Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

GLENNMarch 20, 2017

Kelly Shackelford on Why Gorsuch Is a Rock Solid Pick

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, the largest legal firm in the nation dedicated exclusively to protecting religious freedom for all Americans, joined Glenn on set today to discuss the qualifications of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. Shackelford gave Gorsuch glowing marks.

"A lot of people look at his education and see how incredible it was. He goes to Columbia undergrad, Harvard law school and then he went to Oxford. A lot of people don't know why he went to Oxford. He went Oxford to study under the top brain in the world on natural law, a guy by the name of John Finnis, the guy who trained Robby George," Shackelford said.

Additionally, Gorsuch has written or joined about 3,000 opinions which give a long history of his philosophy and beliefs.

"We're ahead of the curve, I'm just telling you," Shackelford said.

To watch the Gorsuch confirmation hearings and get analysis, go to TrumpNominee.com, a website created by Shackelford's organization.

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

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford is the president and CEO of FirstLiberty.org. He is probably the guest that everybody wants to have on this week talking about the new Supreme Court nominee and the hearings that are going on this week because this is what he does for a living is look at the courts in regards to religious freedom, especially, but freedom and the constitutionalist view of the Supreme Court nominee. This is what he does. He looks for the case to be made. Do the Democrats have a case to be made that this guy is out of control? Do we have -- can we take real solace in the fact that this guy won't turn out to be John Roberts. We go to Kelly beginning right now.

Welcome to the program, Kelly Shackelford, how are you?

KELLY: Great.

GLENN: It's good to have you here.

KELLY: Good to be here.

GLENN: You were looking at the list of all of the Supreme Court nominees when they had a list of 20, and I believe he was on your short list, Gorsuch, of somebody that you felt pretty comfortable with. Going into this, how comfortable are you that he's not John Roberts or any of the other conservatives that we always nominate, and then they always turn out to be a huge progressive?

KELLY: Well, there's a few things about him and what Republicans were doing in the past. In the past, there's this Republican thing of picking people without a record. And John Roberts, for instance, I mean --

GLENN: That was Ted Cruz's argument against him.

KELLY: And that's what people did. Now, John Roberts has been solid on most cases. ObamaCare twice, inexplicably.

GLENN: He wrote the law.

KELLY: Exactly. I will point out it was those two cases that -- not on the same-sex marriage case or the --

GLENN: Pretty big, though.

KELLY: I agree with you. But John Roberts was the guy who had no record. Now, that usually says one of two things. If you're 50 years old, and you have no conservative record, you're either --

GLENN: You're not a conservative.

KELLY: You're either not a conservative, or you're hiding. And if you're hiding, then how much courage are you going to have when the heat's on? That's the approach that the Republicans had. That's not their approach anymore. Really it, it changed. You have Harry being appointed by President Bush. That didn't work. So they went back and said I'm going to pick a full fledged conservative with a long record and guess what? Alito got through. They tried to filibuster, they got 25 votes. So since then now, it has changed. When you look at Gorsuch, he had 3,000 opinions that his name's connected to. Either he wrote or joined those opinions. So you see a long sloth of where his philosophy has been, what he believes, where he stands, so that's a little different.

GLENN: Chuck Schumer said there are many reasons to fear him. But the one that they're going after is that he's a corporatist, that he's always for the corporation and he's just going to sink us all because smokestacks will be everywhere.

KELLY: Really silly. What you find with Gorsuch is he doesn't really care who the plaintiff and told are. He's just going to go what does the law say? And that's the result. And the funny thing when you ask him if he's this person that you're saying he is, then what are the opinions? And if you pull out two or three opinions, he'll go wait. Those are unanimous, and you have a liberal Democrat joining on the opinions. So I've never seen such a weak set of attacks on anybody. They really don't have anything on him, so I think their only hope is to create something in the hearing to hope that he says something or does something. Because I think right now, they're in serious trouble at trying to stop.

GLENN: It seems like -- I mean, it was a really big deal. A lot of people voted for Trump because of this. In fact, I would say perhaps a majority of people voted for Trump because of this. And yet, here we are on the hearings, and it doesn't seem like it's going to be a big deal. It doesn't seem like when we were building up, we knew that was going to be a big deal and a big fight. Is it because we're replacing Scalia that it's not that big of a deal? Or what's happening?

KELLY: I think that's part of it. I think part of it most people for whatever reason don't even know it's occurring. We put a website up TrumpNominee.com where people can, like, watch the hearing, get the information, you know, where does he stand, what are his past opinions, what does the NRA say about him, what do the right to life say about him, what do the different groups out there have to say, I think most people have no idea that the hearings are starting this week.

GLENN: Starting today. We won't hear from him until later this afternoon.

KELLY: Right. It's something they don't know. And the media I think is probably not playing this up because I think they realize that as far as the left wing, this is not going to work out well for them, most likely. So they're not highlighting this. I do think, you're right, though, I do think if we had the next nominee.

