RADIOJune 22, 2022

White House TARGETS ammunition sales with ‘INSIDIOUS’ plan

Thanks to a recent report from The Federalist, we now know of an ‘insidious’ White House plan to significantly alter commercial sales of ammunition. But not only would this plot skyrocket the price of ammunition for everyday consumers, but it could create a national security risk by limiting one factory’s ability to produce for the military under war-time demand as well. Larry Keane, from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, joins Glenn to detail this White House move, and he explains how he knows the government is LYING about it too.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There was a story, I think it was last week in the Federalist. And we saw it. And we began to do our own homework on it. Because it was very, very disturbing. And it came out of the Federalist. While Democrats claimed to engage in talks on bipartisan gun legislation in good faith, the White House is behind the scenes, trying to shut down nationwide ammunition sales. In northwestern Missouri, major government-owned ammunition plant is now facing closure, as the Biden administration escalates its war on American gun owners. The Lake City ammunition factory is one of the largest manufacturers of -- of 556 and 223 ammunition, which is the most popular caliber for the most targeted firearm in the country, the AR-15. In operation since 1941 to produce ammunition for the U.S. Army. The government contracts with the private firm, Winchester, to run the enterprise. And sell any excess supplies to the open market. So here's what happened: Winchester called them. I'm sorry. The government called Winchester. Apparently, allegedly. And said, you know, you've got a cute little business going on here. And it would be horrible for something to happen to that business. You know what I'm saying? So what I would like you to do is maybe -- maybe stop selling the 30 percent of the ammunition, to the private market. And Winchester said, most likely, well, if we do that, then if there's a war, we can't ramp up to be able to make more ammunition for the war machine. I don't think you heard me. You're going to stop selling that ammunition. Now, celebrity voices are impersonated in this scenario. But I think that's pretty much what happened there. Otherwise, maybe we find somebody else to make our ammunition. You know what I'm saying?
So public/private partnerships always work out so very well. So we started doing our homework. It looks like Susan Rice was involved in this. But, again, nobody is talking because they're all afraid of their legs being broken. One group, that we have spoke to, that knows the situation. Very well. Is the national shooting sports foundation. And we have Larry Keen on with us. Hello, Larry. How are you?
LARRY: Good to be with you, Glenn. How are you?
GLENN: Very good. Very good. So, you know, I know -- I know it wasn't quite as mob-like. Perhaps with Susan Rice involved. Maybe it was more. But can you tell me, is the just of what I just said correct?
LARRY: Basically, yes. Winchester was contacted by the army. That runs or owns the Lake City amnesty facility. That Winchester runs under our contract. And they were told that the army is considering issuing a policy edict, which Winchester would no longer be able to sell into the commercial market. Excess ammunition. Above the needs of the military. To the commercial market. Which it counts for -- between 30 and 40 percent of the market for 556 ammunition. Which is the caliber most commonly chambered for modern sporting rifles, including AR-15.
GLENN: That's crazy.
LARRY: So that's going into effect on the commercial market for gun owners, as well as to harm national security and military preparedness.
GLENN: So there's a couple of things here. First of all, let's talk about the commercial side. The commercial side. You dropped 30 to 40 percent. Your price. I've read your price of ammunition would go up three to four times. Is that true?
LARRY: Obviously, you know, economics being supply and demand. If you cut the supply, there's already strain by 30-plus percent. It's going to have a significant impact on a price in the commercial market. For sure. It's also going to have an impact on what the military pays for ammunition, manufactured at the Lake City facility. Because the cost -- the economics of running that business, for Winchester would change dramatically.
GLENN: So the other -- the other part of this is for the military, not just in cost. But the reason why, if I'm not mistaken. The reason why Winchester has that 30 percent, and they make 30 or 40 percent of the commercial market. Is so they have the staff, in case there's ever a major war. They have the staff. They don't have to ramp up. They can just shift all of that over to the military, immediately. So we have enough adjust to be able to fight a war. Is that true?
LARRY: That's precisely correct. And if they can't sell us to the commercial market, those employees are gone. Our production capacity is gone. In a surgery situation. Let's say hypothetically, we were engaged in a shooting war, with an adversary like Russia or China or something. The ability to Winchester to meet that surge and demand would not exist. You would not be able to meet that need. Whereas, now they can. They can simply shift that production to commercial market, to the priority of meeting the needs of the war fighter. So that ability is gone, and we can't meet surge and demands. And the price that the military pays for the ammunition they get now, even in a non-surge situation, would go up considerably. And the salience of the commercial market, also helps to fund capital expenditures. At the Lake City facility. So it's not just that Winchester sells that ammunition in the commercial market. They -- they also are putting money back into the POD, to -- for capital improvements. Capital expenditures at Lake City. So that it is paid and can meet surge demand for the military.
GLENN: So as this was revealed last week, we had some congressmen start to write some letters to the White House. Some press started to sniff around, at least on the right side. We started to sniff around. And immediately, the gates are closed to the White House. And they say, this is -- and I want to quote them here. The reports on a possible ban are way off. Uh-huh.
Do you believe that?
LARRY: The person making that is either woefully uninformed of the facts, because there was a meeting at the highest levels of the military on Friday. To discuss this very issue. Or, they are not being truthful. But it -- it happened. It is happening. And there is a letter from 50 House members that has gone to the White House yesterday, led by Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, in whose district the Lake City facility is located. And Senator Blunt's office from Missouri has been engaged in this issue as well. So in 2015, the Obama administration tried to ban this ammunition, under this incorrect legal feeling that it was somehow armor-piercing ammunition. It is not by definition, armor-piercing ammunition.
GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Hold on just a second. Because that's really important. Because I just read another story today. That said, this is armor-piercing ammunition. Now, you say by definition, it's not. What does that mean?
LARRY: Go look up the gun control act. Section 921. And you can find the definition for armored-piercing ammunition. And if you look at this M85532 ammunition, it does is not meet the definition of armor-piercing ammunition. It is not by law, armor-piercing ammunition. So the Obama administration's effort in 2015, to somehow declare an armored-piercing ammunition was withdrawn. And when this was a reaction by Congress, and there were over 300,000 comments. Public comments to a notice that ATF had put out. They backed off. Unable to make it illegal. The Biden administration now is trying to make it unavailable. This is all because they can't pass a ban on modern sports rifles. So if you can't -- ban the ammunition.
