GLENNMarch 13, 2017

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about why the GOP won't resurrect the Obamacare repeal bill passed in 2015, his wild curiosity about evidence the administration might have about wiretapping, and why Republicans are suddenly in love with infrastructure spending.

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

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee who is at an airport getting ready to board a plane. We're glad you would take the time to hop on the phone with us. How are you, sir?

MIKE: Doing great. Thanks so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Good. Let's get to Obamacare repeal and replace. This thing is nothing like what the Republicans were promising us they would do. Nowhere even close.

Do we have a chance of getting something good out of this?

MIKE: Sure. Something good can come out of it. What happens, whether something good comes out of it, the extent to which it might be good depends entirely on how members of Congress handle this in the next few days, on how they choose to cast their votes.

Now, look, you're right. What we promised was to repeal Obamacare, as much of Obamacare as we possibly could, and then to start trying to find new ways to put the American people back in charge of their own health care.

Well, what this bill does is it doesn't repeal nearly as much of Obamacare as we could. It leaves all kinds of things intact. It leaves most of the Obamacare regulations in place. Most of -- many of the Obamacare taxes remain in place, at least for a time. It leaves expanded Medicaid intact for a period of time. And then doesn't make as many adjustments to it long-term.

Meanwhile, it comes up with a new refundable tax credit, which we don't know the cost of yet. We don't know how many people are going to take it.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, which begs the question: Why are we not just repealing? Why are we not just passing the same repeal bill that Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for in December of 2015? That's what I'd like to see.

STU: Mike, is it true that you can't just repeal it unless you have 60 votes? You can't do it through reconciliation with just a full repeal?

MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation. So there's an open question on that. But we do that know we could repeal all the taxes and all of the subsidies and possibly some of the regs through reconciliation. We know that because the reconciliation bill we passed in 2015 repealed all of the taxes and all the subsidies.

GLENN: So why aren't we doing it?

MIKE: That's a very good question. That's what I believed we were going to do. That's what many of us were told -- otherwise led to believe.

GLENN: Why aren't we doing it?

STU: He said it was a good question.

MIKE: There are those in Congress who chose to take a different path. Now, I can't speak for them. I can't speak to what their intentions are. I think the easiest, simplest way of explaining it is, they had other priorities that they wanted to attach to this. Priorities that were perhaps higher than simply achieving repeal, at least to the degree that --

GLENN: Can you give me an example of what might be more important than what you promised the American people?

MIKE: Okay. So here's how I think they would explain it, and I want to be clear, I'm always careful not to try to speak for somebody else. But I think if they were here with us, they would probably say, look, we don't want people to be in a state of too much uncertainty and doubt. We don't want them to be afraid. We want them to have a degree of confidence about what comes next after Obamacare repeal. And so we want to provide a soft landing spot for them. And that is so important. It's important enough to them, apparently, that they're willing to go a little softer on some of the repeal and provide more programs through this bill right now.

The problem with that is, it's -- it's not going to pass. And it probably shouldn't pass until they can answer more of these questions, more of these questions about why we can't repeal more of Obamacare than this bill does.

PAT: And the other problem with that, Mike, is that that's not what they promised us. That's not what they said they were going to do. They didn't say, well, we're going to think about this and provide a safe landing spot for people. It's going to take a really long time. We're going to not repeal -- it was repeal and replace. That's what they ran on. That's what they were elected to do. And now, again, as so often happens with the Republican Party, they're not doing it. Frustrating.

MIKE: Yeah, that's right. By the way, I love the Kermit the Frog imitation that both you and Glenn do.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Thank you. That's what happens when your best friend since 1980 --

PAT: Yeah.

MIKE: Well, he has, in fact, been the spokesman for the AHCA, so it's appropriate that we use his voice when doing this. But, no, you're exactly right, this is what we ran on, this is what we promised. Now, to my great dismay, to my great surprise, on many instances over the last week or so, we've had legislators from the House and the Senate somehow saying that this bill, the AHCA is somehow what we campaigned on, what we ran on. Well, that's news to me. That's news to me because we've had this bill for only a few days.

PAT: Me too.

MIKE: That's news to me if we somehow ran on this specific bill, a bill the score of which we still don't know. We still don't know how much this thing is going to cost. We still don't have any idea how many people will take this refundable tax credit. And, therefore, how much it's going to cost. So that's news to me, that that's somehow what we ran on.

