GLENNFebruary 02, 2017

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."

RADIO

Will America’s immigration crisis COLLAPSE us like the Roman Empire?

“No one can deny that the Roman Empire fell apart because it lost its borders.” Author Spencer Klavan joins Glenn to draw the parallels between the fall of Rome and what’s happening now in America and the Western world. But if everyone knows what happened to Rome, why are our leaders flooding our countries with immigrants? And is it still possible to correct our course?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to finish up from where we were last hour, on how our country is just being taken apart. Piece by piece.

And they're telling you they're doing it. They're telling you, what the goal is.

But they always deny it. Even though, it's all out in papers. And it's all out on websites. Their websites.

They won't -- they'll always say, that's a conspiracy theorist. But we're now seeing, these conspiracy theory, come true. And it's been bothering me the last couple of days. And, quite honestly, I'm so lazy. I didn't grab Gibbons. And look it up.

But if I remember right, wasn't the -- the decline and fall of the Roman empire?

Didn't it really start to come down. Once they opened the gate to the -- I don't know. The gates to the mongrels. Or the muskrats.

Or the Haitians. Or whoever they let in.

I mean, I know this. Wasn't that the beginning of the end. They let everybody in.

And then they made everybody a Roman citizen. And then Rome didn't. Citizenship must mean anything.

STU: It sounds familiar. I'm no expert on this.

GLENN: That's where I was too.

So I decided to call somebody, who actually knows. Because he's smart.

Spencer Klavan, a books associate editor and author of Light of the Mind, Light of the World.

Spencer, how are you, man?

SPENCER: I'm doing very well, Glenn. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: Okay. Again, I just have to say, talk town to me a little bit. Not too much. But just a little bit.

Am I right on that? I'm trying to remember, one of the last straws. I thought it was opening up the gates, and making everybody citizens.

SPENCER: Okay. So not only are you right about this, you actually don't even need somebody like gibbon to prove your point.

This is something that basically everybody, even the most liberal scholars of the Roman empire and its history. Nobody can deny, that the Roman empire fell apart. Because it lost its borders.

Its borders were effectively dissolved, by tyrants. And especially by -- I think you're probably thinking of as Capra Calah (phonetic).

GLENN: Yeah.

SPENCER: An edict made everybody a citizen. And this is a guy -- one of the notorious tyrants of history.

Compared during the French revolution to Louis the 16th. Given calls him the common enemy of mankind. So that will tell you a little bit about the sort of people that want to dilute the concept of citizenship.

They always make themselves out to be very magnanimous and generous, and kind.

Whereas, in fact, there's always something in it for them. And that was no different in Rome.

GLENN: So, Spencer, if everybody knows this, what could possibly -- what possibly could be the reason to do this, all across the Western world?

SPENCER: Well, I think like with everything. You have to look for elite interests. In Rome. The problem of citizenship is something they had going back even before the empire, to the days of the republic.

And right from the jump there. When the republic started to fall apart. It was because there wasn't enough land to go around.

The citizens, and those who fought in the army were supposed to get a certain amount of land that they could cultivate as private property. But while they were away at war, the wealthy and the elites, effectively conspired to do an end run around the law. Why?

So that they could have cheap labor, and vast tracks of land.

Terra Cala (phonetic), there are different theories about why he did what he did.

But you don't have to look around too far for reasons why. In fact, there are almost too many reasons why he would have been able to levy taxes on these new citizens. He could have conscripted them into the army.

And all of this came at the expense, and this is important. It came at the expense of the people who were already the Roman citizens. Our word citizen, comes from a Greek word and so does our word city.

So this is a local thing, originally, designed for specific people, who get particular rights, yes.

Things that they can do. Like vote in elections. But also, they get responsibilities. You have to contribute to society. And be committed and devoted to the idea of Rome. The project of Rome.

Once that starts to fall apart, you basically just have the rich and the strong, trying to give out benefits packages, essentially. Goody bags. To whomever they can get on their side. So they can grow their military.

And sustain the military machine. And I think a lot of that, we can see going on, as well, with some of our leaders. Unfortunately.

GLENN: So you're a historian.

You love history. You study history.

How -- how is this time period. Right now. The point where we're at, right now.