GLENN: Without burning any bridges here, because I think it's very important that we know the truth. And I certainly don't want to cause any trouble. How do we know your information is accurate? How do we know the White House is lying here?
LARRY: We have had direct conversations with officials at Winchester. And we've had conversations with staff and Senator Blunt and Congresswoman Hartzler's office. So this is, in fact, happening. And they may have decided, they've been caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. But for them to say, it was never under consideration. Again, either the person making that statement is woefully uninformed of the true facts, or is misleading the public.
GLENN: Another way of saying that is lying. The White House has been lying about many things they continue to say. Things are conspiracy theories. Or they're -- or inaccurate. And then all of a sudden, what do you know? It turns out to be true. Has this stopped? Do you know? Is the pressure off of -- of Winchester? Is this not going through now that they've been nabbed?
LARRY: We have not been informed, that -- that this -- this definitively has been withdrawn, and is no longer being considered. But this -- you know, this is not the first time we've seen an effort by first Obama. Now Biden. To ban this ammunition. To make it unavailable. So we are going to continue to pursue this issue. To ensure that this is not -- no longer a recurring problem. And that -- that whoever holds the contract, for the Lake City facility, has the right to sell this excess ammunition, into the commercial market. Because, again, it's necessary for military preparedness. It's important for the taxpayer. And it helps to fund capital expenditures, at the facility. And it's important obviously for Second Amendment rights, for the exercise.
GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. Larry, is there anything the public can do?
LARRY: They should contact their elected representatives in Washington. Their congressmen. And their representatives. And insist that this issue be fixed once and for all. So we don't have to visit it every couple of years.
GLENN: And how do we fix it once and for all?
LARRY: We make it clear in statute, that whoever holds that contract has the right to sell this excess ammunition in the commercial market for the reasons we've just talked about.
GLENN: Okay. Thank you so much. Larry, I appreciate it.
I appreciate everything that you guys are doing, keeping our second amendment right safe. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll stay in touch. That's Larry King. He's from the national shooting sports foundation about the Missouri ammunition plant that the Biden administration is trying to curtail, which would cut off a third to 40 percent of the 223 and 556 ammunition, which is the ammunition used by modern sporting rifles.
All right. Our sponsor this half-hour is Relief Factor. Brian wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor. He said, I was suffering with a ton of shoulder pain. And I actually thought, I should have surgery on it. But decided, before I do that, I'll try Relief Factor. Well, he said, the pain literally went away within the first three takes. Brian, that is great news.
Taking Relief Factor will relieve so much pain. I've been on it, for several years now, and I used to be in the kind of pain that I'm in today. Because I'm up in the high altitude. And it's very cold up in the mountains. And I haven't had this pain for quite some time. And very rarely does the pain break through, with Relief Factor.
I used to be in this kind of pain. I couldn't paint. I couldn't use my hands when I was like this, all the time. It's been years since I have felt like this.
And I think it's just the season up here. Anyway, Relief Factor, it works. It works for me. It gave me my life back. I kind of forgot what it was like to live with pain all the time. ReliefFactor.com. Call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief.It's relieffactor.com. Ten-second station ID.(music)Welcome to the program. Stu Burguiere, our executive producer. I find this story that's coming out of Missouri to be really insidious. Again, the president said yesterday, he was talking about gun control. And he said, there's many ways to skin a cat. And believe me, they're going to use every way to skin a cat. Here's the one thing that the Democrats are very good at, that the Republicans suck at. And that is, while they're not in power, they are making plans. And the plans that were being laid before Biden won the White House, and we know because we reported. They were open about it. And we reported on it. They had committees, getting together, to find out, to look at all of the cabinet positions, and to see what instruments they had, or could be construed as having, that they could turn those levels, and change the way of our life, without going to Congress. This is one of them. And, you know, if the White House wants us to believe that they're not doing this. You know, it's -- it's a bridge too far. Because you would have to ask yourself, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you be doing this? This is what ESG is all about. Why wouldn't you be shutting down the things -- the -- all of the funding, to things that affect global warning, or things that help guns. On the street.
Of course, you would. If that's the way you're operating, through an administrative arm, why wouldn't you be doing it? Of course, they're doing it. Of course, they are. And it's very, very dangerous.
STU: Yeah. There's an interview with Chris Murphy, the guy who is negotiating the bipartisan gun control bill. And it was with the New York Times. So it was arguing -- the Times was basically saying, wait. You're not getting enough here. You're not getting enough here. You need to get more. And his position was, look, what we need to do is pass this even if it's not the best bill in the world. Because the goal of this is not just to save lives. But it's also to convince Republicans that the sky do fall on them politically, if this thing passes.
We just need to show them, that if they go along with some of this. They're not going to get punished, like they think they will. They're always scared of the sky falling. We need to show them that the sky won't fall. So it's really up to us. To make sure if something like this passes, to remind the Republicans that, yes. The sky will fall, if you do something like this. It will. And we need to make sure it does.
GLENN: Besides Cornyn, who is -- because, I mean, the phone should light up at Senator Cornyn's office. If you're in Texas. Can you give me the names of all the people that are involved in this, on the Republican side? Because the sky needs to fall in on them right now right now. It needs to fall in.
STU: Yeah. So four of them I think are retiring. The other six are not up for election this year.
GLENN: What cowards. What cowards.
STU: And, honestly, you would trade -- I would trade nine of these senators for one toasted cheddar Chalupa from -- from Taco Bell. Only one who has been any value in the group of ten is Pat Toomey, who has always been a pretty good senator with one exception, which has been guns. Other than that, he's been pretty good, but the other nine are just, you know, garbage.
GLENN: I think that -- I think that you're asking too much to trade. All of those senators.
STU: One Chalupa?
GLENN: No. I don't think so. I mean, stop being unreasonable. We're negotiating here.

