BLOG

Straight Shooting From Rep. Mark Sanford: We're Not Repealing Obamacare

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) joined Glenn on radio today with a refreshing and much-needed approach: telling the truth, even if it's bad news. Sanford explained the reason behind the Freedom Caucus endorsing the latest version of Obamacare.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: So there was a disturbing news out of the White House yesterday. Yesterday, the Senate came and was briefed at the White House on North Korea. Some of the senators walked out and rolled their eyes. And they were quoted as saying, well, that was interesting. And not in a positive way.

No real word on -- on what happened, what the plan is. And couple that with another story that's coming out from the White House on how the president is briefed. And this is coming from an ally of Donald Trump inside the White House. And I have to tell you, Pat, your blood runs cold when you hear how he's briefed?

PAT: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I mean, this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. We'll get into that.

Also, a guy who is turning out to be somebody that we can really seemingly count on to tell the truth and to stand up to the weasels in Washington is congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I don't believe he's ever been on the show before. We welcome him, beginning right now.

(music)

GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. How are you, sir?

MARK: I'm good. Good to hear your voice.

GLENN: It's good to have you on. Let me just get this uncomfortable moment out from me. Out into the open.

I saw you quickly in the hallway a few years back. And at the time, I was still kind of mad at you for the stuff that, you know, we all went through and you went through. But I have to tell you, you have -- you have taken a situation that could have just destroyed anybody, and you have -- you have a real success and redemption story. And it's really nice to have you on.

MARK: Well, you're very, very kind.

Without going into it, I have been on a journey that involves both the grace of man and the grace of God.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: And it's a pretty good journey.

GLENN: Well, we're glad to have you on.

I want to talk about a couple of things. Because you're a free market Libertarian-minded congressman, which are getting harder and harder to find, at least it seems out here in the wild as we're looking in. You saw the tax plan. And you've heard more now, I'm sure, you know, on the Trumpcare plan. How are you feeling about things?

MARK: You know, I think from a conservative or Libertarian standpoint, a lot of us are concerned about where things go next.

A number of us have sort of stuck our finger in the dike trying to hold back the health care bill based on a belief from a process standpoint. Not being ready for prime time. There's a value to the back and forth that -- that may not be comfortable or fun. But there's a real value to that.

And, frankly, some of the consequent results that would have come with that bill in its original form. And on the tax bill, I think a number of us are concerned about its ramifications with regard to the deficit. I think we need to -- I mean, this is a huge opportunity, the idea of reforming taxes, but we need to do it within the context of not simultaneously blowing up the debt and the deficit, which is no longer talked about in Washington, DC.

GLENN: I think this is so frightening. We don't even have a budget. And in the period we haven't had a budget, we've increased the debt by $10 trillion.

You're right. Nobody is talking about it. And I'm sorry to say that the -- the whole economic principle of cutting taxes only really works when you put it in the context of Calvin Coolidge. You must cut spending first. That's the only thing that's going to give all of us confidence that we can relax and spend a little bit and create jobs.

MARK: You're absolutely right. Because what's really interesting, as we both know, a deficit is simply a delayed tax. You're just stacking the bill. But the idea of saying, we'll cut taxes on one hand. But we'll run bigger deficits on the other. The two wash each other out from an economic standpoint. And so the only-fashioned notion of saying, "Wait a minute. Let's begin with the beginning." It was actually Milton Friedman who once said, "The ultimate measure of government is what it spends." Now, it's not the only measure, but it's a pretty important measure because it's from there that we raise taxes to pay for -- deficits may come as a result between the two.

But what it spends is something that's not looked at in Washington, but I think it's still looked at very closely by folks across this country.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, as a small business man, we were talking about this yesterday. And everybody on the team said, "Well, you know, that will increase job creation, et cetera, et cetera." And as the guy who actually pays the bills and runs the business, I said, "Not as much, quite honestly, as you might think because I'm still going to hold an awful lot back from for a rainy day because I know the center won't hold. This is a game." The only ones that are really going to spend it are the ones that I think will take those taxes and pour it into the stock market or whatever they can pour it into, that will have short-term paper guns to make more money, but not to necessarily create more jobs, because they know at some point the music will stop.

MARK: Uh-huh.

We're in the fourth longest economic recovery in the history of our nation right now. And if you believe in, I guess what the statisticians call regression to the mean or what everyday folks call the law of averages, to your point, it won't go on forever. I think, again, it could be very helpful in terms of competitiveness of this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: I think it's an incredible opportunity. These opportunities don't roll around often.

And this is the fourth time in the history of our republic that Republicans have held the House, Senate, and White House. But I think we need to do it within the context of making sure we're watching on the spending front. And our budgets become more and more unrealistic as each year goes by. And they get harder and harder to -- to, in essence, bring to ballot over a 10-year time frame.

And it's important that, again, we do talk at some level about this old-fashioned notion of accumulating debt and deficit.

It is amazing right now -- it's almost like the three monkeys about hear no evil, I speak no evil, I think no evil, with regard to debt and deficit. It is something that is just not focused on in DC right now, but I think has real implications in terms of value of the dollar, in terms of future inflation, and ultimately our way of life.

GLENN: So let me ask you a couple of things on, the Freedom Caucus stood against -- and you stood against Obamacare. I'm sorry. Obamacare and Trumpcare.

MARK: Yeah.

