Oh the Irony, California and Oregon Unwittingly Support Constitutional Principles

November 11, 2016

Writer

The folks in California and Oregon are fed up. They've had it up to here with the federal government taking their taxes and telling them what to do. Naturally, the next logical step would be secession. Or, hold that thought, perhaps they might consider following the Constitution?

"I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

That's the beauty of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Our brilliant Founders created a system by which states could uniquely follow their own beliefs, without imposing them on other states. But what did they know? The Founders were old, racist men whose ideas have become outdated and irrelevant. At least, that's what progressive liberals would like you to believe.

"If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be. Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The Founders recognized that diversity would strengthen the United States of America, not diminish it. They built our system of government accordingly, making provisions for the states to be different and unique.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these relevant questions:

• If California jumped off a bridge should we all do it?

• Why is the Tenth Amendment the perfect tool for diversity?

• Why does each state have its own flag and motto?

• What does E pluribus unum mean, and why do progressives believe the opposite?

• Did Barack Obama help or hurt Democrats?

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

GLENN: Let's talk a little about secession. California and Oregon are talking now about seceding. And I find that amazing because, A, that was so un-American to talk about when Barack Obama was president. But now it's very, very popular. And I would just like to speak to California for a second. One of their big issues is they're tired of their tax dollars going to the federal government. They want control of their tax dollars and have their tax dollars stay at home for California.

JEFFY: Huh.

GLENN: And they want to make their decisions, not be dictated to by the federal government.

PAT: Huh. What a concept.

GLENN: We would just like to say, we want that too.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You may be surprised that you're not a progressive if you believe in that. You're a constitutionalist. Because that's what the Constitution guarantees that we have now just dismissed.

So if you believe those things, then you're actually a constitutionalist, and you don't need to secede. You need to join us. You need to join us. And come with us on the Constitution. Because once we restore that, those feelings go away.

PAT: If that's their issue, Hillary wasn't the right candidate. You voted for the wrong person.

GLENN: I don't think these are Hillary people. These are Bernie Sanders people.

PAT: Well, that's even worse.

GLENN: At best. At best.

PAT: Bernie Sanders would have been even worse for that.

GLENN: No.

PAT: A socialist?

GLENN: No, no. No. Because here's what people -- here's the problem: People are playing politics, and they're not playing principles. So they're perfectly fine being California as part of the United States, as long as the rest of the United States does it the way Californians want.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so that's called authoritarianism. They're not really for freedom. They are for their rule of law. And if the rest of the country won't go that way, well then, they don't want to be a part of the country.

PAT: Yeah, but Bernie Sanders is a strong central government guy.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: The strongest central government --

GLENN: Again, they would have --

PAT: -- we know of in public office.

GLENN: Right. Because they only care about what they want. They believe they're right and everyone else is wrong. And so, as long as we have a strong central figure in Washington that is forcing everyone else to live the way we want to live, well, then, that's great. Then we'll make everybody's life happy because we're going to teach those people in Texas just how happy they're going to be. Right?

JEFFY: It will be fascinating to see how much --

GLENN: You know what it is -- hang on just a second. It is exactly the argument that Jefferson Davis made. He said states' rights.

Well, no, he didn't really mean states' rights. Because if you joined in the rebellion, you had to be a slave-owning state. You had to be for the furtherance of slavery. So they -- they weren't talked about states' rights. They were fighting for their system of government.

That's the same thing with California. They're not talking about, "Hey, we want to be free in California." They're saying, "No, we want everybody to live this way. If you choose to, we're taking our marbles and going home."

Oregon is also going for this. And there's no sense of irony from the press. There's no sense of, "Hang on just a second, how did we treat Texans when they said this?"

And you have to understand, Texas has been saying this -- Pat's right -- since 1837. Texans have been saying this from the very beginning. I don't know how Texas ever became a state.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Because this is the way Texas has been from the beginning: secede. But California says, "Hey, we're the -- what is it? The sixth largest economy in the world. We'll take this economy."

Okay. I really don't -- I mean, I know this is very unpopular to say, "But I'm really okay with that." I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California.

STU: That's kind of what federalism is, in a way. It's a way of 50 countries under a very generalized group of rules, but they can do whatever they want inside those rules. I mean, in a way, it is 50 different countries inside a country.

GLENN: That's the way it used to be.

STU: That's the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be.

Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years.

GLENN: Otherwise, why do we have state flags? Why do we have state flags? Why don't we all just have one star that says, California, Texas? You know, just a flag more like Texas that is red, white, and blue, has the strips, but just one star. We're one of 50.

Because we're all unique. We all have different mottos. We all have different things we focus on. We all have different strengths. We all have different weaknesses. E pluribus unum. From many, one. But we're not -- the progressive idea is to not have many.

It's to have just one. I'll tell you, the Democrats are going to -- the Democrats have a hard, hard road. They thought that Barack Obama was going to help them. I don't think so.

Now, I do believe he's helped the Marxists. He's helped the socialist. He's helped the radicals of the party. But who are you going to elect four years down the road? It will be somebody like Bernie Sanders. It's got to be somebody like Elizabeth Warren. It's got to be somebody who is --

PAT: Radical.

GLENN: Radical.

STU: And this is the same thing -- think about -- go back in election history. John McCain runs and loses. Mitt Romney runs and loses. What is the reaction of the right?

It's to say, "Well, you didn't get anybody. You did this progressive-lite thing." You did this thing where you're basically running a middle-of-the-road guy that wasn't -- didn't have conservative principles. And that's why you failed.

Same thing is going to happen in the Democrat Party now. They're going to say, "Wait a minute. We have Bernie Sanders. He ignited the youth. Everyone was excited about him." His polling, by the way, if you go back and look at it -- and I think there's flaws with these comparisons. But his polling was great in a general. I mean, he beat everybody in a general, Sanders.

PAT: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think.

STU: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think if it was real life, but God only knows at this point.

PAT: I don't think -- yeah.

GLENN: I think it would have been close -- I said from the beginning, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, give a real choice. Because I think Bernie Sanders would speak to the next generation. He could be America 3.0.

Featured Image: Based on flag flown during the Bear Flag Revolt. Contains a single red star, a red stripe along the bottom, and a grizzly bear. The Bear Flag is the official flag of the state of California. The precursor of the flag was first flown during the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt and was also known as the Bear Flag. (Wiki Commons)

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Oh the Irony, California and Oregon Unwittingly Support Constitutional Principles

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?