Glenn Beck: More guns, less crime


John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime.

GLENN: Let's go to John Lott. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, the actual facts if you want to talk about it. John, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

LOTT: Great to be back on, thanks.

GLENN: You bet. So tell me what happened yesterday in the Supreme Court and why everybody is so convinced that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gun owners.

LOTT: Well, it's an extremely important case. If the Supreme Court were to say that the D.C. gun ban doesn't infringe on people's right to be able to own a gun, essentially there would be no gun regulation that could ever be struck down and so a lot's at stake at this. And the two questions that the Supreme Court is basically looking at, one, is it an individual right or not. And if it is, is it the same -- should it be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights. And it seems pretty clear from the discussion yesterday that a majority of the justices think it is an individual right. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, should be interested to see how NPR, begin what you're just saying, would deal with that.

GLENN: She's hot.

LOTT: Seems to believe it's an individual right. Justice Kennedy came swinging right out at the beginning saying that this notion that somehow the Second Amendment was set up to go and guarantee government certain rights, you know, just didn't make any sense to him. And so someone who you might normally think of as the swing vote, a key swing vote there seemed to be very solidly in the camp of saying that this is an individual right.

GLENN: Explain the two -- explain the two things that are in front of -- okay. First, is it an individual right, I got. The second one, if it is, should it be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights?

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it be?

LOTT: Well, you know, you and I would think the same way on that, but the Justice Department kind of threw a monkey wrench into this when they put their brief in a couple of months ago. They were arguing that, you know, words can't really hurt people that much, guns can and so for example, just comparing the First and the Second Amendment, you shouldn't give the same deference to the Second Amendment as you would to the First because more's at risk there and you should be more willing to accept government regulation of guns because of that than regulation of free speech. And just so people understand, we're really given constitutional decisions these days. Nobody's really talking about not having regulations with guns. You take something like the First Amendment where it says congress shall make no laws. That seems pretty clear. But yet congress has -- or the Supreme Court has gotten to the point where it said that if -- what they are really saying is congress shall pass, make no laws unless it has a good reason for doing so and so we have things like campaign finance regulation. And the question is where do you set the bar in terms of saying how good do those reasons have to be. How compelling, how closely tied do you have to show that the regulation that you're having is connected to the outcome that you want to produce. And the Justice Department worried that it might affect some of the gun regulations that it enforces, that it wants to have a sufficiently low standard that maybe even the D.C. gun ban would be able to pass constitutional muster. And --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Hang on, hang on. The DC gun ban.

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: You cannot have a gun inside of your own home. You can't even have an assembled rifle inside of your home, correct?

LOTT: That's right.

GLENN: So I mean, it's effectively no guns.

LOTT: Right. I understand. I'm not trying to justify the Justice Department opinion on this and --

GLENN: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. This is the Bush Justice Department.

LOTT: Right. There's been so much strangeness that's going on here. I don't know if you know this but Vice President Cheney signed a brief essentially opposing the Bush Justice Department's position on this. He came out and said not only is this an individual right but it should be treated just as the rest of the Bill of Rights are treated and this is the first time in American history that a sitting vice president has signed an amicus brief and not only has he signed an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, he's come out against the Justice Department position on it. And last week there was a column by Robert Novak which I guess if it's true is quite remarkable because he was quoting people in the Bush administration saying that the solicitor general had taken a position that Bush didn't agree with but rather than going and telling the solicitor general to withdraw his brief on that, Bush had essentially signaled to Cheney to put in his own brief to indicate that the executive branch was not of one voice agreeing with what the Justice Department was going to be arguing yesterday.

GLENN: So how do you think this is going to come out, John?

LOTT: I think they are going to say it's an individual right and I think by at least a 6-3 vote but I have no clue where they're going to draw the line in terms of saying with standard what weight should be given to the Second Amendment compared to the rest of the Bill of Rights. There was enough doubt, Justice Roberts didn't even want to deal with that issue and there were some questions among some of the others. So on that who knows what's going through their mind right now.

