Bill O’Reilly: Don’t Believe Anything Schumer, Pelosi Say About DACA Deal

President Donald Trump has surprised again with his closeness to Democrat leaders. Last night, he had dinner with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and then appeared to have a change of heart when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants.

Trump tweeted this morning, “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?” In a follow-up tweet, he explained the intent behind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. These immigrants “have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age,” he wrote.

Bill O’Reilly joined Glenn on radio Thursday to talk about what happened. His theory was that Pelosi and Schumer are using the situation simply to undermine Trump, knowing that his base will be furious if he caves and allows around 800,000 illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

Any statements from Pelosi and Schumer should be ignored, O’Reilly asserted. He reminded listeners that Trump can only approve DACA legislation that goes through Congress, and Republicans will have to write a bill.

“Very difficult for these pinheads to do because that requires them getting out of the gym,” he quipped. “They have to actually go to their desks and write a bill. They don’t like that.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Normally on Fridays, we have Mr. Bill O'Reilly, but I am -- I'm actually going to speak and having dinner this weekend with Paul Kagame, the former president of Rwanda, who is an amazing, amazing guy.

And this has proved to be interesting. But I've also been asked to speak at a three-day conference at a place called the Nantucket Project, which tries to bring people together on forgiveness and healing and a way forward.

STU: Same for me. I will be having brunch with Garbon Gooli Burkmenadof from Turkmenistan.

GLENN: Really? That's interesting.

STU: Next Wednesday. 10:30 a.m. IHOP. International pancakes.

GLENN: Right. Really? International -- so it's an international pancake kind of moment.

So, anyway, Bill O'Reilly is with us today, instead of on Friday, which he normally is. But I'm glad he's here because I want to talk to him a lot about the deal -- you know, making a deal with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the spin that is going to come out of the White House now and the spin that is already coming out from Nancy and Chuck. And where are we going from here? Welcome to the program, Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

BILL: You are so lucky to have me on this program today. You are.

GLENN: No, I woke up this morning, and I thought to myself, "If I could only get more lucky," and then you were here.

BILL: Yeah, because, I mean, I am going to be able to define this so even you understand it. All right?

GLENN: All right. Go ahead. Talk down to me.

BILL: You are very lucky.

GLENN: Yes, I know.

BILL: But, first, I want to give a plug because I'm having lunch with Ricky Buffunyats.

GLENN: Are you really? Wow.

BILL: Yeah. Who once traveled to Bolivia. And he wants healing.

GLENN: But he's not -- hang on just a second. But he's actually -- he didn't go there for any reason. He just -- he just went one time.

BILL: Yeah. He wanted to be healed, so he went.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Good. Okay.

BILL: I'm going to figure out if he was healed or not.

GLENN: All right. Good. Okay. Jerk.

BILL: All right, Beck. So now -- I got -- I have to now walk you through what's happening on DACA.

GLENN: Yes. All right.

BILL: First of all, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer want to destroy Donald Trump.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fact number one.

GLENN: Should I write this down? Will there be a test?

BILL: Well, have somebody else write it down for you because I know your handwriting.

GLENN: All right. To destroy. Got it.

BILL: Fact number one: Pelosi/Schumer want to destroy Trump.

Fact number two: They know the fastest way to do that is to get Trump's base angry with him.

GLENN: Got it.

Right.

BILL: Okay?

GLENN: All right.

BILL: The quickest way to do that is to turn --

GLENN: Anger his base.

BILL: His supporters against him.

GLENN: Got it. All right.

BILL: So, therefore, anything that Schumer and Pelosi say, throw it right out of the window.

GLENN: Right.

BILL: Okay. That is number one.

GLENN: No, that's number two.

No, this would be number three. Number one was he was going to try to destroy -- number two.

BILL: No, no. But I'm in categories now. We're in categories now.

GLENN: Oh, so that's category A at one and two. And now we're in category B. Go ahead. All right.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: Go ahead. Yes, go ahead.

STU: It's easier with the graphics next to you.

GLENN: Yes, go ahead.

