Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Morning Brief
Books
More
AboutCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2022 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live
GLENNFebruary 07, 2017

Sen. Mike Lee: Neil Gorsuch Is an 'Extraordinary Judge'

President Trump's Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is the kind of person that gets lawyers waxing poetic. Just ask Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) who joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday.

"He's a dream to argue in front of because he's the kind of judge who reads all the briefs and reads all the statutes and all the cases cited in the briefs. He's always prepared. He knows exactly where he's going," Sen. Lee said.

Senator Lee went so far as to say Gorsuch's briefs are interesting and fun to read.

"Let's just clarify. That is Mike Lee that just said these are fun to read. So, kids, don't rush out there. It's Mike saying that," Glenn joked.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee, welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

MIKE: Doing well. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Can we start with -- quickly on the Muslim ban and whether that is legal or not? What is your opinion?

MIKE: The short answer is, the president has authority to suspend the entry of certain aliens coming into this country. He has that authority, under section 212F of the immigration and nationality act.

Now, there's an amendment to that that came about several decades after that one was put in place that some have read to suggest the president can't do this. But when you read the language on that one, it deals with visa issuance, not suspension on entry. And it deals with visa issuance by those who issue visas, not by the president.

That's why, on its face, I can't look at this order and say it's illegal. That's why the order to the extent it causes legal problems, will present legal problems, only in the way it's enforced.

In other words, we'll have to wait and see how this thing is implied, how it's interpreted, how it's actually utilized on the ground, before we can say it violates the law.

GLENN: Poorly written, Mike? Is that the problem?

MIKE: Not ideally. The rollout was suboptimal. The draftsmanship could have been better. But, look, these are people who have got a lot on their plate. And I understand that. That's why I hope they get the implementation right. Because if they get the implementation right, I think it will be okay.

GLENN: What did this judge up in Washington -- is he right at all?

MIKE: You know, I read his temporary restraining order. And it's been a long time since I've seen an order like that, that dealt with an issue of this magnitude with so few words. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way. What I mean is it lacks analysis. It is full of what I call conclusory assertions, where the judge just sort of found that the basis in law existed for him to issue this temporary restraining order. And so he did. But it was very short on legal analysis.

GLENN: So they're making this into a big deal because, well, he was appointed by George Bush. And so, George Bush, of course, you know, how could you possibly go against a George Bush judge?

MIKE: You know, Glenn, if I had a nickel for every bad decision made by a Republican-appointed judge or Supreme Court justice, I'd be a very wealthy man.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: The fact that someone is put on a court by a Republican means absolutely nothing, in terms of his indelibility (phonetic).

PAT: Mike, real quick, before we get into the crux of this. There's a new poll out about Democrats that are concerned about Christians and Mormons being just as violent --

GLENN: And Jews.

PAT: And Jews. Just as violent as Islam. What are you doing to curb the Mormon violence in this country? Are you drafting any kind of legislation?

MIKE: Yeah, it's a big problem.

PAT: It is. It is.

MIKE: I would -- look, Mormons are known for their violent tendencies.

GLENN: Right.

MIKE: The bicycles -- the bicycles and the short-sleeved shirts with ties strikes fear on the part of all who behold. It's a big problem.

GLENN: So, Mike, 63 percent of all Democrats --

PAT: Sixty-six.

GLENN: Sixty-six feel that's true. Two-thirds of all Democrats feel that Christians, Jews, and Mormons are just as dangerous as Islamic terrorists.

PAT: Unbelievable.

MIKE: Wow. That's interesting, especially given that it would be difficult to find doctrine to support that.

PAT: Yep.

MIKE: It would be difficult to find actual statistics to support that.

One of the reasons why I find this most disturbing is that it strikes this term of moral equivalency, which I think causes a whole lot of problems. It -- there's no such thing as bad or good -- bad or worse than bad. It's just stuff people do.

And I am very curious about that study and how they reached those conclusions.

GLENN: It scares the hell out of me. Because it seems to me that we are living in a time where facts don't matter at all, to anybody, on either side.

MIKE: You know, they do matter to the reader. I think there are a lot of readers out there and a lot of people who listen to your program, a lot of people who actually are willing to dig beneath the surface who care. It's not always the case, that reporting those facts case. So when the people care, those who report facts that are not ringing true, can be held accountable. I think that's what we have to do.

