Rand Paul Is Still Recovering From Neighbor’s Attack: ‘There Will Be Legal Consequences’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) shared an update on today’s show about his recovery process after being assaulted by a neighbor in his own yard.

“I’m starting to get better every day,” Paul said. He suffered six broken ribs in the attack, describing on today’s show how it still hurts to sit up.

Rene Albert Boucher, who has been Paul’s neighbor for 17 years, allegedly attacked Paul by jumping him from behind and knocking him to the ground. He has pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor assault charges.

“I think in the end there will be legal consequences,” Paul told Glenn on today’s show.

“The machinery of justice sometimes is slow, but I think in the end, there will be a just outcome and some punishment for this.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul is joining us right now, a friend of the program, or we're a friend of his, at least. And glad to have him on, and glad to hear that he is able to continue to do work and to be on the phone with us.

Rand, we've been really concerned. This audience has been very concerned about your health. How are you feeling?

RAND: You know, I'm starting to get better every day, and I appreciate that. And I appreciate really -- [indistinct] -- across the country being concerned about my health.

GLENN: You know, I've only had a bruised rib. What, do you have three broken ribs?

RAND: Actually had six broken ribs. Three of them, three of them displaced. Meaning that I --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RAND: -- not really aligned anymore. Fluid on the lung, I had pneumonia twice, and, you know, five or six weeks just to really excruciating pain trying to even sit up. I had to have assistance just to sit up.

GLENN: So, Senator, this has been bothering me. Since this story broke, first it was like, no big deal. Then it was like, oh, maybe a little bit, and then the details started to trickle out.

Why -- what happened with the media where we weren't getting the story? It was -- I mean, did you not know you had those broken ribs right away?

RAND: I think the media was obsessed with sort of trying to make it my fault somehow.

So the major liberal rag in Kentucky, the Louisville Courier, presented stories that Rand Paul is apparently not a good neighbor or sort of had it coming, deserved what he got. And it's really kind of stuff that the left -- [indistinct] -- for victims, until the victims happen to be conservatives.

GLENN: I've never seen -- I've never seen anything like it, and I don't know why this guy -- I don't care -- I mean, I do care if you're a Senator. To me it makes it much, much worse, especially if it was politically motivated. I don't care if you were a guy living on the street. That's a major attack! Why isn't this guy having major legal problems?

RAND: I think in the end there will be legal consequences. The machinery of justice sometimes is slow, but I think in the end it will be a just outcome, and some punishment for this.

But I guess the thing is, and I don't know if you remember, but about a month ago my wife finally just had enough, and she said, I can't stand -- [indistinct].

GLENN: I'm sorry. Your phone is kind of weird. You said she said what?

RAND: She just couldn't stand them attacking me every day. I got mugged once in the yard and then I got mugged by the media every day implying somehow that I sort of had it coming and that violence was justified. I guess they don't realize that it is -- [indistinct] -- think it's kind of funny, but I was on the ball field being shot at by a gunshot, over 100 shots at us, almost killed Steve Scalise, and I was attacked in my yard. And it's not that funny.

GLENN: I cannot believe -- we were on the air. If this would have happened to anyone on the left, the country would have stopped.

And the media just kind of took it like, yeah, well, it was a lawn mower thing.

No, it's not! And even if it was, there's a problem here!

Anyway, yesterday the President tweeted that the FISA thing that was going through the House was the -- the kind of stuff used with the -- he said, bogus dossier from Fusion GPS to surveil him and spy on him, and it was horrible. Two hours later he says, well, I put the right language in there, so it's all good and it's patriotic and you can do this. Let get smart.

I think this is a nightmare.

