Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Books
More
AboutCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2022 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live
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.

youtu.be
RADIO

Glenn reacts LIVE, is STUNNED with Roe v. Wade overturn

Glenn receives the news live on-air that the Supreme Court announced its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly 50 years. It’s a ‘miracle,’ he says, and asks God to ‘please hear the voice of your people. We are trying to mend our ways.'

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hang on, David. Hold it. I'm sorry. We have the Dobbs case?

STU: Yes. We do.

GLENN: I'm sorry, David. We'll move you to another time today, if possible. I just have to take the Dobbs case. It just came out. And I'm sure you understand. I do not mean to be unfair to you on that.

DAVID: I -- I think you're being unfair to me, Glenn. I think that you can certainly -- you can certainly give me some time --

GLENN: I will, sir. By the end of the program. By the end of the program. This is the biggest case in U.S. history. At least in my lifetime. We will move on from you, and reschedule today, on today's program. I want to be fair to him. What has happened with the Dobbs case?

STU: We have Roe vs. Wade overruled. As well as Casey.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I don't think I would ever thought I would see this day, to be honest with you. But it's a good day.

GLENN: We have talked about this. We have been together for 25 years, and we both said, never in our lifetime would this happen.

STU: Nope.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: It's -- it's being widely.

GLENN: Lord, please hear the voice of your people. We are trying to mend our ways. We are -- we are sorry, it has taken us this long. But please hear your people. Please.

Forgive us for what we have done. My gosh.

Is the ruling -- does it look to be the same as the original Alito ruling?

STU: I'm just going through it now. It does seem to be a 6-3 decision. Which is -- you know, there was a question of whether Roberts would -- would come on board for this. It looks like he has. So does seem to be a 6-3 decision.

GLENN: Just let that sink in, America. What Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, that this is -- this was unjustly. And decided, Roe vs. Wade. She thought it was flawed.

And it was. The idea that abortion is covered in the Constitution is not true. It is just -- it is -- it is not true. And everything that is not in the Constitution, doesn't make it unconstitutional, it just means, it goes to the states to decide. That is the law of the land. And has been forever. Even justice Ginsburg said that.

STU: The relevant portion here at the end of the opinion, we end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.

Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people, and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed. And the cases remain for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

STU: Wow. Thank God.

GLENN: Please, our producers need to be watching the White House. And all others who are going to come out in a statement. This means Jane's revenge is going to be at least what they say, is they're going to be lighting cities on fire tonight. I'm -- I'm prayerful, that that doesn't happen. But I wouldn't doubt it. The media is going to stir things up, like there is no tomorrow. But we can -- we can beg the Lord for peace and protection on all sides.

You know, I think it's -- I think it is so important to know that we have to be on God's side.

Because he's not picking sides. He doesn't. He loves all of his children equally. And we just try to do what we wants us to do. So pray for all of those who are terrified about what this means. All those who are, I think, misguided.

And pray for peace, to wash over us. I doubt -- well, I'm not going to -- I have no idea what the Lord wants. Whatever the Lord wants, we'll -- we'll deal with it.

All right. Would you make sure that we have talked to Levitt's office? And if -- if we can, we'll do it at the bottom of the hour. My apologies to him. I don't mean to be rude. But sorry.

STU: I hope we can prioritize his local race over the Dobbs' decision. Glenn, I don't understand why you didn't do that. That was really rude of you. To cut him off in the middle of that. I mean, what could you be talking about? Only tens of millions of children potentially on the road to living instead of not being alive. But I want to make sure he gets his words in here. Because I know that's a high priority to him. We'll get back to that as soon as possible. Glad he prioritized that. Really important moment for him, to make that argument, and I'm glad he made it.

GLENN: I don't care. Can we get -- let me -- I'm sorry. But we don't have another. We don't have a break long enough.

Can we get analysis on bottom of this hour? Because if we can get analysis on this hour, if they have time to read it. Get analysis on. And move David to next hour. If we can't get analysis, because they haven't had time to read it yet. I'm sorry.