GLENN: So this could actually, this could in one way be a win that it is an individual right but then at the same time we could lose because they could say, "And the Government can regulate it any way they want."

LOTT: Right. That's a possibility.

GLENN: That's fantastic. And what does it mean, John, to New York and Chicago if they just come out and say, no, the DC gun ban is wrong, you can't do that? Does that mean that --

LOTT: Well, there would be a few other cases. All this is would be a very narrow decision that said, look, having a gun ban is going too far. Where we're going to draw the line after that, you are going to have to have other cases to decide and my guess is some place like Chicago there would be a suit filed very quickly afterwards saying that their ban, which is almost as restrictive as DC's, is also unconstitutional.

GLENN: John, can you explain where the turn came and why we are looking at -- why our Supreme Court is looking at -- instead of the words of the founding fathers, instead of the intent of the founding fathers -- I mean, jeez, we'll look for the intent of a hanging chad voter but we won't look for the intent of the founding fathers, which is very clear.

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: Why we now look at evolutionary law, why we now look at the law and say, well, let's look at this last case and this last case. Why don't they look at what the founding fathers said and believed because it was clear.

LOTT: I agree with you. As you say, look at the First Amendment, says congress shall make no law. What would they have had to have written if they really meant that? Say congress will never, ever make any law with respect to this? But I think what's happened is that people like power and so if the Supreme Court were just to go and say, well, this is what the First Amendment means; if you want it to be something different, then amend the Constitution. Or with regard to the Second Amendment it seems pretty clear to me, also, then there wouldn't be these types of cases. What's happened is I think judges and justices like to be policy makers and so they like to introduce grayness in things and so rather than just taking absolute standards, which is what the Constitution tried to set up, they set up these balancing tests where you have to go in and go and argue: Well, I think there are good reasons that maybe we should get around the words that are in the Constitution and then the justices have, you know, policy information, data and empirical evidence that they can go in and weight the different classing benefits of changing these different things. I mean, it's just a natural evolution. In some sense we're lucky that it took 160 years or so before we began to see this change in our courts because truly the temptation was there earlier to go and get power that would have been -- belonged to other branches of government earlier.

GLENN: One last question. I don't know if you are a betting man at all. Odds that we significantly hurt the right to own and carry a gun in this country with this decision.

LOTT: I think -- I'm optimistic on this. I think that we'll win with regard to individual right clearly, and I'm pretty optimistic, though, you know -- I don't know. I would say 60% or something that we'll do well in terms of the standard.

GLENN: All right. John, thanks. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime. If you want to get down to the facts of guns, which nobody wants to do, read that book. It's tremendous. John, thanks a lot for your time.

LOTT: Thank you very much.

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast 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.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for 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.

The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, came up with "7 Pillars of Color Revolution," a list of seven steps needed to incite the type of revolution used to upend Eastern European countries like Ukraine and Georgia in the past two decades. On his TV special this week, Glenn Beck broke down the seven steps and showed how they're happening right now in America.

Here are McFaul's seven steps:

1. Semi-autocratic regime (not fully autocratic) – provides opportunity to call incumbent leader "fascist"

2. Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader

3. United and organized opposition – Antifa, BLM

4. Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud

5. Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative

6. Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets"

7. Division among military and police


Glenn explained each "pillar," offering examples and evidence of how the Obama administration laid out the plan for an Eastern European style revolution in order to completely upend the American system.

Last month, McFaul made a obvious attempt to downplay his "color revolutions" plan with the following tweet:

Two weeks later, he appeared to celebrate step seven of his plan in this now-deleted tweet:



As Glenn explains in this clip, the Obama administration's "7 Pillars of Color Revolution" are all playing out – just weeks before President Donald Trump takes on Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the November election.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Watch the full special "CIVIL WAR: The Way America Could End in 2020" 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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.