RADIONovember 19, 2024

Will Russia declare WAR on America after Biden let Ukraine fire ATACMS missiles?

President Biden - or whoever is calling the shots - has authorized Ukraine to fire American-made ATACMS missiles into Russia. This happened even after Vladimir Putin said that crossing this red line would mean war with whoever supplied the missiles! So, why would Biden push us closer to World War III just 62 days before Donald Trump takes office? "What Joe Biden did is impeachable," Glenn declares. But will World War III break out? Or will Russia just attack Ukraine even harder, possibly with a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield? Glenn's head researcher, Jason Buttrill, joins to discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So we have Jason Buttrill in with us. And Stu, of course, the executive producer of the program.

And I am your congenial host, Glenn Beck.

Last night, Ukraine did exactly what Putin said, don't do. Two days ago, he signs in a doctrine, saying you use any of these kinds of missiles that are coming from -- even conventional missiles. Coming from, you know, a nuclear-powered nation. We'll consider that an act of war.

And between us, Ukraine, and whichever country that is specifically. Meaning us. It seems like had madness, I think on our side.

And it seems like madness that he would use nukes and respond.

It doesn't say it's a guaranteed use of nukes.

But this gives him reason to believe that this is a NATO strike now.

And so he could strike NATO.

My guess is, he's just going to pound Ukraine.

In some place, where it really hurts them.

That's kind of where I hope the best-case scenario is.

Is just a pounding in Ukraine. Which would be horrible, and horrendous.

However, it's better than striking into a NATO country.

Which we would have to respond then.

I mean, Biden has put us on the brink of World War III. And we might go how this goes in the next 24 hours. We might have a very good idea of whether we'll be in World War III in the next 24 hours.

Jason, do you agree? Disagree? Where am I wrong?

JASON: What's dangerous is that the threat of that is obviously a lot higher this morning.

I think Putin's response will probably be to take out those missiles as quickly as possible.

We know that Russia was planning a larger, deeper attack into Ukraine. Building up troops.

The North Korean troops, allows him to do that.

Because the North Koreans can now guard the lines of communication in the rear. They can guard the facilities in the rear.

The ammo. Depots, all that stuff.

Freeing up the Russian troops, to get to the border.

That's what the establishment defense people on our side have seen. And that's probably why they've said, let's go ahead and fire these missiles. And start taking out those rear areas as quickly as possible to stop that buildup.

That's how they're looking at it. Putin right now is figuring out how to respond. Because now they've green lit that.

We are striking in Russia. The lines behind the border.

Now he's looking at, well, okay. So what would be like an act -- a good response?

Well, the threat of a nuclear weapon is there. That's always been their thing. That's been their thing since the start of the war.

It's a real threat.

GLENN: But it's still madness.

I mean, you would hope there's enough people.

Some people in Russia. And some people in the United States and our own Pentagon would use it. They were thinking. You know what, let's just get it out of the way. But I -- I don't think Putin would nuke a city. Do you?

JASON: No, no, no. Putin is not going to nuke a city. I think a nuclear threat, and the biggest threat will be a tactical nuclear weapon.

GLENN: And what's the difference?

JASON: So tactical nuclear weapon is a low-yield weapon made specifically for the battlefield.

So let's say there's one of them, as you're calling them the ATACMS. I'm going to steal that, by the way, it's awesome.

Let's say there's some ATACMS, surrounded by several battalions of Ukrainian troops. Well, the only way to be for sure they take it out, is to use a tactical low-yield nuclear weapon, that will take out that entire battle space, including the ATACMS. That's probably the more likely scenario, if a nuclear weapon is used.

GLENN: Nobody has ever used a low yield nuclear weapon, have they?

On a battlefield?

JASON: That's a good question. I'm not exactly sure of that. We probably use something very close to the same yield.

GLENN: Close. But we've used them for bunker busters.

But I don't believe they were nuclear.

That were the strongest bunker buster penetrating bomb that we had, but I don't think it was low-yield nuclear.

JASON: Right.

And that would still be a big international faux pas, if they did something like that. That would be escalatory.

And we would see that. We would probably get word that something like that is about to happen. Because those are heavily monitored. We're seeing them transported to wherever they're being stored.

To launchers, and then the entire world will kind of hold their breath. Well then the question is, how do we respond?

Do we allow them to press the button on it and fire that missile, or do we send actual US assets in, to take out the areas inside Russia, so they don't even have time to press the button.

Then it escalates to a completely different kind of level.

GLENN: Yeah, we're going in the wrong direction. We're going the wrong direction, which is very concerning.

Why would we do this, two days after he said, this will -- even if it's a -- if it's a -- a foreign missile system.

Even if it's nonnuclear.

It will be war, between us and the United States.

He didn't say United States. He said, us and that foreign nuclear power!

Why would we do this? Right after that.

JASON: I still think, I go back to regime survival.

GLENN: Our regime.

JASON: Our regime.

And as far as the DOD, security, military complex. That's how I see this.

I think they are terrified of any change in the status quo over the Trump administration. I think that they would love to see us pushed to a point of no return.

