GLENNFebruary 20, 2017

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

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

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.

(chuckling)

STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.

RADIO

The FBI knocked on my door to talk about Antifa...

The FBI showed up to Glenn's house to discuss his TV show exposing Antifa's network. Glenn shares what he learned from his "surreal" meeting and warns any member or funder of Antifa: you should be a little concerned because the FBI is SERIOUS about investigating you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me tell you something else that's changed.

Let me start with this. Cut five here.

Here are the new talking points for the media on Antifa.

Listen to this.

VOICE: This is an entirely imaginary organization. There's not an Antifa.

VOICE: Look, I don't even know what Antifa is.
VOICE: There is no growth.

VOICE: It's not even like far right groups, like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, compared to right-wing extremists, Antifa-linked violence is rare and limited.

VOICE: It is an organization.
It is -- it is in many ways mythology.

VOICE: It's not like the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. You know, they're defined terrorist organizations, the leadership that led -- that, you know, leads violence.

VOICE: It's not a highly organized movement. It's a moniker. It's not even a group like the Proud Boys are.

Things like Antifa are things that are thought up.

VOICE: These guys are going after Antifa, which is nothing. There's no organization called Antifa.

VOICE: Nobody is a member of Antifa because it doesn't exist! They are just claiming existence to something that doesn't exist.

VOICE: There is no Antifa organization, so maybe that's good for social media.

But it really has -- is nonexistent.

VOICE: They exist on the internet and chat rooms.

And in 4chan.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: And places like that. Where they run discussion boards. Trade tactics.

Documents. Things like that.

But none of them are called Antifa.

STU: What!

GLENN: I don't even know what they're talking about.

You want to talk about living in a different world.

But that's what's going around.

Now, let me just tell you this: Last week, I did a TV show that apparently got the FBI's attention.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: The topic was -- was initial investigation. A jumping off point, shattering the myth that Antifa just -- oh, it's -- it's just leaderless. And decentralized. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

We thought, no. It's really not. So we dove in. Head first.

And we analyzed the Antifa network. And we went from the street thugs, to the support groups, eventually, to the funding.

Okay?

To say the FBI was interested in this might be an understatement.

Let's just say, the FBI is turning over every single stone.

It is so clear to me, that they are exploring all angles of this. And they are talking to anyone and everyone that can give them think kind of information.

How do I know?

Saturday, I get a phone call.

The director would like to send over some agents to speak to you, Glenn.

And I'm like, the director?

The FBI agents?

Yes, you said, some things that they need to talk to you about.

Well, good things or bad things? "They'll be over."

Three agents sat in my living room on Saturday afternoon for almost two hours. And I immediately called Jason. I'm like, Jason, you're the researcher. It's your fault. I'm going to throw you under the bus. You better get your butt over here.

So Jason was there. My wife and I sat there, and it was surreal at one point. I talked to them for about 15 minutes just going over the Tides Foundation. And saying, if you understand Tides, you'll understand how difficult your job is going to be. And this is information that I first gave on Fox years ago.

Let me just say this: Finally, we have an administration and an FBI director, that is willing to go in deep. Not surface. But deep!

I could only imagine what we could have avoided, if anyone in an administration, would have done this, in 2011.

But if I were in that, imaginary group, of Antifa, which, by the way, has imaginary leaders. Leaving the country to go maybe to imaginary countries outside of the US right now. I would be very concerned. If I were a part of anything that was sending money their way or assistance their way.

I don't know!

I might be a little concerned, because the FBI is deadass serious.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Donald Trump, Kash Patel, and all of the agents at the FBI.

GLENN: We're covering from Allie Beth Stucky's big event, six or 7,000 women showed up this weekend for a weekend conference. It was -- it was unbelievable.

STU: Really, I saw the crowds. It was incredible.

GLENN: Yeah. She did a great, great job. I'm so proud of her. She's just killing it. But we will try to get to some of those clips because they're really, really good. We'll get to those later on in the program. You know, Stu and I were talking about how Antifa doesn't exist. And, you know, that's like saying -- it's like saying Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. Well, you're right.

There is no way, you know, 501 Broadway, you know, where you go to al-Qaeda's office. That doesn't happen, but it does exist, and it's an ideology.

And while they may not -- they may not take their direction from the same person at the office, I don't know. There's no HR. So they don't exist. They exist!

They exist. And they're loosely affiliated. And sometimes, they are getting money. You know.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And for the press and everybody else to say -- when you're watching them all over the country, and they're doing exactly the same thing, same tactics. Every -- everywhere.

