BLOG

Here Are 3 Key Things the Left Doesn’t Understand About Gun Rights

We have to keep guns away from bad guys. It’s about “commonsense gun laws.” Why should everyone be able to freely buy automatic weapons?

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu talked about the ongoing gun control debate. Watch the clip (above) to hear their responses to some of the most common anti-gun talking points as they point out these key problems with the left’s arguments.

Many liberals trying to debate this issue don’t understand guns or realize what regulations are already in place. 

“It’s hard to have a debate on this topic when the overwhelming majority of people discussing it don’t have basic knowledge on the topic,” Stu said.

Guns are part of American culture.

People who didn’t grow up around guns simply don’t understand how why Americans want to arm themselves to feel safe.

“It is uniquely American … and you can’t just dismiss that,” Glenn said.

Constitutional rights should only be infringed upon when absolutely necessary. 

Second Amendment rights are constitutionally protected, so you can only keep someone from that basic right with due process and with evidence that they will misuse it. Stu compared it to our right in the justice system to be innocent until proven guilty.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Amazing that they changed the voting age to 18. Because if you're old enough to get drafted, go to the military, well, then, of course, you should be able to vote. It's totally sensible idea. Although, I know Pat will come in later today and will tell us that the voting should be 35. On the other side of that, one of the things that 16-year-olds are pushing for is that you should not be able to own a firearm until you're 21. So you would be able to get drafted to the military, to use a firearm in the military, but not own one for your own protection at home.

It's a fascinating thing to think about. And I don't think the right one. I don't think the right one. Again, we don't make -- you know, 16-year-olds --

GLENN: How many great decisions did you make as a 16-year-old?

STU: Well, me. Obviously lots of great ones. But most people don't.

Of course not. You're not seasoned enough. And you don't understand these issues enough. Beyond that, like, if you're 50 years old -- we've seen this before. Well, let's go to the 50-year-old parent or grandparent of one of these kids who was killed. And they'll come out with their gun -- their gun solution for America.

You don't make policy based on the victims of a tragedy.

GLENN: No.

STU: You don't become an expert in the topic because something terrible happened to you.

I -- for example, my dad died of a heart attack. I don't go to hospitals and tell them to do their heart surgery with spoons. That's not -- I don't have any extra credibility on the topic because I was involved in a tragedy in my family.

GLENN: Now, you could take that tragedy and become a scholar on it.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You could say, I'm going to learn everything I can. I'm just tired of having a discussion of the Second Amendment, with people who do not know what a gun is. They've never fired it. They don't know -- they've never been around it. They've never been around people who are responsible gun owners.

I don't -- if you don't take the time to really learn what the gun is and can really talk to me about the truth of the Constitution, the Constitution and the Second Amendment was not about sporting. It wasn't.

It was about people being able to take up arms against an out-of-control government. Now, you can say, well, that's -- they're never going to get out of control. Or, well, they get out of control, they're just going to use tanks.

Well, yes. But every single time there has been a dictator, the first thing they do is take away all weapons from the people. And then they slaughter them.

At least give us a fighting chance.

STU: Yeah, as we pointed out, the mass shooting -- Vegas was the worst mass shooting in history. No. First of all, the worst mass shooting in that context was Norway. But beyond that, the top 100,000 mass shootings all came from governments against unarmed populace. You think there was a day that went by in World War II, where the Nazis didn't kill 58 people? I don't think there was a day that went by, where the communists didn't kill 58 people.

GLENN: Their own citizens.

STU: Yeah, their own citizens. This was a light day for all of these governments when there was no way to push back against them. And, you know, look, that's why it was designed. It's used for personal protection, as well as a massive -- you know, it's the main reason for it now. Of course, hunting is part of it. And all of that is a part of it.

But it's not about those individual things. It's about you being able to utilize that right in the way that you see fit, without violating other's rights. But, again, I think when you talk about gun knowledge, it is important.

You can get into the weeds a little bit too much. But listen to this, this comes from the statesman journal. This is a letter to the editor they decided to print: Every killer needs three things, an evil mindset, an opportunity, and the means to carry out their plan. Break that chain, and you've stopped a killer.

It's hard to know a person's ever changing mindset and opportunity is everywhere. That leaves means. Prevent future killings from obtaining the automatic weapon, and you've stopped a mass killing.

Yes, other weapons can kill too. But none are so deadly as an automatic rifle. We know what doesn't work, prayer doesn't work. It might make us feel better and make the survivors feel better. But it doesn't stop the next shooting. Blame the NRA doesn't work either. They don't pass any laws and can't regulate their industry. A good guy with a gun doesn't work.

This Florida school had two on-duty police officers assigned to it, which is something else we should discuss. But banning automatic weapons, you will not stop any mass killings -- and you will stop many mass killings. Excuse me.

And at the same time, you'll be protecting the most basic right our Constitution has to offer: the right to life.

GLENN: Can I just point out a couple of things?

STU: Is there a minor issue?

GLENN: We have banned automatic weapons.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Yeah, so.

STU: Again, it's hard to have a debate on this topic, when the overwhelming majority of discussing it don't have basic knowledge on the topic. That is a difficult thing to do. You don't need to know everything about a gun.

