Affluenza kid captured in Mexico

At long last, the infamous "affluenza" teen Ethan Couch may pay for his crimes.

Couch and his mother were detained in Mexico Tuesday morning in the Pacific resort town of Puerto Vallarta. Couch and his mother were being sought by Texas authorities after he disappeared when video surfaced of him allegedly violating his 10-year probation. Texas authorities then issued a warrant for his arrest. Couch, 18, was under probation for a 2013 drunk driving crash that killed four people and drew nationwide attention over his lawyers' use of his privileged upbringing as part of their defense at trial.

The U.S. Marshals Service tracked Couch down using electronic surveillance, including tracking a cell phone believed to be linked to him, an official briefed on the investigation told CNN. The Marshals Service alerted Mexican authorities, who detained Couch and his mother.

Once "affluenza" teen Ethan Couch and his mother, Tonya Couch, are repatriated to the United States, both will be taken into custody, Tarrant County, Texas, Sheriff Dee Anderson said Tuesday morning. Ethan Couch will be put into the juvenile system and appear before a juvenile judge, and his mother will be arrested and face a charge of hindering apprehension.

Couch could face a maximum sentence of four months in the juvenile system, Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson said. Wilson said she wants to move Couch's case to adult court, where the punishment could be more severe.

Doc and Skip, in for Glenn, discussed details of the case on air today. Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

 

 

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: His name is Ethan Couch. Do you remember Ethan Couch, also known as the affluenza kid. Affluenza teen. Let me refresh your memory. 2013, at the age of 16, Ethan Couch was speeding, driving a pickup truck in excessive rates of speed. He had a blood alcohol level of almost three times the legal limit, which technically there was no legal limit for him because he was 16.

He fatally struck a stranded motorist on the side of the road and also killed three Good Samaritans who had stopped to help the stranded motorist. Yes, at the age of 16, while drinking and he should not have been, while driving, having been intoxicated and should not have been, killed four people. Also, injured several people riding in the truck with him, including one who is permanently brain damaged.

That was Ethan Couch in 2013. At the trial, he was convicted. And he got probation. He got probation because a psychologist said that he can't tell the difference between wrong and right because he's so wealthy, his parents are so affluent, they have raised him in such an affluent environment that he suffers from affluenza.

SKIP: Affluenza?

DOC: Yeah, affluent affluenza, if you will, affluenza because he's so wealthy.

SKIP: It's the rich illness.

DOC: We can't sentence him to jail for killing four people. We can't do that because he's so rich. He doesn't know what's right and wrong. Apparently, you can be so rich, you don't know what's right and wrong.

He was sentenced to ten years probation. Recently, a video surfaced of him showing him at a party likely violating his probation. I'm going to play a little clip of the video. It's very visual, but we'll play a little of the audio for you. And then we'll go ahead and tweet a link to the video so you can see it. The video shows him playing beer pong

SKIP: Yeah, he's playing beer pong with a bunch of people. He's off to the side. I don't know he was in the exact match. But him and his buddies apparently playing the beer pong.

DOC: At 18, possibly drinking, possibly violating his parole. You can hear them partying. Then you hear the buddy at the end of the beer pong table take a run and jump on to the table and it collapses and everybody laughs. Likely in a drunken stupor. Here's the audio.

(laughter)

DOC: He was at this likely violating his parole. After that came out, when faced with questions violating a probation, he disappeared. No one could find him. His mom disappeared as well. Which prompted the county in Texas which he lives in to put him on the county's most wanted list and issue a warrant. Nobody could find him though. His passport gone. His mom's passport, gone. So he and his mommy, 48-year-old Tonya Couch have been discovered. I'm happy to tell you this morning they've found them and they're being detained in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Likely to be turned over to the U.S. Marshal service. The affluenza teen may finally actually pay for his crimes.

SKIP: Which is wonderful. Not since -- not since OJ Simpson had I had the feelings of, wow, the legal system really got this wrong.

