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MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation.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

FBI investigates Glenn's expose on Antifa network

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Let me start with this. Cut five here.

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

Listen to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things like Antifa are things that are thought up.

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

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

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

But it really has -- is nonexistent.

VOICE: They exist on the internet and chat rooms.

And in 4chan.

GLENN: Okay.

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

Documents. Things like that.

But none of them are called Antifa.

STU: What!

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

You want to talk about living in a different world.

But that's what's going around.

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

How do I know?

Saturday, I get a phone call.

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

And I'm like, the director?

The FBI agents?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

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

Is that malinformation? Is that what that is?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

RADIO

Historic peace deal in the Middle East: A new era of hope

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endless negotiation.

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

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

He moved the embassy.

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

No. Nope. No, he didn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RADIO

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: So many.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, it's just piling up.

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

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

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

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

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

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

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

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

FBI investigates Glenn's expose on Antifa network

Transcript

Historic peace deal in the Middle East: A new era of hope

Transcript

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

Transcript

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