GLENN: All right. Talk to me a little bit about Gorsuch. You met with him last -- what was it? Thursday or Friday. What did you think of him?

MIKE: Love the guy. Just fantastic judge.

Look, I already had a high opinion of him because I've argued in front of him. I was a lawyer before I became a politician.

GLENN: I argue in front of my children, and I don't necessarily have a lot of respect for them.

MIKE: This guy is good though. This guy is good. But I just highlighted two of the reasons of why -- I chose two hated professions. First lawyer and then politician. You know, I'm not sure how it could get worse than that.

But in any event, he's a great judge. He's a dream to argue in front of because he's the kind of judge who reads all the briefs and reads all the statutes and all the cases cited in the briefs. He's always prepared. He knows exactly where he's going. And he believes that our laws matter and the words used matter. And he wants to find the meaning of those words.

But then in the last few days, I've been reading a whole lot of Gorsuch. I've spent hours upon hours, reading Gorsuch opinions.

And so far, I have yet to find a bad opinion among them. This is -- this is an extraordinary judge.

His opinions, if you can believe it, are actually interesting. They're fun to read, in addition to the fact that they seem to follow the right approach very consistently, with an eye toward finding out what the law says.

GLENN: Let's just clarify. That is Mike Lee that just said these are fun to read. So, kids, don't rush out there. It's Mike saying that.

What are the odds of him getting confirmed?

MIKE: We intend to get him confirmed. And I expect we will get him confirmed.

GLENN: Without the nuclear option?

MIKE: Well, there is no reason why we necessarily have to use the nuclear option. And I think most or all of us would prefer not to. It's not clear that we'll have to, to begin with. You know, I do think that at least one Democrat will make sure that we have to get cloture, if they can. And that requires 60 votes, to bring the debate to a close.

I think it's possible that we could get those 60 votes. If we don't, there are a couple of options at our disposal, only one of which involves the use of the nuclear option.

There's another one called Rule 19, the so-called two speech rule that allows to us bypass cloture when we stay in the legislative day until everyone who wants to speak has had a chance to do so and then we go directly to the final vote, which is set at 51.

Look, this is terribly boring, arcane stuff. This from a guy who loves to read Gorsuch opinions.

GLENN: No. He loves them. Says they're fun.

MIKE: Yes, yes, they are fun. The Gorsuch opinions are fun. Rule 19 is not fun. It's quite arcane. But it's useful here. And I think it might give us a path to confirming Judge Gorsuch without deploying the nuclear option.

PAT: Mike, if you had to compare him to a sitting or former judge, who -- who would he mostly closely compare to? Would it be Scalia? Would it be Alito? Kennedy?

MIKE: I'd say he's sort of a blend between Justice Alito, my former boss, and justices Scalia and Thomas, which is exactly what we want.

PAT: Yeah.

MIKE: I had hoped the president would nominate someone in that mold. And as far as I can tell, he appears to be in that mold. This is a guy who really believes deeply that we need to follow certain principles in the law.

He's deeply wedded to textualism, the idea that the laws consist of words. The words have meaning, and you have to find out what those words mean.

And originalism, which is the idea that in order to understand the Constitution, it's important to go back and understand how the words in the Constitution were used at the time they were put in there, at the time they were drafted and ratified.

STU: As someone, Mike, who is really interested in the Gorsuch opinions, can you help -- because speaking of the Scalia comparisons, one interesting place where they seem to split, and it seems that Gorsuch is better than Scalia on, is this idea -- this Chevron deference, where we're talking about basically giving deference to federal agencies -- can you explain that and make it a slightly less boring than it sounds?

MIKE: Yes. First of all, I'm thrilled, I'm ecstatic that I get do explain Chevron deference.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. People are pulling over.

PAT: Chevron deference. I can't go to work yet!

GLENN: I'm about to wet my pants, I'm so excited.

MIKE: Okay. So Chevron deference is this legal doctrine created out of whole cloth by the devil himself within the federal court system.

And it says that the courts, rather than doing their own thinking, are just going to defer to executive branch, bureaucratic agencies, when they interpret a regulation developed by that agency. In other words, hello, Mr. Fox, here are the keys to the henhouse. Please enjoy it.

That's what we do.

Now, for reasons that astound me, for reasons that sometimes allow me to argue with Justice Scalia, when I go to dinner with him, that is a doctrine that doesn't make sense. And yet, Justice Scalia wanted it in one way or another.

