RADIO

'Tiger mom' and Yale law prof says calling for America's 'divorce' is 'playing with fire'

You may know Amy Chua as the “tiger mom” who wrote a bestselling memoir about the benefits and drawbacks of strict parenting called “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.” Chua is also a Yale professor and the author of several books on a range of topics. In her latest book, “Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations,” Chua tackled the political tribalism that is dividing America.

On today’s show, she and Glenn chatted about the right-left dichotomy that is tearing Americans apart; solutions that can help us see each other as people again; and the insanity of calling for a “divorce” into two separate nations.

“How do we come together when we each think the other side is the problem?” Glenn asked.

Watch the full clip (above) for Chua’s response to this crucial question and listen to the full interview here.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I'm hoping that Amy Chua can spend some time with us today. She has written a book called Political Tribes: Group Instinct and The Fate of Nations. She is the -- the John duff professor of law at the Yale Law School. She graduated from Harvard.

Amy, welcome to the program. How are you?

AMY: I'm great. Thanks so much for having me.

GLENN: You bet. I don't know how much time you have, but I would love to spend as much time as you have.

AMY: I have time.

GLENN: Okay. Your book is great because you talk about the secret of America. And how we're really kind of violating that now. Really, strangely, unknowingly. But you -- you speak to both sides of the aisle so we can kind of hear each other.

It's not -- it's not a book written from the left or the right.

AMY: Absolutely not.

GLENN: And it's trying to speak the language of -- of both sides. And let's start with the essential goodness of America, that you point out.

AMY: Right. So I'm not even trying to be both sides. I am just kind of going back. I think we all need to remember what it is that makes America special.

And so I actually have spent 20 years studying different countries, countries in the developing world. You know, European countries. And believe it or not, there was something really special about America, that I think most Americans don't even realize. And I say that we alone among the major powers, not France, not England, we are what I call a super group.

And to be a super group, Glenn, it's really simple. You only need to do two things.

The first is to have a really strong overarching national identity. Just something that holds us together. Americans. But the second requirement for a super group, is we have to allow all different kinds of subgroup identities to flourish.

So it's like -- so in this country, you can be -- you know, you can say, I'm Irish-American. I'm Italian-American. I'm Croatian-American. I'm Japanese-American and still be intensely patriotic at the same time. And believe it or not, this is not true in a country like France. You wouldn't say I'm Italian French. There's no such thing.

GLENN: Right.

AMY: So we -- and right now because of the tribalism that has taken over our political system, we're starting to destroy that. We're starting to destroy this connective tissue, this big overarching national identity that we have, that has -- what's made us special.

And, you know, your example, really, about Chick-fil-A, is also -- there's an attack on allowing individual subgroup identities to flourish too. So it's a dangerous moment for us.

GLENN: Right. So you -- I thought this was really fascinating. And the most clear I have heard anybody state this.

You're saying that a lot of these wars that we have engaged in, are unwinnable, simply because those nations don't have a super group.

AMY: Exactly. So one thing that America has done -- and so, you know, my real feel for 20 years has been, again, looking for foreign policy. And what I try to say is I explain why we have messed it up so much, in countries from Vietnam, to Afghanistan, to Iraq.

And a lot of it has to to do with, we don't realize how exceptional, our own identity and history is. So we forget how unusual it is to be this multi-ethnic nation, with so many different ethnicities, and to have a really strong American identity.

So, Glenn, why do you think Libya is now a failed sate? We missed this. President Obama actually really, honorably conceded this.

He said, we failed to see the depth of the tribalism. They -- Libya was a multi-ethnic country like we are. One hundred forty different ethnic groups. But the difference is, that Libya didn't have a strong enough national identity. This idea of being a Libyan didn't matter to these people.

And it just fell apart. It fell apart after we intervened. And we didn't see that. We thought, you know what, they're going to be like us.

GLENN: Yeah.

AMY: If we just take out this horrible dictator and then we leave and put in democracy, it's going going to come together. And it didn't happen. So we project -- we forget how special we are, and we make mistakes by forgetting that other countries are not like us.

