RADIOJune 23, 2022

NYC gun laws CHALLENGED after 'GREAT' Supreme Court ruling

It’s a great day for the Constitution. Why? Because the 6-3 Supreme Court decision announced today should OVERTURN a New York City law that severely restricts concealed carry rights. Legal expert Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what he says is a ‘career-defining’ majority decision by Clarence Thomas, what the ruling means for gun rights throughout America moving forward, and how this decision will ‘suck the wind’ out of the Republicans who supported the Senate’s current gun restrictions bill…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The huge gun case up in New York, where I couldn't get a gun in New York. I had 15 active threats. I had Gavin de Becker and associates. Which were -- they were probably the best security detail in the country. In the world, really.

And they were following these threats. You know, my kids were looking at pursuer lists on our refrigerator. If these people approached. Go run. Get mom or dad.

I mean, it was really bad. And I couldn't get a gun. In New York City. Because they deemed that I didn't have enough cause. To have a gun.

That's been thrown out now. So tell me what they've done. What does this mean for New York? And the rest of the country?

JOSH: So it's a fantastic ruling. Look, I've not had the chance to pore through it. Looks like they have a Justice Thomas majority opinion, clocked in at 63 pages. You know, including concurrences and dissents, we're up to 130. One hundred 40 pages. So I have my reading cut out for me, for the rest of the day.

But based on my quick skimming of it, this is a thoroughly well-researched. I might even say, thus far, career-defining majority opinion. From Justice Clarence Thomas. I was thinking about this recently.

It's unclear to me, today, or at least before today. Whether Clarence Thomas has a career-defining majority opinion. He's written so prolifically for so long, but most of his greatest writings, especially on the hard-hitting cases. Have been in concurrence. Or more often than not, oftentimes in defense. I think in another gun case in 2008, (inaudible) versus Heller had his landmark career-defining opinion. And at least until affirmative action I predict is likely overturned next term. You can get that if you want to. At least until that day where I predict Thomas will also have the majority opinion. This is his career-defining opinion.

This is an issue that is very near and dear to Justice Thomas. He wrote an amazing concurrence in the courts, last major Second Amendment case. McDonald versus the city of Chicago case in 2010, where you had a magisterial 55 to 60-page concurrence. Just working through the history. This issue was very near and dear to him. He's a personal gun owner. He enjoys hunting. And from what I can tell, it's just a really thoroughly well-researched opinion, that reaches the clear and obvious result, that anyone with any degree of familiarity with the Second Amendment text could tell you. Which is that this is a right.

And the very act of talking about burying arms. Not just keening them. But the burying them obviously entails the ability to do so, outside the home, without oppressive restrictions. The likes of which, again, it sounds like you face in my home state. In my home state of New York. The point that Justice Kavanaugh makes in his very brief concurring opinion. He kind of drives down this point, which is, the vast majority of states, which have so-called shall issue regimes for their gun licensing permits. Which means that you have to give the applicants a permit, as long as they go through X, Y Z tests. You know, they shoot the right number of targets. The permit years ago. Those laws are all untouched. The only laws that are jeopardized by today's decision are the more problematic, quote, unquote, may issue laws. Not the shall issue laws, where they basically give the licensing authorities a ton of discretion to arbitrarily decide, where you have to show that you truly, truly -- whatever the heck that means. But, and then, the fact that --

GLENN: Yeah. It's nuts.

JOSH: Go ahead.

GLENN: So I want to ask you, doesn't this make the Senate gun bill a joke? I mean, that will have no teeth to it, after this ruling. Would it?

JOSH: Yes and no.

It's real interesting. I have tracked a lot of the commentary over the next 24 to 48 hours. Next week is a focus on this exact question, right? So in theory, they are different issues. The ruling here today is talking about concealed carry, and open carry regimes in the states. The Senate gun bill is in theory focused on other measures. It's focused on things like red flag laws. But it is a little intellectually inconsistent. Or at least at a bear bare minimum. It would be a little peculiar, right? To have the liberalize. I say that in a good way. A more liberalized concealed carry licensing regime, while at the same time, having a red flag law, in place that would just infringe upon due process rights, willy-nilly. Those two things would seem to be intentioned with one another. At a bare minimum, the timing of this opinion --

GLENN: But it's not the same.

JOSH: It really kind of sucks the wind out of John Cornyn and the other 13-Senate Republicans' momentum. That's for sure.

GLENN: So how will this affect other states? New York, by the way, has just come out. And I'm going to talk about this in a minute. New York has already come out. And said, it's not going to change anything. We're not going to abide by this. Which is ironic, because that's what the Second Amendment is for. To stop an out-of-control, lawless government, doing what they want. And not abiding by the Constitution. I just want to point that out.

JOSH: Well, that's wild. I have not seen that. But that's just wild stuff, that they said that bluntly here. Hook, the entire idea behind the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Which in itself is a legally debatable matter, I should say. But they have held. The court has held that the overwhelming majority of enumerated rights, in developed rights, including the Second Amendment. By the way. That's the McDonald versus Chicago case in 2010. The court has held that these rights are incorporated against the states. Which, you know, to escape the legalese for a minute, means that a state cannot infringe on these rights. The federal government already cannot. But a state cannot as well. So this case is right out of New York State. If New York State wants to go flip two middle fingers at the court, when they themselves are a party to the lawsuit. Look, parties to the lawsuit aren't balanced.

GLENN: Well, let me -- let me read impala what governor Kathy Hochul said. She said, it's outrageous that in a moment of national reckoning on gun violence. The Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those that can carry concealed weapons. By the way, I don't know if she knows this. But Buffalo is in New York.

So her law didn't do anything. In response to this ruling, we are reviewing our options, including calling a special session of the legislature. Just as we swiftly passed nation leading gun reform legislation. We will continue to do everything we can in our power, to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence. So she didn't say, we're not going to do it. She said, we're just not going to find a way around it.

