How the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision Could Change EVERYTHING
RADIO

How the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision Could Change EVERYTHING

The Supreme Court has decided to take up former president Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case. This is good news, Glenn says, but the decision could have huge ramifications for the 2024 election and future presidents. Glenn and Stu discuss what might happen: Will special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump take a massive hit? Or will the Supreme Court practically gut the power of the presidency? Glenn and Stu also discuss why they believe Trump is in a great position right now in his 4 trials: “There’s a good shot that none of this comes to anything.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So there's a couple of things. Let me start with some good news.

A judge -- let me just read this.

No individuals associated with the left, who engaged in far right speech, and violently suppressed the protected speech of Trump supporters, were charged with a federal crime for their part in starting riots at a political event.

This is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

Okay. You ready?

That was said by a judge in California. He threw the charges out of the -- two far right political agitators. Saying, this is selective prosecution.

Now, these two guys, I don't know if they're necessarily -- you know, I don't consider Nazis far right. But maybe you do.

But they're white nationalist group. I shouldn't say Nazis. They're a far right nationalist group. So they're people I really don't like.

Kind of like the people in Antifa. I don't like them either.

So what the charge was, is these guys were holding a rally. And the Antifa guys came with, you know, all those things that they do. Intimidated and beat some of the people in this. Police came.

Only arrested the far right people. Not anybody at Antifa. And a judge said, no. Sorry. Can't do it.

Not going to do it. If you didn't arrest the other side. You can't arrest these guys. I think it's a step in the right direction. That's what I've always been saying.

Wait a minute. January 6. Why did you arrest all those people.

When you had people stealing. Breaking windows. Burning cities.

And none of those people were arrested.

STU: Yeah. I would think my preference would be, everyone would be arrested for burning it down.

GLENN: No. That's not my preference.

That's the way America should work.

STU: But my secondary choice is nobody does. It at least should be fair.

However, I would like all the people who burn things to the ground or start riots or beat the heck out of police officers, they should all go to prison. I'm fine with that.

GLENN: Let me give you this now. Bump stocks. Supreme Court.

The justices heard the case to legally -- to repeal an executive order from Donald Trump. Or was it an executive order?

Or was it just redefining guide lines?

STU: Yeah. It was that type of thing. An administrative change.

You know, this thing we already approved for eight years.

What if we don't approve it anymore.

What if we let a guy build an entire business, based on this thing that we were okay with. And then just pull the rug right out.

And make him send, what was it?

80 pallets of unused and unsold bump stocks to be melted down. What if we do that instead?

GLENN: It's one of the worst things Donald Trump did in his administration.

Was just use that executive, administrative branch to single-handedly say, no. Can't do that.

Supreme Court looks like they're torn.

Usual lines.

But there's a chance the bump stocks survive.

STU: The ban, you mean?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's weird. The way the case is set up, is basically the question of, they should have at least passed a law to do this. If you want to get rid of bump stocks. You need to pass a law to ban bump stocks. You can't just do it. And I don't know. That just seems overtly obvious. However, I don't even think, the law if it was passed, would be constitutional. That's maybe, you know, being a Second Amendment extremist, or something.

GLENN: But at least that's the way our Constitution and the system of government is supposed to work.

You can pass a law. And it's not constitutional. Go back and rewrite the law and make it constitutional, if you can. You know what I mean?

STU: Or take the advice as unconstitutional and maybe don't do it again.

I take your point. At least it would be a normalized process.

Instead, what they did was basically say, I don't want these.

GLENN: It's the administrative state.

STU: It's bad on both sides.

GLENN: And I don't know how to convince people that this is one of the biggest problems we have in America.

Congress does not do their job.

They're not required to anymore.

Many of them are there fighting, to do a job.

But everything is a back door deal, that you got to rush to sign. And then it just gives more power to the agencies. Where the agencies can say, oh, no. You know what? We have this guideline. Why don't we write it to include this?

STU: Yeah. And, look, I get the motivation here. This is the worst mass shooting, that was not government-involved, in -- in history.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

STU: And it was really, really a bad incident.

But emotions of that incident do not overwhelm our system of government.