GLENN: No.

STU: You don't need to be a gun nerd to have these conversations. But you have to know the basics.

GLENN: You have to have the basic knowledge. And, quite honestly, you -- I think -- look, I can understand people who have never grown up around guns. I can understand it. I can understand people who are afraid of guns because they never had any experiences with them.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they grew up, let's say even in a city, where you grew up in New York. I understand that. Now, can you understand that every time you talk about a gun being something bad, I feel my grandfather. I remember holding his hand with his gun, underneath his arm, as we walked every night on the back of our farm.

I mean, it is --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It was a feeling of safety.

STU: Part of culture.

GLENN: And culture. We didn't have bad experiences with guns. Because we respected them.

So it's part of the culture.

It's not part of your culture. That's okay.

But it is uniquely American, at least in the center of the country. And you can't just dismiss that.

STU: You can't. And it's amazing to watch cable news hosts be fascinated by the fact that we just can't do something. Every time there's another one of these attacks.

And what do we do? We don't do anything. And they miss the basic separation of the way these two things are coming together. The reason you don't get, quote, unquote, common sense middle ground gun control.

GLENN: Because you're not going for it.

STU: Well, first of all, they're not going for it. And every conservative looks at that, and reflexes immediately because they feel --

GLENN: The dog whistle.

STU: Yeah, they feel you're going after their guns. And many times, you've admitted that you are.

GLENN: Yes. Eric Holder.

STU: Yeah.

Australia, for example. Every time we bring up the word Australia, what you're saying is you want to take 30 percent of the guns out of the country. So how do you think that a gun owner would feel about that?

But the bottom line, the basic thing is, even on these minor things, progressives, liberals, the left, look at guns as something that is inherently dangerous. And, therefore, we should stop every person from getting one, unless we're sure that they're going to use it safely.

On the other side, conservatives, Libertarians, look at guns as constitutionally protected. Therefore, only if you're sure the person isn't going to use them safely, do we take them away. With extreme mental health. Or, you know, convictions in the past and domestic violence and things like that.

So that expression, there's a lot of middle ground between those two positions. But there's almost no room to compromise between them.

You know, it's the idea of saying, if one side of the argument is, look, people are innocent until proven guilty. And the other people on the other side are saying, people are guilty until proven innocent.

Well, there's a lot of middle ground between those two positions. But there's no place to compromise. There's not an innocent until proven innocent place in the middle that you can come together.

Right? It doesn't make any sense. The positions don't work together. And, of course, I fully 100 percent believe their conservative position is right. They're constitutionally protected. And you can't just start grabbing them from everybody.

GLENN: No.

STU: That's why the example they always bring up is, we couldn't even ban terrorists on the terrorist watch list from getting guns. That shows how irrational conservatives are.

No. It shows that conservatives understand this is a constitutionally protected right. And just because someone has made a list with a name on it, without any due process, without any evidence being presented, without any -- tons and tons of mistakes. You can't take away a constitutionally protected right because of that. We would never do that with the First Amendment.

We would never do that with any of these amendments. They're all too important to us. And we all understand them. The Second Amendment has just become this issue that the left throws around to get donations. And there are a lot of honest people who are on Facebook or on Twitter who are tauting these things. Like, the NRA is donating money, and they're controlling the debate. There's been 18 school shootings.

GLENN: It's not.

STU: They're being used by the left leadership who don't want to do anything to protect these victims. Because they like this issue. They like the issue far too much.

And obviously they don't want people to die. Nobody does. But they see this -- they could take steps that are unrelated to gun control, that the right would go along with. But they're in a period here, where conservatives have -- or at least the Republicans have the House, the Senate, and the presidency. Your time to pass wide swaths of gun control was probably when you had all three of those and you didn't do it.

Now you don't have any of them. You're not going to get that through right now. If you could focus on things that could actually help, that you could work together, there would be a middle place there. You know, it's just not about gun control.

GLENN: Well, because nobody is -- truly, nobody is trying to help. Nobody is trying to solve this. Nobody.

STU: It's depressing. It really is.

GLENN: It is. They're not trying to solve it. All they're trying to do is win. We lose once we decided we must win. And everybody is just trying to win. And I don't mean win the Constitution. I mean, you're just trying to win the next election. It doesn't matter.

You just want verbal ammunition that you can spray the other side with when it comes election time.

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case
RADIO

The BIGGEST Issue With Trump’s SCOTUS Immunity Case

Former president Donald Trump is battling multiple legal challenges. But everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity. However, there’s a big issue. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn to explain why he believes the Court may NOT grant Trump full immunity. Plus, Andrew weighs in on whether Trump has a chance of moving his trials away from New York and Washington, D.C. and why former presidents haven’t been taken to court before.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andy McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, the Institute's Senior fellow, and a former chief assistant US attorney general. We won't hold this against him.

He was a former US attorney in the -- in the district of Manhattan.

So we'll just leave that alone.

Andy, how are you?

ANDY: Glenn, I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: Very, very good.

So let's start with the big story. I think, and that is the Supreme Court.

And what they were arguing last week, can you give me your honest take on what -- what this is really about for the future. Beyond Donald Trump. And how you think this will affect what is happening with Donald Trump.