JOSH: Right. I mean, that statement is about what I would expect from a left-wing hack like the governor of New York State. We'll see what they try to do. I mean, they'll try to pass some law. Meaning, they will try to issue something administrative. Inevitably both find themselves, in court again.

And, you know, with the occurring composition of the court. If that ultimately makes its way up to the Supreme Court itself, you have to like the odds of the side of gun rights. The reality is, if I have the number correctly, I think it's 43 of the current states in the country. If I recall the number from the Kavanaugh concurring opinion today. Forty-three of the states are either, quote, unquote, shall issue states. Or just straight up constitutional county states. They simply do not need a license to exercise a right to give them their arms outside the home. So we should note that this opinion did not actually apply to the vast majority of states. We're only talking here about the blue states such as New York State. And look, I mean, cynically speaking. Someone born in New York, and fled many years ago. If it is oppressive laws like this. That incentivizes more people, to flee blue state tyranny or red state freedom. Far be it from me to criticize people to do so. The statement that you read, Glenn, I would expect them to say something along those lines.

GLENN: All right. We're going to -- if you don't mind holding for just a minute. I will do a commercial and come back. And I just want to ask you, if you looked at any of the others. Is there any that you think is a really good sign, on where things are headed. Just some of the other decisions, that came out today from the Supreme Court. Back with Josh Hammer in a minute.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLSconsumeraccess.org.

GLENN: So listen, right now, it is so imperative, that we are very frugal with our money. We are moving closer and closer to the brink of a recession. I know you listen to the president.

He's -- he's honestly, batcrap crazy on this. I mean, you know. And, honestly, if you voted for the guy, even you know it. We're not -- there's no recession. We're in a transition -- we're in a transitional period. Yeah. So was the Great Depression. I don't even know what a transitional period means.

But we're headed for a recession. The major banks came out yesterday, and said it. The fed said it. And the fed also said, by the way, this is not a Putin gas tax. Just taking them apart. But yet, he's living in a delusional world. I want you to make sure that you are prepared with your financing to do the best that you can to save every penny. American Financing can help you do this. By paying off high-interest debt. To shortening the loan terms. You can access cash from your equity. There's so many possibilities right now. And many of them will save you hundreds, not $1,000 a month. Just by calling American Financing. And seeing your options. You will feel better. Call American Financing now. At 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So my producers are freaking out. Because they want to make sure that I clarify something here. That I just said.

Historically, the reason why the Second Amendment exists, is not for hunting.

Not a sport. I want to go shoot Clay pigeons. Okay. That's not what it was about. Otherwise, you might be able to find, like bowling in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It's not about a sport. It's about protecting yourself. And protecting your community against an out-of-control rogue government. That's what it's about. So I just find it ironic. That if they're like, we're not going to obey Biden's rule. That's what the Second Amendment. That's what the Founders were talking about. As somebody that just decided --

STU: As you just read that statement. That's not exactly what's happening. You're not exactly calling for a Civil War against Albany. Are you? I want to make sure here.

GLENN: Oh, my God. No. No.

STU: Because you were talking about this was the motivation at the time. You have to follow these traditions and these rules. But this is a much, much different case here, as we're talking about it now. As a statement from a --

GLENN: Anyway, I'm just talking about how ironic it is, that that's what the Founders, you know, said, that that's really important.

Because if they're -- as George Washington said. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

And, you know, part of that, is being able to question them. To speak out. To have a free press, to assemble. And also, to own a gun.

Anyway, josh, anything else that -- that you see, that came out today, that you think is -- is good news in a -- in a far-reaching way?

JOSH: Well, first of all, let me chime in briefly on the conversation that you and Stu were just having. I obviously could not agree with you guys more on the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment. Glenn, I know that you all. You will uniquely appreciate this. Just because I know how much you care about this issue. You know, I'm Jewish obviously.

I keep it on my desk at all times. A rock that a rabbi gave to me years ago, that he smuggled out of the crematorium at Auschwitz. And I keep next to that rock.

A rock that I myself took from Treblinka. And then across my room, I have my -- you know, my game of defense AR, with lots of ammunition.

And mags and all that. And to me, I refer to that, as to my friends. As my Warsaw ghetto gun. So no one understands the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment more than I do. So I just want to echo your sentiments on that.

GLENN: Okay.

And, you know, the Germans gave -- the Germans gave all of the information of where their guns were, to the Weimar Republic. You give it in gun faith. Because the Weimar Republic said, oh, we'll never use this. Well, then the Nazis came in, and guess who took all the information. And knew where all the guns were. That's why you just don't do these things. But, anyway, go ahead.

JOSH: Exactly. Shifting a little bit, as far as the other cases that came across today. There's an Eighth Amendment case about an execution that I have not had a chance to review yet. A state in Georgia called Nancy Ward. Long story short. All sorts of activist litigation for many years now, where the ACLU, groups like that, will sue -- and they have the effect of the incrementally outlawing or seeking to outlaw various forms of execution, which you have to look harder and harder to find the right cocktail. A very pernicious people passed it with the obvious, not so subtle end goal of trying to re-abolish the death penalty in America.

It looks like the wrong side won today. But I -- a glimmer of hope, though, I see that Justice Barrett actually filed a dissenting opinion in that case. Even though Kavanaugh defected, it's good to see that Justice Barrett is on the right side of this Eighth Amendment issue.