What I remember that we ran on was that we would repeal every scrap of Obamacare that we possibly could, the whole thing, if we could get away with it under our procedural rules in the Senate. And that's what we should be doing.

STU: We're talking to Senator Mike Lee. And every time you're on, Mike, I like to ask you the nerdiest, most boring, uninteresting question to see --

GLENN: So please keep this answer short. Please, for the love of Pete.

STU: So I apologize in advance for this.

But when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed under reconciliation. And because of that, they expired after ten years. Would the same thing happen here? If we repeal all these Obamacare taxes, in ten years, are we going to be talking about the expiration of the Obamacare repeal, and then it's going to be back into effect again?

MIKE: No, not necessarily. In fact, almost certainly not.

GLENN: Good end to that.

MIKE: Because of the fact that we were dealing with taxes in that circumstance, rather than something else. So that wouldn't be it.

STU: I thought it was a tax, which is the only reason it was constitutional. Wasn't that -- tax versus fee. Wasn't that a big conversation with Roberts?

MIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question. Can you say that again?

GLENN: Good. No, no, let's move on.

STU: Let's move on.

GLENN: So, Senator, let me ask you about the intelligence committee has given the president until this afternoon, they say they can't find any evidence that Barack Obama was spying on Donald Trump. And to present some evidence -- and we'll go pursue that. Any indication that he's going to present that evidence? And is there any reason to believe that he couldn't present the evidence if he had it?

MIKE: Okay. That's a good question. I'll answer the first question, I have no idea. I would love to see what the evidence is. I'm wildly curious about it. As to whether he could present it, that depends on what the "it" is.

I will tell you, my first reaction to this, when I very first learned about the tweet, my first reaction was, he's probably not talking about a traditional wiretap, where somebody actually goes to a judge and the judge orders a phone line to be tapped. Perhaps he's talking about a foreign intelligence surveillance court order issued pursuant to Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which would say, you know, here is an identified agent of a foreign government. Let's monitor this person's communications. And that there might have been some incidental communications with some US citizens, perhaps including people who were involved in one way or another with the campaign. That incidentally got pulled into that. That was my first reaction is that seemed the most plausible possibility. If, in fact, it's that, there might be some reasons why we might be reluctant to share that. Or --

GLENN: No, but he could share it with the intelligence committee, could he not -- or committee?

MIKE: Yes, yes, they've got the clearance to do that. So there's no reason why he couldn't share something like that with them. They've got clearance to see pretty much all of that. But as far as his ability to share that publicly, that would seem less likely if my theory is correct.

GLENN: And there's nothing that the president can't get, right? If he said, I want to show it, but, you know, this agency won't let me, you know, have access to this. There's -- everybody in in the Senate, would be like, okay. We need to see this. Behind closed doors. But you will open these books or whatever it is that he's saying the evidence is -- there's nothing the president couldn't get to, is there?

MIKE: I assume so. Because -- and, look, he's the commander-in-chief. There's nothing that he doesn't have access to. And so if he can -- if he can back this up, if he knows what it is that he's referring to, there's no reason that I'm aware of why he couldn't come up with something that he could produce to these Intel Committees. Now, whether he will choose to do so or not is a different question. Perhaps there are those close to him advising him, hey, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. But that --

GLENN: Why wouldn't you?

MIKE: -- that requires rank speculation.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you?

MIKE: I don't know. If perhaps he didn't want to set a precedent that he could just be required to answer questions every time the Intel Committee wanted to hear something. But I would think in this instance, he would want to, particularly because these questions are going to be raised from time to time.

GLENN: Right. And we're talking about national security. I mean, we're talking about something that he's accused another president of doing. And if that president was doing that, that needs to be stopped.

MIKE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's -- that's -- all the more reason why I suspect he'll provide them with what they want to know because you're right. Look, this is one of the things I've been worried about for years. And I've expressed this concern on your show previously. But if you remember the Church Committee, the Frank Church Committee back in the '70s --

GLENN: Yep.

MIKE: -- conducted a series of hearings to look into abuses by our intelligence-gathering agencies, and what they concluded was startling, which was that in every administration from Ford -- from FDR through Ford and Nixon, who was in power at about the time they concluded their research, that the US government's intelligence gathering apparatus had been used to engage in political espionage. Now, look at what's happened since then. Our technology has improved dramatically. Our technological means of gathering intelligence have grown by leaps and bounds. And our laws haven't always kept up with that.

