RADIOFebruary 21, 2023

Glenn’s powerful NATIONAL DIVORCE message: ‘I’m keeping the kids’

The far-left has labeled Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene a radical once again, this time for her push for a ‘national divorce’ in America. But if THAT is deemed ‘radical,’ then why hasn’t the far-left’s intense push to transform and destroy EVERYTHING we once loved about America ever been labeled the same? In this clip, Glenn gives HIS powerful message on a national divorce. He shows how America’s Democrats have dangerously transformed nearly every sector of society, describes what YOUR Constitutional (and peaceful) duty is as a response, and explains why establishing a strong relationship with God is needed now more than ever. Plus, what it means when Glenn says that if a divorce DOES occur, then conservatives are ‘keeping the kids...’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So we need a national divorce. I want to make sure I'm very, very clear on this. We need a national divorce, she writes.

We need to separate by red states and blue states, and shrink the federal government.

So she's not saying destroy America.

She's saying, we should probably not do business with one another, because we're killing each other.

And shrink the federal government.

Okay. Everyone I talked to says this from sick, disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats, to the traitorous last -- America last policies, we're done. Okay. Then the response, all those who support Greene's call to end the US. She didn't say that. But let's just take her -- let's just take it at her -- you know, we should separate and have a national divorce. They should have their US citizenship revoked. Really?

Because I know a lot of people on the left, that have actually called for the USA to end. And they haven't their citizenship revoked. So if you want to do that, let's just be consistent.

Here's -- here's the way I look at things today.

Remember when they said they wanted to reimagine the police? Many of us thought, no, he they don't want us to reimagine the police. They want to reimagine everything. When it comes to the police, they want to reimagine the justice system. The system that we have had in place for over 200 years.

The system that is -- is dictated and designed by our Constitution. They wanted to redesign and reimagine all of that. They wanted to reimagine all of our history. They were taking down statues. They -- they were making George Washington into a monster.

They wanted to reimagine our basic way of life.

Now, a lot of us thought that was foolish. A lot of us thought that was foolish.

Now, there's a new study out, that shows the results of this. And it's been a two-year study. And if you're a long-time listener, you know I will admit when I'm wrong. And the study shows, right or wrong. The idea of zero bail and arrest and release. They are not foolish, as it turns out. They are extraordinarily dangerous as well.

Now, common sense told many Americans, that it's a disaster. You don't do that. You don't just throw something out.

This is important.

You don't just throw something out, and say, let's reimagine. What's your plan?

What are you -- what are the steps you are going to take? What are you replacing it with?

Now, they've been studying this since June 2021. And they are dramatic. And there are no two ways to read the results. I'll quickly just give you this. If you had a zero bail policy, it appears as though more than 70 percent now of those who were released without bail, were -- went on to be arrested for additional crimes.

Okay? Seventy-eight percent of suspects released without bail were found to be rearrested for crimes. And if you gave bail, only 46 percent were arrested.

So that's really, really clear. And this is just one thing, of the reimagining of our entire system.

So we know reimagining war, how that's working out for us. Reimagining our military. Reimagining our Middle East policy.

We know how those things are working out for us.

So the left -- and let's go back to the police forces. The left forced a reimagining on our police forces, all across the country.

They got their way. No bail.

They reimagined the district attorneys with George Soros. They imagined all of it. Did it help?

Did it help the criminal? Or did it help the victim?

Did it help black people, white people, Hispanics? The communities.

Is life better in those communities. For anyone.

Is life safer for either the victim, the offender, or the community?

Is our law enforcement better, did it fix the rogue cop problem? Are our cops feeling like, they're not the bad guy, with no one watching their back?

Or do they feel like they are the bad guy, and no one is watching their back?

See, this goes to one piece of the entire puzzle, that they have been putting together.

And a society cannot survive very long, with lawlessness. And a free society, even less. So now that the results are officially in, on just this one topic, will the cities admit they're wrong?

Will they change this policy?

Will mayors, governors, legislatures, attorneys general, reign in this grossly failed experiment?

Well, my guess is no. Why? Again, I would have to go to common sense. A couple of things, one, admitting that you're wrong is very difficult, and politicians don't usually do it. But they also have this thing with Marxism, where they say the same thing after every Marxist, authoritarian failure. It just wasn't done right. Well, we just didn't do it right.

Okay. Well, let me ask, Seattle, you had all the power.

Portland.

What levers did you not control?

Why did it not work out well?

Were the wrong people in charge again? See, the only thing you didn't have was the power to physically or permanently silence all those who opposed you.

But you had the power to do that, more than any time since the 1950s and the red scare.

The reason why this won't change, is because it is clear, this was never a plan to make policing better.

It was a plan, and it was well-thought out.

But it was just a plan to destroy, to tear down, and to create chaos. And they've been very successful in that plan, all across America. And throughout almost every portion of society.

The plan to destroy the community. Destroy our history, standards. To destroy our story. To destroy our power, as an individual, and our power as a country. As far as, you know, domestically, our power as a country with foreign relations. And our physical power.

They've destroyed the relationship between parents and teachers. Parents and the state. Parents and their doctors. While destroying the stability of childhood. By refusing reality.

And confusing reality with fantasy. By destroying logic and reason. And empirical truth. And replacing it with activism, slogans, relativism, and dangerous lies.

So we have our proof on the reimagining of the police. We have it in a study. But we know the proof, on so many things.

I mean, anyone with common sense knew, this would be the result of no bail. How long will Americans of all political stripes, those Democrats, Republicans, independents. All of us. How long are we going to wait, before we demand, at the local, state, and federal level, that they end this wanton destruction of our entire way of life.

We are not safer today, in most of our cities now. The world is in much greater danger now, because we reimagined the truths that kept of our military strong.

We are economically in peril. The dollar value. Because we're reimagining what it means to print money. Our borders are not secure.

Our citizens are not in charge. They are not listened to many of the times.

Is our government even engaged in the basic tasks that we, the people outlined for them, when we, the people established the government.