ANDY: Glenn, I think it's important that you frame a question that way. Because it seemed to me.

And I reread the transcript over the weekend.

After listening to the oral argument.

The court is a lot more concerned, about the presidency, than about Trump.

GLENN: Sure. Should be.

ANDY: Yeah.

And it's -- it's an important point make. Because a lot of the coverage, has been this hysteria over whether, you know, the Trump packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him.

And they're going to get rid of Jack Smith's prosecution.

I don't think that will happen at all.

It's possible that Smith won't get his case to trial.

Depending on what the court does.

What I think the court is going to do, is send the case back to judge chuck in. Who was the trial judge in Washington. With instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call official acts, that might arguably be immune from prosecution, because they go to the core responsibility of the presidency.

And what are private acts or private wrongs. That he would not have immunity for, even though they have been enduring his presidency.

But the -- the upshot of the questioning, of the lawyers. Including Trump's lawyer, and this is particularly by Justice Barron. Justice Kagan. Trump's lawyer admitted that there's a lot of conduct charged in the indictment, that is private conduct, that really wouldn't be covered by an immunity claim.

Even though Trump has been saying a lot of stuff about absolute, complete immunity. And I think the concessions he made in the argument, that is John Sauer. Trump's lawyer, would be enough. If Smith was willing to tailor his indictment, down to the things that Sauer conceded, they could go ahead with the trial on just those acts.

He would lose a lot of evidence, but he probably should.

GLENN: So what are some of the acts that could fall under -- you know, private, and so you could prosecute. And what are the acts that are the president, and you don't prosecute?

ANDY: Yeah. So the one bright line that we can take away from this. Is that there seems to be consensus, that there is a -- a divide between office seeking, and the carrying out of the duties of an office.

So if something is purely in the nature of trying to get reelected. That's deemed to be private. Because it's not part of the duty, of the presidency.

It would be the same for anyone who was seeking office. Whether that person was an incumbent or not.

And then there were other things, that are clearly presidential.

So just to give some solid examples. That came out of the argument. Trump's lawyer conceded, that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get electors, designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress. Suggesting that they were the authentic, actually slate of electors, designated by the state.

That would be private conduct.

Because it's -- it's purely office seeking. And he carried it out, only with private lawyers.

On the other hand, there's an allegation in the indictment, that Trump tried to use the justice department. To signal to states, that there were serious concerns about fraud. And consider both removing the attorney general, when he got pushback. And considered sending a letter, that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia, to tell them, you know, that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election. Trump argued very strongly. And I think the court will probably go along with this. That that is the president's control over the Justice Department, is -- is purely a presidential act, that has no part in a criminal prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: On those are the kinds of things that they are talking about sorting out.

GLENN: When Trump sat another group of electors, or tried to. That's what -- that's what the friends of Dershowitz did. I don't remember all of the attorneys. In the 2000 election.

That's what they were recommending, to be done. You have to do that. Or you have no case.


ANDY: Yeah. Well, let me just be clear, Glenn. They're not saying that Trump wouldn't have a defense at trial.

What we're talking about now is purely immunity. That is who he got the trial from happening in the first place. I think there's significant defenses to the fraudulent electors playing. Beginning with the fact that the electors themselves, didn't think they were fraudulent. They thought they were contingent.

They thought they were basically sitting in as a slate of electors, in the event that Trump prevailed either in the state courts or in the state legislature, to throw out the popular election. Then that would activate.

But they weren't trying to fool anyone into saying, that they were the actual electors that had been certified by the state.

GLENN: Can you get a fair trial on that? If indeed he has to go to court?

ANDY: Well, I think it's tough for him to get a fair trial, in Washington.

GLENN: Why isn't -- why can't someone make the case here?

Why can't his people make the case? That you can't get a fair trial, with the jury pool in New York, or in Washington, DC.

ANDY: I think Trump's problem is he's too famous in some ways.

The problem is that unlike almost any other defendant, he goes and says, one of the things that they can always says about him. He's the most famous guy in the world. And no matter where you have the case, you have the same pretrial publicity problems. And they kind of reject out of hand, the thought that because a jurisdiction votes substantially against Trump as a political matter.

That means they can't be fair to him as a legal matter.

You know, you can -- you can debate that all you want. About whether that's a sensible distinction to draw or not.

But it's a distinction the courts draw.

GLENN: Okay. What do you think is come downtown pike on this?

Based on -- go ahead.

ANDY: Yeah. I think they will send the case back to Judge Chutkan with instructions to go through the indictment and figure out, what's a public act and what's a private act.

If Smith wants to fight on that, then he's never going to get to trial, prior to Election Day. Which, of course, is his aim.

Because this would still be a live immunity claim, and immunity is one of the few things that you can actually appeal pre-trial. So I don't see how he would get to trial. But I do think Smith, if he wants to. And if it's that important to him to get to trial, quickly. He could say, you know what, I will dispense with all of the acts that you say are immunized, official, presidential acts. And we will just go to the trial on the private stuff.

It would be a weaker case for him.

But it wouldn't be an unwinnable case.

GLENN: And what is the punishment?

ANDY: Well, that's an interesting question. Because that may depend on another Supreme Course case this term. The one they argued, a week before on the obstruction statute, that is key to Trump's case.