Another case that I've not fully had the chance to break down. It's out of the fourth circuit. It's a case in North Carolina. They basically -- it's a case called Berger versus North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. The court rules, and it's notable. Because it's an 8-1 ruling. An 8-1 ruling. They ruled that Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina are able to intervene to defend their state's voter ID law. That the NAACP challenged. So the procedural posture there, it's not a substantive claim. It's more a procedural claim. The reason why I want to bring it to your listeners. I think it's worth discussing a little bit. Is because it's an 8-1 opinion. The only person who dissented here is preemptively speaking, Sotomayor. And that's a real read into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. The lower court that heard this. When you, again, reverse won by the court. When Sotomayor sort of disagreed. And it really paints a stark picture as to how much the Obama presidency, changed the Fourth Circuit amongst the other circuits. We do really have a long road ahead of us, to get the lower court in order unfortunately. This case did come out the right way.

GLENN: Josh. Josh, thank you so much. This is Josh Hammer. He'll be joining us tomorrow. More rulings are coming out tomorrow.

And we're coming close to really big ones.

Putin/Ukraine UPDATE: Should Trump Withdraw from NATO? | Ep 421

It’s clear the U.S. has carried Ukraine and NATO on its back for years, but should Trump make good on his threats and leave NATO forever? The Biden status quo and military spending kept Russia’s war on Ukraine going, with no end in sight. Now the Trump administration has brokered the first mutual ceasefire agreement of any kind between Russia and Ukraine since this war began three years ago. Critics call it the bare minimum, but could this be the first real step toward ending the war? Glenn heads to the chalkboard to give a full breakdown on America’s deepening ties with Ukraine since 2008 — from the billions in military aid to the Biden family’s shady connections to Trump’s impeachment over that infamous phone call with Zelenskyy. Has America’s commitment to Europe gone too far? Glenn gives a history lesson on the Cold War roots of America’s NATO alliance and wades into the debate: Is NATO a peace pact or a war trap?

Shocking Truth: Department of Education ABOLISHED ITSELF

President Trump is signing an executive order to start dismantling the Department of Education and the Left is freaking out. But Glenn’s staff discovered something shocking: the DoE, in its current form, is exactly the OPPOSITE of the mission statement Congress gave it. Glenn reads from the Department’s founding documents, which state that it was tasked with protecting “the rights of state and local governments and public and private institutions.” It was also meant to “strengthen and improve” local and state control of education. And if that wasn’t enough, it also explicitly bars the Department from increasing “the authority of the federal government over education.” So, by stripping the Department of Education of its bloated power, Trump is actually UPHOLDING the will of Congress, not defying it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the president is going to abolish parts of the DOE. But the Department of Education was -- was first put in by Jimmy Carter. And then a few years later, it was -- it was, you know, set in stone by Congress. So he can't shut it down.

Because Congress established it. Okay?

So only Congress can abolish it. However, he can trim the fat.

And he's going to cut it by 50 percent today. Which is a great thing.

But as Mikayla was doing her homework on this, she said --

STU: One of your producers.

GLENN: Yeah. One of our producers. She said, have you read the Department of Education organization act?

And I'm like.

STU: Oh, obviously.

GLENN: Of course, I have. But tell me what you have found!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Listen to this.

It is the intention. This is the founding document passed by Congress. It is the intention of Congress in the establishment of the Department of Education to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Just that! Are they operating within the law, that was set by Congress?

STU: Because I think you could convince me, that that was a good idea. Right? That sounds great.

GLENN: Right. So let me read that again.

The intention of Congress, in the establishment of the Department of Education, to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions, in the area, of educational policies, and administration of programs. And to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions, over their own educational programs and policies.

Did you hear the second half of that?

To strengthen and improve the local and state administration, and -- and the control of their own educational programs and policies.

That is not what the DOD is doing. Not even. Listen to the next line!

The establishment of the Department of Education, shall not, increase the authority of the federal government over education. Or finish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. And the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states!

Wait.

This is not what the Department of Education is. At all.

So when they say, well, he can't accomplish the department of he had. No. They abolished the Department of Ed.

The Department of Ed isn't that! Because like you just said, I wouldn't have necessarily a problem with that!

STU: I would have some questions.

GLENN: Yeah, I wouldn't want it.

STU: As a direction, protecting local rights over education, is exactly kind of what I want.

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly right.

B, no provision of a program, administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department, shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control, over the local curriculum.

Any program of instruction or administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection and content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials. By any educational institution or school system.

Except to the extent authorized by this law.

STU: Hmm. I mean, it seems there's all sorts of limitations on it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, if you just go back to this: If he just reset it to this, do you know how many problems would go away?

STU: I know. This is really common too. But we mentioned the same thing with the Patriot Act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The guy who wrote the Patriot Act. There's a bunch of these things about to go.

I can't believe the Patriot Act would do this. I wrote it. It's not supposed to do that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: That's not what it's supposed to do at all.

It always grows. It always evades. And the initial -- the limiting principles put on it, by the law itself.

GLENN: Which is amazing. When you know that to be true. And our Founders knew that.

It's amazing how long our Constitution and Bill of Rights has lasted.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, the average Constitution's age in the history of the world, the average age of death of a Constitution is 17 years!

We're coming up to 250, of our -- of our Declaration of Independence.

Seventeen years! That's the average.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: We are so far out! For it to have lasted this long, knowing that this is what it always happens. They always morph and distort, and erase the original Founding ideas. Wow!

That's impressive. That we're still standing.

STU: Yeah. And, again, giant chunks of it are still standing. As we pointed out many times, a lot of it isn't standing. Other than just it's on paper.

But that's the problem, right? We should be back to it. And should be trying to focus our country on following it again. A little bit more closely. But I am glad that it still stands.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: Is it San Moreno? There's one other weird country that has a very old Constitution.

GLENN: Isn't that an old Chevy?

STU: Yeah. The Chevy San Moreno. Beautiful car. V8. Yeah. It's great.