RAND: Yeah, the people in the swamp I think try to convince the President. The swamp is kind of pushing back. Paul Ryan and others, they push back and say well, we're putting reforms there and all the problems where people abuse the system, to go after -- [indistinct] and their mistress, and Bruce Orr, we fixed that, and it isn't at all. They did fake reform. There really isn't going to be a warrant requirement. So here's this program. It's supposed to be collecting information on foreigners and foreign lands. And I agree with that. Mike Lee and I are the two biggest advocates for getting a warrant, and both of us said we're fine with the program as long as the millions of Americans who are caught up accidentally in this program, those in the database, as long as you don't go trolling through the database looking for IRS problems or looking for campaign, you know, finance problems or looking for just people you don't like because they're the opposite party, and that stuff happens.

Senator Lee mentioned this the other day. He said, since FDR every President has used the intelligence against their opponents, all the way through Nixon. And Obama did it to attack the Tea Party, and they're still doing it now but not at Trump's behest. It's to attack Trump.

GLENN: So is there a chance that you and Mike Lee and I understand there's some, you know, good Democrats that are talking about joining you guys. Is there a chance this doesn't pass in the Senate?

RAND: We had the initial vote and we had four Republicans and 23 Democrats. The Republicans are Mike Lee, myself, Jerry Moran, and Steve Daines. These are the only four Republicans that have shown any interest in trying to stop this.

So to us, the American people, if we asked your audience, I know what kind of answer we'll get. But lets just say we ask everybody, out there listening to public radio we say, do you think that the government should be able to look at your personal information, listen to your phone calls, without a warrant? It would be a hell no from everybody. 80% of the public. But in Washington? The 80% of the public, they just don't listen to us.

In fact, when they hear that, they do what is very common in Washington, they did fake reform. They do some stuff -- [indistinct] -- fix the problem. In realty, this bill is worse than the current law. You should this bill, they say that data that is collected on foreigners that accidentally gets Americans can be used against Americans in a court of law. So imagine this. Imagine they just feel like they can go through there, and they -- [indistinct] -- office you brought home and painted your house, this would be a tax violation because you deducted the paint for the business. All of a sudden, they can -- it can be used in court now. That's what this law says. And I think it is worth filibustering. The Bill of Rights, the fourth Amendment, your right to privacy, so sacred and important, and it's what John Adams said it was the spark that led to the revolutionary was James Otis fighting against General Lawrence --

GLENN: Yep. I will tell you this. That I think -- I've been asking for a while, E Pluribus Unum. What's our unum anymore? It's really is the Bill of Rights. Those common sense things that you ask yourself, you know, should the government be able to just spy on you and listen to your phone calls? The unum is, no. We all agree. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, independent, left, right. 90% of Americans would say, no, they don't have a right to do that that's our unum. And we've taken our unum, our Bill of Rights, and we're just dismantling it, to have a group of Republicans and Democrats stand up in the Senate and filibuster on that right, on that unum, I think we'll connect.

RAND: And here's the good way to look at it, a lot of people get sort of -- they get caught up in this, and they're not sure which way to think, because they think, I know my local policeman and FBI agent, and they're good people. I would say exactly the same thing. Every individual nonagent I've met out in the field has been a good person that I think tries to apply the law. The local FBI agents and the local police understand the Fourth Amendment much better than Washington. But what should scare us all, we see Strzok, his girlfriend's -- mistress talking to somebody named Andy, which is probably the second in command at the FBI and plotting at work, their work phone, on how to stop Donald Trump being President and then talk about some kind of insurance policy. And then you flip over the Department of Justice, and the Bruce Orr's wife works for the opposition research that hired a British spy that is paid for by Hillary Clinton and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that all these people are angels and they're not going to spy on us, if we don't have extra scrutiny on what they do?

GLENN: [Sighs] There are so many distractions now, that it's hard to concentrate on the important things. We had another one yesterday. A lot of people said what the President was doing two days ago when he was sitting down with members of Congress and saying I trust you guys to come up with a plan, a lot of people who supported him said he's just playing Congress and he's playing the media and he's going to play, you know, good cop. Well, he just flushed all that down the toilet last night with the comments being released, you know, why do we let all these people in here from craphole countries. I personally am just disgusted by that.