That obstruction statute has a 20-year penalty. And it's the two main counts in the indictment against Trump.

The other two counts only have five-year penalties. So if the Supreme Court says that it rejects the way the Justice Department has been using the obstruction statute. Which it might. Then that would require probably a big overhaul of Smith's case. Because those charges are very important to him.

But if the court upholds that statute. Which it also might. Then you are looking at a potential of, you know, 40 years imprisonment.

Now, he won't get 40 years. But statutorily, there would be 40 years imprisonment.

On those charges. And I think ten on the other two. The other two are fraud on the United States. And the civil rights charge.

So he would be looking at, you know, statutorily 50 years imprisonment. Which would indicate, under the sentencing guidelines, that he would get, I would think. You know, four or five, six years.

Of a sentence. If he gets convicted on those charges.

GLENN: Unbelievable. You know, last week, the Biden administration was making the case, well, Donald Trump is the on me one that has ever broken the law. That's why we've never had this before. That's such crap, and we all know it.

Why haven't we had this problem before?

ANDY: I think a lot of the criminal -- the potential prosecutable criminal conduct has come up, late in presidential terms. Like, for example, with Clinton.

The pardon scandal happened as he was going out the door. And I was in the Justice Department, at the time.

There was -- there was over a year of pretty intense debate within the Justice Department, about whether he ought to be charged with bribery or not. In connection with those pardons.

But I think there's -- maybe this has changed now.

But there's always been a current of like, when a new administration comes in. Particularly if it's a new administration of a different party. They don't want to revisit what happened, with the last guy.

They want to just go ahead, on their own stuff.

This whole idea, we're looking forward. We're not looking back. That certainly had a lot to do with why the Bush Justice Department didn't prosecute Clinton.

And I think with Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric, during the 2008 campaign, about war crimes against Bush and all that stuff.

But when they got into power. They not only weren't interested in prosecuting anyone on war crimes. They reopened the CIA investigation. But then they closed it.

But they actually ended up adopting a lot of Bush/Cheney counterterrorism.

You know, I think, there's a lot of rhetorical campaign stuff about how, you know, lock her up.

And we will put these guys in jail.

But it doesn't come to pass. I actually think Trump is serious about it, this time. Because they've seen what they've done to have.

That's why I thought it was amusing in the Supreme Court argument. For the government lawyers to get up and say, you know, you don't have to worry about this.

This is just generous with Trump, it will never happen again.

And in the meantime, Trump is ahead in the polls. And he's running as the retribution candidate. He's promised he's going to do this stuff, right?

So -- so it's an amazing time to be alive, right?

Andy, tell me about how Alvin Brag's doing, so far.

ANDY: It's a terrible case. I think -- I wrote a column about this today, called How Judge Merchan is Orchestrating Trump's Conviction.

And I was reminded of, you know, the fact that Trump when he was a young guy, learned a lot about litigation from Roy Cohen.

And, you know, what Cohen used to say, his first principle of hardball litigation was, don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.

And I think Trump knows that. He knows it very well.

And as I'm closely watching the rulings. That are being made. And the arguments that the judge is allowing to be made. It's clear, that he has allowed Bragg. And just, so the people understand, this case is indicted as a falsification of business records, that occurred in the months of February through December of 2017.

Those are the only charges in the indictment. The case is being presented to the jury, as a conspiracy from 2015 through 2017, to steal the 2016 election by violations of federal campaign finance law, which Alvin Bragg, as a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce. And that's the way the case has been framed by the prosecutor.

Based on orders from the judge. And that is the way that they are proceeding, and judge -- and Judge Merchan is allowing the state to prove, that Michael Cohen, pled guilty to two campaign finance offenses. And that David Pecker, the AMI guy, who ran the National Enquirer. That they had a non-prosecution agreement from the Justice Department.

And then paid a fine of $180 of the Federal Election Commission.

For violating federal election law. Now, those -- it's a black letter principle of law. That one person -- let's say person A. His guilty plea is not admissible evidence against person B. Even if A says, A and B acted together.

It's absolutely improper for these -- for this evidence of what Michael Cohen and David Pecker was thinking about the federal election laws. The fact that they made deals with the government. None of that stuff should come in. The judge is letting it in.

And he's not letting Trump explain to the jury, that he, Trump, was not charged by the justice department or the FEC. And the reason is obvious.

Actually expenditures that were cognizable under the federal law.

And he's also not letting Trump call an expert witness to explain campaign lay to the jury.

So what the jury is going to hear about campaign law is going to come from Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

So it's a farce.

GLENN: How is this a fair trial?

If you can't call people -- and you can't let the -- the jury know. Truly, the other side of it?

TRENT: Yeah. Look, it's even more fundamentally unfair than that.

In the United States, under the fifth amendments of the Constitution.

You are entitled, that you will be charged with a felony.

It has to be on the basis of an indictment returned by a grand jury, that explicitly says what the charge is.

The indictment in this case, talks about false bookkeeping in 2017. A case that has been presented to the jury, is a conspiracy to violate the he federal election laws.

It's mind-boggling, that it's being permitted.

GLENN: Wow.