GLENN: The next one's going to be big.

KELLY: The rumors are it's going to happen soon, like, within the next year. And let's say if Kennedy did step down, now you're talking about the control of the court because you essentially -- when you had Scalia, you had four conservatives, four liberals, and one that moves back and forth.

GLENN: Kennedy was a conservative appointed; right?

KELLY: He was, but he has been voting on both sides of the issue.

GLENN: Never trust a Kennedy.

[Laughter]

KELLY: Theoretically if you replace Kennedy, you're talking about a lot of huge issues now that if you had issues. You're talking about big issues. You can see the other side would really come out for that next seat. Where this, really, the conservatives the best they can do is stay even with replacing Scalia.

GLENN: Correct.

KELLY: Now, I think they're going to do that. In fact, some people may think that Gorsuch was more conservative than Scalia. But not as conservative as Thomas. But more conservative than Scalia.

GLENN: How close are these guys? I know that Scalia and Ginsberg were really close and good friends. I really wish that Ginsberg would have spoken at his funeral, because I would have liked to show America that you can be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum and still be good friends. But how close is Thomas with Roberts? Do they influence each other at this point?

KELLY: I don't know how much they influence, but they are friends. The uniqueness of the Scalia/Ginsberg relationship, they grew up in New York. There was a real connection there. And they're friends with one another. They're in a very small, special group, obviously. But guys like Thomas aren't really influenced by what other people say or do.

GLENN: So do you think -- I mean, Calvin Coolidge, nominated a good friend of his who is a staunch, he thought, conservative. He gets onto the court, and he's so bad, he becomes proving that even FDR makes him the chief justice. Really crazy. Do they get in to the court, do you think some of them get into the court and think "Well, now I have such an important position, and I want to legacy."

Does that happen?

KELLY: Yeah, I think the old cocktail circles in DC wanting to fit in, wanting to be accepted. I mean, that's always what people really worry about. I think that's one of the unique things that Gorsuch has going for him that a lot of others didn't, and that is his mom was the head of the EPA under Reagan and was savagely attacked by the Democrats. And he felt that sting. It's well-known. I think he knows who his friends are and aren't, so I don't think he would fall into that trap.

GLENN: That's the best case I've heard yet.

KELLY: When you have somebody, though, who doesn't have a lot of record, and then they go in there, and then they get the social pressure, you can see that kind of thing happening. Again, Gorsuch has 3,000 opinions connected with him. He has a pretty strong, deep philosophy that's been expressed for many years. Anybody can surprise us; right? I mean, people are people but, you know, this is about as good of record -- we're a group that focuses on religious liberty. We've never seen anybody with this many solid religious liberty opinions. I mean, he wrote the lower court. He was involved on the right side on hobby lobby, on little sisters of the poor, on just a number of these cases where you've heard about them later and maybe he was in the dissent, depending upon which one it was. But he always did the right thing, wrote an excellent opinion, stood for religious freedom, so I think he's going to be good on a lot of the constitutional issues that your listeners really care about. Really solid because he's an originalist, and he doesn't think it evolves what he wants it to mean, which is the common approach.

STU: I've heard the argument Gorsuch has made a lot of decisions that would indicate he would be on the pro-life side. However, there's never been a specific ruling by him on abortion. What is your level of concern on that?

KELLY: I don't really have any. Again, he's really solid about what does the constitution say? He's not going to create things that aren't there. He criticized -- there's an article where he actually criticized the LGBT community for trying to use the courts instead of the legislative process and opinion. So even if he would agree with something, you would never think to use the courts.

GLENN: You think there is a constitutional case for pro-life?

KELLY: I think he is more likely to say this is something left to the legislative process.

GLENN: I'm asking you. Is there a --

KELLY: There's an argument. People can argue under the 14th amendment. There's a right to life.

GLENN: What about the preamble?

KELLY: Yeah, I mean, there are people that look at that and say he would look at the original intent of what the founders were doing with those things, whether they were trying to create a substantive right. Again, I think you're going to find a lot of the more conservative judges are more -- if it's not clearly there, then let's leave it to the legislative process.

GLENN: Why is that when, you know, I quoted several of the signers of the constitution and decoration today that took a stand. I mean, this was not unheard of in the day. Abortion was a thing, and they all came out as that's murder. Why is that not in the constitution or do they just think it was so plain that murder is murder?

KELLY: I think that's it. There are a lot of things that they couldn't conceive that we would have to deal with. I mean, same-sex marriage; right? A lot of these things we're seeing now, they didn't even think of, so they didn't address them, necessarily, in the constitution in a direct way. I do think Gorsuch, you got a little bit more on where he stands, at least, personally. He wrote a book on euthanasia. His editor of the book was professor Robert George. Probably one of the most well respected --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Robby George is fantastic.

KELLY: A lot of people look at his education and see how incredible it was. He goes to Columbia undergrad, Harvard law school, and then he went to Oxford. A lot of people don't know why he went to Oxford. He went Oxford to study under the top brain in the world on natural law. A guy by the name of John Finnis, the guy who trained Robby George.