Because we told them in writing, that we were just lending them our power, in order to, quote, form a more perfect union.

Are they moving toward a more perfect union, or a divided union?

We told them, we would lend them our power, to establish justice. Is justice being served, or justice being redefined against the people's will?

Are they ensuring our domestic tranquility. Or are they the source of a lot of our problems?

Providing for the common defense. Promoting the general welfare. Are they securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity?

Are your children going to be freer, than you are?

Boy, I would say, that is a big no. So I don't know if they're even engaged. I contend, that they have not just failed on this job, but they've become hostile to the meaning and purpose of that job.

And we let them.

But our Founders knew that this would happen. They knew we would tolerate it, up to some point. From the Declaration of Independence. All experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they're accustomed.

We're used to this.

And it's still -- life goes on. I mean, I'm free to go to the movies. I have a job. Whatever.

So we tolerate too much.

But that's expected. But we told them, that their job was to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But it goes on.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, to alter or abolish it. Not a period. A comma.

And to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them, shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

So what they're saying here is, you have to build the net to fall into. You have to show what you're going to replace it with.

And you'll notice that anyone who says, I don't want to replace it. I want to live by the Constitution, are deemed radicals.

And those who want to reimagine everything, are not radicals. Well, that's an upside down world.

They said, prudence indeed, will dictate the governments long established, will not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long chain of abuses and usurpations, now, listen to this, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces, otherwise known -- shows clear evidence a design, to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right. It is their duty to throw off this government, and provide new guards for their future -- future security.

Now, that's a fascinating phrase. Think of that. A long train of abuses and usurpations. So things that are happening, that are -- are destroying your freedom. Your way of life. Our Constitution.

And they're all -- they're all ending the same way, as anybody -- you've ever heard. Hey, how come. I mean, this is a mistake. This is a mistake. This is a mistake.

How come there's never a mistake that goes the way of the Constitution for America. That's a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object.

The destruction. And when you have clear evidence, that this is a design, this isn't just happenstance.

There are people designing this, that put us into absolute despotism, then you have a right and a duty.

So the two questions remain. Do you see, a long train of abuses and actions, that are trying to destroy your rights and powers?

Do they all point to the same object? To the same direction. To destroy our system of rights, checks, and balances. Justice.

Security. To -- to give us a completely new form of rule and society. I think the answer to that one is clearly yes.

But it may not be for those who have their heads in the sand and are not paying attention to the news.

Have we, the people been informed and involved in those decisions?

Because if we were all doing it, and they were sharing and saying, look, we're going to do this.

We want to abolish these rights, in the Constitution. We want to make sure that we have an administrative state. And Congress is irrelevant.

And we all talked about it openly. And we all decided, that would be different. But that's not what's happening.

More in just a second. First, let me tell you about Good Ranchers. Unless you have resigned yourself to what the World Economic Forum wants you to do, and that's eat bugs or worse. Become a vegetarian, you're probably going to buy meat for yourself, and pretty regularly.

And that is really expensive. And it is expected to go up another 15 percent this year.

Lock in your prices. And also, get American beef. Over 80 percent of the grass fed beef that you will find in stores, is imported. Even though, it has the little American flag on it.

People lie sometimes. But not Good Ranchers. Ditch the usual.

It doesn't cut it anymore.

Go to GoodRanchers.com.

Snag 30 percent off -- with the offer code Beck. At GoodRanchers.com.

100 percent satisfaction guarantee.

This is a great, great box of meat. We just got a delivery on it a couple of days ago.

Quality, quality meat, all from America, and American ranchers.

You can set up an affordable and delicious subscription, to American meat, delivered to your home. That's fish, that's meat. That's also chicken.

Really good. America's best from GoodRanchers.com.

Promo code Beck. GoodRanchers.com.

Promo code Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So do we have a long train of abuses and actions, trying to destroy?

Have you been involved in it, or have you been lied to?

Have you been diverted, silenced?

Gas lit? Have you been told things like ESG and The Great Reset. Are fables. Lies. Disinformation.

Conspiracy theories. And now see that they are not that.

And how many times have you been told one thing by your government, and then I realize, they are actually doing that.

Have they allowed chaos to breed and burn on our streets? Only to excuse them with the torch. And then discredit or silence those people. Call them terrorists.

When they're actually law-abiding citizens, who are just standing up and saying, law and order?

Has the government grown past their constitutional restraints?

And has it been to enhance and secure your individual rights, or has it been to chain you, while freeing those who are in bed with government.

And are all of those abuses and actions pointing the same direction, or not?

Now, you have a right and duty, but that's only the first question. How?

What is that duty? How do you do it?

Now, this is where everyone stops. This is where everybody says, we have to separate and have a national divorce. And others say, that's traitorous. That's treason.

Well, that's because people aren't answering the second question. The Constitution and the -- and the Declaration of Independence are very clear on your rights and your duty.

But the second question is: How? What does that mean?

The answer, next.
(music)

Cheryl wrote in about her dog's experience with Ruff Greens. She says, I was actually a bit skeptical, that this would have any difference with my dogs. But the difference is unbelievable.

I decided to buy it when my 11-year-old dog had to have surgery, and wasn't really doing well.

Within a week's time, she was playing like a puppy. I am totally amazed how better -- how much better my dog is acting. My dog's digestion. Thank you, Ruff Greens.

Ruff Greens is not a dog food. But a supplement developed by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black. You can sprinkle it on the dog food. It's chalked full of vitamins, minerals, probiotics, antioxidants. You name it.

You sprinkle that on, and you will see a difference in your dog.

Now, the folks at Ruff Greens are so confident, that your dog will love it. And you will love seeing what happens with your dog. That they have a deal, just to make sure that your dog will eat it and likes it. They will send you a first trial bag for free. All you do is pay for shipping.