Andy, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This would definitely lose in a higher court, don't you think?

ANDY: I do. But I think it will be -- I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction just got reversed last week. That was three years.

WATCH: Pro-Palestine Protesters TAKE OVER College Campuses
RADIO

WATCH: Pro-Palestine Protesters TAKE OVER College Campuses

Pro-Palestine protesters have taken over college campuses across America, from Columbia University in New York to The George Washington University in DC and Cal Poly Humboldt in California. Over the weekend, the protesters set up autonomous zones in solidarity with Gaza, held Islamic prayer sessions, and chanted about intifada. Glenn and Stu review some of the most insane clips. But one of the craziest ones is out of Canada, where protesters chanted "long live October 7th." And if that wasn't ignorant enough, Glenn also reviews a clip of a drag queen leading children in a chant of "free Palestine."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Well, what a weekend it was. What a weekend it was.

The constant protests, I guess are the big story, over the weekend.

And it doesn't seem to be stopping.

Seems to be the only thing that Americans want to do these days. Is protest the right of Israel to exist.

That's apparently controversial now.

It's amazing to see this happen.

We're seeing university after university after university, step up. and decide that the hill they are going to die on is the hill that supports Hamas. This is apparently a popular position in this country. And an incredible moment that we're in right now.

Let's -- let's go to sot one, if we could, on our list. I'm not sure if are these available. Having a little bit of a technical issue. There we go. We're having an Islamic prayer being held.
(music)
I have this album.
(music)
Just bought it on vinyl. Now, these are the quietest of the protests around the country. Most of this really weren't like this. Outside of the White House Correspondents' Dinner. There was more protesting going on. This is...

Missing the visuals here. You have -- so bizarre.

VOICE: Wiped off the face of --

GLENN: So this is someone dressed as an Israeli soldier, and there's a bunch of blindfolded, shirtless people who get hit by blue powder and collapse, which is making a good point.

GLENN: No. I think this is -- this is the really killing the white man. Which is supposed to be the Palestinian. But they're white men. Most of them. Which I think just makes it even more confusing for anybody who was -- who was watching.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, I have to go back to the Islamic prayer. I mean, I don't know about you. I miss it times. Could you play the -- could you go back and play the Islamic prayer for me, please?

If you happen to be watching TheBlaze, I just want to describe the Islamic prayer here.

Everybody is on a prayer rug there at Columbia University.

It's a beautiful, beautiful scene.

And -- yes.

And this guy is very, very popular in the upper east side.

So you have people, you know, on a prayer run. We had to go to the Supreme Court to get the coach to be able to pray by himself on the field, after a football game.

But this is totally cool. And the next thing is, they're including women in the call to prayer. Which is very popular, in the Middle East.

They love it, when a woman gets down and pray right looping side the men. It is -- it's wonderful. It's truly, truly wonderful.

Now, let's go to cut four. This is in Canada. This is in Vancouver. Right. Okay. Can we stop there for just a second.

Stu, can you just explain? The geography of Israel. I know there's the sea, on the west coast of Israel. What's on the east coast of Israel, or the easternmost, furthest east you could go?

STU: That would be a river, Glenn.

GLENN: That would be --

STU: Yeah. So what's interesting about this. That's how you know it's an aspirational call for unity. From the river to the sea. So that Palestine, will just take over everything from Israel. There will be no Jews left.

That's the call for unity. It's aspirational.

GLENN: Unity. Okay. It's an aspirational call for unity. That sounds very specific, that language. Like, that's what they're saying on college campuses.

STU: And Rashida Tlaib, right out of her mouth.

GLENN: Okay. Good.

So an aspirational call for unity. The only thing you could be unified on is get rid of all the Jews. Because that means there is no Israel.
So no two-state solution.

STU: Yeah, that was another slogan.

We don't want no two-state. We want everything. That was the chant that was coming down.

GLENN: Right. Well, but see, they make it clear.

They want everything. And we don't want no -- no one state. So they've got a double negative there.

Which means they want a two-state solution.

And they say, we want everything. And that must include a one state and a two-state solution.

So I think that is very, very clear. Now, can we go on and play what they were saying in Canada. It was cut four.

VOICE: We demand a free Palestine. From the river to the sea.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOICE: And we stand with the Palestinian resistance, and their heroic, and brave action on October 7th.

They said, long live October 7th.

And we say, today, long live October 7th!

VOICE: Long live October 7th.

STU: Oh, my God.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You know, I love it when the Nazis are like, long live the Holocaust. You know.

Hey, long those cool -- really cool showers and oven system that we came up with.

You know, that --

STU: Clunky slogan.

GLENN: It's a clunky slogan. But -- but a true slogan.

STU: But the equivalent of what they're saying. The equivalent of what they're saying on these college campuses. The ones that everybody in the media seem to be supporting.

Long live freaking October 7th. I mean, can you be any more -- I don't know, Glenn. Is this one still borderline? Is this one anti-Semitic, or are we not sure? Is this an aspirational call for unity? I can't quite tell.

GLENN: Well, we know it's brave. We know it's brave. Well, October 7th was a very brave day. It was brave and heroic what they did. Really.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Do you think it takes courage to go molest, slaughter, and then burn babies? Sure. Sure, it takes courage to do that. You might get caught and then seen for the monster that you really are.