DOC: This is unbelievable. If there's anybody in America that actually says, "Oh, I could see he should have only got ten years probation," I would be shocked. Who in their right mind would say that it's any type of consideration when you commit a crime that you're so rich you don't know what you're doing. If anything, couldn't you say that somebody is so poor that they don't know what they're doing. I mean, that's still not an argument. But it's a better one than you're so rich. At least you could say I'm so poor that I was raised in an environment of criminals or I'm so poor I had to do something because I'm so hungry. But to say I'm so rich I'm above the law!

SKIP: And how can this be a defense when -- obviously ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense. So you not knowing the right or wrong of it too, isn't that kind of in the same vein of ignorance of the law?

DOC: I know one thing, he may suffer from affluenza, but very soon he'll be suffering from arrestogenic shock. Possibly Bubba Love Syndrome.

SKIP: Yeah, probably.

DOC: Well, I don't know if he'll suffer from those. But he'll definitely feel some sort of pain in his lower quardrant. His backside. Something like that. Probably going to happen.

SKIP: The prison shakes, if you will.

DOC: Could be. Could be.

How do you do that with a straight face? I guess the psychologist -- maybe if you're getting paid, you could do it with a straight face. But an attorney, a psychologist -- you know, because a psychologist, you're supposed to be a doctor. What about your oath? And you're really going to throw this out there? I mean, I know you're getting paid by the defense or whatever.

SKIP: Probably handsomely, by the way.

DOC: But still, does your oath not matter to you? Do you have such low standards for your profession that you would throw out there, he's so rich, he doesn't know what he's doing and it's a syndrome, affluenza?

SKIP: And if you do somehow hit the legal lottery that Ethan Couch was able to get the winning chance for, gets that second chance, where you won't be in jail for murdering four people, how then do you continue to just completely not give a damn about anything and flee, continue to drink underage, and then after this not attempt to do a mea culpa with your life.

DOC: What this shows is having affluenza. That the reason or one of the reasons or a contributing factor to him drinking and driving at 16, killing four people and then still not taking responsibility is that his parents have never made him take responsibility. They likely coddled him with their affluent lifestyle. Never forcing him to take responsibility. And by claiming affluenza, where he gets ten years probation for killing four people, once again not making him take responsibility for actions. And because of that, what happened? He still is being irresponsible.

He still has not learned. Many times throughout his life he likely was not taught the hard life lessons of personal responsibility. And that led, at least a contributing factor likely to what happened. And by getting him off with ten years of probation because of your money, power, and influence, once again is doing him and society a disservice, because you don't know what he's going to end up doing. And here he is again proving what we said. He's still not being responsible. His mommy even ran away with him. Do you believe you're 18, you screw up after your parents get you off of this, killing four people, four people -- think about their families. Did they get justice?

Four families going about their lives, likely at least three of them trying to help somebody else out, being Good Samaritans. Now they're gone? This kid gets off. You go through all that. You get so lucky. And then you're still not responsible enough to keep your nose clean and you don't learn a hard life lesson? No. Because they got him off. Trust me, had his ass been sitting in jail for a couple of years, he would have been learning a lesson.

SKIP: Furthermore, the judge who said, okay, this guy did not know the difference between right and wrong, so you're saying that there's a person out there that killed four people, permanently brain damaged his friend, was so irresponsible, does not know the difference between right and wrong because he was -- you're going to put him back out on the street? This kid that does not understand what was right and what is wrong. He's raised in a system that, I don't know if this is a good or bad thing to do. Just put him back out there with probation. How is that in any way -- this guy should be locked up in a mental institute then.

DOC: You're right. If he doesn't know right from wrong and he has the money to travel and do whatever he wants -- what's going to stop him from running another four people over? I don't know.

SKIP: Oh, that was bad? Oh see, I still didn't know because I have the affluenza.

DOC: Oh, I just raped a couple of girls.

SKIP: That's bad? See, because I wanted to have sex with them. They didn't want to have sex with me, but I did. So I just raped them.

KAL: If it was my daughter that did this, I mean, I'm not going to say for sure, but I'm going to say about 90 percent that I think I would have let -- the first part, once you got to the accident, I would have let the sentence go. Let her do whatever they think is justified.