GLENN: Long-standing philosophy. Let me ask you this final question. Nobody is really thinking about this. But he's young enough to be dealing with in the next 10 to 20 years. Is he going to be able to handle or is anybody looking into the definition of life when it comes to AI? I mean, we're moving into the realm of trans-humanism, and that is going to be an issue. Have you seen anything from him on that?

KELLY: Well, I don't know how he would do -- you would have to look what legal case. But I think he's probably got the most extensive background to prepare him for that than any justice because, again, he studied his Ph.D. in understanding of natural law of life. What did he write his book on? Euthanasia. That he steeped on that philosophy.

GLENN: I wonder which way he would go on that.

STU: Two questions. One is this the first question you have had about trans-humanism with Neil Gorsuch.

GLENN: We're ahead of the curve, I'm just telling you.

STU: And he's a good Trump skeptic for Supreme Court because we were ought about it, and I didn't think it would be this good. I feel like Gorsuch is towards the top of that list and looking at it from my perspective, I think he did a great job with this pick. If you wanted your favorite guy for president, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, whatever, any of those guys, and they pick Neil Gorsuch, is that a good pick for them as well?

KELLY: Yeah. I think he's a good pick.

STU: It's that good.

KELLY: There are people out there that are, like, why aren't they on the list? But I'm not saying they're better than Gorsuch. I think we're going to have to wait and see, of course, after he gets on the court. But everything we see, we've got so many opinions. We have this steeped training background. We have this situation that happened in his own family where his mother was really unfairly treated by Democrats. So I don't think he's going to go to DC and cozy up. So there's a lot of things in his favor that, again, his manner is mild and humble and, again, I think that's why they can't attack him. They can't make him -- he's just -- that's not his personality. So I think they're really desperate during these hearings to get him to make a mistake, somehow, which I don't see him doing.

GLENN: If you really want to know where everybody stands from NRA on down the line, go to TrumpNominee.com. That's TrumpNominee.com. You'll be able to watch the hearings, get the analysis there, and, Kelly, I would love to have you back to get a highlight of what we saw, starting tomorrow because the hearings kind of start today with opening statements. Thank you so much, Kelly, appreciate it.

KELLY: Thanks for having me.

GLENN: TrumpNominee.com.

[break]

GLENN: I just asked Kelly to stay for a extra couple of minutes. How is he on privacy and the commerce clause?

KELLY: He's great on the commerce clause. On privacy, I would have to know what the issue -- what you're going to find with him is he's one of those boring guys that's going to say what does the statute say? What does the constitution say? What did it mean?

GLENN: For instance, the gathering information on everyone. I mean, to me, the constitution is very, very clear. No, unless you have a warrant.

KELLY: Yeah, I would think you would be solid. You see, privacy has been converted into all kinds of other things. It was the basis for Roe v. Wade, so you can stretch it and turn into something else. What you're going to find with him, though, is he's all about what does it say? And now, I do think one of the things that's really important -- I don't want to glaze people's eyes over, they show deference to bureaucrats. So congress passes a law, and they say we'll let the bureaucrats decide how to pass the law. And then they massively violate people's rights. Including criminal-type things. And then the court says we defer. We have chevron deference. He has been really strong on that saying, no, we protect our constitution.

STU: Better than Scalia on this issue.

GLENN: And that's where people like Mike Lee are going in congress.

KELLY: Absolutely.

JEFFY: Another thing you mentioned, there might be another opening.

GLENN: You said Kennedy.

KELLY: The rumors are there's going to be another.

GLENN: I've heard as soon as, like, ten months.

KELLY: That's very, very possible. I think we very well might have another one of these before a year from now.

PAT: So Kennedy maybe is stepping down then; right?

KELLY: He could be. He probably wants to step down under a Republican. He was appointed under a Republican. If you wait too late towards the end, then it gets stalled up.

STU: As every liberal in the audience is saying right now with Merrick Garland, you get too close to the end, you might not get a vote.

KELLY: So that's people talking about voluntarily stepping down if there's health issues, so that could be even more.

Why Biden's Corrupt Pardons CANNOT Stand... And Why it STILL Matters!play icon
RADIO

Why Biden's Corrupt Pardons CANNOT Stand... And Why it STILL Matters!

A new wave of sweeping “pardons” has triggered one of the most urgent constitutional alarms Glenn Beck has ever raised — not because the individuals involved are controversial, but because the actions themselves may not even qualify as pardons at all. Glenn Beck breaks down how these broad, immunity-style declarations can bypass investigations, rewrite laws by fiat, and push executive power into territory the Founders explicitly warned against. With mass clemency increasingly used as a political shield and executive actions replacing the legislative process, America is drifting toward a model of governance that no longer resembles a constitutional republic. This episode exposes how the pardon power is being stretched beyond recognition, why Congress has surrendered its role as a check, and what must happen before the nation crosses a point of no return. The question now is unavoidable: Who will stop this before the Constitution becomes optional?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

CALLER: I wanted to talk about the pardons. Hunter's pardon was legitimate. He was actually accused of a crime. I know you're plugged in with the president. I haven't heard anybody say this anywhere. I have been watching everything.