Then if your dog likes it, you get the next bag from Ruff Greens, and you watch, over the coming months. You will see a difference in your dog. RuffGreens.com. R-U-F-FGreens.com. Or call 833-Glenn-33. RuffGreens.com/Beck.
(music)

STU: Now is the time to join up to Blaze TV. Go to BlazeTV.com/Glenn and use the promo code Glenn, to save.
(music)
(OUT AT 8:28 AM)

GLENN: So we have been talking about the national divorce. It's trending again today. And people are arguing, back and forth. You're a traitor if you say that. Well, you're a traitor because you're trying to destroy America. Let's just use some logic and reason here. Okay?

Nobody wants a war. If there's a War Between the States, those don't usually end well. In fact, I think ours is the only one that's ever ended well.

But it won't end the same way this time, because we are not the people our Founders were.

We have to decide, first of all, is there a pattern or a long train of abuses? Is there a pattern all pointing to a design to destroy your freedom, your rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence?

If you decide that, then you have a right and responsibility, according to the Declaration of Independence.

So now what do you do? What do you do about that?

Red and blue separate. Okay. What does that even mean?

Because if -- if Texas decided to secede, I would not live under a -- a state, unless it is under the framework, the exact framework of the Constitution and the mission statement of the Declaration of Independence.

So, in other words, I would not tolerate anything being changed, except a reset back to factory settings.

If you want to write a new Constitution, I -- I am not in.

Because I support the Constitution of the United States. Okay?

I will -- I will do everything in my power to protect and defend that. So I don't really see, you know, myself at least, as leaving the United States of America.

I think the United States of America, the of power structures, have left the United States of America.

Not me.

I still believe in the same values, that we've had since the revolution. And the -- and the beginning of the republic.

So what does that mean exactly, the national divorce?

Now, build a dual economy?

This makes sense on so many levels. First of all, we have seen that the economy, our banking system. Our trade with one another, has become weaponized by the United States government, through public/private partnerships.

The things they couldn't do, because they were constitutionally restrained. They have gotten corporations to do.

Well, that's a usurpation of the rights in our Constitution, so no.

I don't want to live that way.

And until they will reestablish the proper role of government, we should do everything we can, to ensure we don't need their corporations.

The government's corporations, to survive.

But this makes sense in -- in so many ways. Look at what COVID taught us.

We are not independent. We are not independent as people. We are not independent as communities.

Or states. We will all perish, if there is a global trade shutdown.

We should be rebuilding our manufacturing, our skills, we should be able to survive locally.

So having, you know, a -- a -- a dual economy, is really smart.

So you have a right to do this. You have a right to discuss this. You have a duty, it says in the Declaration of Independence, to throw off the chains. But what is that duty? What does that mean?

Because remember, there's a comma, not a period.

You have to replace it, with something that you think is going to be better. Now, I can't think of anything better than the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Can't think of anything better, that would protect them. You just have to actually use those things.

See, it's our duty to not only throw off the chains. And not act as terrorists. Or to become, what we despise.

It's to work together, as a people, to throw off the chains and organizing such powers that will be more likely to protect those rights. So that's not a terror group, from Antifa, to the white supremacists, that -- that offer nothing more than chaos. Slavery.

You have to have a plan, before you follow someone, or you say, let's just shirk off these chains.

You can't. What's your plan for being more safe for individuals and their rights?

I haven't heard that plan. You see, there is that plan, on the other side. They are building the framework of the global community. They are building a global government.

They are building a new currency, that will monitor you. They are building the authoritarian state.

And there's a very well-crafted, well-designed plan, that, quite honestly, is genius.

They didn't collapse us first. They're collapsing us as the power grows.

They start to put an ESG. And as that takes root, they collapse us a little bit more.

And so it's a controlled destruction. Well, you don't just destroy that, and expect everything to go well.

What is the framework?

So when somebody says, we should secede, or we should have a national divorce, what do you mean by that?

What is the framework? What are the states -- what is their government like?

The first thing we have to do, if you believe there are usurpations, and a long train of abuses, that point to despotism, we must first reestablish our first citizenship.

Otherwise -- this is America's cornerstone.

God.

If you live up to those laws first, start with the first, hey. How about this?

How about the Ten Commandments? Are those too difficult?

How about the golden rule?

Okay? Live up to those laws first. Because that will give you reason, clarity, and define inspiration to reestablish this experiment.

And the guardians, to guard those rights.

In the meantime, know that the design is real. The design to destroy this is real.

And so we all have a duty to stand up, but what? We stand up for the restraint on current power. We're not against, we're for the Bill of Rights.

Why are we always saying we're against this. We should be saying, no. That's a violation of the Bill of Rights, and I am for freedom of speech.

We need to stand for people. Like freedom caucuses. There should be a Freedom Caucus in at least 25 states. And they should be powerful.

Texas, doesn't have even have one. How is that possible, in a state, this red?

Because this state, the G.O.P. has gone corrupt.

We need to stand as long as the Freedom Caucus stands for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Ohio, stop waiting for the feds.

What are you waiting for?

Why did the governor wait so long?

Wait, the governor has absolutely no power. I mean, I swear, I'm going to get him a little bracelet. That says, what would Ron DeSantis do?

Just look at it every day?

You think he's waiting around? Take care of your own people. You look mousy, and, quite frankly, un-American.

Now, we need to stand up, in all cases, against lies.

Now, that's hard. In all cases, against -- do not tolerate lies. This is the easiest thing you can do.

Do not go along to get along. That doesn't mean agitate. That means, no. I'm sorry. That's not true.

Get involved in -- in your anti-ESG legislation, your -- on your state level.

Work for fair access laws. Which empower you, not the attorney general. But empower you to go after ESG.

Now is the time to support candidates, that will throw the RINOs out. Now is the time to decide, am I supposed to run? Am I supposed to help somebody who is running?

In 2024, there should be strong Bill of Rights and constitutional candidates.

Not radicals. Not crazy people. People who know the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

And will walk through fire to reestablish that. Mitt Romney should have a challenger right now. Kevin Cramer in North Dakota should have a challenger. Does he have a challenger? Is the G.O.P. or the freedom-loving people there, are you working on this?