You know, to say, they don't exist is just infantile.

STU: Yeah. It's like a -- it's -- I don't know what the word -- there should be a word for this, if there isn't.

But there's a real point used in an intentionally dumb way to mislead.

Is that malinformation? Is that what that is?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: It really is. There's a real point to it. They're disengaged from a centralized thing. This makes them more dangerous. This is how you had to deal with terrorist cells back in the day. However, they're using it in a way that makes it seem like it's not a threat, which is not accurate. And they know it's not accurate. And they're trying to mislead people with a piece of --

GLENN: Why would you -- why would you support -- why would you try to brush Antifa under the rug? I mean, it's just perplexing.

RADIO

How Trump SUCCEEDED where everyone failed in Israel and Gaza

For the first time in modern history, and perhaps the past few thousand years, we may have actual peace in the Middle East. Glenn Beck discusses the signing of President Trump’s historic peace deal, which will hopefully bring an end to the Israel/Hamas conflict in Gaza, and the freeing of the remaining 20 hostages.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me start here: For the first time in living memory, the guns have gone quiet in Gaza. Hostages, that have been held now for over two years have just walked free. And for the very first time, not in decades, but perhaps a millennia or two: The descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, have -- have signed something that might resemble more than just a ceasefire. You have to understand, before we start, how significant and how impossible it is to reach this point! This is not like anything we've ever seen before.

The conflict did not begin in 1948. It didn't begin with the British mandates and the creation of the state of Israel. The story really begins with the -- the ancient people of Israel and the sands of Canaan, where the people of Israel and the people called the Philistines, clashed over the same spot of earth called Gaza.

The Bible records Gaza as one of the five cities of the Philistines. And is this the place, Gaza is the place where the Philistines gathered their strength.

It was in Gaza that Samson, the judge of Israel was betrayed, captured, blinded, and paraded through the streets, as the Philistines mocked him. Much like you saw on October 7th. It was in Gaza that he brought the temple down on them. You know, one man against the empire. History has a very long memory in that land. We call it the Gaza Strip today. But it has seen conquers come and go. The Egyptians. The Babylonians. The Greeks, the on the mans, and the British.

And yet, somehow or another, the one rivalry, that is from 2000, 3,000 years ago, remains. The one between the children of Israel, and those who dwell along the sea.

That's an important thing. Palestinians of the ancient world, in Biblical context, are -- are different than the Palestinians. They were the group. They were not Semitic. They weren't Jewish. And they concentrated on the coast of Israel, Gaza.

The modern Palestinian identity came, you know, a millennia later, and that was shaped by the Arab, Islamic, and -- and historic developments in that area. It's not directly connected to the Philistines. However, Philistine and Palestinian both mean people that dwell on the coast. The word Hamas is an acronym, which means, you know, in their language. The Islamic resistance movement. But in Hebrew, Hamas means something altogether different. It means violence.

And this is in Hebrew, in Genesis 6:11. The earth was filled with Hamas. Violence, corruption, wickedness. It was because of Hamas, that the rains came, and Noah had to build the ark because of Hamas. So when you hear the word "Hamas," understand what it means to the Israeli ear, compared, you know, to the Palestinian ear.

It's not just an enemy. It's a Biblical echo, a spiritual warning from deep, deep time. So for 75 years, they have been trying to make peace between these ancient adversaries. Everybody has tried to do it. In my lifetime, the Camp David awards, or Accords, were in 1978. The Oslo Accords, in 1993. Endless road maps, summits, UN resolutions, and nothing! Every single one of them hailed as historic. And each one declared a new chapter. And every one of them failed, and it's not because the diplomats lack skill. But because too many on one side, the entire Arab world didn't believe Israel had a right to exist, and everyone was looking for a political solution. Then comes Donald Trump!

Donald Trump didn't approach this, you know, as a professor of Middle East studies.

He didn't approach this with the hundred years of expertise from the State Department.

In fact, he looked at the State Department expertise, and went, you guys aren't really experts of anything. You haven't solved anything.

And you keep trying the same thing. What are you doing?

He took a business approach. He knew all of the players, because of business. He knew all of the big players.

And so he got in with all of the players, and found out, what do you really want? And what they really want is stability. If you look at what's being built in the Middle East, they are these -- these incredible modern cities. Incredible modern cities.

They want prosperity. The Middle East does. Hamas doesn't!

He saw a region, Donald Trump did. He saw a region that was addicted to USAID.

Endless negotiation.