And so to me, it would be almost surprising if some of this were not occurring. That's why we need to be watchful of this. That's why I was concerned, immediately, when I saw the president's tweet was because I considered it plausible, if not likely that this kind of thing would be going on.

GLENN: One last question, let's go to infrastructure. The G.O.P. went out of their gourd -- and I believe rightly so -- for a stimulus package for roads and bridges and tunnels and everything else for $787 billion. I remember that number. It's burned -- seared into my memory of $787 billion. Now the president is proposing a trillion dollar stimulus package, and the Republicans are very excited about it. Can you tell me what made the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package an affront on the Constitution and this one a dream come true?

MIKE: Well, I can't point to any distinguishing characteristic between the two, as to why this one would be good and that one bad.

In fact, look, when I look at the Constitution, I see the powers of Congress being limited. They're enumerated powers, most of them in Article I, Section 8. And they talk about things like the power to provide for our national defense, to declare war, to regulate trade between the states with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. I don't see anything in there that says that it's the prerogative of Congress to create all infrastructure.

Now, look, it's one thing if we're talking about an interstate corridor here or there. But it's another thing entirely if we're talking about wholesale, top to bottom, soup to nuts transportation infrastructure, even intrastate projects.

I think whether we're talking about under the Obama administration or any subsequent administration, headed by a Republican or a Democrat, I think we've got to look carefully at what we're doing there. Not every transportation infrastructure is necessarily outside of Congress' authority. Because some of them do involve a distinctly interstate function. But where they don't, we have constitutional problems.

GLENN: Mike Lee, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.

MIKE: Thank you very much, sir. It's good to be with you.

STU: So positive.

GLENN: Yeah. He is. Boring as snot.

STU: Thank you very much.

Oh, I love him. He is saving my hope in the entire country right about now.

GLENN: He is so good and so smart. And, you know, he's just tickled pink by, you know -- I love -- I love because you know he's accurate. But when you're talking to him -- because he's like this all the time, well, I mean, in section 508, subsection B, paragraph four --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- you'll see -- and he did that like four times during this. You just have to get used to, that's the way he is.

STU: He's that guy.

GLENN: And that's why he is so good and so needed in the Senate. Want to give you this from the New York Post today. Bank fees rise to an all-time high. The average customer now pays $666 a year in banking fees.

STU: Satan.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This is how it happens.

GLENN: The overdraft revenue from the top three banks has surged from 5.1 billion to $5.4 billion. That's what they make if you overdraft.

$5.4 billion. Does anybody remember that we're providing them? It's a service that we're providing them as well. We're giving them our money.

JEFFY: No. No.

GLENN: So they can loan it out to other people. No, they don't care anymore.

JEFFY: No, they do not.

RADIO

The surprising link between Hamas, the Palestinian flag, and Biblical prophecy

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...

RADIO

Teen athlete REFUSES to compete against adult male player

Frances Staudt is a high school athlete in Washington state who refused to play against a team with a trans player – clearly an adult man. She joins Glenn Beck to speak out: “In NO WAY am I feeling like I’m…‘safe and supported.’” She also joins to discuss the civil rights complaint filed on her behalf to the Department of Education.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to read something from Francis Stout. She posted -- she's 16 years old. She lives in Washington State. This evening, as a young female athlete in the United States of America. I was actively silenced for standing up for my own safety and belief.

During the Tumwater High School girl's basketball game on February 6, 2025, a biological male from Shelton High School, opposing team was brutalizing my teammates, using his biological -- his biological advantage, clearly and intentionally overpowering his competition.

I made the decision to sit out one of my very last basketball games of the season because I refuse now and forever to compete against any biological sport that I play.

I was incredibly distraught at the fact that nobody would step in on our behalf, including the staff, coaches, referees, and parents from both sides.

This is due to the sheer fact that in our society, we have been pushed to be silent. And bow down to the demands to accept what we know to be untrue.

When I became visibly upset and angry.

I was met with allegations of discrimination, as well as threats made by other players, and a grown man who was tasked with serving my school district.

The principal and athletic director who stood in front of parents, and the students claiming to care about our students' bodies, their beliefs, and feelings, but they certainly did not care about mine tonight. This is far from over.