Dershowitz: Joe Biden Made a HUGE MISTAKE Pardoning Hunter

President Biden may have thought that issuing a blanket pardon for his son Hunter Biden would end any investigations into his or his family’s crimes. But attorney Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn that it may have actually done the opposite. Dershowitz explains how Hunter can still be questioned and the truth unearthed. He also weighs in on the acquittal of Daniel Penny, which he believes was the correct ruling in a case that should never have been tried.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So probably -- well, he's definitely the most famous lawyer, of my lifetime.

And I think, the most important lawyer, in my lifetime, maybe in the last 100 years.

Alan Dershowitz.

He's a Harvard Law school professor, emeritus. He's also the host of his podcast, the Dershow.

And we wanted to get him on, to talk a little bit about Daniel Penny and a few other things.

Hello, Alan. How are you?

ALAN: First of all, will you send my very best to Senator Lee. His father and I were co-clerks together, 60 years ago, in the Supreme Court. And we had launch together every day. Why?

Why? Because he was a Mormon and couldn't have coffee, and I was an Orthodox Jew. And couldn't have almost anything. So we set the table.

And we were -- and we would schmooze and talk about everything.

And his father, you know, Rex, who was the solicited general, was a great, great man. And I think Senator Lee is a great man too.

And I hope he plays a major, major role, in the coming administration.

GLENN: I tell you, I hope he becomes a Supreme Court justice.

I -- I -- I think he truly cares about what the Founders meant and about the Constitution.

I mean, everything he does, it's all based in the Constitution. I will definitely pass it on.