But in this case, no. They're celebrated. So it's brave and historic.

Now, in California. Cal Poly, cut five.

Does this have audio with it?

STU: We're seeing the video of this. Apparently, no sound to it.

Yet again, graffiti, inside the hallways here. Some words we maybe don't say on the radio.

To recap.

GLENN: Are they grown up words?

STU: They're grown up words. Big girl, big boy words.

This has been just people ruining the facilities, and it's very messy. And there's graffiti everywhere inside the building.

It's wonderful. This is another aspirational call.

GLENN: You remember, kill all the Jews. Kill all the Jews. It helps you remember all of that.

Now, beyond kill all the Jews. There's something new they're calling for. Cut 48, please.

This is in Germany, of all places. The big Palestinian uprising in Germany this weekend. And what are they calling for?


STU: It doesn't sound good. Never sounds good in German.


GLENN: No. That's not in German. That's in Arabic.

Whenever you get someone in German going, (foreign language). No matter what language it is, you know it's trouble. Don't worry, they were just calling for a caliphate. So they're not wanting to bring the Nazis back. They just want a caliphate.

STU: Aspirational.

GLENN: Yeah. Very inspirational. Now, if I could just get the drag queens and the caliphate people, you know. If I could just get them together, one stop shop, I think we would be set.

Here's cut 30.

VOICE: Today what we're going to do is we're going to shout, free Palestine. Can we do that?

VOICE: Free Palestine.

VOICE: Shout.

VOICE: Free Palestine.

GLENN: Oh.

VOICE: You know it, and you really want to show. You're a drag queen and you know it, shout.

VOICE: Free Palestine!

GLENN: See, this is the united message, we can get the kids involved too. Because we have a drag queen. And if you're a drag queen and you know it. Shout free Palestine.

So it's one place, we can get both of those things, where we can all come together.

STU: Hmm. Yeah.

That's an amazing clip. I think -- now, this is just me speculating, Glenn.

Because I'm not a travel agent.

I don't work for a tourism board.

But I do wonder how that particular event will go down, if held in Gaza. Would it be different? Because they are cheering on Palestine. Obviously, there's some affinity there. The drag queen story hour group, reading to, let's say, the Gazan children. How would that work out in Gaza itself?

GLENN: You know, it's funny you should ask that, Stu. You may not be a travel agent. Or work for some sort of tourism.

But you are a thinker. You are a thinker. This has thank you.

GLENN: And that's really what counts.
Here's the good news: They -- the protesters are going to love it! They're going to love it.

What happened in Iraq? Just this weekend? They made it illegal to be on the spectrum. The sexual spectrum at all. You're either a man or a woman. Men have sex with women. Women have sex with men.

Now, that's not all the time. Because, you know, there's a shortage of women over in the Middle East. Sometimes they have to get a little of them going on with the younger men, you know what I mean? You know what I'm saying?

But we don't talk about that. I didn't say any of that. I don't even know what you're talking about. Say, what?

But so they've outlawed now homosexuality, which is weird, because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he said, at one point, I think it was at Columbia University, when asked about them gays. He said, we don't have any gay people in Iran.

And lo and behold, they're going to make that wish come true. So you have that going for you.

Also, by the way, they just killed their third -- where is this story? Their third TikToker. She was -- no. Seriously, she was -- no. She was -- she was -- well, she's dead. She's dead.

She was a very popular influencer, in Iran.

And she's a woman. And she was shown dancing.

But she wasn't just dancing. She was wearing jeans. And they were a little too tight.

Me personally, I don't -- I don't mind, you know, some sort of law, against jeans that are too tight on some people.

You know what I'm saying?

You know, you walk around Walmart, once in a while. And they're like, oh. Those don't work on you, honey.

But I don't want to see you execute it. But she was executed, because they were a little too tight. And too suggestive.

And she was laying in a bed. Well, she was reading her son a good night story.

But she was still in those jeans laying on a bed. So they had to execute her, over the weekend. So the crackdown continues.

And, hey, all you people on campus, with your little rug prayer thing. With the woman right next to you.

You know how popular that's going to be. And all you drag queens, oh. They love you.

They love you. In fact, I am going to set up a personal fund. If you're a drag queen. If you are a gay activist.

And you're out, because you love it. And you show it. Clap your hands!

I am going to go ahead, and having you airfare from wherever I live in the United States. To the Gaza Strip.

Okay? And bring your pamphlets. Bring your pamphlets. Bring your best wigs and your spikey high heels. Bays they are going to love you there.

And when you stop writing us, or calling us, we'll know exactly how much they love you.

Over there. So maybe we could send that as a message to all of your friends over here. What the hell is wrong with you?

STU: Glenn, you were running through those wonderful stories in the Middle East.

And you mentioned Iran and Ahmadinejad, and a bunch of stories that happened in Iraq. And you kind of went back and forth. I don't know if people followed that exactly.

Because it was Iran, who had said there was no gays, years and years ago in Columbia. And both of the stories banning homosexuality and the TikToker being executed, both happen in Iraq.

And what I found fascinating about that is, we should be able to tell the difference. Right?