Where, no.

We can't do the things that Trump said he was going to do.

We can't alter, you know, the -- the diplomacy.

And the security posture in that area.

We can't go for a deal. We are locked into this position.

That's how they see it.

And I think they are driving us to this point of no return. Where Trump and his cabinet has no choice. But to continue with business as usual. How it's been the past four years.

That's the way I see it. That's the only way it makes sense.

Two months before they take power.

That's the only thing!

GLENN: So do we expect a response today?

I mean, it would seem natural that they would respond today.

JASON: I think the Russians have to make moves on the ATACMS as soon as possible. Because now you're targeting everything they were planning for an offensive and amassing troops and moving on Ukraine, which is what they're planning to do.

I think you have to take out the immediate threat, which is the ATACMS.

I think you have to do that. So I'm sure they're planning right now, well, how do we get that done?

It's not going to be easy. Because we have some air defense assets.

We put some things in place so they can't do that. So it's not going to be easy. That's when you have the generals over Putin's shoulder.

Saying, well, you know, it doesn't matter if we miss with five conventional missiles, if we get one tactical nuke in there.

Then we make sure that we take out the entire area. That's when things start escalating.

I know -- I personally do not think Putin is stupid enough to go that direction. And that's actually what the old regime is -- our regime is planning on as well.

He's threatened. He knows he can't do it. He's a madman if he does it. They know he's not a madman. He's a bad man. But he's not a madman.

They think he won't do it. So they will continue to push that red line.

There is a point, where as I said, a point of no return. Where they have no choice, and then you're locked into a much deeper conflict.

The question is: Where is that?

GLENN: So, you know, I think the regime change or the regime survival is absolutely valid.

I think -- this is why I said, you know, back when?

September. Whenever, when we were talking about what could happen if Trump won.

Assassination. There could be terrorist strikes here in the United States.

But they also had the war option.

Just embroil us into a war. And collapse it.

I have been worried about that -- that moment, where all of our enemies would say, get them! Now!

Now would be that last time.

As Trump comes into office. Especially with things turning around, where he's kind of the popular guy, where he's starting to turn everybody kind of around.

End this nonsense.

It -- it strikes me as, if I'm the enemy of the United States, we're most vulnerable right now.

But you've got to knock us out.

You better kill the king. Okay?

So wouldn't it be in the bricks nations. You know, this new -- I mean, they are planning on collapsing our economy, anyway.

Wouldn't it be kind of in their -- their -- advantage, to start, embroil us in a war.

Not a nuclear war. But a war.

JASON: Yeah. Wanting to do it. And being able to do it are two entirely different things.

I don't see. It makes perfect sense for them to goad us into a war in the Middle East.

Or goad us into a war let's say in Taiwan or something like that.

Getting us more involved in the Ukraine/Russia world.

Seems way too crazy for them to try to really push. And get us more involved.

I personally don't see that happening. I see them wanting to avoid that as much as possible.

But getting us stuck in another war, in a the different part of the globe. That we will waste, you know, billions and billions. And trillions of dollars on.

I absolutely see that as a strategy. I see them thinking more long-term.

They've been very methodical and careful about it so far. And you're talking about the Chinese, who are probably even higher at the table than the Russians are.

GLENN: Who look like they just cut communication cables.

JASON: That is wild to me.

I don't --

GLENN: Explain what happened, if you don't know.

JASON: So there's multiple communications, cables, that go through that -- what?

GLENN: Finland.

JASON: Sweden. Norway. That area.

GLENN: And Lithuania.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: They cut those cables. Now, Lithuania and Finland are Cold War Soviet states.

And, you know, Russia has said, they're ours. They're ours. And they're ours.

And Russia has been saying, no. We will make them NATO countries. Congratulations. They're on our side.

And they've been freaked out by this war. Well, the Chinese ship, we believe it was Chinese.

Went over these cables, right at the same time they were cut. So did the Chinese cut these cables?

Somebody -- I mean, they were cut, by somebody.

Is it a coincidence that they went out, the moment those ships went over those cables?

I don't know. But there's something going on, and then British Airways.

British Airways lost all of their ability to communicate in any way, shape, or form, with the planes and the towers. It was an IT glitch, and grounded planes all over the world.

And, you know, luckily they weren't in the sky, when this glitch happened. But, I mean, Putin has always said, it's not going to be fought with nuclear war.

It will be fought with ones and zeros.

Does the SHOCKING Daniel Penny Verdict Mean Justice is BACK in NYC?

A jury has found former marine Daniel Penny NOT GUILTY of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely. Glenn and Stu are shocked, especially since the jury couldn’t decide whether to convict him of second-degree manslaughter. But while this is a good outcome for justice, Glenn and Stu argue that it isn’t a perfect outcome: This case should have never gone to trial in the first place! The guys explain why Penny should have been seen as a hero, especially by those in New York City who know how subways work. Plus, they discuss how the leftist BLM crowds will react to the verdict.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, the Daniel Penny verdict has come out, and he has now been found "not guilty."