I'm just shocked, this came out. We were just having this conversation, before we went on the air. And Stu said, what are you going to do if the Dobbs case comes out? And I said, it's not going to come out. And he said, but if it comes out. And I said, it's not going to come out. But if it does, we have to take that. And so I'm just shocked, because I did not expect that to happen.

STU: Glenn, one excerpt here. From the ruling: We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision, overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.

Gosh, if that is not the central problem with the Supreme Court, so often. So glad they pointed that out. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply long-standing principles. Of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly. We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, period.

Roe and Casey must be overruled. The authority to regulate abortion must be return to the people and their elected representatives.

GLENN: It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. We're going to see miracles in our lifetime. And I think we just saw one.

All right. Let me pause, tell you about LifeLock. How important is your identity to you? It not only stands as a protective wall, to everything you have financially. And the dangerous world of criminals. It also says who you are, in the community. What level of criminality you have. But with a tiny slip of information. And it doesn't have to be much. All of it can be taken away in an instant. We put everything online right now. And it's important to understand.

This will affect you, if it hasn't already. But that's what LifeLock is here for. You need people, that this is all they do. Is watch for this kind of stuff.

They can monitor things better than you or I think anybody else.

And if you do become a victim, they have restoration specialists that can work with you to help fix the problem quickly. Now no one can prevent all identity theft, or monitor all transactions at all businesses. But you can help protect what's yours with LifeLock. By Norton. So join now. And save up to 25 percent off your first year. With the promo code Beck. Call 1-800-LifeLock. 1-800-LifeLock. Or head to LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck for 25 percent off. Do it now. LifeLock.com.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Sara, I'm sorry. We just have no time off the air. But I just heard from a producer. I'm just getting a no -- is there something I need to know about what happened on the telephone, before, or was that after this interview? Oh, it was not. It was another one, Sara. Was that before the interview or after the interview?

After. Okay. Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to sincerely apologize one very last time.

STU: Oh, my God.

GLENN: That it was unfortunate, that David Levitt happened to be on, and wanted to express who he is, when the biggest case in the history of my lifetime comes out, and interrupts the interview. I'm going to politely invite him on in a few minutes. If he treats any of my office staff the way he just treated my office staff, he will not be welcome on the air. And, David, I think a lot of people are learning a lot about you. So we can reset, it was an unfortunate timing. We can reset. Or you can leave it as is. It's up to you.

STU: Can we please stop talking about this guy? I literally --

GLENN: I want you to know, that's it. That's it.

STU: Thank you.

GLENN: That's it.

STU: The court writes, the precedence should be respected, but sometimes the court errs. And occasionally, the court issues an important decision that is egregiously wrong. When that happens, stare decisis is not a straitjacket. This is something, of course, we've been arguing for decades. And seemingly is obvious. As you point out, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported this at one point in here career. Many liberal court watchers feel the same way. This is not a conservative -- there's a lot of passion for conservatives on the pro-life side of this. And there's very little appetite for that on the left.

However, there is appetite for this being a terrible law, and egregiously made -- egregiously poor decision, made when Roe vs. Wade was initially -- you know, decided. And so the left has been on this -- on board with this, not to say, we shouldn't have abortion. Which again, it's not what this does. And it's important to remember, that overturning Roe vs. Wade, does very little to stop abortion in this country. It's a very important first step.

GLENN: It won't.

STU: But anyone who wants to get abortion in this country, will still be able to get them. We've talked about some of these organizations that we've worked with so important. It's about still changing hearts and minds. This will not do it on its own. But it's an important step.

GLENN: So do you remember when I was at Fox. And I was talking about why it was so important, to be good. Be steady. Don't fight back, the way they want you to fight back.

Because Martin Luther King was right. When you put good versus evil side by side, the American people will know it. And they will recognize it. And they will see it.