Judge Gorsuch appears to have real concerns, with Chevron deference. And he pointed out that this is a doctrine that runs against the doctrine of separation of powers embedded deeply in the Constitution. And I just -- I had a huge grin on my face when I was reading that opinion. It was fantastic.

STU: It essentially means if the EPA has regulation and there's disagreement about it, the legal system just says, "Eh, ask the EPA what they meant."

JEFFY: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. And if other people disagree with the EPA's interpretation of what it meant, they say, ask the EPA. And whatever the EPA says stands, stands. And that's a problem, that's really a big problem.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Mike, help me out on this, I have -- I don't have a problem necessarily with some of the direction that this president is taking.

MIKE: Oh. I was afraid you were going to tell me you didn't have a problem with Chevron.

GLENN: No.

I know. The controversy. People would have been fighting across the country over this.

STU: Mike Lee was actually legitimately excited to answer the Chevron deference question.

GLENN: I know. I know. God bless him. God bless him.

MIKE: Who wouldn't be? Who wouldn't be?

GLENN: So, Mike, my problem has been with the lack of concern on the number of -- of executive orders that are being issued. Do you have a problem with the -- with the system that we're using here with this president? Is it any different, or is it just my perception?

MIKE: It's not now. And never has been and never will be, the number of executive orders that are a problem.

I said this repeatedly throughout the eight years of President Obama's presidency. It's not the number that matters. It's the nature of the executive order, how they're used. It's whether or not they're used in a manner authorized by law.

GLENN: Right. So are these executive orders falling in line with what is authorized?

MIKE: So far, the executive orders on their face don't fly in the face of the law. So far, these executive orders could be implemented in a manner fully consistent with the law.

Now, that doesn't mean that all executive orders this president issues will necessarily, going forward, fall into that category. But I haven't seen one yet that I look at and say, "He doesn't have authority to do that."

GLENN: Oh, that's really good.

STU: That's great news.

MIKE: Yeah.

There are some ambiguities in this order we were talking about earlier. There is some language in there, that depending on how it's implemented could cause a problem. That's why I'm watching that one carefully.

GLENN: Like what?

MIKE: Okay.

You're going to yell at me for getting into this level of detail, but there -- there are subsequently enacted provisions of the immigration code --

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

Jeffy, assuming you're awake by the end of this, wake me so I can yell at him for getting into the weeds. Go ahead, Mike. What now?

MIKE: They can be read to restrict any type of effort on the part of the president to deal with the visa issuance program -- process. Depending on how the courts interpret that, that could end up creating a problem.

Likewise, depending on how they interpret this, this could cause other problems. I don't want to get into all the details of that. I don't want to pick any fights that the administration doesn't need picked.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: People are like, "Oh. Go back to Chevron deference on that one."

GLENN: One last question: Mitt Romney said he won't rule anything out, but he won't rule anything in yet. He's not sure if Orrin Hatch is going to run for Senate. How do you feel about your partner being possibly Mitt Romney?

MIKE: You know, look, Mitt Romney is a great guy. Not ruling anything in, not ruling anything out describes the entire context of the Utah Senate race coming up in 2018. Nobody knows what the heck is going on. Nobody knows who is running and who isn't.

I have absolutely no idea how to predict this thing. So I don't know what to say. I think people, before they decide they're going to get in, kind of like having their name floated out there. And they enjoy the process a lot. Sometimes that causes the process to drag out too far.

But we still don't know whether Senator Hatch is going to seek reelection. And I suspect that would strongly influence whether or not Mitt Romney decides to get in.

GLENN: Hey, do you have a second to hang on for one more -- or do you have to run?

MIKE: Hey, for you, anything. You let me talk about Chevron deference.

GLENN: I know. I know. You owe us. You owe the whole nation for that.

youtu.be
RADIO

Trump raid details hint it’s ‘NOT LOOKING GOOD’ for the FBI

New, alleged details about the raid of Donald Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago hint it's 'not looking good for the FBI,' Glenn says. For example, did agents truly refuse to give Trump's lawyer a copy of the warrant upon arriving at the home? Did they have the proper authority to break into the former president's safe? And where exactly does US Attorney General Merrick Garland stand on it all? While SEVERAL questions remain, one thing is certain: There doesn't seem to be another person in American history who has gone through THIS many investigations — that result in no charges — than Donald Trump...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Donald Trump, I don't think, has ever -- I don't think there's anyone in American history. And I'm seriously asking if you think you know of somebody. Let me know. I don't think there's ever been a politician or anybody in the public view, that has not had any charges brought against -- or sorry. Has not been found guilty, or had any kind of real, solid evidence against him. That has gone through what he has gone through. We know about the impeachments. We know that they have been accusing him of Russia stuff. We -- you know, a perfect -- that wasn't a perfect phone call. I'll show you a perfect phone call. All of the stuff that you know about.