GLENN: And it seems in a sick, sort of twisted way, we understood this with the motivation behind the Sykes-Picot line and agreement in the Middle East. Where we drew these country lines, knowing that it would cause warring factions and the dictators would -- would be -- would be so busy trying to keep their own tribe together, that they wouldn't have time to look out.

We did know this at one point.

AMY: Well, you know what's so funny, the British were the masters of this, actually. Because the British, they -- I mean, morally, of course, that's another question. But how were they so successful in maintaining this empire, for centuries, with such a small number of people?

I mean, just a handful of British administrators in places like India and the Middle East, exactly what you said. They were masters -- they were so conscious of all these little group decisions. But they used it to divide. And you're right. You know, they were like, okay. How can we keep these people at bay? And they actually purposefully pitted groups against each other. We were not like that, after we went to the world stage, post World War III two.

We started (?) as like this magic formula. You know, that -- if we -- because democracy -- historically has worked so well for us. We went into Iraq thinking, oh, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, it's kind of a mess, but let's just have some elections. And that was so wrong-headed. Because what I've shown is under certain conditions, democracy can actually worsen. (?) not make it better.

GLENN: Sure. So I want to go to the part of the book where you talk about how the left isn't listening to the (?) and you -- you describe, especially for a professor. I'm just shocked that you're even allowed to teach.

But --

AMY: I get to go back.

GLENN: Yeah. But you described what happened with the Trump voter. And what's happening with the Trump voter. And try to explain that to a person on the left. And I've not heard anyone in the media do this. And do it effectively, as you did. And what we're supposed to learn from this. And how you describe the left to the right, when we come back.

The name of the book is Political Tribes. Amy chew ais with us.

Don't hold it against her that she's a Yale professor. She just said, I don't know how -- I don't know if they're going to let her back in. But it's a remarkable book.

GLENN: Amy chew a,she is an author of the book (?) political tribes. Group instinct. And the fate of nations.

In your book, you -- you talk about the left believes that the right-wing tribalism, bigotry, racism is tearing the nation apart. (?) identity politics. Political correctness is tearing the country apart.

And they're both right. Can you explain?

AMY: Right. So, you know, I'm the kind of person that believes that people are basically good. And so many things that go crazy and end up being awful and are now ripping us apart actually started with good intentions. (?), for example, let's start with the left. Progressives in the '60s and the '70s, a lot of their rhetoric was about equality. And it was very inclusive. It was about, let's include everybody. Let's tran end groups, so that we don't see skin color. What happened was right around in the '70s and the '80s, a lot of people (?) all these calls for let's not seek groups. Let's be equal and all this, are not actually helping us. And so you started seeing people as a minority -- they're like, look at these histories that we're telling about the United States. We're romanticizing our Founders. We're romanticizing the Constitution. We're romanticizing everything.

And, Glenn, I think there's some good to that. We should talk about the fact that our Founders, some of them held slaves. We do to have talk about our naturive populations. But what happened is they just started going way, way too far.

So now, if you fast forward to 2018, it's all the way to the other extreme. It's like, America is a land of oppression.

It's not even -- it's not like, look, we have this wonderful Constitution, with these incredibly important principles, which we have repeatedly failed to live up to, which I believe.

Instead, it's like this whole thing is a sham. The country is built on white supremacy.

GLENN: Yes.

AMY: And that is playing with poison. Because it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It goes back to what I was saying. It's attacking that precious American identity. Not saying we need to strive to make it better.

To make it reality. But just saying, you know what, let's just throw the whole thing out. And with identity politics, another thing that has happened is -- and, again, I understand where the left came from. They were like, you know, all this group stuff is just being used to block (?) it's just being used by the right to not make any changes. Well, fast forward, it's gone too far. Brav in 2018 now, on a college (?) campus where I teach, it's all about groups. If you try to be group transcending, you will immediately be called a racist. Because the idea is that you are trying to erase all the very individual examples of group oppression that we have. But the problem is that the groups are dividing, smaller and smaller. And even worse than that, the idea is like, you cannot understand me. You cannot speak for me.

