: That's incredible.

After what they've done.

GLENN: Have you ever seen a clear case of perjury?

STU: Everyone on earth knows she was lying. He was lying.

GLENN: There's no justice. There really is no justice. I mean, if you want to know highway African-Americans felt, in, you know, the 1930s, '40s, '50s, especially in the South?

Here it is! Here it is!

You can see it with your eyes. You hear the testimony, and you just know it's rigged. It's rigged.

Because there is no way, any reasonable person would come up with that.

STU: What do you mean, an appearance of impropriety?

How can I possibly think it's just an appearance of impropriety. Again, we talked about this in the beginning. If they had come out and said, look, Nathan wade is just the bad guy out there.

Yeah. I had an affair with him. He was an incredible man. I had to have a piece. But he's an incredible attorney. And I'll admit to everything. And I hired him because he's the best. Probably, they just skate. Instead, they decided to lie throughout the entire thing.

GLENN: Boldly.

STU: Boldly. The face of judge --

GLENN: It is not. You know, you can debate. Well, I made a mistake.

Well, I was -- no. They boldly took the stand.

Wanted to lie.

STU: And did lie.

GLENN: And did lie. Over and over.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: How?

STU: It was noted by the judge, that the situation was not proper. However, basically, they're just going to make him leave.

GLENN: Yes. But how does she stay?

Forget the relationship. How does she stay even an attorney, if she has perjured herself?

STU: Right. This is so far beyond the relationship. I barely cared about the story, when there was a relationship involved. Okay.

Whatever. But once she started lying on the stand, and he started lying on the stand, and it was proven. There is absolutely no way she should be in a position of power, and she certainly, and so should he, lose his law license.

There is no law. If attorneys can get away with that. None. None.

None.

STU: It's quite the statement. But it's hard to disagree with.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They were overt in this. We all know. Just looking at this from a human perspective, we know they were all lying. They didn't go through a perjury trial. Right?

They didn't go through a bar hearing, where they had to fight for their license. They went through something that was -- a proceeding that was supposed to lean on this case. In this case, they will let her stay on. Obviously, that will be the choice she makes, by the way.

GLENN: But how? How?

How can the judge believe anything that she is presenting or saying, if the judge knows, she boldly, knowingly, lied in two other cases.

How?

STU: I certainly can't believe a word she's saying. I don't know how he can.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: It is incredible. And you would be right to look at this and say, this is seemingly very unfair.

I mean, I don't know how I can look at this, and say, anything other than, they -- look, they definitely want Donald Trump to get in legal trouble.

You know, there's no question about that. And if they don't -- if they keep Fani Willis on the trial, there's a chance these things come to fruition before the election. If they throw her off, basically it's over.

And they don't want that.

GLENN: A new study shows that what the Supreme Court doctrine that was the old doctrine created by the Supreme Court, allows 96 percent of private property, is open now to warrantless searches.

The DEA, in a completely other new story, shows that they had a surveillance program on Americans.

They have collected massive amounts of telephone records, for 20 years.

And it was shuttered, because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The inspector general has released a report heavily redacted.

And that has been released. That was released six years later. The Washington Examiner has just received a copy of it.

The office of inspector general exists to provide oversight of government agencies. Among the new details of the DEA program, is that it refused to comply with parts of the IG investigation, for seven months. And no one faced any consequences.

Can you trust inspector general reports anymore?

Can you trust that Congress even has oversight or even if they want to have oversight?

This, the country has broken down. And all of the problems that are happening, right now. Are because we've abandoned all of our principles.

Does it ever feel to you, let me take a break.

Let me just take a break. Sorry, we didn't expect that news broke, just as I was finishing that commercial.

STU: Let me give you a quick rundown of what their argument is. And what the judges argument is in this case, Glenn. Basically, they start out and go through -- reading through it, while you're talking.

Go through the idea of why weather she financially benefited from it first. Her argument was, we don't have proof of that. We don't know for sure.

They essentially bide the Fani Willis argument of number one, she already makes a bunch of money. She already doesn't have massive debts. She wasn't doing this purely for financial gain. They bought the idea that okay. She paid for one of these trips.

Which it does seem like she did one of the birthday trips that she mentioned many times. So it wasn't like -- and I sort of agree, right?