Well, let me just give you the -- the lawsuits, that he's currently dealing with. He's dealing with the one in New York. He has Gene Carol, the defamation, and federal tort claims.

Carol is suing Trump for defamation after he publicly accused her of fabricating rape allegations against him. Summer Zervos, a former contestant for The Apprentice has filed a civil suit against the former president for defamation after he claimed her allegations of his inappropriate sexual contact were -- were lies designed to help the Clinton campaign.

Okay. The Mary Trump fraud litigation. Mary Trump is suing Donald Trump for defrauding her out of millions of dollars in an inheritance dispute. Really? That comes up right after -- I mean, how long has that been going on, Mary?

Panama hotel fraud and tax litigation. He has the John Doe versus the Trump Corporation Class Action. A group of anonymous plaintiffs who have filed a class-action suit against the Trump family and their businesses, alleged that the Trumps used their brand to scam investors into paying for worthless business opportunities.

You have the DC civil suit over misuse of 2017 inauguration funds.

You have the Representative Karen Basses, et al, incitement suit for January 6th.

This is ten members of the House, represented by the NAACP that are suing Trump, Rudy Giuliani, two right-wing militia groups, for conspiring to forcibly prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes in January 2026. Eric Swalwell. You know, Fang Fang's things. The incitement suit. He's suing him, along with Mo Brooks. And Rudy Giuliani. Donald Trump.

They're all being sued for the same thing. He's incited this. The Capitol police. Two Capitol police officers, both on duty January 6 on insurrection, sued Donald Trump for his injuries that they sustained. Then you have ten Capitol Police suits from January 6. Second group of Capitol police officers filing suit against Donald Trump. The proud boys. The Oath Keepers. Then you have a third Capitol Police suit over the January 6th. Third suit. One Capitol police officer alleging physical and emotional injuries he suffered. Then you have, of course, the metropolitan police suit.

So he's got all these individual cops. And then the union, decided, you know what, we're going to sue him too.

Then you have the NAACP's fund over the voting rights, for post election actions.

Then you have the New York attorney general, civil and criminal investigations. There's tons of that. Then you have the Scotland, unexplained wealth orders lawsuit.

Then you have the Trump Tower, assault suit. Then Michael Cohen is suing him, for retaliatory imprisonment. Then you have criminal investigation into Trump's finances. Let's see here. There's a whole bunch of updates on that. Then you have the DCAG incitement criminal investigation. You have the Fulton County, Georgia, criminal election influence investigation.

You have the Westchester New York criminal investigation of the Trump organization golf course. You have the National Archives investigation, that he mishandled classified material.

I don't think I have all of them. Okay? I don't think I have all of them. I don't know of anyone, who has ever had this kind of a coordinated attack against them.

If you don't think a lot of these are funded by, you know, the left and Soros and those kinds of people, you're fooling yourself. You're fooling yourself. They are doing everything they can, just to get this guy, to give up. Follow up ever

This is what it means to stand against the machine. I have to tell you. I don't know what Donald Trump would do with a second term. I don't know. But I know they don't want him to have one.

I know for sure, he knows who they are. And I can't imagine anyone more motivated to bust this machine up, than him.

What is it about him, that they despise. And don't tell, that, oh, he's just -- he's rude. That's what -- he's rude. Really? Is that it? So wait a minute. Let me see. You guys are hanging out with hookers and criminals. And the Chinese Communist Party. And you don't like him, because he's rude.

Don't think so. The rule of law is an absolute joke in America. And I want to -- I want to show you. Have you seen anyone who has come under this kind of persecution, even after he leaves office? And trust me, if he would have won a second -- a second term, which I think he did. But I don't know.