GLENN: When Trumpcare was being pushed, you were actually threatened by Team Trump. They said that, if you didn't sign up, they would challenge you in the primary of 2018. And from what I understand, you said, "Go ahead." Now they're saying that the Freedom Caucus is starting to come on board. Is there something that we can actually look at, that is possibly decent?

MARK: Yeah. It's represented in this MacArthur Amendment whether or not that will ultimately get us up and over the top, I'm not sure. But I think that the Freedom Caucus -- well, I know the Freedom Caucus has come on board based on the belief of, one, let's tell the truth to the American public. The truth is we're not repealing the Affordable Care Act. Even though there had been a lot of fanfare when we had a Democratic president and it couldn't go into effect, you know, 60 votes to that effect in the House of Representatives, the bill that made its way all the way to the president, a lot of chest-beating saying, "We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal." When push comes to shove, now that we have the chance, they were not willing -- the conference was not willing to bring that bill forward.

And I think that the allies that I deal with in the Freedom Caucus pushed awfully hard on that, saying, wait. This is something that is clear consensus in the House, the Senate. We've done it multiple times. But for whatever reason, that isn't where we were. This other bill moved forward. It wasn't, as I say, ready for prime time. It had a number of different deficiencies that I think would have hurt people who rely on the individual marketplace for their insurance.

And in essence, this MacArthur Amendment was an experiment in federalism. Getting it was called title one. And title one is really the central nervous system of what drives up cost in the individual marketplace and what, frankly, drives the Affordable Care Act. And our fight in --

GLENN: What is title one?

MARK: Title one basically deals with insurance being insurance. So if I said to you, we're going to -- you know, I'm going to give you great insurance. You know, great insurance. You have a 200,000-dollar house. But you've got to buy a million and a half dollar policy. You would say, that ain't great insurance for me. It might be great insurance, but it's not great insurance for me. Great insurance is the insurance that fits for me and for my family and those that I love.

And so what title one gets at is, all the different provisions that prevented insurance from being insurance. Insurance is not being able to buy your homeowner's policy when the house is on fire. You have to buy your homeowner's policy ahead of time to be covered.

And what the Affordable Care Act did is it said, you could wait until your house was on fire to buy a homeowner's policy. So title one was, again, letting -- preventing insurance from being insurance. And it was our belief that if you were ever going to, again, affect the cost of insurance for that small business person out there struggling to make it and struggling with fewer choices and rising premiums, you had to let insurance be insurance.

And so that's what the fight has been about. And what this MacArthur Amendment did was it said, okay. We'll split the baby. And we'll do a federalism experiment. States that want to let insurance be insurance, they can do that. States that don't, won't. If Vermont wants to go to a single-payer system, they may. If South Carolina wants to go to a more market-based system, they may. And that I think is the most you'll be able to get out of the conference. And at that point, the Freedom Caucus folded the cards and said, I guess, as of yesterday to be exact, we'll sign off on that particular measure. And that's where things are right now.

GLENN: Mark -- we're talking to Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina who is showing some real spine and some backbone and standing up for some real true conservative principles. I'd love to talk to you about the future of the party and where you think this is going and the -- and where Trump is going. But one of the pressing issues that I think we need to talk about is North Korea.

What is the temperature in Washington for North Korea? We, for the life of us, cannot come up with a way that this ends without at least a million dead.

MARK: Yeah. You can draw some really bad doomsday scenarios. There was actually a closed door Intel briefing yesterday afternoon on the Hill for members of Congress on this particular topic. And without going into that, I would just say that -- I -- I think we want to be careful about rattling this particular saber --

GLENN: No, I know.

MARK: At this point, North Korea does not have the capacity to bring harm to domestic US. And I think we need to put things within that particular framework as we look at and access threat.

GLENN: Do you believe this administration is looking at it like that?

MARK: I -- I think that they are most worried about what might happen there. And I think that they're thinking about preemptive -- preemptive steps to prevent something from happening.

GLENN: That doesn't sound good.

What is -- with everything, Mark, that is going on, the economy -- I have a woman on who was inside the Dallas fed. She wrote a great book. I don't know if you've seen it, called Fed Up. She was in Wall Street. And then she was one of the chief researchers for the head of the Dallas fed here in -- and saw, you know, 2008 coming a mile away. And she was laughed at until it happened. And then she was promoted.

And what she sees coming now is an absolute disaster financially. With that -- with the world on the edge, with -- with Russia and with a press that is no longer trusted, a government that is no longer trusted, what -- what keeps you up at night? And what keeps you optimistic?

MARK: What keeps me up at night is exactly -- I will make it a point to find this book Fed Up. It's fascinating.

But, you know, I would just presuppose that her philosophical alignment is to the right.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: But whether you're right or left on this issue -- I mean, it was interesting that Erskine Bowles, who was, you know, Clinton's former chief of staff at the time of the Bowles/Simpson commission, remarked that, you know, look, we're looking at the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man.

If you think about Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman and joint of chief, his observation was -- when asked, what's the biggest threat to the United States? Not the Chinese. Excuse me -- not the Chinese, not the Taliban. But his answer was the American debt.

