Glenn Beck talks with Lorianne Updike


Lorianne Updike


President & Executive Director of ConSource

GLENN: You are going to get the actual facts from the people who are in the courtroom when it happened. Lorianne Updike, she is with Consource and she was actually in the courtroom. Hi, Lorianne, how are you?

UPDIKE: Hi, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. Tell me what happened today.

UPDIKE: Well, when the chief justice went to announce the decision, you just heard a ruffle around the courtroom. I think a few people knew that Justice Scalia is an avid hunter and has a big buck in his chambers. So you knew what was coming down. It was a little bit electric.

GLENN: What was the -- was there a moment outside of that where you just couldn't believe it and you're thinking, I'm sitting here listening to real history.

UPDIKE: You know, I've had a couple of really amazing moments in the Supreme Court. This morning was absolutely one of them. It was interesting to note how contentious the dissent and then the majority opinion were, yet I happen to know that these guys go and grab burgers together after it's all said and done. So the moment when I thought, you know, this is making history was when justice Scalia said that with any standard the Second Amendment takes off the table, takes certain policy choices off the table including an absolute prohibition on guns and then Stevens' dissent goes through and he says the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep a loaded handgun in urban areas. But what I see this as and what is most exciting for me is that battle of the documents, as somebody from the Brady Center said. Both side looks at the documents and as one who heads up a project that is most concerned with the documents, I have son interesting takeaways from the opinions, particularly that there's a few things that both sides would probably agree with. One is that the Second Amendment is poorly worded. You have a comma problem. A well regulated militia being necessary -- let's see. If you have that in front of you --

GLENN: No, I don't have it in front of me -- hang on, I do.

UPDIKE: Okay, I've got it here. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. So the key question here, of course, is, is the prologue before the comma determinant or not and that's when you start to look at the documents. The problem, though, is that you have cherry-picking going on. If you look at the briefs, and I just reread them over the last couple of days from both sides of the argument, there's a lot of cherry-picking going on to find those documents and those quotes that are most helpful. But there needs to be a system and an order, and cherry-picking has been allowed because these documents are unavailable. Both sides referenced the English Bill of Rights from 1689 and --

GLENN: Why do we care about the English Bill of Rights?

UPDIKE: Well, you see, it's a precedent to our Bill of Rights. There are precedents out there in the state constitutions which we have up on Consource and the English Bill of Rights.

GLENN: But Lorianne, you know and I know that the militia was originally not something that was funded by the government. It was Ben Franklin running around to his neighbors saying, grab your guns, boys, we need to protect our own land here because the government isn't going to do jack; the British are coming.

UPDIKE: The militia had a very Democratic nature to it and one of my favorite moments to the day was when I saw a heckler outside with a sign, with a quote from Patrick Henry which said the great object, every man be armed. It was great. And now a lot of the founders' conception of what a militia was, it was not the point of a dissent argument. Dissent did not focus on whether or not the government controlled the militia, but Scalia's view was that it was well known unanimously that every man who could should bear arms and participate in the militia. And if you look at it from the colonists perspective, this makes sense. They just defeated a massive army in large part because of their militias. Yes, the militias were scraggly and they were untrained in many instances, but they had guns. In fact, Scalia talked about how in Boston, in Massachusetts particularly, in Lexington and Concord, the militias were not disbanded. It was the arms who were taken away. And so I think everyone would agree that militias were of quintessential importance to the founders and that's why it finds itself in the prologue. But then the question becomes, well, what is a militia? Is it an organized body of the people or is it government-organized? And that's where the real contention comes in.

If you drill down to the individual framers, yeah, most of them from my reading talk about, you know, individual rights, but I don't think, I personally don't think that drilling down to what the founders said is what has most legal precedents here. You should look at the documents, and this is why I think there needs to be a methodology describing, you know, what's the pecking order, how do you determine what the Constitution says. When you have a blank slate in front of you like the Supreme Court has had here and there's no precedent, there's no decisions. They get to go back to 1791 when the Second Amendment was passed and the Bill of Rights and so okay, what does this mean from a first instance. And at that point you need a methodology. And you can't just go to individuals. No, you have to go to the discussions, the legislative history, the precedents like the English Bill of Rights and the state constitutions, the state recitation debates which we also have on Consource and then you get to individuals, both their letters and basically letters to the editor like the Federalist Papers.