BILL: No one, including the president, knows how this DACA thing is going to turn out. Because the Republicans have to write a bill. Very difficult for these pinheads to do because that requires them getting out of the gym. All right? They have to go to actually go to their desk and write a bill.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BILL: They don't like that. They have to write a bill that says, "All right. Here's the new law that's going to cover 800,000 so-called Dreamers, illegal aliens, who were taken here by their parents." And they had no say about it. They came. And what are we going to do about them?

Republicans write the bill. In that bill, it could be anything. It could be anything. We don't know. All right?

So Trump doesn't have any input as far as what's going to happen to the Dreamers. It's all Congress. All right?

And then the bill comes out and Trump says, "I like it, or I don't like it." Are you with me?

GLENN: I just want to make sure -- A, you didn't give me a topic. But under A is, number one, they're trying to destroy the president. Fastest way to do is anger his base. B, no one knows what is going to be in this bill because it hasn't been written, under that. Point one, Republicans don't like to work. Point two, Republicans could write anything. They could write a bill that replaces Nancy Pelosi with a chicken. I've got it so far.

BILL: Right. Okay. So good. Beck, you're really on it today. I'm so happy.

STU: The Pelosi Chicken Act, I am behind that, by the way.

GLENN: I'm taking notes.

Yes, I am too.

BILL: So all -- all of us loyal Americans who want the best for our country should stop now with the speculation, which gets us nowhere, and wait until this bill comes out.

Now, it is worthy that you and other commentators tell President Trump what you would like to see in the bill. Okay? This is what we --

GLENN: I think we did during the election.

BILL: Well, no. Because the Dreamer thing is a little bit more complicated.

GLENN: No, no, no. No, it's not. Here's what the American people -- here's what I believe the American people were actually saying. Beyond all the hyperbole and everything else. This is the what the American people were actually saying during the election: Look, that is a really complex issue. I don't know what to do. I don't want to hurt people. I'm not a racist. But I want border security.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: Hang on. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. No, no.

BILL: You're going over ground that is inevitable.

GLENN: No, it's not.

BILL: So it's inevitable that the Republicans will put some kind of stringent border security, maybe even a -- city thing in the bill.

They have to and they will. That will be there, Beck. Do not worry about that.

But there are other things that are going to happen. Number one, Trump does not want to deport these dreamers. That's obvious. He doesn't want it. Because he has to expand his base a little bit. And the polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are open to a fair deal for these people. These kids who were brought here. So he's not going to deport 800,000. That's not going to happen.

GLENN: So when he said to -- when he said in interview after interview after interview, yes, they're all going home.

STU: Chuck Todd.

BILL: When he says that, he doesn't think about the Dreamers.

GLENN: No, no, no. It was specifically about the Dreamers. We checked the audio. It was specifically --

BILL: Do you have the audio that Trump said Dreamers are going home.

GLENN: Yes. Hang on. I'll get it for you in a second.

BILL: No, no, no. You don't have to get it for me. I believe you. I believe you.

All right. So that's not going to happen now. It's not, all right? He's not going to deport 800,000.

And I'll tell you why, because I told this to him to his face in an interview: The courts would block that until the year 2099.

GLENN: Yes. You're right.

BILL: Okay. Thank you, Beck. So everybody knows it's not going to happen. So let's stop the BS and get a fair bill that would strengthen border security and anarchy and eliminate anarchy in the United States about illegal immigration.

GLENN: Okay. So my -- I have to go back here, so has the last two years of us saying Little Marco is making a deal with Chuck Schumer and the Gang of Eight, and there's no amnesty. Mark my words, there's no amnesty. It will not happen.

Hang on.

I know you're just clearing the throat. But that means you're about to talk. Hang on.

So the last two years of finger pointing and actually having -- being the catalyst to have half of the country point to the other half and say, "What a bunch of racists you are. You're completely unreasonable. You're lumping everybody in the same boat." All of that -- all of that division, all of that hatred, all of that was for what purpose? For what purpose?

BILL: I don't know, Beck. That's way too complicated for a man like me.

GLENN: No, it's not. You're smart enough. You don't want to answer it. You just don't want to answer it.

BILL: It's way over my head. I just want to tell you what's going to happen.