Before this election.

How is this going to be looked at, by historians?

SPENCER: It's always hard to write history in the present tense, they say. But if you put a gun to my head. And I had to make a guess. I would say, this is going to be one of those moments, where people look back, and they either say, how could they possibly have let it all go?

What -- what went wrong? What trove them so insane?

And there will be studies written of how we were led up to this point, gradually overtime.

Or -- or we'll -- we'll look back, and we'll say, this was a crisis, like the ones that Rome had faced. Like others had faced in the past.

And we pulled back from the brink.

It's not too late.

Despite the dire situation.

It's not too late to do that.

We're not an edict of territory, just yet. Although, that certainly was the open borders crowd.

And the Kamala Harrises and the Joe Bidens of the world would like.

It's not yet the case. That just anybody under American influence is an American citizen. With all the rights and privileges that that --

GLENN: It's darn close. We're moving in that direction rapidly.

SPENCER: Yeah. You're right about that. So I think we're at a major crossroads with this election.

GLENN: So what -- I mean, now I'm going to ask you to predict, and you feel free to back out. And say, I didn't sign up for this, dude.

What do you see, coming? What does history teach you, that is most likely, coming?

Because I honestly. I can think of a million ways, this falls apart.

SPENCER: Right.

GLENN: I have a hard time finding that very narrow path, especially without God, of where it comes together. And we heal?

SPENCER: I mean, it's really important that you mentioned God, I think, and the Christian God, specifically. Whom the Romans, until later on in their history, did not worship.

Because that is something that makes us distinctive.

And, you know, Glenn, you've asked me this question a couple of times. Are there any examples of people that fall out of these crisis?

And it's hard, because, in fact, when you end the concept of citizenship. When you destroy your borders. You have destroyed, your country, by definition.

So it's not like we're not flirting with the sorts of things, that bring republics, and empires down.

But I will say, that whereas, I can't think of any example from history, of civilization. That wound back the clock.

That undid these problems.

It is possible in history, to correct course.

And move forward, in the world that we live in. In a better direction.

And I think for us, as Americans. And as a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The key to that, is our belief in the universal creation of man, in the image of God.

Now, that might sound a little ironic. Since I'm talking about closing down our borders.

And taking care of our citizens. And the open borders crowd. Likes to make use of Christian slogans. To pretend that they're loving their neighbors. They're loving everybody.

But we're limited human beings. And the Christian in front of us, is not how we extend every benefits of the whole world. It's not in our power.

The question is, how do we love one another as American citizens. And our superpower. That the Romans did not have, is racial assimilation. If we're able to get a grip on our border

If we dwell on this election. And other elections going forward. Then we can accommodate some of the things that have gone down the pike.

And have a better track record, than any country in history. At course correcting and recalibrating with exactly these types of issues.

But the first thing, we have to understand what we're about.

And that's not the world. And not humanity in general.

But America, and the humans that live here.

GLENN: What book are you writing right now?

SPENCER: I mean, finished a book that's coming out in October. You mentioned this. Light of the mind.

Light of the world. Which I'm really excited for people to read.

It comes out in October.

And this is a story about the history of science, told from a religious perspective.

Because I think people have a sense, that there's just -- no way you can be a smart, rational person, who believes in science, and also believes in God.

And what I'm saying, in this book is. Not only is that wrong. It's also really outdated. And that a sophisticated, modern understanding of where science comes from.

And where it's going. Points us back to the truth.

And the God of the Bible.

So that's the book.

And it will be out in October.

GLENN: Fantastic.

Preorder it now. Light of mine. Light of the world. Do me a favor.

Send it to me. Because I want to have you on. But I want to -- Reddit, you know, before I talk to you so we can have an intelligence conversation on it.

Spencer, thank you so much. Say hi to your dad for me. Spencer Klavan, Andrew Klavan's son. And, boy, if -- if Andrew ever feels like, I don't know if I did a good job as a dad.

Sit and talk to Spencer for a while. It's pretty amazing.

