GLENN

Sen. Ben Sasse Introduces Bill to Protect Babies Surviving Abortion

Hard to believe we even need legislation that protects babies who survive abortion, but here we are. Thankfully, senators like Ben Sasse (R-NE), who joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday, are leading the charge to protect the rights of the most helpless.

"In the legislative domain, we ought to be able to start with things that we can agree on. Americans are the kind of people who cheer for the vulnerable. We fight for minorities. We protect the powerless from the powerful. And a little baby boy or girl that's just been born, fighting for their life, I mean, it's the most basic thing that people who are humane defend," Sen. Sasse said.

The senator also spoke about gains being made in the pro-life movement outside of the legislative process.

"People are seeing diagnostic technologies of babies in utero, and they're realizing that that's a baby. It's not a squirrel. So there's a lot of good stuff happening in the pro-life movement, as people are celebrating a culture of life," he said.

Watch the complimentary video above or read the transcript below to learn more.

GLENN: Senator Ben Sasse, welcome to the program. Senator from Nebraska, we're glad to have you on.

BEN: Thank you for having me. Good to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: So you're reintroducing the born-alive legislation. Let's get to this first before we talk about all the other things that are happening in our world.

Tell me what this is and how we can help.

BEN: Yeah. Thank you. Well, this is a bill that ensures that babies who survive an attempted abortion get a fighting chance. It requires that hospitals and doctors give the same medical attention to an abortion survivor that would have been offered to any premature baby at the same age. And it criminalizes the intentional killing of a baby that was born. So last week I introduced it with 27 other senators, which is sort of a good thing, but you're like, "How in the world is this not introduced with 99 other senators?" It passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote last year, but didn't go anywhere in the Senate. So please let your senators know that this is just common sense legislation.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to make sure I understand this. This is not you can't do partial-birth abortion. This is, if the baby survives the partial-birth abortion or any abortion and is still alive, you can't lock him in a closet so they just die?

BEN: You got it. I mean, there's a lot -- I mean, I'm a solidly pro-life guy on anything we're going to talk about, but this is a different thing than that. Republicans and Democrats obviously don't agree on a lot of things, but everybody should be able to agree on this, that life isn't disposable. And when a baby is born, you can't lock her in a closet and just leave her alone and cold to die, struggling for breath. And, you know, it's crazy that we haven't yet criminalized --

GLENN: Ben, I have to tell you, partial-birth abortion is so far beyond -- I mean, it's into the Mengele territory. It really is.

I don't know -- and the only reason why partial-birth abortion is happening is because people don't understand what it is. There's no life of the mother that is even possible with a partial birth -- she's already given birth to the baby, except for the head. And then they hold the head in the birth canal, while they cut its neck and suck its brains out.

It's horrible, that tactic. I can't believe we need a law to tell doctors that after that, they still can't kill -- because the -- the line that they have in their head is, well, it's still inside the woman's body. So, you know, that head is still in there. So it's still part of her body.

But once she survives that and the baby is born, why do we have to have a law?

BEN: Yeah. I mean, let's back up a tiny little bit too and just talk at the macro level about the fact that so much of the pro-life movement is having real success. And it's outside of the legislative sphere. Really good things are happening as young people are becoming more pro-life than the generation above them. And that's because they're a heavily image-driven culture. There are a whole bunch of places where we'd have debates about deliberation and reading and reflection, where we want all sorts of things to happen in a more orderly way for our teenagers and our 20-somethings that are coming of age.

But one of the good effects of the image-centricity of this culture -- and it's problematic in general, but one of the good things is, people are seeing diagnostic technologies of babies in utero, and they're realizing that that's a baby. It's not a squirrel. So there's a lot of good stuff happening in the pro-life movement, as people are celebrating a culture of life. And frankly, as those of us in the pro-life movement are getting better at making sure that we actually are checking our own energies and zeal and consciences to make sure we're loving moms and trying to persuade them -- not just try to think this is primarily about legislation. Because it's mostly not about legislation.

But in the legislative domain, we ought to be able to start with things that we can agree on. Americans are the kind of people who cheer for the vulnerable. We fight for minorities. We protect the powerless from the powerful. And a little baby boy or girl that's just been born, fighting for their life, I mean, it's the most basic thing that people who are humane defend.

GLENN: Is this happening very often, Ben?

BEN: Well, I mean, we don't know. Highly unlikely that it's happening often. But you remember the Gosnell case a few years ago.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

BEN: So I guess, what? Been four or five years ago, this Philadelphia abortionist -- for those of your listeners who don't know -- Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murdering newborns. I mean, court documents reveal that he made millions of dollars over the course of 30 years, performing as many late-term abortions as he could.

So, again, this is the late-term abortion stuff you're talking about. He had this simple business model: Offer abortions to women who couldn't find them elsewhere because they were too pregnant.

And we know that there are cases where he delivered living, breathing, struggling newborns and killed them with a scissors and just discarded them as waste. And he destroyed his medical files, so relatively few of the cases were prosecuted. But court documents indicate that he induced, you know, abortion on a 17-year-old woman who was seven and a half months pregnant, and a baby there was born, breathing and moving, and weighed about 6 pounds. And severed the baby's spine, and he joked that this baby was so big that the baby could have walked into a bus stop.

GLENN: Jeez. But he's in jail. So why do we need this law?

BEN: Well, we need -- we need clarity in this movement about the fact that people -- I mean, to the point you're making about late-term abortion. Late-term abortion is totally morally abhorrent. And there should be movement on a whole bunch of different domains. But the people who argue against -- the people who argue for all abortion on demand all the time without any questioning ever, we need to be having a debate about what life is. Because the babies in utero are babies. And we need to be able to have that talk, that conversation.