Any comment on that, Senator?

RAND: Not that in particular. But I would say that I think something is going to come out of this. And I've always blamed -- [indistinct] immigration, when it's border security or figuring out who can come to the country. And the Democrat's unwillingness to compromise. Right now there's a bunch of kids, and I do have symptom for the DACA kids, and I -- [indistinct] compromise. The democracy -- [indistinct] they're going to have to vote in favor of having a more merit based where we admit the people to the country who need, want, and will work. And then we -- I think the chain migration is going to --

GLENN: You know, that is the defenders of Donald Trump on the craphole country thing, which I'm sorry I don't buy into any of the discussions, but what we'll say, we need to know if these people are any good because they come from a craphole country. You can come from Denmark and still not want to work and still want things for free. Denmark is giving away things for free much more than Haiti.

RAND: -- justify that --

GLENN: -- no, no.

RAND: Can't have all 700 million. And here's the thing about merit based. We need people who are -- [indistinct] -- years and EMT -- workers. If we had no immigration into our country, if some of the people want to close the borders, we have no tomatoes, we had no vegetables, we have all of the things that have to be picked in the field. Unfortunately, we have destroyed the work ethic in our country. And the people who are --

GLENN: Yes --

RAND: -- for nonwork, but our country would come to a standstill without allowing some immigration. It can be a strength. It needs to be done legally and appropriately. I'm more for legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

GLENN: I agree with you on that, and I want to point out that I think what you were saying was, that the Democrats will have to compromise on merit base, which every country on the planet does, except for us.

And do you think that they will actually go and look -- I mean, we need -- we need AI visas. We need a Manhattan project, quite honestly, for safe ASI. We need the greatest minds to come here so we can develop that and it's not developed over in China or elsewhere. But that requires merit-based stuff. Would the Democrat ever do it?

RAND: I think part of merit-based applies, and one of the things that we need to do that we used to do, we should link it to work and sponsorship. When my wife's grandmother came over here from Ireland in the 1920s, she came over, and -- [indistinct] -- she was required to work. And if she didn't work she was sent back. We had some tough rules, but people knew they wanted to come, and people did. They were hungry for work. And hard work at the lower wage was better than the other country, but there's a hope of progress, a hope of success and moving up the socioeconomic ladder.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. We're glad you're feeling better. If there's anything that any of us can do to help you, let us know, besides our prayers. We appreciate the hard work you're doing, and thanks for joining us. God bless.

RAND: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: By the way, just want to point out, he said his grandmother, in the 1920s came from Ireland. At that time, many said Ireland was a craphole country, and why are we letting those people in?

Well, because some of them turn out to be really good Constitutional Senators.

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined Glenn Beck on this week's podcast to share her unique perspective as a trusted adviser and confidante to President Donald Trump for two and a half years, which she also details in her new book, "Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of Our Lives Inside the Trump White House."

Sarah described the unprecedented levels of corruption she saw firsthand during the Russia probe and shocking lengths to which Democratic leaders and the mainstream media would go to "take the president down."

Sarah said she often saw sides of Donald Trump that the media never covered. Recently, she went on the record denying the Atlantic's claims that the president mocked our military during a 2018 trip to France. She was on that trip, she told Glenn, and her account of what really happened paints a very different picture.

"The people who are making this outrageous charge are such cowards for doing so in an anonymous way. If you really believed this, and believed it was wrong, one, why did it take you so long? And, two, put your name on it the way the rest of us have," Sarah said.

"He didn't say those things. Not only was I there that day, Glenn, I spent two and a half years traveling all over the world with the president, watching him interact with men and women of our armed forces almost every single day during that two-and-a-half year period," she added.

"This is a person who loves America and loves the people who allow the rest of us to live in America, free, and have prosperity. And I got to see that a lot. I think it is shameful that people are trying to distort who he is and what he has done, particularly when it comes to the men and women in the military."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Sarah Huckabee Sanders below:

Find the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.


Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Daily Beast recently reported on a group of 50-plus leading progressive organizations that calls itself the Fight Back Table or FBT, who are planning for a "post-Election Day political apocalypse scenario."

The FBT held a meeting on Zoom to launch an initiative they dubbed the "Democracy Defense Nerve Center." Meeting participants prepared for expected threats to a fair election in November, such as "armed right-wing militia dudes show[ing] up in polling places," or poll locations that "mysteriously close" on Election Day. They also predicted that President Donald Trump would claim victory regardless of November's election results, which would lead to inevitable "mass public unrest."

"It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what ... we will fight to protect [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path," said MoveOn Executive Director Rahna Epting.

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program," Glenn argued that the left is using large-scale mail-in voting — which unlike absentee ballots does not require voters to submit an application ahead of the election — to set the stage for chaos, revolution, and ultimately cause civil war to destroy our nation.

"No one will believe the [election] outcome because they're changing the way we're electing a president this time. And people don't understand the difference ... this is Democratic states just printing ballots and mass mailing them," Glenn said.

"They've been war-gaming this forever," he continued. "And the media is trying to make it look as if the right is the one that is violent. We're not planning anything to happen on Election Day, except to go and vote. The chaos that's coming, I think is remarkable. And if the DOJ doesn't get involved and find out who these groups are and what they have planned, you are going to have intimidation and chaos the week of the voting, and for weeks [afterward] until we go into civil war. This is not hyperbole. This is what the left is now saying."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Netflix film 'Cuties' is darker than you thought

'Cuties'/Netflix

Plague. Recession. Riots. Looting. Fires. Murder Hornets. And now, as we round the third base toward the home stretch, 2020 gives us Cuties, a delightful French coming-of-age film by Maïmouna Doucouré that's half Stand by Me and half Coyote Ugly – if you were to combine both films into an anthropomorphic entity and then forcefully dip its toe into the perilous waters of pedophilia.

Cuties begins by showing us an 11-year-old Senegalese girl named Amy, whose fundamentalist Muslim family has recently moved to France. We learn that Amy's father has gone back to Senegal to bring home the woman who is to become his second wife. The mother's struggle is very clear to Amy, who begins right then and there to develop a hatred for her father. She starts looking for ways to rebel, and soon lands in the company of a group of ne'er-do-well girls, who fancy themselves dancers and have adopted the group name "Cuties". Their primary goal in life at the moment – and the thing that drives the film's narrative – is to participate in and win the big dance competition coming up soon. The ring-leader – a dark-haired bespectacled girl who resembles Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to such an eerie extent that it can't have been on accident – lives in Amy's building, and the two form a kind of delicate friendship throughout the film.

Here is where the movie most resembles a female version of Stand by Me, and it's also where I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times. It's well-shot, well-scored, and well-acted. In fact, Fathia Youssouf Abdillahi (the actress who portrays Amy) is quite possibly the most talented child actor I've ever seen.

I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times.

The portrayal of this group of girls wending their way through the thick tangles of childhood and constantly grasping at what they perceive to be higher concepts of adulthood is somehow both charming and bothersome at the same time. Knowing virtually nothing of the real world of sexuality, they engage in a kind of whimsical speculation as to how sex works that almost comically mirrors the aforementioned Oscar-winning film (and a ton of other coming-of-age movies as well). Some of this is fine. There's a particularly funny-turns-emotional moment when one of the girls, upon finding a used condom lying around in the woods, blows it up like a balloon and begins playing around with it. The other girls – who at least know enough to know that one doesn't touch such things for fear of disease – immediately recoil from her, tell her that she's going to catch AIDS, and so embarrass and frighten her that she begins to cry. The scene is, again, beautifully shot, and I found myself sympathizing with the character as she feels an overwhelming moment of ostracization-through-misadventure. In the following scene, we are treated to a montage of the girls washing her mouth out with soap, and it breaks the tension.