RADIO

The REAL reasons Springfield, Ohio, residents are concerned about Haitian migrants

What’s really happening in Springfield, Ohio? Are Haitian immigrants eating ducks, geese, and pet cats, as internet rumors have claimed? Glenn speaks with Blaze Media National Correspondent Julio Rosas, who traveled to Springfield to find the truth. He tells Glenn that while he can’t speak to how widespread the issue of missing pets and ducks is, it has been raised by citizens “for months.” However, that’s not the only thing. “ANY ISSUE that the residents have been raising over the 20,000 Haitians being put into their city…a lot of the residents feel that the city commission is just not listening to their problems, or they’re not willing to do anything about it because there is a lot of MONEY involved in the decision.” Julio describes what he heard from residents — women feeling unsafe, the city not enforcing fire codes, landlords renting out BEDS, not houses. Plus, he explains why some residents have either started to embrace the “new normal” or are afraid to speak out.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Julio now is at -- in Springfield, Ohio.

Talking about the Haitian influx. To see what's really going on. He's our national correspondent. Julio Rosas, welcome.

JULIO: Yeah. Glenn. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You got there yesterday?

JULIO: I got there late Monday night.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. So what have you found on the ducks and the geese and everything else?

JULIO: Well, I can tell you that it is an issue, that has been raised to the city for -- for months -- months before this -- this got brought to the national attention, you know, last week and into this week.

You know, I can't speak to how widespread it is. But it's been enough of a problem that people have been saying, hey, you know -- like, we've been seeing this. Like, I've heard about this.

Can the city look into it? And from my understanding, not just the duck issue -- you know, the pet issue.

But overall, any issue, that residents have been raising over -- over the 20,000 Haitians being put into their city.

A lot of the residents feel that the city commission is just not listening to their problems, or they're unwilling to do anything about it because -- because there is a lot of money, being involved in decisions. Because, you know, they're -- these -- these Haitians, they have jobs. That's why they're able to be here legally. They have protected status.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. They have jobs?

JULIO: Yes. That's --

GLENN: How did they do job placement for 15 or 20,000 Haitians?

JULIO: It's through a temp agency called First Literacy. It's based here in Springfield. And that's one of the tension points within the American citizens here. Is that everything seems to be revolved around accommodating the Haitians first. And the American citizens second.

And that's why they're upset at city commissions. Because the city commission appears that they want to make Springfield seem as accommodating as possible to the Haitian population.

Which includes, not towing cars of unlicensed drivers. Surrounding -- or, having to do that.

Because, you know, they're not very great drivers admittedly. It's called some people to be killed. There have been some accidents on the road. But Springfield in the past, have not been willing to toe their cars. Whenever there's an accident or whenever they're indicate driving recklessly. So that's one of the reasons why people no longer drive into Springfield.

I was in Fremont City, just five minutes to the North.

They no longer go to the Kroger or the Walmart in Springfield. They go to the cities up North to do the shopping. Because they say, even being on the road, it's too dangerous.

GLENN: I -- I've got to believe that a town that small. I mean, Kamala last night said, it was a mid-sized town.

No, it's not. That's -- 50,000 people is a small town in America. And I got to believe, you put 20,000 immigrants from anywhere, that are not, you know, looking to blend in. And be part of society.

I've got to believe, that has totally changed the culture. And if I were a resident, I would be pissed.

Who is the federal government to do this to my town?

Is that the feeling you're getting from people.

JULIO: Right. Yes. I was at the city -- so while most people were getting back from the debate last night, I was at the city commission meetings that they have.

And a few people spoke, to -- during the public comments portion, where one woman. She's 58. She's elderly. She lives on the south side of town. The south side of town is where most of the Haitians have been put. And are living at right now.

And she said, she doesn't even leave her house right now. Without her gun and her 120-pound pit bull. Because she has been followed. She has been groped by Haitians. She's been accosted verbally. And she said, I'm very worried about the women of this town, because they're very aggressive towards women. And it's -- and, you know, that was just one person. But there's a lot of -- you know, yes. The pet issue is one thing.

But even on the housing alone, what's been happening is that landlords have -- you know, you say you have a family of four. The landlords don't renew their lease with them.

And then they replace them with up to 15 Haitians.

They're not even renting.

They're not even renting the house.

They're renting -- they're charging them, I've been told, $200 a week for just the bed.