And, you know, they -- they -- this is just completely unfair.

They changed tens of thousands of US citizens into felons overnight.

GLENN: So there is -- there is another court case, that the spouter yesterday, said they would take up.

I think this is good news. And not just politically good news.

The real question here is presidential immunity. Does the president -- is he immune from a criminal trial for things he did as president?

Not while president. As president.

The answer to me would be, yes. No trial for -- because that should have been stopped by Congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or whatever.

As an official act, there should be -- we shouldn't have a bunch of people putting their hands in their pockets. Going, well, I was just following order. No. If it's illegal. No. Stop it.

But can the president do an official act, and then be held in criminal court. If that happens, you will just continue to be able to prosecute any president that is running a second term.

STU: So -- and I think pretty much the line is set. That while a president. If you do something as president, and you're currently still president. The answer to this, is pretty much. They can't throw you in prison. While you're president of the United States. That's been at least the guideline.

GLENN: No. No. But it's also a separation of, if the president murdered somebody while he was president, he should go to prison.

You know what I mean?

STU: Right. I would agree to that.

GLENN: He would murder somebody, while he was president.

STU: However, I believe the way that would play out. He would need to be impeached first.

And removed from office. And then he would be thrown in jail.

At least the -- it's not like a constitutional -- it's not in the Constitution.

There's not a founding, really reference toward this. The guidelines they've used is one year actually operating as the chief executive. We can't take you out of that room.

GLENN: Well, yes.

And the thing with Biden is -- Biden's crimes were before he was president.

STU: Uh-huh. But still, if he was -- if they went to this level of -- they found enough evidence. And they decided they would --

GLENN: Oh, he would have to be --

STU: He would have to be impeached and removed. Before he dealt with the punishment of that. And when he was removed from office, then be able to go through the trial as a normal person would.

GLENN: So here is the -- here is the ramifications of this decision.

Can Donald Trump be held now, in -- in a criminal case, for his acts as president?

The answer is, always been no. Always been no.

Otherwise, you're president if he decides to execute military operations. And somebody says, that that's illegal. Then it has to go to a court.

It would be very -- it would be very bad for the presidency.

It would just completely gut our president. This goes to the trial now, that everybody is so excited to hear.

All right. So the Supreme Court is hearing this, which would stop or at least because they're going to hear it, slow down the Jack Smith trial on Donald Trump.

Which is

STU: Which --

GLENN: Which trial.

STU: So you've got four major ones, right?

You've got the January 6th.

There are two of those.

You have the federal one, which is the jacks Smith.

And you have the Fani Willis one in Georgia.

Then you have the other two. Which are the New York. With Alvin brag. And you have the documents case in Florida.

Those are the four.

And it's like, I don't know, Glenn. Tell me if I'm wrong on this.

I think Trump is in the best position he's been in, since he started now.

GLENN: Oh, everybody has been saying, I don't know if I can vote for Donald Trump. Because he might go to jail.

At this point, there's a good shot, none of this comes to anything.

STU: Especially before the election.

GLENN: Yeah. Before the election, it won't now.

STU: Right. If you think about the four of them individually, you have -- one of them is the Alvin Bragg Stormy Daniels, which everyone acknowledges is the weakest case, it's the weakest case. He has all sorts of ridiculous laws he's bending to even bring the law in the first place.

It makes no sense.

Everyone, on the left, kind of blew that one off as frivolous. Then you have --

GLENN: And even if he's convicted of that, he won't lose any votes. Because it's just such a sham.

STU: Yeah. And plus, people knew that story already, a long time ago.

So second is the documents case. And, look, there is a lot of evidence against him on that, especially on how he handled it, when they asked for the documents back. He fought it.

And potentially did not tell them the truth about it.

Does he wind up being convicted of that?

It's possible. But what person -- you know, picture the Trump voter with the Trump sign in their lawn.

Then they're just like -- they're walked out one day. And say, I'm ripping this thing out of the ground. That man stored documents improperly.

I just don't believe that person exists. I don't know. I could be wrong. I just don't think he stored documents, frankly.

GLENN: The insurrection or stealing the election. Those -- are those big.

STU: Those could be big.

