Glenn Beck: TSA pat downs a violation of the Fourth Amendment?




Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, weeknights 8:00 p.m. on the Fox Business Network


GLENN: Judge Andrew Napolitano, weeknights 8:00 p.m. on the Fox Business Network. This is really turning into a great little network, it is. I mean, it is ‑‑ it's very, dare I say libertarian and free‑thinking at night and fantastic. Judge?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: You and I end up pushing the envelope, Glenn, to demonstrate to these people, many of whom also work with us on the Fox News Channel.

GLENN: Yeah.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: The virtues of the free market, which are incomparable to anything that the mind of man has created.

GLENN: I know. I mean, anyway. Judge, tell me about, if ‑‑ my wife and I had this discussion last night because she's going to fly commercially here in a couple of days.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Right.

GLENN: And she ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: She can't go through that machine because of who her husband is.

GLENN: Because you don't believe, nor do I, that those images would be deleted?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Absolutely not. We have a history of over a hundred of them being passed around the federal courthouse in Baltimore. Now, the federal courthouse is ten miles from the airport in Baltimore. Question: What were they doing in the courthouse? Well, somebody in the TSA sent some to a federal marshal via computer in the courthouse and they started passing them around. They may not have known who the people were, but we know that the government can't be trusted. You and I have written books and given dozens of speeches on government lying. It's well documented. It need not be recounted here. But the recent examples of the abuse of privacy show us that the government cannot be trusted with pictures of our private parts. And you are a target of people in the government because you have exposed them for what they are and they cannot be trusted with private information about Glenn Beck. That's given.

GLENN: I have news for you. I wouldn't allow my daughters, even if I was Joe Schmoe, I wouldn't let my daughters or I won't want my wife walking through it. I mean, I don't want my ‑‑ I don't want pictures of my daughters.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Right.

GLENN: Or quite frankly my 5‑year‑old son. No.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I agree with you. And this is why if I have to travel ‑‑ I'm not traveling this weekend. I'm already out at my farm and I'm able fortunately to drive there from the city. I would opt for the pat‑down and I would do a number of things. I've advised people on Freedom Watch, my show, and on your show when we talked about this the other day on the Glenn Beck program.

GLENN: So what do you do? What do you do?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, you resist within the limits of the law. You ask for the name, rank and serial number of everybody that touches you. You remember that the camera is the new gun. You take a picture of them before and after your cellphone goes through the x‑ray scanner. You protest loudly not to the point where they can't get their work done but you say to others there things like, is this America? Is this a free society? I buy a ticket on a private airline for a private flight. Suddenly a government agent is feeling me up. You embarrass, you humiliate, and you tell them, "You know, guys, the laws are about to change. The reason I'm asking for your name, rank and serial number is because you will soon be a defendant in a civil case and maybe even in a criminal case at this stage."

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second, Judge.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Sure.

GLENN: Because I believe this is a ploy to sweep the TSA into the labor unions because they are all going to feel like they need somebody to protect them from the evil public. This is ‑‑ what you're suggesting I believe works exactly into the hands of the labor unions, which are already, they ‑‑ yesterday they ran a full ‑‑ I'm sorry, half‑page ad, AFL‑CIO defending the TSA and saying, "We're on your side, TSA."

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Cousin Janet who, of course, is no relation to me. I use that phrase just to taunt her to come on my show. I've even invited her over to my Thanksgiving dinner, although my mother would have a heart attack if she showed up. But anyway, Cousin Janet said very simply that we may need to deploy TSA agents elsewhere in society. Could you imagine if they do this to us when we get on a train, when we get on a bus ‑‑

GLENN: Well, they're saying ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: ‑‑ when you walk into the Fox building? Where will this end?

GLENN: They are saying that they are putting it in the trains now. That was the news I saw, what, about 10 minutes ago, Pat? That they are now going to put these things into ‑‑

PAT: Trains and metro.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I know that provocations will lead to a stiffening of the government's back but it will also need to a realization that we cannot become a nation of sheep. It may also lead to this: I suspect a lot of those TSA agents hate doing this as much as we ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, I do, too.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: ‑‑ hate having them do it.

PAT: You know they do.

GLENN: I agree with you. I agree with you on that and that's why, that's why I disagree with you on the humiliate. I think inform them and be kind, be gentle, be as Gandhi‑like or as Christ‑like as you can but inform them that things are going to change, guys, and you don't want to do this.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Well, I had that great libertarian singer Trace Adkins on my show.

GLENN: Yeah.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: And I asked him what he was going to do. He, of course, is going to suggest that he enjoys what they are doing and he welcomes more hands on his body. Now, you know him. He's about 6' 8," about 300 pounds.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: Yeah. That would be funny from Trace Adkins.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: That would be effective.

GLENN: It's pretty amazing. It's pretty amazing. Judge, God bless you, man, and keep it up. Would you do me a favor?

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Sure.

GLENN: Go to TheBlaze.com today and look at the stories, what are they, Pat? There's three of them on revolutionaries and communists talking about, there's the animal liberation people that are sending bloody used razor blades to people and they're saying it's time for a revolution. You have the communists ‑‑

PAT: And socialists preparing for violence and revolution.

GLENN: Yeah, and calling for it now. All of the things, Judge, that we have talked about. And I would just like you to see these videos because you're a guy who really gets it.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: I will. I will.

GLENN: And I'd love to, I'd love to hear your advice on ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Gold and guns.

GLENN: Judge ‑‑

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: And God, but he's always with us.

GLENN: I love you. Thank you so much.

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: Love you, too. Happy Thanksgiving.

Same to you, Pat.

GLENN: You, too. Bye‑bye. 

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.