Roger Whittaker of Mississippi. These -- Deb Fischer in Nebraska.

These senators can be flipped!

But you better have a good candidate. And you should be working on it, right now!

We don't need to separate. We need to find things that we all pretty much agree on. And this insane march to war, is something that should be universal.

We should stand up against the march towards war. Stand up in your local community. You want to make a difference? Start a farmer's market, if you don't have one already.

You want to make a difference? If you have one already, go shop the farmer's market. Go find a church, that is actually engaged. Not necessarily in politics, but a church that is teaching what our pilgrims knew.

That made them a danger to the king. Which is, there is no king, but God.

I answer to God first. Not men.

And the -- the flow of power, goes God, man, government.

Government is last, and only empowered by man, to protect the rights given to him by God.

This is what we need to do to save our country. But if I boil it down to one thing, it would be getting you and your family right with God.

God is the only answer at this point. If we do not have his favor, we do not survive.

This is a divine and sacred land.

This land -- is it a coincidence that freedom was established here, and all of this land -- we have everything we need -- everything we need to be independent and free. And be a beacon on a hill.

For all the world to see. This is how it can be done.

This is how man can live with one another, in peace. In harmony.

We get it wrong. And sometimes for long periods of time. But as long as the people understand they have the power to correct those wrongs.

And go back to the system, that was divinely inspired. Our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights. Our Declaration of Independence.

It's all of the answers that you need, are in those documents. So should we have a national divorce?

I wouldn't be against it. But I'm the one that's keeping the kids. I think we're the ones that, you know, need to make sure, we're not the ones that are violating the rules of this marriage.

You are. You're the ones stepping out on us.

I'm living by my marriage vows.

I'm living by the rules of the Constitution.

And if your state is not -- start standing up and demanding that they live by the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution.

INSIDE Trump’s soul: How a bullet changed his heart forever

“I have a new purpose,” then-candidate Donald Trump told reporter Salena Zito after surviving the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Salena joins Glenn Beck to reveal what Trump told her about God, his purpose in life, and why he really said, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, as she details in her new book, “Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America's Heartland”.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Salena, congratulations on your book. It is so good.

Just started reading it. Or listening to it, last night.

And I wish you would have -- I wish you would have read it. But, you know, the lady you have reading it is really good.

I just enjoy the way you tell stories.

The writing of this is the best explanation on who Trump supporters are. That I think I've ever read, from anybody.

It's really good.

And the description of your experience there at the edge of the stage with Donald Trump is pretty remarkable as well. Welcome to the program.

SALENA: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you so much for having me.

You know, I was thinking about this, as I was ready to come on. You and I have been along for this ride forever. For what?

Since 2006? 2005?

Like 20 years, right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

SALENA: And I've been chronicling the American people for probably ten more years, before that. And it's really remarkable to me, as watching how this coalition has grown. Right?

And watching how people have the -- have become more aspirational.

And that's -- and that is what the conservative populist coalition is, right?

It is the aspirations of many, but the celebration of the individual.

And chronicling them, yeah. Has been -- has been, a great honor.

GLENN: You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, when -- when Elon Musk said he was starting another party.

And somebody asked me, well, isn't he doing what the Tea Party tried to do?

No. The Tea Party was not going to start a new party.

It was to -- you know, it was to coerce and convince the Republican Party to do the right thing. And it worked in many ways. It didn't accomplish what we hoped.

But it did accomplish a lot of things.

Donald Trump is a result of the Tea Party.

I truly believe that. And a lot of the people that were -- right?

Were with Donald Trump, are the people that were with the Tea Party.

SALENA: That's absolutely right.

So that was the inception.

So American politics has always had movements, that have been just outside of a party. Or within a party.

That galvanize and broaden the coalition. Right? They don't take away. Or walk away, and become another party.

If anything, if there is a third party out there, it's almost a Republican Party.

Because it has changed in so many viable and meaningful ways. And the Tea Party didn't go away. It strengthened and broadened the Republican Party. Because these weren't just Republicans that became part of this party.

It was independents. It was Democrats.

And just unhappy with the establishment Republicans. And unhappy with Democrats.

And that -- that movement is what we -- what I see today.

What I see every day. What I saw that day, in butler, when I showed I happen at that rally.

As I do, so many rallies, you know, throughout my career. And that one was riveting and changed everything.

GLENN: You made a great case in the opening chapter. You talk about how things were going for Donald Trump.

And how this moment really did change everything for Donald Trump.

Changed the trajectory, changed the mood.

I mean, Elon Musk was not on the Trump train, until this.

SALENA: Yeah.

GLENN: Moment. What do I -- what changed? How -- how did that work?

And -- and I contend, that we would have much more profound change, had the media actually done their job and reported this the way it really was. Pragmatism

SALENA: You know, and people will find this in the book. I'm laying on the ground with an agent on top of me.

I'm 4 feet away from the president.

And there's -- there's notices coming up on my phone. Saying, he was hit by broken glass.

And to this take, that remains part of this sibling culture, in American politics.

Because reporters were -- were so anxious to -- to right what they believed happened.

As opposed to what happened.

And it's been a continual frustration of mine, as a reporter, who is on the ground, all the time.

And I'll tell you, what changed in that moment.

And I say a nuance, and I believe nuance is dead in American journalism.

But it was a nuance and it was a powerful conversation, that I had with President Trump, the next day. He called me the next morning.

But it's a powerful conversation I had with him, just two weeks ago.

When he made this decision to say, fight, fight, fight.

People have put in their heads, why they think he said it. But he told me why he said that. And he said, Salena, in that moment, I was not Donald Trump the man. I was a former president. I was quite possibly going to be president again.

And I had an obligation to the country, and to the office that I have served in, to project strength. To project resolve.

To project that we will not be defeated.

And it's sort of like a symbolic eagle, that is always -- you know, that symbol that we look at, when we think about our country.

