BLOG

Adoption advocates ask Trump to intervene in ‘adoption crisis’ that started under Obama

Did you know that international adoptions have decreased worldwide by a shocking 80 percent in the last 14 years?

Nathan Gwilliam, CEO of Adoption.com, and Ron Stoddart, president of Save Adoptions, joined Glenn in the studio this week to talk about the international adoption crisis and how the number of adoptions in the U.S. has mysteriously dropped. They believe President Donald Trump will be sympathetic to their cause, so Adoption.com has created a White House petition asking Trump to investigate.

Watch the full clip (above) to find out why an Obama administration appointee who is “anti-adoption” was a key factor and learn how you can help.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We have been kind of focusing on a few things in the last couple of weeks. One is, if Christians would just act like Christians, the world would be a much better place. If -- you know, I love the bumper sticker that says, Lord, save me from your followers.

The problem is not with Jesus, the problem is with a lot of people that say they're following Jesus and they're not. And statistics prove this out: There is no difference between somebody who doesn't go to church, doesn't believe in God, when it comes to marriages, alcoholism, drug use, any of this stuff.

That should tell us something, that we're attending church, instead of tending a church. And we brought in Nathan -- how do you say your last name?

NATHAN: Gwilliam.

GLENN: Gwilliam.

And Ron Stoddard. Ron is with Save Adoptions. And Nathan is the CEO of adoption.com. And first, tell me a little bit about adoption.com before you tell me why you're here.

NATHAN: Sure. So adoption.com is the connection engine for adoption. So if a family wants to adopt, they can put a profile online. And a woman who is pregnant, considering adoption can go and choose a family. Or we have photo listings of children waiting to be adopted. And families can go and look through thousands of photos of children and choose a child to adopt.

Or if an adoptee or a birth parent 20 years after the adoption want to find each other, they can put their information in, and we help facilitate a connection. So we connect people related to adoption.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I'm an adoptive father. And there is nothing better in my life than that choice to adopt. My children are everything. And, you know, we were afraid, you know, are we going to feel the same? Yeah, it's exactly the same. And it is a marvelous thing.

I tell you, if my wife -- if I could just -- if I could dye my hair so I didn't look like I look -- because my wife -- I'll say, we should adopt again. And she'll look at me, look at you. Like, we're going to adopt again.

So, anyway --

STU: That's a healthy relationship you got going on there.

GLENN: No, yeah, it's a little harsh.

Anyway, here's the problem: Adoptions -- overseas adoptions by Americans have gone down now 80 percent, and places like Romania have tried to pick up the slack before, and it didn't work. First, before we get to why this number is down, why aren't people in other countries like Romania, why doesn't adoption work like it does here? Do you know?

VOICE: Well, it does. There are people in Romania. But there are not as many people adopting in Romania because it is not culturally as acceptable as it is in the United States.

GLENN: That's weird.

RON: When we first started doing adoptions from Russia, very few Russian families would even consider adopting an orphan because they looked at them as children of alcoholics and socially inferior. But after Americans started adopting children from Russia and the Russians looked and said, maybe we're missing something here, now the number of domestic adoptions in Russia is much, much higher. And so we have an opportunity to show by example --

GLENN: Do you think that's a Christian thing? Is that a Christian trait that came from us or just something unique in us?

NATHAN: Brazil is the same way. A very Christian country, but they don't adopt their own children very much. It's the same -- same issue. It's a cultural issue. They're not used to going to an orphanage and finding a child and adopting a child.

GLENN: Huh.

RON: As you said, Christians ought to be doing it. So is it a Christian thing? It should be.

GLENN: Right. Right.

So now 80 percent drop in foreign adoptions. That's massive. And I warn you, the next few minutes are going to be to become excruciatingly painful to hear. In the former administration, that was the head of adoptions here? Helped setting the laws here and then?

NATHAN: She still is.

RON: Yeah, she is the chief of the adoption division, which is in the US State Department. And she's a civil service appointment, which is a problem in and of itself.

GLENN: Because she doesn't seem real high on adoptions.

NATHAN: She's anti-adoption.