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Thank God.

STU: Thank God there's some justice.

GLENN: What's weird. First of all, the judge, I think broke the law. I think the judge and what's his name? The district attorney up there, in New York. Really, they should be disbarred. What they did in this particular case, was wrong.

When you have multiple counts, and you're hung on the first count.

You don't go to the second count.

You -- you declare a mistrial.

But the judge, because of -- is it Alvin Bragg?

STU: He's the DA.

GLENN: Yeah. The DA. Alvin Bragg went and said, we will accept that they're hung on that.

Just have them consider the lesser charge.

Well, that's not the way it works.

You don't do that.

And he was just trying to get them to convict.

And somehow or another, they went back today, with very little time.

And found him 12-zero.

Not guilty.

Which is weird, that they were hung, on the more serious charge.

STU: More serious charge. Yeah.

GLENN: I think it's like, guys, it's Christmas.

I've got to go shopping.

Just all right. Whatever.

I mean, honestly, it might have been that.

I don't know why, on the lesser charge, they didn't have a hard time

STU: Someone was sharing, one of the courtroom drawings of the jury.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And one of the people was wearing a mask.

And they were saying, this has to be the person, who is holding this up. It kind of does make sense. I don't know if it actually is accurate.

GLENN: Either that or it was the guy who shot the United Health Care guy.

What a great place to hide out. Hiding in the jury box.

STU: Yeah. He's great.

Fascinating thing. You know, not exactly a banner year for Alvin Bragg.

He's had a rough one. Really, an embarrassment in every single way.

GLENN: No, he really has. I honestly don't know why he's not being recalled. Other than it's New York.

STU: Even in California, they've been recalling these guys. They've been defeating them in elections.

And this approach of we only go after the good guys, and let all the bad guys go.

It's not an approach, the American people are comfortable with.

That's something, I think -- it's a message we --

GLENN: I don't even know how the Good Samaritan law just didn't apply to him.

He obviously was not trying to kill the guy.

STU: Obviously.

And they knew that.

You could see it in the interview afterward.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Quite clear.

GLENN: So how did the Good Samaritan law not apply?

STU: What version of New York has of that law, precisely.

And obviously, I think --

GLENN: Oh, it's probably a good Samaritan law, if you're a Good Samaritan. And you're trying to cause harm, but it's on a white person.

STU: Yeah. I would not be surprised, if that's exactly how it's written.

GLENN: And you are somebody who is in any of the other categories, then it's --

STU: That's how it's applied.

GLENN: That is how it's applied.

STU: Right?

GLENN: By the way, the threats are being issued now.

After the jury finds him guilty.

And activists --

STU: Not guilty.

GLENN: Yeah. Not guilty.

And they are also -- activists are in the streets of New York, right now. Protesting. That he wasn't --

STU: It's very difficult to even understand. I mean, because some of the people who he was protecting on the subway, were people of color, if you will.

GLENN: Yeah. There wasn't -- I don't think there was anyone on the subway, that wasn't happy about it too. They were all -- everybody in the car were like, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

STU: Yeah, they may not have been happy that he died. And I don't think anyone was, including Daniel Penny. Right?

But they saw this as a clear, legitimate threat to their well-being. As they clarified in their testimony, it was not yet another one of these crazy people on the subway if you've been in New York City.

And this is a weird -- I think it's a weird experience for anyone who has never been there or worked there as we have.

But it's like, very much a normal part of your life, to go on the subway.

And have a crazy person get on the subway, and do something crazy, while you're on the subway. In an enclosed metal tube.

It's a weird experience.

And you get really used to kind of looking at your shoes.

And looking the other way. And acting like this thing, that would have been the story you told your friends, every single day, if you live in any other city.

You just ignore it. And act like it's not happening.

GLENN: I'm trying to remember the comedian, that has the special happy face. He's so funny.

He talks about, just getting on the subway in New York.

Just trying not to get high on crack.

He's like, somebody comes in, in the subway.

And they're smoking crack.

And somebody is like, hey, you can't do that here. Like the guy cares.

Oh, my gosh. This is so unlike me.

Oh, there's a child here, I'm so embarrassed. And you just try not to get high on crack!

STU: Right, it always reminded me of how gun-free zones were really stupid.

In that, the people who were coming to murder, don't care about the gun-free zones.

The people who are coming to smoke crack on the subway. They don't care about your subway crack laws.

GLENN: They don't care. They don't care.

STU: They don't care. So the people who were actually testifying in the trial.

Made clear distinction between that normal part of New York life of someone coming on the subway.

And acting a little crazy, and maybe a little threatening. And what this guy was doing.

They said, they really believed they were in danger. And I think that was the correct assumption.

He was saying, he didn't care what the -- you know, if you went to prison for life, he was going to kill people. He was threatening them directly.

The fact that Daniel Penny stopped that.

Or God forbid, whatever it could have become, from happening, means he should be treated as a hero, not as someone who is on trial.

And the fact that this came out right, is a good conciliatory prize, but not the right outcome.

GLENN: It is.

Was it Bernie Goetz?