He said, that's why I said that. I didn't want the people behind me panicking. I didn't want the people watching, panicking.

I had to show strength. And it's that nuance -- that I think people really picked up on.

And galvanized people.

GLENN: So he told me, when he was laying down on the stage.

And you can hear him. Let me get up. Let me get up.

I've got to get up.

He told me, as I was laying on the stage. I asked him, what were you thinking? What was going through your head? Now, Salena, I don't know about you.

But with me. It would be like, how do I get off the stage? My first was survival.

He said, what was going on through his mind was, you're not pathetic. This is pathetic.

You're not afraid. Get up.

Get up.

And so is that what informed his fight, fight, fight, of that by the time that he's standing up, he's thinking, I'm a symbol? Or do you think he was thinking, I'm a symbol, this looks pathetic. It makes you look weak.

Stand up. How do you think that actually happened?

SALENA: He thinks, and we just talked about this weeks ago. He -- you know, and this is something that he's really thought about.

Right? You know, he's gone over and over and over. And also, purpose and God. Right? These are things that have lingered with him.

You know, he -- he thought, yes.

He did think, it was pathetic that he was on the ground. But he wasn't thinking about, I'm Donald Trump. It's pathetic.

He's thinking, my country is symbolically on the ground. I need to get up, and I need to show that my country is strong.

That our country is resolute.

And I need people to see that.

We can't go on looking like pathetic.

Right?

And I think that then goes to that image of Biden.

GLENN: You have been with so many presidents.

How many presidents do you think that you've personally been with, would have thought that and reacted that way?

SALENA: Probably only Reagan. Reagan would have. Reagan probably would have thought that.

And if you remember how he was out like standing outside.

You know, waving out the window. Right?

After he was shot.

GLENN: At the hospital, right.

SALENA: Had he not been knocked out, unconscious, you know, he probably would have done the same thing.

Because he was someone who deeply believed in American exceptionalism.

And American exceptionalism does not go lay on the ground.

GLENN: And the symbol.

Right. The symbol of the presidency.

SALENA: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that affects him today.

GLENN: So let me go back to God.

Because you talked to him the next day. And your book Butler.

He calls you up.

I love the fact that your parents would be ashamed of you. On what you said to him.

The language you used. That you just have to read the book.

It's just a great part.

But he calls you the next morning. And wants to know if you're okay.

And you -- you then start talking to him, about God.

And I was -- I was thinking about this, as I was listening to it. You know, Lincoln said, I wasn't -- I wasn't a Christian.

Even though, he was.

I wasn't a Christian, when I was elected. I wasn't a Christian when my son died.

I became a Christian at Gettysburg.

Is -- is -- I mean, I believe Donald Trump always believes in God, et cetera, et cetera.

Do you think there was a real profound change at Butler with him?

SALENA: Absolutely. You know, he called me seven times that day. Seven times, the take after seven.

GLENN: Crazy.

SALENA: Talked about. And I think he was looking for someone that he knew, that was there. And to try to sort it out.

Right? And I let him do most of the talking. I didn't pressure him.

At all. I believed that he was having -- you know, he was struggling. And he needed to just talk. And I believed my purpose was to listen.

Right? I know other reporters would have handled it differently. And that's okay. That's not the kind of reporter that I am.

And I myself was having my own like, why didn't I die?

Right?

Because it went right over my head.

And -- and so I -- he had the conversation about God.

He's funny. I thought it was the biggest mosquito in the world that hit me.

But he had talked profoundly about purpose. You know, and God.

And how God was in that moment.

It --

GLENN: I love the way you -- in the book, I love the way you said that as he's kind of working it out in his own he head.

He was like, you know, I -- I -- I always knew that there was some sort of, you know -- that God was present.

He said, but now that this has happened.

I look back at all of the trials.

All of the tribulations. Literally, the trials.

All of the things that have happened. And he's like, I realized God was there the whole time.

SALENA: Yes. He does. And it's fascinating to have been that witness to history, to have those conversations with him. Because I'm telling you. And y'all know, I can talk. I didn't say much of anything.

I just -- I just listened. I felt that was my purpose, in that moment.

To give him that space, to work it out.

I'm someone that is, you know, believes in God.

I'm Catholic. I followed my faith.

And -- and so, I thought, well, this is why God put me here. Right?

And to -- to have that -- to hear him talk about purpose, to hear him say, Salena. Why did I put a chart down?

I'm like, sir. I don't know. I thought you were Ross Perot for a second.

He never has a chart. And he laughed. And then he said, why did I put that chart down?

By that term, I never turned my head away from people at the rally. That's true.

That relationship is very transactional. It's very -- they feed off of each other.

It's a very emotive moment when you attend a rally. Because he has a way of talking at a rally. That you believe that you are seeing.

And he said, and I never turn my head away.

I never turn my head away.

Why did I turn my head away?

I don't remember consciously thinking about turning my head away. And then he says to me, that was God, wasn't it?

Yes, sir. It was. It was God.

And he said, that's -- that's why I have a new purpose.

And so, Glenn. I think it's important, when you look at the breadth of what has happened, since he was sworn in.

You see that purpose, every day.

He doesn't let up.

He continues going.

And it brings back to the beginning of the book.

Where you find out, that there was another president that was shot at in Butler.

And that was George Washington. And how different the country would have been, had he died in that moment.

And now think about how different the country would be, had President Trump died in that moment. There would be --

GLENN: We're talking to -- we're talking to Salena Zito. About her new book called Butler. The assassination attempt on President Trump. And it is riveting.

And, you know, it is so good. I wish the press would read it. Because it really explains who we are, who Trump supporters are. Who are, you know, red staters. It is so good at that. She's the best at that.

The REAL reason Pam Bondi should RESIGN

Glenn Beck makes the case that Attorney General Pam Bondi should resign over her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation - not because of any potential cover-up, but solely because of how incompetent her rollout of the investigation has been.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want Pam Bondi fired. I want Pam Bondi fired.