GLENN: How could she have the job of being in charge of adoptions and being anti-adoption?

NATHAN: That's right. Why would we appoint someone to be our chief of adoptions in the United States, who is anti-adoption.

GLENN: When was she appointed?

RON: In 2014, she was moved from the Justice Department to the State Department.

GLENN: Any idea what the motivation was to put somebody anti-adoption in there? Why was that done? Don't speculate. If you know --

RON: Yeah. I think the attitude at that time, the hate convention had been implemented in the United States. And the focus of the government on any activity is to regulate and control. So she was moved into that position because she had experience in adoptions years earlier, even though she had a proven record of being opposed to the hate convention and the regulations.

GLENN: All right. So she put in regulations. They did not go into effect, because Trump came in. And he reversed them? Is that right?

VOICE: Well, Trump came in and said, we're going to require that you have -- eliminate two regulations for every new regulation you oppose.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

VOICE: So the regulation has already existed. But she proposed new regulations in September of 2016. That would further give them control over the adoption industry.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

All right. So what has to happen to get Donald Trump to -- I assume he's open to this.

What do we have to do to get him to kick -- kick her out, reverse these, what?

VOICE: Move her to a more appropriate position, that would use her skills in a more positive way.

STU: Very nice way of saying that.

VOICE: Put someone in that is pro-adoption if you're going to be in charge of a US adoption program.

GLENN: Wow. Okay. So what do you have people do?

NATHAN: So we believe Donald Trump would be very supportive of this, if this just got on his list of priorities, if this became something that he focused on. So we've created a White House petition. We started promoting it yesterday. Had been 2500 signatures this morning. The White House promises that if it reaches 100,000 signatures, that they will respond. The petition was actually created on petitions.whitehouse.gov. If your listeners wanted to find that petition, they could go to adoption.com. And right at the top, there's a bright yellow bar with a link to it. Click on that link.

GLENN: Sign the petition.

NATHAN: Sign the petition.

GLENN: Okay. So he'll look at it, if we have 100,000 signatures and take it seriously of correcting this.

How long will it take to reverse an 80 percent decline?

RON: It will take years. But, of course, it has to start with a person being put in that position that wants to increase adoptions.

GLENN: So we have a problem in America where we have a need for foster parents. And it's a lot easier to adopt a little child, than it is to adopt a 12-year-old. If it takes years to fix this, the problems in the other countries of -- because I got to believe. I mean, our foster system is not a pleasure. I can't imagine what it's like in some countries. Not good.

NATHAN: Well, most countries don't have foster systems. It's a system of orphanages. And you look at the outcomes of those children. You look at as many as 50 percent of the girls that age out of those orphanages are -- end up in prostitution. And you look at the homelessness at 60 percent or higher. You look at the suicide rate of 10 percent. Just ridiculously poor outcomes for the children that age out of those orphanages.

STU: You've been talking about this 80 percent in foreign adoptions. How much of that has to do with the Russian sanctions that we've heard so much about?

NATHAN: Very little.

RON: Very little. Russia closed in the end of 2011, and the decline has continued. So, yeah. There was a time when China put a pause on adoptions, that caused some of the decline. China's one-child policy was changed. That caused a little bit of it. But there are so many countries that are not even engaged in adoption because the US puts restrictions on them. If they do not have an administrative system for tracking documentation when a child is born out in the boondocks, then we suspect that there may be fraud with the documentation. So a country like Nepal, with children available for adoption, the US will not allow adoptions from Nepal because we don't trust their documentation.

NATHAN: And the key question about Russia isn't whether Russia closed its doors or not. The question is, what has the State Department done to help open those doors? What support have we provided to these countries to help them implement robust and ethical adoption programs? And that's the piece that's missing. We need a State Department that is innovating and helping create the type of adoption system they want, instead of trying to regulate everybody out of existence.

GLENN: So I want to take a quick break and come back. Ask you this question: I know there are people that, you know, will come across this interview and they'll say, well, why don't we start in our own country?

There's some problems here with adoption in our own country and some things that we can take care of and some things that, you know, we all should be aware of. There is a need in our own country. And let's talk about that and that concern, when we come back.