If he -- if he won a second term, they would be doing all these lawsuits, at the end of that. This is not some moral outrage. This is just to stop him. By the way, I talked to some sources in New York, last night. And it came out early this morning, or late last night, that his attorney general, was kept 10 feet away from the warrant. They flashed can the warrant, and said, here's -- here's the warrant. Let me see it. No. After. They held the warrant away. 10 feet away. She was not allowed to grab the warrant, and read the warrant. That is against the law. That's against the law.

Then after they left, they handed her the warrant. Now, she didn't get the attachments, and I think that is legal. You don't necessarily get the affidavits attached to it, right away. But you do eventually see that. They now have that.

But she wasn't allowed to see it, nor was she his attorney, allowed to go into Mar-a-Lago.

When they went in, they went into his bedroom. Spent an enormous amount of time, in Melania's closet. They broke into his safe, in his office. That warrant better damn well say, that they can break into that safe. Because the law is, you can't go into somebody's house and search. And just tear it all apart. You have to have a pretty good idea, of where things might be located. You ask for permission, for those can areas. And you have to know exactly what you're looking for. And if it's in a safe, you need to specifically say, it's in a safe, and we're having a safe cracker come in. If they didn't say in the warrant that they could crack his safe, it's the fruit of the poisoned tree. By the way, there's nothing in the safe.

What they broke into, was a safe room, that he had shown the national archives and investigators. As they were talking about, you know, the -- the archives, that they said, should number the national archives. He said, it should be at home. We're working it out between our attorneys. They said, fine. You just have to have this in a locked room. So he made a safe room, and put two locks on it, at their request.

That's what they broke into. This doesn't sound good for the FBI. And I think that is why Merrick Garland now is suddenly like, I didn't know about it. I had no idea, this was Christopher Ray.

You didn't know about it? You should be fired by the president, if your staff, underneath you, just says, you know what, I'm going to go into the house of a foreign -- a former president, and do a search.

Before we issue a subpoena. That's insanity.

youtube.com
Shorts

9 questions for the DOJ about the FBI, Trump raid

GLENN: I've got a few questions, just a few questions about the raid:

It's been reported FBI claimed 15 boxes of documents were missing in January. So they have the missing documents. They knew that he had them in February. Why did they wait so long? What new evidence prompted the raid? What was the intent behind the search? What are they explicitly looking for?

youtu.be
RADIO

EXPLAINED: Biden’s ‘zero inflation’ claim is an ABSOLUTE LIE

Our far-left leadership truly believes the average American voter is an IDIOT. Why else would they repeat absolute LIES, seemingly without fear of getting caught? President Biden’s latest one was about inflation, claiming on Wednesday that inflation numbers in July hit zero percent. But Stu tells Glenn that Joe's claim actually is not an outright lie — it's more like an insane, 'disingenuous' manipulation of the facts. The guys explain it all in this clip…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have so much on our plate to talk about. The one thing we haven't talked about yet, are the inflation numbers. And it's remarkable, Joe Biden has just come out and said, we have zero inflation this month.


STU: Wow. We did it! We solved it.

GLENN: We did. We did. So we can start printings more money. We have zero inflation.

BIDEN: News that came out today, relative the economy. Actually, I just want to say a number.

Zero. Today we received news that our economy had 0 percent inflation in the month of July.

GLENN: That's weird.

STU: Yeah. Because that's not how --

BIDEN: What that means, the price of some things went up last month. The price of some other things went down the same amount. The result, 0 percent inflation last mop.

STU: Now, that's incredible there. And it's interesting, because every single publication is reporting the number as 8.5 percent.

GLENN: Right. But that's very close to zero.

STU: Very close to zero. Now, I want to be clear, to show you how disingenuous this person is. This is how he's come to this conclusion, okay?

Because people are just saying, oh, he's lying. And he's not quite lying. This is what he's doing. Now, every single time we talk about inflation, we talk about it as an annual number.

GLENN: Right.

STU: That is how we talk about it. Year to year. Everybody talks about it the same way. 8.5 percent, is the headline annual number. That's the number that everyone has been talking about, which everyone focuses on. So what he's done, is take that number, and ignore it completely. Then, he's converted what he's looking at, from the headline number, to the core number. Now, there's two different measures of it inflation. Basically, the core number takes out food and takes out energy. To summarize it. So that number was 5.9 percent, I believe it was this -- this --

GLENN: Which is zero.

STU: Which is --

GLENN: I don't know if it's closer to 8.5. One of the two. They're both closer to zero. We have a scale from one to a billion. Fine. Might as well call it zero.