Who was the one who shot the guy on the subway?

STU: Bernie Goetz is one of them.

GLENN: What happened to him?

STU: He got off too, if I remember correctly.

GLENN: Isn't it weird, it's the same out of control city?

Where somebody is just -- you know, everybody knows, they're afraid on the subway.

Everybody knows, crime is everywhere.
And nobody does anything.

And Bernhard Goetz took a gun on the subway, shot a guy of control. Went through the same thing and was found innocent. I believe.

STU: And it was -- it was more -- I would say, more controversial than this one.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Because he was carrying a gun.

STU: Right. And he was actually -- he was, firm right, convicted of carrying an illegal firearm. Firearm. He was not supposed to have without a permit. But that's all he was -- that's all he got.

GLENN: Right.

STU: In this case, this is quite clear.

And, you know, it's disturbing, the way that he was interviewed. He's interviewed as if the police were his friend. And they were trying to suss all this out.

In a positive way. I didn't like that at all.

GLENN: You said a couple of things that stuck out to me a couple weeks ago.

You said, I finally get, the police are not your friends. Do not talk to the police without your attorney.

STU: Yeah. I've always been, you know, I have great interactions with police. I think that's still the norm. But you don't know.

STU: You don't know.

Popping into my head. Is Jeff Fisher. Host of a podcast here on Blaze -- TheBlaze podcast network.

And he always says this. He carries a card with him. That gives you the outline of don't talk to the police.

You know, they're not your friends. He has a whole little six-step plan. You are ever talked to.

GLENN: Is it written in crayon?

STU: No. It's not his writing.

It's just his card. He just has so much legal trouble. He has to have it with him at all times. I remember him showing it to me at times. All right. Most interactions. It's totally fine to talk to police.

After watching that with Penny, I was like, gosh. If you do something right -- if God forbid, you have to use your Second Amendment rights in personal defense.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I wouldn't say word one, to the police.

Not because I don't think the police are trustworthy. I think they are. But there's a system around it.

And, frankly, you can't trust anybody.

And there's a system around it. That will churn that into, a -- you know, something where you are a racist. Or you are -- I don't know what they're going to say about you.

The best thing is, just zip it.

GLENN: If the government wants to get you, they will get you. They will get you.

STU: Yeah. I think that's true.

They hold all of the cards.

STU: Especially in a place like New York.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Especially.

If you're a conservative living in New York. It's -- I don't know how you do it.

GLENN: I don't know why you do it. Honestly.

STU: You did it.

GLENN: I did it.

STU: Years ago. But you did it.

I don't think things were nearly as bad. When you were there.

I don't think they were great.

GLENN: Do you remember the process of trying to get a gun?

My life was at stake.

You know, all the time. Had to have six security guys with me. You know, in rotation. All the time.

Sometimes all six of them.

And couldn't get a -- couldn't get a -- no. The judge just didn't think it was necessary, that my threats were credible.

It's like, here's -- remember the end of miracle on 34th Street. I want that proof on my desk. And they came in with all the bags of letters from Santa Claus. That's kind of like the way I felt like.

Oh, I can bring you the proof.

What are you talking about?

It's insane.

STU: Let me give you another movie, that tells the same story.

It's a United Health Care CEO walking to work.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: You think you don't need protection in that city. This poor guy just walking to work, with a wife and two kids. Just gets executed in the streets. And most of the city seems to be cheering on the murderer.

And, you know, in a world like that, you don't need protection in that city?

Of course, you do. There's a great -- I think it's like a flowchart in one of your books. I can't remember which one was it.

Might have been arguing with the idiots.

It's one of the earlier ones from the guns.
How to buy a gun in New York.

GLENN: Yeah. It was --

STU: I want to say, argue winning idiots. Inconvenient Book, maybe. I don't remember.

Oh, you have one of them. You can flip through it. There is -- if there's a gun chapter. Probably it's in there.

But there's a flowchart on how to get one in New York.

And it was actually a person who was Kevin. Who was a coauthor of the book, who actually tried to do it and went through the entire process.

It is insanity. Insanity. It's step after step after step.

Submitting paperwork.

Going back. Resubmitting it.

Over and over and over again.

And it's like to the point where they know actually in reality, what you're doing.

They know they're on the -- they should approve it. But they do everything they can, to did know it.

It's similar to what they're accusing health care companies of.

GLENN: It's exactly the same.

They just wear you out.

STU: Yeah. They just wear you out. It's years.

GLENN: Until you're like, I can't.

Who can do that? Who can do that?

STU: I will say, this is not a paid commercial.

Good time to think about a Byrna launcher.

Because that is legal in all 50 states. Again, check your local laws just to be sure. Triple sure.

I know it's legal in states. I don't know if cities have it. Be sure. Be careful.

Make sure you check.

That is exactly the type of thing that the Byrna launcher is --

GLENN: This is something that I don't understand.

And again, not a commercial.

I don't understand why those aren't in every school.

In every school in America.

Why aren't those in schools?

STU: They're non-lethal.