ALAN: Yep. And it's based on his father. I can tell you that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

His father was an amazing constitutional scholar. The dean of Brigham Young Law School.

You know, the guy was -- he would have been the greatest Supreme Court justice. Unfortunately, he died very young.

So, Alan, first of all, how have you been?

I know -- I think you came out and said, you couldn't vote for Joe Biden.

I know things got really ugly for you. Have things gotten better at all for you?

ALAN: Well, I'm in Florida now. Everybody loves me in Florida. As long as I'm in Martha's vineyard, I'm doing great.

You know, my hat is split. Half the people come up to me, yell and scream at me.

And half the people come up to me and tell me how much they admire me. I wear a hat in New York saying, proud American Zionist.

And --

GLENN: Wow.

ALAN: And, you know, I get people talk to me about that, as well.

So, you know, when people come up to me and say, I hate you. I never know. Is it for Trump? Is it for Israel?

Is it for who I represent?

I never know.

GLENN: I love that. I love that.

ALAN: That's what happens when you're a controversial lawyer.

GLENN: Yeah. So let's start with Daniel Penny.

ALAN: Before you do that. I want to wait. After I get off the air. I want to hear you defend Black Lives Matter.

I don't know if you heard yesterday, the head of Black Lives Matter. Turned to penny in the courtroom, and said, hey, buddy. This is a small world.

And then he went outside. And he talked about strangling people. And being violent.

I'm not such a big fan of Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: So I'm not a fan of -- I can't defend what he said, personally.

To Daniel Penny?

But when he said, what would happen -- you know, they -- there's no justice. No peace.

What would happen, maybe we should start, you know, killing people every time they oppress us.

I believe that's constitutionally protected speech.

It's ugly. It's awful.

But what is that -- that test called?

Stu.

STU: The Brandenburg.

GLENN: The Brandenburg.

ALAN: Look, I agree with you. But he said it in front of a crowd of people. That were surrounding white people.

Then it would be an incitement. But if he said it in the abstract. In an interview. It's just despicable and disgusting.

It reminds me of what you Justice Brennan once said.

Justice Brennan wrote an opinion saying, that the Constitution protected to burn the American flag.

And he was -- what would you do, if you saw somebody burning an American flag, and Justice Brennan, who was about five-three tall. Said, I would walk up to him, and I would punch him in the mouth. And then I would defend his Constitutional rights.

GLENN: So that is -- so let me ask you. Because we've had a debate here. Before we went on the air, where I told Stu. I said, I think I'm going to use this as an example.

Because people, they always say, oh, you know.

Speech has limits. And, you know, you can't cry fire in a crowded.

Yes, you can!

Unless it leads to, you know, a stampede.

ALAN: Or is likely. Is likely. It doesn't to have lead. But it's likely to lead.

No, I think you're right. And I think you're right also from a conservative point of view, to be defending free speech for all. We can't live in a world in which it's free speech for me. But not for thee.

GLENN: Exactly right.

ALAN: I defended the right of Palestinian kids to put up a flag -- Palestinian flag to commemorate the death of Yasser Arafat.

And then when they put up the flag, I defended them. And I got them to be able to put up the flag. I hated that.

And then I got up there and I said, well, Yasser Arafat died.

It was too late. If he only died four years earlier, there might have been a resolution in the Middle East.

So I'm with you on the very expansive view of free speech.

GLENN: Yeah. Do you think we're moving -- I -- sense a shift, that maybe some of this craziness, is -- we're waking up to it. Do you feel that way?

ALAN: I wish you were right. I hope you're right.

Not on the left. The left is so goddamned self-righteous. They think that free speech.

Due process. The right to counsel was written for them.

They have Harvard law school, defending them.

Try believing the Constitution. It was written to promote the Democratic Party.

And every constitutional issue he's involved in. You know what his position is going to be.

Is it good for the Democrats?

If it's good for the Democrats. If it's good for the left. For the radicals.

And the constitutional Framers and candidates.

And fits bad for them. No. We can't have that for the constitutional law.

I don't think we're gaining any ground.

But the university campuses -- but I think we're gaining ground in the general public.

Now, I think maybe the Penny result shows that.

GLENN: Yeah.

RICHARD: I think Penny -- I think the case in Minneapolis, might have been decided a little differently today than it was years ago, when he was convicted and still is in jail.

I was thrilled by the -- by the verdict in the -- in the Penny case. And I think it sends a powerful message. I also think that the hung jury, you know, I thought the hung jury might have been six-six, five-seven. But obviously, the quick verdict on Monday morning, suggests that the hung miss on Friday, was probably ten to two or 11 to one in favor of acquittal. So that I think -- you know, look, that case should have never been brought. And the district attorney should not be the district attorney.