We were supposedly helping out this country, so that it did not end up like Iran.

GLENN: Stop it. It's only a trillion dollars. It's only a trillion dollars.

You get what you pay for.

You want to go in half-assed like that. You get what you pair pay for.

Now, 2 trillion. 2 trillion.

That just is somebody who mildly hates gays.

No. No. But, yeah. We didn't do the job. So what we did. We empowered the head of the snake.

We made the head of the snake even more powerful.

The head of the snake, over in the Middle East. Is Iran.

And now it's -- now you have Iranian Shias all over in Iraq.

And so they're doing the thing that Shias love. And that's kill people, that disagree with them.

Wow, that's weird. Because wow, that's almost like the left here in America.

Oh, I see what they have in common. They just like silencing people. Throwing them in jail. Or killing them. If they disagree with them. Wow. Too bad we can't get them to agree on the same kind of people.

Or we should get the two of them together. Oh. Because they'll like each other.

A lot. No. No. No.

I think the left, when they get there, they will be like, hi. Everybody.

We brought birthday cakes. And candles. And we will decorate this mosque all up. And they'll love it! In the Shiite world.

STU: These regimes that you're talking about there, too. They're not the ones to fear.

It's Donald Trump.

Trump is the one to fear.

Like, that's the guy. If you have to be really terrified about something coming down the road.

It's definitely not the Islamic extremist regimes we're discussing.

It's, instead, the -- the -- the tyranny of the -- you know, real estate developer from Manhattan.

GLENN: Yeah. You know, he want -- he's a man of tyranny. It's clear. He hates them gays so much.

He was the first president to, you know, open a party openly. And say, hey. I'm going to appoint gay people openly.

I will have the first gay person speak on the podium. I will be the first president that actually runs and say, I don't have a problem with gay people. You know, you got to fear him. But the guy who wants to chop your pee-pee off. And throw you off a building.

You know, that happens to be, coming across our border right now. Don't fear him.

There's nothing to fear there. Nothing to worry about.

Is the Global Cabal a Conspiracy Theory? | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 218
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Is the Global Cabal a Conspiracy Theory? | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 218

Are we witnessing the controlled demolition of America? In this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," award-winning journalist Alex Newman tells Glenn that the globalist types at the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations may be “nice to have a coffee with,” but the one-world government they are promoting won’t be the utopia they think it will be. This isn't the "Global Cabal" conspiracy theory that's all over the internet, but the reality is just as terrifying. Alex makes the case that the U.N. and Bill Gates are building “a giant digital gulag for humanity” to assert digital control from the top down using tools like CBDCs and digital IDs to not only monitor what you do but manipulate it. Sweden already has thousands of people “with microchips in their hands.” “I’m not saying this is the mark of the beast,” Glenn says. “But ...” From FISA and open borders to the war on food and the booby trap of Christian nationalism, Glenn and Alex agree that the solution to our problems is simple: The federal government needs to follow the Constitution, and Americans have to become “a moral and religious people” again.

The ONE Way to STOP the Left from ERASING America
RADIO

The ONE Way to STOP the Left from ERASING America

Our memory is the key to who we are. If we lose our memory, we forget our purpose and who we are meant to be. The same is true for societies, Glenn says. Ever wonder why the Left is so set on destroying American history, rewriting our traditions, and convincing us we're not who we thought we were? Because if we throw the TRUE America down the memory hole, we leave ourselves open to being reprogrammed with lies. But Glenn has a solution: Tell your stories so we don't forget.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Memory is really kind of important.

It's more than a record. It's more than the sum total of our experiences.

The chronicle of our lives. More than a tally of good and bad lessons learned. Although, it is those things as well. But fundamentally, our memory is the key to who we are.

Entities, which lose their memory, people, groups, nations. Lose not just the mere knowledge of their past. Of who they were. Or have been.

But they also lose the knowledge of themselves, the knowledge of their purpose. Of who they are. Who they're meant to be.

They lose the present and the future. Remember when you were a kid. It seemed like everyone on TV, surfed from amnesia at some point?

I thought amnesia would play a big role in life. No. It doesn't. It's like Gilligan's Island and the quicksand. I've never run into quicksand ever before. And I've never had amnesia. Although, some days I would like to have amnesia. But we are memory holing things.

What is the memory hole?

The memory hole was in the -- I think it was the ministry of love.


Where you were taught to hate. And the ministry of truth. Where you were taught, what lies were. And you were forced to do it in 1984.

Memory hole was a -- a door in every room, where people were being taught the truth. And you would open up the little -- the little door. And take whatever the truth was. All of the photos, the documents. And you would throw them in the memory hole. And at the bottom of the memory hole was a fiery furnace. And so it would burn up. All the record. And so it was in the memory hole.

You don't retrieve that in the memory hole. It's gone!

When you lose the knowledge of yourself. The not only of your purpose. What you were meant to be.

You are truly lost. Think of any movie or series that starts with the hero. Waking up to find their memory gone. Their fundamental character traits may remain, but they're unmoored.

Not only unable to recognize family from strangers, but without knowledge of who they are and what that means and how they should act next. All of a sudden, somebody throws a blow, and they are like.

And they're able to just take on anybody.

Whoa!