These pardons. Forget the auto-pen. The auto-pen doesn't even matter. Because these were immunity deals. These were not pardons. None of these people were under investigation. None of these people had any crimes they were accused of.

So you can't pardon somebody for something they may have or may not have done. That's an immunity deal.

Again, I've watched everything. I don't hear anybody bring that stuff -- I don't think the auto-pen matters. I just think those things are null and void from the jump.

GLENN: Who --

CALLER: Like I said.

GLENN: Who do we have besides Mike Lee? Because Mike is always hard to get a hold of at this time. He's like, I'm working on Senate stuff, Glenn.

Who do we have that is a Constitutional scholar that we can call real quick, and see if we can get an answer on that before the end of the show? At least put a call out to Mike Lee, will you?

But I would like to know that happen at that. Because the president has. And Stu and I have talked about this for a while. This has gotten out of control. These pardons are out of control. Out of control.

It's something Constitutional. It's been there since George Washington. The President has always had this right, and it's a privilege of his. But you're right.

These things where, wait. I can't investigate this? What that does is if you're as a president doing something that you shouldn't be doing, all you have to do then is say, I pardon everyone in my administration for anything that they might have done wrong.

That can't stand. You're absolutely right on that.

STU: Yeah. You have the immunity deal. Which again, I think is -- I don't see -- I don't see how a pre-pardon is even possibly covered.
Like, it's just such an insane concept.

The way that Biden. He's right that Hunter Biden actually committed a crime and pardoning him from that in theory, obviously, outside the family interest was the way that that was supposed to work.

But they also pardoned him for multiple years of question marks, whether he committed crimes or not. Right? That was all included on that.

To go a step farther on this, I am on a bit of a personal jihad against the pardon. I'm done with it. I'm done with it personally. There's reasons the Founders were very, very smart. But the Founders were smart enough to also have a process for Constitutional amendments. And I would support one, getting rid of the part in power completely. I'm done with it.

GLENN: Wait, may I just interrupt for a second. I just want to point out. We now have verification, not only is Stu a Canadian spy, but he's also a hidden Nazi. Noticed the word he used, jihad, which translates to my struggle. Hitler's book, My Struggle, Mein Kampf. I just want to point it out.

JASON: Exposed.

STU: Just to be clear, I'm not planning a genocide on the power of pardons.

But I'm against it, strongly. But the other part I would say that I think is every worse and is never discussed, are these types of pardons where they say, you know, all marijuana crimes. They're -- everyone -- there are 17,000 people.

That is just you legislating. If I wanted to New Jersey and say, hey.

I think marijuana should be legal. I could theoretically be president.

Saying, everyone convicted of a marijuana-related crime is now pardoned.

And that's just you making laws. It's you going completely around Congress. And the entire process we have there.

At the very least. It should be massively restricted from the way it's being utilized. Not only -- several presidents in a row, I would argue.

But it's -- it should just -- I think it should just go away completely. It's the most king-like power the president has. And it doesn't make any sense to me.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So I'm looking this up here.

Barack Obama did this.

He gave clemency for anybody who was convicted of a non-violent federal drug crime.

With no significant criminal history, while serving extraordinarily long sentences. And anybody who was a violent offender was not eligible.

And it was -- it wasn't a -- a true mass pardon. But it was pretty close to it. You know, it was -- it was mass in scale, but not blanketed.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I think there were like 2,000 people that he parted on that.

STU: It was a law. Creating a new law.

GLENN: Yeah. You're saying, oh, by the way. That law that I personally disagree with.

We're not going to -- it's gone.

STU: The whole law doesn't count at him. We have a whole process to make laws. When someone -- when they pass a law, you can't say, eh. And shrug your shoulders. And say, I don't particularly like it.

And for some reason, that's the way the pardon power has been translated.

GLENN: The problem is the President can. The President has just always had the restraint not to do that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Because it was bad for the country. And bad for laws.

You know, you don't just -- you don't do this. We're becoming more and more of a king. In our administration.

And it's not Donald Trump.

This has been about to go for a long time.

Barack Obama I think got really, really bad.

But this was going on before him. Obviously.

But Barack Obama kind of set something off.

And then because we couldn't get any legislation passed. We had Donald Trump try to do executive orders, to combat Barack Obama's executive orders.

Then Biden did it. And Trump. It's got to stop.

Because here's the problem. One of the things I said in our special on Wednesday.

Which was, biggest stories of the year.

And predictions for next year. I said, you will start to see rolling brownouts in places like Texas in 2026. Texans, wake up. Wake up.