GLENN: Yeah. Here's the other thing that we need to talk about, and that is these judges. I need to get to Tesla, in just a second. That's equally important. And let me talk about the justices and the judges on what is happening.

The judge has ordered to restore USAID. Worker access, and forbids the shutdown. Because it's likely against the Constitution. Well, that's not your job.

The Obama-appointed judge trying to stop USAID shutdown. Donated thousands of dollars to the Democrats. The judge who blocked the key executive order, has a long progressive activist history.

I mean, we're -- we're having these judges get involved in everything.

So what are judges supposed to do?

What does the Constitution actually say?

I want to take you to a -- a football field. Hmm. Glenn, don't do anything dicey. Don't go into sports analogy. Let's just take you out to a football field for your first segment.

STU: Uh-oh, here we go. Prepare yourself. Gird your loins.

GLENN: If -- is that like the grid loins? So let's say the ref is out on the -- and he decides that that touchdown is worth ten points! The clock should be kept running, because I think so. It's most likely, that it should be running, right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: That is what's happening in our court system. That's judicial or referee activism. All right? They're just making stuff up.

Judges that are stepping beyond their lane. And making up the rules. Instead of just calling the game as written.

That's what judges are supposed to do.

They're supposed to look at things, as written. And then say, no. Sorry, guys. That's the law!

Not, you know what, you know who we should do? I should also be able to eat any kind of candy that I want.

And you're all -- you're a defendant. You need to bring me candy.

Because that's what I want, right now. Okay.

I'm fat. I've been sitting behind a bench for a long time. You can't even notice my fatness. I am the size of the bench. Just my upper torso is not.

Okay. You can't do that. You don't do that. Now, it's important to realize, judges aren't necessarily bad guys. They have a really, really tough job. And I don't like -- you know, I really feel bad when you're like, well, that's just a bad ruling!

Well, maybe. But I wasn't in the courtroom. How many times have we done a story, where we really want to bash the judge?

But you weren't in the courtroom. You don't know what was said, or what they know. You know what I mean?

STU: You talked about it when you did jury duty. Because from an outsider perspective. You can always come to something.

When you're there and watching it every single day. You know the ins and outs. Sometimes it's different.

GLENN: It's just different. So when they start acting like lawmakers, instead of interpreters of that law, then we have a problem. Like a judge should step in now on the Department of Education.

And say, sorry, gang, I read this section last night. That's not what's going on here.

So the president, yeah. I recommend, I shouldn't. But if it comes to my courtroom, I'm going to show, yeah. Well, that's the law.

Not my opinion. I might love the department. I might be a full-fledged communist. But I'm here to uphold the law.

And that's what Congress said it is. And that's not what it is!

Now, sometimes, there are problems that Congress needs to step in and say, you're out of here.

Sometimes, the judges -- and it has happened in our history. And it's a very high bar. But I'm not sure. I mean, it should be a high bar, like it is with impeachment of the president. But it shouldn't be off the table.

Okay? And here's why: If you go back to the Founding Fathers, they thought this through. It's kind of crazy.

It's not like, hey. We will do a new Constitution in Iceland. Tweet us your ideas.

In Federalist 78. Alexander Hamilton says, judges should not have life tenure.

And if they do, only if they're on good behavior. Well, what does that mean?

Well, he saw judges, as the least dangerous branch. Because it doesn't have -- it doesn't control the purse strings. And it doesn't have an army.

Okay? So he's like, you know, I mean, if they're on good behavior, just let them go. Just let them go. But he also knew that judges weren't perfect. They do go rogue. So he knew, that they would twist the Constitution, and what they were doing into something that it's not.

And that good behavior clause is not just for decoration.

It's the lifeline of the people.

To stop the judges that have gone bad.

Then in Federalist 81. Hamilton troubles down on this one.

Judges can be impeached. If they abuse their power.

How do they abuse their power?

They step out of line of interpreting the law. And start writing laws. And he's very clear.

Congress has the muscle to check them.

You know, it's like giving the principal, the power to fire a teacher, who is teaching kids the alphabet, you know, backwards and mixed up.

You know what, I appreciate it. We're not doing that. Okay. We hired you to teach the alphabet.

So has this ever been done. Has this ever been exercised?

Yeah. I talked to a federal judge, last night about this. And he's like, Glenn!

Luster versus Georgia. And I'm like, oh, man. That's one of my favorite rulings. But I want to ask you to see how much you know about Luster (phonetic) versus Georgia!

It's back in 1832. Supreme Court told Georgia, they have to stop messing with the Cherokee nation land, and they -- I think they also said, you can't go in and teach the Cherokee tribes Christianity. Okay. Georgia said, no. We're going to do that anyway. Okay?

Now, I'm not a fan of the way the Native Americans were treated in history. And I'm not a fan of Andrew Jackson. But he wasn't a fan of the court.

And he supposedly said, great!

The judge has made his decision.

Now, let him figure out how to enforce it.

Now, I don't like that. I don't like that. But that's what Federalist 81 was saying. They don't have purse strings. They don't have an Army. They have an opinion.

But if the other two branches are like, no! We're going to do it anyway.

Again, I don't like that. But that's only -- that can only apply to when the judges step out of their lane!

When you -- when you're an activist judge, go ahead.

You call your army. But when they're in their lane. And they're saying, no. This is the law. This is how it's written!

Then you don't say, no. You go ahead and try to enforce it. Because then it's a breakdown.

But it's just as much of a breakdown. It they legislate from the bench. And we do nothing about it!

The court doesn't have any tanks. It doesn't have any cops. It relies on the other two branches.

It's judge that one is the weakest!

It has no enforcement.

It was never given any enforcement.

The Founders didn't want it to have any enforcement.

Congress has the checkbook. The president has the tanks. The justices have their robes.

So they lose. Theater weakest of them.