Like I think you do too. This isn't necessarily, entirely about, oh, we hired this guy, just so I could take trips.

Like, I don't think that's necessarily what happened.

GLENN: Right. It could have.

STU: I think they were broken up. They wanted to take trips. And it just happened to work out well.

I don't know if that's the primary reason.

It's more like, she wanted the guy she was sleeping with, to be close.

And that's a massive problem there. Let me give you this paragraph. This is after they basically say, look, there's issues there. But we can't prove that was her motivation.

Without sufficient evidence, that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the defendant's claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment. Or the unprofessional manor of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.

GLENN: Unprofessional.

STU: He's admitting that he knows, that she was lying, basically.

GLENN: That's not unprofessional. It's perjury.

STU: I would agree.

I mean, that's a separate. You don't necessarily get charged with it, in that way.

You would have to have a separate hearing on it. Still, it rises to that standard, to me.

He says, rather, it is the undersigned opinion, that the Georgia law, does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly.

And it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and lay brought before it.

Other forms or sources of authority, such as the general assembly -- he's giving a path here.

The general assembly. The Georgia state ethics commission. The state bar of Georgia.

The faulted county Board of Commissioners. Or the voters of Fulton county.

May offer feedback for any unanswered questions that linger. This is directly from the ruling.

But those are not the issues determined to the defendant's motions, alleging an actual conflict. So he's basically.

I think you can very fairly look at this. And say, he's being very challenged by a Jesse Jackson disciple. You can argue --

GLENN: Lose your job. Verify to lose -- what a coward.

STU: Well, he would deny it.

GLENN: Terrified to lose your job.

How dare you. Your job is a constitutional boast. And you're terrified -- what you know I'm terrified of?

I'm terrified of being shot and killed. I'm terrified of an out-of-control government, swooping in, and arresting my employees.

Or arresting me.

That's what I'm -- that's what I'm afraid of?

Okay. Plus, everything else that is going on, that I am worried about my family and my children.

How dare any of you judges be afraid that you'll lose your job. Boohoo. Cry me a river.

It is our Constitution and our country, that is at stake.

And none of this monologue has anything to do with Donald Trump. None of it.

We all know she perjured herself.

I don't care about the relationship. I don't care about the money.

The people of Georgia should. What I care about, more than even the case with Donald Trump, is that this woman perjured herself, and so did her boyfriend.

They knowingly, gleefully, wickedly perjured themselves. Over and over.

Neither of them, should have a law license today.

Neither of them!

STU: Allegedly. So we --

GLENN: Allegedly.

STU: Just trying to protect you from being sued. But, no. I think there is a standard here, where like, as a person who is a normal human being, looking at what they say, I -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know every little in and out of what they're doing here.

We'll have the mom to talk about it. But it's to me, blatantly obvious. I said this 100 times.

No human being in history, has, actually, done the things they said they did.

Nobody.

And that is outside of the cell phone data. Where we know, she was there.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Societies blatantly obvious to any human being.

GLENN: It is the cell phone data.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It is that. Forget about --

STU: They've addressed that.

GLENN: Et cetera, et cetera.

It is the cell phone GPS location, by triangulating the phones. That they know he was -- may not know he was in bed with her.

But I'm sure the CIA has some satellites that can see the heat of bodies through a ruse of houses.

STU: They can look through now and see through Wi-Fi, and see who is in the rooms.

GLENN: Exactly right. If -- if that triangulation does not hold up as evidence.

STU: To be fair, I don't think that's what he said.

I don't think he's saying the cell phone data doesn't hold up.

I think he's basically admitting, they had this relationship, and they were lying.

GLENN: Yeah. Wait.

So he can allow them to go on a case, when they shouldn't be. When they perjured themselves.

It's his court, as well as another courtroom.

STU: Again, I disagree with this ruling.

That's why I read that paragraph.

He's basically stating. I don't have the legal authority to do this on these grounds.

He's saying, these other institutions should be the ones doing this. They should be the ones disqualifying her. I can only act under the law, I have. At my behest right now.

Look, I tend to agree we strongly.

But that is his argument.

He says, he's limited by the law. It's not just -- you can't. If there was a financial aspect.

