Sen. Rand Paul: Gang of 8 bill 'dead on arrival' in House

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) about two key issues: immigration reform and the Supreme Court’s decision on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Sen. Paul explained why he has faith in Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues in the House and what the SCOTUS rulings mean for civil rights.

One of the gems to come out of the Senate’s immigration bill is a provision that seems to incentivize the hiring of illegal immigrants for business owners who wish to avoid paying Obamacare related penalties. “I'm thinking about lobbying to become an illegal immigrant so I wouldn't have to participate in Obamacare,” Sen. Paul joked.

“Isn’t that amazing,” Glenn asked. “We were talking about this this morning that if you are an employer, you can avoid all of the fines by hiring what used to be illegal immigrants. And so I mean, how do the labor unions even claim to represent the American worker and ignore this will cost so many people their jobs.”

Yesterday, TheBlaze had a remarkable story about five senators who voted for the immigration bill, but when pressed for specifics were unable to answer basic questions about the bill’s provisions. Much like the Affordable Care Act, this seems to be a case of ‘pass it to know what’s in it.’ It is all but certain the immigration bill will get through the Senate with flying colors, but there still appears to be a glimmer of hope in the House.

Sen. Paul emphatically said that the ‘Gang of Eight’ Senate bill will be “dead on arrival” in the House. But there is still a very real concern that the House will pass a Trojan horse-type bill that will look great to start but will ultimately be gutted by the Senate.

“So in the House… does John Boehner have the spine not to bring something to the floor,” Glenn asked.

“I think it's dead on arrival. The Senate bill is dead on arrival in the House,” Sen. Paul said. “The question is how does the conference committee work… I think the Speaker can decide on any one day what comes to the floor and what doesn't. He said he will not pass something with majority Democrats and a minority of Republicans. If he sticks to that, I think that we're pretty well protected. He has the power to protect us, and he said he will.”

“Do you believe him,” Glenn asked.

“I think, you know, I have very much desire – I very much desire to have immigration reform that does positive things, not bad things, and I hope that he's going to stand tall on this,” Sen. Paul responded.

“That wasn't the answer to the question,” Glenn said laughing. “The answer is really quite simple yes or no, but I'm to the going to push you on that.”

Next, Glenn moved on to the Supreme Court decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA. While Glenn is happy to have the government further distancing itself from regulating marriage as per the DOMA ruling, he believes the Prop 8 decision could pose a threat to our civil liberties.

“Let's start with Proposition 8,” Glenn said. “The idea that the government, now the Supreme Court has is that if the government decides not to back what the people have passed now twice, if they don't represent it and say, ‘We care about this,’ then it has no place to even go to the Supreme Court. So in other words, the people [are on their own].”

“Yeah, I want to preface this, Glenn, with making sure that you know how radical you are because you're sounding like Ron Paul on this issue,” Sen. Paul quipped. “Well, here's the thing on the marriage thing… What I would say is that when they affirmed the lower court or they sort of let the lower court decide on Proposition 8, I think they do it on a technicality… It is a way of technically punting so they don't make a decision on states deciding. So I don't think they are saying that California can't decide. I just think they did a technical punt, and so they're trying to say nothing is what they're trying to say.”

“But in doing that, the other side of the coin is there are 34 states who have decided in favor of traditional marriage. Those are affirmed now,” he continued. “I live in Kentucky and we have it as part of our Constitution. So I think… the good side to this ruling is they have affirmed that this is a states issue and the states can decide… They could have come down and affirmed the decision to strike down Proposition 8. They just let it stand without taking a position on it, which is different than affirming the rejection of Proposition 8. If they would affirm rejection of Proposition 8 and nationalized that, they would have overturned 34 states with traditional marriage and I think all you‑know‑what would have broken loose then. So they did take a more moderate course here, and I think traditional marriage laws are still upheld now in 34 states.”

As Stu pointed out, however, there is a still the concern that the state could ‘veto’ the will of the people, and it is now clear that the courts will not be in a position to defend them.

“What do you believe the Constitution says,” Glenn asked.

“I think on marriage, nothing,” Sen. Paul said. “And it says essentially the Ninth and Tenth Amendment leave it to the states. Our Founding Fathers never conceived of marriage being anywhere distant in Washington. And I would tell people who are for traditional marriage, the battle's going to be lost at the federal level. Concentrate on your state.”

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive debate coverage!

Bill Pugliano / Stringer, Grant Baldwin / Stringer | Getty Images

Join Glenn TONIGHT, September 10, at 8 p.m. Eastern, for his LIVE coverage of the ABC News Presidential Debate!

Don't rely on the mainstream media to spoon-feed you their spin on the debate. Dodge the censorship and decide for yourself! Join the BlazeTV livestream tonight to get the debate coverage America deserves: the pure, uncensored truth. Plus you'll get to be the first to see Glenn's LIVE reaction to the debate as it goes down!

If you become a BlazeTV+ subscriber today, you can gain access to the live chat with your favorite hosts, including Glenn, Stu, Liz Wheeler, and more as they share their thoughts on the debate. Go to BlazeTV.com/debate and get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount we’ve ever offered, so don’t miss out! See you TONIGHT at 8!

You do NOT want to miss it!

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.


Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.