RADIO

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling

For months, the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress have tried to convince the American people that Colorado SHOULD be allowed to kick former president Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. And they insisted that if the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, it would be the fault of the "right wing" justices. However, the Supreme Court has now ruled unanimously that Colorado can't use Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump. This was a big failure for the media, Glenn and Stu argue. But did the Court still leave a way for Democrats to remove Trump from office?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The big news today, is that the Supreme Court said, no.

Colorado, you can't do that.

The states can't take a national candidate, off the ballots.

Because of the 14th amendment.

Because the state has nothing -- the 14th amendment is something that the Congress would have to do.

STU: Yeah. That's basically what they're saying.

And it's -- it's fascinating on the legal front. It's a little more complicated than the happy headlines. Which I am happy about.

Legitimately, happy about.

GLENN: Nine-zero.

STU: Nine-zero. Unanimous ruling. Including Sotomayor. Which I'm shocked.

Sotomayor, is essentially AOC.

Right?

GLENN: She's a clown of the court. She really has no --

STU: She really is ridiculous.

And she's trying to make herself out to this sort of Ruth Bader Ginsburg figure. Now Ruth Bader Gisnburg was a hardcore liberal, but a serious liberal at some level.

Where I don't believe Sotomayor is. But this was so obvious, they could not do this. Even Sotomayor was on board for this. And also Ketanji Brown Jackson.

All three liberals. They do have a qualified yes on this.

And they say, basically, we agreed that Colorado couldn't do that. That's the issue in front of the court.

We believe the majority has gone too far. Basically the only way this can be implemented is by legislation of Congress.

They kind of leave it open. As to what federal powers can be utilized there. But it is kind of -- it's interesting to note, they did write a dissent here.

And say, hey. Wait a minute. We're not going as far as the majority is.

If you want to go down. Do you want to go down the full house of cards situation here for just a second.

GLENN: Yes. Oh, yeah.

STU: Which is kind of -- it's hilarious in a way. They're basically saying, Congress will basically pass a law saying, that he engaged in insurrection. And therefore, should be thrown off the ballots. As we know --

GLENN: And you can't do that right now. Because the House belongs to the Republicans.

STU: The Republicans.

Now, the Republicans have a very small majority here.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: A couple of House seats somehow changed.

God forbid. And this -- this situation changes. So that's one thing to think about.

Another thing to think about.

And again, we're going the full house of cards situation here.

This is not going to happen. I'm telling you, it's not going to happen.

GLENN: I wouldn't rule anything out.

A dog-faced alien, could come down and take over the White House, on January 7th.

And I would be like, well, didn't see it coming.

But uh-huh. Makes sense.

STU: Yeah. You know, you know, I guess, you could say, the whole house of cards thing, had a lot of -- the show had a lot of crazy turns.

GLENN: Yeah. Which all looks tame at this point.

STU: Yes. He made his wife president, spoiler alert.

Also Kevin Spacey was married to her. Also spoiler alert. Wouldn't have happened in real life.

There's been developments in that case, that may make you understand that.

But going beyond the house of cards thing. In theory, let's just say Donald Trump wins.

The presidential election. And the Democrats hold the Senate, and turn over the House.

That new Congress takes seat on January 3rd.

You'll note, a couple days before, January 6th.

So you'll have a new -- in theory, democratic Congress, democratic president, that could theoretically come up with it. And it seems like --

GLENN: All they have to do is, he was an agent.

An agent of insurrection. And therefore, cannot be president of the United States.

STU: Now, there's reason to believe, in the ruling, that the Supreme Court would not allow this to happen.

But still, it's theoretically possible, that they could vote and say, yes. He's an insurrection. We will pull you off the ballot.

And then you would have a couple of days to get this over.

The way I would think I would understand it. Whoever Trump chooses as VP, essentially, would take over.

It would be, they would put Biden in for longer.

Or some democratic would be named.

Look, if the American people elect Donald Trump and they just pulled him off.

No. You have to go with your VP now. There would be a little bit of uproar over that.

Again, not going to happen. But still, it is a fascinating.

GLENN: What makes you say. I mean, I don't think it will happen either.

I don't think it will happen.

But you say it with such certainty.

What makes you say it with -- you know what is crazy is, we used to say, you know, these things aren't going to happen?

And we would -- we would fairly -- we would believe it. Because crazy things haven't happened.