But you're going to start to see rolling brownouts. But I also made another prediction. And I've just lost what I was going to say was the prediction.

Oh!

This massive swing. We're getting whiplash.

You can't -- you can't run a country like this.

You can't run a country where it's all being done by executive order.

Because look, we were all the way over to one side. When Trump was here. Then we swung way farther than that. With Biden.

Now Trump is bringing us back this way. If you don't pass laws, it's just going to swing.

And you can't -- you can't run a country like that.

This has got to stop!

We have to pass laws. Congress must do its job.

Why the Australia beach shooting should terrify EVERYONEplay icon
RADIO

Why the Australia beach shooting should terrify EVERYONE

Two shooters opened fire on Bondi beach at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration. Glenn Beck reacts to this horiffic act of evil and also to the heroic act of a man who tackled one of the shooters.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just cover the headlines really quickly: Brown University, yesterday, there was a shooter. Two are dead. The only one that has been named so far is the Republican Club Vice President Alec Cook. There have been nine that have been injured. They thought they had the shooter. But turns out, it's not him. He has been released. And there's just some questions on this one that are weird.

Also, al-Qaeda struck and killed US soldiers over the weekend in Syria. There will be a military response to that, I am sure. And yesterday -- yesterday, on the beach, Sydney's eastern suburbs. Sydney, Australia, it's summer there. There's locals. There are people that are coming from all over the country, all over the world, for the warmth of summer and the community celebration of the first night of Hanukkah. The rest of the world is the darkest days of winter. On the other side of the globe, it is still sunlight because it is in the middle of sunlight. But it was a dark, dark day yesterday despite the sun being up.

There were families with children. They were chasing the waves. The smell of grilled food that was drifting across the sand. Music, conversation, laughter in the air. And then around 7 o'clock, laughter was replaced with screams of terror. Two men dressed in black and armed with high-powered firearms positioned themselves atop a small concrete pedestrian bridge. It arched over the Campbell parade near the Bondi pavilion. They stood on top in the center of this bridge and rained bullets as they fired into the crowd. Shots rang out. Astonished the crowd.

VOICE: Get down. Get down. Boys, get down. Oh, my God.

GLENN: It just went on and on and on. Thousands had been gathered for Hanukkah by the Sea. They're now ducking for cover. Some trying to push children to safety, others frozen in disbelief as friends and strangers alike fell all around them.

The carnage was unbelievable. For ten minutes, these guys fired off this bridge. The beach, usually alive with surfers and sun seekers, just transformed instantly. Bodies were trampled. Frantic dash for some sort of shelter and protection, as the waves just continued to lap innocently at the shore while people were screaming for help.

Now, in the chaos, there were acts of individual courage. A fruit vendor, later named by the media as Ahmed al-Ahmed. He saw one of the gunmen firing his weapon. And in a moment of pure resolve, he vaulted from behind a nearby car, tackled the shooter from behind, and wrestled the rifle away. It was an unbelievable scene. Witnesses say -- and it was all captured on tape. There he is. Witnesses say, his bravery likely saved countless lives.

Police arrived, they started shooting at him. They shot at the two that were up on the bridge. They wounded both of them.

15 people had been killed by the time it was over. Dozens wounded. Young children to the elderly. Cherished members of the Jewish community, including Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a British-born assistant rabbi. He helped organize Hanukkah by the Sea.

The beach won't be looked at the same ever again. As the suspects went down, people from Australia just ran up on to the bridge.

And what I thought was an amazing, amazing moment that spoke volumes of our culture! The police were on top of these men, trying to administer care to keep them alive. While citizens, understandably, came up on the bridge and just started kicking them.
Police jumped on those people and pushed them away. And said, stop, stop, stop. And they did.

Because we're not a culture of death. First suspect, 50 year old, Sajid Akram, 50 years old. He's a dad. The second suspect is his 24-year-old son. Both in critical condition. Now in the hospital under police guard.

Let me ask you to imagine just for a minute, what it must feel like to be Jewish today. Not in theory. Because we -- we had an incident stopped in Amsterdam over the weekend, in Germany over the weekend, in LA, somebody, a drive-by just shot at a Jewish home with the Hanukkah candles in the window, screaming, "F the Jews." You want to know what -- you want to chant, "Bring the Intifada here," this is what it looks like.

It is here now. So what does it feel like to be Jewish today?

I don't know. I can't relate. But I want you to imagine, not as a talking point. But in quiet moments, when the phone would light up with another alert, another headline, another synagogue guarded by concrete barriers, armed police.

There's a particular fear that comes with memory. Jewish people carry history. Not as abstraction, but as inheritance. And it lives in names that are whispered at dinner tables, and photographs rescued from ash. And stories that begin with, "And we thought it would never happen here."

Europe told itself, that very thing once. So did Germany. So did France. So did polite society, everywhere, right before it happened.

And the world has been saying that for decades now. It would never happen here. And here we are again. And here we are, the worst we've seen in America.