And so whether it's somebody who is a firsthand participant in the way that the fed works, with the right position, somebody from a military position, somebody from the left, the thing that we're not talking about right now is indeed the build-up of the debt. There's an interesting book if you have insomnia called At This Time, It's Different.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

MARK: And it was written by a professor from Harvard and a professor from Maryland, writer, and wrote often. Some of their methodologies have been questioned. But their largest premise is accurate. And they look at the last 800 years of financial history, as it relates to governments, and what they found is that in every instance, civilization has got to a tipping point where -- and they had to decide, do we go back to what made us competitive and perhaps a world power in the first place, or do we stay on this happy, but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and consumption? And nine times out of ten, they chose the easy path. They said, well, this time it's different. Of course, it never was. Gravity always works. And it was the seeds of that civilization's undoing.

And so the thing that keeps me up at night is the way in which there's not a focus on the implications of the debt and the deficit for every working American.

GLENN: So I will tell you, I am working on a book based on history, on that very thing.

MARK: Hmm.

GLENN: And I will tell you that -- I found it very hard to stay optimistic once you know history. But I have found what keeps me -- helps me back to sleep at night, what have you found that puts you back to sleep at night?

MARK: Engagement. You know, I think that people aren't dumb. At times in politics, we can fuse -- and I think even the president -- I say this most respectfully confuses -- they think it's about us. It's not about us. We're simply receptacles for people's ideas and ideals and the advancement of those ideas. And I would say that this election back in November was less about Donald Trump than it was about people's absolute mind-numbing frustration with the way that Washington was working for them.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: And so if we just simply separate ourselves just a touch -- it's not about me. It's about these ideas that people are ginned up on.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: What I will say is that we all ought -- right now, you walk into a restaurant, many times it used to be the sports channel that was up.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK: Nowadays it's a news channel because people are focused on politics. And I think to that degree, engagement is exciting.

GLENN: Yeah. Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. Thank you very much. And, by the way, thank you for holding out for Nikki Haley. If we wouldn't have had you, we wouldn't have had her. She's doing a great job in the UN. But thank you for everything. We'll talk again soon.

MARK: Looking forward to it.

GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford.

New York Court Hands Trump a HUGE Victory Over $454 Million Bond
RADIO

New York Court Hands Trump a HUGE Victory Over $454 Million Bond

A New York court has issued a massive ruling in the state’s fraud case against former president Donald Trump. New York Attorney General Letitia James had threatened to seize Trump’s assets in New York City if he didn’t post a $454 million bond. But the court has lowered the necessary bond payment to $175 million and given him 10 more days to post it. Plus, in a big win for ALL New York business owners, the judge has allowed Trump to continue running his businesses in NYC. Glenn and Stu review the ruling and explain why it’s a huge win.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We have some breaking news. It looks like the judge -- the panel of judges, has actually done Donald Trump a little bit of a favor here.

STU: I would say, it's -- it's a favor. I don't know if it's the right way of saying it. A massive amount of decrease in the amount of money he needed to come up with. If you remember it was $464 million. He claimed he could not come up with that amount for a bond. Went to court. Tried to overturn that. And they have reduced it significantly to $175 million.

So over a 60 percent reduction in that number. Now, of course, 175 million to my taste, is still excessive and ridiculous for what's gone on here.

GLENN: Completely excessive and ridiculous. Nothing ever like this.

STU: No.

GLENN: And as you -- as we've noted, many, many times, I did a whole show on this, on Stu Does America, where you go through the ways that this rule has been used historically. And there are no parallels, at all, to what has happened with Donald Trump. It's quite clearly and quite obviously a personal persecution, whether you like Trump or not. And so -- but this is a big difference, because he can probably come up with $175 million instead of the 464. So huge deal.

A massive victory for Donald Trump in this case. And I'm curious to see. Because Latisha James has gone through the ritual of posting over and over again the amount owed by Donald Trump, like bragging about it. Because it keeps going up, as Andy McCarthy mentioned. Was 100-some-odd-thousand dollars a day, and she just keeps mentioning it. I wonder if she will continue that process now that it's gone down by over 60 percent. We will see. Because she's been bragging about this for, you know, weeks and weeks. And now takes a massive hit. And I think a blatantly obvious one. Right?

I think anyone who looks at this, can fairly tell, this is ridiculous from the beginning. And now a big slap in the face, for this original ruling.

GLENN: I'm wondering if he could come up with the 171.

STU: I would think so.

You know, he claimed -- one filing. To have $400 million in cash. Now, he had to come up with a bond for the E. Jean Carroll thing, which was 90-something million, which would suck some of that out.

Whether he could do that, probably all himself. However, when you have that sort of money. You can also -- when you have that sort of cash laying around. You can usually get someone to loan you that. With the cash as collateral very easily.

Regardless of the process he goes through. You would think, he would be able to get this.

Again --

GLENN: If you could find a bank.

STU: Yeah. Although, you know, this -- I'm of the view.

And I've mentioned this before. This is just my own speculation. Is that Donald Trump could have come up with the $464 million.

He correctly argues, that is completely unfair.

And I think, you know, given time, he could come up with that sort of money.

But why not play this out? Why not push this as far as you can? It will take a long time, until you, actually, start seizing property. As Andy laid out a little earlier. And why not use that time, to the best of your ability, to fight this off. Because I think he's very likely to win. I think he's very likely to win in an appeal. Or at least have this reduced to maybe a dollar fine. Or 10,000-dollar fine. Or and that would be saw so what aligned with reality. I think he eventually wins this. The longer he can play this out, without having to give up resources. The better.

GLENN: You know, the one thing that is good from all of this. And I'm trying to look at the bright side on everything, as much as I can. And I can usually never find it. Because that bright side has been snuffed out long ago.

