Glenn Beck: Frightening Obama

GLENN: Gang, this is the final warning. I mean it. This is the final warning. You cannot become -- you cannot get any clearer on what is coming. It amazes me day after day after day after day that America just doesn't seem to care anymore, but you cannot get any clearer. If this is out here and this man is elected, you are going to elect the most arrogant Marxist who will not be stopped because he came into office fully uncovered. Every -- do not pretend to be shocked when we begin to see a Marxist and who I believe will become a fascist President. And he will become fascist because he will not understand how you suddenly don't want to become Marxist. As he starts to change the Constitution, listen to what he said in 2001.

VOICE: And you are joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer from the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but --

GLENN: Stop. Stop, stop. Remember, he's not for reparations. He's not for reparations. That's the line that everybody will tell you if you talk about this. He's not for reparations. But what is the fundamental failure of the civil rights? You got the right to vote, you can sit at a lunch counter, you can be equal. But what was the fundamental failure of the civil rights movement? Here it is.

OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

GLENN: Stop for a second. Obama now see it is purpose of the Supreme Court to redistribute wealth. Even if you agree that the role of government is to take wealth from one to another, should it be the role of unelected judges and justices that do this? Should it be the congress? Should it be the President? Should will be elected officials? Obama wants a radical interventionist court. He wants the court of Chuck Schumer's, and that is the court that he will get if there are 60, 60 members of the Democratic party controlling the Senate.

Now, it gets worse. Listen.

OBAMA: And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court --

GLENN: Stop. The Warren court, so you know, is the most liberal court we have ever had. It is the court that okayed the Great Society and everything else. This is the most liberal. Notice he doesn't say that it is a liberal court. He says some people say it was -- they try to characterize it as radical. But it wasn't that radical. Why wasn't it radical? Listen.

OBAMA: It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties.

GLENN: Stop, stop. This is so important, gang. This is -- I can't believe it. I mean, I have to tell you, I'm the luckiest man in the world and I understand what that really means. I'm the luckiest man in the world because in the last two or three years, I have been doing my homework and I have been reading things like I've begged you the read The Forgotten Man, Liberal Fascism, the Woodrow Wilson stuff. I know what all of this language means and it is absolutely amazing to me. Negative liberties, that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. In other words, we're not going to take your guns, we're not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change. This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is no longer -- he's framing this as negative liberties. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He's flipping power. It is no longer We the People. He also says, in something that doesn't make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints put there in the Constitution by the founding fathers.

"Essential" to me has always meant that they're necessary, that they shouldn't be broken or overridden. That's what essential means to me, at least. Go ahead.

OBAMA: Says what the federal government can't do to you but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

GLENN: Holy cow.

OBAMA: And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement.

GLENN: Tragedies.

OBAMA: Was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

GLENN: Got it? Got it? Got it?

VOICE: Made the point that the Warren court wasn't terribly radical, my question is -- with economic changes. My question, is it too late for that reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative work to take place?

VOICE: You mean the court?

VOICE: The court or would it be economic at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but --

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop. Where is the media on this man! He is not a law professor. There is a huge difference. Anyone who is at a university, will you speak up! He is not a law professor. He is a senior lecturer now on leave, period. That's what he is. There is a difference between a lecturer and a law professor. The man doesn't care. There is a vast difference between the two titles, a vast difference between the two titles. But Professor Obama doesn't seem to know that, or he's not going to let the facts get in the way. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as truth. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as fundamentally essentially American.

First of all, Senator Obama and senior lecturer, you talk about how the government, according to the Constitution, is defined, the federal government is told what it cannot do. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do. Have you read the Constitution? I know you're a senior lecturer, but have you read it, sir? What is the Tenth Amendment all about? "All powers not expressly stated in the Constitution are reserved to the states." The Constitution only plays restriction on the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what a state can't do. A state and a local government can do whatever they want. You are taking this Constitution. This man may be the man who drives the final nail into the coffin of our Constitution. He may be the man who drives the stake through the hearts of our founding fathers.

If anyone still believes, because this is what he's going to say, I'm talking about basic fairness. No, he's not. He is talking about reparations. I am talking about a system of government that I love. No, you do not, sir. You would like to change it into something else that you love. This is a guy who sees the Constitution and something that is outdated. That does not work, does not need to stand. It is exactly the same reason why the Democrats said no more power for this long with FDR. It is the same reason why the Democrats stopped FDR from packing the court. This is what FDR wanted to do. This is Liberal Fascism. And it is our final wake-up call, America. It is our final wake-up call. We are not going to get anything more clear from Senator Obama than this. You are not going to see it any plainer than this. I cannot believe how crystal clear this is. Now will America wake up. This is not about John McCain. I am not a supporter of John McCain, but today I'm going to make an endorsement. Like it makes any difference at all. Let me rephrase that. It's not an endorsement. I'm going to cast my vote today. You've got to make your own decisions and I don't think you listen to me for "Oh, who's Glenn going to vote for." And I'll explain it later on in the program. Wake up. Tell your friends, wake up.