GLENN: Right.

BILL: All right? I can't -- I can't talk to the president of Rwanda. I can't. I don't have the ability or the intellectual --

GLENN: Yes, you can. You do not want to.

BILL: A man who ran Rwanda. I can't. That's your job. All right?

Here's what's going to happen, all right?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: There will be some compromise. Trump has already strengthened the border to a degree that we haven't had ever. Ever.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: All right?

GLENN: All of the -- all of the -- all of the Republicans, with an exception of maybe Kasich, all of the Republicans, the 17 that he destroyed because they would make a deal with Nancy Pelosi, they were for amnesty, they were for the Gang of Eight, they weren't going to --

BILL: Right.

GLENN: -- you can't believe them. They're going to build a wall, that they're going to -- all of them would have done -- with the exception of John Kasich, exactly what he has done so far, without the division and the hatred and the pitting against each other.

BILL: All right. Maybe that's true -- but the fact -- and I love that word fact -- is that in the six months that he's been sitting there in the Oval Office, immigration on the southern border, all right? Has been enforced more than ever in our lifetime.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: That's a fact. And it's not going to get any more lax. It will get more stringent. Here's another fact.

GLENN: Until he's gone and replaced by a Republican -- or, a Democrat.

BILL: Until he's gone. And then when the president of Rwanda comes over and runs this --

GLENN: No, don't try to weasel out of this.

That was the point of why we wanted a wall: Because nothing is ever permanent.

BILL: Okay. The magic word wall. You want to know about the wall? Do you have time, or do you have to take a break?

GLENN: Nothing is ever permanent.

BILL: Do you want to know about the wall now, or should we wait?

GLENN: No, I'm going to take a break. And Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is where you can find him. And if you want this kind of fact-driven nonsense, you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com. Back in just a second.

BILL: And I want to talk the statues too.

GLENN: Believe me, I've got a list of things to talk to you about.

(chuckling)

STU: BillO'Reilly.com is where you can go for the podcast. And hopefully he'll be referencing the Paul Kagame statue we're going to be talking about.

GLENN: Shut up. Shut up.

GLENN: So what's the wall, is what I ask to Bill O'Reilly? What's the wall about?

BILL: Number one fact -- all right? We're back to the facts. I know that upsets you.

Okay. There's not going to be any wall in the bill about the Dreamers. Because that would mobilize opposition from 100 percent of the Democrats and some Republicans as well. So they're not going to have that in there, in the bill.

Now, some people will be angry about that. But step back. Trump is going to build his wall. He doesn't need legislation to build it. He can do it by executive order. He can do it by using Homeland Security funds, of which there are gazillions of dollars available. He can do it and he will do it. But it's not going to be a wall from Brownsville, San Diego. It's not going to be that. It's going to be in certain places where it's easier to smuggle narcotics. The wall is basically a detriment against narcotics, not people, all right?

So they will build some of it. It will come from orders from Donald Trump. But it's not going to be enshrined anywhere because it's too polarizing. So that's what's going to happen.

GLENN: That stands against, Bill O'Reilly, absolutely everything I stand for as a constitutionalist.

BILL: I know it does.

GLENN: What you've just described is, as a constitutionalist, you have said, through executive order, he will do things that are temporary. I am against it as a constitutionalist, and I am against it as somebody --

BILL: Maybe they can knock it down if you elect Bernie Sanders. But you have to live in the real world. And the real world is two things here: Trump knows he has to build the wall. Some semblance of it. He has to. All right? And he will. But he's not going to get permission from Congress to do it because there are not enough votes there.

It's as simple as that. So you've got to live in the real world, Beck, if you want to get anything done at all. I understand the constitutionalists. I understand that.

But, you know, this is hand-to-hand combat. Donald Trump going to survive the presidency. He's going to get reelected. All right? He's got to do certain things that you're just not going to like.

GLENN: So when he says -- can we play audio cut five, please. This is President Trump talking about taxes. Cut five. Do you have it? Okay. Sorry about that.

STU: Yeah. Because I -- I'm curious on that because I -- he obviously said during the campaign that it was going to be a wall that went for the whole border. He did say that.