Anyway, the bright side on this. In some ways, is I don't think people really understood, what it was like, back in the Jim Crow days.

I don't think white people really understood, where -- what -- it was like, where there's not a chance you're getting a fair trial.

Not a chance.

And, kids, don't trust the police. We don't -- we don't understand that.

And now, this injustice is being served, on so many Americans. From the FBI to the Justice Department. To the -- to the court system, in Donald Trump's case. And it does give you a view on how important justice is. The kind of justice that many of us have taken for granted. Our whole lives. You know, that's -- that's all right. The courts will figure it out.

STU: Yeah. And how many times have we said lately, that the courts are the only thing standing between us and chaos? They've been probably the shining, you know, light when it comes to justice lately. As we've seen in the Supreme Court many times, to think of where this is going. And how close we are. To that precipice. We really are on the precipice of disaster, when it comes to this. I'm just -- I'm glad to see though, that at least, there's something. Like even -- even in these cases. Even with someone, like Donald Trump. Who they're obviously trying to take out. The system does have a way of -- of coming through at the end. And I think, you know, might be -- might need to go all the way to the Supreme Court. But it does seem to play out, the right way, a lot of times. I don't know. Maybe the system holds together. It doesn't feel like it will. But it has so far.

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill
RADIO

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill

Congress is debating a bill that would force the Chinese company that owns TikTok to either divest from the app or face a TikTok ban in America. But is this bill a good idea, or is it a Trojan Horse that would give the government the power to go after American companies as well? Glenn reviews what’s really in the bill and why he’s siding with its opponents. Plus, he reviews the debate he hosted between Rep. Chip Roy, who co-sponsored it, and Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposes it, and reveals his biggest takeaway from all of this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: If you miss last night's Wednesday night show, you missed a lot.
We talked about TikTok.

And I know I'm in the minority. But I'm -- I wasn't sure where I stood, until last night.

I had two people, I invited two guests on. That have opposite views. But are usually on the same side.

And I both -- I respect their commitment. Both of them. To the Constitution.

One of them is Chip Roy. The congressman from Texas.

And the other is Thomas Massie.

Thomas from Kentucky, he is -- he is Libertarian.

And always concerned about things like the Patriot Act. Et cetera, et cetera.

But so is Chip Roy, but Chip is also very concerned about our security, and China. He knows what we're facing. I agree with both of them on why this is an important issue.

So last night, I had them debate each other, go back and forth. And, man, it was so refreshing, to see three people talk about something that we disagree on, but nobody became disagreeable. I mean, we were like, yeah. Okay.

I really see your point on this one. It was really. It's something that we just don't have enough of. And last night, they debated it.

Massey was against, and Chip Roy was for.
In fact, he sponsored the TikTok banning bill.

STU: What was the result of this?

Was there a unanimous decision? A split decision at the end?

How did this come out?

GLENN: No. Yeah. They both stayed in their position.

And I was looking for help. Because I -- you know, I -- I read the bill.

We went over a lot of it, last night. Line by line.

And there's some disturbing things in there.

For instance, let me just go through some of this. This is the protecting Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act.

Wow.

If you look at section two, under foreign adversary controlled application. It shows, that it's not just a phone app. It's individual websites could also be seized. That makes sense.

But supporters of this bill, point out, that it's just foreign adversary apps.

And the website.

That it doesn't. That it specifically points out, foreign adversary controlled, all throughout the bill.

Well, that's a little vague.

Because when you say, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

We have been accused of being for -- of, you know, controlled by Russia.

Israel.

Who else have we been. Well, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

STU: Yeah. Whoever is convenient at the time. In theory, there's only the four -- that are labeled in this bill. Which are North Korea. China. Russia. And Iran.

So Israel wouldn't apply. But Russia would.

GLENN: So risen to what they said about Donald Trump. When he went to North Korea. He's being controlled by a foreign -- he's in with North Korea and Russia.

When Tucker went to Russia, how many people said, he's just a pawn for Putin?

Well, does that mean that Tucker Carlson, if the president -- because he's the one who decides. If the president decides, that you're being controlled by a foreign adversary. Does that mean Tucker Carlson can just go away?

STU: I mean, really direct example of this, would be Truth Social. Right?

They claim that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. And has been a Russian asset since the 1980s.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And he basically owns a very large chunk of Truth Social. And that's one of the things that made me nervous about the bill.

Is that one section that tries to define what a foreign adversary. Where it obviously like, if the Chinese government were to own a company.

Okay. That makes sense.

If a Chinese foreign national owns a company, and they answer to the Chinese Communist Party.

That would make sense. And be obvious.

But there's a third section.

And maybe you guys went over this last night. That kind of hits a person who is a US citizen, that is, quote, unquote, controlled by a foreign entity. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Controlled.

Yes.

If -- I'm quoting. If determined by the president, to be a -- a present threat, to the national security of the United States.

A threat to the national security.

What does -- what does that mean?

And a threat to national security, just in the last year, we've heard election deniers are a threat to our democracy.

Vaccine deniers, Christian nationalists, climate deniers. All of these are a threat to national security.

So in the end, when it says, you -- you -- you're hostile to what?

We're -- people who believe in the Constitution are called hostile to the government. We're trying to overthrow the government. No, we're not. We're trying to stop you from overthrowing the government. We believe in the Constitution! So you're a foreign adversary.