A lot of Americans have been duped. And a lot of Americans. You know, it's very, very difficult. You learn this from the history of Germany and other places. Once you decide and you've gone so far mentally down the road. It takes a huge amount of courage, to say, holy cow. I was wrong about this. And switch sides.

But I think, you're going to see states, California, New York. They are going to become abortion mills. They are going to do abortion vacations. They are going to push the limits, as far as -- they're going to say, if it's up to the state, you will see -- you will see laws in some states, that say, after a baby is born, you can kill it. They've done it already in Chicago. They've done it illegally in Chicago. They've talked about it in Virginia. They're going to do it in New York. They're going to do it in California. Believe me, and this will be the place, where I think a lot of Americans will have to decide, can I live in a state like that? Can I -- can I be part of that?

This is so far -- this will become so far over the edge. That most Americans will be appalled by what is happening. Even those who believe that -- that they want to have reasonable limits to abortion.

They will not find it reasonable, what these death states will do.

youtu.be
RADIO

Biden may use GAS PRICES to expand his powers MASSIVELY

President Biden demanded this week that gas stations lower their prices immediately: ‘Bring down the price you’re charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product,’ he told station owners. But unfortunately it seems Joe may have missed an important economics lessons during his road to the White House, because that is NOT how business works, Glenn explains. The President also urged Congress to approve a gas tax ‘holiday' AND Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm referred to the Defense Production Act as a presidential “tool” Biden may use in the future. Glenn explains what this means and how the DPA could be used to MASSIVELY expand presidential powers — far beyond what the Constitution allows…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yesterday, the Dow plunged 400 more points. The Wall Street banks, yesterday, began to warn of significant downturn and -- and increased recession odds. The White House is still denying that there's any chance at all, of any kind of recession. We're in a transition period. And that's what's so exciting. According to the White House, there's no recession coming. We're just in a transition. And I think that's right. We're -- you know, in a transition from a free market, into some sort of totalitarian state. Where the -- where the administrator, Joe Biden, just keeps wanting to, you know, take things over. Don't know if you saw this, but he demanded yesterday, that gas stations lower their prices. He said, do it now. Do it today. Bring down the price you're charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product. Joe, that's not how businesses work. Okay? They can't keep their doors open, if they're only charging what they paid for it. Because they also need to charge for the lights and the building. And all of the supplies. And the people working there at the gas station. They have to have a profit margin, but you have only been in the private sector, your whole life. So you don't understand that. He said, I want the Congress, and the states, and the industry, to do their part. Because I'm doing any part. Now, that's fantastic.

But not as fantastic, as what grand home said later. So they're asking for a tax holiday. Which is ridiculous. Ridiculous. First, we, you know, practically emptied out our strategic reserves. Now they want a -- a tax holiday, on gas tax.

But they're not going to find and cut anything in the federal deficit. And the federal budget. So they got to keep paying for all of these equitable roadways and everything else. So they're just going to find that money. Well, they're going to find it at the fed. And the fed can't sell our Treasuries to anybody. So the fed will just print more money, put it on our bill. And then give it to the United States. So you'll have more money for gas, which is a good thing. But done exactly the wrong way. So now he's talking about a gas tax holiday.

Which, again, would be good for the average person for a while. However, Grandholm came out yesterday, and said, if these companies don't lower the gas price, the president will use every tool he has, including the Defense Production Act.

So this would be the, what? The third time, Stu, that they've invoked the Defense Production Act, something that hasn't been used since the war in Korea.

This is a wartime act. And if you think that they won't declare a national emergency, mark my words. When this happens. Run for the hills. They are going to declare a national emergency on climate change. Which is the worst. Then they'll issue it, and maybe climate change will -- will include the gas prices. Otherwise, they'll do an energy national emergency. They'll do a food national emergency. Which means the president will have total powers to be able to gobble up the free market. And if you don't -- I mean, this is fascism. What he was talking about yesterday, is fascism. Now, can I ask another question?