And it was explained to me, that the bed never gets cold because there's just a constant rotation of people that use it for those late hours.

Then they go to work. And then they come back, and it just starts all over again.

So you put -- you know, two sets of bunk beds in a room. That's six people. Right?

GLENN: That's the way it works in China.

JULIO: Yeah. Yeah. Can and so the landlords are getting a lot more money from this. And the city is not enforcing the fire code.

So that's a fire hazard.

When you have that many people, crammed into one -- you know, a two-bedroom, a one-bedroom place. And -- but you have 15 people inside. That's a fire hazard. But the city has refused to enforce the codes.

Again, to try to accommodate the Haitians as much as possible.

And American citizens, who haven't been able to afford to leave. They have ended up homeless.

There's encampments that spring up -- sprung up around Springfield.

It's not because of just homeless people, like Los Angeles, that are drugged out.

It's, they can't afford anything else.

And that's their only option.

GLENN: I have to tell you, if this were happening in my city and somebody came to enforce some sort of ordinance, you know, I was building a house. And they were like, you've got to get a permit for this.

Because we have to know for fire safety. I would tell them, go to hell.

When you decide to have everybody if along with your rules.

Then you can come see me. I mean, this is -- this is -- this is a -- a -- a national nuclear bomb, that is about to go off.

People are not going to tolerate this.

You know, I heard a guy yesterday, he was a vet.

And he was in Chicago. And he said, what is happening here?

We have vets on the street!

I'm barely making it.

We have homeless people. You're doing more for these -- these illegals, than you're doing for us.

And then he said, the key words.

He said, you need to do that, for us. As well.

Well, that's universal everything.

And they're pushing us into this.

This is -- you cannot push these cities to the brink like this.

This is Cloward and Piven.

And the result will be Communism. If Kamala has her way.

This is extraordinarily dangerous. What can be done to help Springfield, Julio?

JULIO: Well, that's interesting. Because, again, during the public comment section of the meeting last night.

I would actually say more people spoke in favor of just saying, well, the Haitians are here. There's nothing we can do about it.

We just need to work through it. As opposed to saying, we need to stop accepting Haitians.

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me.

JULIO: So it kind of appears, you know, from -- there's a sizeable amount of people who have just resigned themselves to this new reality.

And it doesn't seem like -- and, you know, obviously, that's just one snapshot of the community. But it -- but I also -- I also think that people are afraid of speaking out on the issue.

Because -- because of the national attention.

And just because of the environment that we're in.

They're afraid they will be called racist. They are afraid they will be called bigoted and everything else.

It's a small town. So everybody knows everybody.

And so I think that's part of the issue. But that in and of itself is a big problem. Because if you're not going to speak out about it. Then the loudest voices will get their way. Right? So in terms of what could be done with Springfield.

Nothing will change. Nothing will change, if Harris takes back the White House. And it's not going to be just Springfield. It will be more -- it will be, yeah, cities across the country.

And so I think it's significant, that -- I started my reporting, on the border crisis. It was always on the border.

And, you know, now we're hearing the end of the Biden/Harris term.

Her term. And I'm having to do immigration stories in America's heartland.

GLENN: Every town is a border town. We've been saying that for years now.

JULIO: At first, it sounded a little corny. You know, it didn't sound very -- but it is -- it is 100 percent true. And it's not just Chicago. It's not just New York City. It's not just Denver.

It is any -- any town can face this, within the next couple of years.

GLENN: Julio, we'll talk to you again, maybe tomorrow.

Thank you so much for the update. I appreciate it.

Julio Rosas. He's TheBlaze media national correspondent.

Now, let me say something. You're not going to fix this. Nothing will change, if you just acquiesce.

If you just go along with it. Well, there's nothing I can do.

Do you see that they're testing you again?

This is like COVID. Wear a mask, 6 feet apart. Stay in your house. No kids going to school.

They're -- they know what they could get away with on that. Now, what are they doing?

They're taking jobs. And giving them to illegals. Without taking care of our own people, first!

And you're just resigned to that?

Nothing will change, in this country. And, you know what, I believe Donald Trump was saved by the Lord. I believe that was a miracle, that he turned his head.

When you see the picture, of the bullet, as he's turning his head, that's a miracle.

