Props to Chuck Todd for Exposing Chuck Schumer's Agonizing, Hypocritical Game

April 03, 2017

WRITER

Could there be a glimmer of hope in the mainstream media? Sunday on Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd interviewed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and did something we rarely see. He actually held the senator's feet to the fire, pointing out the hypocrisy on the Gorsuch vote.

"It's ridiculous what they're doing to the Supreme Court nominee. But I also want you to hear Chuck Todd actually punching the clock and showing the rest of journalists what it's like to be a journalist," Glenn said Monday on radio.

Todd grilled Schumer on the rules change Democrats made in 2013 to confirm judges --- and the senator's displeasure with it now.

Let's give credit where credit's due. Chuck Todd actually behaved like an unbiased reporter searching for the truth.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Yesterday -- last night, I tweeted this out because I think it's important audio for you to hear with Chuck Todd and Chuck Schumer, to show you how unhinged the Democrats are. It's just -- it's ridiculous what they're doing to the Supreme Court nominee. But I also want you to hear Chuck Todd actually punching the clock and showing the rest of journalists what it's like to be a journalist.

CHUCK: You expressed regret earlier this year for the rules change that was made on judges in 2013. Why did you go along with it if you regret doing it?

SCHUMER: Well, let's look at the history. Our Republican colleagues had been holding back on just about all of so many lower court judges, including very important DC circuit. I went to Lamar Alexander, one of my dear friends in the Senate, and I said, "Look, if you keep holding back on scores and scores of judges, my side is going to want to change the rules. Go to Mitch and tell him. At least let us have some votes on a few of these, many of whom had gotten bipartisan support."

The answer was no. And we changed the rules. But the one thing that stands out here, Chuck, is we did not change it for Supreme Court for one very important reason: And that is, on -- on the most important of decisions, 60 votes is called for. That's why you go to mainstream, that's how you get a mainstream justice.

PAT: Can you believe the hair he's splitting here? That they changed the rules. Sure, but we didn't do it on the Supreme Court. That's just because there was no Supreme Court justice coming up for a vote at that time.

STU: That they needed the help for --

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: They didn't need it.

PAT: They didn't need to do that.

STU: You know why? Because Republicans, too many of them, by the way, did not oppose, Kagan or Sotomayor.

PAT: Yes. They just caved.

Sotomayor is not mainstream. Kagan was not mainstream. But he wants a mainstream justice.

SCHUMER: Just about every -- Mitch calls it a filibuster. We call it the 60-vote standard. Most Americans believe in the 60-vote standard.

CHUCK: But, Senator -- that's fine. But there is no rule that says that it has to be 60 votes. There's no part of advice and consensus that says it has to be 60 votes. And, in fact, there's currently two members of the Supreme Court right now that did not get 60 votes: Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas.

SCHUMER: Well, actually Clarence Thomas is the only one. Because when the filibuster came up with Alito, there were 72 votes to go forward. So there was just one. Just about every nominee gets 60 votes because in the past, presidents actually consulted the other side before picking someone.

PAT: What a bald-faced lie. That is such garbage. Like Barack Obama went to conservatives and said, "Hey, who would you like me to appoint?"

GLENN: Sotomayor.

PAT: Sonia Sotomayor. You like her? Yeah, me too. So -- come on.

STU: By the way, according to the New York Times, Sotomayor is to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

PAT: Right. She's not --

STU: She's mainstream. She is the most --

PAT: So bad.

STU: He actually has the balls in this clip to actually cite the exact thing I'm talking about. Because he says, well, the New York Times said he would be the second most conservative justice, Justice Clarence Thomas. He actually says that in the story. That same article says the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court is Sonia Sotomayor to the left of Ginsburg.

PAT: Jeez, man. And that's hard to believe. It's hard to believe anybody could be that -- what is -- the only thing left of Sotomayor is Joe Stalin. And he's gone. He's gone.

GLENN: We lost him.

VOICE: In this case, Donald Trump consulted the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist society, hard right groups with extreme special interest-oriented views. And it didn't leave much chance for compromise.

PAT: My gosh.

VOICE: You know, Heidi Heitkamp, one of the Democratic senators in your conference, she came out in favor of Neil Gorsuch and in favor of cloture. She said she's not happy about it. She didn't like the way Merrick Garland was treated. But she ended her statement by essentially saying, two wrongs don't make a right. Why not give Neil Gorsuch an up or down vote, Senator Schumer?