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

The Purple Heart is reserved for those wounded or killed during battle. Awarded by the President, the medal has George Washington's image right there on the front of it. Make no mistake, it is reserved for heroes. True heroes. Men and women who've faced death and still persevered. Soldiers who fought in battle at the cost of their limbs, their lives, or their inner peace. John F. Kennedy earned a Purple Heart for his heroism as a gunboat pilot in 1944. John McCain received one for, well, we all know his horrific story. Colin Powell. Roughly one million Purple Heart medals have been awarded to veterans, all of whom were determined to have fought valiantly, with courage and heart.

RELATED: An FBI Agent Was Dismissed From the Mueller Probe. What Happened?

So it was a bit of a head-scratcher to hear comments from Democratic Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee and self-appointed "Leader in Effort to #ImpeachTrump." During a House Oversight Committee hearing questioning Peter Strzok, Cohen said, perplexingly, that Strzok deserves a Purple Heart. You know, because he's injured by all those mean text messages that HE sent?

As we've seen, other than Cohen's fanboy praise, Strzok hasn't gotten off easy. Thankfully. The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General wrote: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop was free from bias."

Lack of confidence. I believe that's one of the criteria for a different medal. Not a Purple Heart, though. Sorry, Strzok, you'll have to get your trophy elsewhere.

Time mgazine is back at it again, reporting the real news, doing the proper journalism. One of their latest articles is sure to earn them a Pulitzer. Surely. The article is titled, "Women Are Buying Up Plan B Because They're Terrified of the Future Supreme Court."

Here's how the article opens:

Within hours of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement last month, Emily Hauser was standing at a drugstore counter asking a pharmacist for two packages of Plan B. At age 53, she didn't need the emergency contraception pills — in fact, she wasn't sure who would, or when. But Hauser bought them anyway.

RELATED: Observations of an Irishman: Lessons from the abortion referendum

I like that the article sets up Kennedy's retirement as an apocalyptic event. A recurring theme in the mainstream media, now that I think of it, especially lately. Here's the gist of it:

Across the country, Americans are stockpiling emergency contraception in light of Justice Kennedy's retirement and President Donald Trump's Monday nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. The nation's highest court is on its way to having a conservative majority, making threats against Roe v. Wade seem more dire than ever.

A good article includes backstory. History. The context. Here's what Time had to say about the sudden influx—some would say panic—in birth control:

To understand the interest in buying up Plan B, you need to brush up on Roe v. Wade. Some background: The court handed down the 7-2 decision in 1973, confirming that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Progress has been rocky since then.

Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies.

Ah, yes. Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies. At this point, it's impossible for those inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and now Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome, to have a civil conversation. They certainly aren't going to budge in their opinion. Our main goal, obviously, is to connect to them as fellow human beings, living in the same chaotic world, and, hey, maybe along the way they'll admit that, maybe, they're a little more biased and deranged than they previously realized.

If all you knew about American politics came from The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, or MSNBC, you'd think that a "Blue wave" is about to swamp the country, with hip, millennial geniuses like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez surfing the crest of the wave. In fact, you would already think Ocasio-Cortez is the greatest hope for America since Barack Obama.

America is a very large country, and reality is usually more complex than the media lets on. But, since the media already has their narrative and superstar Ocasio-Cortez set for this November, there's no room for another young, minority, female, child of immigrants, political outsider, from the ultimate blue-wave state of California, named Elizabeth Heng. Well, there probably would be room for a story like that, except that she's a conservative.

RELATED: Democratic Socialism spun as 'innovative, millennial-friendly' — here's the reality

Thirty-two-year-old Elizabeth Heng is running for Congress against Democrat Jim Costa, in California's 16th district. It's been 40 years since a Republican won in that district.

In the early 1980s, Heng's parents fled the violence in Cambodia and immigrated to the U.S. In 2008, after graduating from Stanford where she was student-body president, Heng opened several cell-phone stores with her brothers in the central San Joaquin Valley. Running her own business and managing 75 employees opened her eyes to a not-so-dirty secret about capitalism trying to survive the virus of progressivism. She says, "I saw firsthand how government regulations impacted businesses negatively. I constantly felt that from Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, they were saying that I was everything wrong with our country, when all I was doing was creating jobs."

That's when she decided to venture to Washington, D.C., where she worked for six years learning the ins and outs of legislation and campaigning. She ended up working as a director for President Trump's inauguration ceremony, a job she managed while also finishing her MBA at Yale.

Fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone.

One of the biggest lessons she learned working in Washington became the platform she is now running for office on: fiscal responsibility. She says, "In a family or a business, we don't suddenly act surprised when a budget comes up for the year. We get it done."

What a concept.

Still, fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone. So, don't expect Elizabeth Heng to replace Ocasio-Cortez as the media darling anytime soon.