It has a fueled a passion in me, to speak out and go against the wrongdoing that is still happening to female athletes in this great country.

Isn't it ironic that just yesterday, national girls in Women's Sports Day was the day that President Trump signed the no men in women's sports executive order. And here I am, the very next day, having to deal with such an injustice.

That has caused so much emotional distress in my life. I will never not stand up for myself, or my ability to speak out and protect my safety, as a female athlete. Sixteen years old from Tumwater, Washington. It's Francis Stout.

Hello, Francis.

FRANCIS: Hello. Thank you so much for having me on the show. It's not lost on me, the significance of speaking with you today.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, thank you. So, Francis, you were -- you were not notified. Nobody was notified. You just go to this game. And you see somebody who you describe as obviously a male.

FRANCIS: Yes.

GLENN: Why do you say that? And tell me the intimidation tactics, or the brutalization tactics, if you will, that you felt he was doing.

FRANCIS: Well, I feel it is obvious from any stand, where he would have stood out on the court. He was warming up and stretching, looking around, dancing with the girls on his team.

It is obvious there's clear biological differences between girls and boys.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah.

FRANCIS: And you could see just by everything. And lots of -- there's a lot of just roughness on the court. And pushing girls down.

And nothing that a normal girl on my team or the other team, would have really been able to do.

Very harsh and just, it was a very clear difference.

GLENN: So you go and say, I will sit this game out. Or I can't play. Because I don't feel safe on the court. Is that correct?

FRANCIS: Yes, that's correct.

GLENN: What was the response at the time?

FRANCIS: At the time, people looked and, "oh, whatever." Just asked me, "Oh, are you sure you don't want to play? It's not that big of a deal." I got told by a lot of people, "It isn't that big of a deal, it doesn't matter. Nothing is going to happen, and you're just looking for attention."

GLENN: Jeez.

FRANCIS: Every sort of thing you could hear from people.

GLENN: Right.

FRANCIS: But it was only after I got upset after seeing him hurt girls on my team, and also take away from my ability to play because I feared for my own safety, that people really started having issues.

GLENN: Yeah. And what -- when you got upset, what happened?

FRANCIS: So I went and tried to talk to the principal of Tumwater, Zach Shuderman (phonetic), and I told him, "This is wrong. Why are you not protecting me and my rights to play, and my own sport? And why are you not putting a stop to this? It's clearly wrong. It is a violation of my own privacy and safety, that you have told every single person at that school, that you care about."

But you -- he did absolutely nothing to help me. He told me, "That it was discrimination against the boy -- and the man, actually, eighteen years old."

GLENN: That's what he said?

He said, "The man?"

FRANCIS: Yes. He said -- he said, "I'm not going to misgender, quote, unquote, this individual."

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

He's also said, and maybe it's not the principal, maybe it's the superintendent, "As a district, we remain committed to fostering an inclusive environment where all students feel safe, supported, and valued."

Do you feel safe, supported, or valued?

FRANCIS: That is a very easy answer: Absolutely not.

There is -- in no way, am I feeling like I'm supported. I have had -- when I was 15 years old, the 18-year-old man was in my own locker room.

That is quite the opposite of safe and supported, that I should be able to feel.

There's a man -- or, boy in the girl's locker room right now at Tumwater High School that they're still doing nothing about, telling girls that they can go somewhere else to change, if they feel uncomfortable. They only care about a certain protected class, and it clearly is not the girls who just want their own privacy and safety.

GLENN: So now, a lawsuit has been lodged against you. The Foundation against Intolerance and Racism filed a civil rights complaint, to the Department of Education.

FRANCIS: Yes, on our behalf.

GLENN: On your behalf.

FRANCIS: It was filed.

GLENN: Thank God. I read that. How is that possible? On your behalf.

FRANCIS: However -- yeah, I was investigated, however, by the WIAA in the Tumwater School District for harassment and bullying for, quote, unquote, misgendering the man, saying that he was a man, who was apparently bullying and harassment. And that is what happened.

I -- but myself and my family was the one who filed the complaint.

GLENN: Well, I'm -- I'm glad. Because I was having a hard time understanding how our DOJ was -- was not standing up for your civil rights on this, especially since the president has made it very clear.

FRANCIS: Yes.

GLENN: Can you give me any update on where this stands, and where this is headed?