VOICE: Let me make a proposal to maybe break the problem that we have.

PAT: I'm sure this will be reasonable.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: It looks like Gorsuch will not reach the 60-vote margin. So instead of changing the rules, which is up to Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority, why doesn't President Trump, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, sit down and try to come up with a mainstream nominee?

PAT: And finally come up with a nominee that I like? Why don't they do that? How about I just tell Trump who to nominate?

GLENN: Yeah, we did this with Sotomayor.

PAT: Sotomayor. Yeah, oh, they did that.

GLENN: They did.

VOICE: Look, when a nominee doesn't get 60 votes, you shouldn't change the rules. You should change the nominee, and let's just take one minute here --

PAT: The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

VOICE: -- because this is important. Let's just look at the history. Okay?

PAT: Okay.

VOICE: Our nominee was Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell broke 230 years of precedent and didn't call him up for a vote. It wasn't in the middle of an election campaign. It was March.

PAT: Which is the middle of the election.

VOICE: Second, now it looks like we have the votes to prevent Gorsuch from getting on.

Now, that -- that doesn't mean you have to change the rules.

PAT: Yeah, it does.

VOICE: Each side didn't get their nominee. Let's sit down and come together.

GLENN: You got your nominee.

VOICE: Our Republican friends are acting like, you know, they're a cat on the top of a tree.

PAT: They expected -- what they're saying about the Merrick Garland thing is that they expected a hard-core conservative to be replaced with a liberal. And, of course, the Republicans weren't going to bring that up for a vote. Of course not. Come on.

GLENN: And it was in the middle of an election.

PAT: Yes, it was.

GLENN: I remember tweeting, this may change the course of the election.

PAT: You can't allow that to swing the entire court in the direction of the left-wing.

GLENN: No.

PAT: I mean, that would be -- that would have been a horrible, horrible move.

STU: And this is -- you want to talk about a good argument for Gorsuch, what you're seeing here from Chuck Schumer is, he knows he's not getting a liberal. What he wants is someone he thinks he can win later. The Kennedys of the world. I always think of Briar, but the other guy that was in New Hampshire.

PAT: Souter.

STU: He wants a Souter, right? He's hoping he can get someone who looks kind of conservative at the beginning, but you're not really sure. Then you can win him over on big things. Roberts, you can win him over on certain issues. And he doesn't think he has that in Gorsuch, which is a positive, by the way.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: A very big positive.

PAT: This is why Gorsuch should be hammered through no matter what. Change the rule and just get it done.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Get, what? Fifty-four votes now. And that's -- so, what? It's not 60. Like Chuck Todd said, no rule says you have to have 60. There's no law.

STU: And we all know this standard is going away. Because if it doesn't go away here, if they don't do it with Gorsuch, the next person who comes up is going to do it. Whether it's Democratic or a Republican president, the next justice that comes up is going to slam these guys through with 50 votes no matter what.

GLENN: Boy, I hope they do. I hope they do.

STU: Because this standard is dead. It's dead. So I think, so far, the initial idea with Democrats was, let's not do it to Gorsuch when they have an obviously good nominee. Let's wait for the next one. We can really vilify them. Because that's going to be the balance of the court. We can vilify them. Really go after it. And we'll have credibility, because we let Gorsuch go through. Now, I think with the health care failure, they're feeling a little momentum. They're thinking they might as well just go for this now.

GLENN: Wrong move -- wrong move strategically, I think. Wrong move strategically.

PAT: And he keeps saying that Gorsuch is not mainstream. Nobody could have been more reasonable --

STU: Yeah.

PAT: During a hearing, than Neil Gorsuch was. He was absolutely mainstream. He sounded completely unbiased on many issues. He actually said Roe v. Wade was settled law, along with the gay marriage thing. I mean, almost everything the Democrats would want, he said, yeah, it's settled.

STU: He said if Trump asked him how he would rule on Roe vs. Wade during the interview, he would have walked out of the room. Now, of course, Trump promised that he would ask his nominees that questions. So apparently he didn't do that.

PAT: He should. The Democrats certainly do.

STU: Yeah, I honestly have no problem -- everyone makes that out to be, oh, how dare you. Well, isn't that, I don't know, a fundamental question you should know about your justice?

PAT: Yes, yes.

STU: We're like -- we're supposed to play this weird telepathic game with these guys.