But think about what one of those two are. One is delayed in April. It could even be heard. Nothing can happen from now to April. April 22nd.

GLENN: Right. But after it's heard, their decision won't come out until June.

STU: Until June.

So you're all the way in June. Before they could even start this thing.

I mean, maybe they try to put this in -- I mean, the conventions are going on. I mean, we are deep into the election at this point.

Maybe they'll still try it. But it will be very difficult. And really amps up all of the problems with trying to persecute your opponents even more.

And then the last one is Fani Willis. Which is completely falling apart.

I mean, the texts that came out from this lawyer.

Who is texting the lawyers of the defense. Saying, yes.

Absolutely. This happened in 2019. And I'll tell you exactly where they met, and then he's on the -- the stand saying, I don't know.

I'm just speculating about that. Can he was not doing. He was given multiple chances to correct the actual filing about this. And said, there's no problem with it. And that's just what we know so far.

I mean, they completely lied --

GLENN: So far, there are three attorneys that should lose their license.

STU: Yeah, at least.

GLENN: At least. And personally, I think they should pay a very hefty fine.

And, well, possibly I think Fani Willis and her boyfriend, absolutely should go to jail. They were defiant.

They knew what they were doing. They didn't even have to test. She didn't even have to testify about it.

But she wanted to. She walked on that stand with the intent of lying. Gone.

STU: Everyone I talked to, said, nothing ever happens to these people when it happens. There's no I couldn't wait.

That may be true. I will say, this judge in particular. Remember, the Federalist Society. Appointed by a Republican.

He seems to have the right approach here, at the very least.

I don't know. Maybe we'll still be disappointed.

I don't think he's just taking this, as, oh, I can't wait. To give Fani Willis. A free pass on this.

I don't think that's his approach. We will see how this turns out. You all of these things -- at the very least, Trump will have a really good argument, even if he gets convicted in the Georgia case and come out -- these people are obviously corrupt. And it won't be one of those reflexive defenses where you're complaining about everything. They will have a really good case that this was corrupt.

GLENN: And the other one, if it makes it to court, is the District of Columbia.

So, I mean --

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: I think he's had a great week. Donald Trump. I think he's had a great week.

STU: Yeah. A lot of this stuff will probably cost him money in the long run. When it believes to this election. I think he's been in the best position he's been in, in a long time.

GLENN: Once again, the seems to be in the position, we got him this time. We got him this time.

Oh, crap, maybe we don't have him.

How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion WILL Create the Next Public Health Crisis | Glenn TV | Ep 348
SPECIALS

How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion WILL Create the Next Public Health Crisis | Glenn TV | Ep 348

Everything is a “public health crisis” these days. Racism. Climate change. The lack of access to “gender-affirming care.” But there’s one ACTUAL public health crisis the far Left has created: diversity, equity, and inclusion. The future of YOUR health care is at stake as this dangerous reform movement is being forced upon American medical schools, all of the professional medical organizations, and hospitals, with total endorsement from Biden’s White House. Glenn Beck exposes how this academic cancer is changing medical school admissions and graduates, what caused this movement to accelerate, the real-world life-and-death consequences of this insanity for patients, and how any resistance to this movement brings swift crackdown from the Thought Police. Glenn is joined by Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, the founder of “Do No Harm,” a network of doctors, nurses, medical students, and patients working to get identity politics out of medicine. Dr. Goldfarb taught medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and published more than a hundred articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and other top medical journals. He debunks the racist claim that “black patients need black doctors” and sounds the alarm on deadly efforts to push unqualified doctors on patients.

EXCLUSIVE: Will RFK, Jr. Change Glenn's Mind?
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

EXCLUSIVE: Will RFK, Jr. Change Glenn's Mind?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once called Glenn a traitor because he thought Glenn's opinions on climate change were "dangerous" and should be shut down. But now, he's one of the biggest CRITICS of censorship. So, what changed? Glenn decided to sit down with the independent presidential candidate to find out.

SHOCKING: You Need HOW MUCH Money to “Live Comfortably” in Each State?!
RADIO

SHOCKING: You Need HOW MUCH Money to “Live Comfortably” in Each State?!