Okay.

Now, there's the -- there's a term called the covered company. That doesn't include an entity, that operates a website. Desktop application. Mobile application. Or augmented or immersive technology application.

Whose primary purpose is to allow users to post reviews, product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. Now, is Yelp in the middle of a sale to Communist China?

Who had the juice, to put this in?

One of the cosponsors was Chip Roy. And I said, Chip, who put that in?

He said, I don't have any idea. But one of the cosponsors, and I think there were 20 of them.

Had somebody call up and say, hey, I want this language in there. So what website is worried about their product reviews and travel information. Being deemed a threat to the United States of America. Because it's not just, you know, an entity controlled.

It's an entity controlled by a -- a country, that we're at war with. And they are a threat, to our national security.

So, I mean, is the yelp review a threat to our national security? And if so, that is a little frightening.

STU: That does really pop up some interesting questions, right?

Obviously, who put this in? Is interesting.

I don't know what it means exactly. Like, I don't --

GLENN: Exactly.

I want to know. What I wanted to know, last night was, why was somebody so concerned about their review site, that they wanted it written in?

Because we've been told, this is only for sites like ByteDance. TikTok. Okay.

And when you see, and we showed it last night. Who really owns, ByteDance and TikTok.

How that's built. It is absolutely insane.

So they could sell it to another entity. And get around all of it.

This is crazy. Here's the lasting segment.

And where I ended up. This is from last night's Blaze TV, Glenn Beck Wednesday night special.

We are at war.

We are a nation at war.

We're at war, with other countries.

We're at war with China. And the Communist Party. Absolutely.

We are fighting a proxy war, which could very well become a -- a hot war. With Russia.

And could become a world war.

The way things are stacking up.

But we're also at war, with big tech.

We're at war with Communism and fascism in our own country, being taught to our own children at our own schools. We're at war with our own intelligence community and Justice Department.

And it's not just our Justice Department and Intel. It's the five eyes all over the world. We are at war with the corporate oligarchs, the politicians and the elites all over the world from the UN to the WEF.

To hell, I don't even know. Is it chamber of commerce any good anymore?

But most important, we are at war, with ourselves. We don't know who we are anymore. We're losing our country, because we lost our values. And when you lose your values, I lose history. Because it has no meaning, anymore.

What were you really fighting for? And is that worth it?

And because we lost our values, we lost our history. You lose your history. You lose your traditions. You lose your traditions, you lose your family.

And in the end, you lose yourself. I honestly think, that's where we are. We're damn close to that, if not already passed it.

You're not going to repair this country. By giving more power, to a government, that only seeks more power.

You've got to empower the people. Somehow or another, we need to as people, care what is happening to our children.

And I say this, with the understanding of what I told you at the beginning.

Even my own family rolls their eyes at me. I know.

I know. I keep coming back to the Founders, without a religious and moral people, this system is wholly inadequate. We're not those people anymore. It doesn't mean we can't be.

But right now, there are remnants of those people. Because we're fighting this war on every single front.

I'm against the TikTok ban. I -- I so trust Chip Roy. I love Chip. And I trust him. He's a constitutionalist. He's a Texan from 1853. I mean, don't mess with the Texan.

But I don't trust the people around him.

And a government that is seeking more and more power, and more and more control, and isn't already in bed, with giant corporate tech. And China.

And a government that doesn't seem to care about its people over oligarchs and, you know, the rich, the corporations, the lawyers. I can't give any more power.

And I won't give any more power to a president, that doesn't defend the Constitution, at all costs.

And I haven't seen them in quite a while.

So that's where I came down.

I don't know where you'll come down on this.

But I think this is a very important question.

Again, because this is all the stuff they said about the Patriot Act. Oh, it will never be used against you.

And I said, all they have to do is change the definition of extremist. And they could absolutely turn this on you.

Yes, but they won't.

They have! They have.

STU: Yeah, it's a fascinating one. They've done it many times, right?

And, you know, I don't know. You look at this, and you say, well.

For example, the foreign adversary thing you were talked about earlier. A US citizen that is, quote, unquote, controlled by and for an adversary. You can see there would be all sorts of problems with that, and you could rewrite that.

You could change that, pull that out of the bill.

But if you do that, it's not effective, right?

Because then China could just pay, you know, $100 million to some US citizen to run their thing.

And I'm sure there would be no way to track whether it was still controlled by the Chinese government.

At the end of the day, it's not going to be effective. And I don't know. When it comes down to a decision that is close, I just don't want to give the government any more power.

GLENN: Amen.

And I have to tell you, controlled by a foreign adversary, China. Well, I could make that case. And we made it yesterday, in Congress.

You can make that case, about the Biden family, and the White House.

It's -- it's a -- it's being controlled by a hostile, foreign power. And they're doing its bidding.

What the New $1.2 TRILLION Spending Bill Funds with YOUR Tax Dollars
RADIO

What the New $1.2 TRILLION Spending Bill Funds with YOUR Tax Dollars

The House has passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September. But with only a day to review its text, do they even know what they passed? Glenn reviews some of the insane spending in this bill, including money for JORDAN’S border, transgender underwear for kids, and a whole bunch of earmarks and public private partnerships. So, will the Senate Republicans stand strong?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Article one, section eight, again? It's --

STU: First of all, I want to say that Lear Capital, a good sponsor for this particular segment. Yes, section eight, powers of Congress.

