Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs recently won the state championship --- the female state championship --- amid controversy that caused some competitors to forfeit rather than wrestle the junior from Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. Beggs, who is transitioning from a girl to a boy, has been taking regular doses of testosterone.

"Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second, and we'll just talk about how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone --- for a girl, right? --- would be able to compete at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Many argue that the high levels of testosterone, which build strength and muscles, give Beggs an unfair advantage. Begging the question, if it's Beggs' choice to transition, shouldn't she make concessions during the interim to maintain a level playing field? Concessions like not wrestling until the transition is complete?

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

PAT: We've had this situation where there is a girl who is transitioning to a boy. And she's 17 years old. She's a wrestler. And so she wanted -- apparently, she wanted to wrestle in the boy's division this year, right?

JEFFY: Correct. Correct.

PAT: Because she's making that switch. So she's going from boy to girl.

STU: And the Texas rule is, you compete in the gender that you were born.

PAT: That's on your birth certificate.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Especially I guess as long as you have that genitalia, which she does. She's a girl.

STU: Yeah, I don't know -- if you've gone through the full transition, I don't know -- again, if you're talking about kids, this is a pretty new development. I don't know if they have a rule for that.

PAT: Yeah, I don't either.

STU: I think the rule is the gender you had when you were born.


PAT: So that's the rule in Texas because it's hateful. How can you possibly ask somebody to compete in the gender category they were born into, how can you ask that?

STU: You can't, Pat. You can't.

PAT: You can't. Because what if you feel differently? Anyway, she does.


PAT: But she was made to -- she was put in the girl's category for wrestling. So she just won the tournament last week.

JEFFY: Yeah, she won the championship.

PAT: She won the championship.

JEFFY: The -- one of the issues is, is that she is actually going through the transition and taking the prescribed medicine to make the change. And so it's working.

PAT: The testosterone.

STU: Right. And, by the way, this ends any argument of all time as to whether men or women are better athletes. Just -- because this whole thing of -- the old Billie Jean King thing back in the day. Let's be honest about it. You take testosterone, you become better and stronger at sports.

PAT: Right.

STU: Sorry.

PAT: Now, that is science. That is science.

JEFFY: That is science.

STU: So sorry. I guess we have to apologize for that.

PAT: Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. You can -- I guess you can try to deny it and say that women are just as strong in every instance as men. It's just not the case.

STU: No, they're better at certain --

PAT: Yes. They're just not built the same way as we are. And that's a good thing. It was supposed to be that way. We're supposed to be different. And we are. And we are.

STU: Stunning. A stunning development that everyone knew at a level of 100 percent until very recently.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This is insane. And, by the way, if a man were to take testosterone in the -- in Major League Baseball or the NFL --

STU: I like how you're saying this as a crazy hypothetical.

PAT: I know.

STU: If in some circumstance somehow --

PAT: And they do.

STU: -- some at least decided to take performance enhancing drugs --

PAT: I don't remember who it was. But your testosterone as a man in the normal range is 400 to 800, maybe up to 1,000. And that's fairly normal. I can't remember who the baseball player was. It might have been A-Rod. He had a testosterone level -- and I shouldn't mention him because I don't remember who it was. But I remember their level was 4,000. So clearly they had been --

JEFFY: That's a man.

PAT: No man takes -- or has that much natural testosterone. So clearly, they had been taking testosterone, so they were better at what they were doing than they otherwise would have been. So it works on men as well as girls transitioning to men. So obviously, this girl is going to become stronger, she's going to be faster. She's going to be better able to wrestle than she was as a girl with no testosterone.

JEFFY: Right. And the argument also from the other parents that are suing the school board is that, hey, she is taking this medicine. That's making her into a boy. We don't want her wrestling.

PAT: And in Texas, you can take -- you can compete if you've been prescribed the testosterone by a doctor, and she was.

JEFFY: Correct. And there are several -- there are three or four other things on that list that the Wrestling Association says it's okay as long as it's prescribed and that would not be okay if it was not prescribed, for sure.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And the reason for that, by the way, quickly, steroids are like standard treatment for a lot of illnesses.


PAT: Yes. Right.

STU: If you break out in a rash or if you have -- if you're sick in any number of ways.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: One of the first responses is to give you a shot of steroids because, you know, it works. It's pretty effective.

PAT: It reduces swelling, aids in healing. It just -- it calms down infection. I mean, it does a lot of different things. I've taken steroids quite a bit. Because I've been sick lately. And it helps. They help.

STU: A lot.

PAT: So it kind of makes sense that there are certain circumstances under which -- you know, because if you're taking anabolic steroids, that's one thing. But if you're taking steroids that a normal doctor would prescribe for an illness that's a different deal.

JEFFY: Which is pretty much what they were covering when they made the rules, before this.

PAT: Right. So, anyway, Stu heard this interview on the way in by Chris Cuomo. And is it the lawyer representing the other girls in the tournament?

STU: No, this is Ben Ferguson, who is a talk show host. He's a CNN contributor, so he's there to take the evil right-wing side of this argument. Chris Cuomo who purpose or it is I guess to be a journalist. I don't know that for a fact. But it seems like he wants to come off as evenhanded on the show is a straight-out activist on this show.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And the reason is because he's in the middle of his own personal issue with the transgendered argument, which is last week someone tweeted to him -- when talking about the transgendered issue, what do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn't want to see a man's unit in the locker room?

So a 12-year-old girl is in the locker room, someone changing next to them, takes down their pants and has a guy junk. Right? He's got guy junk.

What do you tell that 12-year-old girl? His response was, I wonder if she is the problem.