And on top of that, the final thing that drives me craziest is the vocabulary policing.

So I feel like a lot of people -- you know, in the middle of the country, who are not on these Ivy League campuses, they are good-willed. They may be anxious about immigration. They may be anxious about our country changing.

You know, they may have certain views that I disagree with. But that doesn't mean that they're racist and xenophobic and homophobic and whatever. Does or (?) you're immediately branded all these things.

And what that does, is it drives. (?) a lot of horrible stuff on the right. And there you hear terrible things. You know, so -- and it's this vicious cycle.

So that's half of it.

GLENN: Okay. So now let's go -- when we come back, let's go to, how do we fix it? Because I -- Amy, you're one of the few people that I've talked to that I think fully understands the problem that we face, and you have a solution. Next.

STU: We're talking to Amy chew a. She's the author (?) group instinct and the fate of nations. You also might remember her from (?), you know, that only sold about 25 zillion copies a few years ago. So she joins us now.

Amy is with us.

GLENN: So, Amy, I have to tell you, I feel like -- you know, I'm a brother from another mother with you.

AMY: Yes.

GLENN: Because you're -- you're so spot-on, on what the problem is, I think, with the political tribes. And how we are -- how we are one half of the country (?) dismisses the other half. We dismiss -- you know, one half of the country dismisses all the good that America did. The other half sometimes dismisses all of the bad that America did. And we've just been pushed further and further apart.

So now, how do we come together, when we each think the other side is the problem?

AMY: So, there are these fascinating, but terrifying studies that I describe, that showed that a lot of this is actually biological. That human beings are tribal animals, that we would want --

GLENN: Sure.

AMY: And that's not always bad. Family is tribal, but positive.

GLENN: We had to -- to survive.

AMY: Exactly.

GLENN: Prehistoric man had to be.

AMY: Exactly. But there are some scary tests that show that our brains light up when we stick it to the other side.

So there's a lot of it. But here's the good news: I have all these studies that show that we can as human beings overcome this tribalism. And there are all these very, very robust studies that show, that if you can pull human beings out of their group context. Because we're worst with our buddies. You know

GLENN: Yeah.

AMY: And you pull two people from opposite sides. Opposite tribes. And have them interact as human beings. It is astounding how much progress can be made.

Now, this is not saying to (?) you put a bunch of different races and backgrounds, they could just hate each other more.

The point is, having them interact as human beings. And the best example of this is the integration of our military in the 1950s. That was a time when everybody said, no way. This is not going to work. Nineteen percent of America was against (?) troops. But they did it. And afterwards, they found that the integrated troops were as or more effective than the all-white troops. And when they interviewed and conducted all these studies, it was so inspiring.

I mean, this is not just black and white. This is at that time, Italian Americans (?) Swedish Americans and German Americans. But what they said is, you know what, if you throw us all into the foxhole, we miss our loved ones in the same way. We're terrified in the same way. And we have to trust our lives to this other person, we don't care what accent they have, or what color their skin is.

And that's a perfect example. Because norms really changed. And a lot of bad things happened in Vietnam. But one good thing is people start to see each other as human beings. So I have this one idea that a lot of people are excited about. It's going to sound silly. But like a public (?) a lot of children from one part of the country, where they're always with their own kind. Their own privileged (?) and maybe enforce -- you know, encourage, on are they have (?) and work side by side with other young Americans on a common project. Not in a condescending way. Like we're going to teach you. But rather, just some common infrastructure or some project together. So I think that we really have to think about this.

I think we have to change the way we teach our history. I think we've overcorrected. I mean, when you were saying bad and good. You know, we have to tell the truth. But we have to make people feel proud of being part of this country. And not forget what makes us so exceptional about it.

GLENN: But, you know, I have to tell you, Amy, my daughter challenged me once. She said, Dad, you only know the good stories about America. And I said, honey, you've gone to school. You only know the bad stuff.