GLENN: Okay. Ben, last night I was on CNN, and what I didn't know is that about an hour later, Milo, what's-his-face, from Breitbart, who is a despicable alt-right guy, who has said we live in a post-fact world, and I revel in that because you can do whatever you want. Wasn't -- had a talk scheduled at UC Berkeley. Then the anarchists -- not the anti-Trump -- the anti-government people, the Occupy Wall Street that said, afterwards, "This was a victory, and we're going to burn the whole system down and take the government down. And this is war."

These two were going at it last night. There's no good party here.

I said last night on CNN, I asked the press, "You guys keep punching Donald Trump. We know that when you punch him, he punches back twice as hard. So that means you're going to have to punch him back, and then he'll punch you back." I feel like I'm the computer in -- in War Games. "The only way to win is to not play the game."

And I asked the question for the left and the right, "How do you see this ending? How do you see one side winning?"

BEN: Yeah. So -- so many things to say there. So let me just start by admitting that I don't know the details of what happened last night. I, you know, saw some headlines this morning about some of the debates at Berkeley and whatnot. But let's just step back from that for a minute and say, America has always been an idea founded on the premise that we're not going to -- thoughtful people -- people who are grappling with mortality and heaven and hell and love and beauty and truth are not going to agree on everything. And so we have to decide, what things do you solve by power, and what things do you not solve by power?

And the vast majority of life is not about power; it is not about politics. The vast majority of life is about persuasion. It's about volunteerism. It's about entrepreneurship. It's about love.

The vast majority of life is the things that you persuade people to join with you in doing, and that you figure out a way to lovingly disagree about with people that you can't persuade on things, often in our own families and in our own neighborhoods and our companies and our own churches, et cetera. Right?

So the vast majority of life is about these places where we debate lovingly, winsomely, but you don't try to solve these problems by power. And so the First Amendment -- the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, protest, or the redress of grievances -- all of these things are a way of saying, there's a difference between physical violence, which government exists to protect us from. And you can't let that word "violence" drift into places where we're having debates.

We need to have the debates. A safe space movement is the antithesis of education. If you're never going to encounter an idea that you didn't already know, if you're never going to refine your own beliefs, if you're never going to have to admit, "Hey, I was wrong on this," or come to say, "You know what, I think I'm right on this, and now I know how to explain it with a little more empathy and a little more persuasion with people who disagree with me," I don't know why mom and dad are writing the tuition check. The purpose of education is frankly to be pushed out of your safe spaces.

STU: Yeah, it's so true. As Senator Ben Sasse, we're talking to right now -- senator, can we move to the Supreme Court? You mentioned really our foundational principles as you were speaking there. And, you know, I got to admit, I was a skeptic on whether Trump would come up with somebody who really respected the Constitution to be named to the Supreme Court. I think he hit that mark. And I think he hit it in a really impressive way. Can you tell us about Senator -- Justice Gorsuch, or hopeful Justice Gorsuch?

BEN: Yeah. Let's applaud the president. This is a tremendous pick. This is the kind of guy that the Founders envisioned serving on the Supreme Court. He's a judge's judge.

I really do want to applaud the president and his team on picking somebody off the list of 21. They campaigned about it. They were transparent. Many of us have, you know, disagreed with the president on a handful -- a number of things and whatnot. But on this, he kept his word. He picked somebody off the list of 21. And, frankly, he picked somebody great off the list of 21. I've been -- I've been reading Judge Gorsuch's opinions, dabbling in them for three weeks, when it became clear that he was one of the likely finalists. And I don't have a clue what his policy views are. I don't know what his personal preferences are on things. And, frankly, I don't care. That's not a judge's job. And he gets what a judge's job is. He's a worthy heir to the Scalia seat.

STU: Yeah, and that's really impressive.

One of the things that I think is important is you read this in -- in many of the reviews about it, and I'm sure you can speak much more eloquently on it than I can on it. But the things like the Dormant Commerce Clause, which to me, if it is dormant, it's not in the actual Constitution, which is kind of a problem. And it seems like Gorsuch has that same problem.

BEN: Well, I mean, you guys are pros at mass communication. And, you know, the one thing that I know about a national talk radio audience is the main thing they want on a Thursday morning is views on the history of the Commerce Clause.

(laughter)

So, I mean, let's just say, top line, Dormant Commerce Clause relates to what states can do with regard to taxes and regulations that would impact people in other states.

And there are lots of nerdy debates here. I think I'm one of only a hand of people in the whole US Senate who is not an attorney, let alone the fact that I'm serving on the Judiciary Committee. So like Chairman Grassley from Iowa, we are the non-technical nerds on the Judiciary Committee.

But the big point to be made is that the Commerce Clause has just swallowed up almost everything. So many things, government finds a way to try to claim that it has the authority to get to, through the Commerce Clause, and that's a mess.

Underneath that, there are a lot of nerdy debates about the Commerce Clause in general and the Dormant Commerce Clause, as you flagged.

STU: Our entire audience is a bunch of nerds, so they appreciate the Commerce Clause talk in the morning.

BEN: I really thought you had an audience bigger than 11, but I stand corrected.

(laughter)

STU: Senator Ben Sasse, we actually lost connection with Glenn in the middle of this. But it was really interesting to listen to you. And, you know, I think a lot of people came to -- after the election, were really worried about what Trump might do with the Supreme Court. And not only am I thrilled, I think it's also a real statement on people like yourself who oppose him on some of this, but was able to say, "Look, when he does a good job, we're going to say it. And that's the most important thing we can do."