He could throw her off.

He said, I don't have the financial aspect locked down enough. Therefore, I can't do it.

GLENN: You have perjury.

One is fraud. The other is perjury. Under oath. By an officer of the court.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I got news for you, gang. If this is the way you can just go to court, you think any lawyer is not going to tell murderers, and everything else, exactly what to say?

No. No. No.

Change -- the change story a bit.

STU: Yeah. Stick to your story.

This is a Mafia tactic, right?

If the Mafia were to exist, this would be one of the tactics they would do.

GLENN: And of course we don't need any more enemies. And if they do exist, I love the mob.

STU: But I think that is real. All you have to do, and they proved that they talked.

They talked -- coordinate your story. That's basically what occurred here.

They -- they had a very similar story.

And like, again, I don't think -- I don't think Fani Willis was saying, hey. If I hired this guy, I would be able to go to Napa Valley, in six months.

I don't think that's the full motivation. To your point, a much greater violation has occurred.

They went in front of this judge, and blatantly lied in my view.

Over and over and over again.

And that doesn't --

GLENN: I mean, I just want to say, in your view, no. Let's follow the science.

GPS coordinates. That is not reliable technology.

STU: According to the GPS coordinates. And that's not reliable technology. To your point, there's a lot of criminals out on the street later today.

GLENN: Let me just say this real quick. Please, dear Jesus come. Or send us an astroid.

Because I can't take much more of this.

THIS New Rule Could Make CRIMINALS Out of Small Business Owners
RADIO

THIS New Rule Could Make CRIMINALS Out of Small Business Owners

Did you know the Corporate Transparency Act could make small business owners CRIMINALS? Former investment banker and “You Will Own Nothing” author Carol Roth joins the Glenn Beck Program to explain how the federal government is completely out of control. She also says she'll join Glenn in a lawsuit to end this UNCONSTITUTIONAL act.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Again, another horse on the highway. The Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is looking to collect your information on the beneficial ownership information, that you have to report.

And I -- I am just -- I am there at FinCEN.gov/BOIfacts. And I have no idea. No idea.

And I'm -- I'm the one, I'm one of them that has to do it. Stu, your wife has an LLC, right? You have an LLC?

STU: I believe. I don't remember if it's structured that way. But, yeah. I believe it is.

GLENN: So anyone with an LLC. Even if you're not using it. You have to file, right?

CAROL: Yes. It is every reporting entity. So if you're a single member LLC. S-Corp.

C Corp. Whatever kind of instructor you have.

If you're not exempted, which means you don't have 20 employees, or $5 million in revenue, or fall into one of their other categories that they exempted. You know, somebody like a hedge fund, of course, is not included.

Because why would they be, right?

GLENN: Yeah. There's no money laundering.

CAROL: Right. So if you have a reporting entity. That's why I said, it sounds like there are other reporting entities, like housing associations that may get caught up, because they file something with their state.

So if you're a reporting entity, you have to file. And I don't know if you notice, on that FinCEN.gov/BOI homepage, that the first alert they had is a fraud alert. Because, of course, people are taking advantage of this. And trying to --

GLENN: Because nobody knows anything about it.

CAROL: So recommend tell you about the media. First of all, thank you for being a platform of truth, and one that supports small businesses. Because we've been talking about this. But none of the mainstream media has done anything to alert people to this.

However, Glenn, When the state of Alabama Supreme Court said that we're going to rule this unconstitutional, what did they say?

This is a blow to corporate transparency, this is going to make it harder to fight the cartels.

You tell me, what cartel, and what money launder, is self-reporting to FinCEN?

Okay.

GLENN: Well, let me also say this.

We have been talking about a giant crime family, that is money laundering for a long time.

But because it was ten for the big guy, or five for the big guy, he doesn't have to report this!

Because he's already over $5 million.

So if you -- I mean, if you're small time. Small time money launderer.

Then you have to do it. But if you're an honest money launderer, you don't have to file. If your money laundering is forever 5 million. Unbelievable.

CAROL: Well, that's the thing is that is really frustrating. They have tools that alert them to suspicious activity. There are suspicious activity reports from the banks, which the Biden family had well over 100 of them. I think on a combined basis.