GLENN: What they're saying is trying to appeal to, you know, their sense of reason and independent-minded action for the specific case. But I can't think of the case where it overturns Roe vs. Wade that doesn't involve the choice, is this a blob of tissue, or is it a child?

STU: Well, privacy. I mean, they try to find indicators, right? Gorsuch has never had a ruling on abortion. He has had -- he did write a book about euthanasia. He is shown to be very favorable towards issues that would indicate --

PAT: Does he not like senior citizens in Asia, what's the deal?

STU: Yeah, no, it's true. It's a different thing. But, yes, he does not like citizens? Citizens in Asia. That's just separate.

PAT: That's weird.

STU: But every indication is that he will be very good on this issue.

PAT: Yeah, but you don't know for sure. And you would ask. Because certainly Barack Obama asked Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan if they were in favor of abortion or not. You know that happened.

STU: I mean, maybe it was so obvious, he didn't to have ask.

JEFFY: Didn't have to.

STU: Not much of a debate on that one.

PAT: Never would a Democrat nominate a Supreme Court justice who wasn't pro-choice.

GLENN: Never.

PAT: You know that wouldn't happen. Would not happen.

So this little game Schumer is trying to play is asinine.

GLENN: Is there anymore left?

PAT: Yeah, there's some more.

VOICE: And they have to jump off with all the damage that entails. Come back off the tree, sit down, and work with us, and we will produce a mainstream nominee. It will be -- one more point. One more point.

VOICE: Hang on here.

VOICE: It will be a Republican nominee. But, remember, Democrats voted for Roberts and Alito. And both of them got the 60 votes.

VOICE: All right. But there are already two Democrats for Neil Gorsuch. So there already is a bipartisan majority -- and, look, two is two. It's more than zero, for what it's worth.

But why should senator McConnell work with you guys on this when you changed the rules first, when you decided to do this?

And, again, a change that you yourself said this week and two months ago that you regret and it was a mistake.

VOICE: We never -- but I don't regret not changing it for the Supreme Court.

Let me read you a quote of Mr. McConnell. You like to put up quotes. He said, I think we can stipulate -- and my good friends on the other side of the aisle stipulated from time to time over the years, when they were in the minority, that in the Senate, it takes 60 votes on controversial matters. That has been the tradition of the Senate for a long time. This is nothing new.

PAT: Tough.

VOICE: Then why did you change the rules in the first place? I go back to this because now we're going down this slippery slope.

PAT: Good.

VOICE: And everybody has hypocrisy on their side to point the finger.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

VOICE: But you guys are hand in hand sliding down the slope. Tell me this, in ten years, do you think the filibuster will still be alive for anything?

VOICE: Yeah. That's one of the few things that my dear friend Mitch said on the show that I agree with.

PAT: So disingenuous. Your dear friend Mitch. Okay.

VOICE: I don't think there's any thirst to change the legislative rules. Sixty votes for that.

PAT: Such a lie.

VOICE: Most Democrats and most Republicans have served in both the minority and majority and know what it means. But why not -- you know, you can do a lot of finger pointing. Each side has some right here. Let's stop this now. And the way to stop it is the way I mentioned. You know, other --

PAT: And the way to stop it is to do exactly what he wants and nominate somebody he's fine with --

GLENN: My way. As long as we do it my way, we're fine. Give me a justice that we want and we'll be fine.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Forget about you.

PAT: Exactly.

GLENN: I mean, they didn't care a lick about what the Republican said.

PAT: Not at all.

STU: Of course not. And, you know what, honestly, they shouldn't. You know, they shouldn't.

If you have control of all three branches -- or, not all three branches, but all three -- you know, you're going through House, Senate, presidency, you have all three of those, you shouldn't be consulting with the other side. You should go pick somebody you think is good for your side, just like they got --

PAT: And that's the situation Republicans are in right now.

STU: Yeah, and it was just like the one the Democrats were in last time. Not the whole time.

PAT: Make it happen.

STU: Not the whole time.

GLENN: Well, I believe that's where we first heard elections have consequences.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And what they do, you should be able to push through your own Supreme Court justice if you're the president of the United States and you have control of the House and the Senate. Yes, you should be able to do that.

Civics isn’t optional—America's survival depends on it

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Props to Chuck Todd for Exposing Chuck Schumer's Agonizing, Hypocritical Game

Civics isn’t optional—America's survival depends on it

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Taking up the torch

Start small and local

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Picking up his torch

Two turning points, decades apart

A time for courage

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state