Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Restoring the Covenant
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2020 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Controversy erupts after unarmed black man choked to death by cops in NYC

December 04, 2014
 Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Another unarmed black man was killed in NYC but this incident was very different from the one in Ferguson.

This time, the man was being confronted by several officers because he was allegedly selling cigarettes without paying taxes. After some discussion the officers jump on the large man and put him in a strangle hold. The footage is tragic and really disturbing, as you can hear the man struggle to say ‘I can’t breathe’ before going limp.

A grand jury cleared the officer.

Glenn, Pat and Stu discuss their disappointment in the legal system for failing to indict the officer of any charges.

GLENN: Hello, America. Let me — let me be counterintuitive, I guess, not to you. Not to the fans. Not to the people who have listened for a long time, but I would imagine to the rest of the press. Let us be counterintuitive. While I disagree with the protests and what they're doing in New York, I strongly disagree with the decision of the grand jury in New York.

PAT: No question.

GLENN: I mean, I would like to see the parameters. I would like to see exactly what they were doing. How they made this decision?

STU: And that's the most — you have to know that part.

PAT: If they couldn't charge him with anything, but murder —

GLENN: I mean, manslaughter should have been considered. I don't know exactly how this happened, but I will tell you this: The decision of the grand jury in New York on the death of Eric Garner, here's a guy who was — was not resisting arrest. Was not being a jerk. The video is very, very clear. The police put him in a choke hold. Threw him down.

PAT: Against department policy, by the way.

GLENN: Right. He has a heart attack and dies. Now, did they —

PAT: And he's crying out the whole time. Just heart wrenching to hear him say. Please I can't breathe. I can't breathe. Over and over. Then he goes limp.

GLENN: How this cop did not go to jail, was not held responsible is beyond me?

STU: Not even indicted. I think if you to get to a trial there are a lot more questions. But should he have been indicted? It seems that way.

GLENN: This is ridiculous.

STU: The jury's rationale was not made public.

GLENN: But that is important. If you're not indicting — for instance, in Ferguson, we know the rationale, we know what happened. We know there were witnesses. There were actual black witnesses that testified in favor of the cop. That said, I saw it. And what everybody is saying in the press, that didn't happen.

So we know exactly what happened in Ferguson. We know why that jury verdict came out the way it did. This one, we don't. And you got nothing, but a vacuum. We have to understand: How could you have possibly come up with this particular verdict? What went wrong?

When you look at what they did to this guy and putting him in a choke hold like that, it's inexcusable. Absolutely inexcusable.

PAT: And brutal. One of them has him in a choke hold. Knee on his head. Couple others pin him down elsewhere. Huge guy. 350 pounds. Has asthma. He's telling them, I can't breathe. Do you not at that point at least lighten up at that point. He's not even resisting. He didn't punch anybody. I've seen the video start to finish when the cops first arrive. I guess his deal is he's sold illegal cigarette on the streets.

GLENN: [Gasp]

In New York? Wait a minute. What does it mean to sell illegal cigarettes? It means the state didn't get their tax dollars. It's not that they're more dangerous than regular cigarettes. It means these were cigarettes that were purchased through the company and then sold on the street without the state getting their tax dollars. So they killed a man for their tax dollars.

PAT: That's bad.

GLENN: That makes it even worse.

PAT: It's really bad. And all he's doing at the beginning — he's not even resisting, he's just yelling at them to leave him alone. I didn't do anything. Leave me alone. Just let —

STU: Yeah. It's a light resist. It's a talkative resisting arrest.

PAT: It's not physical. When they say, put your hands behind your back. He doesn't swing on them.

STU: As soon as they take physical control of the situation. They can put his hands behind his back. They can push him to the ground. They can't do the choke hold fortunately. He doesn't do anything physical to resist. He's not even arguing about being pushed to the ground. He just says, I can't breathe. I'm about as pro cop as humanly allow allowable.

GLENN: I won't let you get away with that. We're all pro cop.

STU: I didn't say you weren't.

GLENN: I know, but you will give the benefit of the doubt to the cop in every possible scenario.

STU: I do not agree with that analysis.

PAT: Anybody who heard the show yesterday would.