And they did nothing to look into potential money laundering.

So if there is suspicious activity, or there is something that looks, you know, awry. They have ways to go through the courts, to go after that, you know, particular entity.

The ones who are massive criminals, aren't going to be reporting to FinCEN. So all this is, is a mass surveillance program against small businesses.

And the penalties, as you said, are insane.

It's not just for not reporting. It's if you don't update. So a woman gets married and changes her name.

You move. You get a new driver's license. Because the other one was out of date.

You don't let FinCEN know, they can send you to jail!

Why this was ever passed. And, oh, by the way, Trump did veto this. And it went back to Congress.

And they overwrote it. And nobody has done anything to fix this, is absolutely insane!

There are 33 million small businesses, in this country, why are they being put under a microscope, and saying, you are criminal.

You are financial criminals. And we are going to hold your feet to the fire, if you don't let us track you. It is insane.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I am just looking at this website.

It scrolls. And it just keeps scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. On what you have to do.

I mean, this is -- this is as bad as the IRS, if not worse.

Because none of us have ever done any of this before.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: You don't even know. Is there an organization out there, that can help file this?

I mean, the bureaucracy is crazy!

CAROL: So that's part of the challenge.

Is that there are accountants and lawyers, who are trying to get on top of it.

Because everything is so vague and confusing.

Even they're not entirely sure what to do.

So again, my recommendation, if you have an existing reporting entity.

You have until January 1st of next year.

I personally, with my LLC. I am not doing this. Until the very last minute.

Because we're working very hard. We're talking with lawmakers.

We're trying to get it overturned. At least delayed so we have a little breathing room to try to do something.

The problem is, if you start a new business, Glenn. You only have 30 days. And I have heard some rumblings. Whatever it is that they're collecting this information. That they don't have a formal database, built yet.

Go figure.

Right.

And so that information is incredibly vulnerable.

And that impacts the ability to start businesses in this country.

If you're starting one. And you have an entity. If you don't a reporting entity, you don't have to file --

GLENN: What does that mean? A reporting entity? That's an LLC?

CAROL: So something that you have to file information with your state to let them know that you're a business. There are certain people who act as sole proprietors, who don't have a business around them, or an entity around them. Like you said, an LLC, an S-Corp.

A C-Corp, and the like.

But if you have that reporting entity, that's where you're getting caught up in this.

And it is just -- it is just absolutely egregious, nefarious, and an affront to small business.

GLENN: I have a friend who has just this week, started a new business. Guarantee you, he knows nothing about this. And because he's starting a new business, he has 30 days.

CAROL: Thirty days, or he can be fined. He can be thrown in jail.

GLENN: Is it 500 or $800 a day, for every day after 30 days?

CAROL: Yeah. It's some incredible amount per day.

GLENN: And up to ten years, in prison.

CAROL: Civil and criminal penalties. For not -- for not reporting, or not -- again, not updating your information.

Not like you do this once, and you're done.

You have to remember this, any time you do anything that changes any of the information, that would be collected, in the system.

GLENN: You know, Stalin said, show me the man, I'll show you the crime. Or his Stasi chief said that.

CAROL: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: That's what this is.

I mean, everybody is -- with all of the new guide lines and regulations and everything else.

There's no way, you can keep up with all of these things.

And I think they're intentionally designed to be able to say, sorry, dude.

You're a criminal.

You did this. Buh-bye.

Because you know people who are connected, are never going to have a problem, from the Treasury financial crimes enforcement network.

CAROL: Yeah. And if you were really concerned about massive corporate transparency. Or massive scale laundering cartels. Then you would be exempting the small businesses.

And you would be focusing on the large companies that have the financial resources and the capabilities to do reporting.

Like the publicly traded companies do.

But it's exactly the opposite.

So what other conclusion could we possibly draw, that you want to surveil what small businesses are doing. And could go everything you can, to hold them down.

And, basically, continue to transfer wealth from Main Street to Wall Street.

GLENN: So when is -- when is -- can the group that now has filed and they said it was unconstitutional.

They can't file. Because they don't have standing, to kick it up to the Supreme Court, right?

CAROL: So I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV.

I don't know what the procedure is. You have to ask the lawyer on that.

