RADIOJune 14, 2022

This SCOTUS case could MASSIVELY alter far-left strategy

It’s decision time for the U.S. Supreme Court, with 29 opinions expected to be delivered from the SCOTUS justices in the next few weeks. No major decisions (like Roe v. Wade for example) have been announced yet, but there is one case that Glenn says could ‘change everything.’ Glenn and Stu discuss the climate change case that centers on the EPA’s authority, and they explain how it could drastically alter the far-left’s current strategy to use powerful, federal agencies to bypass Congress.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We are so glad you're here. It is Monday. And we have some Supreme Court hearings -- or, opinions come out. So far, nothing real controversial or real important. I mean, they're -- they're all important. It's just an honor to be nominated to be an opinion of the Supreme Court.

(laughter)

GLENN: But nothing that is controversial. That we know of. So far. Has the fourth one come down yet?

STU: Yeah. We have on an Alito opinion. Everybody get excited. It's in the Garland versus Gonzalez case. So not the Dobbs case, that would affect Roe vs. Wade. Which is kind of the Alito case we're looking for.

GLENN: So the Gonzalez case?

STU: Yeah. Huge one. So immigration law again.

GLENN: What was -- wait a minute. This was the immigration law one?

STU: Not the one about the remain in Mexico provision, which is one of the bigger cases that we're looking for in this session. However, it's not that one. We're getting multiple other unrelated immigration law decisions. Which, again, there's 29 of these. The American people, generally speaking, care -- care about maybe five or six of them. We talked about the abortion one. Which is obviously the biggest ticket. The gun -- the Second Amendment case, we talked about as well, which is another big ticket item. There's a big climate change one, decision that we expect here soon. Which is about whether the federal government. This is a big one. If you want to go back and listen to Glenn's interview with Mike Lee, you guys probably hit on this, certainly concept. I do remember that. But I don't know if you mentioned this one specifically. But basically, the idea is, do these administrative agencies get to make up all of these rules, or does Congress have to do it? And, of course, Congress has to do it. We've just developed this new policy, to say, what if Congress makes the decision? And they say, our decision is that the administrative hedge to make all these decisions for us. And that's the way our countries run right now.

GLENN: This is game-changing. If the Supreme Court comes out, it's my understanding, you know, we should have Mike Lee on every day this week. Just have him in reserve just in case. But it's my understanding that if the Supreme Court says they can't just fiddle with this. That laws have to be made by Congress. And I don't know how the constitutional Supreme Court wouldn't find that, seeing as though it actually says in the Constitution, those words. That Congress makes the laws. Not the administration. If that happens. That changes everything. Really, truly, everything.

STU: Yeah. It's like, you know, if somebody said -- you know, our overlords said, Stu, you have to make a decision. And I said, I will make the decision. And my decision is Glenn should decide. That is obviously not the --

GLENN: I've been in meetings. I believe I've been in meetings, where that has been happened.

STU: We're not -- we're not affected by the Constitution at this company. I can do whatever I want.

GLENN: We're not. Stu, I need a decision from you. My decision is, Glenn, that you are to make that decision. Oh, thank you. Okay. Good.

STU: I just learned from the government. But that's obviously a problem. And when it comes to climate in this particular case, it's about whether these administrations. Like the EPA can put all these restrictions on power plants, in -- en masse. Like, basically, oh, all these power plants have all this rule. Instead of actually regulating each individual one. This would be a huge knock in the way leftist activists would make changes based on their climate change theories. So that is a big one.

GLENN: And it -- yeah. It also would go to, for instance, can the CDC. Was it the CDC that just said, everybody has to wear masks. No. You don't have the right to do that. You don't make those kinds of laws. Was it the CDC? Or, which one?

STU: Technically, they didn't say that. They had a recommendation that said that. Because we are protected. Because we have a structure of government, that protects us from agencies making those sorts of regulations on their own. They can't just put a national regulation to enforce masks. If you go back and look at the details. Even of the shutdowns, Glenn. I mean, the shutdowns -- everybody remembers a shutdown as this big federal shutdown. They remember Donald Trump in front of the country saying, 15 days to slow the spread. Everybody remembers that press conference. But at no point, was there of law behind every state you need to shut down. And you remember states like -- like South Dakota. And Iowa. Not doing it. They didn't -- they didn't do that. A lot of people decided to stay home, on their own. But there was not a nationwide shutdown at any point during the pandemic. That actually didn't happen. And so that's because of the structure of our country. Right? That is foundational to why we've been a success. Because these states are able to do different things, whether we like them or not. And so the left would love this to be centralized. They just, of course, don't have that right.