And I said, I tell you what, you read the stuff, I'll read the bad stuff. And by really immersing myself in things like wounded knee and really, truly understanding it, I've actually come out more hopeful, that we can survive (?) anything, if we learn from it.

PAT: Yes. Yes. I could not agree with you more! (?) and I think we're criticizing the same thing. Because there's a lot of voices on the right and the left, it's almost like they want to maintain those tribes. So if I were to want to -- if you're somebody on the left and you wanted to go to Chick-fil-A or read something positive about George Washington, you're instantly branded by a lot of people preponderance and the same thing happens on the right. If somebody on the right wanted to do, you know what, I want to hear this person talk about Black Lives Matter. No, no, no. You can't. And I just think that it's -- because I -- I wrote this book because I actually looked at other countries that have actually fragmented and just broken up. And I think that America doesn't realize how precious what we have is. I see people on both sides saying, let's just get a divorce. Let's just break up the country. And I think they're playing with fire. And I understand that. Sometimes you just get so mad at the other side and what people are saying. And one extreme thing feels like a more (?) escalates in a place where people are so (?) at both sides.

GLENN: So, Amy, I think what stops us from listening to the other side, or sitting down -- and perhaps it's just saying that you're part of the problem if you do sit down, is both sides feel -- and I could speak for the -- for the right, I think on this one. Is it feels like, you know, we'll sit down and we'll tell you the truth. But, you know, the left isn't going to tell us the truth of what their real intent is. And I think there's a difference between the -- the average person in the country, and those who are leading these -- you know, these -- these groups.

AMY: Yes. I totally agree. I think it's actually a lot of very loud, shrill groups. Even on a campus, I can say, you'll hear these things that the rest of America will (?) these crazy things that are said. But when I talk to my students in a private setting, in a smaller group, I find that the majority of them, whether they're on the right or the left, are actually very -- very reasonable reasonable. (?), but it's a very small number of people. Almost like bullying. You know, and -- but I think that, for example, just -- like what you just said about -- you're a very influential person. So if you just said, you know, I read this book about Wounded Knee, or something. Try it.

You know, that's not a strident thing. It's not taking sides. And I think if even just a few people start doing that -- and, yes, I think the left is very problematic this way. You know, if somebody -- look, maybe George Washington was a slaveholder. But that's not all he was.

You know, it was an amazing story. There was (?) so much heroickism. And that's like a no-no no. (?) that's partly why I wrote this book. So Amy, I have to tell you, I think I was in Denver. Were you with me institutions

STU: I think I was, yeah.

GLENN: I was in Denver. I had just flown in. (?) and it was a guy who was driving the car. And he was a -- a professor. And he was a professor of Native American studies. And something else. I can't remember what it was. But everything -- everything in me went, he hates your guts, Glenn.

And I -- you know, I -- I would -- you know, I was supposed to hate him, I think. But I started talking to him. And he was taking me to a broadcast station. And I could tell that he didn't really like me.

And so we just started having a conversation. And I found out that he was from Wounded Knee, that he had done a lot of studies on Wounded Knee. So we had this great conversation. He dropped me off at the station. I said, wait. Wait here. When I'm done, I want to show you something.

In the back of the car, he didn't know this. But I had one of the seven Native American guns from wounded knee that had been collected.

AMY: Wow.

GLENN: And I told him when wedding back in the car, I said, I want to tell you something. I said, I don't know if you know who I am. He said, oh, I do.

And I said -- I said, let me tell you what I found out about Wounded Knee. And I said, (?) when I arrived, I want you to open up the back. I have something to show you. And I pulled out the gun. I handed it to him. And he actually wept. He cried.

AMY: Wow.

GLENN: And we hugged each other. And we had a great conversation. And we ended up liking each other, a lot. That doesn't mean we agree on everything. We just --

AMY: Exactly.

GLENN: We saw each other -- I stopped seeing him as a -- as a professor. And he stopped seeing me as a guy who talks politics. And we saw each other each as people.