Now, they're supposed to be able to check each other.

So you're -- out of respect, for what each arm is supposed to do, we do listen to the Supreme Court.

But wait until you hear what else is in the Constitution, that I just -- I bypassed. I didn't even know.

They -- that goes right to the judges and how important they are, according to the Constitution.

Not the Supreme Court.

These kinds of judges.

Okay. So Jackson, when he says, okay. Go ahead. Let them force it.

That shows the limits of their power.

But it also shows the flip side. When the judges overreach. They can stir up chaos.

You know, if no one is willing to listen. So here's where article three of the Constitution comes in. And remember, Constitution, the rule book!

The rule book for the courts.

It sets up the Supreme Court. But it also gives Congress the power to create or even shut down, the lower federal courts!

They have no power over the Supreme Court.

They cannot shut it down. They cannot affect it.

But Congress can pass a law that says, you guys are done!

So don't tell me, that you can't impeach them!

It's in the Constitution.

That that is -- and the Federalist papers. That is critical, in case they start overstepping the bounds. You can impeach them.

And we should. This is all a ploy, this is no different than the -- quite honestly. The terrorism that is happening on our streets with Tesla.

Okay? That's terrorism.

This isn't terrorism. This is just a whole buttload of lies. Told by a bunch of people, where supposedly, you know, able to trust.

Because they wear a robe.

Don't trust them. Why would you trust the justices when you don't trust the politicians, when you don't trust anybody in Washington?

Why are these guys exempt?

Okay? I'm not saying. I don't want to sow seeds of discord with our -- I believe in the Supreme Court.

It's the best system that we have. But let's not -- let's not throw our Constitution out for these guys, who are sitting in the -- the lower federal courts.

You know, Congress can say, hey. We don't need this court anymore.

You're banned. Or you're banned from ruling on that.

Sorry!

You're not talking about that anymore.

It's a leash. And it's there for a reason.

The Supreme Court is untouchable. And -- and it's -- you know, it's not above impeachment, if the justices start playing king instead of somewhere.

But their job is like a gardener. Their job is to keep trimming the hedges. Keep the law neat and tidy. If they start ripping out the whole garden.

And planting it, with whatever they want.

Someone has to fire them. That is where we are with these lower federal court justices.

You, according to the Constitution, Congress, and the president, are in charge!

Stranded Astronauts Splash Down to Massive Cheers

By rescuing stranded astronauts on the ISS, Elon Musk and President Trump have restored something that America lost under Biden: honor. While Biden allegedly refused to let SpaceX return the astronauts because it would look good for Musk, Trump gave Americans a historical moment to remember that brought many to tears when they saw the Dragon spacecraft splash down in the water. Meanwhile, some on the Left are reacting to Elon by burning and vandalizing Teslas. How “tolearant”…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things I want to talk about. I want to talk to you about NASA. I don't know if you saw the splashdown yesterday. This happened last night. Go ahead and roll this.
(music)
There it is.

VOICE: And we're going to stand by for splashdown located in the Gulf of America. Opposite of Tallahassee, Florida.

GLENN: That's a movie set.

STU: It looks incredible. It looks like it could be the Truman Show.

GLENN: It does.

VOICE: And splashdown. Current time. Back on earth.
(applauding)

GLENN: I don't know what's wrong with me lately. This is so weird. I don't know what's happening to me.

But I see things like this, and I -- I am like, I'm like, getting weepy again all the time.

You know, like I was.

I'm getting weepy again.

I see things like this. And it just moves me.

STU: I feel the same way at Taco Bell. Right?

GLENN: No. That's a movement. That's different. Because that moves me too. In a completely different way.

I see things like that. It's just, so inspiring what we can do!

And especially, when you look at it, what we were doing.

I mean, the moon shot. We decided to go to the moon. We decide that long ago.

And it is the president's job to make sure that everything is moving in that direction.

You don't want to go to the moon and then go to space. Then stop it.

But if you're going to put people in space. You can't just leave them there. No. No.

STU: No?

GLENN: President Biden just left them there.

I don't want it to look bad for me. Maybe everybody will forget they're in space.

Is that the plan?

And he just -- and here's the big, huge government with the big, huge budgets from big, huge Boeing. They said -- and I said, don't send the rocket up.

Do you remember? Don't send that rocket up. Don't do it. It's not going to work. You know, and if it does, good luck coming home in that thing.

And then it docked. We had some problems with it. And don't get back into that thing. There's no way you're returning to earth in that. Don't do it.

Well, they didn't. So Biden just leaves them. And Elon Musk is like, I can go up and get them at any time.

And President Biden says, no. Because he thinks it will look good for Biden. Or for Musk. Not food for Biden. He's just like, leave them alone.

This president, the reason why I think so many people had a problem with Joe Biden. Even if they liked his policies. Some of them.

Even if they say, well, he was a Democrat. And I'm a Democrat. I think the reason why so many people, you know, just jump ship on Biden, was he violated something that is in all of us.

And that's honor. You know, the basic honor. I mean, not like. You know what, I'm a boy.

I mean just like the bare minimum honor of Americans.

We don't leave people behind.

He did it in Afghanistan. And he did it in space. And when you see that, you're like, oh, my gosh. That's not us. What is that?

And I think that's why Biden rubbed so many Democrats the wrong way. They may not be able to vocalize it. But I think that's one of the reasons.

He had no honor in him, at all. I think.

STU: Zero. Zero.

And luckily, the American people were able to success that out, a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I do relate to how you feel about watching something like that.

It's fascinating that the entire -- half of the country has at least turned on Elon Musk.

A guy who is doing all these incredible things.

GLENN: He is. You know what it is?

It's the same thing that happened to Nikola Tesla!

Okay. The power structure turned on Nikola Tesla.

