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

September 14, 2017

WRITER

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.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

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

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

The crisis beneath the headlines

The quiet return of meaning

Where renewal begins