STU: Right. Sure. So he's ignored the main number. He's presented only the core number. Which has been lower the entire time. And then he's instead of taking the annual measure. He's done only the month to month measure.

Now, no one -- the month to month number, is not the number anyone talks about. And to be clear, it was only supposed to be 0.2 percent. So what he's saying is -- now, that's almost zero anyway. That's what everyone was expecting it to be. 0.2 percent. Instead, it was 0.0 percent, and he is out there bragging saying, oh, well, this just shows, there's no inflation month to month.

So he's ignored the main measure. And he's basically taking the secondary core measure, and divided it by 12, even though that's not exactly how they come up with the number. And he's saying that there's been no inflation. Now, this is entirely disingenuous. And what I've said before, on this program, on Stu Does America as well. We are very close to one of the most annoying things you're ever going to experience. Which is, this main number that everyone is talking about. 9.1 percent. Is going to start getting lower. And when that happens, the administration is going to brag about it. However --

GLENN: This is important.

STU: This is important. What most people will say, when I -- when you say to them, hey. Inflation last month was 9.1 percent. And this time, it's 8.5 percent. Most people will say, first of all, it's going down. That will be their initial reaction. It's going down. And because most people will say that, the administration will brag about it going down.

GLENN: It's month to month.

STU: Yeah. That's the annual measure, but it's two separate months.

Most people will say, okay. If something is $100 a year ago, it was $109 last month, and now, it's, what? 108.50, right? It's coming down a little bit?

It's important to know, that's not how this number works. The number works based on a year-to-year measure. So they're comparing July to the previous July. The reason why I'm saying these numbers are going to come down. And everybody is going to say. Well, we're past peak inflation. The reason why that's going to happen. Is because the new numbers. Follow me on this. The new numbers are building on old numbers that were already inflated.

GLENN: So you're not going -- you're not measuring it from 100.

STU: One hundred.

GLENN: You're measuring it from 108. So what is the increase of 108?

STU: Right. So let me give you this. This is a real world example. This is actually what happened, okay? If you bought something in July 2020, at $100.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: In July 2021, inflation was at 5.4 percent. So that was costing $105.43.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: This new number --

GLENN: Well, it's down. It's down. So I should pay 103.

STU: 103 or 104, right? No. It's up 8.5 percent from 105.40. So the new number, the thing that used to cost $100 two years ago, now costs $114.36. So your prices are up 14 percent. That's the inflation number from what our normal prices. 14.36 percent. And the administration is going to spend all day bragging about that. And it is -- and you're going to go into the store. And you'll say, wait a minute. These prices aren't any lower. They're all higher.

In fact, they're 14 percent higher on average, and you will be right. And they will be bragging about it.

That's the rest of your day, everybody. Boys and girls get together and realize, these idiots are going to come out here, and say this all day, because they think you are so stupid, you just might believe it. And they know they're lying. And they're going to do it anyway. That's the rest of your day.

GLENN: Average people. Average people don't know that. And they know it. They know it. They know it. The average person has no idea, that what costs $100 last year, was 108. And today, because of the inflation. You go up from the 108. It's not -- it's not going back towards 100. It's adding. When they say 2 percent inflation is our target. That means, prices always go up. Every year, by 2 percent. That means, your dollar is becoming -- that's why something costs a time. You know, in 1940. Oh. I want that beautiful Cadillac over there. All right. Dollar and a half.

STU: Now it's $185,000.

GLENN: That's all inflation. That's inflation. Because it continues to adds on top of each other.

youtu.be
RADIO

EXPOSED: The far-left plan to CREATE conservative 'RADICALS'

Donald Trump is the first former president to ever be under THIS much scrutiny AFTER leaving office. So, why does the far-left hate him so much? Why do they continue to use every tool — like an FBI raid — at their disposal to destroy the former Commander-in-Chief? In this clip, Glenn theorizes why he believes the far-left is going to such great lengths. And it’s NOT about their hatred for President Trump, he says. Rather, it’s about their ultimate endgame: To CREATE right-wing ‘radicals’ who they can use to demonize ALL conservatives for decades to come. But there is one way America can survive such a plan. Glenn explains in this clip…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Donald Trump is -- has just been called to testify today, to the New York State attorney. Or New York State attorney general, about his real estate dealings, in New York. My gosh.