He should be defeated. He, not only brought this case. He brought that made up case against Donald Trump. And now he wants to prevent Donald Trump from appealing, by saying, well, we'll put the sentence off for four years.

We will hold the sort of Damocles over your head for four years.

I'm going to able to campaign for office, saying, I've got a conviction against Donald Trump. And he didn't get it reversed on appeal.

And I think it's -- it's disgusting. He's the worst districting district attorney in my lifetime in New York history.

And, remember, that's an office that had -- that had -- that had -- and now it has Alvin Bragg! Oh, my God. It's a disgrace.

GLENN: So let me ask you. Because we were talking about what he did on Friday. And what the judge allowed.

You have to have -- if you have a hung jury, on the first count.

You can't move to the second count.

It's a hung jury, and you have to have a retrial, right?

It's a mistrial.

ALAN: Unless, the defense asks to you consent for it.

Which often happens. But it didn't happen in this case.

So he dismissed the higher count. And allowed the jury to deliberate the lower count.

Look, in the end, that was good for Penny. Because there's double jeopardy there. You can't be tried on either counts. Because the first count was dismissed. To have

It wasn't hung. It was dismissed.

And that means it was jeopardy, and the second it was an acquittal.

So he's free. It's a civil lawsuit against him. But he will win that civil lawsuit. It will probably never get past the motion to dismiss because the person bringing it, it wasn't a father who had nothing to do with the son. He had no relationship with the son.

He became the father only after the killing. In order to gain publicity from it.

GLENN: So he has basically no standing. Is that what you're saying?

ALAN: I don't think he has a real standing to bring the lawsuit. And what's his damages?

You know, it's very hard to figure out, what they are.

And more over, a jury found, that there was no causation of death.

There was justification.

So I -- I don't think that the lawyer is interested in the money.

Or even a publicity at this point. Are going to want to bring that case forward.

I think it will be dropped. It's not like a DOJ case. Where clearly there was a strong civil case after he was acquitted.

And he won the civil case, although he didn't collect any money.

GLENN: Let me switch to politics here.

There are things. Like, I believe Anthony Fauci should be investigated. They've already investigated him in Congress.

But it should go through a court of law. And if he's found to have done the things that we now believe he did.

There should be some sort of penalty for him. And anybody else that was involved.

I don't care, right, left, Republican, Democrat.

We can allow this kind of stuff to happen.

Now, Biden is -- they suspect. So we're just speculating here. That he may pardon him in advance.

Is that even possible?

Before you're charged.

ALAN: Where a connection was pardoned. Not only before he was charged. But before there was any criminal investigation.

He was charged -- he was pardoned.

And the pardon power, as you said in your introduction.

Why don't we have a kingly pardon power?

It's the only residents of the British rule over the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

ALAN: There's nothing else in the Constitution, which so emulates the absolute power of kings, than the power to pardon and commute. It's without restrictions.

And it's without the need to explain.

And, by the way, you don't even need a document. As soon as President Biden said, I pardon my son, that act was completed.

And, by the way, you don't have to accept the pardon. Even if you reject the pardon.

And, by the way, there are some people who have already said, that if Trump pardons me, or if Biden pardons me, I will reject the pardon. Because a pardon makes it sound like I did something wrong.

GLENN: Wrong. Yeah.

RICHARD: The Supreme Court under Oliver Wendell Holmes in about 1926, rendered a decision, in a case called Bittle versus Petrovic (phonetic).

Which said, you can't reject the pardon. The pardon is an act of government. It's like immunity. If you're given immunity, you can't reject immunity. You have to testify, if you're given immunity. If you're given a pardon, you also have to testify.

I think Biden made a big mistake by pardoning his son.

He should have commuted his sentence. By pardoning the son. He opens the son up to asking any question at all.

About his criminal background. And his association with anything else.

Including his father.

Whereas, if he gave only a commutation of the sentence, it would mean he doesn't go to jail for a single day, but still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.

So I think it's a blunder on the part of President Biden who is a lawyer, but didn't understand the consequences of a pardon.

As distinguished of the consequences of a computation.

GLENN: Do you think anybody is going to go after him though?

Because there's nothing politically to gain.

I think this is extraordinarily important on principle.

We cannot have people selling the power of the office.

RICHARD: Look, I agree with you.

And it's been part of politics for a long, long time.

I have to tell you, I think Trump has a warm spot in his heart for the Biden family.

He showed some sympathy. For Hunter Biden.