Shadows that all of us hoped were buried forever. Hatred with organization, ideology. Hatred with teeth. Violence. Justification.

They're no longer whispers. They're shouting it now in our streets. They're shouting it in the streets of Australia. They're shouting it in the streets of Germany. And England and France. And Norway. They're burning flags. They're firing guns. They're chanting not only death to the Jew, but death to the West, death to Canada, death to the US. Death to Europe. This is no longer confined to the margins anymore. And the West is tolerating it. The west has explained it away. We have minimalized it. We have said it was a lone wolf. Sometimes we even excuse it.

Just for the day, let's just stop and look at Australia for a minute. For years, Jewish communities are warned the officials.

Anti-Semitism isn't theoretical. It's here. We're living it. We're seeing it. It's not just graffiti or angry words.

It's metastasizing into something ideological and organized and deadly. And in Australia, the officials told them, calm down.
Trust the institutions. We've got it.

Somehow or another, multi-cultural harmony would manage itself, but it didn't. Because it doesn't.

Ideology doesn't dissolve when it's ignored. It consolidates. It grows he has and it has across the Western world entirely. Europe, Britain, Australia. Canada. The United States. It's the same pattern!

Violent anti-Semitism rising Jewish schools like fortresses. Your families wondering whether visibility itself is now a liability.

And yet, all across the West, officials hesitate, to name the problem. Clearly!

So let me do it. Precisely. Precisely.

Truthfully.

Islamism.

Islamists. Not Islam. Not Muslim. If you're a Muslim, you want to live peacefully, worship freely. Raise children. Continue to, you know, live and contribute to a society. You know, and you're not an enemy of the West. I'm totally good with that. Look at the fruit cart guy. He apparently didn't hate Jews. He wasn't part of the culture of death.

He stopped it.

And millions do that every single day. But Islamism, Islamists, that's something entirely different.

Islamism is a political ideology.

It's not about faith. It is about power.

It's the belief that society has to be governed by religious law. Sharia law.

That freedom of conscience is illegitimate. That women are subordinate, that dissent is heresy, and that the world and everything in it has to submit. And it's very clear about all of this. It writes it down. It teaches it. It shouts it from the public square. For the love of Pete, it's everywhere. It chants it. It doesn't hide its ambitions. It doesn't hide behind anything. But here's what it doesn't do: It doesn't co-exist with open societies.

It replaces them and has been replacing open societies for centuries.

Any culture built on individual liberty, freedom of speech, equality before the law, it can't survive alongside an ideology that views all of those principles as sins or as an affront to Allah! In that scenario, one side must yield, or one side will be destroyed!

And history is very clear on which one does. You know, we're very different people. Even the difference between us and Canada. And us and Europe.

It might be seemingly starved. It might be we're very different. But when you look at us as a civilization, we're very different. Together, we're very different from the rest of the world.

We don't understand these things. Because we project our values, on everybody else.

We assume that everybody ultimately wants to live. And to compromise. Live side by side. We assume violence is accidental. We assume that it's a lone wolf. We assume that words like to do and dialogue mean the same thing to everybody.

But they don't! And so we tolerate politicians and newscasters and everything else that explain things away. They explain the stabbings and the truck attacks and the shootings and the riots. It's isolated incidents. They're not! We talk about finding the root cause. But we won't -- we won't name the root itself!

We call it extremism, as though it sprang out of nowhere, as though it was a weather event, instead of a worldview that's been around for centuries! I ask you to think about what it feels like to be Jewish today because of the Jewish people.
But also because, you're next. Jewish communities always pay the price first.

They always do. And believe me, you're on the list. You!

Your freedom. Your children are on the list!

And history shows this, with brutal consistency.

When a society begins to rot, from ideological cowardice.

The Jews are always the early-warning system.

They're the canary in the coal mine.

When they're targeted openly. And the state responds with hesitation.

That society is already sick and in the hospital.

It's already in trouble.

And make in mistakes.

The science is not far away.

It is already here.

Synagogues attached. Jewish students harassed on campus. Jewish neighborhoods guarded like war zones. Public celebrations requiring armed protection now. This is not normal, and it's not sustainable. And the West likes to believe and understands freedom.

But freedom is not a five! It's not a comfort. It's not the absence of conflict. Freedom is costly! And it requires moral clarity, and it requires the courage to draw a line and say, this doesn't belong here! And if we refuse to do that work now, our children will have to do it later under far worse conditions! They will have to fight, not to preserve freedom, but to recover it. And history always shows, that's much more costly. America, you're closer than you think to losing not only our country, but countries that took centuries to build!

Not through invasion. But through erosion. Through silence. Through the polite refusal to speak uncomfortable truths.

If not you, who?

If not now, when?

You're running out of time.