BEN: Amen. I mean, you know, Gorsuch is the kind of guy that becomes an occasion for us to teach our kids civics.

I mean, this is a guy who -- I mean, he writes really clearly. He says things like, "Judges are different than politicians because we took an oath to apply the law as it is, not to reshape the law as we wish it were."

Well, that's pretty darn good School House Rock right there. You know, Congress is the people -- we're the people who are supposed to make policy, because ultimately, the voters of America are supposed to be preeminent, and they can hire and fire us.

If you're a judge and you have a lifetime appointment, you don't get to make policy because the people can't fire you. That's not the American way. And so a judge has a different job. And this guy guys that.

And, frankly, I really do hope Democrats come around to recognizing that this is the kind of guy that everybody should be applauding. You don't -- when he takes off his robe at night and turns on ESPN, I have no idea what his personal policy views are.

What I know is he distinguishes between the time he had his robe on and the time when he has his robe off. And when he has the robe on, he's not a super legislator.

GLENN: Senator Ben Sasse, I'm actually back. We just reconnected. But I've been listening to the whole thing. I have one more question. Can you hold for just a few minutes?

BEN: I have to run into a hearing -- you know, for two minutes.

GLENN: No. I tell you what, why don't you go. And we'll have you back on next week. Because I wanted to ask you a couple of other questions. Thank you so much.

BEN: Let's do it.

Hey, by the way, when they were talking Dormant Commerce Clause, Glenn, we heard you snoring.

(laughter)

GLENN: No, I was actually fascinated by it. I was one of the 11. So thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BEN: All right. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Senator Ben Sasse.

Good guy.

STU: He's great.

GLENN: And held to his principles, and it's good to hear him say that about Gorsuch.

And now, this. It would be prudent on our part to examine the possible negative side effects of doing away with cash or the possible negative side effects of saying that, "Oh, the problems are all fixed."

I want to talk to you about -- I want to talk to you about a meeting I had here in Los Angeles, with some very big financial people. And I said, "What do you think is coming?" And the gobbledegook that came out of their mouth, "I hope their right." I said to them, "I hope you're right." But they were talking to me about how, "Oh, this $4 trillion that we printed, they can print more, and it's not really going to affect us." Oh, we can have tariffs, and it won't be a big deal. We can pretty much wall ourselves off from the rest of the world, and it won't affect our economy. Oh, this -- the housing market, that's not a bubble, and neither is Wall Street. Those are all -- it was incredible to listen to. It was really incredible.

The next meeting I had was with a billionaire, okay?

And I sat down with him, and he said, "Where do you think the world is headed?"

And I said, "That's what I wanted to ask you." And he said, "Oh, my gosh, the world is headed for an implosion."

I said, "It's really weird because the guys who try to sell people stocks, they don't think so." He said, "Don't listen to those guys."

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED
RADIO

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?


KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion
RADIO

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has allowed District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former president Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case … and Glenn has a few words for him. “I have never seen a clearer case of perjury,” Glenn says, after the world watched Fani Willis defend her relationship with her special prosecutor “friend.” Glenn warns that if this judge can ignore GPS evidence in this case, how many criminals will this allow to go free? But why did Judge McAfee issue this ruling in the first place? Is he a “coward” who is afraid of repercussions from the anti-Trump left?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

All right. We just had some breaking news here.

STU: Yeah. We have our Fani decision.

Fani Wilson. Remember, the course, what was on the line was, is she going to leave? Is she going to be forced out, and they will have to find an entirely new situation, basically restart from scratch? Was what was on the line here.

GLENN: Because she perjured herself.

STU: Again, and this is, of course, the case against Donald Trump in Georgia. And the judge, Scott McAfee, has come out in a 23-page ruling issued.

He said that the defendants failed to meet their burden, in proving Willis' relationship with the special prosecutor, named Wade, was a conflict of interest.

Enough to merit her removal from the case. The judge did find an appearance of impropriety. And said, either Willis -- and her office may leave the case. Or wade must withdraw from the proceeding.

So basically, what will happen here is the dude will get fired. And she will be able to keep going. Now, this is not the a --

GLENN: That's unbelievable!

STU: That's incredible.

After what they've done.

GLENN: Have you ever seen a clear case of perjury?

STU: Everyone on earth knows she was lying. He was lying.

GLENN: There's no justice. There really is no justice. I mean, if you want to know highway African-Americans felt, in, you know, the 1930s, '40s, '50s, especially in the South?

Here it is! Here it is!

You can see it with your eyes. You hear the testimony, and you just know it's rigged. It's rigged.

Because there is no way, any reasonable person would come up with that.

STU: What do you mean, an appearance of impropriety?

How can I possibly think it's just an appearance of impropriety. Again, we talked about this in the beginning. If they had come out and said, look, Nathan wade is just the bad guy out there.

Yeah. I had an affair with him. He was an incredible man. I had to have a piece. But he's an incredible attorney. And I'll admit to everything. And I hired him because he's the best. Probably, they just skate. Instead, they decided to lie throughout the entire thing.

GLENN: Boldly.

STU: Boldly. The face of judge --

GLENN: It is not. You know, you can debate. Well, I made a mistake.

Well, I was -- no. They boldly took the stand.

Wanted to lie.

STU: And did lie.

GLENN: And did lie. Over and over.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: How?

STU: It was noted by the judge, that the situation was not proper. However, basically, they're just going to make him leave.

GLENN: Yes. But how does she stay?

Forget the relationship. How does she stay even an attorney, if she has perjured herself?