For his addiction. For all of that.

I don't think he will try too pile on. Now, you know, whether or not traditional committees -- get the choice of being held in contempt or perjury.

That's a different question. But I don't think Trump will do it. I think he's going to move on.

He wants to have a great four years. I want him to have a great four years.

You know, I'm not a Republican. But I'm a patriarch. I want to see every American president succeed. I have helped every American president. I have consulted and advised them since Jimmy Carter.

And I will then continue to do it. Any president that asks for my help, done. I'm giving it.

GLENN: That's the way it should be. Thank you so much, Alvin. I really appreciate it your friendship. And it's an honor to know you.

Really is. To have you on the program.

ALAN: Well, you're a great man.

And it's great to have a conservative who so believes in the Constitution and free speech.

And, again, send my best to Senator Lee. He's a great man.

GLENN: I sure will. I will. Thanks.

Alan Dershowitz. You can find him on the Dershow. The website is Dersh.Substack.com.

NBC News Leaves Out CRITICAL Context in Trump Interview

President-elect Donald Trump recently sat down with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” for his first sit-down interview since winning the 2024 election. Glenn and Stu review his statement on birthright citizenship and the CRITICAL context that interviewer Kristen Welker left out: The 14th Amendment doesn’t say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens.” The real quote includes a major qualifier that could allow Trump to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants without having to change the Constitution. Plus, Glenn and Stu review Trump’s comments on the war between Ukraine and Russia.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. And welcome to Stu Burguiere.

STU: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You're welcome, Stu.

STU: And Donald Trump went on Meet The Press this weekend. This is what you're supposed to do if you're --

GLENN: Is it?

STU: Yeah, apparently so.

We're supposed to just reflexively go to NBC News whenever --

GLENN: Those days are over.

STU: Well, I thought they were too.

GLENN: Well, he has to do them.

STU: Well, does he? Does he have to do them?

GLENN: Yeah, I think he should do a little of everything.

You know what I mean? I think you shouldn't just go to podcasts. It's what Barack Obama did.

Remember? And he was doing interviews with -- who was that woman in the bathtub? And you're like, okay. This is ridiculous.

You don't have to do the bathtub one. But I think you should -- you should go on places, where you know --

STU: It's adversarial.

GLENN: It's adversarial. You won't get a good interview.

I think that's required as president.

STU: I agree with that. I --

GLENN: As president. Not necessarily as a --

STU: Even as a candidate, I think it's something you should do.

I mean, I think Kamala Harris shouldn't have done an adversarial interview at the campaign at some point, which she did not do.

GLENN: She didn't do interviews.

STU: In fact, she wasn't doing anything for a very long time.

And they switched strategies. And it did not help. In fact, it went the opposite direction.

I do wonder, there's the alternate world, what that election would have looked like, if she just continued to do nothing.

I think it would have been closer. I think if she never did an interview, it would have been closer.

GLENN: I think you're right on that.

I think you're right. The more she spoke.

The more you're like, oh, dear God, no.

STU: Don't do that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because I think they correctly realized that there were a certain amount of people, who were very worried about a candidate that couldn't do an interview.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Right?

So they tried to solve that, by doing interviews.

And what they should have done was let those people go. Realize, they're not going to vote for you, and hope.

GLENN: Has anybody noticed.

And I am biased because I've been talking to him, off-air.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And watching him talk to a lot of people, you know, without cameras around.

And his -- his grasp on deep subjects, has changed a great deal. Have you noticed Donald Trump in interviews is not the same guy he was in 2020?

STU: Yeah. I think that's true.

He certainly seems to be more focused and has a real plan, as to what he's going to do. As we know it's directly project 2025. Which he commissioned. We should remember, of course. Yeah. No.

It does seem like, you made the description.

I think it was last week, which it has been sticking with me.

Which, after 2020, he spent four years, thinking, this isn't going to happen to me again.

Like, I'm going to make sure these things -- if I get a president -- if I'm able to become president again. I'm not going to be able to be hit by all of these --

GLENN: I won't be surprised ever again.

STU: Right. It seems like he's coming in, ready for this.

GLENN: Yeah. He's ready.

The other thing that has happened to him. That I think has cut down on his slams and everything else.

I mean, he still does.

You'll notice he's not as crazy on things. And I think that's --

STU: What do you mean not as crazy on things? Just not as worried about --

GLENN: You know, name-calling. You know what I mean?

He's not like that, as much.

Because I think he -- this is just my speculation.

Put yourself in his shoes.

In 2014, everybody on both sides, loved him.

Right?