STU: This escalated quickly.

GLENN: And here's why. Here's why. Do you release a tape that is supposed to be the evidence, do you release the tape, and then let the public find out for themselves, that there's an edit in the tape?

STU: That's an excusable mistake. I mean, I don't know that she did it, I guess.

GLENN: You know what, it could have been just a digital jump in the tape.

It's a minute lost. Okay?

So let's just say -- let's just give them every benefit of the doubt, and say, it was just a digital jump in the tape.

Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you not put an intern on it, just to say, watch the clock!

And make sure there's no jumps or edit in the tape.

Because we know.

STU: Everyone is going to watch.

GLENN: 300 million people will be watching it. And somebody will take the time to watch the clock.

So watch the clock.

Is every minute accounted for? You didn't do that? You didn't do that.

STU: I think you can pretty easily say, that if you wanted to, right?

And your goal was -- you wanted to edit out -- it would be very easy to edit in a minute of footage.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And that no one knows. Just make the clock continuous.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be clear.

If you were trying to cover that, it would be --

GLENN: This is incompetence.

STU: However, highlighting your point to incompetence. At the very least, if you have a jump, you say at the beginning. There's an error at this point.

This is -- we know this is there.

You know, the fact that you release it as proof without acknowledging that minute is -- I just don't understand how you can make a mistake like that.

When your goal here is supposedly to put everyone's mind at ease.

I don't know. I don't know.

But there's more to it, than that.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Let me go back to before we leave. Just this one.

Remember when I said yesterday, your wife finds receipts for you buying presents at Tiffany's that she never got.

That, you know, you were in a hotel that she never came to.

You were -- you were not coming home for dinner. You had long weekends and everything else. It doesn't mean you were cheating.

STU: And a traveling jewelry investor.

GLENN: Right. But she -- she should demand the evidence, because it -- you don't want that hanging there. On your relationship.

It will just fester.

Now, you give her the evidence. But then she finds out that, oh. Well, it's the wrong receipt.

It was a -- it was a receipt, you know, that you explained away. But what you -- what you used as proof, was not the same receipt.

You were like, no.

See, honey. This is when we went to the hotel, together.

And she looks at it. And she's like, oh, okay.

And then she has it for a while. And she looks at it.

Like, wait a minute. The date is different on this one. This is not the same receipt.

That's a problem! That's a problem.

And it doesn't mean that he was cheating on you.

It just means. What the hell is going on?

Are you this stupid?

STU: And it would certainly make you have legitimate questions about --

GLENN: It just makes you question things for. Now, if it wasn't for the jump in the tape. And I'm not even going to call it an edit. Because I don't think it was an edit. I think it was jump in the tape. As if the jump in the tape wasn't incompetent enough for you, listen to this one. Jason is here with us.

Hi, Jason.

JASON: Hi, Glenn. What a morning, wow.

GLENN: What a morning it is, wow.

So, Jason, what else have you found?

JASON: Okay. So the more and more we looked at this tape.

I started looking.

It was weird. Because it looked like a janitor's closet.

Door 26.

And you were like, shut up, this is not a janitor's closet. I don't know what this is.

But I was like, I can tell you, there's a woman that looks like a janitor that comes out and supposedly the person that that they're saying is his cell. Which they're not, by the way. This was people on social media was saying, this is his cell.

Was coming out with a trash can.
So I looked around to see, if there was any confirmation of what this cell was.

I found an OIG report from the Justice Department two years ago, that shows the camera angle, and the one camera that was actually working.

So you can see the diagram, and I think we actually have it if you're watching this right now. There's a diagram that shows where this camera is.
It shows where Epstein's cell is. And the big thing that stands out, Glenn, is this camera does not even have eyes on Epstein's cell at all. Like, not at all.

STU: Incredible.
JASON: There's four different wings here. There is a service wing. And that's what we're looking at, with the Door 46.

That's a service entrance, or staff entrance. Now, you can't see on the lower level of Epstein's cell at all.

So this is what it makes it look even crazier for that one minute that's missing.

And I will say -- that okay. Let me just say it this way.

I've spent years and years and years, looking at surveillance and security camera footage as you know, in my previous job.

I've never seen an over one-minute jump right at a time that would be very, very I don't know, just convenient.

I've never seen that before. In all my years looking at these things.

STU: There's no reason. Why would you say that minute would be convenient? You're just saying, that one minute being gone could be convenient.

JASON: It's convenient in this entire time frame.

Based on this camera angel.

It's convenient, that 60 seconds would be great for someone walking across that lower level.

60 seconds would be perfect if you wanted to conceal the fact that someone would have worked across that area. That's why --

GLENN: Here's why -- here's why I didn't buy into this, at first.

Okay. Sixty seconds, to open the door, kill him. And then leave.

Okay?

But look at the diagram. If you look at the diagram, where the camera is, there is a -- just a -- maybe a foot space, where the camera is not able to see. Where there is a door, from the staff area.

Okay?

STU: Are you looking at -- because I think -- it's hard to tell from this.

Are you looking -- is this diagram the top floor or the bottom floor.

Jason, do you have any idea?

JASON: So I think Epstein is on.

STU: The upper floors. Right.

GLENN: Okay. So I'm looking at where the staff area is, okay. See the yellow triangle and the red box, where it's his cell.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So there is one way out of the staff area. And it's right below the camera.

STU: Like underneath the floor, essentially, of where the camera is.

GLENN: Yeah. On the floor. If the camera is up on a ceiling. Is that what you -- what -- you're saying.

STU: Yeah. The camera is -- the camera is from on the second floor, shooting down.

And the evidence that they're basically proclaiming here. And this is true.

You know, what Jason is saying, is true.

That you can't see the door of the Epstein cell. What you can see is a common area, that in theory, you would need to cross to get to the cell.

STU: What you're saying, Glenn. The camera does not actually show 100 percent of the potential paths to get there. Right?

JASON: It doesn't.