PAT: Good gosh.

STU: Or her overprotective and intolerant dad. Teach tolerance. That was his response.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

STU: Now, look, that's unbelievable, to put that on the 12-year-old girl.

PAT: Unbelievable response.

STU: A 12-year-old girl is not equipped to -- even if this were the most logical thing in the world, is not equipped to make that determination. She's going to be interested in what she's interested in at that age. That's going to be -- it's a moment -- it's an era of discovery, right. And so that is not something that you would necessarily want -- that's why they have separation.

Because honestly, with this standard, why bother with two different bathrooms? Why bother with two different locker rooms for any reason? Why bother? Why not just be tolerant of male genitalia all the time for 12-year-old girls? Why is it only when someone else outside of their decision-making process makes a decision they identify a different way. Right? Someone else has done that, that doesn't affect the 12-year-old girl in this scenario. She hasn't made any judgment, well, I identify that person as a female, therefore the junk that I'm looking at is not male. That's not her determination. It's someone else's determination. So that is -- it's an absurd argument on its face.

But he got so much heat for that tweet, blaming the 12-year-old girl and her intolerant dad of not being accepting of penises in the locker room, which is essentially what he said: You should be tolerant of the penis.

That was the word they used. He got so much heat for that. He's now in, I've locked myself in the corner, and I'm going to be defensive on this point no matter what. Which, it brings out the best in Chris Cuomo. Because he's now so desperate to prove that this wasn't a mistake, he'll say anything.

PAT: Yeah. Listen to this.

VOICE: What's your take on the tournament, my friend?

VOICE: Well, first off, I think this -- take the transgendered issue out of it for a second. If you are taking testosterone, which is a performance-enhancing drug in sports, you shouldn't be able to wrestle.

PAT: Correct. There you go.

VOICE: And this gave a completely unfair advantage to this participant. You can talk about that whether you are in your age-group or in your sex group that are associated with. If you're taking something that is performance enhancing, you're not a real champion. You cheated and you won.

Now, the state I think has some blame for this, by having it where they're even allowing these testosterones to be used if they're prescribed by a doctor. That's where I think the big fix probably needs to come.

STU: Stop for a second. Because this is -- so, first of all, this is his first response. Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second. And we'll just talk about you how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone for a girl, right? Would be able to compete at all. So taking out the transgendered issue, it's still wrong. So he's already won the argument at this point, right?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: But not with Chris Cuomo who can't possibly accept this.

CHRIS: If there was acceptance, we wouldn't have had this issue because this kid would be wrestling against boys.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

STU: So here's his argument: So Chris, he falls back to --

PAT: If there were acceptance.

STU: I don't know what level we're going to fall back to on this. It's going to be hard to keep track of. But he falls back to, if there was -- if we taught acceptance, this wouldn't be an issue because she would be able to wrestle the boys like she wants to.

PAT: And in that eventuality, we wouldn't be talking about the story at all because she would have lost in the first round, and it would be over.

STU: Right. That's true.

PAT: It would be over.

STU: That's true. However -- however, we still would be talking about the issue. Why?

Because in a liberal state, let's say California, there would be a -- it would go the opposite way. You would have a boy who was transforming to be a girl and wanted to identify as a girl and then went into the girl's division and then destroyed all the girls. So the issue would still exist, it would just be in a liberal state and the opposite way. So he's completely wrong there to say the issue goes away if -- if we, quote, unquote, teach acceptance. The issue still exists, it's just on the opposite side.

VOICE: We know. And for those as you're learning about -- just so people know.

VOICE: Here's the thing.

VOICE: But hold on, Ben. Let's just clarify one thing: The science, you have to be careful about.

STU: This is argument two.

PAT: The science now.

VOICE: The amount of hormone that this kid is given is the minimum standard they can give to replicate the output of a boy.

STU: Okay. Stop. There's so much there.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Does he know the amount she's being given?

STU: First of all -- yes. So that was one of his big arguments in this. I assume he knows it because he quotes -- he kept saying, you have to look it up. You have to look it up. So, again, that's a bad assumption on my part.

PAT: Look it up, Jeffy. See how much testosterone --

STU: However, it's not the minimum amount that a girl would have, right? It's actually way more than a girl would have, which is what makes the transition happen.

PAT: Yes. Way more. It's the minimum amount for a boy.

STU: For a boy. Now, let's just say that that's true. So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating --

PAT: So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating.

STU: It still would be cheating as the girl. So his point is, well, then they should allow him -- her -- him to wrestle with the boys, right? Because he wants -- she identifies as a man. So we should think that she's a man. We should allow her to wrestle with the boys. Because she's not getting -- his point there is, he's not getting so much -- she's not getting so much more testosterone than the boy would normally have. So she's not a superhuman boy, she's just a boy, right? First of all, his wording is interesting there. The amount to replicate a boy.

If she's a boy, you do not need to replicate the boy.

If you're replicating something, you're replicating it because it's not actually happening. Therefore, your whole scientific argument is flawed. The thing that you're saying you want to happen isn't happening.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not a boy. So if she was a boy, you would not need to replicate it.

PAT: Yeah, if you need to talk about science, what is she scientifically? She's a girl.

STU: She's a girl.

PAT: She's had no surgery. There's nothing been changed on her body. She's a girl. So if you want to talk science, she's a girl. And then -- so it's unfair for the girl to be getting testosterone, when the other girls aren't getting it.

STU: Right. Exactly. Now, his point seems to be, what he wants to happen is that she wrestles against the boys and then loses because she is getting only the appropriate level for a boy of testosterone.