Maybe not as the president. But they -- they loved him.

STU: As a celebrity.

He was a big celebrity.

GLENN: And he's a great guy. A philanthropist.

He's done so much.

And then he gets in, and everybody that -- that were his friends.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That knew him, and knew what he was like. They all of a sudden, turned on him.

And I think that just took him by absolute surprise.

And he just kept -- he had to keep punching and punching and punching.

And I think now, a couple of things have happened. One, he just stopped caring. Because you -- you do care. No matter what anybody says, you do care.

He stopped caring. And then I think when he was shot, I think he found his purpose. And I also think in the following months, he kind of became cool again.

He became the guy who could go on Saturday Night Live, and make fun of himself.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? And everybody would accept him.

He became kind of mainstream again.

So I don't think he feels that he has to punch anymore.

STU: Hmm. That's interesting. Yeah. I -- I have noticed a difference in him. I think getting shot. No matter what that is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. That was critical. That was critical.

STU: It was.

GLENN: It has to change.

STU: Yeah. It has to change. So he's going into this with a real plan.

One part of this plan, this will be clip four. Is his plan to end birthright citizenship.

This is -- obviously, highly controversial. Many people on the left, do not like it at all.

They asked him about it, on meet The Press. Was it Wexler?

Christine Wexler.

GLENN: Yeah. Somebody who you've never heard of.

Because everybody you've heard of, has no credibility.
STU: There you go.

VOICE: You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one, is that still your plan?

VOICE: Yeah, absolutely.

VOICE: The Fourteenth Amendment says, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the Fourteenth Amendment, with an executive action?

DONALD: We maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. We're the only county that has it. You know we're the only country that has it.

Do you know, if somebody sets a foot, just a foot. One foot. You don't need two. On our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.

Yes, we're going to end that because it's ridiculous.

VOICE: Through executive action?

DONALD: Well, if we can through executive action, I was going to -- we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you. We have to end it.

GLENN: Okay. So notice -- notice what happened here.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: She comes with the 14th. Stu, tell me why the Fourteenth Amendment was first written. What was that really about?

STU: I mean, is it wrong to say slavery?

GLENN: No. Slavery.

STU: You looked at me --

GLENN: No, no, no.

It was written for slavery.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It was written because all citizens could vote.

And you have certain rights.

Blah, blah, blah. And so the southerners.

The Democrats said, well, they're not citizens.

They're not citizens.

They're from Africa.

STU: So they can't vote.

GLENN: So they can't vote.

Yeah. If you were born here. Even if you were born a slave, you're a citizen.

That's what that was about. That was not --

STU: About illegal immigration.

GLENN: That was not illegal immigration.

Come over here, get into a hospital. Have a baby.

And congratulations. Everybody is a citizen.

We are the only one that has it.

And the only reason we do have it is because of slavery.

It was a way to make sure that Democrats didn't just cut blacks out of the vote again.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That's what's so crazy.

And so notice he says, we may have to go back to the people.

Can you just change that?

Well, no. It's a constitutional amendment.

So we may have to go back to the people.

He says that first.

Her immediate response is, through executive action?

No. I just -- I just said, we may have to go back to the people.

STU: There are several parts in this interview. Where she doesn't -- it doesn't seem she listens to him. She has the idea of what Donald Trump says in this moment.

Already acted it out with her producers multiple times. So she's just not listening.

GLENN: That's right. That's why none of them have any credibility. Because there's not an honest exchange.

There is no honest questions.

He just said, we may have to go -- he volunteered. We may have to go back to the American people, for that.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So you're suggesting that maybe it would be a constitutional amendment? Well, yeah. I think we would have to do it.

I might -- if I get stuck, I might find a way to do it with executive action. But it is a constitutional amendment.

So, yes, that's an honest conversation.

STU: Right. No.

GLENN: That's not what she did.

STU: No. Do we have this clip handy again, to play it again? I want to see if you catch this one little of this. This is clip four, again.

Listen to her verbiage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

VOICE: Do you promise to end birthright citizenship on day one?

Is that still your plan?

DONALD: Yeah. Absolutely.

The Fourteenth Amendment says though, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens. Can you get around the Fourteenth Amendment?

STU: Okay. Stop.

Is that a quote?

All persons born in the United States are citizens?

That's what she said the Fourteenth Amendment says.

GLENN: You know, now that you ask me, I doubt it is. Have you looked it up?

STU: I have it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, she leaves that out. But not necessarily important to the conversation.

But the next part is, comma, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, comma, are citizens of the United States and of the state written they reside.