This guy, you know, he said it on Saturday, at CPAC. Has there ever been a president that has been under attack this much, or a past president? I mean, Nixon left office. It was over. We never heard a peep about it. Clinton leaves office. We never hear a peep about it. And they start the Clinton Foundation, which makes billions. Nothing. Nothing.

Barack Obama leaves office. Takes 30 million pages. Nothing. Okay.

I said to you yesterday, here's what's really going on: They can't find the radicals, so they need to create them. Okay?

That's what the January 6 has been. They have tried to convince America, that the -- the right is just completely full of radicals. Well, the problem is: 42 percent, I think, the number is as close to this. Forty-two percent of America, thought that that was true, until they televised the hearings.

That number went down to 36. Okay? They don't have it. They don't have it. Because that's not who we are. So they have to create them. Now, I have said, since 2009, I watched the pattern. And remember, we were talking about the Tides Foundation. And I said, the right should create the Tides Foundation, exactly the same way, except be clean. Because the Tides Foundation and the left would go, oh. They're embezzling money. They're funneling money from dark sources over here. And we could go, oh. We're not. But thank you for letting us know, what you're doing. Because they always self-diagnose. They always tell you who they are. Fascist. They're all fascist. They're fascist. He's going to crack down. He's going to use the state as a spying mechanism. He's building an army internally, and he's going to go after the American people and shut down voices.

Hello! That is exactly what they're doing. So listen to -- listen to Fang Fang's boyfriend. Fang Fang's boyfriend yesterday said, the Republicans are a party of chaos. He said, it's very clear, that Republicans have recognized that they can no longer win elections with votes. Now, is that what you're feeling about the next election? That Republicans don't have a chance of winning at the ballot box? I have no doubt, it's going to be a hammering -- a hammering at the ballot box. Now, that doesn't mean that you take the House. It just means, wherever we can win, I think we can win.

STU: You better take the House.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. The Senate. The Senate.

STU: The Senate is much more in the air.

GLENN: Right. And I think we take the House. We may not take the Senate. Still, it's like going to be a hammering, unless Zuckerberg boxes are everywhere else, you know what I mean? But I don't think there's a Republican that thinks that if people vote, go out, that Republicans are going to do poorly. So is he self-projecting here? Republicans have recognized, they can no longer win elections with votes, so they're leaning in hard, to try to win elections with violence. Okay.

So that violence that he's talking about is January 6. And that was, what? One hundred people?

The left is encouraging violence all over America. It's been burning cities down. Okay. And they're fomenting that violence right now. We are?

He says, we're getting all kinds of threats, blah, blah, blah, blah. So he said, chaos is arming to the teeth. Most Americans with AR-15s now, and letting our children live in fear, chaos is January 6th.

Chaos is -- chaos is government mandated pregnancies.

STU: That's what the government is doing? They're mandating pregnancy, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. We are. We are. We are. You're going to have a baby, with right now.

Chaos is leaders of the party, arguing, we need to defund the FBI. Now, what's the difference between defunding the FBI, and defunding the police? I'm going to try to --

STU: Everyone I heard, talking about that, is talking about changing the instructor of the organization, and moving many of its responsibilities into other parts of the government. And not getting rid of all police.

GLENN: Right. And I say defund. I say we choke this system off, until they make changes. Money doesn't talk. It screams. And these huge agencies, the IRS, I say defund the IRS. Now, that doesn't mean, we don't need the IRS. And I want it to go away. Well, I would. I would. I would rather have a flat tax. But I'm not calling for chaos. I'm calling for reform. I'm not calling for tear the system down. I want reform!

I want what people wanted in 2008. Transparency.

We've been saying this forever. I want transparency. I don't want any more backroom deals. I don't want bills just shoved through that are omnibus, that we don't know what's in them. I want to know who is the good guy. Who is the bad guy. I want people to go to jail. And I don't give a flying crap, if they're Republican or independent or Democrat. I really don't. I want -- you know what, I would -- I would be so for Nancy Pelosi's son being tried. And if he's found as guilty and dirty as we think he is -- I mean, did you notice he was on the Taiwan trip? Did you notice? She's hiding that. So Nancy Pelosi's son. I would be all for Hunter Biden. I think every American who is decent. Who has paid attention at all, knows, there's trouble there. I would be for Joe Biden going to jail, if it's proven, that he was doing dirty deals with his family.