AMY: I love that -- that's what I was saying. (?) I have conservative students. Believe it or not, they take my classes. And I have a lot of minority students. Because I'm a minority. And I try to do the same thing. I facilitate it. But I say that -- you know, I think we all need to elevate ourselves on both sides of the spectrum and be more generous. Because sometimes it's almost like -- and, again, I get it. It's almost like a game of gotcha. It's very pleasurable just to hate the other side too. You think of sports, you know. I like my story.

Your story reminds me of the one that I tell, that's the same thing. I have this very poor Mexican (?) grew up in a trailer park. And he tells a similarly moving story about the people in the next trailer over who were so kind. To his family. And they were, you know, very strong Trump supporters. The other people would have called white supremacists. But what (?) even though the words they used, to all my progressive friends sound horrible, the things that they said, at the level of just human beings, they were the ones that protected us. They were the ones that said, we're going to be here for you. So I love that story.

GLENN: So we are sitting in a place -- Amy, I'm going to run out of time.

We are sitting at a place now, to where you just said, I think, the language that they might use, we almost speak a different language. I don't know if you're familiar with Jonathan Haidt.

AMY: Yes. I completely agree with him.

GLENN: But we speak a different language. And I've learned this by going to all kinds of different churches and synagogues and mosques and listening. And I'm amazed that we agree, I think, on 95 percent of the stuff. But we think we're farther away from each other because of the language that each religion happens to use. And we don't understand it. Coming in, we're like, okay. That's weird.

No, it's exactly what you're saying, just said in a different way.

AMY: Exactly. And here again, I think that the left and the right have to -- they both have to improve. I have been quite harsh about the left just all this vocabulary policing.

GLENN: Yes.

AMY: The vocabulary changes all the time. If you slip up a little bit, then suddenly, ah, we caught you. You're racist.

And that's not going to help anybody. But I think what that does is it makes some people on the right go too far on the other direction. They go, you know what, (?) we're going to say this. Then it makes them purposefully say incendiary things that do sound artificial. (?) more generous towards -- I always say, just try to think about what they're -- what the person is really trying to say. Instead of fixating on the exact word. You know, where are they coming from? Are they coming from a good place? Because I see so many people coming from a good place, who suddenly get torn down because they get the wrong -- they use the wrong word. And, again, I think that's bullying.

GLENN: Amy chew a,it is a thrill to talk to you. (?) political tribes. Group instinct and the fate of nations.

She has not only diagnosed the problem, but she points to the cure. Amy, thanks so much.

AMY: Thank you so much for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Can't believe she's a professor at Yale. How did she get on campus?

If they find out -- let's keep this interview to ourselves, if they find out, she's gone.

"I Was Probably Drunk": Alex Jones APOLOGIZES for Calling Glenn Beck a CIA Agent
RADIO

"I Was Probably Drunk": Alex Jones APOLOGIZES for Calling Glenn Beck a CIA Agent

Years ago, InfoWars host Alex Jones accused Glenn Beck of being a CIA agent, and it caused some serious consequences. But in a recent BlazeTV exclusive interview on Pat Gray Unleashed, Alex apologized for the incident, admitting, “I was probably drunk when I said that,” and thanking Glenn for his work over the years exposing the global elites’ plans. Glenn responds to Alex’s apology and reveals the "peace offering" he gave Alex the last time they spoke about their past disagreements.

What We Currently Know About the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse in Baltimore
RADIO

What We Currently Know About the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse in Baltimore

A cargo ship that lost power has crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, causing the entire bridge to collapse. Thankfully, traffic on the bridge was reportedly stopped before the crash. But the incident has many people asking: was this an accident or sabotage? Former assistant Treasury Secretary Monica Crowley, who helped spread the word of the incident, joins the Glenn Beck Program to discuss what we currently know as the search and rescue operation continues.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of my favorites Monica Crowley is with us. She's a former assistant Treasury secretary. My gosh, Monica, how have they trashed that Treasury? They are just looting it like crazy. Anyway, I saw Monica, you post something this morning, and I couldn't believe my eyes. Can you tell us what happened?