STU: Right. This is so far beyond the relationship. I barely cared about the story, when there was a relationship involved. Okay.

Whatever. But once she started lying on the stand, and he started lying on the stand, and it was proven. There is absolutely no way she should be in a position of power, and she certainly, and so should he, lose his law license.

There is no law. If attorneys can get away with that. None. None.

None.

STU: It's quite the statement. But it's hard to disagree with.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They were overt in this. We all know. Just looking at this from a human perspective, we know they were all lying. They didn't go through a perjury trial. Right?

They didn't go through a bar hearing, where they had to fight for their license. They went through something that was -- a proceeding that was supposed to lean on this case. In this case, they will let her stay on. Obviously, that will be the choice she makes, by the way.

GLENN: But how? How?

How can the judge believe anything that she is presenting or saying, if the judge knows, she boldly, knowingly, lied in two other cases.

How?

STU: I certainly can't believe a word she's saying. I don't know how he can.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: It is incredible. And you would be right to look at this and say, this is seemingly very unfair.

I mean, I don't know how I can look at this, and say, anything other than, they -- look, they definitely want Donald Trump to get in legal trouble.

You know, there's no question about that. And if they don't -- if they keep Fani Willis on the trial, there's a chance these things come to fruition before the election. If they throw her off, basically it's over.

And they don't want that.

GLENN: A new study shows that what the Supreme Court doctrine that was the old doctrine created by the Supreme Court, allows 96 percent of private property, is open now to warrantless searches.

The DEA, in a completely other new story, shows that they had a surveillance program on Americans.

They have collected massive amounts of telephone records, for 20 years.

And it was shuttered, because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The inspector general has released a report heavily redacted.

And that has been released. That was released six years later. The Washington Examiner has just received a copy of it.

The office of inspector general exists to provide oversight of government agencies. Among the new details of the DEA program, is that it refused to comply with parts of the IG investigation, for seven months. And no one faced any consequences.

Can you trust inspector general reports anymore?

Can you trust that Congress even has oversight or even if they want to have oversight?

This, the country has broken down. And all of the problems that are happening, right now. Are because we've abandoned all of our principles.

Does it ever feel to you, let me take a break.

Let me just take a break. Sorry, we didn't expect that news broke, just as I was finishing that commercial.

STU: Let me give you a quick rundown of what their argument is. And what the judges argument is in this case, Glenn. Basically, they start out and go through -- reading through it, while you're talking.

Go through the idea of why weather she financially benefited from it first. Her argument was, we don't have proof of that. We don't know for sure.

They essentially bide the Fani Willis argument of number one, she already makes a bunch of money. She already doesn't have massive debts. She wasn't doing this purely for financial gain. They bought the idea that okay. She paid for one of these trips.

Which it does seem like she did one of the birthday trips that she mentioned many times. So it wasn't like -- and I sort of agree, right?

Like I think you do too. This isn't necessarily, entirely about, oh, we hired this guy, just so I could take trips.

Like, I don't think that's necessarily what happened.

GLENN: Right. It could have.

STU: I think they were broken up. They wanted to take trips. And it just happened to work out well.

I don't know if that's the primary reason.

It's more like, she wanted the guy she was sleeping with, to be close.

And that's a massive problem there. Let me give you this paragraph. This is after they basically say, look, there's issues there. But we can't prove that was her motivation.

Without sufficient evidence, that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the defendant's claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment. Or the unprofessional manor of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.

GLENN: Unprofessional.

STU: He's admitting that he knows, that she was lying, basically.

GLENN: That's not unprofessional. It's perjury.

STU: I would agree.

I mean, that's a separate. You don't necessarily get charged with it, in that way.

You would have to have a separate hearing on it. Still, it rises to that standard, to me.

He says, rather, it is the undersigned opinion, that the Georgia law, does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly.

And it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and lay brought before it.

Other forms or sources of authority, such as the general assembly -- he's giving a path here.

The general assembly. The Georgia state ethics commission. The state bar of Georgia.

The faulted county Board of Commissioners. Or the voters of Fulton county.

May offer feedback for any unanswered questions that linger. This is directly from the ruling.

But those are not the issues determined to the defendant's motions, alleging an actual conflict. So he's basically.

I think you can very fairly look at this. And say, he's being very challenged by a Jesse Jackson disciple. You can argue --

GLENN: Lose your job. Verify to lose -- what a coward.

STU: Well, he would deny it.

GLENN: Terrified to lose your job.

How dare you. Your job is a constitutional boast. And you're terrified -- what you know I'm terrified of?

I'm terrified of being shot and killed. I'm terrified of an out-of-control government, swooping in, and arresting my employees.

Or arresting me.

That's what I'm -- that's what I'm afraid of?

Okay. Plus, everything else that is going on, that I am worried about my family and my children.

How dare any of you judges be afraid that you'll lose your job. Boohoo. Cry me a river.

It is our Constitution and our country, that is at stake.

And none of this monologue has anything to do with Donald Trump. None of it.

We all know she perjured herself.

I don't care about the relationship. I don't care about the money.

The people of Georgia should. What I care about, more than even the case with Donald Trump, is that this woman perjured herself, and so did her boyfriend.

They knowingly, gleefully, wickedly perjured themselves. Over and over.

Neither of them, should have a law license today.

Neither of them!

STU: Allegedly. So we --

GLENN: Allegedly.

STU: Just trying to protect you from being sued. But, no. I think there is a standard here, where like, as a person who is a normal human being, looking at what they say, I -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know every little in and out of what they're doing here.