You can't use that same kind of conviction anymore.

STU: I say it the same way I said it, to start this show.

That Donald Trump was be the not going to lose in court today.

I knew he wasn't going to lose in court today. There was no way he was going to lose in court today.

However, there was definitely a way he could have lost in court today, and we would all be screwed.

In reality, I can't imagine anything like this happening. Just to give you the outline, possibility, of whether you should get all your preparation supplies and head to the mountains, right now. Like, if that were to happen, God only knows.

GLENN: If that would have happened today, I would have gotten all my stuff, and head to the mountains now. I would have.

STU: Seriously, you would have. You would have been at the ranch.

Can you address one other part of it too. Separate from all the legal back and forth.

Which we will I'm sure, cover over the next couple of days. In more depth.

Can we just stop and pause for a second?

And focus on how seriously the media as a whole, took this ridiculous ruling from Colorado. And the idiotic Lawrence Tribe-esque experts who told us it was the right thing.

They said over and over again, oh, actually, this -- this can happen. And it's absolutely right.

And we saw expert after expert. Trotted out on television.

To tell us, no. Really, this is the right way to go.

This is really what's going to happen. And the Supreme Court very well might overturn this. And then nine-zero.

GLENN: And then I may say, convinced people who, if they would just use their common sense.

When it first came out. You would say, they can't do that. They can't do that happen

STU: We know that.

Because he's not been charged with insurrection or anything else. He can't do that. These people came on television, and convinced half the country, that that was reasonable, and really, not just possible. But could be likely.

STU: And the only thing that would stop it is this right-wing Supreme Court. That, of course, would go with --

GLENN: Nine-zero.

STU: But then it was 9-0. And you had even Sotomayor on board for it. So an embarrassing failure for the media yet again.

It's important to note these things. Even though I sound like a broken record on it.

They convinced half the people in the country, that, oh, yeah. Well, this is obviously the right thing. Nobody believed it was the right thing.

There was never any hope for it legally in the courts. It was always a dead end.

It was a hail Mary of Hail Marys of Hail Marys of Hail Marys. And they decided to try it.

Because they're throwing every piece of spaghetti against the wall, to see if it would stick. They never had a chance. It was always absurd. The people who put it through in the California Supreme Court.

Should be ashamed of themselves. They knew it wasn't real. They knew it wasn't true, and they did it anyway.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, we're sitting knee high in spaghetti right now. And that will continue. And it will get faster and faster. And it will get worse.

They are just trying anything and everything to win. Ethics.

The ends justify the means. So look at -- we made -- in the end, drown in a pile of spaghetti. Because this is their approach. And I'm telling you, the law fair that is coming our way, is going to be insane.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

RADIO

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

RADIO

Deep State NGO CAUGHT trying to restart opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?


STU: Hmm.



GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.



STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.



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



He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.



And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.



And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.



STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.



GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.



There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.



This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.



But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.



I mean, an enormous flagpole.



I love the flag. I love it!



And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.



For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?



And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.



However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.



If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.



We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.



Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.



Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!



And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.



You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.



And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.



And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.



It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.



Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.



We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.



Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.



You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.



You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!



You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?



But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.



But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.



But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!



And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.



The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.



Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?



The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?



DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.



DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.



GLENN: Good. I know.



DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.



GLENN: Oh.



DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.



And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.



GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?



DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.



And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.



They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.



GLENN: Wow!



DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.



Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.



What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.



Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.



The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.



It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!



GLENN: What was their thinking?



DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.



GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?



And correct the ProPublica story, would you?



DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.



GLENN: Yes.



DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.



This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.



I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.



And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.



And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.



And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.



Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.



And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.



These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.



GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.



Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.



When it's in the State Department.



When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.



It's out of control!



It's just completely out of control.



And who is overseeing all of that.



DARREN: That's a great question.



I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.



A fourth of its money came from USAID.



In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.



So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.



And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.



And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.



It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.



And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.



We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.



GLENN: Good. Good.



DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.



So within the next couple of weeks.



We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.



GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.



I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.

RADIO

Hamas hostage's brother speaks out with Glenn Beck

Ilay David, brother of Hamas hostage Evyatar David, joins Glenn Beck to share his brother's story 676 days after he was taken hostage. Evyatar made headlines after Hamas released footage of him digging his own grave. Ilay also gives a strong message to the UN: "Talking about a Palestinian state out of the blue...it's a crucial mistake."