There's so much to pay attention to. I -- I'm sorry. We can barely keep up. I can't imagine what it's like with you and the family and kids and school. And everything else that's going on. Matt Gaetz said, Saturday, the firearms policy under Biden. He is using every tool he can.

There is a -- a problem that the IRS, from March 1st, to June 1st. A three-month span. The IRS bought 700,000 dollars' worth of ammunition.

Now, why does the IRS need 700,000 dollars' worth of ammunition? There's only two answers. Now, this is on top of the, what? 1.8 billion, that the Department of Homeland Security spent on it.

There's several agencies, that are buying up ammunition now. There's two explanations. One is more nefarious than the other.

Well, yes. One is more nefarious than the other. One is they just have plans of arming everybody and every agency. And you will do exactly what they say, or they'll shoot. That's the most nefarious. The second is probably the most likely. Although, I wouldn't lay any of my money down on it. It's probably more risky than the stock market. The more likely of the two, I think. Is that this is just another way, to stop guns from being on the streets. They're going to use every lever they can. If the United States government is buying up all the ammunition, that only drives the cost of ammunition up. And only depletes the market of ammunition. So in effect, they stop you from being able to have any kind of ammunition. Remember, we told you, on Monday of this week, what was happening with Winchester. Winchester makes most of our 223 and 556, for the military.

They have a military contract. In it, Winchester can sell about 30 percent of their stock, to the open market. And that provides the United States. The average consumer, with about 40 to 50 percent. Of all 556 and 223. The federal government was pressuring Winchester to stop selling it to the open market. That would be really bad for national defense. But beyond that. It's just another sign that they're doing everything, they possibly can, to stop guns. To infringe on your second rights. These are the kinds of things, I think, that might be caught up in a Supreme Court case. Regarding the EPA. Maybe.

Maybe. But we'll see. This is -- you have to understand. Boy, if you didn't read Philip Dru, Administrator. Get it. It's a free Google book. Because no one in their right mind would ever pay for it. It is absolutely the worst book, I think I've ever read. It's just poorly written. But it was done by. I think it was written by Colonel House. He was the guy that was the main adviser, and best friend to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson has said to have read it three times, during his administration. He just loved it so much. It's so great. I think he said that because he wanted more and more people to read it. You should read it. Because it is exactly what Biden is trying to do right now. And I don't think I've ever gone into great detail. It's about the country, as in chaos. The countries having all kinds of problems. And all of these people just love this hero of Philip Dru. He's a war hero, and he's great, and everybody loves him. And he's super, super honest. All he does. He loves the country so much. And everybody knows, he's not going to do anything to hurt the country. Because he's your average Joe.

So he becomes president. But he doesn't want to be called president. He just wants to be an administrator. Because he's not -- he's not qualified to be president. He just -- he's an administrator. And he can just use all of the administrative tools of the presidency, to get the experts in, who know more than he does. Know more than the average person.

And he's going to let science settle everything. And so he gets into office. He begins to do exactly what Joe Biden is doing now. And then he starts telling the country -- the companies in the country, exactly what they can and cannot do. Exactly how they're going to do -- but based on experts. I mean, he's not an expert. So he just listens to the expert. And then when the experts speak. He tells the people, the news. And the people rejoice. Because it's so wonderful having an expert administrate everything in American life.

It goes on by a third -- by two-thirds of the way in. Philip drew is going. He's already abolished Congress. And he has rewritten the American Constitution. Based on what the experts say. And then on top of that, he does something else special. He goes state to state. And abolishes their state administrations as well. Philip Dru: Administrator you can get it free on Google Books. And it is a must-read if you want to understand where this administration is going.

youtu.be
RADIO

U.S. enemies likely LAUGHING at THIS Navy training video

What makes Glenn think the U.S. will lose the next war we enter? Because a recently leaked training video — shown to members of the U.S. Navy — is ALL about gender-specific pronouns. If our enemies saw this, Glenn says, they’d be on the phone LAUGHING to each other. So WHO within the Navy is organizing this? And are they INTENTIONALLY trying to destroy our military machine? It’s time for answers...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You have anything positive to bring to the table?