Again, it's a ridiculous argument in and of itself. But if you're going -- even if you're going to entertain it, the point is, getting performance-enhancing drugs -- it's not to say that you let everyone come to the same level of testosterone. The point is, you don't get additional testosterone as to what you have naturally. That's the point of the rule. It's enhancing. Whether you think it's enhancing it only to equal, it's not the point. The point is, you don't enhance it to what you have naturally.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: She has very little naturally. And they're enhancing it to get a higher level, regardless of what level.

PAT: And all we're talking about here is -- the level of the other competitors is what we should be talking about, not the level of the boys.

STU: Yes. Right.

PAT: Because is it unfair for her to have beaten all these girls whose level of testosterone is ridiculous?

VOICE: Kids are going to be superhuman -- it's the opposite.

PAT: No, it's not the opposite.

VOICE: Scientifically, that is the outcome. If you look and do the research as I have, you'll see that.

STU: Oh, God.

PAT: What a condescending ass.

STU: Yes. Remember, this is a guy who is in full standing in the Douche Hall of Fame. And this is him showing off why he's there.

PAT: Exactly.

STU: And, by the way, on Pat and Stu today, a vote on Chris Cuomo as the Grand Nozzle after this interview. Because he deserves it from Harry Reid.

VOICE: If this state allowed this kid to wrestle against boys, which is what he wants, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

STU: Right. This case. You would be talking about a different case in a different state that went the opposite way. The issue would not go away at all based on that. You would just be arguing the opposite side of it.

PAT: True.

VOICE: But you also have to look at, there has to be a standard. And I think it's not insane or crazy for a state to say that you compete with the sex that's on your birth certificate. That's what I would refer to as logical. It is illogical to somehow imply that this kid is a victim because he decided to do something or change something and therefore you change the entire sport around it. That is the part that I think many people are sitting here and saying, "Hey, if you want to compete in a sport, period, then you cannot be taking performance-enhancing drugs and do it." But to say that we should change the entire way that sports is done because of one person and their decision to do something, that is unrealistic.

VOICE: Right.

But the premise is flawed. Because the logic requires --

STU: We got to come back. We're not going to have time to get it --

VOICE: I disagree. That's why we're having a discussion. That transgender doesn't count. But it does count, and that's why we're having this bigger debate about what you allow trans kids to have access to and what you don't.

PAT: He goes on to say that she identifies as a girl.

STU: Yeah, but we have to come back and play -- because that part is unbelievable as well.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: His scientific argument is that she identifies. Well, that's not science.

PAT: That's not science. Now you're talking feelings. You're not talking science.

STU: As you said, they're replicating it. She's identifying. You're laying it out -- subconsciously, you're saying the truth. You can't help yourself. You can't help yourself. You keep saying the truth.

PAT: I can identify as a gerbil, if I want to, but I'm not. I'm not one. And I won't fit into the little thing with the wheel that goes -- spins around and around. So...

STU: Right. And any other circumstance, this argument would be completely bizarre.

What just passed in California is coming for ALL KIDS across the nation

What just passed in California is coming for ALL KIDS across the nation

Parental rights are under attack like never before. Take California, which just passed a bill that would FORCE judges in child custody hearings to consider whether a parent supports a kid's "gender transition" — which is probably the most life-altering and permanent thing they can do to themselves. But what just passed in California is coming for ALL KIDS across the nation. Glenn discusses how the White House is also pushing the agenda of "affirming your child's identity," in the name of health and safety, of course. He also reviews how California's extreme progressive laws are often picked up by other states and how similar policies in Canada have led to the jailing of parents. "This new law should alarm and disgust EVERYONE in America for the way it will let the state override private parenting decisions," Glenn says. It's time to ask, who gets to raise children – you or the government?

Did the CIA BRIBE experts to dismiss COVID lab leak theory?

Did the CIA BRIBE experts to dismiss COVID lab leak theory?

It's been nearly 4 years since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out and we still don't have a consensus on where it came from. But recently, a whistleblower has claimed to Congress that the CIA bribed experts to suggest that COVID-19 didn't come from a lab. Rep. Brad Wenstrup, who chairs one of the subcommittees the whistleblower has spoken to, joins Glenn with the latest. According to the whistleblower, 6 of the 7 people on the CIA's COVID discovery team believed the virus came from a lab, but the CIA only said it was "unable to determine" the truth. And allegedly, there were "performance bonuses" attached to their findings. Did the CIA bribe experts to remain silent? Is the government trying to steer the narrative in one direction for political reasons? What does that mean about the trustworthiness of our intelligence agencies?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Congressman Wenstrup, how are you, sir?

WENSTRUP: I'm hanging in there. How are you, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm good. First of all, I want to let people know. You are a doctor. You're also an Army Reserve officer, and Iraqi war veteran. Thank you for that.

You were on the select subcommittee run by this pandemic. You have served as a doctor. You know, overseas. You also were at Walter Reed for a while.

And you are the medical policy adviser for the chief of Army Reserve. Correct?

WENSTRUP: Yes, actually retired from the Army in December.

But since I was elected to Congress, 11 years ago, I served at Walter Reed and as a medical policy adviser as well.

Obviously as a congressman.

And a congressman on the intelligence committee.

GLENN: Okay. So now, tell the story to the American people, in case they don't know. About what is going on, with the CIA. And this bribe, to the so-called experts.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. A little background. As a physician, ever since the pandemic started. I'm looking into what's going on, physiologically, how do we treat patients?

In the process of doing research, we discovered that we were actually engaging in China, in the lab in Wuhan, to create gain-of-function viruses.