"You're being PLAYED": Glenn Beck exposes the TRUTH about Illinois' new MAiD programplay icon
RADIO

"You're being PLAYED": Glenn Beck exposes the TRUTH about Illinois' new MAiD program

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has signed a bill legalizing "medical assistance in dying" (MAiD) for certain terminally ill patients. Glenn Beck rages against this "culture of death" that is sweeping America, even after it ravaged Canada.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So JB Pritzker in Illinois signed into law a bill on Friday, that will allow doctors in Illinois to prescribe the deaths of their own patients. First, do no harm. I'm having a hard time with that, doctors. Maybe you can tell us how you're getting around this. First, do no harm.

That is a very important concept, that our doctors are to buy into. And that we all believe.

First, do no harm. If you don't have that, all kinds of things can follow. Especially when they're couched with compassion.

And that is exactly what this is always couched in. Compassion.

Okay. So this new law goes into effect in September of next year. Terminally ill patients over the age of 18 are going to be able to get a suicide drug from their doctor. This is the 12th state in the country, that is allowing assisted suicide. And there are about 25 others that are standing in line for it. What a surprise.

Illinois is the -- is the one -- the first of this -- this batch of them coming in to say, I want to kill people!

It is a culture of death. And we are -- that's what we are battling. No matter what anybody tells you, we're not battling the Republicans or the Democrats.

It's not politics.

It's not Marxism.

It is a culture of death, that we're battling. It is evil. It is evil. A culture of death.

When you look at -- when you look at what people are saying about global warming, what is the solution?

Fewer people. How do you do that? Well, culture of death takes care of that. Right?

When you look at -- when you look at, you know, just about anything now, health care, abortion, culture of death.

Islam, culture of death. Marxism, honestly, it is a culture of death. Why would I say that know.

Well, because it eliminates people who disagree with it. And first, it just pushes them off the sidelines.

But eventually it ends in camps. But also, look what's being taught to our kids. They are killing themselves, because they're so depressed. Because it has no meaning. It completely rejects the you human aspect of humanity.

Culture of death. That's really what we're fighting. Make no mistake.

Now, Illinois and Pritzker, they're saying, well, no. No, no, no. This is going to be -- we're going to be very, very careful. You have to have two doctors. Okay. That's good. That's good.

Germany had three doctors, to give you permission. You're not even up the line of Nazi Germany, but congratulations on that. And they have to be diagnosed with having six months or less to live.

Okay. Okay.

I want you to know, Illinois, America, Western world, you're being played. This is not compassion.

I'm going to be real clear with you.

This is preparation for when the system can no longer afford to fulfill its promises, that's what this is.

They are preparing the system to be able to have the way out. And they're preparing you, so you look at this as compassion and so when it gets worse and worse, up until the very end, you don't recognize it. I mean, they're beginning to a little bit in Canada, to see what's coming their way. And why is it happening? Because they can no longer afford socialized medicine. They can't afford to fulfill the promises.

Let me just say, can America afford to fulfill its promise, that it's made for generations on all of this socialized everything?

No. In fact, there are people now, trying to double down. We can't afford anything. They're trying to double down and expand those programs, which will only collapse us faster.

When they collapse, you know, nobody likes. Well, rich people can get surgery. And as I've said to you before, I don't like that either. I really don't like that. But how else do you do it? How else do you do it? Well, we have a committee. And we -- we ration things. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Here's where you're not going to like that. You're not going to like that, because that's not the way humans work. When they ration things, either people with money or the people with power, always find a way to short-circuit so they can get to the top.

So the one that you're saying now is the poor, helpless waif that's not getting anything because of the rich people, when the system changes, that poor lonely waif is still not going to get any help because the powerful, the ones that are connected, they'll get the medical care, and the waif won't get medical care. People will find a way to short-circuit the system because people generally suck.

And when you give all the power to people, it's not good. It's usually not good. So you may not like the, you know, pay for it kind of system, but it is the best one out there. And you really don't want to give a bureaucracy the -- the ability to kill you if you become expensive or inconvenient.

Now, I know that's not what they're saying. That's not what we're doing. We're giving people out of compassion, help them end their lives. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. That's exactly what happened in Canada. Let me just tell you. It was called C14. Let me just look up the facts here. C14 in Canada. It happened in 2016.

And it -- what it -- what it meant was, you could get compassionate care, if you had doctors. Three doctors approved.

You had a terminal, I don't remember what they called it.

But basically, you could see the end in sight. Okay?

There was -- there was no way for us to repair your body and heal you.

So we could see that.

Basically, you know, you were terminal.

We could see that.

In the future. Near future.

And three doctors agreed.

And then you had a waiting period after you requested it, the doctors would approve.

And then there were ten days, before you would administer. Ten days before you would back out.

That's what it started as, okay?

That's not what it's become. 2016, that's what it was. And you had to be 18 years or older.

And you had to have full capacity. So you couldn't listen to, you know, friends or family.

You had to make the decision. And you needed full capacity.

Okay.
Then things started to fall apart.

Then we had COVID. Then we had all these expenses. Then we had people move into the country.

This is Canada. Same thing happened here. COVID. Hospitals are overwhelmed.