It's a miracle that that guy got up, it's a miracle that that guy got up, and said, stand your ground.

Fight!

It's a miracle that that guy goes on stage every day.

He's actually in the fight.

And we're going to say, I don't want to be called racist.

That word has no meaning anymore.

No meaning. No words have meanings. If I may quote my mother, sticks and stones will break your bones.

But words will never hurt you.

You've got to stand up. If you don't, you will get what you deserve.

You will first become part of the problem. And then you will be part and parcel with the wrong side.

You know what's right. You must stand up.

RADIO

Megyn Kelly EVISCERATES ABC Debate moderators for Kamala bias

@MegynKelly‬ joins Glenn Beck to react to the ABC News Presidential Debate. At no point was it Donald Trump vs Kamala Harris, she argues. It was Trump vs EVERYONE. As a former presidential debate moderator herself, Megyn tears into the ABC News moderators for "fact-checking" Trump while letting Kamala get away with lie after lie: “The only time you should weigh in as a moderator is if the integrity of your question is attacked. These ABC News moderators didn’t understand that, or they just didn’t care.” Plus, Megan explains why she believes Harris' performance at the debate didn't win her any votes: "The person who’s going to be [our first female president] is not going to be an emotionally unregulated, harrumphing, sighing hysteric.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Megyn Kelly, welcome to the program. How are you, Megyn?

MEGYN: Enraged. Angry. Just in disbelief at what our imagery has become.

GLENN: It was state-run media.

For her to go in and say so many lies. She -- that proves, this is state-run media.

She knew she could get away with saying lie after lie after lie after lie.

I've never seen anything like it.

And no corrections.

MEGYN: I could have lived with that. Politicians lie all the time. But the one-sided, quote, fact-checking was so outrageous.

I would have been fine. They have done what CNN did. Which is just be quiet. Dana Bash and Jake Tapper did not try to fact-check the candidates. They let them do that to each other. Which is totally appropriate in a presidential debate. It's actually the way it should be. It's not our job to set the record straight.

The only time you should weigh in as a moderator, is if the integrity of your questions is attacked. Right? Like they're attacking the underlying foundation for what they're asking. But as for the answer, that's for the other candidate to do.

And these ABC news moderators didn't understand that, or they just didn't care. If CNN actually got hammered by the left for doing that, the left wanted them to get out there and criticize Donald Trump. And they said, oh, no, you said this. And that's wrong and so on. And ABC News clearly watched that and said, oh, well, that can't be us.

We've got to pander to our base. And so they only fact-checked him. Their fact-checks were incorrect and/or were opinion.

And then you had the assist by the rest of the media, and back to CNN. And its absolute credence, named Daniel Dale.

Who is fact-checked after the fact. Was that Trump lied 33 times. And she lied once!

GLENN: Once!

MEGYN: That's what we're up against. Yes!

GLENN: What was the one he picked?

Was it like a lottery? You put all the lies into a little basket, and you twirl it around, mix it up.

B17. What was the lie?

MEGYN: Yeah. He didn't make that clear. Because on Twitter, he called her out for trying to claim that she had reversed her -- her personal stance on fracking in 2020. You know, she wanted to ban it. And then in 2020, she has been claiming she didn't want to ban it, which isn't true.

In 2020, the VP debate, she said Joe Biden would not ban it. She has never put her stance on it.

But nothing about the Charlottesville, both sides lie, about the bloodbath, about the 2025 nonsense, about saying Trump is against IVF.

Nothing. No, that's fine.

GLENN: So, Megyn, what she had to do last night was assure people, that -- that hadn't seen her, act presidential, to appear to be strong, tough, and presidential.

Did she do that, for enough people?

MEGYN: Well, you added that phrase at the end. Which makes me say, no.

"For enough people." I don't think it was a game-changer last night. I think most people will say, she won the debate. But here's what I saw.

I saw somebody who engaged in nothing, but personal ad hominem attacks against Donald Trump throughout.

I mean, at every chance she could. She went low, insulted him personally. And on that, he actually didn't take the bait. He took the bait on every other thing. You know, on the subject of immigration, and suddenly, we're off topic about rally size. And he went there.