GLENN: Non-lethal. So you won't kill any of the children.

You might make some of them cry with tear gas. You don't have to be a good shot.

You can put your hand just outside the door. And aim it down the hallway. Towards the guy who is shooting.

And if you're here -- within 6 feet. It will stop him.

It's going to put him in tear gas, and give everybody a chance to pile on that guy

STU: Yeah. I don't understand it either.

GLENN: You're not going to kill any children. Why would -- it's almost as if somebody doesn't want to solve this. Because that is -- that is the solution, is a Byrna launcher.

STU: Yeah. It's at least -- a great part of it, at the very least.

And it -- it's available. It's affordable.

GLENN: If you're ever on a school board, you should suggest that.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

'Young Turks' Host: Democrats Need to WAKE UP | Ana Kasparian | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 237

“I can’t believe I’m hearing you say this,” says Ana Kasparian, producer and host of "The Young Turks." Although she and Glenn have always represented opposite sides of the political aisle, in this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," they find a surprisingly wide array of topics to agree on. They agree that the “mainstream media plays defense for the Democrat Party” and that we must ban government stock trading. Although she once bought the mainstream narrative, Ana woke up to the reality of the border crisis when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott started busing migrants to blue cities, and she recognizes there is a “problem with Biden neglecting the border.” Glenn admits that the Democrats were right about Big Pharma, he was “wrong about the Iraq War,” and that he, like Ana, is totally flabbergasted by the pro-war Democrats and Kamala Harris welcoming an endorsement by Dick Cheney. The pair debate the limits of free speech, states' rights, abortion, federal minimum wage, and unionized workers before strategizing how to get money and corporate interests out of politics. Ana reveals that she was not “surprised on election night at all,” and, even though her audience hates when she says so, “Trump is funny.” Both Glenn and Ana hope these kinds of conversations can begin to heal our national division and help us come together to create a more perfect union.

Jewish reporter SLAMS Canadian cops who arrested him at Hamas rally

‪@RebelNewsOnline‬ founder Ezra Levant was recently arrested in his Jewish neighborhood in Toronto, Canada. His crime? “inciting a breach of the peace” by standing next to a group of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protesters. Ezra joins Glenn to describe what happened and how the police decided to “take out the quiet Jew and let the noisy Hamas ones continue.” But this dystopian story also has a good ending. Just a few days later, the protesters returned. But they were met by Ezra and a crowd of 100 counter-protesters: “We took back the streets.” Ezra explains why it’s vital that America hold onto its rights and also comments on Donald Trump’s threat to put massive tariffs on Canada.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to talk to you a little bit here about justice.

Right now, we are -- we are living in a world. And hopefully, Donald Trump is going to be correcting some of these real errors of -- of our ways.

We are a world that has gone truly insane. And our neighbors up in Canada are just as insane.

If not more so. They're farther down the road.

A good friend of the program. A good friend of mine is Ezra Levant.

He is Rebel News, which is kind of like TheBlaze up in Canada. He is Jewish, and he has just been arrested. He was arrested.

In fact, I want to play the video of him being arrested. He is only standing, as a journalist, filming in his own Jewish neighborhood, a Palestinian, you know, protest.

If I can call it that.

I want you to listen to what happens. The exchange between him and the police.

Listen.

VOICE: I want you to take this.

VOICE: So you're refuse to go leave?

VOICE: I'm refusing to leave.

VOICE: Why?

VOICE: Because I'm a Jew. I'm a citizen. And I'm your boss. And I don't leave --

VOICE: Well, you know what, in the interest of keeping peace here and public safety. You're under arrest for breaching the peace.

VOICE: Good!
(applauding)

GLENN: This is his neighborhood. He's not an outsider. This is his Jewish neighborhood!

VOICE: I'm being arrested because I'm standing on the sidewalk in my city. I'm a Jew, who lives in this neighborhood. And I'm being arrested because the police say that's the path of least resistance.

VOICE: Zionist!

GLENN: Amazing. Ezra is with us now.

Ezra.

This is crazy!

This is absolutely crazy, what's going on.

EZRA: Glenn, I've never been arrested before. They handcuffed me, and they took me to jail for a few hours. And they said that I had incited a breach of the peace.

Now, I wasn't doing anything unlawful.

I was actually just debating with those cops.

Because I wanted to film.

You called it a pro-Palestinian rally. I think it was more than that.

It was pro-Hamas.

They had set up this really macabre display, of they were reenacting the final moments of Yahya Sinwar, the now deceased head of Hamas, where he was sitting in a chair covered with blood or whatever.

So these Palestinian activists came into the heart of a Jewish residential community. They weren't protesting outside an embassy or a political target. They were just in the middle of a bunch of apartments, in a very Jewish neighborhood.

So they were targeting Jews as Jews. Canadian Jews.

Nothing to do with the war overseas. They were putting on this sort of reenactment of their hero, the head of Hamas.

And I thought this was so astonishing. I just wanted to anymore it.

I wasn't even interact winning them. I mean, wanted to film it.

You sort of heard the jeering. Jew, Zionist, or whatever.