MONICA: Yeah. Good morning, Glenn great to be here like always. America is waking up to real tragedy this morning. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, it's a massive span. And for those of us who live in the northeast, Glenn, I can tell you, I have crossed that bridge many a time, going from New York to Washington, and back, right?

GLENN: Oh, I have too.

MONICA: It is a major, major artery in the northeast. And at about 1:30 a.m. Eastern Time this morning, a cargo ship was approaching the bridge. And the video that I posted, which is now everywhere on social media.

GLENN: We're watching it right now.

MONICA: Yes. And it's all over TV as well.

GLENN: Go ahead. Yeah.

MONICA: It is a massive cargo ship. And it's under a flag, so the ship itself is registered in Singapore. And you can see in the video, that it approaches at Scott Key Bridge, and it loses power, Glenn, twice.

Not once, but twice in the moments leading up to its approach to the bridge.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

MONICA: And so, yeah. It -- it -- you can see in the video, it loses power twice. It regains power, but by that moment, Glenn. It's too late. And they can't get away from one of the massive lanes supporting bridge. And the cargo ship goes right into the piling. And the entire bridge collapses like a house of cards. just folds in on itself, right into Baltimore harbor.

GLENN: You know, I noticed, because I watched this video, a couple of times, after you posted it.

And I couldn't believe it was like toothpicks falling apart. When they had -- when you first start watching it. You'll see, the traffic is pretty steady on the bridge.

And thank God, right at the time it collapses, not a lot of cars, if any, were on the bridge. Do you know if there were cars on the bridge?

MONICA: Well, thankfully, if there's any silver lining on this horror show, Glenn, it is 1:30 in the morning. So it's relatively light traffic.

And you can see headlights of cars going both ways. And the moments the cargo ship, hits the bridge.

It looks like very few cars, if any, are on the bridge.

What we're hearing this morning, pardon me. What we're hearing is that two people have already been rescued, God bless. There are at least seven people missing that we know about.

So there is a very active search-and-rescue going on. The Coast Guard is out there. The National Transportation Safety Board is on site. The Navy is there. Navy divers are in the water, and have been there for hours.

And so we hope and pray that any victims that fell into the water in their automobiles and in their trucks, there's at least one semi that we know of, that collapsed into the water with the bridge. Glenn, so we hope and pray, that all of these people, who were part of this unfortunate accident. And at least now, it does look like an accident. And we will wait for the investigation. But we hope and pray that everybody will be rescued, and will be okay.

GLENN: So, Monica, do we know anything about the ship.

Because the first thought is. The power goes out. Then it comes back on. And the poor captain, man, you can see him just trying to turn that ship as fast as he can, when the power goes on. Then it goes out again.

Do we know?

My first thought is, is this some sort of a -- you know, a -- some sort of an attack with -- on electronics. Was there -- is there -- has anybody else thought of that? Or is it just me and my sick, twisted paranoia, I guess?

MONICA: Well, I think that too, Glenn. And we will have to wait for a thorough investigation here, in a lot of different areas.

There's one report that I saw this morning, that indicated that the crew, and apparently there was one pilot and two captains on board. And, of course, an additional crew, which you would expect for a vessel of this size and magnitude, under an international flag. Again, Singapore. And there is one report this morning, that indicates that the crew alerted the Maryland Department of Transportation when they were leaving the port, that they had lost control of the vessel. And again, I don't know how reliable this report is. But it's up on the New York Post website this morning. So, again, I don't know if that report has been vetted. But, you know, most of these vessels now, are under electronic control. Not unlike some of our voting systems. And might very well be -- might very well be open to hacking by nefarious players here.

So, again, we will to have wait and see. I mean, sometimes the cigar is just a cigar. And accidents unfortunately do happen.

GLENN: Right. And I hope that's the case. But with all the cyber terror that is predicted, I just -- you know, I know we're all on high alert for that.

Monica, thank you very much for reporting and calling in. I appreciate it. God bless.

MONICA: Oh, it's my great pleasure, Glenn. Thank you.

GLENN: So we have an update on the bridge collapse. The Fort McHenry Bridge. Very important bridge and port in Baltimore.