With inflation still on the rise, Glenn and Stu review another shocking number: how much money you need to “live comfortably” in America. The numbers have gone through the roof and it’s no surprise that the most expensive states are blue states. Thanks to inflation, a single adult now needs to make over $100,000 a year in order to live comfortably in many states. So, can you afford your state?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So there's a new number out now, on what it costs to live in the United States of America. It's a little higher than it used to be.

And I -- I don't know if anybody has noticed they're having a hard time making ends meet.

Comfortable to live comfortably is defined as the monthly income, needed to cover a 50/30/20 budget, which allocates 50 percent of your earnings for necessities like housing and utility costs, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and 20 percent for savings or investments.

STU: Wow. I don't think a lot of people are living like that.

GLENN: Nobody is living like that. Nobody is living like that.

STU: That -- but wait. Percent of what? If you're making $10 million. You know. What is it -- you don't need to have a 50/30/20 lifestyle to live comfortably, right?

GLENN: Right. Right.

They're saying this is the minimum. This is what it takes to, you know, live comfortably. In America.

STU: So -- this is not talking about -- I think Jeff Bezos is pretty good. I don't think he needs an article.

STU: You're saying, they're basically reverse engineering the number you need to hit that. Is that what you're saying?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right? Jeez.

STU: I was trying to understand.

GLENN: Here they are.

Most costly states: Massachusetts. $116,000.

STU: Hard-core conservative state.

GLENN: Hawaii. You'll see this a lot. Hawaii, 113.

STU: Another conservative -- red state.

GLENN: California, 113.

STU: Big red state there.

GLENN: New York, 111.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I'm rounding out the top. Topping out the top five is Washington State, with 106.

STU: Another big red state. That's amazing. So $100,000, and you cannot live comfortably.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That's incredible.

GLENN: Okay. Now, to live comfortably in these states, you need to earn double what most single earners typically make. The median income for a single full-time worker is around $60,000. The national median for living comfortably is $89,000.

So there's a shortage there.

STU: And those are statewide numbers to point out. It's a lot worse in these cities.

Like, there was a time. I don't know this is eight to ten years old now.

When I remember looking at this. They gave you these guide lines, what you need to earn to buy an average home in the market. In the market of San Francisco, the -- several of the players on the roster of the San Francisco giants, did not earn enough money, to buy the average home.

GLENN: It's crazy.

STU: In the market.

GLENN: So let me go through this. Alabama, to live comfortably, $83,000.

Alaska, $96,000.

And I don't know if that's ever -- I don't know if you're ever comfortable living in Alaska, unless you can change the climate completely.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

Arizona, $97,000. Arkansas, 79

STU: Gosh.

GLENN: California, 113. Colorado, 103. Connecticut, 100. Delaware, 94. Florida, 93.

Think of that. In Florida, it's 93. In Colorado, it's 100. Georgia, 96. Hawaii, 113. Idaho, 88. Illinois, 95. Indiana, 85. Iowa, 83. Kansas, 84. Kentucky, 80. Louisiana, 82. Maine, 91.

Why? Bear traps? Maryland.

STU: That's a northeast state.

GLENN: Maryland, 102. Massachusetts, 116. Michigan, 84. Minnesota, 89. Mississippi, 82. Missouri, 84. Montana, 84. Nebraska, 83.

STU: A lot of these -- these are like the bargain basement states. You are having $85,000 to live comfortably.

GLENN: I know. Yeah.

STU: That's just putting away some money for retirement. That's not living -- you're not flying private.

GLENN: I know. Yeah, but you're not living paycheck to paycheck. If you would live that way. If you would do 50/30/20.

STU: Right. Right.

GLENN: Nevada, 93.

Nobody does that. Do you know anybody who is young, that put 20 percent of their salary away for savings?

STU: Depends what you mean by young. As you're starting out, you're just trying to make it, pay your bills. As you get older, you're trying to put some money away.

GLENN: 20 percent?

STU: It's hard to do.

GLENN: Really hard to do. Nevada, 93.

STU: By the way, 50/20/30. What are the taxes on this one? This is post-tax revenue, I assume.