And so he just tore up the whole rule book. And he recognized Jerusalem, first thing as the capital of Israel.

A move that every single president before has been told by the State Department, you can't do that. It will cause war. And, you know what, it didn't.

He moved the embassy.

He then walked away from the Iran Deal. And he told the world that America is no longer going to apologize for standing with the only democracy in the Middle East. And that's where all of the anti-Semitic stuff comes. Because now, see, Israel is controlling our foreign policy! Israel is controlling Donald Trump. Donald Trump is doing the bidding of the Jews!

No. Nope. No, he didn't.

No, he wasn't being controlled. And, no, they weren't controlling him. It was actually seemingly quite the opposite. Because he did something extraordinary. He took the entire region, and brought them together!

First, he did it with the Abrahamic -- Abraham Accords. That is the first genuine realignment of the region, in a generation, or maybe two.

And it wasn't about ideology. It was all about survival, prosperity. And the shared fear of Iran's growing shadow!

When we drop the bombs on Iran, Americans, and people in the West, and people who have been educated in our universities, and have been indoctrinated with all of this garbage, they looked at that and said, "Oh, my gosh, look at. He's doing Israel's bidding."

No, he was actually doing Israel's bidding. He was doing Saudi Arabia's bidding. He was doing a bidding of Egypt. Everyone in the Middle East. Everyone in the Middle East. Hates Iran. They know how dangerous Iran is. They wanted somebody to put Iran in its place. So when Donald Trump did, the Middle East, the Arab world, celebrated. Not obviously not all of it, but a lot of it. The ones that are now at the table. He did something else: He proved himself to be an honest broker, and not doing the bidding of just Israel. And I would love to hear all of the people who are now standing up and saying, "See, we are just a puppet."

I would love to hear your explanation of this. When Israel went after Qatar, which I don't have any love at all for Qatar. But they went after Qatar. And that was going to blow this whole thing up.

What happened? Donald Trump went to Benjamin Netanyahu, and said, "You need to apologize to Qatar."

Israel and Netanyahu is not going to apologize. They ended up apologizing to Qatar. "That won't happen again."

That gave Donald Trump the -- the -- the image in the Middle East of not being the little boy toy, but the other way around. He has some control of what Israel is going to do. He can tell them, "Knock it off."

Then when everybody came to the table, the Middle East all came to the table and said, "Okay we'll handle Hamas. You handle Israel."

So they got Hamas to the table and said, "You're going to take this, and we're going to guarantee the peace." And Donald Trump went to Benjamin Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu said, "We have to finish the job. We have to finish them off."

And Donald Trump said, "No, you're going to take this deal now."

And Benjamin Netanyahu said, "No, we have to finish them off." And he said, "I don't think you hear me: You're going to take this deal." That's how this happened. That's a miracle. He didn't try to make them friends, he tried to make them partners. They all want prosperity. And now, we are -- we're looking at the fruits of the labor that started with the Abrahamic Accords. The Arab states signed it to enforce peace rather than to sabotage it. For the first time in 4,000 years! The blood-soaked sands of Gaza whisper something today, that has been forgotten for 4,000 years. And that is hope.

If it hollows, even if it holds for a year, five years, ten years, it means centuries of hatred has been overtaken by something stronger than hate.

And even if we just start with survival, that's good!

It means that the children of Abraham, which is both the Arab and the Jew, the descendents of Abraham, long divided by faith and pride, have decided, choose life over death, trying to prove you're right!

It means the Biblical land of Gaza, where Samson fell, where violence has filled the earth, might finally learn the meaning of peace. But if it doesn't, and the rockets return and the lies reawaken, and this will just be another tombstone in the desert of broken promises. But the Bible says, "Blessed are the peacemakers. The Lord hates the hands that shed innocent blood." So if this holds, if this holds, if courage triumphs over chaos -- let's remember that peace is not the absence of war, it's the presence of righteousness. And righteousness, true, moral clarity demands that we call evil by its name. And we stand with truth, even when it's costly. And we defend the innocent, even when the world looks away. And now, it is our job, as long as this holds, to rebuild. I am so happy to say, "We are not being asked to rebuild. Not our money."

The Middle Eastern money is coming in now, to rebuild the region. As it should be. Men haven't suddenly become good, but for once, maybe they're choosing life over death or survival. But perhaps they've remembered and seen God's warning and chosen mercy over their rage.

RADIO

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

Is Hamas mentioned in the Bible? Does the Palestinian flag have a connection to a prophecy in the Book of Revelation? Glenn Beck speaks with filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza about his new film, “The Dragon’s Prophecy,” based on the book by Jonathan Cahn, that discusses these “coincidences.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dinesh, welcome to the program, how are you?