All of that to say that not only does this movie have plenty of redeemable moments that are on the beat film-wise, but also that it will pull you in headlong whether you want it to or not – which is what a good film is supposed to do.

But, alas, there's more. And I'm not so much talking about the risqué dancing that's done throughout the film. Here's why: as if the plot structure of every coming-of-age story didn't lay it out clearly enough for us, kids strive to be adults. The results are often hilarious, sometimes disturbing, but it's their nature. Kids want to be more like adults. And in a world – such as the one depicted in this movie – where children either can't or won't seize on the example of adulthood provided by their own parents, a vacuum is created. And nothing fills the vacuum of responsible parenting better than social media.

For the girls, it is the well from which they draw their inspiration, acceptance and love. "Likes" are the currency of the realm, and if you don't think this is true in your own kids' world today, you need to wake up and smell the Zuckerberg.

Thus, it is no surprise that these young dancing girls are modeling their very existence after what they see in online videos, and regurgitating the same back at the soulless machine. That they would be twerking and gyrating in a manner that falsely suggests they do know a thing or two about sex is normal when you consider that they're dining daily on visual and musical junk food – art perhaps not entirely without merit, but certainly without taste. And if there's one thing about the movie that phone-it-in parents might do well to see, it is perhaps the juxtaposition of budding childhood and the laissez faire morality adhered to by the demigods of popular culture. In short: these girls are just trying to be like the only set of role models afforded to them.

Here's what should (in my opinion, anyway) not be okay, though.

Aside from the moments of dancing, this film is filled with the cinematography of sexuality. When you watch any film in which there is a femme fatale character (or in some cases several of them), the way in which they are shot by the camera is extremely suggestive of overt sexuality. To quote one of my favorite online film critics: "You may not have noticed, but your brain did." Tracking shots over women's bodies, particularly up their backside or across a heaving bosom all decorated in cleavage, are a stock in trade for many filmmakers (and the only one for some of them). It's so common in the making of movies that it's often lampooned as a trope.

I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but... I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

We'll save the discussion about whether or not this is offensive when actresses in their twenties and thirties do it for another time. What I would hope we could all agree on is that you don't – in good conscience – use those same tracking shots over the bodies of a group of 11-year-old girls, even to make a point. And you certainly don't do it over and over and over throughout the course of a movie. The unstated purpose of such shots in a regular film is to give the viewer a taste of the voyeur. You wouldn't be allowed, in polite society, to walk up to a woman and stare at her from inches away, scanning down her body as if you were about to fax her someplace. But with the movie camera, you get a little taste of that. Dopamine rushes to your brain, and you're instantly glad you shelled out the twenty bucks to see the movie.

And while it's theoretically possible that the unstated purpose on behalf of the filmmaker changes when the subject is a little girl, it can't be denied or even overlooked that, for a certain subset of the viewing population, the effect does not. I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but after having sat through an hour and a half of shot after shot of this very overt technique, I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

As Amy progresses down the path that her (barely) world-wise friends have chosen, she becomes far more steeped in it, because she has no sense of the unseen boundaries which exist even in a hedonistic postmodern society such as present-day France. She spirals out of control very quickly, trying to outdo her friends in overt displays of sexuality and even violent aggressiveness. If there is a redeeming quality to the message of the movie, it is that we are fairly explicitly told through what we see her go through that this is not the best life for her. That escaping from the oppressive Muslim traditions of her family is a thing she should seek, but that this is not the way to go about it. All throughout her journey, we are subjected to close-up images of her body (and the bodies of the other girls). At one point, Amy's mother and aunt seem to be performing a kind of exorcism on her to drive out the evil rebellious spirits they believe have taken over, and Amy vibrates in the middle of the room on her knees in a paroxysm of movement which is half-dance, half-apparent-demonic possession, and all sex. I don't mean to be graphic here, but she may as well have been doing a full-on sex scene, for all the heavy breathing and gyration and rank passion that's going on. As an adult – and particularly as a parent – it made me literally feel ill to watch.