There are certainly a number of people, who are looking into additional lawsuits. There are some lawmakers. Who are looking into trying to get this overturned or at least delayed.

To give again, some time to rethink it.

And see what can be done. In terms of the court, I couldn't believe.

It's unconstitutional. But it's only unconstitutional for this person who filed the lawsuit. I have never seen anything like that.

GLENN: Have you ever seen anything like that before?

STU: No.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, I will -- I will file, for a federal lawsuit.

I mean, anybody --

CAROL: I'll join you.

GLENN: You will join me?

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: I have no expertise in this. I have no idea. But let's do it.

I -- this government is completely out of control. If they can do this, and then they also have said, you know. There's no gig workers anymore. Carol, what is that going to do to the grocery shelves, when you can't get private drivers to drive trucks!


CAROL: I mean, this is insane.

And it goes against the complete shift in the economy.

One of the great things about technology. Is it gave people flexibility, Glenn.

Flexibility to work the way you want to work.

And that's the wonderful thing about America. Not everybody around the world, gets to choose what they do for a living. And how to work.

And more and more people want work/life balance. They don't want to be an employee. They want to make their hours.

And, in fact, when they go out and survey, from the government surveys on down. And they survey independent contractors.

The majority of people, don't want to be employees. They love being independent contractors. And they make at least as much, if not more, than if they were an employee. So the fact that we have the Department of Labor, who went around Congress, and say, we will change the way independent contractors are classified. We don't want to have these standalone people. We want them to be employees.

We want them to be in unions. It's all about big business. It's all about making the unions happy. And it's against capitalism. And your own choice. Your work. Your choice. The people who are so obsessed with choice in everything. Why would you not have a choice in how you present your labor? You and I agree on something. What does the government have to do, getting in the middle going, I'm sorry. I don't like the way you decided on how you want to work.

GLENN: And let me ask you this, too. Biden is working so hard to get labor unions to grow. And these kinds of things make you say, I don't want to be an owner of anything. I just want to be a worker. I don't want to stick my head out for any risk at all.

That's what this does. Then, as they squeeze and squeeze, and you don't really have any rights, people want to join unions. But the unions are in bed with the people that are squeezing you!

CAROL: It's the great consolidation. It's taking away that freedom, that choice, that capitalism, that underpins America. What it is that made us successful. That productivity that we talk about, that will allow us to continue to grow and at least have a chance to save this country's fiscal foundation. They want to do everything they can, to put up barriers. They want to put up barriers to work. To earning a living.

Like, if you said this to somebody, ten years ago, 15 years ago, they would look at you, like we're in a bizarro world.

GLENN: People did, when we talked about it, two years ago. That it was coming.

They looked at us, like that will never happen.

Well, here it is. Here it is.

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD
RADIO

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD

Randy Clark was a Border Patrol agent for over 32 years, from the Reagan administration to the Trump administration. But he tells Glenn Beck that he has “NEVER” seen anything like the border crisis that President Biden “unleashed.” In fact, he admits that over the past 3 years of the illegal immigration surge, he has had “no advice to give Border Patrol agents I meet… I cannot tell them how to cope with this” because of how unprecedented it has been. Randy also weighs in on something just as concerning: Are we being told the full truth from either the Right OR Left about the border? This is the subject of the newest Blaze Originals documentary, “Texas vs. The Feds: How The Elites Use The Border Crisis Against Us.” Randy dives into one of the questions raised in the documentary: What was discussed at a secret meeting earlier this year between Secretary of State Alejandro Mayorkas and the President of Mexico? And how do the cartels fit into all of this?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome. I brought Jason Buttrill in. He is the chief researcher for the Glenn Beck Program. And also, the -- the head writer for Glenn TV on Wednesday night specials. Welcome.

JASON: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: We sent you down to the border, because there was the truckers, the Take Our Border Back convoy. And everybody was saying, it's Christian nationalism. And it wasn't Christian nationalism. And I knew that. You knew that. Because I knew some of the organizers. And I thought, there's no way, unless it's infiltrated.

So we sent you down with a camera crew. And the story turned out to be nothing. However, you came back a changed man.

JASON: I hate to say that I was completely black-pilled, but yeah.