GLENN: Yeah. Where are the taxes?

STU: Another 30 is going to taxes. So which part of it are you taking out?

GLENN: That's why nobody saves. New Hampshire, 98. New Jersey, 103. To live in New Jersey. New Mexico, 83. New York, 111. North Carolina, 89. North Dakota, 52.

STU: North Dakota. This is -- this is hwy people go to the Dakotas, I suppose. It's --

GLENN: Is it worth Dakota, though? You don't even have the presidential thing on the mountain, that Dakota.

STU: That's true. Was that the Doug Burgum state?

GLENN: Yes, it is. Fifty-two.

STU: You got those eyebrows. They are kind of like -- on the Mount Rushmore of eyebrows. I don't know if that counts.

GLENN: Ohio, 80. Oklahoma, 80. Oregon, 101.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Pennsylvania, 91. Rhode Island, 100. Oh, my gosh, for Rhode Island!

South Carolina, 88. South Dakota, 81. Tennessee, 86. Texas, 87. Utah, 93. Vermont, 95.
Virginia, 99. Washington, 106. West Virginia, 78.
That's a state you could live in. Wisconsin, 84. Wyoming, 87.

Wow.

STU: First of all, the red and blue state is -- I don't know if it's perfect. It's darn close to perfect, as far as the difference is.

GLENN: It is. It is.

STU: You look at that, and you think -- it wasn't that long ago, that we would say, oh, my gosh, nap guy is earning six figures. Doing really well.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's just not even doing really well.

GLENN: No.

STU: It's the way you're supposed to plan for your future. And now you need to earn six figures, in most states. Or at least close to most states.

GLENN: And it's going to get worse. That's the problem. It will get worse.

How will companies be able to keep up with it? How is that going to happen?

GLENN: The presses.
STU: Yeah. But eventually, people can't afford to produce the products that people want, and people can't afford to buy the products that they need.

STU: I mean, you just recited the slogan for Bidenomics. That's exactly --

GLENN: Yes, I did. Starts bottom up. Bottom up. First people to be heard.

The bottom. And eventually, it's heard all the way up.

The -- in another remarkable story, the IMF has come out and said, that Biden has got to stop money.

Printing money, and spending money.

The International Monetary Fund, sounded the alarm on the Biden administration's rampant spending as, quote, out of line with what is needed for long-term fiscal stability.

STU: No!

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: What? It feels like it's right in line with the exact -- what you're supposed to do with each budget is spend trillions of dollars than you have.

I thought that's the way you're supposed to be fiscally responsible. What is the 50, 30, 20 number for the United States right now? It's like 80, 50, zero. Eighty, 50, negative 30. Right?

That's what we're doing. The savings is negative 30 percent of the budget. We're spending mandatories, like 80 percent of what we have. Then there's another 50 percent discretionary. It's insanity. And we're getting to the point very soon. Just the interest on the money already spent will be more than our entire defense budget.

GLENN: We will have to borrow over a trillion dollars a year, just for the interest.

STU: My God.

GLENN: I mean, this is unsustainable.

And I really don't understand, why more people can't see this.

STU: You keep seeing this word.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

What Would Happen if Israel RETALIATED Against Iran's Missile Attack?
RADIO

What Would Happen if Israel RETALIATED Against Iran's Missile Attack?

Iran’s attack against Israel made barely any impact (despite what Iran is telling its people). But will Israel strike back? It has the right to, and many Israeli leaders seem to want to, but SHOULD it? Glenn and Stu discuss whether it’s worth risking World War III, or whether Iran is too weak to do anything else.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So let's just recap what we know now, what happened over the weekend with the Iranian attack on Israel. First of all, the Iran state TV used footage from the Texas fire. Also, there was footage of One Direction.

STU: The band?

GLENN: The band. And it was Israelis, panicking while under attack while under missiles and drones. Unfortunately, it was just a throng of excited One Direction fans.

STU: Wow, the fact that those things look the same, may make you rethink things if you're a One Direction fan.

GLENN: It really does. They also use a picture of a forest fire in Chile. So, you know, they're running all kinds of lies. I don't know if their people understand that they really made no impact at all.