STU: If you cross right in front of the banister here on the bottom floor.

GLENN: There's no way you will see.

Okay. So wait a minute. I just want to make sure. We are talking about the same thing. If you look at the videotape, it's the white room, down stairs.

Right? And so it's where the garbage can is, down there.

STU: Below that.

GLENN: So Epstein's room would be below the garbage can.

STU: No. Epstein's room, if you look out -- the area that you can see.

And I apologize for radio listeners here that aren't seeing the visual. But I want to make sure we get this right.

There's an open area, where the banister is, and it shows the common area behind it. Right?

If you go on the right side of the common area from our view.

Outside of the view, to the right. Is where the entrance to the cell is.

The stairs up to the cell.

GLENN: So all you have to do. You don't have to cross the floor.

Why do you have to cross the floor? You can go through the door. You can go through the door, and see. And just stay against the wall.

STU: Yeah. I guess, maybe.

And Jason, maybe you know this.

Maybe it's explained somewhere else in the report.

Is it possible that they're saying, all the other entrances, to get to that area, have cameras. So they didn't see anybody walking into those areas.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you show the other --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, this is not proof that anybody did anything.

STU: No!

GLENN: This is proof, they're -- Pam Bondi needs to be fired.

Who is rolling this out?

The Little Rascals.

Panky, look, I've got some videotape. What are you doing? This is ridiculous!

This is such absolute incompetence! Incompetence.

STU: It's incredible. The fact that they would release that because I think everybody had the same -- even Jason, as a super-duper skeptic on this, even you had the assumption that what they were saying was, the green doors were the cells, or at least the cell area.

GLENN: Right, that's what I thought.

STU: That's what everyone thought, when they saw it. Now, to be clear, the report, as you pointed out, Jason. Previously had stated in June, this diagram that shows they're talking about the common area.

So that's not like -- but like, they, A, should have been very clear about that. What they're talking about is the common area.

They shouldn't put that in the announcement.

GLENN: Stu, we're going upstairs today.

Okay? To my house. And, you know, I have that balcony, upstairs by the fireplace.

Where you haven't -- like at midnight last night.

Because it's like a day's journey from anywhere.

GLENN: Right. But we're going to go upstairs. And you put a camera, okay? Down into the great room.

STU: Right. You want to recreate it in your house.

GLENN: I do. And I want to show you, I can get to places in the room, as long -- because there's a whole floor.

The balcony shows part, but it doesn't show the door.

I can -- wait until -- I got to prove, that we're going to do this live on YouTube, or something on -- maybe on X today, as soon as we get off the air.

Because I -- this is ridiculous.

STU: It's unbelievable. Again, it doesn't prove that this -- you know, he was killed.

However, it is -- the fact that they're releasing a video that has this many holes to it, to a passing -- again, the person you're trying to make feel better about all of this is someone very interested in the detail of it. Right?

It's not someone who has a passing interest. You're not releasing this to some person who kind of knows who Jeffrey Epstein is. This is intentionally designed to try to push down some weird argument as a conspiracy theory.

GLENN: You're also -- also -- and, you know what, I'm not arguing anything.

I'm arguing this is incompetence.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I'm not arguing that he killed himself.

Or he didn't kill -- I don't know!

I don't know. I don't know.

But this isn't helping.

You know, not only are you saying, that these people have some interest in it.

Well, you know, these people are interested in the details.

No!

You're releasing it to a bumbling of people, who many of them have the details. But many of them are hostile to what you're saying.

So you better have a buttoned up case.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You better not have anything that they find out later, wait. Wait a minute.

What?

STU: Right. And it could be -- you know, you could make the couple of arguments that you probably could make here.

One, they don't actually care about this. And they're annoyed they have to deal with it.

So they threw it out there.

Terrible incompetence. If that's the truth. That's inexcusable.

The other thing they might argue. And this could be part of it.

There were reports at least, that this got leaked. That this came out essentially earlier than they wanted it to.

So the rollout was not as planned, as they thought it was going to be.

Axios reported this exclusively. Now, it's possible, they linked it to Axios.

It's not exactly a typical location of a Trump leak.

GLENN: Who? The Justice Department, or the FBI? That's what I want to know.

First of all, this administration has no leaks. We just bombed Iran without any leaks.

STU: Yeah. Different -- different wing of the government. Still, I get what you're saying.

GLENN: Yeah, right.

STU: A lot of this has been tight.

But there does seem to be.

You know, there's a lot of big personalities. There's always reported squabbling going on.

Who knows how this was released and who didn't.

That may be true. That part of the rollout was heard.

Right? Because it was released when they were ready. That might be true.

It still doesn't really explain. The video is a video.

They definitely posted it. They posted it like that. They posted it -- they had a memo that explained what the video was, and did not mention anything like that. That mentioned the --

GLENN: That's all you have to do.

Hey, there's a one minute jump. Here's why it's there.

STU: Again, even with that explanation, which would making me happier.

Right? That it's available.

It still wouldn't make a person who believes in this theory.

GLENN: Right. I can tell you -- I can tell you for a fact, nothing is going to satisfy everyone.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But you at least have to try to make the easy things go away.

Will the Big, Beautiful Bill’s Medicaid changes really “KILL” people?

Democrats claim that the Big, Beautiful Bill will take Medicaid and Medicare away from many Americans and even “kill” people. But is any of this true? Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere review just the facts and explain who’s actually affected by the changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can I address some of the hyperbole around the big, beautiful bill, just a little bit.

If there's anything in the big, beautiful bill to worry about, it's the increase in spending.

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

To the country. But that's not what anybody is talking about. What everybody seems to be talking about is the tax cuts. Which were already there. Or the tax cuts like no tax for tips. Which you would think the party of the little people. You know, the Democrats. Would all be for. But they're not.

Because they're not party of the little people anymore. And those had to be offset.

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

Not cutting spending. Let me just say this. If I said, you know, I made $250,000 a year. And this year, we were going to spend $300,000.
Okay?