Congress shall have powers to delay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense, general welfare of the United States. And all duties, imposts and excises should be uniform throughout the United States.

GLENN: Okay. So can you find the grooming, binding, and tucking clause? In --

STU: Grooming, binding, and tucking. I'm searching for those words, Glenn. I'm not seeing them in Section 8.

Is it possible, it was in another --

GLENN: What would the Founders, probably old-timey speak. What would the founders put in the Constitution. If our teenagers would want to bind their breasts and tuck their wiener. What would that be under?

STU: That's the one that was in invisible ink on the back.

GLENN: Oh, where you need the special Ben Franklin glasses!

STU: Exactly, yes. You nailed it.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Well, you know, I -- I have to tell you, you know, when we have -- what is it, 400,000?

Let me just go through what we have. We have $500 million, appropriated for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

I don't even -- I don't even know what that is. Oh, okay. Wait. Wait.

For operation maintenance, defense-wide for the government of Jordan, to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security around its borders. You know, it bothers me that they say there's no real spending for borders. Because there's lots.

There's $500 million, for Jordan to protect its borders. Of the amounts appropriated of this act. Under the operation of defense. Defense Secretary, cooperation agency.

$380 million, on top of the 500, will be available -- oh, boy. We're being tough.

Only until September 30th. This offer expires. It will be available to reimburse Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and HEP Ehemen for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year of 2016 for enhanced border security. Which, not less than 150 million will be for Jordan.

So they get -- Jordan gets the -- let's see. They get the 500 million. To protect their borders.

Then they can dip back in, and get another 150 million. To protect their borders.

So I think this is good. You know, I don't -- I don't -- I don't have a problem with it. Now, there is a -- there is a couple of things.

There are a couple of things, that are a little odd in this. For instance, the money for the -- for the brooming, binding, and tucking.

They're going to give an awful lot of money, for new underpants for kids. That get their underpants from LGBTQ organizations.

Which, I know my kids have often gotten their underpants from LGBTQ organizations. Because there's a lot of LGBTQ kids out there, without underpants.

Because, you know, that's -- well, that's just the way America is right now. Underpantless. And so, you have a problem? You greedy capitalist pig. Spending -- spending this money, for underpants. For kids that don't have underpants. And I don't mean just regular underpants. These are special underpants. They make the weenie go away. They make the breasts go away.

What's next?

You people. You just want to see kids without underpants. Oh, no. Wait. Sorry.

Those have lately just been the teachers. In the schools, that are dreaming about little kids without underpants. So that's good.

I don't know. I think this -- I think this is really going to do -- this is going to do well.

I'm -- I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. Anybody have a problem with it, Stu? Got a problem?

STU: I have a minor problem with it, Glenn. It did go far enough. Why are we stopping at $1.2 trillion?

That's basically couchcution money, you know, where is the real spending?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Don't forget. This is the second bill. The other bill, that goes with this. The companion piece.

They broke it down. They broke it down.

STU: Okay. Well, there were 12 funding bills total.

And this one, they're getting to the nitty-gritty here.

We've seen a drastic change in the Congress, since they changed leadership. Wow. It's been massive. I've seen. The spending is just -- totally changing. They're really doing a great job.

And look, there are limitations on this.

I get it. They're the minority party overall, in the government. What can Republicans do? Eh. You know, not all that much. Unless they want to force the government to shut down, which they do not want to do. So they will keep doing this, and spending at levels that Democrats are comfortable with.

And they think they only need about 100 Republicans to vote for this. About ten to 15 Democrats will probably vote against it.

Which leaves about -- you need about 100. And they shouldn't have no problem getting over that 100 barrier in the House. Again, things go on as normal. No problems here.

Whatever problems you think there are, with spending. You're wrong.

Ius let them spend as much money, on what they want. On whatever they want. I was reading the list of winners on this bill, Glenn.

And they're -- they're just great. You know, listen to some of this.

This is -- this is -- and this is from punch bowl. Earmarks are back in a big way. Senator Jerry Moran HEP got 17.5 million for the Eisenhower Library.

Senator Lindsey Graham got 11.2 million for health. Retiring senator Joe Manchin was a winner. He and Shelly Moore Capito locked in 15 million for the Charleston Area Medical Center, and 15 million for Marshal University. Senator John HEP Boosman procured 15 million for Lion College and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.

Tammy Baldwin was a quiet earmark champ. Inserting dozens of earmarks, across numerous bills.

This is great!

Look at all the winners we have from our government.

GLENN: This is great. Look at the winners. And, yeah. I want to talk about some of the private/public partnerships. The Garden State, I'm sorry, equality, education fund inc. from New Jersey.

They get the underpants. $400,000 of underpants. $850,000 is allocated for the LGBTQ senior housing in Massachusetts for services for older LGBTQ.

It might be a different kind of underpants for them, and the senior housing. I'm not really sure. Up to $500 million appropriated for the -- the defense security.

Let's see. Then you -- then you have all kinds of money. Did you see the -- did you see the Twitter, or the guy on X, yesterday?

I just tweeted this. Who was giving the actual breakdown. Put it through ChatGPT. And said, break this down.

Tell me what we're, actually, spending here. What's -- where is all of this money going?

Well, he -- it did -- it did really -- it did pretty well. Quite honestly.

If you look at the -- if you look at the bill, you can figure out, who is making what.