STU: I'm kind of -- look, I kind of hope -- this is weird. I kind of hope they are able to convince their people, that they made an impact.
Because maybe this will somewhat calm down.

GLENN: So the president boasted the attack had, quote, taught a lesson to the Zionist regime. They were chanting with their fists in the air, death to Israel. Death to America. Yay. And Hezbollah supporters were out in the streets, of southern Beirut, honking their horns and celebrating.

And they warned that Jordan would be the next target, if it took any measures in Israel's defense.

So everybody is just like holding back.

Except for Israel. Now, my goals may not be the same goals, as the Israelis. My interests are, let's not have any terrorism here in America.

And let's try to bring peace to the world.

Israel has played this game for so long. They're not going to sit back. At least the word we're getting from their -- their war committee, was that it was a brawl.

The defense minister stated yesterday, that Israel's confrontation with Iran is not over yet.

The public security minister demanded a crushing attack, against Iran. Another minister, declared Iran's audacity in such an attack, must be erased.

Meanwhile, Iran's mission to the UN said, should the Israeli regime make another mistake. Iran's response will be considerably more severe.

And warned the US to stay away. Okay. I don't know what they can do with their -- their missiles. Quite honestly.

I think it was embarrassing. If that were us, well, that would be us. Because Joe Biden is in charge. Maybe Joe Biden helped them with planning of this mission. But that were us. That would be humiliating.

Absolutely humiliating.

And, I mean, it's the -- wouldn't you say, it was the most lopsided thing you have seen, possibly ever? With the amount that they fought back?

STU: Yeah. It goes back to a couple of examples. The first gulf war.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Remember that.

GLENN: Except they fought back. And they did hit targets. This one hit -- they say three -- the outside is ten. That they hit ten -- that missiles hit ten things. They fired over 300.

STU: 300, right. The other one that comes to mind. The way we reacted in Afghanistan, when the Taliban started taking it over again. We kind of just all ran. And that -- that seemed -- that was embarrassing. I was embarrassing that way. The way I think Iran should be embarrassed this way. That's if their intent is to actually get a lot of damage. Look, we have an alternate theory. We talked about it yesterday.

They floated a bunch of flying lawn mowers over there. With 12 hours notice for a reason.

To say, hey. Shoot all these town.

We don't want to start an international war. If we don't do something in our country. Our people will overthrow us.

GLENN: So you're sitting in Israel.

And I say, Stu. What are you going to do? Now, you're an Israeli.

You're in the defense cabinet. And I say, what are you going to do?

Because the whole world hates us right now?

And if we retaliate, then we're in trouble. Should we just walk away and call this thing?

GLENN: Again, there's so much to weigh here. And I'm an idiot. But I will tell you, my initial instinct is, you have a free hall pass to --

GLENN: No. No. No. No. Your first impression is you're an to it. I just don't want that to get lost.

STU: The second impression was --

GLENN: The first one was, again --

STU: I'm an idiot. Number two. And I should not be making these decisions for any nation. We should be clear about that. That's not a good policy, because I'm an idiot.

GLENN: Sure. You're an idiot. You could work for the Biden administration.

STU: I will say, maybe I should leave the country. This one here, because it seems that's the path to success these days.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: But I will say, what my thought would be, is you have a free hall pass to do another Syria type of operation. Right?

You can -- of course, are justified. If I was an Israeli, you would be justified to launch at least 300 missiles towards Iran. You're justified morally to do so.

However, what I would like to do is tamp this down, so it doesn't inflame into something worse. If you were are to do something like they did in Syria. Where you took over some important, overseas. Not in Iran. Type of operation. That would actually benefit you.

Not like as a show of power or strength. If you're Israel, you don't need to do that. What you need to do is do something that would actually benefit you.

And I think it would be difficult for the world to be all that upset.

If you went and did another operation like that.

GLENN: I forgot.

I was going to say, no. No. No.

STU: That's a smart answer for an idiot.

GLENN: I forgot you were an idiot. It would be tough for the world to say.

You remember, you're a Jew here.

STU: Right. So they --

GLENN: They can say whatever they want.

STU: They can say whatever they want.

