Rick Santorum Interview

GLENN: We were talking about John McCain and the election. Let me talk to you a little bit about this economic stimulus package that has happened this week. What are your thoughts on that?

SENATOR SANTORUM: Well, I mean, we sort of bought into the idea that, you know, what the left, that the Cainsians believe that you just give people money and somehow that will, $100 billion or $150 billion in a multitrillion dollar economy, tens of trillions of dollar economy is somehow going to make a difference. I don't think it will make much of a difference. That's not how you stimulate business. We're going through a point where, you know, we have to stimulate, you know, the business side of this economy and we should be doing it through trying to take this regressive tax code that we have on businesses. We have some of the highest rates on capital, we have some of the highest corporate income tax rates around the world and we have to compete with the world. And there are a lot of places around the world over the last few years we've done well; they've done better. Why? Because they're on better economic competitive footing and, you know, we should be using this as an opportunity to get our tax structure much more competitive as the world becomes more competitive to us and, of course, we don't. We say, oh, well, we've got to give out checks, $300 checks to families. And that's great, but I tell you those families have better paying jobs because they are a more competitive country than the $300 check.

GLENN: What do you predict will happen when, when and if it looks like Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination after what she said just this week, I think it was in the "New York Times," may have been "The Washington Post" where she talked about we need stronger government regulation on businesses, we need a stronger government and we need, you know, basically higher taxes?

SENATOR SANTORUM: Open your eyes, America. I mean, this is exactly what the Democrat -- Democratic party, bless their hearts, on the area of business and the economy and the role of the federal government hasn't changed since the 1960s. It is the same party that at the height of the time that many Americans were looking across the pond and saying, you know all this socialism, this looks like it works pretty well, the Democratic party wrapped their armed around it and said, you know, stronger government, more top-down control of this will create fairness, will create equity, will create -- you know, Americans will prosper because all Americans will be equal and Government will make sure with the redistribution of wealth that we can make that happen. It failed and failed miserably every place it was attempted. Yet there is still this wanting in the Democratic party, this appeal that this can work here in America where it's failed everywhere else. It won't work. Americans heretofore have rejected that and I hope because of, you know, a war that for a long period of time was not run particularly well and because of what we've seen with the economy taking a little bit of a downward turn right now will not accept this siren song that somehow government and government involvement and government, you know, being the judicial, the great equaler is the way to approach these problems.

GLENN: You know, it's not just the Democratic party, though, that feels this way anymore. It is, there's a lot of people in the Republican party that also feel that, you know, the government should be -- I mean, you know, I know this is not the Republicans but there's a feeling of what the Times said in their endorsement of Hillary Clinton that she -- where is it here -- that she would have more effective government spending. There is a feeling, even in the Republican party, that it's not that we should cut spending, make government smaller, but we should just be more effective at our spending.

SENATOR SANTORUM: Well, we do need to cut government, we do need to make it smaller and we do need to take the money that we are spending, that we will spend and make it more effective. We do need to be more effective. I mean, we do need to look at government programs and, you know, I was the lead sponsor of the 1996 welfare reform bill. There's a bill that if you look at it, when we passed it we didn't actually cut spending. We didn't say, well, we were going to reduce the amount of spending. What we did was we reformed the program, created different incentives, got people off the rolls and into work and spending went down precipitously even though there wasn't a specific cut in spending. What we did was we changed all the incentives and as a result we saw the rolls cut in half, spending go way down and people's lives to be transformed. There's a lot of work to be done in government to make it effective, I agree with that, but then you have the foundational question is, is government involved in too many things and the answer obviously from my perspective is yes.

GLENN: Is there a guy that -- I don't think you've endorsed anybody, have you?

SENATOR SANTORUM: I have not.

GLENN: Is there a guy that you're leaning towards?

SENATOR SANTORUM: Well, you know, the field is getting thin. So right now, I mean, there's four folks in the race at this point and, you know, we'll find out. If you believe the polls, that may be down to three after Florida and, you know, at that point I may want to look. But, you know, there's no one that I can say that I'm enthusiastic enough to take time out of what is a very, very busy private sector life and family life to devote myself to endorse. So I think I'm happy, you know, commenting on your show and sort of keeping a neutral stance at this point.

GLENN: What does that say for the election? Is there a way to win? Because I think everybody, I think everybody feels that way. Even the guy that -- I'm leaning towards two different people and even those two, I mean, I just said on the air yesterday I'm going to keep them on such a short leash. If they would become President of the United States, they don't get the benefit of my doubt. By your actions I will know you.

SENATOR SANTORUM: Yeah. That's where I look. Every one of these candidates has had a journey in the last year to get to where they are to try to position themselves in the middle of the Republican parties to get the nomination and when people are on such journeys, certainly even John McCain now who's said he's heard the people on the issue of immigration as one example and he's all of a sudden, even though, you know, he voted against the Bush tax cuts, now he's for the Bush tax cuts. So I mean, there's a journey that everybody is finally waking up to that you can't win a Republican nomination by not being a Republican. And so there's a big question mark in a lot of people's minds, you know, what will happen if and when they have the opportunity to serve, will they revert back to where they were, is this a true transformation or is this just trying to get the votes they need in the primary to get the nomination and go back to where they were.

GLENN: All right. Rick Santorum, always great to talk to you, sir.

SENATOR SANTORUM: My pleasure. It's an honor to be on your show, sir.

GLENN: I hope there's more public life and service in your future.

SENATOR SANTORUM: We'll see. I appreciate the confidence.

Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: "A plague on both your houses." He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He's a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you'll probably see him standing in the background. He's represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It's made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a "civil libertarian," and that's probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week's podcast, Alan explained that while he's a strong defender of the Constitution, he's never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he's called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn't have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he's now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

"I'm now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't want to change it. I don't want to change one word of it, because I'm afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment," Alan said. "So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch 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.

Investigative reporter David Steinberg joined the radio program Monday, to explain how a new video may provide enough evidence to begin a FBI investigation into alleged illegal practices by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign.

In the video, which was produced and released by Project Veritas, residents of Omar's community describe campaign teams that not only conduct illegal ballot harvesting practices but also pay people for their blank absentee ballots.

Steinberg told Glenn that, if these charges prove to be true, the federal government could bypass Omar's friend and protector, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Could 2020 be the beginning of the end for Omar's political career?

Watch the video below to catch Glenn's conversation with David Steinberg:

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.

Mike Fratantuono is the manager of Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. He wrote in the Washington Post's COVID-19 series about the recent, heartbreaking loss of his business, a restaurant that has been in his family for "four generations and counting."

"I know this virus is real, okay? It's real and it's awful. I'm not disputing any of that," Mike wrote. "But our national hysteria is worse. We allowed the virus to take over our economy, our small businesses, our schools, our social lives, our whole quality of life. We surrendered, and now everything is infected."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck reacted to Mike's letter, which he shared in full, adding his hope that those in government are ultimately held responsible for what he called the biggest theft of the Western world.

"This is the biggest theft of, not only money, but of heritage and of hope," Glenn said. "The United States government and many of the states are responsible for this, not you. And hopefully someday soon, we'll return to some semblance of sanity, and those responsible for this theft, this rape of the Western world, will be held responsible."

Watch the video below for more details:

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.

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]