BILL: He said a lot of things. But he doesn't understand at that point what it takes to get that stuff done.

GLENN: So hang on -- this is a 59-second cut. Let me just read this. Taxes paid by the wealthy will likely stay the same under the new tax plan, but if they have to go higher, they're going to go higher.

BILL: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What -- which -- what does he stand for, Bill? What can I trust?

BILL: He's trying to be a populist. He's trying to appeal to working class and middle class voters. He knows that's where his base is. So that's what he stands for.

GLENN: Is that healthy for a country? Populism, is it good?

BILL: I would like to see populism combined with astute analysis. I think if you got a politician who had both, who, you know, really felt for the working people, but was astute in how to get things done, then you'd have something. But we don't seem to be able to produce politicians --

(laughter)

GLENN: All right. When we come back, Bill O'Reilly is going to take on a couple of things. One, the statues.

BILL: Yes!

GLENN: And we'll talk a little bit about that. Also -- because it's getting crazy.

Also, we're going to try to get to the latest from ESPN. And I know how much Bill O'Reilly loves Hillary Clinton. And has probably spent all week just up late at night reading her book. Her -- her latest poll numbers show most Americans want her to go away. Bill's opinion, coming up.

GLENN: I'm really tired of hearing people's opinion. There are very few people's opinion that matter to me. I mean, I barely -- I barely have my own opinion. Everybody has one. I got it.

What I'm interested in, facts and perspective. And one of the best is Bill O'Reilly. And we welcome him to the program from BillO'Reilly.com.

I'm going to be gone tomorrow. I'm having dinner with Winston Churchill tomorrow night. So I will not be here. But we're going to talk about peace and war and everything in between. And I'll give you a report on that on Monday. But, Bill O'Reilly, give me the facts on what's happening with the statues.

BILL: All right. I think you and I are of one mind on this because very early on, after Robert E. Lee's statue was the subject of that incredible controversy in Charlottesville, we both said, "It's not going to end with Lee. They're coming after Washington and Jefferson and other Founding Fathers." You said that to, I believe. Correct?

GLENN: Yes, I did. Yep.

BILL: Okay. We both said it. Not in collusion. There were no Russian collusion here.

GLENN: Oh, I don't know. Zionist masters.

BILL: Back on his Blaze and O'Reilly on BillO'Reilly.com said it independently. All right. So now it's happened.

So Black Lives Matter and other radical groups are demanding that Thomas Jefferson's statue be taken down in Charlottesville. Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, which is there, and lived there.

Okay. So this plays right into my wheelhouse because I have a book coming out Tuesday called Killing England.

GLENN: Shut up. Shut up. I thought, if there was a way I could get Bill O'Reilly to talk about his book.

BILL: No, this is a legitimate way. This is a legitimate way. Because I write about Thomas Jefferson --

GLENN: Shut up. Shut up.

BILL: The man, what he did about, in slavery, and how he had slaves, and how he behaved, and his whole life.

GLENN: You know, Bill, can I ask you a question about Thomas Jefferson?

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: First of all, how do we get the word out that Thomas Jefferson led the fight in Virginia to try to be able to release his slaves? It was --

BILL: So that's in the book. But you're missing --

GLENN: Yeah, but I'm saying in some way that people will read it or find it.

BILL: Let me illuminate. Okay?

GLENN: Okay. All right.

BILL: In order to win this debate, Beck, traditional Americans have to know the facts. They have to know what Thomas Jefferson just did. You just said it. You just said it. That the man was very conflicted about slavery. And we -- in Killing England, you'll see exactly how conflicted he was and what he did. And the other --

GLENN: I don't think so.

BILL: -- actions that led to our independence.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I don't think he was. He's the guy who said, "Because I know God is just, I tremble for my country." That was about slavery.

BILL: No, but he -- he agonized about the line, "All men are created equal." He agonized about it.

GLENN: Yes, he did do that. Yes, he did.