That being said, with Intel committee, involved with this for the past three years, at least.

And what had happened now, is we have somebody coming forward, as the whistle-blower, seeking full whistle-blower protection.

And at this time, he wants to be anonymous. He came to both the intelligence committee, and the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic, which I chair.

And he's made many allegations. Obviously, he summed up a lot of them. But there was the CIA, in trying to figure out, whether this came from a lab. Or from nature. Put together, a COVID discovery team, if you will.

Seven people, as you talked about.

So six of the people, they came to the conclusion with some level of confidence. That this came from a lab. And the senior person, according to these charges, said, it came from nature. Okay. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. What they ended up doing at the end of the day, releasing to the public and to the intelligence community. All they said was, the CIA was unable to determine.

Well, it sounds like they had a pretty high number of people, that were able to determine, as best as they know it. It is our responsibility, on this committee, to follow up on everything to do with the -- with the pandemic.

We take it very seriously. The reaction of the CIA, very serious.

So we're now seeking documents. Communications.

And we also have asked to speak with Andrew McCreedus (phonetic), who the whistle-blower says was the chief operating officer, and had a lot to do with constructing this.

I hope the director of the CIA will be cooperative with us.

But, you know, you hit the big question.

Why? I mean, why would they want to do that?

I mean, this goes back to where Fauci prompted. I'm using their words. Prompted a group of scientists to write what's called proximal origins.

Where in their internal documents, they're saying, oh, yeah. Well, they're doing research. Oh, yeah. They have this capability.

Oh, yeah. This really is something. And then they come out and say, it came from nature. And tried to make that definitive. Why are we not having scientific debate? What is the reason for attempting to steer everything in one direction? And here's one of my concerns, Glenn. And I think you will appreciate this. If this is true, and we have for political reasons. Or whatever.

Changing the -- the notion of changing intelligence. What does that say to our international partners, who rely on us, for intelligence?

Who we work with? Together on intelligence.

If our own intelligence department, is changing things from what people actually did and said. To fit a narrative that they want?

That's a concern I have.

GLENN: Well, not just that.

You know, you would imagine that in some cases, you would say, hey, let's not release that to anybody.

But this is changing things for the intelligence.

The oversight. You guys are -- you guys are engaged with oversight. And they didn't tell you this. A whistle-blower had to come and tell you this.

WENSTRUP: Right. And I would contend if we didn't have Republicans, in terms of the House of Representatives, it would come forward at all. To get an opportunity to somebody, that would seem like would listen. And is a whistle-blower.

And we are. And so we're pursuing this based on letters.

That's the first phase, requesting information. Documents.

You know, when we don't get them. And we dig a little bit deeper.

And we ask a little harder. And sometimes in the form of subpoenas.

GLENN: So they -- do we know if they actually paid these other experts?

These six people out of seven?

WENSTRUP: Yeah. So in the allegations, I would say that the conjecture, is that it may have come in the form of a performance bonus.
Not just out and out, hey, do this, and here's some money, if you are following that. Something to that effect. Right?

GLENN: Right. And do we have any idea how much? This is taxpayer dollars, right?

WENSTRUP: Oh, correct. And, no. We don't know how much. And, again, that's part of the investigation. We're obligated to do it. I mean, we don't really have a choice. This is what we should be doing. You know, keep in mind, I have to remember members of Congress this too. Congress created these agencies. And we fund those agencies. And we have oversight of those agencies. And not only do I have to remind members of Congress. We certainly have to remind the agencies, that this needs to be a working partnership. And you don't get to tell us anything. Especially on the intelligence committee. The intelligence committee is set up, so that there would be oversight over the intelligence committee.

GLENN: Correct.

WENSTRUP: And this is a select committee, so the people on this committee, which, by the way, is functioning well now, and is no longer an impeachment committee, but the intelligence committee, people are selected from both sides of the aisle. We also represent the other members of Congress. Because we're in a place where other members don't get to go. So this is an important role that we have. And the cooperation needs to be there. And sometimes, the community -- the intelligence community, thinks they don't have to tell us things. In the same statute that they do. So we will continue to pursue and find the truth. And we have -- we have to suggest or legislate things into law.

It allows us to hold people accountable, within agencies, when they do things.

And I use an example like this, Glenn. The military just served 25 years.

Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unethical is unlawful in the military.

And our agencies, unfortunately, this is across-the-board.

But in our agencies, if you violate some of your tenets, or what you say, or the rules of engagement within your agency, nothing really happens to you.

Oh, you might get fired.

But, you know, there -- this is -- this is a problem, that we have.

And so we are trying, on so many fronts, to put punitive measures in place when violations are occurring.

Such as, with the FISA court. Et cetera.

You know, the IG said 17 times.

Well, what actually happens? Where is the punitive measures? We're trying to implement those.

GLENN: Yeah. So do you -- is there a way out from -- I mean, your Justice Department looks horribly soiled. Your NSA. Your CIA. Your DNI.

All of these things, look like they've been a part of some really bad things, including the State Department. Now the IRS is involved. How are you possibly going to beat this?

I mean, it's like Whac-A-Mole.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. On my particular subcommittee. What I keep saying.

From the beginning. Is honesty and truth is non-negotiable. And we're going to be looking for it.

And if it's not there. We're going to point it out. And hold people accountable.

We have to.

GLENN: But you can't -- excuse me for interrupting.

But you can't really hold people responsible, if you say if they're in contempt for Congress.

Attorney general Garland. Is the one who has to prosecute. And he just came out and said, I'm not the prosecutor, for Congress.

