Courage: 70 House Republicans to push back against immigration bill

This morning, TheBlaze exclusively reported that 70 House Republicans are planning for a showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) over the immigration bill congressional leadership is trying to push through by July 4.

According to TheBlaze:

Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.

The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.

“So today we are going to be releasing the names of 70 Republicans that have – they're House members that have signed a petition requiring that John Boehner hold a special Republican conference meeting on the amnesty bill,” Glenn said on radio this morning.

This group of Republicans feels there has not been a sufficient conversation about the legislation, and they hope such a conference will allow for a debate of the pros and cons of passing a bill that will most likely lead to amnesty.

Glenn described what will happen on Capitol Hill over the next few weeks:

What's going to happen in the next few weeks, possibly by July 4th, the Senate will pass the amnesty bill. At the same time the House is going to pass a Trojan horse bill that will sound good and that will secure the borders. The problem with that is they're both going to be sent to conference committee, where amnesty is going to be added to the Trojan horse bill. The Senate will vote yes on final passage and send it to the House. Led by Nancy Pelosi, the House Democrats will all vote for the bill because it will assure permanent Democratic political majority, and a few Republican committee chairs will provide the final votes needed for passage. That way the president will have amnesty for illegals and the country will be fast‑tracked to permanent progressivism.

In this day and age, it is easy to paint all politicians as politically expedient fools, but the decision of these 70 Republicans to stand up to the majority is one of the most courageous acts we have seen in a long time. This issue is no longer political. It is moral.

“These 70 people are standing up and saying ‘take away all of our power,’” Glenn said. “They know that if they lose, they lose. This is putting all of the chips on the table. You've been asking for it. We have been asking for people with a spine. This one is not going to be easy.”

We have been bombarded with story after story about scandals that attack our freedom and liberty. And while it might seem like we are in a fight to protect our own freedom, Glenn explained that the fight is much, much larger. We have gotten to the point where we are defending man’s freedom.

“Because this isn't about you. This isn't about your stuff. This isn't about your freedom,” Glenn said. “This isn't about us! History may never remember any of our names! History may indeed record our names as villains if we lose. I only want my name in one book. I want my name in the Book of Life. I want my name to be the size of John Hancock. When I get there and the Lord asks me, ‘What did you do for man's freedom,’ I want you to be able to say, ‘Open your book. That is my name. Written the size of my hand, that is my name!’”

The fear is that we are turning into mice. We recognize the problem, we strive for solutions, but we scurry away when faced with the problem head-on. We no longer have time to sit around waiting for other people to clean up our mess. We must stand.

“Write your name in the Book of Life. Stand,” Glenn said emphatically. “You have asked for heroes. You are given another chance. God opens another window! Will we take this one? Will we stand? Will we support?”

Glenn warned that the immigration debate will quickly be turned into a civil rights issue. But we must remain steadfast in our convictions.

“Is there anything more important than standing up for human dignity, for the rights of all mankind,” Glenn asked. “They are going to try to make this into a civil rights case, and it is not. It is an affront to anyone who understands civil rights.”

“I'm a man. I deserve to be treated like a man. I will treat every illegal in this country like a man or a woman. I will treat you with dignity, I will treat you with respect, but I will not give you special privilege,” Glenn said. “If I break the law, I go to jail. If you break the law, you go to jail. Why did you sneak over here at night? Why didn't you just walk down the center of the street there at the border crossing and say, ‘I have a right to come into the United States?’ Because it's against the law. That's why. You broke the law. And it is not an unjust law.”

“What is unjust is the nonsense of allowing people into this country; the endless red tape,” he continued. “And who started that? The same people who now argue for civil rights. They are an affront to man, they are a joke, and we dismiss them. And we do so in the name of Jesus Christ. We dismiss them.”

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.