And you would say, immediately, Glenn. You can't do that.

And I would say, I've been doing that for 30 years. Okay. You might say, the bank is not going to give a loan.

But then if I came to you and said, yeah. I'm spending $300,000 a year. And my wife and I make 250 or 200,000 a year. But, you know, next year, I was going to spend $500,000.

Did you get a raise? No. I didn't get a raise. I still make 250,000 dollars a year between my wife and I.

But I'm going to spend 500 and not 300. And then somebody came in, like an accountant with some muscle.

And they said, Glenn, you cannot spend $500,000 a year!

Would it make sense if I went back to spending 300, not 200, which I had.

But 300, which I had been spending every year, would it make sense to you to -- for me to say, my children are now going to starve? My children are now going to starve.

Look at the austerity program that I am on.

My gosh, they just -- no. They didn't cut anything. They must cut thinking.

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

I mean, all of the people. I know they warned us.

I didn't believe the death squads would actually go out.

And, you know, they want these people off Medicare so badly.

Or Medicaid.

They just sent out death squads. Trump is not waiting for them to die, because he's not waiting for them to get their prescriptions now he just wants them slaughtered in the street.

STU: Yeah, that's the efficiency of the Trump administration. He wants these people dead so badly, he's just killing them in the streets. Actually, no, none of that is happening.

And the Medicaid cuts as you point out, are largely cuts to future increases that have not occurred.

The biggest chunk of this is the work requirements. You've heard this, Glenn.

And, you know, I went through this. And I was like, this can't possibly be what they mean.

I said, wait a minute. When they say work requirement cuts, what does that mean?

So I dove into it a little bit. Basically, what they're saying, you, if you're an able-bodied adult, so that does not include old people, does not include people who are sick and can't work. And it also does not include people who have small children, even if they are able-bodied.

And when I say small, I mean 12 and under. So if you have a 12-year-old. You're completely exempt from this.

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

STU: No. Gosh, again, I know this is tough. Yeah, this is where it gets difficult.

GLENN: Wait. I'm having a hard time following this. What now?.

STU: So you're an able-bodied adult, that does not have small children.

GLENN: No small children.

STU: You would be required to get Medicaid, to work 20 hours a week.

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

STU: Now, you might say to yourself. And this is actually true.

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

I'm sure, there are people trying to get part-time jobs. And maybe can't get them.

Those people will just lose their Medicaid. Well, as you may understand.

Of course not.

Because what you have to do then is go through a process, that you're basically telling them, you're attempting to get a job. Or you're volunteering somewhere, to meet that requirement.

So basically, you have to fill out -- yeah. It's like unemployment.

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

It's the exact opposite of unemployment which we've had forever.

Which if you're looking for a job, but can't get it. You can still have unemployment.

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

STU: Again, you're not very close to the truth.

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

STU: By the way, Glenn, you might say to yourself, wait. How is that a Medicaid cut?

Because they're not cutting anyone's eligibility here. Unless they don't want to meet the requirement.

Of course, there's always been requirements to all of these programs.

So meeting the requirements have always been part of getting on to Medicaid.

This requirement, if you decide basically not to do it. And not participate. And not fill out the paperwork.

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

What they're saying, hold on. All right.

GLENN: No. I just want to make sure I have it right.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: If you are blind, you're deaf.

STU: No. Again, no.

GLENN: You have no friends, and you can't get out of the house, and you've been on Medicaid, somehow or another, you signed up for that. But now, you don't even know, because you can't hear the news. You certainly can't fill out a form. Because you have no eyes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: They just come in and rip your Medicaid away?

STU: No. None of what you said is accurate.

Though, it is calm considering some of the accusations -- comparisons made bit left right now.

But, yeah.

So if you are an able-bodied adult that decides, you know what, I don't feel like filling out the paperwork, or I don't feel like going to job interviews, or I don't feel like volunteering, then yes. You could lose -- but that's what they're saying the cuts are.

They think 317 billion dollars worth of people will not bother doing those things. For whatever reason. Maybe because they had more money than they said. Maybe because they're lazy.

Maybe because -- I'm sure there's some case where some -- I don't know.

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

But, yes. Maybe it's some particular skin color. Then they would reject you.

I don't know.

And it's not just that. There are other cuts. For example, some of the cuts are, they're eliminate duplicate Medicaid enrollment.

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

STU: In two different states. They're going to try to stop you from having it in two states.

And instead, make you have it one state. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

I have two legs. I have two arms. I have two eyes. I have two nostrils. I have two ears.

I can't have two Medicaid coverages. It's insane!

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

GLENN: I have two kidneys. I can only have one kidney now, you know, repaired?

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

STU: That's not what I'm saying. But, yes. I'm sure that's what's being reported out there by Dana Bash.

Another one, I will give you here, Glenn. They talked about immigrants.

You know, immigrants getting on their Medicaid cut. Now, this is tough. What this bill does, I want you to hold on to your hat here, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: If you have green card holders and other certain immigrants, some will lose their coverage. Or actually, sorry, eligibility will -- retain for those people.

Certain other immigrants may lose their coverage. The current law says, all who are lawfully present.

That will kick in after a -- how many year waiting period?

Let me guess, it's a five-year waiting period.

So it will be the next president who has to deal with this, when future Congress will just put it right back in. And it's not a savings at all.

And then you have Medicaid death checks. They're going to require --

GLENN: They're checking on whether your debt? Look at this! It's crazy.

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

GLENN: You're going to kick all of the immigrants off in five years.

STU: No.

GLENN: And then you're checking to see if old people are dead!

When will you leave these people alone?

STU: I know. So, anyway, we can go through this stuff all day. But as you point out, most of this stuff is not at all, what the left is saying it is.

It's not the desperate Medicaid cuts that are going to ruin everybody's lives. A lot of them are just really common sense stuff, making sure you don't have them in two states. I don't know what the positive argument is for that. But they'll make it.

GLENN: Well, they don't have one. That's why they don't make it about that.