We'll have the mom to talk about it. But it's to me, blatantly obvious. I said this 100 times.

No human being in history, has, actually, done the things they said they did.

Nobody.

And that is outside of the cell phone data. Where we know, she was there.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Societies blatantly obvious to any human being.

GLENN: It is the cell phone data.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It is that. Forget about --

STU: They've addressed that.

GLENN: Et cetera, et cetera.

It is the cell phone GPS location, by triangulating the phones. That they know he was -- may not know he was in bed with her.

But I'm sure the CIA has some satellites that can see the heat of bodies through a ruse of houses.

STU: They can look through now and see through Wi-Fi, and see who is in the rooms.

GLENN: Exactly right. If -- if that triangulation does not hold up as evidence.

STU: To be fair, I don't think that's what he said.

I don't think he's saying the cell phone data doesn't hold up.

I think he's basically admitting, they had this relationship, and they were lying.

GLENN: Yeah. Wait.

So he can allow them to go on a case, when they shouldn't be. When they perjured themselves.

It's his court, as well as another courtroom.

STU: Again, I disagree with this ruling.

That's why I read that paragraph.

He's basically stating. I don't have the legal authority to do this on these grounds.

He's saying, these other institutions should be the ones doing this. They should be the ones disqualifying her. I can only act under the law, I have. At my behest right now.

Look, I tend to agree we strongly.

But that is his argument.

He says, he's limited by the law. It's not just -- you can't. If there was a financial aspect.

He could throw her off.

He said, I don't have the financial aspect locked down enough. Therefore, I can't do it.

GLENN: You have perjury.

One is fraud. The other is perjury. Under oath. By an officer of the court.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I got news for you, gang. If this is the way you can just go to court, you think any lawyer is not going to tell murderers, and everything else, exactly what to say?

No. No. No.

Change -- the change story a bit.

STU: Yeah. Stick to your story.

This is a Mafia tactic, right?

If the Mafia were to exist, this would be one of the tactics they would do.

GLENN: And of course we don't need any more enemies. And if they do exist, I love the mob.

STU: But I think that is real. All you have to do, and they proved that they talked.

They talked -- coordinate your story. That's basically what occurred here.

They -- they had a very similar story.

And like, again, I don't think -- I don't think Fani Willis was saying, hey. If I hired this guy, I would be able to go to Napa Valley, in six months.

I don't think that's the full motivation. To your point, a much greater violation has occurred.

They went in front of this judge, and blatantly lied in my view.

Over and over and over again.

And that doesn't --

GLENN: I mean, I just want to say, in your view, no. Let's follow the science.

GPS coordinates. That is not reliable technology.

STU: According to the GPS coordinates. And that's not reliable technology. To your point, there's a lot of criminals out on the street later today.

GLENN: Let me just say this real quick. Please, dear Jesus come. Or send us an astroid.

Because I can't take much more of this.

THIS New Rule Could Make CRIMINALS Out of Small Business Owners
RADIO

THIS New Rule Could Make CRIMINALS Out of Small Business Owners

Did you know the Corporate Transparency Act could make small business owners CRIMINALS? Former investment banker and “You Will Own Nothing” author Carol Roth joins the Glenn Beck Program to explain how the federal government is completely out of control. She also says she'll join Glenn in a lawsuit to end this UNCONSTITUTIONAL act.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Again, another horse on the highway. The Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is looking to collect your information on the beneficial ownership information, that you have to report.

And I -- I am just -- I am there at FinCEN.gov/BOIfacts. And I have no idea. No idea.

And I'm -- I'm the one, I'm one of them that has to do it. Stu, your wife has an LLC, right? You have an LLC?

STU: I believe. I don't remember if it's structured that way. But, yeah. I believe it is.

GLENN: So anyone with an LLC. Even if you're not using it. You have to file, right?

CAROL: Yes. It is every reporting entity. So if you're a single member LLC. S-Corp.

C Corp. Whatever kind of instructor you have.

If you're not exempted, which means you don't have 20 employees, or $5 million in revenue, or fall into one of their other categories that they exempted. You know, somebody like a hedge fund, of course, is not included.

Because why would they be, right?

GLENN: Yeah. There's no money laundering.

CAROL: Right. So if you have a reporting entity. That's why I said, it sounds like there are other reporting entities, like housing associations that may get caught up, because they file something with their state.

So if you're a reporting entity, you have to file. And I don't know if you notice, on that FinCEN.gov/BOI homepage, that the first alert they had is a fraud alert. Because, of course, people are taking advantage of this. And trying to --

GLENN: Because nobody knows anything about it.

CAROL: So recommend tell you about the media. First of all, thank you for being a platform of truth, and one that supports small businesses. Because we've been talking about this. But none of the mainstream media has done anything to alert people to this.

However, Glenn, When the state of Alabama Supreme Court said that we're going to rule this unconstitutional, what did they say?

This is a blow to corporate transparency, this is going to make it harder to fight the cartels.

You tell me, what cartel, and what money launder, is self-reporting to FinCEN?

Okay.

GLENN: Well, let me also say this.

We have been talking about a giant crime family, that is money laundering for a long time.

But because it was ten for the big guy, or five for the big guy, he doesn't have to report this!

Because he's already over $5 million.

So if you -- I mean, if you're small time. Small time money launderer.

Then you have to do it. But if you're an honest money launderer, you don't have to file. If your money laundering is forever 5 million. Unbelievable.

CAROL: Well, that's the thing is that is really frustrating. They have tools that alert them to suspicious activity. There are suspicious activity reports from the banks, which the Biden family had well over 100 of them. I think on a combined basis.