Well, yes, you are.

But he gets to decide, who he prosecutes.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. And obviously what you're seeing, I know I heard Jim Jordan's voice when I came. And obviously you're seeing all kinds of things, where this is just wrong.

And I don't know how we get it all out from the American public. Most people don't know.

Obviously, I have the opportunity right now. To get to your listeners.

And that's important.

But there are things, that are going on today, that should be above the full front page headlines.

Each and every day.

And the mainstream media comes to our challenges, is definitely greater.

And elections matter.

And I hope people understand that. I grow up watching Superman. The beginning show.

Watching for truth, justice, and the American way. And then that's where we have to go.

And Americans have to understand, if that's what they want, or not. Because it's been deviated from, tremendously.

And let me make this suggestion too for our agencies. You know, in the military, you either move up, or you're out.

And you're required to be agnostic politically. And that's what we need in our agencies.

You either move up or you're out.

And when you get to the top, there's a mandatory retirement. You don't get to sit there with mounds of authority. And covert authority, if you will. And we have to make changes like that, within our system.

We started our country, with just three agencies. State Treasury and War.

Look what we have now. They have rule of law. They put out regulations.

We try to get laws to stop them.

It's completely backwards.

So Americans need to understand. To elect people that are willing to make that change, and get us back to the government, that you are Founders set up.

STU: Representative Brad Wenstrup. Thank you very much for what you're doing.

Please keep us informed, if there's any other news that starts to break here about the CIA apparently bribing members of the team.

The experts on COVID. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

WENSTRUP: Yeah. Thank you so much.

GLENN: You bet.

Did Soros 'Republicans' make it ILLEGAL for Texas AG Ken Paxton to prosecute voter fraud?!

Did Soros 'Republicans' make it ILLEGAL for Texas AG Ken Paxton to prosecute voter fraud?!

In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton mentioned how the Texas Court of Appeals (which is 100% "Republican") recently made it illegal for him to prosecute voter fraud. Paxton joins Glenn to elaborate on this ridiculous ruling and why he believes it's (of course) all tied to George Soros. Plus, Paxton pushes back against the Wall Street Journal's take on why he was acquitted in his impeachment trial and reveals whether Texas will finally start acting like Texas again after the Biden administration cut razor wire at the southern border, allowing thousands of illegal immigrants could cross over.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, the fed -- because the federal government decided, they were just going to cut the razor wire at the border, on Texas.

At Eagle Pass. Just came in. Cut it. Cameras were rolling. There were, hmm, about four how thousand Venezuelans waiting on the other side. And 14,000 announced a state of emergency in Eagle Pass.

When is Texas going to actually become Texas?

My first or actually my second question to Ken Paxton, and we begin right now.

Ken, welcome to the program. I'm glad that this is all behind you.

It seemed to me, to be an absolute witch hunt. But I -- I wanted to ask you, one question, on this. Because I know you covered a lot of this with Tucker Carlson yesterday. But let me -- let me go into the Wall Street Journal.

Why Ken Paxton was acquitted.

It's by the entire editorial board. It's just ridiculous.

Listen to this. Mr. Paxton's defenders are spinning that he was saved by a populist national conservative groundswell to put an end to the bush era in Texas. What a joke. There is no longer a Bush era in Texas or anywhere else.

George P. Bush. Jeb Bush's son lost to Mr. Paxton. Yeah. Well, yes.

So how is that the end of Bush? What really happened on Saturday, is that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick chose to rescue in a reboot of his rival, House Speaker Dade Phelan. The acquittal is perhaps a satisfying victory for Mr. Patrick over his House rival.

But it may not play out so well for Texas Republicans in the longer run.

A federal investigation into Mr. Paxton is continuing amid reports that a grand jury has been impaneled.

What do you know about that, Ken?

KEN: Well, first of all, I have seen people of Texas. I am here.

Because by the grace of God, and the -- those people that I just mentioned, the Biden administration, I have seen it 48 times. The Biden administration, 27 times.

This was organized by the Biden administration. And I thought, well, how could that be? It happened because in Texas, the Speaker is elected by 65 Democrats. And ten Republicans. That's all it takes.

And what the Democrats do is they block votes, they figure out which Republicans will give them the most.

And they -- they agreed to this deal with the Biden administration. Went straight to the Texas Democrats. And they came after me. And shoot, I've been investigated ever since the day I walked into this office. And I have no doubt, the Biden administration would love to find some way. They've been working on it for years.

To get rid of me. And part of that process was the impeachment.

GLENN: So I have to tell you, I think Phelan should be impeached himself. This is such a sham of everything that was going on.

But let me talk about the border here. Because, Ken, while you've been away, Texas has been a wuss in many cases.

Yesterday, the razor wire at Eagle Pass was cut. We had this gigantic colony in Houston. Which is, you, you know, they're change girls up, and raping them. One escaped. Tried to.

And was killed. Both of them ended up dead. There's all kinds of cartel activity going on.

This is a colony in Houston. The size of Washington, DC. More people are on the way. When is Texas going to become Texas?

KEN: So I literally had my first briefing yesterday from my office. We spent probably four months, and I have people that have left. There's lots of stuff that I didn't know what was going on.

I didn't get information from my office. So yesterday, I spent more time talking about immigration. And what's going on in the border. What can we do.

We're in the process of looking into potential lawsuits.

I don't have an army to do anything about it. All I can do is what I can do, of course. So we already had a bunch of lawsuits, against the Biden administration. But we're definitely looking at more.