The greatest mind of the 20th century.

Makes Edison look like a rookie. Makes him look like me.

Okay.

And the country turned on him, because of the establishment!

And we're doing the same thing with Elon Musk. What is wrong with us?

STU: Yeah. It's funny. You hear that thing that happened around a lot, on the election. Where Democrats were complaining about why they lost.

They said, what we need is a left-wing Joe Rogan. And as many pointed out, you had one, his name was Joe Rogan. He was supporting Bernie freaking Sanders in 2016.

GLENN: Right. We need somebody -- we need somebody like Elon Musk.

STU: They blew it. Right.

GLENN: You had him! His name was Elon Musk!

STU: You had him. You had a left-wing Elon Musk.

And what was fascinating, Glenn. And this is something we could absolutely prove.

I don't have to speculate on this. When he was left-wing Elon Musk, when he was a guy who was out there, talking about how we're all going to die from climate change.

Which, by the way, he still believes. We were still able to -- to look on in amazement, at the things he was achieving, including Tesla, in its very early stages, which we featured on the CNN Headline News show, a zillion years ago.

GLENN: Right. We actually -- at least conservatives. Let me speak for us.

At least we, the whole time were like, I don't believe in the climate change stuff. That's crazy. But look at what he's doing. Look at how he's doing.

Look at how he is making all of this public. He's not trademarking or patenting anything. He's saying, it should be open for everybody. Take my ideas and build on them. We love that for him.

You know how crazy it is? I still think there's a chance he turns into the Antichrist. Okay?

So I like -- really like him. Might be the Antichrist. We should keep -- remain aware of that. But I like him.

These guys treat him like the Antichrist. And they don't even believe in the Antichrist.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: That's crazy. It's nuts.

STU: And it doesn't make any sense. And now they're going dealership to dealership, and lighting his -- his, you know, Tesla on fire.

Right?

This is --

GLENN: That is economic, domestic terrorism. That's what it is.

And Pam Bondi. I'm glad -- yeah. She called it out.

And I'm glad. And I want to see these people prosecuted.

That's economic terrorism. Period.

I don't like the mainstream media. You should arrest me, if I ever just even say, you know what we should do. We should all gather torches.

And we should burn those places to the ground.

No. No. That's terrorism. No!

STU: But it's also, you know, the way the left acts every single time they don't get what they want. Might remind you of George Floyd.

GLENN: Every time. Yeah.

STU: When they were upset about George Floyd. What did they do? Burn down cities. What about Alf and Elf? Not Alf the lovable, huggable alien creature from the --

GLENN: I was going to say. Alf and Elf, what did they do wrong? I mean, who needs a hug?

STU: And not Will Ferrell. I'm talking about the Animal Liberation Front and the Environmental Liberation Front.

GLENN: Horrible.

STU: Terrorist organizations that went around and burned down dealerships of SUVs. Because -- because the environment is so important. Interesting way to approach it.

GLENN: By the way, do you know why SUVs exist?

STU: I do, yes.

GLENN: I just -- I was talking to a liberal friend. Eh.

And --

STU: As close as you could be. Sure.

GLENN: And they were like, these big SUVs. Uh-huh. Do you know why SUVs exist?

Because you didn't like station wagons. You didn't like big, huge sedans. And so you were like, you know, the EPA. They should start regulating those things. And you put that regulation in. You know what wasn't covered? Trucks. So they're like, we'll just build it on the platform of a truck, and call it an SUV. That put the station wagons and the big sedans out. And now you have a bigger vehicle.

That's how stupid you are. As somebody who believes in big government.

No.

Government cannot regulate everything.

It only makes things worse.

STU: Yeah. And we should also add in, when they did those fuel mileage standards. There's two ways to approach it, to hit the standards. One was to convert, a bunch of bigger sedans and stations wagons into SUVs. So you had bigger vehicles on the road.

The other way was to take your cars and make them lighter and smaller. So when those two things collide, guess what happens to people?

Literally, it killed thousands and thousands and thousands of people in car accidents.

GLENN: Who was it? Who was the politician that I saw yesterday. They got rid of their -- huge, lefty. Okay?

Green thing. Got rid of their Tesla, and was proud to be driving like an Excursion. I want two of these things! Like, wow.

That's good. That's good. By the way, before we move on, I've got to just go back to the space thing. Because did you see what one of the astronauts did before they got back to earth? Do we have this audio? Listen to this. Listen to this.

VOICE: What is your life lesson or takeaway from these nine months in space?

VOICE: Well, in answer to your question, I can tell you, honestly, my feeling on all of this goes back to my faith.

It's -- it's bound in my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

He is working out his plan, his purposes, for his glory, throughout awful humanity. And how that plays into our lives is significant and important.

And however that plays out. And I am content. Because I understand that.

I understand that he's at work. In all things. Some things are for the good. Go to he's been chapter 11.

Some things look to be not so good. But it's all working out for his good.

For those that will believe. And that's the answer.

So thanks for asking.

GLENN: That's a scientist, in space! And I didn't see that headline anywhere.

STU: No.

GLENN: And I would like to say, I think that's what happens when you fly on a Boeing. You're like, all right. Jesus, you're there, right?

I mean, I've got to have some perspective. Okay. So if I burn up on reentry, it's going to be good, right?

I mean, that's what he was saying. You know what, my faith. It just tells me, you know, Boeing could kill me.

But I guess it's all going to work out to be the best.

That's pretty much what he was saying there, I think.

STU: That's true. That's true.

I think too, Glenn. Tell me if this has happened with you. As you get older, that sentiment becomes much, much more true.

GLENN: Yes. Perspective.

STU: Things seem so out of control sometimes.

And then when you really put yourself in the mindset, which he was just describing that it's like, yeah. You know what, it's not in my hands. And things happen for these reasons, that I believe in. And they're important. And I can't control all of them.