What kind of man am I?

Am I a killer. They don't know. It leaves people open to manipulation. To being reprogrammed with lies. By whatever bad actor wants to use them for their own purposes. Have you seen Argylle yet? It's exactly what I'm talking about. This is also true for societies. If we forget our stories, if we stop telling them, or allow others to edit them, to suit their purposes, we lose them.

Forget both who we are and who we can and should be. And we leave ourselves open to anyone, with an alternate story to tell.

This is what's happened to religion, Christianity. We've stopped reading the Bible. And so now we're listening to scientists and atheists. And people who say, live for today, man.

What's wrong?

What's wrong with that?, I mean, okay.

O.J. Simpson killed the ice cream man. What's the problem?

He was living life on his terms. There is a problem.

We forget who we are. Who we serve.

And we leave ourselves open.

Now, this is the open intent of the 1619 Project.

And Howard Zinn, it's the logic behind the reimagining policies. Behind the words of Michelle Obama.

VOICE: Barack knows we will have to make sacrifices. We are going to have to change our conversation. We will have to change our traditions, our history. We will have to move into a different place, as a nation to provide the kind of future that we all want.

GLENN: This the trait of every post modern, post Western, post Zionist, post monotheistic, radical atheist thinker, Marxist, or leader.

Just forget the stories of our founding and our purpose. Remember who you are! Simba.

Remember who you are. Wow. That seems kind of important.

That Simba remembers his roots. Why is it not so important for us?

These stories that tell us why we're here, and what we're here to do. We have new stories for you. Stories that will tell us, we're all born in sin. That we're all irredeemably evil.

That we should be torn down forever. Because then we can go ahead and do so. It's always the same. First, the old memories are torn apart. The old stories. They have to be denied.

Delegitimized, erased. And then the new more suitable, enlightened ones, can replace them.

Some including maybe many on the left. Truly believe the old stories are garbage.

But they haven't done their homework.

They truly believe the new stories are true. But they often openly believe that they believe this, all while denying the foundation of the old stories.

Still, they can enjoy the fruits of what's built on that foundation. The material. And moral benefits, that they take for granted. And are currently destroying.

Because it's all they've ever known.

But cut flowers are not life. What happens? You cut a flower, and they fade, wilt, and die.

They're a silent memory of what was, and what could have been. To misquote Patrick Rothfuss.

All around them hangs the cut flowers, silence of a beauty, of a culture, waiting to die.
They don't produce any seeds. There's no next generation of flowers. When they fade, only rot will remain. What was will be no more.

We are cutting the flowers of our future. The ultimate responsibility. And possibly the solution is found with us.

This only happens if we allow someone to cut us from the root. We must tell our stories. We must tell the truth. We must tell the stories of our own lies. Of our families. Do you know why our families are so broken?

Because we don't know where we came from. And I don't mean as a people. I mean as rid.

We don't know the stories of how we got here. We're all immigrants.

That's what everybody says. We're all immigrants.

But how many of us know, who brought the family here?

Why they brought the family here? What it costs them!

We should do this on every available occasion. Family meals. Trips. Dates. Nights out with friends. Honestly, because of everybody having a phone, we're losing them at a faster rate now.

I remember, sitting at the table. Having to sit at the table. While everybody was talking. And all the holidays. And everything else.

And you would look at your sister or brother, and say be like, if I have hear this one more time.

You would hear the same stories over and over again.

Yes! And that's why you know them. Are they happening in your family?

Quintessentially, that's what holidays and rituals are for. Christmas displays and Hanukkahs.
Menorahs. If it's done right, they tell a story. If in the telling, the story grows in some ways. New depth. New focus. More profound meaning.

All the better. If it accumulates anecdotes, commentary, interpretations. It becomes richer.

Turns more and more from an account of something that happened, into a story. Something rich with meaning and lessons. As well as deeds and facts.

Our holidays, Fourth of July, what is it?

We don't even call it Independence Day. We call it Fourth of July.

It's about what? Barbecues?

Maybe fireworks. Maybe sunburn.

Those are important. But how many of us are telling the story?

I know it's awkward and weird at first.

This is the week of Passover.

This is what Passover is all about. The seder night is exactly what we need to be doing.

The entire purpose of that, is to tell the story.

To discuss it. So it and its lessons can be carried on, alive for another generation. And it's been working for Jews for about 3,000 years.

So as Christmas and Easter has kind of done, with Christians. But that's going away.

Fourth of July is going away. Everything in our society is pushing our kids away from the stories. Which means, away from the truth. Of who they are. Where they came from.

Why we're here. As a people.


Well, I'm here because I -- you know. I'm going to be famous on TikTok.

Oh. That's why you were born?

Okay.

Perhaps more effort on the story telling, rather than the grilling could help us with some of the holidays like Independence Day.

And with other stories, we dare not forget. Memory requires a conscience effort. A choice. A ritual.

It requires that a story be told over and over again.

Do you notice that there is a story being told now to Americans, about Americans, to the world.
And it's being told over and over and over again. And look how quickly, because we have a void in our own homes.

Look how quickly everything is being lost.

The first thing we have to do is know the truth. And then stand up for the truth. Stand up to say, no!

You have no right to memory hole an event.