DINESH: Glenn, it's a great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: Oh, you're welcome. I watched your film last week, and I've got to tell you, it's -- it's frightening, and really powerful.

DINESH: Well, we begin, Glenn, as you know with putting you on a motorcycle with a GoPro, and you ride with Hamas into the Kibbutz. Hamas took this footage. Remarkably, not a lot of people have seen it. The Israel government, I think was reluctant to show it, except to a handful of journalists.

But it opens my film, and it has a bit of a graphic warning. But it's ten minutes of putting you right on the scene of October 7th, 2 years ago, and the film kind of takes off from there, to give you the widest significance that engages politics, but history, archaeology. And even as you mentioned, a hint of Biblical prophecy, so that the political is wedded into the moral of the spiritual.

GLENN: So let me play a trailer here from the movie. Here it is.

VOICE: So who are the Jews? Who are the Palestinians? Whose land is it really? Could the fate of the world, of humanity itself, be somehow tied to this place?

VOICE: The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation. So what if there was going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel? The Bible speaks about this whole war as a dragon, representing the enemy, attacking a woman, representing Israel.

VOICE: Civilian deaths on both sides represent victories on the part of the dragon.

VOICE: Hamas burned everything within their ability to maximize the civilian casualty.

VOICE: Came back to a land that was largely barren, and we brought it back alive, and we are going to keep it!

VOICE: The devil hates the Jewish people because they represent the existence of God!

VOICE: Because without that Jewish foundation, there is no Christianity.

GLENN: So let us -- go to the Dragons Prophecy here for a second. What is the case of the Dragons Prophecy?

DINESH: Glenn, in the Book of Revelation 12, there is a depiction of a dragon representing the devil, going to war against a woman, representing Israel. And the woman is pregnant, representing the Messiah. So this is the sort of spiritual backdrop. It's a confirmation of what people sometimes say, that underneath our political fight, there is a spiritual war. But people don't often ask, who is fighting? Like who are the combatants?

And the answer is, this is a war that has been raging between sort of God and the devil from the very beginning of time. And the provocative idea in the film is that the devil cannot overthrow God, and so the -- the devil tries to find out, what is it that God cares about? Let me ruin that!

So in Genesis 1, for example, why does the serpent target Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve have nothing to the devil, but the devil goes, "I want to ruin them, because this is God's cherished creation. If I can ruin them, I can get my revenge against God."

And I think for the same reason, the devil targets the Jews and the Christians. The Jews, because they are the original chosen people. And so the devil's agenda is really simple: Drive them out of their ancestral homeland from the river to the sea. And also, put a big Islamic victory arch right on top of their holiest sight, which is the site of the Solomonic Temple.

And then, of course, the Christians are, the Bible itself, refers to Christians as like spiritual Israelites. And so the Devil is like, I hate that too. I will persecute and harass and destroy the Christians no less than the Jews."

And, look, this is not just sort of idle Biblical speculation. You can see this happening right in front of us in the world today.

GLENN: Talk to me about the meaning of the word Hamas, Palestinians, where that came from. Can you take us through that a little bit?

DINESH: Yeah, this is the genius of Jonathan Khan and his book, The Dragon Prophesy. He points out that Hamas in Arabic means something like force or strength, but in Hebrew, interestingly, the -- the word means violence and destruction. And if you -- in Hebrew, it literally says things like, "Lord, save me from the men of Hamas, or Hamas dwells in the dark places of the earth."

GLENN: I had to go to my Bible to look it up.

It does say that. It does say that. It's crazy!

DINESH: Yes. Not only that, Glenn. But the four colors of the apocalypse, mentioned in the Book of Revelation, which reflects famine, death, and destruction. The white horse, the black horse, the green horse, the red horse.

Han points out. He goes, just take a look at the Palestinian flag. It's made up of four colors. Basically, white for the white horse. Red for the red horse. Black for the black horse. Green for the green horse. And all of this, I think, within -- if there's a single connection, you can be like, "Hmm. I don't know."

But there are so many of these connections out in the film.

GLENN: So many.

DINESH: That, ultimately, it's almost like, you have to sort of -- you have to step back and reconsider if you are even understanding what's happening in front of you, in the widest and sort of deepest possible light.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I don't know about, you know -- I haven't studied this, you know, enough. I just watched the movie once.