GLENN: They're always the pad guy.

STU: But there is a line.

The world wasn't overly outraged about the Syria operation in the first place.

Iran was.

And everyone was talking about what their response would be.

No one was like, oh, gosh. I can't believe they did that.

Some people did, of course.

Look, there was 150 countries, that voted not -- that voted to condemn Israel, over the whole Gaza situation.

And when given the opportunity, I think it was Austria, that proposed an amendment that said, hey. Shouldn't we condemn Hamas for October 7th in this thing?

Ask they voted no.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Of course, they said no to that.

At some level, you can't care at all, what some of these countries think.

They will just think, Jew equals bad.

But I think to not make this go over the top. And flame out of control.

And also, get and done, that you're completely justified for. And will benefit for your country.

If you can walk that line. If there's another target like that. That seems highly justified and appropriate.

What do you think? You're not an idiot, right? You're a doctor.

GLENN: I'm a doctor, so I'm not an idiot.

STU: Do you notice this? Does anyone in the audience, even notice he does this? He asks these tough questions, and he never gives his own answer. It's pathetic.

GLENN: Because I'm trying to move the show. I'm trying to move the show.

STU: Move the --

GLENN: See, you don't want me. You don't want me anywhere near the buttons of any -- for any country.

Because we would run out of missiles quickly.

Because I have -- I have a short attention span.

And I also have a short fuse. It would be like, hmm. They did what.

Yeah. Launch.

I would be over there, saying, the world is going to hate us, anyway. They're building a nuclear weapon supply.

We know now what they're capable of doing from the sky. That's great. But if they get a nuclear weapon over our border, any way, shape, or form.

Millions will die.

And we know they're serious. And the rest of the world, can say whatever they want. But take up out their nuclear facilities.

STU: In country.

GLENN: In country.

STU: Look, he's been wanting to do it for a long time. And I think that's entirely justified.

GLENN: He has to. He has to.

No one in the world will do it, until he ignites one of those things.

STU: That is true. It probably does extend this though, right?

That's the risk.

GLENN: Oh. It's going to --

STU: Netanyahu has been wanting to do this forever, and I think has been looking for an opening to do it.

GLENN: Justifiably so.

STU: Justifiably so. Again, I'm not being critical. If I were Israeli. I think probably I would be for a much more aggressive response.

GLENN: Enough is enough.

STU: But I'm not. And I'm -- I'm thinking more selfishly frankly as an American.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too. Me on top.

STU: I think that's appropriate for us to do. America first is a dumb sort of slogan, but also very true.

It's also misused by many factions over the years.

GLENN: Yeah. Correct.

STU: But, I mean, it is the appropriate priority list for the United States.

GLENN: If you're going to take care of somebody, you don't swamp the lifeboats. That is what we're doing with our border. We're swamping the lifeboats.

How had we help anybody, if we can't help ourselves?

How will we help anybody, if we're fighting terror here?

I don't want terror here. But we've already swamped the lifeboats with a whole bunch of terrorists, apparently that are already here.

But we're not doing anything about it. So my America first kind of has to go to, let Israel do what Israel cares to do.

They can handle it. They're big boys. They can handle it. We'll handle our thing over here.

Now, with that being said. I know that Iran will not let us get away with that.

Iran will immediately activity. They're already activating the people. Who do you think. Hamas is paid for by the Iranians. So when you're in New York City. And you're holding a Hamas flag, you are doing the bidding of the Iranians.

So they're already here. And it's coming. And I would like to delay it, quite honestly, as long as possible.

But, you know, let Israel be Israel.

By the way, we have a news from Israel's Channel 12 News. They carried a report, that the country's Air Force, which includes US-made 16s, fifteens, and F-35s are already gearing up to deliver a retaliatory counterstrike against Iran.

According to the report, the strike will be intended as a message that Israel will not allow an attack of that magnitude, to pass without reaction.

That's actually good. That's a good reaction from them. Because doesn't that sound limited?

I'm just looking for happy things.

Turning rocks. Oh, no. That's a friendly worm. That's a friendly bug.

The strike intended a message, Israel will not allow an attack of that magnitude, to pass without a reaction.