PAT: I do. I have this great Navy training video. That, you know, I think it -- I think you're going to feel really confident, about how our Navy is protecting our nation right now. Once you see the training video.

Can we show the first --

VOICE: Hi, my name is Johnny. And I use he/him pronouns.

VOICE: Hi. And I'm Fauci, and I use she/her pronouns.

PAT: U.S. Navy. United States Navy.

GLENN: Wait. Stop. Wait. First of all, they're not in Navy uniforms.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: The guy is wearing a rainbow sweater. And they've got a color -- what looks like a box of color crayons on the back that just say -- say pronouns all in the rainbow colors. This is our Navy training film?

PAT: Yeah. Sad, isn't it?

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I would like to give you -- I would like to give you my rendition of what is happening right now on the phone between Mao. Or, sorry. Xi. I think of him as Mao. And Putin.
(laughter)
They have them now, yeah? I mean, this is crazy. We're going to lose the next war.

PAT: This is what we're focused on. If we don't put a stop to this, we are. And could this possibly be why some of our Naval higher-ups are being fired. Because they're objecting to this kind of crap. They're saying, I'm not showing this kind of slop to my Naval cadets. No, absolutely not. And they're getting fired because they don't share the Biden worldview.

GLENN: So I found myself hesitant to even mention that story, when I saw it, what? A couple of days ago. We have, how many? An extraordinary number of high-ranking Navy officials have been fired. And it's highly unusual, and they haven't been given any -- I shouldn't say that. They haven't given the press, or anybody asking, any reason, why these guys were fired. And my thought, Pat, was exactly like yours. I don't want to jump to conclusions. Because I -- maybe it's -- I don't know. Maybe it's something else.

But, I mean, it is -- I don't trust our military. I -- I find myself in a situation, that I've never found myself in, ever before.

PAT: And it makes sense, that if these guys objected to this sort of stuff, you're doing really -- you're talking about pronouns to the U.S. Navy? No. I'm not doing that.

STU: Yeah. And what I find interesting in this, in particular. Is let's just say, it's sane, to care about pronouns like this. Let's just say that was the real world. I mean, I can't get to that world. I don't understand why people care about pronouns so much. But let's just say, this was the nice generous, the right way to go, absolutely.

Isn't going into the military, a big part of that journey, to be tough enough, to not care about stuff like that?

PAT: Yes.

STU: I mean, you're getting -- bullets are coming at you. Explosions are going on. You have to push through hours and hours of endless torture, to try to win a war. If you care about pronouns, that will not occur.
(laughter)

STU: It's fundamentally what a military is. Is to make you tough enough, to not care about stuff like that.

GLENN: We need to put Jason on this. Or if you have any -- any inside information. You just send it to GlennBeck.com. Go to GlennBeck.com/contact. I would like to know, who is -- who is -- who is organizing all of this?

Because there's two ways to look at it. Somebody who really thinks, you know, we just need to be. We're already snappy dressers. But we need to be nicer to each other. And, yes, we're going to be a tough war machine. But we're going to be nice to each other. I don't think that's it. I think it's more like, we need to destroy this machine. We need to do everything we can, to destroy this machine, from the inside. And knowing who is behind all of this, will tell you. If you have any inside information, on any of the stuff going on in our military, specifically who is behind this, please, contact us. It will help our researchers get a jump-start. Because I don't think we have anything in -- in the works, on the military. So please, look into that for us.

youtu.be
RADIO

NYC gun laws CHALLENGED after 'GREAT' Supreme Court ruling

It’s a great day for the Constitution. Why? Because the 6-3 Supreme Court decision announced today should OVERTURN a New York City law that severely restricts concealed carry rights. Legal expert Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what he says is a ‘career-defining’ majority decision by Clarence Thomas, what the ruling means for gun rights throughout America moving forward, and how this decision will ‘suck the wind’ out of the Republicans who supported the Senate’s current gun restrictions bill…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The huge gun case up in New York, where I couldn't get a gun in New York. I had 15 active threats. I had Gavin de Becker and associates. Which were -- they were probably the best security detail in the country. In the world, really.