FRANCIS: So we're still waiting to hear back. We filed it a little bit ago. And still waiting for news. We have hope, that it will be in our favor. And I am very much looking to seeing where it can take us. And, yeah, I am hoping that it will be all good.

GLENN: Francis, I have to tell you, you give me an awful lot of hope.

FRANCIS: Thank you.

GLENN: I think we treat our children as little kids. You know, you hit 16 years old, back in the old days, back in the old days, I mean, older than me -- you know, our Founders were in their 20s and 30s, you know. Thomas Jefferson I think was 30.

They were expected to do more. And we just say, "Oh, your childhood. Your childhood?

Yeah, there is something about keeping childhood sacred, and keeping childhood as safe as possible. But you are a great example of what 16-year-olds should be like. You should know what your rights are, what your responsibilities are. Why you believe certain things that you do, if you're passionate about them. Obviously, you're passionate about this.

And make the case. You give me an awful lot of hope, Francis.

FRANCIS: I very much appreciate that. While I can not tell you how much I -- as I mentioned in my speech last Saturday, this is the Turning Point of America, and I was an incredible fan of Charlie Kirk. I think he was an amazing man, and I think he's given me a voice to speak out.

And given me courage. And I think that it's important, although we're young, to speak up for what we believe in.

It's important I have those values. And still by my family as well. And my parents.

And I think it's very important, he did not die in vain. I think that we need to make our country proud, and we are going to be the future of America. And we need to start acting like that. And we need to speak up for what we believe in, and what is right. And know good and evil.

GLENN: Do you have any friends in Washington state. Because I grew up in Washington State.

I know what it's like. Your family. Is it just you guys? Are you just alone in Washington State?

Because you're amazing. But it --

FRANCIS: Thank you.

GLENN: But it must not be very popular to be you and your family in Washington State.

FRANCIS: Well, no. You see all around, there's people who disagree.

But we have a close group. It really shows you, who your close friends are. And who is there for you.

But it is definitely not the majority in Washington State, of what me and my family believe in.

But this isn't over. And I think that we can make a change. And I think people need to have their eyes opened. And realize, that there's clearly something wrong. And I think people can be very oblivious to the fact of that.

But there's -- it is a pretty small majority, especially in Washington State, as you can probably --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know it quite well.

The -- do you have any friends that disagree with you, that are still standing with you as a friend?

FRANCIS: I don't really have many friends who have told me, they disagree. I've been called a lot of names. I've lost a lot of friends over it.

But I don't have many friends who disagree with.

I think it's really sad, because they've been told by so many people, that they are right. And people who disagree with them, are automatically horrible people.

And especially telling people that, oh, this isn't happening. Kids are believing him, and parents are believing him.

And so they think that I'm just wrong and looking for attention. And I've been called for -- just the other day. I got called a transphobe in the hallway by this kid that I used to be friends with. And said hi to every day.

And I walked by. And got yelled at. And it's sad. It really is.

GLENN: Yeah. You sound smart enough to know, there are easier ways to get attention.

Right?

FRANCIS: Exactly. Yes.

GLENN: Thank you so much for everything you're doing.

Please keep me informed.

Keep us up-to-date. We want to follow the story.

If there's anywhere we can help. Just know you're not alone. And it will be people like you, that will be remembered some day.

It's the people who did the things they didn't necessarily want to do, that didn't make them possible. In fact, made them a target. You, but they had -- they had the faith in go bigger than themselves, they knew they had a responsibility. And they stood.

Those are the kinds of people that actually make it into the history books. Not the one that walked through the crowd, as you were walking the lie, who said, you're a transphobe.

That person is never going to be remembered in history. You will be. So thank you. Keep it up.

FRANCIS: We truly appreciate that. And it means more than you know. From the bottom of our heart. I appreciate this opportunity, in speaking to you. And I will not forget what you said. That means a lot.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Francis. God bless you.

RADIO

The enemy Israel faces today threatens US tomorrow

There is a grave danger brewing in America, Glenn Beck warns, and it revolves around the Israel/Hamas debate. So, he sets the record straight on where he stands and why he believes the survival of Western civilization is on the line: "The enemy that Israel is currently facing today will be the enemy that the free world will face tomorrow."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want you to really hear me carefully.

There is a grave, the brave danger that is building.

And I want to talk toy about it. I saw it last night, with my own eyes. In a very small number.