And I'll do the best I can and get through all of this. It makes life a heck of a lot easier.

I mean, just pragmatically. Outside the faith elements of it. It makes your life better. It just does! Because you don't freak out about every little thing.

I can't tell you how many times. I sit there in church. They're talking about these important concepts.

And, you know, thoughts into your mind of the chaos of the world. And when you think about it that way. You're just like, eh. The chaos of the world. Who cares about the chaos of the world?

GLENN: Well, I care about it.

STU: I care about it, in a totally different way.

GLENN: In a way that it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Yeah. That is.

STU: We talk about that phrase all the time. It's so important to get through your life.

GLENN: But it's so hard to do. I have to tell you, my daughter she just had her real adult career decision to make.

She's in this -- this production. And she has been working on it for months and months and months. With the cast. And she was also just cast in a -- in a movie.

A hallmark movie for Christmas.

STU: Oh, cool.

And so they conflicted. And she didn't know how she was going to work this out.

And some -- I'm going to this place where I used to be in, which is a horrible place where I cannot sleep ever. So I was up at on two o'clock in the morning. And she gets up to get a drink of water. And I said, you okay, honey?

And she said, yeah. And she sat down. And we just started talking.

And she said, it's so hard, Dad.

I just -- I mean, I just -- I mean, what is the right decision?

How do I do this?

And I don't want to do this. Because I'm letting some people down, either way.

And everything.

And, man, it takes so much for a man, at least for me, to just shut up.

Because I was like -- everything in me was like, here's what you do, honey. And that's the worst thing you can do. And so I'm just sitting there going, uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

And all the time, I'm thinking, you know what -- and this is what I finally said after she talked. But I was like, just do the right thing. Just do the next right thing. Everything works out. But it's hard, especially when you're young.

Because you think, I have to micromanage. I have to make the right decision, because if I don't, it will play off this way. It will play off this way. You don't know how it will play out.

Just do the right thing.

Whatever it is, just do the next right thing.

And it will work out. And shockingly, not the way you intended. But better than what you thought could be your best outcome.

And I just think that takes a lot of years of trying to force your way, I'm going to make sure it happens this way!

And always failing. I think it just takes a lot of time.

I hope. You happen to be listening. And you haven't gotten this yet. Really, trust Stu. Don't force your way. It doesn't work out. It's never a happen if ending.

STU: You can't control everything. Nor are you supposed to.

GLENN: Right. You're supposed to surrender to the next right thing.

Not to surrender to, oh, he's the -- the Antichrist, whatever. No. Not surrender on those things.

Surrender to the next right thing, and let the consequences happen. Because you'll find, over time, oh, my gosh.

I can't believe how that worked out in -- in my favor or in life's favor for me, and that's what the astronaut was saying.

Declassified: Shocking Revelations from JFK Files

Yesterday, the Trump administration dropped THOUSANDS of declassified documents related to the JFK assassination. It will take a while to sift through every document, but Glenn's team was hard at work getting a jump start. Glenn's chief researcher and security expert, Jason Buttrill, joined to explain what he found so far: Lee Harvey Oswald had been on the CIA's radar, but was described as quote, 'a poor shot.' A guy detained in London warned that Oswald planned to kill JFK and defect to Russia. Was out government just complicit or incompetent? While nothing has contradicted the Warren Commission thus far, everything is providing context so we can finally see the full picture.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I've got a busy day today.

Because I'm going out to a shooting range. Because we have the only gun that we know of. That is an exact copy of the gun Oswald used, to kill President Kennedy. Because it's a real weird hodgepodge of guns. It was -- the one that killed Kennedy, has a different scope on it.

Very rare. Very hard to find. I think it's -- it might even be a Russian scope.

I can't remember. The scope is from someplace. There's parts of this gun, that are from someplace else.

And so, you know, we wanted to get -- because we don't have the real gun.

We wanted to get one just like it. It took two years to assemble this gun and be to find all of the parts. So it's an exact copy of it. I'm going out to a shooting range today. And we will do our first test.

Just, I have some sharpshooters with me. And we will -- we will post some of this on X, as we do it live today. But then you'll be able to see all of it. We're going to another shooting range, hopefully next week, to get moving targets, to see if they can make these shots.

But it should be interesting. Today, you can watch for it on X, and then that will be next week, as we go through everything that has been released on the JFK files. Because it will take a while. Anybody who -- they don't have any idea. 80,000 documents are being released.

So you know, there will -- Jason is here. He's our chief researcher for the TV show. 80,000 documents. How long would that have taken us to go through, for staff, what do we have? Eight people on it, right now?

How long, without Grok or AI assist. How long would that take us?

JASON: We would still be basically taping our eyelids open and still staring at it. We wouldn't even be close to like a quarter of the way through it.

GLENN: Okay. So yesterday, describe the process, what happened?

JASON: So they started releasing the documents. Well, I thought they were going to be delayed. But they finally came through at 5:00 or 6:00 Central. Something like that.

So we immediately went to work. Initially, there was 113 pages of these documents, but on each different page, there was about 10 PDFs per page.

And those PDFs had multiple pages within the PDFs. So all in all, it was probably around 12 to 1300 pages of stuff. It was insane. To go through this now, and, you know, the modern age, all we have to do is go through, download each little different PDF. And start feeding that into what whatever artificial intelligence program you want to use.

If you know the right prompts.

You can start looking for things that are relevant. Things that are new. Things that contradict old disclosures.

It was actually pretty amazing.

GLENN: So you know. One of the things that is very important to me, is the ethics of using AI.

And I don't know if a lot of people even care about it. But I do. And my staff does, deeply.

I mean, we've had really heartfelt, you know, round after round of, what's ethical. What's noteth can ally?