GLENN: Right.

UPDIKE: I think the Federalist Papers have way too much currency when we talk about the founders. Those were individuals writing, in short was widely published and widely read. However, it's one person's opinion and it's not legally binding. You've got to look at the bodies.

GLENN: Lorianne, you have all of the information that the Supreme Court looked at, you have it in one place, do you know, on Consource?

UPDIKE: We have a lot of the documents on Consource that were referred to. We're continually growing and we've just added over the summer some of those that they referred to today, which was great, state constitutions and some of these precedents.

GLENN: So do you have them up on the front page or some place where it's easy to access?

UPDIKE: Yeah, absolutely.

GLENN: Tell people how to get there.

UPDIKE: If you go to Consource.org, we have a top 10 list of founders quotes, gun quotes on Consource and in about two hours, maybe less, we'll have all of the quotes of the founding fathers that were mentioned in the Supreme Court today that are also available on Consource and eventually look up all those others for being quoted.

GLENN: That's Consource.org. And really if you've never used it before, we just stumbled onto you in the last year. It is really, really tremendous and you can find the words and the letters and the notes back and forth. Everything that you might -- that might help you enlighten yourself on what our founding fathers really meant and what they were really talking about at Consource.org. Lorianne, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

UPDIKE: Thanks so much, Glenn.

The FBI recently sent more than a dozen armed agents to the home of well-known pro-life activist Mark Houck to arrest him for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances or FACE Act. Now the father of seven faces up to 11 years in prison over claims that he blocked a man from entering an abortion clinic and shoved him when he wouldn't stop verbally harassing Mark's 12-year-old son. Now, if that doesn't sound insane enough, this all happened after local authorities dropped the case. So, what's the full story here?

Attorney Peter Breen joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to tell the family's side of the story, including how the case was already "won" three years ago, and how, after receiving a target letter from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mark's legal team agreed to cooperate fully, only to hear nothing back until the day the FBI showed up on Mark's doorstep.

Breen also explained how the FBI has tried to downplay "abuse of power" claims, accusing Mark's wife of making "inaccurate claims" about the terrifying experience.

"Ryan-Marie, who is Mark's wife, she thought she saw 25 [FBI agents.] The FBI came back and said it wasn't 25, it was no more than 15 or 20 heavily armed federal agents. And she had called them a 'SWAT team' because she's a lay person. I don't know the difference between a SWAT team and a bunch of heavily armed, armored, and shield-bearing federal agents," Breen said.

According to Fox News, a senior FBI source said:

There may have been 15-20 agents at the scene, but denied 25 were there. The agents who came to the door had guns out and at the ready, according to this FBI source, but the guns were never pointed at Houck or his family and were lowered or holstered as soon as Houck was taken into custody. Houck was handcuffed with a belly chain.

"So, yeah, they had guns drawn and pointed at Mark in front of his wife and their children. And that whole show of force was done against a man who was not a drug lord, not a mafia boss, but instead, a law-abiding pillar of the community whose attorney said, 'we'll bring him in if you decide to charge, even though you have no case.'"

Breen went on to assert that he believes Congress "needs to" hold Attorney General Merrick Garland accountable for the arrest. "I can't imagine that those 20 federal agents were excited about being called out to a peaceful man's home, guns drawn," he said.

In the video clip below, Breen goes on the explain what he believes should happen next, and why Houck's arrest "should frighten all of us." Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.

Gavin McInnes broke the internet last month when his live show was interrupted, and it appeared that he was arrested. He broke the internet again a few weeks later when he admitted that the arrest was staged as part of what was intended to be an elaborate prank.

McInnes joined Glenn Beck on "Glenn TV" to explain the real reason behind his disastrous prank.

"This was a $10,000 joke. I lost 100 subscribers because of it, but I was going away to Paris for a week because my daughter is going to college and I thought let's make it interesting," McInnes said of his decision to fake an on-air arrest in the middle of his live "Get Off My Lawn" podcast on August 25.

"There was a method to the madness, with the prank ... my point was, first of all, this is happening to people in real-time. Tim Poole has been swatted a million times," he explained to Glenn. "The thought police are in full effect. I also wanted to lampoon the media's bloodlust for us suffering."