Okay. But on the personal attacks, he didn't. I saw somebody who couldn't control herself emotionally. She was on screen, right? Harrumphing. Rolling her eyes. Hands up on the chin. Like, oh, aren't you so interesting?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That was -- I've never seen anybody actually put their hand up on the chin, and rest their elbow on their other hand.

I mean, it was --

MEGYN: And let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. This country has not elected a female president in 250 years. The person who is going to be number one is not going to be an emotionally unregulated, harrumphing, sighing, hysteric. And that's how she appeared in the split screen for the first half an hour of the debate. She's not a controlled leader. I cannot believe that the people sitting at home, don't forget this election is coming down at the margins to men versus women.

Men are for Trump. And women are for Kamala. That these men sitting at home, are going to say, I'm going to vote for her.

I can sit at home, on Election Day, and let her win. I just think they're going to be motivated by how extreme she is. Yes, on policy. Which Trump failed to point out last night.

But her behavior. She's not a strong leader. She's the opposite of a Margaret Thatcher. And I think her schoolgirl attacks on him personally. You know, trying to undermine the dignity of this man who served as president. And who almost was assassinated a month or two ago. And her eye rolling and so on.

Which telegraphs, I can't control myself. Were a real turnoff.

GLENN: Let me ask you.

I was personally offended. And I can't imagine that the American people weren't.

When he was talking about how people are suffering.

And you can't afford, you know, the groceries, at the grocery store.

When she laughed and rolled her eyes, at that. I saw that, and I'm like, oh, my gosh. You -- you're in, A, such denial, that that is happening.

Or you just don't care!

Do you think that -- did that play on you?

MEGYN: Yep. It was moment that she laughed. She laughed when he was raising what was happening in Springfield, Ohio.

She openly laughed. These four people, if you can accept the testimonials or not, they have not, in fact, been debunked. You have one city manager, who says he can't prove any of that.

He hasn't found the proof of it.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Another totally inappropriate quote, fact checked by David Muir. What we have here is a "he said, she said" situation. It's not up to the moderators to try to fix it.

But she laughed at it. She rolled her eyes. And what is she laughing at? Immigration. What's happening in our cities, because of the minimal. This has what has been documented. 10.4 million illegals, who have come under her watch.

2.3 million under Trump's four years. 10.4, minimum, not counting gotaways, under hers.

And when the question is raised, look at what's happening to American cities, because of it. She laughed.

You know who is not laughing? The family of Laken Riley, the family of that 12-year-old little girl who was murdered by illegals down at the Southern border, who Trump went down and spent time with.

That's the kind of stuff, Trump needed to raise and didn't.

But at a minimum, his team now today, needs to be showing cackling Kamala, back at it, on the two worse issues for her: The economy and immigration.

GLENN: Yeah. Can you run for president?

You would make a really good president. You would. You would make a really good president.

MEGYN: Thank you. I'm too happy a person for that.
(laughter)

GLENN: So you agree that Trump -- she came out immediately and said, let's do another one.

I think he should say, sure. Let's do five.

MEGYN: Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah, that would be amazing.

And you know what they should say, I'll do it. And I'll pick one moderator. And you pick the other.

Why don't we do that?

Don't give it to -- if Trump agrees to go on another mainstream -- and that's a fake term. That is just a BS term. What is mainstream about these people?

GLENN: I think we should start calling them state media. It's state media now.

MEGYN: True. This is one example. How many questions did we have on 2020 election denialism and so on? And how many questions did we have about what's being done to young girls in this country, and about the cutting off body parts of kids who are just confused, because their parents got a divorce.

Not one. They don't care. They're in favor of that. That's not mainstream. So, anyway, if he agrees to go back on the air and do a debate with another state-run media company -- NBC, CBS, obviously ABC is out -- they ought to be out forever. No Republican should ever agree to that again.

GLENN: Ever. Ever.

MEGYN: MSNBC. Then he deserves what he gets. He deserves what he gets. It should be, if they do anything at this point forward, there's no moderator. They go mono a mono. Or he picks one, and she picks one.

GLENN: But he has got to expose her, because nobody else will. And she will crumble eventually. I mean, she just -- she's arrogant now.

She came in after five days of memorizing all of these lies. Really well-prepared.