BILL: Because he said, we're not including African-Americans.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So if you read the book, he's a conflicted man on the issue, okay? But the overarch of what he did, what George Washington did -- because they're going to come after Washington, he was a slave owner too -- is amazing. And you got to know that in order to ward off the far left kooks. Now, why are they doing the statues? Here's what it's all about, Beck. It's not about the statues. Of Lee or Jefferson or Washington or any of that. It's about undermining the entire Constitution of this country. The far left believes that we are a nation founded by white supremacists. Okay?

And that our Constitution reflects that. So we got to do away with that and have a new Constitution. That's what this is all about. That you run down the Founding Fathers, you run down the philosophy on which the country was founded, and you replace it with a socialist manifesto.

Now, you're going to say, "Oh, O'Reilly is the conspiratorialist." No. This is exactly the conversations that are taking place within the precincts of Black Lives Matter, the Antifa movement, and some in the mainstream media who sympathize with that.

Now you can segue into Jemele Hill, the girl on ESPN, the woman on ESPN, okay? Who tweets that Trump is a white supremacist and that he's surrounded about him. Now, you got a question about Hill?

GLENN: I didn't want to transition there. But all of a sudden, I lost control of the show. I'd like to go back to the Star-Spangled Banner and the fight on slavery.

It is incumbent upon each of us, and Bill is -- and I -- it kills me to promote his stupid freaking book. But he is right. And his book does cover this. And we need to know who these people were.

When it comes to the Star-Spangled Banner, the fifth stanza is all about slavery: When our land is illuminated with liberty's smile, if a foe -- glory -- down, down, the traitor who dares to defile her flag of stars and the pages of her story. By the millions unchained, who our birthright have gained, we will keep her bright, blazing, forever unstained.

There -- yesterday, they went after Francis Scott Key. This is revisionist history, and it has to stop.

BILL: Well, it's only going to stop if the people rise up.

GLENN: No, if the people educate --

BILL: Folks are afraid to do this.

GLENN: I think you're wrong on that. I think it will only happen when the people educate themselves, then they will rise up.

BILL: Okay. You rise up with education, and you're effective.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: You rise up with emotion and you don't own anything, it's not effective.

GLENN: We are only slaves -- we are truly -- we are slaves to lies right now. We are slaves to others, who are manipulating us because we have not done what every slave, as soon as they became free, the first thing they did was try to get an education. Try to learn. Try to read.

We're not doing any of it. And we're chaining ourselves. And we're going to be slaves of some other master if we don't educate ourselves.

BILL: Well, that's very well said. And, again, I'm lucky in a sense that when I wrote Killing England, I didn't any idea that within a year, the Antifa movement and the socialistic movement would be as intimidating as it is now. But I'm glad I wrote the book. It's almost a miracle, because if you want to know who Jefferson, Washington, and Benjamin Franklin actually were as people and you read the book, you'll know.

GLENN: Jeez, will you stop with the damn book?

BILL: So you can fight off the forces of darkness. Because they're coming.

GLENN: All I wanted to do was talk about ESPN. And now he's just going on.

So hang on. Here's the question about ESPN.

BILL: Thank you.

GLENN: The big thing on ESPN -- everybody is saying, "They've got a double standard." No, they don't. This is the same standard. You will fire anyone who has a nonprogressive, big government view -- or a small government view, and you will cheer on and excuse anyone who has a progressive, PC, pro-big government view. They're completely consistent.

BILL: Well, they've destroyed the network.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: All right? So ESPN is a shadow of what it used to be. And it's not coming back. All right?

So that's number one. And the reason is, people watch that network for sports, not to have somebody like Jemele Hill accuse a president and his cabinet of being white supremacists. They don't watch for that. You know, MSNBC should hire the woman, because that's what they do. Okay?

GLENN: So, Bill, have you ever heard anybody ever even question -- even question the president and his relationship with race? So, in other words, have you ever heard anyone say things like, "I think this president may be a racist. I think this president may have a deep, dark, unsettled feeling about white people?"

Have you ever heard anybody say that? Because I remember somebody did. And they questioned what the intent was, and it was heralded as the biggest mistake on planet earth. How dare you ever question that. And now somebody at ESPN can say -- not question -- not question. But to make the statement, he's a white supremacist.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And everybody is fine.