So you know, we're not AI powered.

Our research team is not AI-powered. It is powered by people, who use AI.

And there is a big difference in that. As you will start to see, as days go by. And more and more people use AI to do all their thinking.

We use it as a tool, to go through, to be able to do things that we couldn't before.

80,000 documents. As you said, 1200 documents last night. 80,000 will take us forever. Just the 1200 that we went through, that was the first batch would have taken us weeks to go through.

So it's a very big help. But we also then go back and check everything. So let me go through some of the things that I know, that were found yesterday.

You tell me also, anything that I'm missing here. On -- on what was found.

But there's a couple of things.

One document is a memo. On the release passage from a political magazine. Ramparts from 1967 about an intelligence agency, a CIA informant and former US Army Captain John Garrett Underhill. And he wrote, the day after the assassination, I'm sorry.

The -- the story wrote. The day after the assassination, Gary Underhill left Washington in a hurry. Late in the evening, he showed up at the home of a friend in New Jersey. He was very agitated. The passage starts, a small click within the US was responsible for the assassination. He confided to his friend.

He would be afraid -- he was afraid of -- for his life. And probably would have to leave the country.

Less than six months later, he was found shot to death in his Washington apartment. Coroner ruled it a suicide. The note was known -- was said, in -- on intimate terms. With the number of high-ranking CIA officials.

The passage has been shared last night, over and over again.

That's probably one of the bigger passages that came out. That was shared on X and everything else. But as they -- you know, the people were like, it's already been released. Yeah. But we didn't actually have the document. Another document that was making the rounds.

One line in the document stated that the KJB watched Oswald closely, while he was in the USSR. But files indicated that Oswald was a poor shot when he tried target practice in the Soviet Union. Another detail released was a letter sent by a man in 1978. He was a Soviet.

And he made this comment to the British embassy. He claimed that he was detained in London on July 18th, 1963, and questioned by authorities. He said that he told them about Lee Harvey Oswald, saying he planned to kill the president. He added that he warned American vice council HEP Tom Blacksheer of the plans of Oswald, who was trying to defect to Russia. Okay. So that's kind of a big deal. But what does that say to you?

So far, that just says -- hang on, if you're driving. I will give you time to pull over. Because this will be a shock to you. You pull over. Okay?

What it says is that our government is incompetent. I know.

Could have had a car wreck, if I didn't tell you before I pulled over.

I mean, that's what this is so far saying to me.

What are some of the other things that we found, Jason?

JASON: We talked yesterday, about four different things. This is really about the what. Not the who. And I think that's pretty much spot-on doctor what I'm seeing so far.

Right now, there's no who.

There's no, okay. This is the person that pulled the trigger. There's no grassy knoll. There's no deflection from the official warrant commission report so far.

But I will say, that people who have been looking into this for a long time. Have identified like 10 to 15, or 20 documents that they really want to see, that have been heavily redacted if the past.

GLENN: Or not released yet.

JASON: Some of them have not been released. Some of the stuff from last night, have provided more context.

Now, let me tell you, it you're a fan of the Cold War, or even just spy thrillers. You're going to like to read some of this stuff. And I will put together some stuff for our special next week, some stuff that you can just read on GlennBeck.com, or something.

If anything, this stuff is Cold War, you know, stuff. Like, for instance, I'll throw out, I've never heard about this before.

But there was a surveillance program in Havana, Cuba, before the assassination that was a complete failure. Something that happened where they were found out. There were people arrested. Never heard about this before. The CIA definitely did not want to get this out.

GLENN: And so that had nothing to do with the JFK files. But it was filed in that.

JASON: I believe it was filed in that. They're kind of building this case. These are the things that may have agitated Cuba.

Neighbor you're searching for a lead. Maybe Cuba, through the Soviet Union was involved in the assassination.

These things might have tipped them off.

But, I mean, there's a lot of that stuff. That links back.

You can tell the CIA is doing their due diligence. And anything that would point out.

So John Greenwald of the black valuate, which says, they are the largest privately run reposetory of declassified documents. Says, the organization of these files. I mean, it's just -- it's crazy.

You know, nothing is searchable.

No bulk download, like previous releases.

No spreadsheet.

Nothing. It's just firehose!

So you've got to give everybody who is looking into this, some time before, you know, we really understand what everything is.

But what else did we find?

GLENN: If you're looking at like, What is the CIA involved with? Are they incompetent?

Are they even operating legally? Now, here's where the JFK files get interesting. I wrote down a few notes.

And we will have more next week on the show.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Next week, we were -- the first idea, hey, they will come out. Maybe we should do a show. Wait. Let's -- let's take our time, and take a breath.

And do the show the following week. Because that way, we will have actually the information.

So we're just giving you bits and pieces now. But next Wednesday night say full show on what's come out on JFK.

JASON: Now, how about this? To get your interest. The description in full tail can of CIA covert domestic operations ran out of multiple cities within the United States. To include wiretap operations, domestically. As well as media manipulation, with them pushing out narratives the CIA specifically wants the media to push out.

And all of their contacts, at other media organizations.

You can read that right now, tell me that doesn't happen today.

STU: It does!

JASON: This is why this is important, Glenn. To know.

This establishes a pattern of behavior.

I'm not even done yet.

It talks about CIA partnerships with private companies. Private companies.

GLENN: Huh, public/private partnerships?

JASON: It sounds like that, actually. They talk about a vast CIA network. This is before the assassination that they were heavily invested in, in Mexico City, which I thought was fascinating.

You can read about high value KGB assets that are getting stationed in Mexico City, for some random reason. Big time CIA operation going down in Mexico City, and that's how they were actually able to catch Oswald before the assassination when he went down to Mexico City to get a Cuba or a Soviet visa.