And they did nothing to look into potential money laundering.

So if there is suspicious activity, or there is something that looks, you know, awry. They have ways to go through the courts, to go after that, you know, particular entity.

The ones who are massive criminals, aren't going to be reporting to FinCEN. So all this is, is a mass surveillance program against small businesses.

And the penalties, as you said, are insane.

It's not just for not reporting. It's if you don't update. So a woman gets married and changes her name.

You move. You get a new driver's license. Because the other one was out of date.

You don't let FinCEN know, they can send you to jail!

Why this was ever passed. And, oh, by the way, Trump did veto this. And it went back to Congress.

And they overwrote it. And nobody has done anything to fix this, is absolutely insane!

There are 33 million small businesses, in this country, why are they being put under a microscope, and saying, you are criminal.

You are financial criminals. And we are going to hold your feet to the fire, if you don't let us track you. It is insane.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I am just looking at this website.

It scrolls. And it just keeps scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. On what you have to do.

I mean, this is -- this is as bad as the IRS, if not worse.

Because none of us have ever done any of this before.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: You don't even know. Is there an organization out there, that can help file this?

I mean, the bureaucracy is crazy!

CAROL: So that's part of the challenge.

Is that there are accountants and lawyers, who are trying to get on top of it.

Because everything is so vague and confusing.

Even they're not entirely sure what to do.

So again, my recommendation, if you have an existing reporting entity.

You have until January 1st of next year.

I personally, with my LLC. I am not doing this. Until the very last minute.

Because we're working very hard. We're talking with lawmakers.

We're trying to get it overturned. At least delayed so we have a little breathing room to try to do something.

The problem is, if you start a new business, Glenn. You only have 30 days. And I have heard some rumblings. Whatever it is that they're collecting this information. That they don't have a formal database, built yet.

Go figure.

Right.

And so that information is incredibly vulnerable.

And that impacts the ability to start businesses in this country.

If you're starting one. And you have an entity. If you don't a reporting entity, you don't have to file --

GLENN: What does that mean? A reporting entity? That's an LLC?

CAROL: So something that you have to file information with your state to let them know that you're a business. There are certain people who act as sole proprietors, who don't have a business around them, or an entity around them. Like you said, an LLC, an S-Corp.

A C-Corp, and the like.

But if you have that reporting entity, that's where you're getting caught up in this.

And it is just -- it is just absolutely egregious, nefarious, and an affront to small business.

GLENN: I have a friend who has just this week, started a new business. Guarantee you, he knows nothing about this. And because he's starting a new business, he has 30 days.

CAROL: Thirty days, or he can be fined. He can be thrown in jail.

GLENN: Is it 500 or $800 a day, for every day after 30 days?

CAROL: Yeah. It's some incredible amount per day.

GLENN: And up to ten years, in prison.

CAROL: Civil and criminal penalties. For not -- for not reporting, or not -- again, not updating your information.

Not like you do this once, and you're done.

You have to remember this, any time you do anything that changes any of the information, that would be collected, in the system.

GLENN: You know, Stalin said, show me the man, I'll show you the crime. Or his Stasi chief said that.

CAROL: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: That's what this is.

I mean, everybody is -- with all of the new guide lines and regulations and everything else.

There's no way, you can keep up with all of these things.

And I think they're intentionally designed to be able to say, sorry, dude.

You're a criminal.

You did this. Buh-bye.

Because you know people who are connected, are never going to have a problem, from the Treasury financial crimes enforcement network.

CAROL: Yeah. And if you were really concerned about massive corporate transparency. Or massive scale laundering cartels. Then you would be exempting the small businesses.

And you would be focusing on the large companies that have the financial resources and the capabilities to do reporting.

Like the publicly traded companies do.

But it's exactly the opposite.

So what other conclusion could we possibly draw, that you want to surveil what small businesses are doing. And could go everything you can, to hold them down.

And, basically, continue to transfer wealth from Main Street to Wall Street.

GLENN: So when is -- when is -- can the group that now has filed and they said it was unconstitutional.

They can't file. Because they don't have standing, to kick it up to the Supreme Court, right?

CAROL: So I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV.

I don't know what the procedure is. You have to ask the lawyer on that.

There are certainly a number of people, who are looking into additional lawsuits. There are some lawmakers. Who are looking into trying to get this overturned or at least delayed.

To give again, some time to rethink it.

And see what can be done. In terms of the court, I couldn't believe.

It's unconstitutional. But it's only unconstitutional for this person who filed the lawsuit. I have never seen anything like that.

GLENN: Have you ever seen anything like that before?

STU: No.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, I will -- I will file, for a federal lawsuit.

I mean, anybody --

CAROL: I'll join you.

GLENN: You will join me?

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: I have no expertise in this. I have no idea. But let's do it.

I -- this government is completely out of control. If they can do this, and then they also have said, you know. There's no gig workers anymore. Carol, what is that going to do to the grocery shelves, when you can't get private drivers to drive trucks!


CAROL: I mean, this is insane.

And it goes against the complete shift in the economy.

One of the great things about technology. Is it gave people flexibility, Glenn.

Flexibility to work the way you want to work.

And that's the wonderful thing about America. Not everybody around the world, gets to choose what they do for a living. And how to work.

And more and more people want work/life balance. They don't want to be an employee. They want to make their hours.

And, in fact, when they go out and survey, from the government surveys on down. And they survey independent contractors.

The majority of people, don't want to be employees. They love being independent contractors. And they make at least as much, if not more, than if they were an employee. So the fact that we have the Department of Labor, who went around Congress, and say, we will change the way independent contractors are classified. We don't want to have these standalone people. We want them to be employees.