I want to make this really clear. Very small number of students. I saw it last night. And I want to talk to you about it. But, first, let me set it up with this. So Christopher Rufo wrote: On the right, many supporters of Israel -- I think that would be you and me. Many supporters of Israel -- because I'm a supporter -- including prominent Republican politicians argue that America has a theological duty to support the Jewish state. Now, I think personally for me, I feel that's true. But what does that mean, exactly? I'll get into it, in a minute. Their view is based on a complex interpretation of Bible prophecy. As a Catholic, I find it mystifying. As a political analyst, I find it unconvincing. Analyst, sorry.

The other supporters would like to shut down critical analysis of the war altogether. Equating criticism of Israel, with anti-Semitism and suggesting those who question the wisdom of America's support should be welcome in polite society. I want you to know, at the outset, absolutely wrong.

Because you disagree with Israel, does not make you an anti-Semite. It doesn't. It doesn't.

It makes you a thinking human being, honestly. These moves might have been effective in the past, but not so much anymore.

Instead of theological or shame-based approaches, friends of Israel must frame their arguments in terms of national interest.

One hundred percent right! One hundred percent right!

We need to understand our national interests. So hear me out on this: So you know, I have received the defender of Israel award from Benjamin Netanyahu years ago. I was just named by the Jerusalem post as the number one Christian supporter of Israel in America.

So I'm kind of known as -- I guess as a Zionist. Okay?

I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and the Jewish people have a right to live. Somehow or another, you get awards for saying that.

But I want you to understand something. My support is not blind loyalty, nor is it anything that is -- makes me Israel first.

It doesn't. God first, America second. Israel is in the pile of everything else. Okay?

My first citizenship, is to the kingdom of Christ. My second citizenship, is to America. I will do nothing that will violate my citizenship, my passport to the kingdom of God.

And I certainly won't violate things for my first citizenship, to save my second citizenship. But that's the rank of my citizenship. God first, America, right behind it. And the earthly sense, America first, okay?

No loyalty to the government of Israel. In fact, there's many things I don't like about the government of Israel. But you know what, I'm not a citizen. I don't vote. And I don't have to worry about their laws.

When it comes to war, I want nothing to do with that foreign war. Or, quite honestly, almost any foreign war. Pragmatism I'm tired of paying for it. I'm tired of our blood being shed. I want nothing to do. That's not my support of Israel or the Jewish people. It -- what is required when we talk about these things, is Israel's -- Israel's existence is not just about their national survival. It is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is the only -- lone beacon in the Middle East, that is standing against radical Islam. They're the only ones. They're the number one target of radical Islam.

Now, look at what's happening in the Middle East right now. Those countries that we used to think of as having real radical ties, now Saudi Arabia, they're actually saying, you know what, we can actually co-exist.

That's what's necessary. Coexistence in the Middle East. As long as we have a reason -- as long as we believe we each have a reason to live, and we have a right to live, we can solve any problem. We can solve any problem.

They are facing Islamist evil. And that evil is the same evil that wishes to dismantle our civilization and our country! And it's happening in our own country. My support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics. A people's moral and historic right to their homeland and to their right to live in peace. That's it. And I would say that to anybody. If the Gazans wanted their own land and say, because this is a two-state solution. That's been offered to them, over and over and over again.

But it wasn't river to the sea. Which is the definition of wipeout all of the Jews. No Jews in this land. Okay?

You want to share? I'm totally fine with that. But I can't -- I couldn't. We wouldn't put up with a neighbor who is constantly saying and trying to kill you.

So when it comes to politics. I believe Israel has a right to defense herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction. But I'm not going to fight that.

I don't agree with everything that Israel has done. But what difference does that make? Because I'm not making for our dollars or our blood to be spent. I just say, "Everybody has a right to live."

But let me make it personal, if -- if somebody told me, over and over and over and over again, that they wanted to kill me and my entire family, that I didn't have a right to exist. That I was the source of all evil in the world, and then acted on that threat, over and over again. Do you believe that I would have a right to defend myself? If I couldn't get anybody in the world to listen and stand with me, and I had to do it all myself, would I have a right to -- to take action in response to them?

Remember, I believe nature's law gives us a lot of stuff.

If I walk into a bear cave and mama and the cubs are in there, I think the bear has a right to maul me to death. Because it senses trouble. Now, that's an animal, but if I go in and I'm hunting those cubs, Mom does have a right to kill me.