STU: Yeah, it's a big change.

GLENN: Big change.

STU: He still doesn't have hair.

JASON: How dare you.

GLENN: It's not that -- but you came back and you were like, Glenn, I can't -- I have to show you. I can't even explain what I learned.

JASON: Well, I know that -- we all know that the government and the media all bend the immigration and border issue for their own purposes. They all game it.

It's too politically valuable for them.

So, you know, the media uses it. We saw that with the trucker convoy, like firsthand.

That's the very first thing we saw. But then, you remember that time?

It was kind of awesome to be a Texan at that time.

GLENN: But all of a sudden, Texas stood up.

JASON: We were flying our flags. We took the matter in our own hands, we're finally enforcing the law. It felt so awesome to be a Texan.

And it's incredibly hard to describe, without you, actually, seeing the video.

Without you seeing -- you know, the Shelby Park. How it was kind of taken. It's impossible to explain.

But that right there, is when I was like, oh, my gosh. I feel like we're being lied to, all across the border.

GLENN: Even on our own side.

JASON: That's the worst part.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

Randy Clark is with us. He's a retired border patrol agent. He also writes for Breitbart.

And he was down on the border. And he's one of the guys that kind of black pilled you a little bit.

JASON: Randy Clark is old-school Border Patrol.

He -- you spend five minutes with him, and you are an expert. He's amazing.

GLENN: Randy, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

RANDY: Thank you for having me, Glenn. Jason, good to hear you, brother.

JASON: You too.

GLENN: So, Randy, let's talk about a secret meeting that is in the docket tonight. A secret meeting. I guess it wasn't secret. We just don't what an they did, that happened with Antony Blinken, and the president of Mexico.

RANDY: So we know they sat down together in late December. Right about the time we were seeing, you know, just the hoards of people, coming into Eagle Pass. All of that imagery. And when it gets that bad.

That's when it becomes a big deal. Because that's when you get those folks from the media, that never report on the border.

That's when CNN is obligated to come, and other outlets that just really don't care whether the border is open or not.

They would rather see it open. That's when there's a problem. This was shut down within three days of that meeting, between Biden and everyone talking. And Blinken and Mayorkas sitting down.

Again, late December.

Within a few days, Eagle Pass was down to zero when the congressional visit came with close to 60-some-odd members of the Republican Party, including Speaker of the House.

You couldn't find anybody there. We had a handful of migrants come near the boat ramp, during their press conference. Where normally, by that hour of the day, we would have had 5,000. So this was awfully fast.

And nobody has taken credit for it, except really the state of Texas with some wire.

Because the Biden administration doesn't want to let you know, we could have done this three years ago.

GLENN: This is -- because I know what you're showing tonight.

And it is -- oh. It's -- you -- it's a punch to the gut.

It really is.

Tell me the -- when did Texas put the razor wire up?

Before or after this?

RANDY: So that razor wire has been up for several years now. They augmented it around January 11 when they seized the park. By that time, the park had been clear of most migrants for 11 days.

The problem is, this thing is still moving to the West. In other words, the country still has a problem with illegal immigration and open borders. And fentanyl.

It's -- the government of Mexico, their main objective was to stop those trains. The best system, they call it. It's the best. Those trains are almost void of any migrants, when they were bringing in daily, three to 5,000, into the parts of Texas. Mostly in Eagle Pass, as of late.

GLENN: So the drug cartel had to be involved, because the drug cartel runs everything.

And if they decided to shift, that's either a wild coincidence, after we meet with the president of Mexico.

Or they're involved.

RANDY: So the cartels have not stopped their part.

Where there is value, they are moving that. If you look to Lucedale, Arizona, where you see there are migrants across the globe coming in. That's where the cartel is making the bulk of their money on human smuggling. They have not stopped them.

GLENN: Yeah. But they have stopped or cut way back in Texas. Right?

RANDY: Well, if you see the got away numbers, they're still there. The sheriffs in South Texas. And the Texas Department of Public Safety.

They are still chasing cars in pursuit on the highways.

And that's when -- that's the hand of the cartel. Those are paying customers. We hide them. They're even hiding them from Mexico.