We want them to be in unions. It's all about big business. It's all about making the unions happy. And it's against capitalism. And your own choice. Your work. Your choice. The people who are so obsessed with choice in everything. Why would you not have a choice in how you present your labor? You and I agree on something. What does the government have to do, getting in the middle going, I'm sorry. I don't like the way you decided on how you want to work.

GLENN: And let me ask you this, too. Biden is working so hard to get labor unions to grow. And these kinds of things make you say, I don't want to be an owner of anything. I just want to be a worker. I don't want to stick my head out for any risk at all.

That's what this does. Then, as they squeeze and squeeze, and you don't really have any rights, people want to join unions. But the unions are in bed with the people that are squeezing you!

CAROL: It's the great consolidation. It's taking away that freedom, that choice, that capitalism, that underpins America. What it is that made us successful. That productivity that we talk about, that will allow us to continue to grow and at least have a chance to save this country's fiscal foundation. They want to do everything they can, to put up barriers. They want to put up barriers to work. To earning a living.

Like, if you said this to somebody, ten years ago, 15 years ago, they would look at you, like we're in a bizarro world.

GLENN: People did, when we talked about it, two years ago. That it was coming.

They looked at us, like that will never happen.

Well, here it is. Here it is.

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD
RADIO

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD

Randy Clark was a Border Patrol agent for over 32 years, from the Reagan administration to the Trump administration. But he tells Glenn Beck that he has “NEVER” seen anything like the border crisis that President Biden “unleashed.” In fact, he admits that over the past 3 years of the illegal immigration surge, he has had “no advice to give Border Patrol agents I meet… I cannot tell them how to cope with this” because of how unprecedented it has been. Randy also weighs in on something just as concerning: Are we being told the full truth from either the Right OR Left about the border? This is the subject of the newest Blaze Originals documentary, “Texas vs. The Feds: How The Elites Use The Border Crisis Against Us.” Randy dives into one of the questions raised in the documentary: What was discussed at a secret meeting earlier this year between Secretary of State Alejandro Mayorkas and the President of Mexico? And how do the cartels fit into all of this?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome. I brought Jason Buttrill in. He is the chief researcher for the Glenn Beck Program. And also, the -- the head writer for Glenn TV on Wednesday night specials. Welcome.

JASON: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: We sent you down to the border, because there was the truckers, the Take Our Border Back convoy. And everybody was saying, it's Christian nationalism. And it wasn't Christian nationalism. And I knew that. You knew that. Because I knew some of the organizers. And I thought, there's no way, unless it's infiltrated.

So we sent you down with a camera crew. And the story turned out to be nothing. However, you came back a changed man.

JASON: I hate to say that I was completely black-pilled, but yeah.

STU: Yeah, it's a big change.

GLENN: Big change.

STU: He still doesn't have hair.

JASON: How dare you.

GLENN: It's not that -- but you came back and you were like, Glenn, I can't -- I have to show you. I can't even explain what I learned.

JASON: Well, I know that -- we all know that the government and the media all bend the immigration and border issue for their own purposes. They all game it.

It's too politically valuable for them.

So, you know, the media uses it. We saw that with the trucker convoy, like firsthand.

That's the very first thing we saw. But then, you remember that time?

It was kind of awesome to be a Texan at that time.

GLENN: But all of a sudden, Texas stood up.

JASON: We were flying our flags. We took the matter in our own hands, we're finally enforcing the law. It felt so awesome to be a Texan.

And it's incredibly hard to describe, without you, actually, seeing the video.

Without you seeing -- you know, the Shelby Park. How it was kind of taken. It's impossible to explain.

But that right there, is when I was like, oh, my gosh. I feel like we're being lied to, all across the border.

GLENN: Even on our own side.

JASON: That's the worst part.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

Randy Clark is with us. He's a retired border patrol agent. He also writes for Breitbart.

And he was down on the border. And he's one of the guys that kind of black pilled you a little bit.

JASON: Randy Clark is old-school Border Patrol.

He -- you spend five minutes with him, and you are an expert. He's amazing.

GLENN: Randy, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

RANDY: Thank you for having me, Glenn. Jason, good to hear you, brother.

JASON: You too.

GLENN: So, Randy, let's talk about a secret meeting that is in the docket tonight. A secret meeting. I guess it wasn't secret. We just don't what an they did, that happened with Antony Blinken, and the president of Mexico.

RANDY: So we know they sat down together in late December. Right about the time we were seeing, you know, just the hoards of people, coming into Eagle Pass. All of that imagery. And when it gets that bad.

That's when it becomes a big deal. Because that's when you get those folks from the media, that never report on the border.

That's when CNN is obligated to come, and other outlets that just really don't care whether the border is open or not.

They would rather see it open. That's when there's a problem. This was shut down within three days of that meeting, between Biden and everyone talking. And Blinken and Mayorkas sitting down.

Again, late December.

Within a few days, Eagle Pass was down to zero when the congressional visit came with close to 60-some-odd members of the Republican Party, including Speaker of the House.

You couldn't find anybody there. We had a handful of migrants come near the boat ramp, during their press conference. Where normally, by that hour of the day, we would have had 5,000. So this was awfully fast.

And nobody has taken credit for it, except really the state of Texas with some wire.

Because the Biden administration doesn't want to let you know, we could have done this three years ago.

GLENN: This is -- because I know what you're showing tonight.

And it is -- oh. It's -- you -- it's a punch to the gut.

It really is.