DOC: Uh-huh.

KAL: And the fact that his mother didn't do that just tells you exactly what kind of people they are.

DOC: It's Doc and Skip pitch-hitting for Glenn Beck this morning. Kal is spinning the dials radio style in New York City.

Kal -- if it were one of my sons, I would do everything I could to see them not go to jail and try to help them. You'll just do that as a parent. However, that does not mean they would not be punished. Because, first of all, I would have no reasonable expectation that he would not get punished somehow. And even probation, it's not completely let off but it's soft for killing four people.

KAL: Killing four people. I feel like that's a lesson that needs to be learned. Your parents cannot protect you from something like that. That's something you need to carry with you for the rest of your life.

DOC: Well, as a parent, Kal, I have a question, what do you think -- the mommy fled with him. They used their influence to get him off, hire attorneys, whatever. What did they say to him at the night of the incident? Four people dead, whatever. You bring the kid home. Or the next morning after he sobers up or whatever.

SKIP: Now, Ethan, you shouldn't be doing that.

DOC: Were they even angry? What did they say to him over the months and months during the investigation leading up to the trial? What did they say to him during the trial and after the trial?

KAL: Don't worry. You'll be fine. We'll take care of it.

DOC: But were they angry, Kal? Did they yell at him? Did they discipline him themself?

KAL: I would like to think they would, but the actions I'm seeing doesn't tell me that they did.

DOC: No, I don't think they did. I think they were like, you know what you need, a time out.

SKIP: Go sit in the corner now, Ethan.

DOC: Right. I don't think they were even angry at him.

SKIP: I'm going to take away your Mercedes. You'll have to drive the Jetta now. Okay?

DOC: Let me get some calls in. We'll open the phone lines. 877-727-BECK.

What would you as a parent do and say in this situation? What would you do? What would your parents have done or said to you if you were Ethan Couch? 877-727-BECK.

Doc and Skip pitch-hitting for Glenn Beck today.

Featured Image: Ethan Couch after being detained by Mexico authorities. Source: ABC News/Jalisco State Prosecutor's Office.

Can fear win the vote? Democrats have a dangerous strategy to demonize Trump.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

The Democratic Party’s nominee is deliberately spreading false, fear-driven narratives to turn her base against Donald Trump, regardless of the consequences.

Have you noticed how Kamala Harris and her allies in the corporate left-wing media have become bolder in labeling Trump a “fascist”? A recent New York Times article revealed that Democrats have shed their reluctance to use the term. In fact, it has become their rallying cry as Election Day approaches.

What’s the real goal here? According to John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist, Harris and her supporters are using this rhetoric to energize their base — and more disturbingly, to prepare them for violence if Trump wins. The fearmongering isn’t just about driving people to the polls; it’s about creating an atmosphere of rage and chaos.

Let’s show the Democrats that our republic doesn’t bend to fear and certainly doesn’t bend to those who twist the truth for political gain.

Harris is deliberately spreading false, fear-driven narratives to turn her base against Trump, regardless of the consequences. This is the same Kamala Harris who, during the George Floyd riots in 2020, encouraged bailing out rioters and urged the violence to continue both before and after the election.

For example, Harris has claimed that Trump will use the Department of Justice as a weapon against his political enemies if he returns to office. But let’s pause for a second: Who is using the Justice Department as a political tool right now? Harris’ own administration, led by Joe Biden, has weaponized federal agencies against Trump and conservatives for years.

Harris also recently entertained the idea that Trump would round up people who “don’t look white” and throw them into camps. During an interview with Charlamagne tha God, a caller suggested this scenario. Instead of refuting the caller’s paranoia, Harris nodded and said, “You have hit on a really important point.

This kind of divisive rhetoric fuels fear and division in our country. Let’s not forget: Trump was president for four years, and there were no camps, roundups, or authoritarian crackdowns on dissenters. Leftists claim Trump and his supporters spread conspiracy theories, but they are the ones pushing baseless and dangerous claims.