We're trying to figure out, how can we stop this travesty, with the Biden administration, is promoting. It's pretty clear to me.

They do not care about the American people. This is so horrible. And a consequence for people on the border.

That are US citizens. And for our sake. Are devastated. And those consequences with drugs, and crime. Will be sold in this country, for a long time to come.

GLENN: So did the governor reach out you to, yesterday, about the wire cutting?

VOICE: I did not hear from his office yesterday. My staff may have. But I didn't. I didn't know about it until you just said something.

GLENN: No one from the governor's office called you about the federal government cutting the razor wire and letting thousands of people in across our border at Eagle Pass? No one called you?

KEN: I heard about that story, on -- right before your show started as I listened to the news. That's when I heard about the wire cutting. I did not know.

GLENN: Okay. The -- you said to Tucker yesterday, in your interview with him. And this kind of -- just kind of went and he didn't follow up. And I found this quite important.

The Court of Appeals and the state of Texas, apparently now, you cannot prosecute voter fraud in Texas. Is that true?

KEN: Yes. That is correct. They struck down a law from 1951. And, by the way, I have four things that I'm supposed to do in the Constitution. And the final thing is, such things that are required by law. In 1951, the legislature, directed by the attorney general, the only thing that I have jurisdiction on, as early as criminal matters is voter fraud.

And a court of criminal appeals. All Republican, by the way.

And, by the way, no one knows who they are. This is why they've been put there. And I'm convinced they're not Republicans. Because they struck down this law. And they said, I don't have the authority to go to court. As an attorney general.

Because I'm in the executive branch. That was their rationale for striking down things. Unconstitutional for the attorney general to be in court. I'm like, is that the most insane thing ever?

But they did it. And now it's up to the local DAs to prosecute. The Dallas county. The Harris County. Houston.

They won't prosecute voter fraud. Guess what, they just talked about voter fraud. And the people of Texas, need to know that. And if there's three of the nine members, coming up in March, for a primary. We have to find people to run. And we have to beat those people. Or we will lose this state.

Because I tried to get this law passed again. So I always have -- I can start doing it again, and making them strike again. And guess who killed it?

Dade Phelan. I called him. He never returned my calls. I was told by his team they didn't have time to pass this law. Even though --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

KEN: That's where we are with Dade Phelan. That's where we are with the Texas House. And that's where we are with the Court of Criminal Appeals.

That's our highest court.

Like our Supreme Court. One of two states have this, for all criminal matters.

So I have no appeal. When they strike down and say this is unconstitutional, I can't prosecute criminal fraud, I have no way around it. I'm stuck. That's what I'm saying.

GLENN: Okay. So who needs to be called? The House?

KEN: The House needs to pass this. They lost two years. And in March, I think we're -- I just we're going to have three people running against the members of the Court of Appeals. We have to get those people elected, because we lost eight-one. And if we have three new members, we'll at least be 5-4. And we'll be sending a message, we cannot strike down --

GLENN: Okay. Who are the three members?

KEN: I do not have it on me. Yeah. Three members will be up this time. I think one of them is Michelle (inaudible). I think Barbara Kirby. And I'm trying to remember the third one. I think those are the three that are up.

GLENN: We'll find it.

KEN: Glenn, I don't think there's any more important issue than fixing this court.

GLENN: Why did this happen? How did this happen?

KEN: Okay. So I think George Soros, my opinion, he was trying to do three things.

One, get the DA -- he beat all these Democratic DAs that were prosecuting crimes. He did it in Travis County. The Democrat County there, was actually prosecuted.

He did the same thing in San Antonio.

So he got control of that, knowing full well that this would affect voting.

Second, he put -- he helped put nine members on the Supreme Court. Actually eight. Kevin is awesome.

The other -- eight.

No one knows who they are. And I think he -- because Republicans don't know who these people are. He was able to get the numbers to court. And strike down this law. And then the third strategy -- and then there's nowhere to go.

So that was the goal. They didn't hear it from me. So there's still hope. We have to get the criminal court of appeals. We have to get the House next time to pass this law.

GLENN: You know, Donald Trump said, yesterday, let me see if I can actually quote him on -- on something. He said yesterday, that we -- if there is a defeat in 2024, it will mean the end of the country. The 2024 presidential election will mean nothing less than the final battle for the US. I am beginning to think that's absolutely true. If we make it to 2024.

KEN: I told him, when he was running for reelection in May, that I was fighting a battle to stop massive bailout ballots. In all the biggest counties.

Travis County. Then Harris County, to Houston. We have 12 lawsuits. If I don't win every single one of those lawsuits, you'll lose Texas. He said, what? That's not possible. I said, it doesn't matter what your polling says. If they can cut out six or seven million ballots for just one count. Say Harris County sends $2.5 million out.

You won by 600,000 votes, you won't win votes. They will count votes.

Because we can't verify. If they mail them out to everyone. There's no signature verification. Which is still not even the best way to make sure people are voting right.

We have no way to verify. They will count as many ballots as they want. They will figure out how their numbers are. And guess what, we thought every one of those lawsuits, even though this is a terrible place. Terrible judges. I watched election night.

I said, this is exactly -- they will stop counting votes for a couple of days. So they can figure out, how many votes they needed to count with these mail-in ballots.

And that's exactly what happened in these other states.

Whenever I bring it up, they say I'm crazy. That's exactly what they did.

GLENN: You know, one thing I really worry about is the number of illegals, in you're country. The ones we don't even know about. We already, since Biden got into office. We have already passed the population of 15 different states. Combinations of three states. Would equal the amount that has come in.