Tell me the -- when did Texas put the razor wire up?

Before or after this?

RANDY: So that razor wire has been up for several years now. They augmented it around January 11 when they seized the park. By that time, the park had been clear of most migrants for 11 days.

The problem is, this thing is still moving to the West. In other words, the country still has a problem with illegal immigration and open borders. And fentanyl.

It's -- the government of Mexico, their main objective was to stop those trains. The best system, they call it. It's the best. Those trains are almost void of any migrants, when they were bringing in daily, three to 5,000, into the parts of Texas. Mostly in Eagle Pass, as of late.

GLENN: So the drug cartel had to be involved, because the drug cartel runs everything.

And if they decided to shift, that's either a wild coincidence, after we meet with the president of Mexico.

Or they're involved.

RANDY: So the cartels have not stopped their part.

Where there is value, they are moving that. If you look to Lucedale, Arizona, where you see there are migrants across the globe coming in. That's where the cartel is making the bulk of their money on human smuggling. They have not stopped them.

GLENN: Yeah. But they have stopped or cut way back in Texas. Right?

RANDY: Well, if you see the got away numbers, they're still there. The sheriffs in South Texas. And the Texas Department of Public Safety.

They are still chasing cars in pursuit on the highways.

And that's when -- that's the hand of the cartel. Those are paying customers. We hide them. They're even hiding them from Mexico.

They're trying to get around those checkpoints in Mexico. Mexico is finding them in semi tractor-trailers just like the border patrol finds at their checkpoints. It's now a game of cat and mouse in Mexico with the cartels, like it is in the United States.

So the cartel is still trying to beat this Mexican government initiative, and they're doing it by moving West. Because that was not hindered. But they are moving more of their migrants to the West. And we see those numbers coming up, where Texas is remaining low. There are tens of thousands of soldiers, that Mexico has placed towards this endeavor.

If they just kicked the people off the trains. You can take away about 5,000 per day from the equation. So we're seeing that. We're seeing crossings of five to 6,000 a day, where we were seeing up to ten and 11 and 12 during December, right before the meeting, between Blinken, Mayorkas, and Obrador.

GLENN: I saw that yesterday it was reported that two people -- or a -- two groups of people were taking Ubers across the border. I don't know who would have done that.

But they're -- the cars were shot up. One person was killed. Because it was the cartel. Because they didn't ask permission to come across the border.

Is that universal, across the border?

RANDY: You know, it is universal. And that's really what's at stake, that we can't lose sight of. Is that this cartel.

They will make money doing whatever they can. Whether it's extortion, whether it's robbery, whether it's fentanyl, whether it's migrants.

And that's really why, I think we have to as conservatives, stay true to this matter, and let the public know what they face. Because this is a greater thing going on in the background.

We have a silent selection going on, in Mexico, that's going to happen in June.

The leading candidate is way more liberal than Obrador.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RANDY: We're going to see the same feelings towards the cartel. The hugs, not bullets.

We will see that going on. We will face -- if we do not change in our election.

And we stay the course we're at right now, we will see an open border for years. And those 80,000 fentanyl deaths are going to continue or rise, because nobody will do anything about this cartel.

GLENN: Tell me about -- you know, they're bending over backwards to try to dismiss any crime coming from illegals, that are crossing over.

I mean, I just have to see, you know, some of the more heinous things that are going on right now.

Are coming from -- I mean, we have our own homegrown people. But we don't have to have the crime from people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

And the media doesn't seem to understand that.

And they're trying to make everybody understand, they're just good people coming over. Can you explain the -- the crime.

Is there any correlation, causation of the crime stats going up, beyond just reimagining the police.

RANDY: Well, there sure are. And not to paint migrants with a broad brush.

Because we know most are economic migrants. The problem is in the chaos. Just like when you saw in the Afghanistan withdrawal. In the highest chaos, you just cannot control, who gets on a plane. Who processes the border.

And even -- what -- wee we see now. Even a liberal media is poking fun at this. Almost as if it's funny, that people are getting killed at the hands of either drunk drivers, or strangled to death at a university. They're making light of that.

And what we see on the official side is, well, the only person responsible for that crime is the murder. Well, you hear that, because there was no gun.

If there was a gun. Well, then it would have been the gun.

This administration is not going to take any responsibility for what they have unleashed on America.

And I say unleashed, because I was in the Border Patrol, when Ronald Reagan was president.

And I left at the end of the Trump administration, in August of 2020.

Right at September.

This has never existed. What I have seen the last three years, I have no advice to give Border Patrol agents, I meet when I'm out on the job.

You know, they're just getting started, because I don't have experience. I spent 32 and a half years on the border patrol, I cannot tell them how to cope with this. Because we never saw it before.

I don't want folks to lose sight of this, that this is extremely dangerous. And you see the Democrat mayors, tapping out for a reason.

We have neglected every major immigration law or protection that we have in there. Such as public charge. Or public health issues. We have forgotten about everything.

And the crime, we have forgotten about as well.

Some of the gangs coming in from Venezuela.
They are masters at moving into other countries. They that did that when they left Venezuela.

They did that in Columbia. They did that in Peru. They know how to take over, the organized crime in that country.

And they do it with extreme violence. And I think we are going to see that, in some of our bigger sanctuary cities, coming up. These poor law enforcement that are already defunded in those areas, are not going to be able to cope with it.

GLENN: Yeah, America has never seen anything like Haiti before, and we are on that track.

Randy, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you for all your help on the docket.

And informing us. And helping us to figure out what's really going on.

Thanks for everything that you do. And have done.

Randy Clark. You bet. Buh-bye.