The top cop said to me, that by being there, I was inciting a breach of the peace. I myself was not obviously breaching the peace.

But these pro-Hamas thugs were. And they essentially vetoed being on my own sidewalk. This is public property.

I wasn't in some, you know, private place to be trespassed or something.

And the cops arrested me, the path of least resistance, which you mentioned when it happened, because there was about 20 of them.

And one of me. And instead of upholding the law.

They said, just take Ezra out. Because we know he's not going to riot. We know he's not going to get violent.

Take out the quiet Jew. And let the noisy Hamas ones continue.

That's just crazy. And, you know what, I don't regret being arrested.

There's no way that I was going to leave. Because they were saying, you're committing the sin of being Jewish on the sidewalk.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to leave just because you say Jews can't be there.

And you heard them say that, as I was arrested.

GLENN: Ezra, is there a chance, you go to jail for this, that this is upheld in Canadian court now?

EZRA: Well, I did go to jail for a few hours. Then they released me without charge. Now I was so upset with this precedent, that -- that was about nine days ago, that that happened. So two days ago. The same Hamas protesters, came back to that same Jewish neighborhood. And I said, this can't stand. So I sent an email out to our viewers, and I said, come stand with me. We will be peaceful.

We won't engage with the Hamas ones.

We'll just stand on the public sidewalk.

And, you know, just assert our rights. We'll take back our streets.

And I said, be aware, that we may be arrested.

But if that's where we are.

We need to know.

So 100 people came out two days ago.

100 people. And the police saw my email.

So they put out a tweet. The night before.

Saying that they reserved the right to arrest people.

So they were trying to scare my people off.

But I showed up.

On Sunday morning, and 100 people were there.

And I led them across the street. And we stood there, and I think the police sized us up.

And thought, there's 100 of them. We really can't arrest the one of them.

It was no longer in the path of the least resistance.

So we took back the streets.

And it was a victory. And I think we undid that terrible precedent that was set.

You can't arrest a peaceful person.

Because someone else is threatening them.

GLENN: They're doing it in England too, though. Doing the same thing in Glenn England.

EZRA: Oh, yeah. Well, you know what, I'm interested in the UK. One of our former employees, Tommy Robinson, is in prison right now for publishing a documentary on X.

And I always say, I go to the UK, because it's a dystopian time machine to see what Canada would be like in five years.

Maybe further down the road than that. Glenn, I would say to you and your American viewers.

Hold on to your rights. And if you want a picture of what America would look like, if you had lose your rights.

Look at us.

And that's why I was so relieved.

When Donald Trump won.

Because I think he will turn back the excesses.

GLENN: Oh, I think so too.

Let me ask you, Trudeau said that if Benjamin Netanyahu steps foot in Canada, he'll have him arrested.

EZRA: Justin Trudeau has sided, not just with Palestinians, because I can understand making the case for innocent civilians and being harmed as collateral damage in a war.

And you can be compassionate for Palestinians. I -- you can do that. But -- but Trudeau has gone much further.

He -- he has been so supportive of Hamas.

I don't know if you know this, Glenn. They literally made an English language video, thanking Canada. He was -- he has absolutely turned against Israel at the United Nations.

He -- he routinely condemns. He -- he republishes misinformation.

And hoaxes about Israel.

That Hamas circulates.

And when it's disproven. He doesn't correct.

He's whipped up, what I call an anti-Semitic crime wave.

For the last year. Not just hate crimes.

Because, you know, sometimes while it's a hate crime. Or a thought crime.

Or a word crime.

I'm talking about crimes.

Mazel tov cocktails being thrown at synagogues. A Jewish girl's school in my town, shot up with guns, twice. Constant vandalism. Constant uttering death threats.

Trespass. Mischief. Vandalism.

And I'm pretty much a Libertarian on free speech.

I don't like it when people say anti-Semitic things. But I understand that that's part of freedom. But first of all, not for foreign nationals.

If you're a guest in our country, if you don't have tenure in our country, get out. Instead of deporting these thugs, he's bringing in thousands of, quote, refugees from Gaza.

And I would say to Americans, be careful.

Because Trudeau is bringing in hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, who share these outrageous beliefs.

And we have a porous border with you.

So don't think that they're -- some of them are trying to get into the US.

That's why Trump is trying to strengthen the border with Canada.

And I hope it takes effect.

I hope that Canada gets more serious.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this.

There are a lot of Canadians that are saying, this tariff that Donald Trump is talked about with Canada will kill us.

And hurt America, as well.

If Trudeau does not abide with the border restrictions, if he doesn't fall in line with our laws.

Donald Trump is not bluffing.

He does not mind tariffs.

And he is going to -- I mean, he will crush any country, that is -- is doing damage to the United States. He means it.

EZRA: I believe Trump means it. But I also believe he doesn't want to put the tariffs on. He is just trying to get --

GLENN: Yes, it's the way he negotiates.

The one thing you have to understand. Unlike most politicians, Donald Trump never threatens, he makes promises. You do this, and I'll do that.

You do this, and I'll do that. And he means it.