And I have to tell you, there are agencies, that I don't even know. I didn't even know existed.

That are getting billions of dollars. Billions of dollars.

If you look at what USA ID is getting. Do you know what USAIK is?

USAID is an arm of the CIA. That's all it is. And it's giving money all over the world.

And not for anything that you actually think is right. But for what the CIA thinks is right.

Anybody who votes for this bill, first of all, it came out, what? At 215 last night. 2:15 a.m. they're supposed to vote on it, today or tomorrow.

You can't do this. They've known about this forever. And they've gone out, in advance, and said to all of the senators and the House members. Look, what do you want?

What is it going to take for you to pass this bill?

They must know what was in the bill. What is it going to take for you?

Well, I need $15 million, for Lindsey Graham library.

Okay. But but you'll support it then. Sure. Sure, I will.

You have to call your senator and your House rep and say, absolutely not. We're going to go through the bill with Thomas Massie here in just a second.

But everybody I trust in Congress and the Senate, has written me in the last, you know, six hours that said, Glenn. Can't. Can't. Can't do it. Can't do it.

This is -- let me give you the quote from one of them.

He said, he was really mad. You could tell who this was. This was him super, super mad. He was going off the rails.

Glenn, we're going to hell in a handbag. Yeah. Can you imagine?

I think you can tell, which senator that might be. Because he was very upset last night.

Going to hell in a handbag. It is -- it is really, we're at the last chance, to save our -- our country.

If you look at all the things that are happening. If we don't turn this thing around, by fall, sorry, bang. Sorry. I hate to say it. But you're just not going to come back from all of this. The attorney general in New York now just made their first move to take Trump's assets. Looks like they're going after his golf course in Westchester.

So they are taking property away from people now. Congratulations. Confratlations on that.

By the way, speaking of the CIA, the FBI, you know, is going to get another -- a brand-new. What is it, a $200 million building in this bill? That's what I'm thinking. You know what. Maybe it's a building. Maybe that's a toxic building. Maybe we need to get him a new 200 million-dollar palace, for them to operate their -- their operations against the citizens of the United States.

The CIA now has been confronted by -- by the weaponization of the government committee. As they're looking into Hunter Biden. The CIA is -- is refusing to verify. But you can trust these guys.

Two witnesses have come out, from their -- they're federal investigators. So they've believe out from the Justice Department. And they've said, yeah. We were stopped for looking into the Hunter Biden thing by the CIA. They told us, we couldn't talk to this person, this person, or this person.

So they were thwarting our investigation. Oh, the CIA was. Oh, okay.

You were looking into a crime, uh-huh. And it was of Joe Biden's kids. Okay.

And you were thwarted and told, no. You can't look at these things. All right.

I don't know about you. Maybe, you know what, maybe the CIA just needs a bigger building. Maybe that's what we should do.

2 Reasons Why Everyone Needs to GET OUT of New York City
RADIO

2 Reasons Why Everyone Needs to GET OUT of New York City

Leftists are ruining New York City, Glenn says, and a recent attack on former president Donald Trump may be the final sign that everyone needs to GET OUT. Glenn argues that if New York Attorney General follows through on her promise to seize Trump’s assets, it will lead to a mass exodus of businesses from the city. But it’s not just business owners who are at risk of losing everything. Glenn reviews how New York’s insane squatting laws have let a squatter sue a homeowner because she wouldn’t let him live in her house! Are there ANY property rights in NYC anymore?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, when it comes to negotiations, you really shouldn't -- you really should check out your case, especially when you're sitting across the table from Donald Trump.

Because the one thing he does do well, is hard-core negotiations.

So Donald Trump is facing a deadline on Monday, to post a 454 million-dollar bond, in the civil fraud case, against him, in New York. Well, he can't raise the money. His lawyer said, it was practically an impossibility.

And the press and everybody else -- oh, Latisha James, she's got to go after him. She's got to take his stuff. Oh, I think Donald Trump is -- is waiting for her to take his stuff. Really? Really?

Now, this is a guy who loves New York. He was popular in New York, for many reasons. One of which, the guy, actually, really loved New York.

And did things that weren't necessarily beneficial for him, monetarily. Like, oh, I don't know.

Rebuilding the ice rink, after the city spent a decade trying to fix it. He finally came in to fix it, and did it, in I don't even know, like eight months?

So he loves the city. But, you know what, you're going to kick me to the curb? Okay. That's fine. Now, he was ordered to pay $354 million.

That's more than anyone has ever been -- ever been charged with.

Nobody has ever been told, they have to kick up a 454 million-dollar bond. Let alone, in just 30 days.

Okay?

So what has she been saying?

Well, that's fine. You don't do it. You don't pony up with that. Then we can seize your assets in 30 days.

Okay? This bond number has ever been issued before. No insurance bond company has ever been issued near this. So there's really no chance of this happening. And only giving them 30 days notice.

All right. So Donald Trump is calling their bluff.

Okay. Take my property. Go ahead. Take Trump Tower.

Do you know what that's going to do to New York?

You seize Donald Trump's property, because he can't cough up the bond.

Go ahead. Now, let's look towards the future. How are you going to sell that thing?

What happens if he wins an appeal. And you've sold his property.

Is he going to sue the state, to get the money that he should have been worth? What happens if he could have won on the bond, and he has his property?