BILL: Well, not everybody is fine. There's a big, big controversy about it. I don't think the woman should be fired.

GLENN: Not on the left.

BILL: Although -- not on the left because they concur.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: But, you know, they fired Curt Schilling. And, you know, he --

GLENN: They did the same thing.

BILL: He was --

GLENN: He did the same thing.

BILL: No, it was a little bit more. Because Schilling had an illustration of a transgendered person that was pretty offensive, I would say.

GLENN: I don't remember it exactly. So I'd have to go back and look.

BILL: But they could have suspended him, and they could have brought him back. But they don't -- they being Disney. Disney runs -- and a lot of people don't know this: Disney owns ESPN.

GLENN: Right.

BILL: But Disney doesn't have, as you pointed out, any respect for the conservative American thought process.

But I wouldn't fire the woman. I don't think that's the right way to handle it. I think that you basically say to her, "You don't really know what you're talking about, with all due respect, Ms. Hill. All right? This isn't going on here. And the fact that you believe it is -- you're entitled to that, but you're in a position of responsibility, particularly with younger African-Americans, and you're really abusing that because you can't back that statement up. You can't back it up. And what you're doing is you're denigrating the country just like Colin Kaepernick did. And, you know, if people object to that, their views are just as viable as your views. So you're going to have to take what comes, which is criticism and lower ratings, because that's where it's going."

STU: And, Bill, I think this is what you're saying. But, I mean, in fact, they handle these situations many different ways. The Jemele Hill way is the way they actually should handle it. Right?

They should come in and say, "It's your own private thing. We don't think that's the right way for you to be handling this, especially if people might think it's from ESPN. But you know, whatever. We'll give you a little slap on the wrist or at least a talking to or whatever, and you'll come back and do the show." The problem is how they handle all the other cases.

BILL: Yeah, I mean, with Schilling -- but with Schilling, he had that cartoon.

GLENN: But you really don't have to go to Schilling. You really don't have to go to Schilling. Chink in the armor. Guerrilla warfare. I mean, there's two people that lost their jobs for phrases that have nothing to do with race. And they went crazy.

BILL: Yeah, well, there's no doubt there's a double standard. There's hypocrisy all over the place. But I think traditional Americans who believe in fairness have to rise above the hypocrisy. And you know what, here's what you do: You just don't watch. You just don't watch.

And that's going on now for years. They've been bailing out of ESPN for years. And other networks that are not honest or doing something that the folks deem offensive, don't watch.

GLENN: I will tell you this, if you really want to make an impact, you don't watch, of course -- but if you really want to make an impact, you let Disney know, "I'm not taking my kids to your park," because they only care about the mouse. That's all they care about.

BILL: That would do it.

Look, every corporation, it's money first. There's no doubt about it. And on that note, we want everybody to preorder Killing England. It's coming out Tuesday.

(laughter)

STU: That's a solid segue right there.

BILL: There you go.

GLENN: Bill, do I have to endure this again on Tuesday when it comes out?

BILL: Tuesday and next Friday.

GLENN: I don't know if I can do two times a week.

BILL: All right. We'll get you some oxygen, and we'll do what we have to do.

GLENN: Bill, believe me, there's enough air here, hot air when you're around. I don't need anymore.

Bill, good to have you, thank you. We'll talk to you again.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me in.

GLENN: You bet. Bye.

STU: Bill O'Reilly, the book is called Killing England. It is coming out on Tuesday. You, of course, can also go to his website and sign up at BillO'Reilly.com.

GLENN: You know, I love -- I love -- I really love my relationship with Bill O'Reilly. Same with Don Imus. You know, here are two guys that are -- they didn't -- they are the legends -- they are the legends of their generation. They're the ones that I -- that I watched for years. And they are -- they both can hit hard and take a punch. And neither of them insists that you agree with them, which is the way it's supposed to be.

PAT: I will say, Bill is much more -- is much happier --

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: It's remarkable --

GLENN: He's happy now.

STU: Because when he was doing the Fox thing, he would come on the show.

GLENN: No, he's happy.

STU: And do his thing. He seems like he's actually enjoying life these days.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.