MEGYN: Yes. Uh-huh. That's what was so frustrating, Glenn.

You can see it, couldn't you.

She was like an automaton. Giving these lies. She heard this before the DNC.

Mark Halperin reported that she's been getting help -- he did it sort of tongue-in-cheek, so you had to read between the lines.

But it was CAA. And Brian Lord who was one of the heads of CAA. One of the most powerful agencies or one of them. Talent agency, in the country.

And that they were bringing in top Hollywood actors and actresses, to coach her, on delivery.

That's what she -- it takes to make her salable to the American people. But I really believe that the people sitting in Ohio, know that. They watched that. And there's just no way, they looked at her, and thought, yeah. This is the genuine person who cares about me.

She barely talked about them.

Her whole -- debate performance was to convince them -- by the way, same stance of the moderators. How terrible Trump is.

It was not, your first day in service. She tried to say, oh, I'm middle class. And I understand your problems.

It was not about them, or the economy.

GLENN: One last thing.

When she was calling him week, and remember, she said -- you're going to hear nothing, but name-calling tonight. Well, yes, from her.

But when she kept saying over and over again, you know, you're weak. You're weak. You're weak.

She was just trying to get the under his skin, the entire time. And I have to tell you, I don't know if I could have been as restrained as he was last night. You know, 90 minutes of lies.

MEGYN: I don't.

GLENN: I don't think I could have contained myself. I would have lost.

MEGYN: I agree. I agree.

I mean, my blood was boiling. His blood had to be boiling. Obviously, this was her plan. But the -- the number of personal emasculating attacks, she launched on him.

If he had done anything like that, to her. He would be getting lectured all day, about his misogyny.

GLENN: Yes.

MEGYN: But she got away with it entirely. And all I could think of when I looked at Trump, this is like a soldier in -- in a foxhole. Surrounded by enemy fire.

GLENN: Yeah.

MEGYN: Trying to return fire, you know, one by one by one. But the hits we him were uniform.

It was a pile-on. It was non-stop. And when I looked at the way ABC handled it.

100 percent as effective and strong as a competitor to him, as she was.

All I could think was, ambush.

This is an ambush. They laid a trap for him, by assuring him, they could be fair.

He fell for it. He walked in there. And all they did was ask him horrible questions for him.

If he didn't answer it. You know, he tried to bridge. Or he had his own messaging. On him, they would follow-up. The question was this. The question was this.

On her, they never did that. And then they would try to fact-check him. And nine times out of ten. Their fact-check was incorrect.

And they never once fact-checked her.

And all of the topic selection was left-wing anti-Trump. I mean, every single question they asked, maybe two were normal.

GLENN: It was. It was.

MEGYN: So he was like the soldier that was ambushed.

And now, I do have a belief.

I know it's contrarian.

But I really have a belief. That the average American at home, who watches that, gets it on a visceral level.

And I just don't expect any sort of big bounce for her.

GLENN: From your lips to God's ear. Thank you so much, Megyn.

You can hear Megyn and, you know, her whole opinion on Sirius XM, immediately following this program on Triumph.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it, Megyn.

MEGYN: My pleasure.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

OUTRAGEOUS! Glenn Beck REACTS to Harris/Trump ABC News Presidential Debate

"I have never heard as many LIES in any debate." Glenn Beck rails against the "state-run media" immediately after watching the ABC News Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Not only did Harris spew lie after lie, but the ABC News moderators ONLY fact-checked Trump! Joining Glenn for analysis on the panel are fellow BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere of‪@studoesamerica‬, Sara Gonzales of‪@saragonzalesunfiltered‬, ‪@lizwheeler‬, and Steve Deace‪@sdeace‬‪@sdeace‬.

Glenn's Show Prep

Sen. Ben Sasse Introduces Bill to Protect Babies Surviving Abortion

Will America’s immigration crisis COLLAPSE us like the Roman Empire?

Transcript

The REAL reasons Springfield, Ohio, residents are concerned about Haitian migrants

Transcript

Megyn Kelly EVISCERATES ABC Debate moderators for Kamala bias

Transcript

OUTRAGEOUS! Glenn Beck REACTS to Harris/Trump ABC News Presidential Debate