But that would assume that she had any kind of intellect. Humans have intellect.

If Hamas were Canada and we were Israel.

And Hamas, Canada, did to us, what we did to Israel, answer this question honestly: Would there be a single building left standing north of our border today?

If they came and raped the same percentage. Killed, slaughtered. Set our babies on fire, do you think that we wouldn't have crippled Canada right now?

And no matter what anybody said, you think we would stop until that threat stopped!

That's not a question of morality. That's just the truth. All people, everybody has a God-given right to protect themselves, period. And Israel is doing that, in the way they feel is right. You can argue with that. And you can disagree vehemently with the way they're fighting the war. My support for Israel's right to finish the fight against Hamas, comes after 80 years of rejected peace offerings.

Two failed state solutions.

Hamas has not hidden its mission. Hamas says, it's the eradication of Israel.

That's not a political agreement. That's not a reasonable disagreement. In my book, it's not a land dispute.

That's -- that's a nihilist.

That's people who -- who -- who are actually calling for genocide, and proudly calling for wiping out of all the Jews.

Okay. Do I believe that America should be in that fight? No. Do believe that that should be in our national interest? Yes.

To support the people who are standing up against what will be our, possibly, last foreign war, as Jefferson said. Islamists believe, if you listen to what is being said in Dearborn, they are planning on Sharia law here in America.

That is -- that will wipe everything of the West out, and they are moving in to our countries.

I have no problem with Muslims. I have a big problem with Islamists, and there's a huge difference. What we saw on October 7th was the face of evil. Women and children slaughtered. And beyond that, even the Nazis tried to hide it. Okay? The Nazis, they knew the rest of the world would not approve. These people were proud of it. We've played the tapes for you. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped. Dragged through the streets.

And now, we see people defending that evil, in our own country!

That is nothing short of a moral collapse! That is probably the greatest danger that we have, is this -- is this ideology that says, "If I disagree with you, I can kill you."

The -- the confusion of, I disagree with Israel the way they're fighting a war, and so I'm going to say, "I support Hamas, because the Jews are always wrong. The Jews are lying. And I don't believe any of those videotapes because it was probably Jewish propaganda." That's moral collapse. If the chants in the street were Hamas, give up the hostages, don't ever do anything for that again. And Israel, for the love of Pete, stop the bombing, I would be totally cool. Totally cool.

Because that's reasonable. But that's not what we hear. We hear open sympathy for genocidal hatred. That is a chasm that has opened up in our society, and it's not just a chasm opening up, you know, from decency, but from humanity itself. And that's where the danger lies. The same hatred that we saw in the 1930s, that I predicted would happen again in about 2008, that we would see it in our vetoes. That hatred is taking root here, in Dearborn, in Minnesota, in London, in Paris.

And not as horror, but heroism. And if we're not vigilant, the enemy that Israel is currently facing today, will be the enemy that the free world will face tomorrow.

That's not about politics. That is truth. It's not -- it's -- it's about having the courage to call evil by its name. And say, that doesn't happen. Never again, not in the future. That doesn't happen.

You don't have to open a Bible to believe or understand this. You don't. But if you do, if you're a believer, then the issue cuts much, much deeper. And I opened an op-ed on this. And I will be publishing on GlennBeck.com, that goes deeper into that. But I don't expect you to believe the Bible or believe what I believe. I believe it's a very strong case, good versus evil here. Or right versus wrong, if that's the way you want to phrase it.

And national interests. If you look at what the world is headed towards. This -- this is not just about Israel's right to exist.

This is about whether we still know the difference between right and wrong. Good and evil.

Life and death cults.

It's about, do we have the courage to stand for the principles, that God outlined?

And that's not, you're going to inherit the land, or any of that crap. The principles of, you can live, I believe you have a right because you just like me, are a beloved child of God. That's what it is. And if we can't -- if we don't have the courage to make the case and -- and we're trying to convince people, just to blindly follow, because God says. God expects to us kick into reason. God expects us to think things through. And God expects us to disagree. And if we can't do those things, if we won't do those things, then the question is not will Israel survive?

The question is: Will we survive?

Glenn's Show Prep

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

The surprising link between Hamas, the Palestinian flag, and Biblical prophecy

Transcript

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

Teen athlete REFUSES to compete against adult male player

Transcript

The enemy Israel faces today threatens US tomorrow

Transcript