What happens, even more importantly, because this is no longer about Donald Trump. And this is where Donald Trump has his power seat at the negotiating table.

He's so smart.

He's sitting there, and he's saying, oh, yeah. You think you're going to hurt me.

No. You know what you're really going to hurt?

New York. Because you can't just take someone's property. Because you don't like them politically. In a case, like this.

That has never, ever -- never believe before the court before. Where they have -- where they've taken somebody's business.

I mean, real crime has happened.

And they have charged people under the same charges, that he was tried under.

And they didn't lose anything.

Okay?

Really? Really?

Okay. So that sends the message to the rest of the business world.

You disagree with the attorney general, or the governor.

And they'll destroy you and your company.

Good! Good!

There's a great article that's out in our show prep today. From the shark tank guy. Kevin O'Leary.

Listen to this. He said, think about this, America.

The reason this is the number one economy on earth, is that we have laws, we have due process, and we have property rights. That's what attracts foreign capital from all over the world. Now, foreign capital outside of China, buying up all the farmland.

Where is that foreign capital going?

Mainly, to cities like New York City. They buy big buildings.

All of that is being shaken to the core here.

The concept of seizing assets in 30 days, there is no chance, that's going to happen.

And this is a really bad message. New Yorkers should think well past Trump, whether he's president or not.

Or whether the attorney general is gone in four years. That's irrelevant. This is case setting, against the American brand. The most stable country on earth, anywhere. To put capital to work over a long period of time. Especially in real estate.

This is an assault on what we believe, to the core.

It's an attack on America. And I don't know how you can look at it, as any other way. And as an investor, I know plenty of investors, who are completely disturbed by this.

But, I mean, no one is going to put any money to work in New York, in these amounts, until this thing settles down.

The whole world is watching, and everybody is waiting for the one thing they haven't got yet. Adult supervision. Where is it?

Where are the adults in this crazy narrative?

Certainly, there's got to be adult supervision, at some point.

And I understand, you know, the war going on, here is all political. Yada, yada, yada.

Woof. Woof.

But we need an adult in the room now.

This is the United States of America, under siege, end quote.

It's pretty powerful, and right.

So let me just tie that with this story.

A suspected squatter, who allegedly took over a million that are queens home. That's Queens, New York. Is now subletting space to the house.

Kevin Ballasty said he was conned into paying $1,500 a month to live in the basement of a flushing home, with the deal made with Jay.

Who he identified as the squatter, first exposed by WACTV. This was a story that was in yesterday's show prep, about the squatter. Okay? Now, the squatter is subletting the home. Here's what happened. Yesterday, in case you didn't get the newsletter at GlennBeck.com.

Yesterday, there was a story from WABC, that talked about this woman and her daughter, that were away. They come back.

She opens up the door.

And the guy says, what the hell you doing in my house? She's like, what the hell are you doing in my house? All of her furniture everything is there.

She calls the police. The police kick him out.

They say, you cannot change the locks. That's against the state law of -- of New York.

You can't change the locks. Otherwise, he could take you to court.

She's like, he -- he -- he is squatting in my house.

I have a daughter. I'm a woman. I'm going to change the locks. The police say, don't do it. You're going to break the law.

The next day, she has the locks changed. He comes back. Tries to open the door. It's locked.

He doesn't have a key. And what happens? He goes back to the same police, brings them back to the house, and now she's in court.

She's suing her!

So now the squatter is subletting her house. Is there any right to property in New York at all?

You couple this with the story about Donald Trump. What do you think is going to happen to New York?

I'm telling you right now. What I told my kids, seven years ago.

Eight -- oh, my gosh. Has it been -- wow. It's been ten years, I think.

And I said to my kids, at the time. Before any of this was happening.

This city is going to burn itself to the ground.

This city is going to be a nightmare.

It's going to be an escape from New York.

It's only a matter of time.

We're leaving.

Dad! You're always so dramatic. Uh-huh.

Well, watch.

Look what's happened to New York. Would you want to live in New York?

Do you want to own property in New York. They can offer me the Trump Tower for $10. James could come to me, and say, Glenn.

I just seized this. It's only $10. You buy it. Free and clear. It's yours. No freaking way, man.

No way. I'm not just worried about how I would be losing $10, because in an appeal, he could take that back. And then I'm in court, with you?

No.

But here's what it really says. I don't want to own any property in New York City. Because they're going to continue to tax the rich to death. Property owners are going to be the worst people to have ever lived.

Anybody who rents out any space, is going to become a robber baron.

The city is going to get more and more corrupt. More and more dangerous, for people who just want to live. The school systems are absolute crap.

The city is now suing the bus company. That is bringing in the immigrants.

Suing the bus company. Not suing -- not suing the Biden administration.

No. No. No. No. Not trying to stop that influx.

No. No.

Suing the bus company, while New York and JFK and La Guardia.

Those are the biggest end destinations for people this government are allowing to board a plane without any documentation. And come into this country, as an illegal immigrant. The government is endorsing it! In many cases, we're flying them to New York, for free!

On your dollar!

You're going to live in New York. Good luck with that. Good luck with that.

If you're listening to New York, and you agree with anything I'm saying here. Think deeply.

I know your family is there.

I group up here. My family is here.

Uh-huh.

All of that, all of that, that you grew up with, ain't coming back soon.

These people won't get it until they've destroyed absolutely everything. I honestly believe that's their plan.

Destroy everything. Get out.

Escape from New York.