(music)

Again, you go to adoption.com. Adoption.com. Look for the banner up at the top and sign the White House petition. To get this Obama appointee removed from the State Department, or at least in this position, where she's overseeing adoptions. She's anti-adoption.

Do this at that now. Adoption.com.

GLENN: The United States is down 80 percent in -- in international adoptions. And that's because there is somebody that was appointed by Obama to the State Department, that is anti-adoption. And has put all of these rules and regulations in to stop international adoptions.

It's wrong and it's dangerous for humanity all around the world. And we're asking that you would go to adoption.com. And you'll see a banner up at the top. Click on it. It will take you to the White House for a petition. The White House has promised over 100,000 signatures. And they will take this up and review it.

So let me -- let me -- let me pick it up where we left our conversation with Nathan and Ron about international adoptions and adoptions here in America. Why not focus on the kids that we have here?

RON: That's a great question. Children in the United States and our foster care system were very important, and they need to be adopted. Children in orphanages in the United States are very important and they need to be adopted. It's not an either/or question. There are plenty of loving families that would love to bring these children into their homes. It's a matter of complexity, not a matter of numbers of families. We need to simplify the system and make it easy enough that these families can bring children home.

GLENN: I will tell you, I adopted my son Raphe. And Tania and I were terrified. I mean, she was beside herself for three years. We adopted in Texas, where it's pretty clear, you know, the new parents are the new parents, period. But still terrified that some -- somebody would come knocking at the door and say, yep. He's not your son.

RON: God touches our hearts in different ways. And sometimes we're motivated to adopt an orphan. And sometimes we connect with a 15-year-old child in the foster care system.

GLENN: Yeah. But we -- we have -- there are laws that -- I mean, that stuff does happen, but it is getting better here in America, isn't it?

VOICE: Yeah. And Texas has some of the best laws in the country. But unfortunately, that does happen.

GLENN: Okay. So --

VOICE: Working with the government is worse than labor.

GLENN: It is. It is. If you talk to my wife -- had two biological children and adopted twice. The labor that she went through with her biological children was nothing, compared to what we had to go through, to adopt.

GLENN: Yeah. No, it is.

But this is -- if we can correct this, we correct so many other problems.

NATHAN: That's correct.

GLENN: We correct homelessness. I mean, tell me about the rates of those in prison and homelessness and everything else.

VOICE: Well, a statistic I heard the other day, the CEO of the United States Institute Against Human Trafficking said that 60 to 70 percent of the children who are trafficked come out of the foster care system.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RON: So the foster care system is good, but it's temporary. And you need to get those kids out of the foster care system, into a permanent home, as early as possible.

NATHAN: And the same thing happens internationally. We've seen statistics that as many as 50 percent of the girls that age out of the orphanage, that leave the orphanage without being adopted end up in prostitution. Going back to your original question, we've heard statistics a lot, that up to two-thirds of children within 18 months of aging out of the foster care system, two-thirds of the children end up either homeless, in jail, or dead.

The statistics for these kids -- the outcomes for these children that age out of an orphanage or a foster home are ridiculous. The question isn't whether we should adopt from the United States or internationally. The question is let's do everything we can to get them adopted. All of them.

RON: All of the above.

GLENN: And people say, there are not enough people. There are plenty, right? That want to adopt.

RON: There are.

NATHAN: A recent study from the Dave Thomas Center For Adoption show that 85 million Americans have considered adoption. And they said that the biggest reason they haven't adopted is the complexity and the cost. We need to focus on reducing complexity and reducing cost, instead of increasing regulations.

GLENN: Amen. Amen. Thank you guys, so much. Appreciate your hard work. And everything you do. And let me just -- let me tell you, as a dad, married to a wonderful woman who we couldn't have children and we wanted it so desperately and we worried about adoption, let me tell you, it's the greatest thing ever. The greatest thing ever.

RON: Amen.

GLENN: Go to adoption.com. And please sign that White House petition. And get that Obama appointee out of the State Department and correct that problem today. Adoption.com.

Thanks, guys.

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.

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.

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.

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.