And it's worth watching. But you will go back to Scriptures, and you will look it up. It is worth pondering. Because it shows you, where we might be right now. And the battle that we're preparing for.

Which is a really terrifying thing. But I would rather know it, so I can be prepared for it.

You also -- you know, did a lot of archaeological stuff. What stood out to you in the research that you did?

DINESH: What stood out to me, Glenn, was that for 2000 years, and even more, there are figures that appear in the Bible, Pontius Pilate, Isaiah, Jeremiah. We're going for King David. We're talking now about three -- a thousand DC.

So 3,000 years ago. And even 30 or 40 years ago, if you said, prove to me that these figures are real. Prove to me, outside the Bible, using historical or archaeological evidence, you couldn't do it. Remarkably, just in the last few decades, there are conscriptions and stones and clay seals, coming out of the ground, that are showing that these Biblical figures are real, the Bible is an account of real people and true events. So you could dispute the theology of the Bible. You can question the miracle. But the historicity of the Bible is being resoundingly affirmed.

And it's almost as if the world has become more secular and pulled away from God, God is speaking back.

But not in the thunderous language of Genesis 1. You know, in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. But rather, in the kind of prosaic language of science and archaeology.

GLENN: Yeah. It was really amazing. Because you don't think -- we live in our time. And so you don't think of the times that have come. David didn't exist.

You know, these stories are true. They didn't exist. And now we're finding all of the archaeological evidence, and we just -- at least I did. I just accepted, that, "Yeah. These -- the big things, we knew existed." No. No. We didn't. It's now just being proven now because of what we're finding in archaeological digs.

DINESH: Not only that, but for centuries, really for two centuries going back to the enlightenment, you have the armchair critics who would read the Bible and say, "Well, it looks to me, this was written several hundred years later."

But now we know that that can't be the case, because there are minor -- minor figures in the Bible. And, you know, the royal steward of King Josiah in, like, the 6th or 7th Century DC, and suddenly a seal comes out of the ground in Jerusalem and there's this name on the seal. Now, nobody 300 years later -- this is like asking for the names of interns who worked for Donald Trump. Hundreds of years from now. Who would possibly know their names and identities?

So this is why the Bible is being affirmed, even at the level of excruciating detail.

GLENN: The fact that everyone said that Pontius Pilate didn't exist. And the stair that has his name carved into it, 2000 years ago, that was discovered.

It's those things that you're like, "I mean, how do you deny some of this stuff now?"

I mean, it's just piling up.

DINESH: It's -- it's utterly impossible. And then we are in Jerusalem, and we go up to this place called Sheillo, in the middle part of Israel, and we find these remarkable red heifers. I've read the book about the red heifers. This has to do with the fact that in the end times, the dome of the rock will come down. The Jewish Temple -- the Solomonic Temple will be rebuilt, and some of the rabbis are actually preparing for temple services, which involve the ashes of a red heifer.

So all of this is not just interpretations. You have people in Jerusalem. And in Israel, actually preparing for this. In a practical way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

In fact, one of the things that they said. Let me take a break. And have you come back and answer this. One of the things they said.

Because we were talking about the red rest offers two years ago.

And they were talking about maybe making, you know, red heifers into ashes to prepare.

And Hamas said, at the time, that's one of the reasons why they -- they went after on October 7th, was because of the red heifers. And you go into that. And what they really call October 7th.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269

Global elites are still pushing forward with their Great Reset agenda to enslave the world and create a post-human future despite President Trump’s crushing of ESG and DEI, researcher and author Whitney Webb tells Glenn. In her long-awaited return to "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Whitney explores the intricate web of global elites, including the World Economic Forum’s downfall under Klaus Schwab and current state under Larry Fink as well as the rise of digital IDs and AI-driven governance like Albania’s “digital minister.” Whitney also discusses the tools she believes the Great Reset elites are building to control us, including the Biden-era ARPA-H program and possible surveillance tech tied to Palantir and the CIA. Further, Whitney ties the globalists’ agenda to the chaos happening in cities like Chicago and Portland and what Trump must be wary of when deploying the National Guard. Plus, as a leading expert in the financial crimes and corrupt connections of Jeffrey Epstein, Whitney weighs in on the debate over the “black book” and why the government still hasn’t released all the Epstein documents.

You can read Whitney Webb's latest reporting on the Epstein case HERE: https://unlimitedhangout.com/author/w...

Glenn's Show Prep

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

The FBI knocked on my door to talk about Antifa...

Transcript

How Trump SUCCEEDED where everyone failed in Israel and Gaza

Transcript

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

Transcript

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269