STU: Again, I would disagree with that analysis. I'm fine with it. If you're going to err with the judgment on me and it's towards being pro police. That's probably too pro police. I think there are people in the audience that think that. And you guys probably think that. Which is fine. But even in this case. I don't know what the grand jury did.

GLENN: That's the problem. When you're in a grand jury, they give you specific parameters. So they say you can't consider this. You can't consider this. You can't do this. This doesn't count. And you're like, well —

STU: They may have only been going for murder and weren't allowing manslaughter.

STU: Person guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he recklessly causes the death of someone. Yeah, I think so. It's at least worth a try.

GLENN: Yes, it is. You have to remember, a grand jury is not a jury trial. It is: Here are the facts. Is there enough that says we should look into this?

PAT: And the parameters could also be: Is he guilty of only homicide or murder in the first degree? Well, obviously it wasn't premeditated. I don't think there was intent to kill. They just did.

STU: I agree. They wanted to subdue him. He's a very large guy. Maybe they thought they needed a lot of force. But what they did wasn't okay. And the guy didn't die by choking. He had asthma and he died of a heart attack.

PAT: Brought on by not being able to breathe. Panic attack.

STU: They classified it as a homicide, the coroner did.

PAT: They did...

GLENN: Here's the thing, if you were in New York and you were there for the lighting of the tree, would you listen — would you listen to these protesters if they were walking down the street holding signs that said, F the tree, and they were chanting there with your children, F the tree. And they're snarling at traffic and everything, F the tree. F the cops.

STU: Let's just judge it on the merits of the case. We don't need swearing.

GLENN: If you did what Martin Luther suggested to do, that is, they could have easily gone into that crowd singing O Holy Night, and people would have said, what is this? They're closing it down, and they're sitting in the center of the street and they're singing O Holy Night. And one person just gets up and says, this doesn't make sense to us. Americans would have stopped and listen to them. Instead, it's no justice, no peace. F the cops. F the tree. Nobody will listen to you.

PAT: It doesn't make sense.

GLENN: It doesn't.

STU: I saw his wife or fiancé — I guess his wife — on TV this morning sitting right next to Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is an incredible liar who tried to take every other case you've heard of where the police didn't do anything wrong and envelope it into this case. Weakening the strength of this case of a guy who really died for the wrong reasons. He's like: Look, this is the same thing that happened in Ferguson —

PAT: No, it's not.

STU: You listen to three or four cases. No. It's not the same. Why can't you judge people — Al Sharpton is not out there because he cares about this person. He's out there for what he wants and power. And taking on his counsel is detrimental to her late husband. It really is. People will just not listen to you. I mean, a lot of conservatives have come out on Eric Garner's side on this. Which is not common.

Something you said conservatives are pro cop. A lot of them will give the benefit of the doubt no matter what happens except this case. This is the only one in history.

PAT: That's a little extreme.

GLENN: I think it's important as conservatives to stand up against the grand jury on this particular —

PAT: Definitely.

GLENN: — event. Yeah, it's important. If you want to have any credibility, you cannot lump Ferguson with this one. This is the New York police completely out of control. They did not murder him, but manslaughter, absolutely should have been considered. Why that wasn't considered is beyond me.

STU: We don't know.

GLENN: Right. And this is the way Americans deal with injustice. We let the system work. The system didn't work here. Now let's calmly and rationally say, why didn't the system work? What were the instructions to the grand jury, what was the evidence that they said didn't matter? Because we've seen the video. Now, explain to me how that's not manslaughter. And if you can't rationally explain it or if it's because of some loophole, we has Americans need to fix that loophole. We need to figure out what it is. But we need to do it without saying F the tree.

STU: Hopefully we can fix this case. There are other avenues we can go down. Hopefully the next one can —

GLENN: We don't shut cities down. We don't burn doughnut shops. And we don't destroy cars. That's what we don't do.

His record 'speaks for itself': Jason Whitlock on why President Trump is gaining with black voters

Image source: Video screenshot

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

Megyn Kelly: Media coverage of President Trump is ‘DISGUSTING’

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

WITCH HUNT: The left has TERRIFYING plans for Trump supporters if Biden wins

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

Glenn Beck: President Trump’s final debate performance was  'BRILLIANT' — here's why

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.