Medical care goes to hell.

And then you start bringing in people from all over the world.

And now you don't have hospital care. Everybody is crowded. The doctors are overwhelmed.
And so in 2021, they decided the Quebec court decided, well, you know, death in the foreseeable future. Is that really necessary?

Excuse me?

I mean -- I mean, the reasonable foreseeable natural death requirement. Do we really need that?

The court said, no, we really don't.

There are two tracks! Those who have natural death in the foreseeable future. We're going to make it a little easier for them. So beyond the request, the three doctors and the ten-day waiting period. We're going to get rid of some of that because it's not necessary.

I mean, if you're in the reasonably foreseeable future, you don't need all those safeguards. And then people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Well, we're going to make them do all of those things. Oh, okay.

And, by the way, we're removing the ten-day waiting period too. Once the doctor says, you're good, you're good.

Okay. All right.

That wasn't far enough. Now, they have a new bill, C7.

Canada bill seven.

When they -- when that removed the foreseeable requirement, they added a temporary exclusion for people whose sole medical condition was a mental disorder.

Oh, wow. So now we're into mental illness.

So your death isn't in the foreseeable future.

But you really want to die.

So does this apply to mental.

People with mental problems?

Oh, no, no, no. No. We're not going to ban it. We're just going to put a temporary ban on that one?

Why would you put a temporary ban on that?

Why would you put a temporary ban on something like that?

Let me give you the answer and you tell you what else it's done and bring it home for you here in just a second.

Okay. So why would you -- why would you remove the restriction on the mentally ill?

Remember, the first thing was -- the first thing was, you've got to be -- you've got to be fully there.

You have to be competent and aware of what you're doing.

Then they said, well, the foreseeable future thing.

Your death is inevitable. We're going to take that away.

But we're going to put a temporary restriction on mental illness.

The only reason why you would make that a temporary restriction, is because you're just trying to get the rest of the society to catch up with what you're going to do.

That's the only reason.

And that's why, it has been extended.

Okay?

It was supposed to end in 2023.

Then it was extended to March 2024.

And now, it has been pushed to 2027.

Okay?

So you're not eligible for MAID until March 2027, if you have a mental illness.

Hmm.

Huh! Now, they may push it forward again, to give it more time to convince everybody that that's what they have to do.

And how do you convince people?

Well, you convince people, because there's shortages and be that person doesn't have the capability to think they're mentally ill. They might want to tie. They're very, very depressed. They're very depressed, and so they want to die anyway.

They want to die. I need the doctor. Okay?

That's what's going to happen. That's what's going to happen.

Unless we remember who we are. Unless all of a sudden, we -- we're like, you know what, that's -- you know, that's not who we are.

That's not the West. The West is not defined by its technology.

Even by its freedom or its wealth.

Everybody thinks, oh, the West. They're wealthy.

No. That's not it.

What makes us unique in the West. The entire West Canada, included. All of Europe. This radical idea that the individual has inherent value.

That nobody is expendable.

And not because they're useful, not because they're productive, not because they're convenient.
They have an inherent right to exist, to live.
If you look at the past, you look at Athens and Rome.
Oh. I mean, they just put you -- you this put babies that were not boys, that were girls. Where they were deforming.

They throw them on a garbage barge. These barges would go down the river. With screaming babies on them. They just let them die, okay?

That's the way it does. But West through Judeo Christian ethics taught us, that's not right!

And we build hospitals before skyscrapers.

We put limits on -- on force. We teach doctors to heal. Not to calculate.

When a society like ours stops choosing life, it does not become more compassion.

It becomes more efficient. Not compassionate! Efficient!

And efficiency has never given birth 20 moral virtue.

Efficiency kills it. If that's your goal. It kills it.

Fighting this culture of death, it is the most important thing we can focus on.

A lot of people will focus on politics and everything else.

And what JB Pritzker is doing here, there, and everywhere else.

I don't even care about politics.

We have to convince one another, we have to start standing up for the principles that made the West, the West.

Because without the choice to protect life at its most fragile, we are no longer a civilization worth saving! We're just another system deciding, eh, I don't know, is that worth the trouble? And history is very clear where that society ends. That's why, last week, to me, it was so personal, and so important.

To help this woman, not just because it's the right thing to do. And because every life matters. And this happened to be a life that came across my path.

And I'm like, we've got to stop that! But because, this goes to something bigger! And it is infecting us right now. And if we buy the lies, that this is for compassion. Look! I understand. I understand pain. I understand end of life. I don't want to be in that situation.

I know, you don't want to be.

I mean, I know what it feels like with my dog, putting my dog down. It kills me. It kills me to put my dog down. So I get it on the dog level, let alone, you know, a parent level or a spouse level. I get it.

But you cannot as a society go down this road. Because once you open this door, all the other doors just start to swing open. When there's trouble!
The first sign of shortage, all those doors open up. And guess what we're headed for. Shortages.