They're trying to get around those checkpoints in Mexico. Mexico is finding them in semi tractor-trailers just like the border patrol finds at their checkpoints. It's now a game of cat and mouse in Mexico with the cartels, like it is in the United States.

So the cartel is still trying to beat this Mexican government initiative, and they're doing it by moving West. Because that was not hindered. But they are moving more of their migrants to the West. And we see those numbers coming up, where Texas is remaining low. There are tens of thousands of soldiers, that Mexico has placed towards this endeavor.

If they just kicked the people off the trains. You can take away about 5,000 per day from the equation. So we're seeing that. We're seeing crossings of five to 6,000 a day, where we were seeing up to ten and 11 and 12 during December, right before the meeting, between Blinken, Mayorkas, and Obrador.

GLENN: I saw that yesterday it was reported that two people -- or a -- two groups of people were taking Ubers across the border. I don't know who would have done that.

But they're -- the cars were shot up. One person was killed. Because it was the cartel. Because they didn't ask permission to come across the border.

Is that universal, across the border?

RANDY: You know, it is universal. And that's really what's at stake, that we can't lose sight of. Is that this cartel.

They will make money doing whatever they can. Whether it's extortion, whether it's robbery, whether it's fentanyl, whether it's migrants.

And that's really why, I think we have to as conservatives, stay true to this matter, and let the public know what they face. Because this is a greater thing going on in the background.

We have a silent selection going on, in Mexico, that's going to happen in June.

The leading candidate is way more liberal than Obrador.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RANDY: We're going to see the same feelings towards the cartel. The hugs, not bullets.

We will see that going on. We will face -- if we do not change in our election.

And we stay the course we're at right now, we will see an open border for years. And those 80,000 fentanyl deaths are going to continue or rise, because nobody will do anything about this cartel.

GLENN: Tell me about -- you know, they're bending over backwards to try to dismiss any crime coming from illegals, that are crossing over.

I mean, I just have to see, you know, some of the more heinous things that are going on right now.

Are coming from -- I mean, we have our own homegrown people. But we don't have to have the crime from people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

And the media doesn't seem to understand that.

And they're trying to make everybody understand, they're just good people coming over. Can you explain the -- the crime.

Is there any correlation, causation of the crime stats going up, beyond just reimagining the police.

RANDY: Well, there sure are. And not to paint migrants with a broad brush.

Because we know most are economic migrants. The problem is in the chaos. Just like when you saw in the Afghanistan withdrawal. In the highest chaos, you just cannot control, who gets on a plane. Who processes the border.

And even -- what -- wee we see now. Even a liberal media is poking fun at this. Almost as if it's funny, that people are getting killed at the hands of either drunk drivers, or strangled to death at a university. They're making light of that.

And what we see on the official side is, well, the only person responsible for that crime is the murder. Well, you hear that, because there was no gun.

If there was a gun. Well, then it would have been the gun.

This administration is not going to take any responsibility for what they have unleashed on America.

And I say unleashed, because I was in the Border Patrol, when Ronald Reagan was president.

And I left at the end of the Trump administration, in August of 2020.

Right at September.

This has never existed. What I have seen the last three years, I have no advice to give Border Patrol agents, I meet when I'm out on the job.

You know, they're just getting started, because I don't have experience. I spent 32 and a half years on the border patrol, I cannot tell them how to cope with this. Because we never saw it before.

I don't want folks to lose sight of this, that this is extremely dangerous. And you see the Democrat mayors, tapping out for a reason.

We have neglected every major immigration law or protection that we have in there. Such as public charge. Or public health issues. We have forgotten about everything.

And the crime, we have forgotten about as well.

Some of the gangs coming in from Venezuela.
They are masters at moving into other countries. They that did that when they left Venezuela.

They did that in Columbia. They did that in Peru. They know how to take over, the organized crime in that country.

And they do it with extreme violence. And I think we are going to see that, in some of our bigger sanctuary cities, coming up. These poor law enforcement that are already defunded in those areas, are not going to be able to cope with it.

GLENN: Yeah, America has never seen anything like Haiti before, and we are on that track.

Randy, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you for all your help on the docket.

And informing us. And helping us to figure out what's really going on.

Thanks for everything that you do. And have done.

Randy Clark. You bet. Buh-bye.