And they were following these threats. You know, my kids were looking at pursuer lists on our refrigerator. If these people approached. Go run. Get mom or dad.

I mean, it was really bad. And I couldn't get a gun. In New York City. Because they deemed that I didn't have enough cause. To have a gun.

That's been thrown out now. So tell me what they've done. What does this mean for New York? And the rest of the country?

JOSH: So it's a fantastic ruling. Look, I've not had the chance to pore through it. Looks like they have a Justice Thomas majority opinion, clocked in at 63 pages. You know, including concurrences and dissents, we're up to 130. One hundred 40 pages. So I have my reading cut out for me, for the rest of the day.

But based on my quick skimming of it, this is a thoroughly well-researched. I might even say, thus far, career-defining majority opinion. From Justice Clarence Thomas. I was thinking about this recently.

It's unclear to me, today, or at least before today. Whether Clarence Thomas has a career-defining majority opinion. He's written so prolifically for so long, but most of his greatest writings, especially on the hard-hitting cases. Have been in concurrence. Or more often than not, oftentimes in defense. I think in another gun case in 2008, (inaudible) versus Heller had his landmark career-defining opinion. And at least until affirmative action I predict is likely overturned next term. You can get that if you want to. At least until that day where I predict Thomas will also have the majority opinion. This is his career-defining opinion.

This is an issue that is very near and dear to Justice Thomas. He wrote an amazing concurrence in the courts, last major Second Amendment case. McDonald versus the city of Chicago case in 2010, where you had a magisterial 55 to 60-page concurrence. Just working through the history. This issue was very near and dear to him. He's a personal gun owner. He enjoys hunting. And from what I can tell, it's just a really thoroughly well-researched opinion, that reaches the clear and obvious result, that anyone with any degree of familiarity with the Second Amendment text could tell you. Which is that this is a right.

And the very act of talking about burying arms. Not just keening them. But the burying them obviously entails the ability to do so, outside the home, without oppressive restrictions. The likes of which, again, it sounds like you face in my home state. In my home state of New York. The point that Justice Kavanaugh makes in his very brief concurring opinion. He kind of drives down this point, which is, the vast majority of states, which have so-called shall issue regimes for their gun licensing permits. Which means that you have to give the applicants a permit, as long as they go through X, Y Z tests. You know, they shoot the right number of targets. The permit years ago. Those laws are all untouched. The only laws that are jeopardized by today's decision are the more problematic, quote, unquote, may issue laws. Not the shall issue laws, where they basically give the licensing authorities a ton of discretion to arbitrarily decide, where you have to show that you truly, truly -- whatever the heck that means. But, and then, the fact that --

GLENN: Yeah. It's nuts.

JOSH: Go ahead.

GLENN: So I want to ask you, doesn't this make the Senate gun bill a joke? I mean, that will have no teeth to it, after this ruling. Would it?

JOSH: Yes and no.

It's real interesting. I have tracked a lot of the commentary over the next 24 to 48 hours. Next week is a focus on this exact question, right? So in theory, they are different issues. The ruling here today is talking about concealed carry, and open carry regimes in the states. The Senate gun bill is in theory focused on other measures. It's focused on things like red flag laws. But it is a little intellectually inconsistent. Or at least at a bear bare minimum. It would be a little peculiar, right? To have the liberalize. I say that in a good way. A more liberalized concealed carry licensing regime, while at the same time, having a red flag law, in place that would just infringe upon due process rights, willy-nilly. Those two things would seem to be intentioned with one another. At a bare minimum, the timing of this opinion --

GLENN: But it's not the same.

JOSH: It really kind of sucks the wind out of John Cornyn and the other 13-Senate Republicans' momentum. That's for sure.