Here's the update that is pretty remarkable.

STU: Yeah. Apparently, the ship was able to issue a mayday, and say they were experiencing a power issue. And this enabled transportation officials to halt traffic on the bridge, at the last second.

I mean, if you watch the footage, you can see the cars crossing the bridge as normal, up until the very last second. And all of a sudden, they just stop. And you just kind of assumed, it was a break in traffic.

But, apparently, they knew something was wrong, and were able to stop it. I mean, they must have saved dozens of lives by doing that. So that's an incredible part of the story.

GLENN: These -- these -- yeah. These guys are heroes.

If you're watching TheBlaze right now, we're showing you the bridge collapse. It is absolutely unbelievable.

And you can see how the boat is trying to turn, as sharply as they can. And then the lights -- the lights come back on. They try to steer it away. And then it goes out, at the second time. And it's too late, and the whole thing collapses. It's remarkable.

Jeez. And they've now -- that port is closed. I'm not saying that this is by any stretch of the imagination, other than it reminds me of, the cyber attack on -- I think it was a Navy ship, wasn't it?

That was in the South China Sea. I'm pulling this -- I'm sorry. I have CRC. Can't remember crap.

But it was in the South China Sea. And it -- it lost control. And it made a circle.

And then rammed right into an oil tanker. Clearly controlled by somebody else.

I'm not saying this -- that's what this is. This is probably just mechanical error.

But we have to start thinking about those kinds of things now. Because they're all possible.

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES
RADIO

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES

President Biden’s Department of Justice has launched a new office to train state and local authorities on how to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who could pose a “threat.” But what does it consider to be a threat? People have already accused this "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center" of violating the Second Amendment. But Glenn believes it may violate a handful more of the Bill of Rights. Glenn reviews how the Department of Justice has sidestepped Amendments 1-6 of the Constitution with this order, along with others.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, you know, I thought we would look at the Constitution. A caller last hour was right on the money. When he said, you know, this center, that can take your gun away, without due process. Yeah. That's -- that's a big one. That's a big one. That's a violation of the Second Amendment. But it's also a violation of many other amendments. I want to go through the -- the -- you know, just the first ten amendments.

Okay?

First of all, do you know how the Bill of Rights came about?

Listen to what they wrote.

This is at the top of the page. Resolved. Resolved by the Senate and the House of representatives of the United States of America. In Congress, assembled. Two-thirds of both houses concurring. That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States. So here's a group of people. Imagine this. Two-thirds, say, we believe these things should be done. But we have to send them to all of the states to ratify, and they need two-thirds to be able to pass it in their states. And then we will need two-thirds of all the states to agree. Okay?

Wow. What a process! And what are they trying to do, get themselves a raise? Give themselves more power? No.

The exact opposite. Here's what they say. The amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures to be valid in all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution.

Articles, in addition to, and amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, ratified by the legislature of several states.

They're saying here, that the -- after the convention, a number of states, having at the time, adopted the Constitution.

This is in the little preamble here. Expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse its power.

So the guys in the government said, I am afraid people will abuse the power and misunderstand the Constitution.

So, quote, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence, in the government. Will best ensure the -- the benefit ends of the institution.

So they're saying, look, nobody trusts the government right now.

Does that sound familiar. Nobody trusts the government right now.

So we want to pass several amendments right here, that will protect the rights. And make sure that the hands are tied of the federal government.

They're saying, these are restrictive clauses. And by telling the people, we will never do these things.

Confidence will be gained. I contend, our -- our problem is, we're no longer unified on these ten articles. We no longer care about them. We no longer learn them. Teach them. Know them.

So here's article one. Amendment number one. Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion.

I contend, we are violating that right now. Because what we are celebrating is a religion.

It has a cult following. It has nothing to do with science.