Glenn played a clip of the now-infamous hoax while McInnes explained what was really going on behind the scenes, including how his very drunk friend "Unrelia-Bill" was supposed to act the part of the arresting officer but ended up being much too intoxicated (at "2 pm") to speak even a few lines, and how smugly gleeful the "far left" was when they thought McInnes had actually been arrested.

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Glenn Beck joined Fox News' Tucker Carlson on Thursday night to discuss Visa Inc.'s "horrifying" new plans to flag firearm sales by separately categorizing purchases at gun shops, a move that Glenn aptly described as "the next step in banning guns."

In what's been hailed as a major victory for gun control activists, Visa agreed to adopt the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) new set of standards by creating a special merchant category code for gun and ammunition sales.

In his appearance on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Glenn shared a letter written by Robert B. Thomson III, a senior vice president at Visa, showing that the credit card company initially pushed back on the ISO's new rules.

“We believe that asking payment networks to serve as a moral authority by deciding which legal goods can or cannot be purchased sets a dangerous precedent,” Thomson wrote in the letter to pro-gun-control lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Just days later, however, Visa had agreed to comply with the ISO's plan to establish a new merchant category code for gun stores. So why did Visa suddenly flip?

As Glenn explained, it all comes down to pressure from America's largest union-owned bank, the Amalgamated Bank, one of the only unionized banks in the United States and a proud proponent of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing.

"This is the next step in banning guns," Glenn asserted.

"It's horrifying!" Tucker responded after several seconds of stunned silence.

"I'm so grateful you did the reporting on this," he told Glenn. "I'm not sure why it falls to you since we have a couple of very large daily newspapers in this country you'd think would want to report this, yet none of them did. So, Glenn Beck did."


On a recent episode of "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn broke down the details of this latest attack on the Second Amendment and revealed how this is a step toward something even worse than federal gun registration. Watch the video clip below for more details. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.


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.

Glenn Beck: Here's why Stacey Abrams' fetal heartbeat remarks are hilarious but TERRIFYING

(Left) Image source: video screenshot/ (right) Photo by Marcus Ingram/Getty Images

Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has a new pro-abortion conspiracy theory: "There is no such thing as a [fetal] heartbeat at six weeks ... it is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have a right to take control of a woman’s body."

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck and producer Stu Burguiere agreed Abrams' latest "misinformation" is not just ridiculous but could be dangerous if people are actually willing to believe her.

"If you want to defend abortion, go ahead and defend it. Defend what you're actually doing. Stop denying what is reality," Stu said. "If this is such a great defensible policy, then just come out and defend it, but they never can ... you notice how they can't go to the actual thing they say is so important. They keep defending these other things that aren't true."

Glenn said the pro-choice movement was successful for a long time because most people want the decision to be up to the woman and her doctor and that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But when leftists began "celebrating" their abortions or calling for "abortion on demand" at any point in the pregnancy, that's when they start to lose support.

"Because they've celebrated abortion and are losing regular people, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. So, what do they have to do now? They have to take the insane step of discrediting medical machines and technology," Glenn said.

"This is after two years, by the way, of them claiming the biggest scandal in the world was people suggesting the voting machines were hacked — after they previously said that voting machines were hacked in elections they [Democrats] lost," Stu pointed out.

"Honestly, gang, think this through because this is where life gets very scary. This is where you go to authoritarian rule and you can kill millions of people because you're truly now discrediting things that everyone knows is true," Glenn warned.

"So, if you disagree ... you can say that is an evil magic box that has made up sounds in it to convince people. If they will buy that, you're at the Salem witch trials. 'If she doesn't float, she wasn't a witch.' That's what you're looking at right now — and what's frightening is, [Abrams] can say this with a straight face and no one discredits her," he continued.

"You don't think that they can convince those people that you are a terrorist because of the way you vote? [...] You don't think they can convince half the country that you should be eliminated, liquidated, put into a camp, whatever authoritarians love to do? ... We are headed towards dangerous, dangerous times. We better wake up and stand together because this is frightening — it's hilarious — but because people are taking it seriously, it is terrifying," Glenn added.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

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.