GLENN: So how will this affect other states? New York, by the way, has just come out. And I'm going to talk about this in a minute. New York has already come out. And said, it's not going to change anything. We're not going to abide by this. Which is ironic, because that's what the Second Amendment is for. To stop an out-of-control, lawless government, doing what they want. And not abiding by the Constitution. I just want to point that out.

JOSH: Well, that's wild. I have not seen that. But that's just wild stuff, that they said that bluntly here. Hook, the entire idea behind the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Which in itself is a legally debatable matter, I should say. But they have held. The court has held that the overwhelming majority of enumerated rights, in developed rights, including the Second Amendment. By the way. That's the McDonald versus Chicago case in 2010. The court has held that these rights are incorporated against the states. Which, you know, to escape the legalese for a minute, means that a state cannot infringe on these rights. The federal government already cannot. But a state cannot as well. So this case is right out of New York State. If New York State wants to go flip two middle fingers at the court, when they themselves are a party to the lawsuit. Look, parties to the lawsuit aren't balanced.

GLENN: Well, let me -- let me read impala what governor Kathy Hochul said. She said, it's outrageous that in a moment of national reckoning on gun violence. The Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those that can carry concealed weapons. By the way, I don't know if she knows this. But Buffalo is in New York.

So her law didn't do anything. In response to this ruling, we are reviewing our options, including calling a special session of the legislature. Just as we swiftly passed nation leading gun reform legislation. We will continue to do everything we can in our power, to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence. So she didn't say, we're not going to do it. She said, we're just not going to find a way around it.

JOSH: Right. I mean, that statement is about what I would expect from a left-wing hack like the governor of New York State. We'll see what they try to do. I mean, they'll try to pass some law. Meaning, they will try to issue something administrative. Inevitably both find themselves, in court again.

And, you know, with the occurring composition of the court. If that ultimately makes its way up to the Supreme Court itself, you have to like the odds of the side of gun rights. The reality is, if I have the number correctly, I think it's 43 of the current states in the country. If I recall the number from the Kavanaugh concurring opinion today. Forty-three of the states are either, quote, unquote, shall issue states. Or just straight up constitutional county states. They simply do not need a license to exercise a right to give them their arms outside the home. So we should note that this opinion did not actually apply to the vast majority of states. We're only talking here about the blue states such as New York State. And look, I mean, cynically speaking. Someone born in New York, and fled many years ago. If it is oppressive laws like this. That incentivizes more people, to flee blue state tyranny or red state freedom. Far be it from me to criticize people to do so. The statement that you read, Glenn, I would expect them to say something along those lines.

GLENN: All right. We're going to -- if you don't mind holding for just a minute. I will do a commercial and come back. And I just want to ask you, if you looked at any of the others. Is there any that you think is a really good sign, on where things are headed. Just some of the other decisions, that came out today from the Supreme Court. Back with Josh Hammer in a minute.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLSconsumeraccess.org.

GLENN: So listen, right now, it is so imperative, that we are very frugal with our money. We are moving closer and closer to the brink of a recession. I know you listen to the president.

He's -- he's honestly, batcrap crazy on this. I mean, you know. And, honestly, if you voted for the guy, even you know it. We're not -- there's no recession. We're in a transition -- we're in a transitional period. Yeah. So was the Great Depression. I don't even know what a transitional period means.

But we're headed for a recession. The major banks came out yesterday, and said it. The fed said it. And the fed also said, by the way, this is not a Putin gas tax. Just taking them apart. But yet, he's living in a delusional world. I want you to make sure that you are prepared with your financing to do the best that you can to save every penny. American Financing can help you do this. By paying off high-interest debt. To shortening the loan terms. You can access cash from your equity. There's so many possibilities right now. And many of them will save you hundreds, not $1,000 a month. Just by calling American Financing. And seeing your options. You will feel better. Call American Financing now. At 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So my producers are freaking out. Because they want to make sure that I clarify something here. That I just said.

Historically, the reason why the Second Amendment exists, is not for hunting.