EZRA: It's worth rereading The Art of the Deal, where he explains how he negotiates and how he reframes things and takes dramatic positions.

It really is a decoder for a lot of his political talk. But what is he demanding from Canada? Nothing that we ourselves shouldn't demand from our own government.

He's demanding two things from Canada. Stop the drugs coming over the border.

Especially China-made fentanyl that is trafficked throughout the states. And number two, stop the illegal immigration.

We should want both of those things on our own basis. And the fact that it takes big brother, and America to smarten up is embarrassing.

We should have done those things on our own. I think Trudeau suddenly has a decision to make.

Does he want to just play to the cameras, and have woke press statements?

Or is he going to be a grownup now, and get serious?

And be productive, and have a working relationship with our best friends and allies.

And I don't know.

I mean, Trudeau. He's so low in the polls.

He may try to, Glenn. Turn this into an election issue.

I'm going to stand up to Trump. And the conservative candidate is a Trump puppet.

He may actually try to run in the next Canadian election.

Not in the Canadian conservative party. But like a shadow boxing campaign against Trump.

I wouldn't put it past him.

He hates Trump. The feeling is mutual.

Both men have disparaged each other in the past. I look forward to the day when we get past the Trudeau era, because he's made our country a darker place.

GLENN: He really has.

Ezra, I'm glad things are working out. Stay safe, my friend.

You are a huge target, and a force for good up in Canada.

Thank you. Buh-bye.

TN Attorney General EXPLAINS why Supreme Court should BAN trans hormones for kids

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from giving transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors (or, as supporters call it, "gender-affirming care"). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued for the law in front of the Supreme Court, joins Glenn to review what happened, what’s coming next, and what evidence he has that these procedures should be banned for kids.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Many of us look at transgender care, as butchering.

As insanity. As something that honestly returns to the Weimar republic of the 1920s.

This has been around for a while, and it's junk science. And it's dangerous to our children. Look, you're an adult, you can do what you want, I guess.

But when children are affected. That's what's in front of the Supreme Court, and the guy who brought this case to the Supreme Court, is the Tennessee attorney general.

Mr. Attorney General, Jonathan, how are you, sir?

JONATHAN: Great. Great. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So I listened to the case. And I don't know how you your head didn't explode with some of the questions that were coming from some of those on the left. Sotomayor for one. But overall, how did you feel it went?

JONATHAN: I think we did a great job of getting our points across. I mean, it went on for two and a half hours or so.

The court asked a lot of questions. They're clearly thinking hard about this.

It will be a long time, before we get our opinion. I think we did everything we could, to win this case. I feel really good about our part about this.

And now it's up to the justices.

GLENN: You know, there was a -- well, first of all, tell me exactly what the case was.

What does it actually cover, and what will it do, if it's decided in -- in favor of Tennessee?

JONATHAN: So we have a law in Tennessee, a journal assembly law that prohibits giving juveniles puberty blocker, hormone treatments, or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Surgery was not an issue in this case.

So this was just about whether the Constitution presents the state from banning puberty blockers or treatments for the purpose of gender transition.

So if we win, our kids will remain in effect, and kids won't be able to be subject to that in Tennessee.

Potentially, depending on how we win, it could mean that all laws dealing with gender identity, are reviewed under a rational basis standard.

Which gives the people's elected representatives, a lot more latitude. As to how they regulate.

GLENN: You know, when you were -- when you were discussing this, and it was Justice Sotomayor that said, every medication has, you know, side effect.

Even aspirin has side effects.

I don't know how you took that question seriously.

But you answered it very well.

Explain to the average person, why this is so different, than anything else, that is prescribed for kids.

JONATHAN: Every systematic analysis of the evidence shows little to no benefit for kids.

From these treatments for gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the risks are enormous. They face losing fertility for the rest of their lives, never being able to have children.

They risk having -- kids don't know what they're giving up. They risk tumors and blood clots and cognitive disorders and bone density disorders. All sorts of serious life-long medical complications.
And, meanwhile, the evidence is, this doesn't help them.

You're talking about very severe physical interventions for psychological

Problems.

With no evidence, that it's helping them with the psychological problems.

And so we're looking at a situation, where kids are really at risk.

Where there's not a good medical reason for putting them at risk.

And whether these people say, the Constitution prohibits the state from protecting kids. Even where the evidence is so powerfully in opposition to allowing this to happen, going forward.

GLENN: I think it was Justice Souter who asked the opposite side. What -- you know, you said that the -- the science backs this up.

Well, now we have all this new science, that is coming out.

You want to where a that statement?

What -- what has happened since you started this process, to the evidence, that's coming out, from everywhere now?

VOICE: So there was a lot of evidence beforehand, but the review in England is a large-scale, long-term study by an extremely respected pediatrician, that looked really hard at these issues. It's controversial around the world. You know, England is not a red state. It's not Tennessee. They were making these procedures widely available to kids for a while.

And they looked at the evidence, and they determined that they should not be doing that. That the evidence showed, that this was hurting kids.