Or even common sense. It has a tribunal. That will excommunicate you from society. If you don't get involved. It has rituals. It has laws, that you just must accept on faith. I know that's pushing it. But I think they're doing that. They are also breaking the second part of the First Amendment. Prohibiting the free exercise of religion. They did that during COVID. Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. And the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They don't want you standing up. They don't want you standing up. They will do everything they can to make sure you are sitting down. Enough of this Christian nationalist stuff. Enough that. Don't dismiss it. It's real. It's very, very small. But it's real.

So don't call yourself a Christian nationalist. Don't allow yourself to fall into that trap. You might be a Christian. But you are also a constitutionalist. You believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the articles of the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. You believe in all of that stuff. That's all you want.

Article II, a well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the one that everyone should look to, on this particular new center from the Department of Justice. They -- well-regulated militia. Would that make sense? Would it make sense, that the people couldn't have guns? And the federal government would have a huge army? No. In fact, we never had a standing army. We were the soldiers. We would be called up to arms. So you would have your own arms. And then when there was war, you would be called up in a militia. Okay? But you had the right to protect yourself with a gun as well. No. That was for fishing or hunting. Or one of those things. No. It wasn't. No, it wasn't. Article three. I think we can skip over. Well, no. Actually, not. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war. But in a manor to be prescribed by law. So article three, I think you could make the case. I don't think you would win. But you could make the case, that our government is quartered. Soldiers are quartered in our house. Because they are in a public/private partnership. With Amazon. And everybody else.

They are -- they are gaining access to our papers. To our letters. To our emails. To our phone calls.

That's what the government was doing, that made this article important.

The king would say. You know what, find out what those guys are doing over there.

And, you know what, just go into their house. You live there. I will quarter you into their house. So you can spy on them.

Well, it's just in a different way. But that's what's happening. Fourth Amendment. The right of people to be secure in their persons. Do you feel secure in your person?

Houses. Paper. Effects. Against all unreasonable search and seizures. Shall not be violated. It's violated all the time.

We've talked about this many times. How many people have been driving down the street. And they have money in their car. And they were going to buy another car. They will buy it in cash. And they're stopped. Their cash is taken. No due process. I think you're a drug lord. Wait. What?

No warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. This is a general warrant. This is why they -- this is why this is in here. In article four. No warrants shall be -- no warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. General warrants, used to be, you know, there's something going on with that guy. Go find out.

And they could search for anything. Anywhere. No. No general warrants.

You have to know, and tell the judge, I'm going in, for this document, or this particular item. And I believe it's here!

Great. So the judge will say, you can go there, in their house. And look for it. But no general warrants. You can't occasion you can't go in and just try to find something. No person shall be held to answer for capital. Otherwise, infamous crime, unless the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Except in cases, arriving in the land or Naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war, or public danger. Nor shall any person be subject to the same offense twice, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Without due process of law.

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Those are being violated, but in particular, with this new center, where they can take -- come into your house, and take your guns without due process.

Clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Clear. So you have three of them now. That have been broken just for this one law. Don't tell me I love democracy. Don't tell me you love freedom. Don't tell me you're trying to save the republic, and you love the Constitution if you're violating this many. And we're only halfway through. You're in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

Article six, in all criminal prosecution. The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Has that happened with those who are still waiting for trial for January 6th?

How is it they can -- they have to wait so long?

But Donald Trump has to be done by this summer?

Why is that? Are all men created equal?

Are we -- are we -- are we looking at the people of January 6th?

With the same blind justice eyes, as Donald Trump? No. Of course, we're not.

Violation of the Constitution by an impartial jury of the state and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed.

In partial jury. If you can't get an impartial jury. What do you do?

You can't get an impartial jury, you ask for a change of venue, where you can get an impartial jury. You don't have an impartial jury pool in Washington, DC. You don't. And to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. To be confronted with the witnesses against him. To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and have the assistance of council for his defense.

In this new center that they have announced, you don't get the due process.

You don't get to face the witness. You don't know the cause of accusation.

You have nothing.

On your side.

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

STU: No.

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

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

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

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

STU: I would think so.

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

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

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

Again --

GLENN: If you could find a bank.

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

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

He correctly argues, that is completely unfair.

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

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

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

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

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

Not a chance.

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

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

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