Jeffy’s mother-in-law has mob experience

December 05, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

Not the organized mob (that we know of), but rather angry mobs. While discussing the fruitlessness of violent mob tactics, Jeffy revealed his mother-in-law was the victim of an angry mob after the MLK assassination, describing a horrifying subway ride that resulted in a severe beating just because she was white.

GLENN: Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the riots.

PAT: They're blocking bridges. They're stopping people from going to work. This is starting to spread all over the country. Second night of protests.

GLENN: It's all right. This is Occupy Wall Street 2.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: That's all this is. They think they have a chance. America is not going to be with these radicals. They're not going to do it.

PAT: I hope that's true.

GLENN: It is.

PAT: I hope that the people who are protesting realize that this time, there's almost — there's bipartisan support here. There's biracial support here.

GLENN: It's important to say, we don't know what happened in the grand jury room.

PAT: They said it a hundred times yesterday.

GLENN: We don't know what happened in the grand jury room, and so you know, I don't know what they were instructed that they had to pay attention to. I don't know what the evidence was. I wasn't there. But that's — what I said yesterday is I would like to see — I mean, we need transparency here. They need to say — to the to the American people, what — why the grand jury didn't think this was wrong.

PAT: And they need to do that because we saw what happened with our own eyes.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: So —

GLENN: So it's they got it wrong and the system needs to be fixed or we don't know something that they know. Either way, we need to know that. When it comes to Michael Brown, we know that there were black eyewitnesses that did not come out in front of the American people because they were afraid for their own life and protection. But they went and they testified that, yes, the cop was right. And so that's what really set the Michael Brown thing up, was the testimony of African-Americans who went into the grand jury and said, no, Michael Brown was trying to harm the police officer. It was self-defense and it was — it was a righteous shooting. That wasn't — they weren't out in front of the press because they were afraid. But at least we know that. Here, we don't have anything but the videotape that shows this — these cops looking like they're out of control. So it's important, but you'll never get this, because de Blasio wants this kind of action on the street. So you're never going to get this. But it's important for the American people to see what happened. How was justice served in this? Tell us why that decision was made. It's important.

PAT: I think it is. You know, and here's the case where we agree with the sentiment. It looks to us to be a miscarriage of justice. But there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way to go about it and I think to punish commuters on their way to or from work is the wrong work.

GLENN: It's the wrong way.

PAT: It's just going piss people off.

GLENN: When you go back and look at the riots, the workers' world riots in the 1930s and you will see this is exactly the same kind of stuff with FDR. They set Oakland on fire. They set several cities on fire. They were beating people in the streets. I mean, it was bad. This has happened before.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh, when you talk about knowing your family history and what happened, over Thanksgiving I learned something new about my mother-in-law that I never knew before. She was here fresh in the United States from Ecuador in New York City on a subway the day of Martin Luther King —

GLENN: Hold on.

PAT: There's an important element here.

GLENN: Please tell me that somehow or another your family members here illegally and there's someway we can get you deported.

JEFFY: So anyway, the night that Martin Luther King was assassinated, she's on a subway and she was beaten almost to death for being — looking white. And the violence was just there. And a person who tried to break it up was eventually stabbed by this crowd and that was just for being on the subway and looking white.

PAT: Did he survive?

JEFFY: No, I don't think he did. She wasn't sure. She said she didn't think he didn't make it and she almost didn't make it. But at first —

GLENN: It meant a lot to her that somebody saved her life and died for her.

PAT: That's the nice way to turn this on —

GLENN: Right.

PAT: On the Jeffy clan.

GLENN: Meant so much she didn't even check to see if the guy lived.

PAT: Here he is making —

(overlapping speakers).

JEFFY: No, no.

GLENN: You're right. You're right. Those happen so rarely.

PAT: They happen so rarely.

GLENN: I didn't mean to — go ahead.

PAT: Go ahead.

GLENN: That is your moment to shine.

JEFFY: We're long gone done now.

GLENN: No, go ahead. Somebody in your family that people wanted to beat to death. What a surprise.

(laughing).

JEFFY: She wasn't part of my family then. I went out looking for people like that.

GLENN: They knew. Your daughter is going to marry somebody in the future and I know it and I got to beat you to death. So that's amazing. That's amazing.

PAT: Yeah, it is.

JEFFY: But it's just random. Doesn't matter. So that's when you stop traffic, you make people mad.

PAT: And it doesn't help the cause.

JEFFY: It doesn't help anything.

GLENN: This is what happens — honestly, this is the kind of stuff that happened with Gandhi.

PAT: And you've said it a million times, this is why MLK won because it was peaceful.

GLENN: And it's why Gandhi won. It's important to understand, Gandhi did not win because he was doing a hunger strike against England or against the oppressors. He didn't. He did a hunger strike on his own people. You want violence? You want to beat people in the streets? You want to bring a gun? You want to burn something down? I'm not with you. And he was so beloved. He said I will starve to death — I will not eat. I will starve to death before I will stand with you. And if you decide to disarm, if you decide to be peaceful, I'll eat. I'll have water. But until that time, no. Now, where is Jessie Jackson? Where is Al Sharpton? Can you imagine if anybody on that side would have so much credibility that they would stand and up say, until you come to the table, I will not eat. Not preaching — Gandhi was not preaching to the man. He was preaching to the people on the streets. That's the difference. That's the difference.

Glenn: Pay attention to what the State Department's RADICAL reset is signaling

John McDonnell / Stringer | Getty Images

For years, the U.S. State Department operated on inertia—an institution locked into a cycle of caution, consensus, and risk aversion.

Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.

That has changed.

What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.

Under Secretary Rubio, the department isn’t just adjusting tactics. It’s undergoing a philosophical reset.

The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.

Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.

This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.

The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.

Regional partnerships are now framed by expectations, not entanglements.

Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.

In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.

The contrast is stark.

This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.

This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.

That alone is worth paying attention to.

Glenn: Why Memorial Day is not just another holiday

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

They wore the uniform so you could live free. This holiday, ask yourself if you're living in a way that honors that sacrifice — or cheapens it.

Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump exposes Left’s habeas corpus hijack in border crisis

Chicago Tribune / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats accused the president of declaring war on civil rights. In reality, he’s defending habeas corpus while they drown it in delays and legal loopholes.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Glenn's Show Prep