They should severely restrict access.

And they did.

And the report gets into it thoroughly.

It's discussed with a lot of specificity with the court.

It shows there's no redemption in suicide. Which is one of the things we constantly hear.

If you don't let kids do this. They will kill themselves.

We don't want kids to kill themselves.

The evidence is doing these life altering interventions doesn't make a difference.

You know, they just looked at a lot of evidence from a lot of kids.

And it showed what we already knew.

Which is that there's no benefit to justify these radical interventions.

GLENN: So what does this mean, if it comes you out, the way we hope it does?

Does this have any effect on bathrooms and -- and -- and sports, or anything else?

JONATHAN: It really depends on what the court does.

There's a way that we could win. That's at that only deals with kid's transitions. Or there's a way that we could win that's broader. The court says the gender identity issues do not rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny of the Constitution.

In which case, a lot of the litigation of what we're facing with bathrooms. And school sports.

All the things that people have sued over. Are pretty easy to solve.

GLENN: Did you see any indication that any of the judges were leaning that way.

Were there any questions that made you -- gave you any indication that that was possible, or probable?

JONATHAN: It's -- there are -- there are indications that the justices are thinking about it. There were questions about sports that came up.
But I don't know whether that means, they're thinking about issuing a broad opinion, or they're just concerned about, you know, the potential effects.

And, you know, they want to think through exactly how this is going to play out. Because there's no constitutional law from the Supreme Court, on gender identity stuff.

We have one case about a very narrow, very he specifically worded statute.

And the lower courts have been all over the place. They need guidance. They need clarity on this issue.

GLENN: You know, you can't go into a tattoo parlor, if you're young, without parental -- parental permission.

You can't buy a gun, at 12, or 16.

You can't get married. There's all these laws, because we know, there -- you're not mentally prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

How does that logic not work for this issue?

JONATHAN: You know, there's this argument that it's sex discrimination.

Therefore, the Constitution provides a heightened level of scrutiny.

But we have done this forever.

To treat people differently based on their age. Kids can't consent to things that will have lifelong consequences.

Whether it's entering a contract or smoking a cigarette, the consequences for these procedures are so much more profound, and we think we have a strong argument that the state should be able to regulate this. Particularly, given the evidence, that it makes no difference. That it does not help. And it increases the risk of all these different horrible outcomes for the kids.

GLENN: The other side just seems, quite honestly.

And I don't mean to slam people. They seem unhinged.

I want you to listen.

This is a mom standing outside the Supreme Court building while you're arguing the case.

Listen to what she said about her child. Cut four.

VOICE: What motivated to you come out today?

VOICE: We're supporting our child violet.

And her access to the medical care that she needs.

VOICE: Yeah. We're here for her rights. And her ability to be who she is. And she's not going to let anybody silence her. And we're not going to stand in her way.

VOICE: And what age do you think most trans kids determine that they're trans?

VOICE: Mila told us, when she was one and a half. She's been telling us since she could speak.

So she knew since birth.

GLENN: Eighteen months? Eighteen months, she knew?

JONATHAN: Wow. That -- I have a 3-year-old. Last week, she told me she was a pirate.

Like, that's a true story, by the way. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it's really hard for kids to deal with it.

We have seen an explosion on these cases, that sure looks like something weird is going on.

And we -- I don't see how it doesn't come out, eventually, that there's massive over diagnosis.

In England, the doctors had over a 4,000 percent increase in the number of girls seeking hormone treatments.

And, you know, the evidence is very, very strong. That the large, large majority of kids, who have any sort of gender identity confusion grow out of it, unless they're put out on medications.

For most kids, this is a passing thing. It doesn't mean that it's not hard for them. Adolescence is really hard, and I have to think gender confusion makes it that much harder.

But most of them are going to grow out of it. And for all of them, the evidence of a benefit is minimal at best.

GLENN: Well, we'll be praying for the Supreme Court, and I thank you so much for you filing suit. And trying to get this corrected.

It's -- it's truly madness.

I don't -- you know, I don't -- I don't care what you do, as an adult.

I mean, I actually do. But it's not my business if you're an adult.

But if you can't decide things like smoking, drinking.

You know, be responsible for -- enough with a gun. You certainly should not be able to do things to your body.

That are permanent. And game-changing.

It's insanity. It's insanity.

We have to stop. Jonathan, thank you so much.

JOHN: It's an honor to be on the show. Thanks for having me, and Merry Christmas!

STU: Merry Christmas!

Jonathan Skrmetti. He is the Tennessee Attorney General, who argued just the day before yesterday, at the Supreme Court.

To protect children from gender procedures.

STU: We should, by the way, take what he said, seriously.

If his 3-year-old is about to plunder passing ships. We should report that to maritime authorities.

GLENN: And don't forget the pillaging and the raping.

STU: Yes!

Immediately. We must take it seriously.

GLENN: We must. If we can save one pillage, or -- pillagette -- pillage -- somebody. If we could save one person from being pillaged.

STU: One. Pillaged, uh-huh.

GLENN: We need to act now.

Isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth it?