It is -- it's -- you're seeing crime and everything else.

And we're only seeing the surface of this.

I -- I wonder if Texas can stand. How much is this changing?

If they can just register, or -- or get people to get in here to do voting. Which is their plan? Beyond that, the crime, the social services. The hospitals.

I -- I -- we're so close to the border. If we don't get this border sealed, we're done.

KEN: No, this is the plan.

People are like, why did Biden do this?

One, first, voting. Getting as many people, in the Republican states, that they can come.

Voters, whether it's legal or illegal. Right now, they can vote illegally.

No one is going to do anything about it. It won't matter.

Second, they wanted to get as many illegals into these Republican states.

Guess what, we're doing better than Democratic states.

We have low taxes, less regulation.

More opportunity.

Better governance.

And they want to bring in more problems.

They want to take us down, because the story is too good for Texas, Florida, and Tennessee, Utah. The Republican states were successful.

The Democrat states are losing people.

Because people are voting with their feet. The Biden administration said, okay. We'll make you pay for it. We'll make you pay for all the schooling, health care, law enforcement, crime.

Your kids are going to die. We will get you, and that's what the Biden administration is all about.

GLENN: Well, any good news to report?

KEN: Yeah. There's always help.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I have to tell you, it looked like they were going to be able to railroad you.

And, look, I know you're not a perfect person.

But, you know, I had a real problem, when they came to the impeachment hearings after promising, just like the Democrats. All kinds of evidence. All kinds of -- and then literally nothing.

KEN: Their lawyers, Glenn, said it will be ten times worse than the public.

Guess what, it's ten times less.

They tried to railroad me out. No testimony that's required by law.

No due process. No chance for me to refute any of this stuff.

All done secretly. No transparency done in three days. Some other things. Now, I have no resources.

I spent all my money on a campaign.

I have no -- I had no lawyers.

I had three months to figure out what they had.

And they kept hiding information, even though they were requiring the turnover. And then, of course, I had the gag orders. I couldn't defend myself. I couldn't go out and talk, couldn't call you.

On the other hand, they were able to leak information to the press. Every day, I've been impounded. All of that, was against me.

And yet, because of the people in Texas, because of my strong family support, because of my wife's support. And because of the grace of God. You know, I just decided, I'm going to fight this to the last second.

I will not resign. Because if they win this. Because they can just do this to anybody they want. I will not let the voters down.

GLENN: So who will pay for this?

Is any -- is any investigation -- I don't want revenge.

I want this to not be able to happen again.

KEN: No. So Dan Patrick, God bless him for this. He called for an audit. Which I think was fair. They were trying to figure out how much money they were spending. I think we will find out how much money they spent. Which is millions.

And look, it's totally unfair to push someone out of office, with no proof.

And I have to pay for it.

And I have to lose, just because they have all the money for the taxpayers. And I'm left with just nothing.

Most people would not have made it through that. With no resources.

And that is unfair to the House bill, is that suspended with no proof. And then take away one -- illegally cuts my salary off to punish me.

Even though he had no authority to do that.

And I'm supposed to survive this.they did everything they could to make it impossible for me to get the truth out, and to survive.

GLENN: This is so weird.

KEN: Again, against the will of the voters.

GLENN: We are becoming an old Soviet state. It's terrifying.

KEN: This is Texas, Glenn. Texas.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. Ken, thank you very much. I appreciate it. God bless. Thank you.

STOP thinking about the Roman Empire. Do THIS instead

STOP thinking about the Roman Empire. Do THIS instead

Apparently, men think about the Roman Empire a lot — often in a positive light. But that's NOT the solution, Glenn warns. We don't need a Caesar to fix our problems. We need to start standing for the Constitution again. Glenn reviews some of the insane news of the day, from Attorney General Merrick Garland's infuriating Congressional testimony to the Biden administration's decision to go after a German family who fled to America for religious freedom. "I'm not sure I know how to help anymore," Glenn says. "The hour is growing very, very late." But there is hope. Conservatives just need to get their act together.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Honest to God, America. What is wrong with you?

How is this not clearly a problem? Look at what is happening in our court system. Look at what Massey has to say yesterday to our attorney general.

You've seen this yet? Here's the first clip from Massey and our attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country. Listen to this.

VOICE: That was your answer to questions made two years ago. When I said, how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5th and January 6th, and agitating in the crowd, to go into the Capitol. And how many went into the Capitol? Can you answer that now?

VOICE: I don't know the answer to that question.

VOICE: Oh, last time, you didn't know how many there were, or there were none?

VOICE: I don't know any of those questions, if there were any. I don't know how many, or whether there are any.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

VOICE: I think you may have just purged yourself, that you don't know that there were any. You don't know that there were any?

VOICE: I have no personal knowledge on this matter.

VOICE: You've had two years to find out.

And the day -- by the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps.

And yesterday, you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor?

Meanwhile, you're sending grandmas to prison. You're putting people away for 20 years, who weren't really filming.

Some people weren't even there. Yet, you got the guy on video. Saying, he's going into the Capitol.

Directing people into the Capitol, before the speech ends. He's at the site of the first breach. You have all the goods on him. Ten videos, and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor?

The American public isn't buying it.

GLENN: Okay. Listen, this is what he said about that question in 2021, listen.

VOICE: I was hoping today to give an opportunity to put to rest the concerns that people have, that there were federal agents, or assets of the federal government, present on January 5th, and January 6th.

You can tell us, without talking about particular incidents. Or particular videos. How many agents or assets of the federal government were present on January 6th.

Whether they agitated to go into the Capitol. And if any of them did.