GLENN: If you remember, however, when it comes to Obamacare, do you remember reading that? Because that's the one bill where I think we all read all 3,000 pages or whatever. Oh, my gosh. And do you remember how many times almost on every page, it said, the secretary shall make the laws or the rulings on X, Y, and Z.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the reason why Congress has done this, is because they want to go, it's not us. It's not us. We didn't make that law. I don't have any control over that law. And our Founders -- the one thing they did miss is they thought that human beings, because this is the way it normally works. Human beings would claw for power. And so they think and broke the powers up, between these three branches. Thinking, that they would never give away their power to the Supreme Court. Or to the administration. The administration would never give it to Congress or the Supreme Court. But they're all such weasels, that they don't want to actually do anything. They don't want to make any hard decisions. And so they're all like, yeah. Let some faceless, nameless bureaucrat, that's never been elected to dogcatcher. Let him make the decision. That way, we can go, I don't know who made that decision. That's weird. We didn't make it. It was somebody in the EPA. You'll never know their name. Okay. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

STU: Yeah. No. It's not. You're supposed to be able to hold people accountable for the terrible things that they do. This is something the government does all the time. Unfortunately, no matter what this ruling is, it will not unwind all that craziness. It will at least limit the environmental activist sort of agenda, on this approach. And that would -- that would be certainly positive. It does look like, we will not get the huge, big ticket cases, today.

GLENN: I wouldn't think we would.

STU: Yeah. It would have been very surprising, if we did get that. It does not look like -- it looks like there will be one more coming down. But it will not be one of the big ones. So I think we'll get more decisions on Wednesday this week. Who honestly would know though?

GLENN: Yeah. We do.

STU: I feel like they changed these rules every ten seconds. As you point out, in the case of Obamacare, which also broke in the middle of the show. Every news agency, reported that wrong, when that happened. If you were listening to any radio show. Any news broadcast. You thought initially Obamacare was completely overturned. And I -- we were the only ones who actually got that right when it happened. Because everybody was --

GLENN: We were like, wait a minute. Hold on just a second.

STU: Yeah. They skipped to the bottom. And looked at the names. And were like, okay. It must be this. And we went through that, as quick as possible, live on the air. And say, wait a minute. That's not what this says. Everybody is reporting, it got overturned. It didn't. The Medicare point of that, was kind of a false, you know, was a juke to one side. And everyone bought that. And wound up flat on their face that day.

GLENN: Well, also, I think we learned our lesson. If John Roberts wrote the decision. It doesn't mean it went for the conservatives. You better spend a lot of time, looking at every word, that he wrote. I just made the same mistake, kind of. I said, oh, it's Amy Coney Barrett. And so it must be for the -- the -- the conservatives. That's not always true. And that's what people do real quick, while they're on the air, like I did. But hopefully, she's pretty solid. John Roberts, I -- I mean, he's even -- is he anything other than a politician, at this point? I wouldn't call him a liberal. I wouldn't call him a conservative. I would call him a politician.

STU: It seems to be what he sees his job as. He sees his job as head PR operative for the Supreme Court. Like, how do we make people like us more? How do we keep our reputation strong? Well, how about just looking at the damn Constitution, and making an honest decision.

GLENN: Right. During the podcast with Mike Lee. We talked about that. And he said, John Roberts is a direct product of the FDR packing the courts. He said, the chief justice at the time, that was a constitutionalist. And was voting for the Constitution, he said, he suddenly started voting with the administration. And he was doing it, because he didn't want anymore attacks on the Supreme Court. He thought that that would hurt things. And that is exactly what, you know, he -- John Roberts is a legacy. He is sitting as the guy running the Supreme Court. And he feels his job is to make sure that nobody attacks the institution even more. And I will tell you, the way to get attacked, the way to discredit the institution, is to start veering from your path constitutionally. And that was the really big problem with -- with Obamacare's decision. He actually rewrote the law from the bench. The -- the best that the Supreme Court can do, is say, look, this is wrong. And if it was written this way, it wouldn't be. And then send it back to Congress. Basically telling them, wink, wink, nod, nod. You know, we -- we -- we can't pass this. But you can change this, this, and this. It's like, you know, you're turning in a test paper, and the teacher says, yeah. You know, if you just would have answer this had way on this question, this question, and this question. You would have had an A. You know, if you want to resubmit it, you could. That's what John Roberts did. No. I'm sorry. That's usually what they will do. John Roberts actually just changed the answers on the test. He just changed the law, and rewrote it. Absolutely unconstitutional. All right. Back in just a second, with more.

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

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.

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

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.