While Democrats claim to defend democracy, they are increasingly aligning with authoritarianism. For example, the EPA funneled billions of dollars to left-wing organizations, including one tied to Stacey Abrams, for “voter mobilization” efforts. This funding came through the Inflation Reduction Act — a taxpayer-funded omnibus bill. Imagine the outrage if Republicans in Congress gave billions of taxpayer dollars to right-wing groups. The media would be in an uproar, and there would be protests at the White House gates. But because it’s Democrats doing it, the mainstream media turns a blind eye. These are the warning signs of an authoritarian regime.

This is why it’s more critical than ever for Americans to see through the left’s manipulation. Trump’s not the fascist here — he’s a threat to the left's power. The real danger lies in the left’s escalating rhetoric, which is designed to incite chaos if things don’t go its way. And let me be clear: That’s exactly what leftists are preparing for.

Don’t let them succeed.

The best way to counter their lies is by getting out to vote and encouraging others to do the same. If every single one of us does this, we won’t let the fearmongering and lies being peddled by Harris and the Democrats succeed. Let’s show them that our republic doesn’t bend to fear and certainly doesn’t bend to those who twist the truth for political gain.

America is currently standing at a fork in the road. Which path we take will determine our fate as a nation.

One path is “we try something entirely new,” as in “not the Constitution,” and the other path is “we go back towards the Constitution,” says Glenn Beck.

The stakes for this decision are higher than they’ve ever been.

“We're deciding this year whether or not our kids are going to grow up in a country that gives them the opportunity to be themselves and to move forward and chart their own course, or we're going to continue to live in a place where we're not sure if our kids are going to have a better life than we did,” Glenn warns.

Regardless of who you vote for, Glenn says that one thing applies to everyone: “You’ve got to get involved this year,” which includes voting.

Election Day is rapidly approaching, and it will undoubtedly be a night that goes down in history, which is why BlazeTV will be broadcasting it live.

“We’d love to share it with you,” says Glenn.

Go to BlazeElection.com for exclusive access to our election night broadcasting. Your BlazeTV+ subscription also gives you access to all BlazeTV content as well as Blaze News.

“Sign up and be a part of the family as we go through this together,” invites Glenn.

Get $40 off your first year of BlazeTV+ with code ELECTION.

TOP THREE craziest leftist reactions to Trump's McDonald's visit

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Trump visited a McDonald's in Bucks County, Pennsylvania to serve up some french fries to hungry supporters.

MAGA fans from across the country came to celebrate and support Trump, quickly swamping the small town with a tide of Trump merch. With a roaring crowd outside, Trump cooked up some crispy fries and served them to a small selection of supporters through the drive-thru window, creating a light-hearted, fun momenta pleasant break from the turbulent election cycle.

Naturally, the Left quickly swooped in to rain on Trump's parade. From unsubstantiated fact-checks to overused insults, here are the craziest reactions to Trump's McDonald's trip:

Fact check on Donald Trump's claims about Kamala Harris

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

While working his brief 15-minute shift, Donald Trump quipped that he's now worked at McDonald's longer than Kamala Harris, referencing the Vice President's unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's one summer during college. McDonald's further substantiated Trump's claim by indicating that there are no existing records of Harris's employment, though they admit that records from the pre-digital age may not have survived to the present day.

Despite the lack of evidence, left-wing media outlets, such as the Washington Post, were quick to defend the Vice President. Their argument essentially put Trump's word against Harris's, suggesting that Trump was deliberately lying to defame the Vice President, while simultaneously treating Harris as a more credible source.

Pointing out the obvious fact that this was a political stunt

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

In what is likely the least informative journalistic piece of the century, MSNBC made the "shocking discovery" that Donald Trump didn't actually work at McDonald's and that the entire event was for his campaign. It's unclear what detail gave this away to the "ever-vigilant" reporters at MSNBC. Maybe it was the fact that McDonald's was closed for the event, or the lack of employees within the restaurant, or possibly it was the crowd of cheering fans outside. Thank you captain obvious, the event was a carefully coordinated and secure political event. The former President who has had several assassination attempts on his life did notwork in an unsecured restaurant, dealing with countless unknown people.

Truly "top-notch" reporting by MSNBC.