But I would also go after Mitch McConnell. And it's not because I think Mitch McConnell is a worthless just piece of bag of bones. I think Mitch McConnell is just as dirty. He's in on it. His family is making all kinds of money from China. No! No! If Mike Lee was found to do -- and Mike would be the first to tell you, I mean this. If Mike Lee, who is a good friend of mine, and a guy I really trust and believe. If Mike Lee was found doing dirty things and dirty deals. I would be the first to call for his impeachment, and investigation. And jail time, if he deserved it.

That's all I want. I want everybody to have the same consequence. We have two layers of justice now. If you're in a high position, with the right party, it's fine. That's not America. You cannot run a country. That is a banana republic. That's why -- you know, I was watching a show last night. And it -- it kept flashing back to Afghanistan. And the way the people lived in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan wasn't always like that. It wasn't always like that. Why are these third world countries like this? Poor, broken up. Sometimes, it's no fault of their own. Other times, it's clearly because the government or there's so much chaos on the street, that you have warlords.

People who are calling for, you know, the defunding of the police, and everything else. You're going to get warlords. Well, we would be better off with no government at all. We would just start all over again. Let's just burn this thing down. You will go into warlords. And America will become Afghanistan.

I don't want to burn it down. I want reform. I want transparency. I don't want to go back in time. Conservatives are not about the past. They are about conserving what has worked. And jettisoning those things that don't work. That's why the left and the right. Liberal and conservative. Not progressive. Liberal and conservative work so well together.

Because liberals tend to go, we ought to try this. This is really good. And conservatives are like, wait. Wait. Wait. But wait. What will that do? What are the unintended consequences? I don't know. What about this and this and that? You're not jettisoning this to get that, are you? Because these things are good. It's the yin and yang that makes America work. But if we can't do this through elections and reason, then we go to war with each other. And I don't want a war. Do you?

The -- the entire thing with Donald Trump right now. I want you to know this. Because if you know this, then you know what they are trying to achieve. And what they want and need you to do.

They could not convince the American people, that their neighbors are terrorists. They tried.

They've tried. And they've convinced maybe, I think, probably 20 percent. Okay. That's not enough.

You need to get that number over 50 percent. So 50 percent of the country thinks the other side of the country is a terrorist. This is why I always try to say, not the regular Democrat. But the leftists. Those who are hell-bent on destroying our country. We cannot group everybody into that. Because if we group half of the country, into revolutionaries. And they don't actually fit there, we have no place to go, but war.

We have no place to go, but I guess camps. And if you think one side or the other. This is -- do you remember the show I did at Fox, years ago, if you're a long-time listener or viewer. I did the pendulum show. And I swung a pendulum from left to right. And I said, the Constitution is really in the middle. It's neutral. Okay?

Sometimes a judge and the Constitution will rule, no. You know what, sorry. Got to have all that freedom. And the conservatives will go, wait. What?

That's chaos. Sometimes, it will say, nope. Got to go the conservative way. And the liberals will say, wait. You're a fascist. The Constitution is neutral on topics.

Its focus is on power and control, and control of the government. And I said, as we swing further and further, these swings will get worse and worse. And I said, you put Obama in, and you keep pushing people to the wall. You will get somebody who is like, oh, really? Really?

And that pendulum will swing back just as hard the other way. There's Donald Trump. He is the -- the people in the -- on the coasts. They all think Donald Trump is a fascist, that will put them all in jail. Well, that's what we felt about Obama. He was destroying the country.

Same thing now. Well, you do this to Donald Trump. And you're swinging it further the other way. And what did I tell you would happen, in the end?

That eventually, you would have two parties, that are completely on the very ends. And it depends which party is in office, at the time that things really begin to crumbling. And there's real chaos. And that party will reach out and grab that pendulum. And then freedom is over. That is the point we're at. And that's why they need the chaos on the streets. They'll create it. But as long as America knows, they're creating it. It's their chaos in our schools. It's their chaos that are burning our cities down. It's their chaos that is getting our policemen killed. It's their chaos that is making the prices of everything go through the roof. It is their climate chaos, that is causing us to have fuel problems and energy problems. And people either dying from heat, or now in the winter, they'll be dying from cold.

It's their chaos of the war machine. Of Afghanistan. As long as people understand that, we're fine. If we confuse it with any kind of chaos on our side, we're playing right into their hands. Because all they need is to just convince a few more people. And they can grab the pendulum.