VOICE: So I will not violate this norm of the rule of law.

I won't comment on an investigation that is ongoing.


How do you -- how do you investigate January 6th, and you don't -- you haven't even asked, if we had any agents on the ground?

How is that even possible!

How is that possible? Is anyone else, beside people who voted differently than Joe Biden. Is anyone else saying, wait a minute.

Ray Epps, he was on the FBI's most wanted list. Then they removed his picture after a few days.

Then when people said, wait a minute. Who is this guy? Others identified him as Ray Epps.

He then becomes no big deal.

The New York Times does this love letter to Ray Epps.

He's on videotape. Saying, we have to go in there. We have to go in, tomorrow.

We go in. We have videotape of him actually looking at one guy, who is standing at the gate, who is not trying to open it up.

And he leans in, and whispers in his ear. And pretty soon, not long after the whisper in the ear, within seconds, that guy starts shoving the gate open. And letting everybody in.

And Ray Epps actually said in testimony, I was just telling him, is this isn't you. The cops are our friends. Don't do this.


Because he was peaceful before.

And this guy is now getting a misdemeanor.

He's everything. The Biden administration says, is a problem.

He's everything. All of the people, that were there, around him, when he was giving the speech, the night before. Everybody around him. Trump supporters. Real Trump supporters, were shouting, fed, fed. Fed.

Because they sensed that this was a setup.

Does anybody have a problem with that?

Does anybody have a problem with what Garland is doing, slow walking every investigation, in Washington. And then putting grandmas in jail.

Look, we don't usually prosecute people, who lie on their form.

You know, for their gun. Excuse me, what?

This administration? This one, isn't looking for every opportunity to put somebody in jail.

A white guy?

Huh. I -- I -- I'm not sure I know how to help anymore. I really don't.

I'm having a very difficult time, because the hour is growing very, very late.

And I don't see the movements. You know what, here's what I see. Here's what I see. I see people if we go to very frustrated, and they're going, you know what, get them.

I see that. I see guys apparently talking about the Roman empire all the time. I don't even know what that is.

Stu, how many times do you think of the Roman empire a day?

STU: I mean, zero. But I have read two Marcus Aurelias in the past year. So that is a -- I would like style zero. That was my initial response. But actually more than that.

GLENN: My answer is never. But I spell never N-E-5-E-R. I mean, this is ridiculous. And we need a new Caesar Day. No, we don't. No, we don't. Where are the people that are learning the Constitution? Where are the people that are standing for the Constitution?

You have brave whistle-blowers now. But nobody seems to care about what the whistle-blowers are saying. And these whistle-blowers are credible.

You know their names.

They're taking the heat.

It's not, like, when you hear what this whistle-blower. We won't tell you who it is. Even though, everybody knows who it is already. And that makes it suspect.

We're not going to tell you, that that's him. Because he has stuff, that you won't believe.

And then where is the stuff?

Just exactly what happened to Ken Paxton.

Do you know that the governor yesterday.

Well, let me just tell you this one. Let me just tell you this one. This one shows me how deep the problems are.

Do you remember talking about a couple from Germany, who had seven kids?

The Romakey family.

And they came over here. This was like 2013. And they came over here, because the state said they had to teach their kids.

I don't remember what it was. And they were like, no. That violates our religious point of view.

No. We can't do that. And so they were going to take the kids away. And so they decided to come over here.

And after a battle with the Obama administration, they were allowed to stay here in Virginia. Do you know what the Biden administration just did. After leaving these people alone, for ten years, give theming hope, that America was a place that they could actually have freedom of religion without any notice or anything.

They just called them up. And said, by the way, you have to return to Germany, or you're out.

We have two and a half to 3 million people in the last two years. Coming across our border. And yet, you have this family, in Virginia. That is peaceful, kind, productive.

All they want, is to teach their kids about God.

And our government -- this shows you, how much money and how deep this goes.

When you have time, in these days to go,, oh, you remember that family? Get them.

The governor in Pennsylvania yesterday, just signed a new order, where now you can be registered to vote with your driver's license. Okay. Except, that's not what the law says.

The governor cannot do that. The legislature has to.

And they currently have a system, where you go to get your driver's license. And you have to check a box. I want to register my vote now, or not.

All you have to do is check a box!

That's too much work. They took the box off. The government did, by himself.

Disregarding the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Don't worry. They can do it.

I -- I have got something prepared for next hour. That is the answer. But I don't -- I don't think. I'm not sure if people want the answer.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure.Ing I think so many people have buried their heads. And the people who are actually aware of it are like, what are we going to do? What are we going to do?

I'm so close to just saying, get to the mountains, gang. Get to the mountains.

Let God sort all this stuff out. It will be ugly. It will be ugly. Because we refuse to turn back to him. After September 11th, well, we learned our lesson. Oh, God, help us. Oh, God help us. And we actually meant, oh, God, help us.

Eh. We went our own way. And now look at where we are.

I pray for you every day. I ask that you would pray for me. And my staff. And for guidance. I don't even -- I'm getting to the point where, I don't know what is true anymore.

I don't know what is true. I mean, I've been duped and fooled so many times, in so many ways. That I'm like, and, you know, I believe in the best in people.

I believe in the people of America. I believe in you.

And I know we can turn this around. I mean, wonder, where the hell are our armies are?

And I mean armies of even bureaucrats.

Of think tank people. Who are actually doing something.

These people have thought this through for years.

This is not happening through happenstance. It's not because Biden sucks.

This is a plan!

Where is ours?

Where is our -- where is the group that is -- we can coalesce around?