Calling Trump supporters "weird"... Again.

LOGAN CYRUS / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with something to paint Trump's fast food fiesta in a negative light. Instead of attacking Trump, they went after his supporters who lined the street to cheer on their favorite presidential nominee. They went so far as to describe the event as a violent riot full of unhinged and uneducated fanatics. The New York Times even quoted a pro-Harris protester who showed up to the event and suggested that "Jan. 6 was maybe a trial run ... and now they’re a lot more organized — and a lot angrier.” The insults didn't stop there. They dredged up the archaic and cringeworthy Tim Walz original calling the Trump supporters "weird." This "zinger" doesn't have the punch the New York Times wanted it to have, and came across as a sad attempt to bring Trump down in one of his high points in his campaign.

RIGGED: Kamala Harris attempts to sway Fox interview in her favor, STILL falls short

Paul Morigi / Contributor | Getty Images

The election is mere weeks away and Kamala Harris just had her first adversarial interview since she began campaigning.

Last week, Harris sat down with Fox News journalist Bret Baier for an interview plagued with difficulties from the beginning. As Glenn recently pointed out, it seemed like Harris had done her best to ensure the interview was intentionally rigged against Baier. Despite being in front of Baier's diverse audience, she did not seem too interested in taking the opportunity to sell herself to a new demographic. Instead, Glenn hypothesized she was just after a quick soundbite to pander to her faltering core supporters.

However, the interview blew up in Kamala's face, and the American people took notice. Here's a rundown of Kamala's first Fox interview:

Rigged Interview

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Harris and her team did everything possible to throw Bret Baier off his game and derail the interview in her favor. It started when Harris's team informed Fox that the interview, which was originally supposed to be an hour, would be cut in half. This left Baier scrambling to reformat his interview to better fit the new time requirement. Then Harris arrived at the interview ten minutes late, further shorting the interview.

The purpose behind Harris's tardiness became apparent during the interview. Every time Baier asked a question, Harris would launch into a lengthy word salad. Baier was forced to interject just so he was able to ask more than a couple of questions. Harris even pushed back, calling out Baier's interruptions, which of course, just wasted more time. Clearly, Harris or her staff realized that she could not sustain a hostile interview for any extended period, which is why Harris tried to filibuster away as much of the interview as possible.

When the brief interview was nearing the end of its allotted time, Harris's staff began signaling to Baier to end the interview. Despite the change in plans and late arrival, her staff was determined to end the interview as quickly as possible.

Harris's Agenda

CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA / Contributor | Getty Images

From the beginning of the interview, Harris was hostile. She was immediately adversarial and would spin every question into a criticism of Trump, no matter how pointed Baier's question was. Several times Harris had emotional outbursts, spewing classic anti-Trump rhetoric, regardless of its relevance to the question asked. Glenn pointed out that this was the reason Harris took this interview. Recently, many of her core supporters have been faltering as her sudden burst of televised appearances has revealed her paper-thin platform. She took this interview to get a good clip of her passionately bashing Trump on Fox News. This would bolster her core demographic, which she desperately needs.

Harris's Fumbles

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite her best efforts to sway the interview in her favor, Baier still managed to pin Harris several times. Harris kept dodging tough questions Baier threw her way with the same tactic: she would promise to "follow the law" then deflect the question back on Trump. One of the more memorable instances of Harris's evasion strategy was when she was questioned if she supported prison inmates having access to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. Harris insisted she would "follow the law" and then explained that Trump had followed the same law while he was in office. This response was, in essence, a non-answer. Harris was ignoring the obvious fact that as President, she would influence what the law would be and how it is enforced.

Harris's other major blunder occurred after Baier asked her how her presidency would differ from Biden's and how she would "turn the page" on our current situation. In classic Harris fashion, she immediately deflects on Trump, framing our current situation as somehow a byproduct of Trump simply existing within the political sphere. This convoluted web she spun was so twisted that Harris herself lost track of what she was saying gave up, telling Baier, "You know what I'm talking about." Baier admitted he was just as lost as she was, and she simply went back to attacking Trump.