It's a beautiful final scene... but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

And, if you believe the film's director, that's what you're supposed to feel. She claims that the whole intent of the movie is to get people to feel uncomfortable as they realize the hyper-sexualized nature of children in our modern world, and how it's driven by the nanny state that is social media in our modern era. Part of me wants to applaud the effort – it certainly worked on me. I walked away from my television with a feeling of nausea and a renewal of the commitment in my head toward doing anything and everything I can to make sure that my own children never watch this film. The fact that the movie ends with Amy making a choice to reclaim her childhood – that she walks away both from the more oppressive elements of her Muslim upbringing (insofar as she will be able – we are never told) and from trying to become an adult too soon (insofar as she will be able – we are also never told) and embraces just being an 11-year-old girl – that fact doesn't change what's transpired. It's a beautiful final scene – it really is – but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

In summary, I can't really put any sort of seal of approval on this film, despite part of me wanting to. I generally subscribe to the idea that showing us a thing is far better than telling us a thing – but there are limits, and I think Cuties crosses them. As much as I want to believe that the director's motives are pure as the driven snow, it's not lost upon me that – as I mentioned before – one of the main characters (with whom we are meant to be sympathetic multiple times throughout the film) is very obviously meant to be the prototypical girl-who-wants-to-be-AOC. This film is at war with its own supposed message – it seeks to convey the horrors of oversexualized youth while laying out on for open display an entire smorgasbord of pedophilic fantasies. The game simply isn't worth the candle.

Osama bin Laden's niece, Noor bin Ladin (Noor's family has always spelled their name differently than her uncle) wrote an open letter to America, praising our country as "a beacon of democracy and hope for all subjugated peoples" across the world, and warning: "America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours."

Noor never stood with or supported her uncle. In fact, she grew up with an American flag proudly displayed in her childhood bedroom. Now a resident of Switzerland, she describes the chaos and destruction she's seen spread across America over the last several months.

"Watching the gratuitous violence, streets burn, buildings and statues being defaced in America over these past months, I am heartbroken to see how an entire generation was successfully brainwashed into hating the very nation that has yielded the most freedom, justice and equality anywhere in the world.

"I am also highly distressed by the blatant erosion at various levels of your most basic individual rights and freedoms as guaranteed by your Bill of Rights, from arbitrary censorship of speech to unlawful, politically motivated abuses of justice," she wrote.

Noor warned America that if we don't stand up, defend our history, and cherish the principles which make our country great, than those who have sought to undermine our country for decades will divide and destroy us from within.

"The truth is that the undoing of America has been decades in the making. The globalists, Deep State, swamp, whichever name you call them, have been hard at work to weaken America's sovereignty and standing as world leader. Intent on erecting a new system of world governance where they would be in total control, they are seeking to undermine the fundamental principle of your country, "a government for the people by the people", replacing it instead with a world order of international institutions ultimately puppeteered by a caste of technocrats, oligarchs and international bankers.

"Though your Constitution stands firmly in their way, it never deterred them. Like a trojan horse, they infiltrated governmental and intelligence agencies, and all realms of society - education, media, entertainment, culture. At their disposal, tools of mass population influence: propaganda, fake news and censorship. By pushing their marxist-socialist progressive agenda for years, they set out to destroy your fundamental values and divide you. They negated God, dissolved the family unit and dissevered us from moral objectivity, effectively leaving a vacuum of degeneracy, cognitive dissonance and absurdity in its wake," she added.

Read the full letter here.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck shared several highlights from Noor's letter as well as her first-ever interview with the New York Post.

"A letter was written to America this week. I want you to listen to the words," said Glenn. "'America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours.' [...] The woman who wrote that, the woman who is an American at heart, who is warning us, is Osama bin Laden's [niece]."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

*Note: Glenn mistakenly referred to Noor Bin Ladin as Osama bin Laden's sister. She is his niece.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.