Not a sport. I want to go shoot Clay pigeons. Okay. That's not what it was about. Otherwise, you might be able to find, like bowling in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It's not about a sport. It's about protecting yourself. And protecting your community against an out-of-control rogue government. That's what it's about. So I just find it ironic. That if they're like, we're not going to obey Biden's rule. That's what the Second Amendment. That's what the Founders were talking about. As somebody that just decided --

STU: As you just read that statement. That's not exactly what's happening. You're not exactly calling for a Civil War against Albany. Are you? I want to make sure here.

GLENN: Oh, my God. No. No.

STU: Because you were talking about this was the motivation at the time. You have to follow these traditions and these rules. But this is a much, much different case here, as we're talking about it now. As a statement from a --

GLENN: Anyway, I'm just talking about how ironic it is, that that's what the Founders, you know, said, that that's really important.

Because if they're -- as George Washington said. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

And, you know, part of that, is being able to question them. To speak out. To have a free press, to assemble. And also, to own a gun.

Anyway, josh, anything else that -- that you see, that came out today, that you think is -- is good news in a -- in a far-reaching way?

JOSH: Well, first of all, let me chime in briefly on the conversation that you and Stu were just having. I obviously could not agree with you guys more on the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment. Glenn, I know that you all. You will uniquely appreciate this. Just because I know how much you care about this issue. You know, I'm Jewish obviously.

I keep it on my desk at all times. A rock that a rabbi gave to me years ago, that he smuggled out of the crematorium at Auschwitz. And I keep next to that rock.

A rock that I myself took from Treblinka. And then across my room, I have my -- you know, my game of defense AR, with lots of ammunition.

And mags and all that. And to me, I refer to that, as to my friends. As my Warsaw ghetto gun. So no one understands the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment more than I do. So I just want to echo your sentiments on that.

GLENN: Okay.

And, you know, the Germans gave -- the Germans gave all of the information of where their guns were, to the Weimar Republic. You give it in gun faith. Because the Weimar Republic said, oh, we'll never use this. Well, then the Nazis came in, and guess who took all the information. And knew where all the guns were. That's why you just don't do these things. But, anyway, go ahead.

JOSH: Exactly. Shifting a little bit, as far as the other cases that came across today. There's an Eighth Amendment case about an execution that I have not had a chance to review yet. A state in Georgia called Nancy Ward. Long story short. All sorts of activist litigation for many years now, where the ACLU, groups like that, will sue -- and they have the effect of the incrementally outlawing or seeking to outlaw various forms of execution, which you have to look harder and harder to find the right cocktail. A very pernicious people passed it with the obvious, not so subtle end goal of trying to re-abolish the death penalty in America.

It looks like the wrong side won today. But I -- a glimmer of hope, though, I see that Justice Barrett actually filed a dissenting opinion in that case. Even though Kavanaugh defected, it's good to see that Justice Barrett is on the right side of this Eighth Amendment issue.

Another case that I've not fully had the chance to break down. It's out of the fourth circuit. It's a case in North Carolina. They basically -- it's a case called Berger versus North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. The court rules, and it's notable. Because it's an 8-1 ruling. An 8-1 ruling. They ruled that Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina are able to intervene to defend their state's voter ID law. That the NAACP challenged. So the procedural posture there, it's not a substantive claim. It's more a procedural claim. The reason why I want to bring it to your listeners. I think it's worth discussing a little bit. Is because it's an 8-1 opinion. The only person who dissented here is preemptively speaking, Sotomayor. And that's a real read into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. The lower court that heard this. When you, again, reverse won by the court. When Sotomayor sort of disagreed. And it really paints a stark picture as to how much the Obama presidency, changed the Fourth Circuit amongst the other circuits. We do really have a long road ahead of us, to get the lower court in order unfortunately. This case did come out the right way.

GLENN: Josh. Josh, thank you so much. This is Josh Hammer. He'll be joining us tomorrow. More rulings are coming out tomorrow.

And we're coming close to really big ones.