The whole Fourteenth Amendment argument. And you might disagree with this part of it, is that that phrase, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, means that illegal immigrants are not included.

Now, I --

GLENN: How? How?

STU: Well, they're not subject to that jurisdiction.

GLENN: So, in other words, the -- well, if mom --

STU: They would be.

GLENN: If mom and baby, were there. Then they would be subject to that jurisdiction.

But the family would not be. Because they're someplace else?

STU: I think the argument, and again, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the Fourteenth Amendment argument here.

GLENN: I'm going to tell you.

I am absolutely so far away from an expert. You might as well talk to a fisherman.

STU: What I have heard, people make this argument before.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: And the argument is basically to be subject to that jurisdiction. Is it not mean that you -- everyone, of course, has to follow the laws of a country, that you move into.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: To be subject of that jurisdiction. Means you have to have a basis in the country.

So it's not like you just cross the border. And, hey, I'm now a subject of this jurisdiction.

You're a visitor, right?

Or in this case, a criminal. And I'm crossing the border.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So you would not get necessarily those protections.

Of -- of that Fourteenth Amendment.

GLENN: May I just say, the only thing I hate the Founders for, is their use of commas.

STU: You know, it's a good point.

GLENN: Stop with the use of commas.

Could you please, for the love of Pete, the right to keep and bear arms.

Comma.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Under a well-run regulated militia.

Comma. Shall not be infringed.

Can you stop with the commas? It makes it too complex now. Stop with the commas.

STU: Very true.

But I think, regardless of what you think about the argument, of the 14th amendment. And people who are -- who believe illegal immigrants would not be grandfathered into that.

If it's foundational to the argument, why would you skip it?

Right?

GLENN: Right.

STU: You have to bring that up. Because --

GLENN: Could you do me a favor?

Could you have ChatGPT? Or something like that?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Type that in, and ask what that means.

STU: Sure. It will take me a second, obviously.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. All right.

STU: Do you want to go on to the next clip.

GLENN: Yeah. Let's go to the next clip.

STU: Okay. Next someone on Ukraine.

And what needs to happen with Ukraine.

This is, again, Trump on Meet The Press.

There are people being killed in that war, at levels never been seen before.

You have to go back to the Second World War. And even that, if you take a look and you know what it is, it's the soldiers, largely. The cities have been emptied out and demolished.

The country has been demolished.

If I won that election. Which you know how I feel about it. I won't get into it.

Because we don't need to start that argument.

I think it was an easy argument.

It was really proven even more complicit than the win I had on this one.

Yeah, but that's your opinion, but I disagree with it. Had I assumed -- kept control.

Number one, Israel wouldn't have happened.

Number one, Ukraine would have never happened.

It would have never happened in Ukraine and Russia.

But the number of people being killed. Soldiers. Young, beautiful soldiers.

Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed.

And, you know, it's very interesting.

It's level. Totally level the battlefields.

Totally level.

The only thing that stops a bullet. Is a body. A human body. And the people being killed. Hundreds of thousands on both sides. Russia has lost probably 500 thousand. Ukraine has lost higher than they say.

Probably 400,000.

You're talking about hundreds of thousands of bodies, laying all over the fields.

It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

And it should have need been allowed to happen.

Biden should have been able to stop it.

GLENN: Amen!

He's absolutely right.

And when this is over, and the body count is actually revealed, and when you see. And when you see BlackRock there, rebuilding.

When you see all of these friends of the Bidens rebuilding.

When you see BlackRock owning the farmland.

Then maybe you will start to have some idea of how grotesque, this really was.

All right. More in just a second.

STU: Let me tell you about the best gift, you can give yourself or someone else this holiday season.

Maybe looking years or even decades younger.

Well, if you want that, 'tis the season to tighten up that jaw line. Introducing the Genucel jaw line treatment with dual peptide and MDL Technology.

Genucel's most advanced ever. It tightens sagging jaw lines, and plumps the layers of your skin to contour and define the jaw line and neck area within just minutes. People go, you know, abroad all the time. And they spend thousands of dollars, to get rid of this kind of thing. But you don't have to. Give Genucel a try first.

You will see results in minutes.

And, you know, they get better every day. Why not give it a shot?

Just in time for Christmas and holiday season. You can save 70 percent off, Genucel's complete skin care package, featuring the jaw line treatment.

And Genucel's immediate effects. You can get Genucel XV wrinkle treatment, included for Christmas.

Genucel.com/Beck is the place to go to get this. You can start looking years and even decades younger tomorrow, for those family gatherings. It's guaranteed. So there's no risk there.

Give it a shot. As a special holiday gift, every package ordered, includes a bonus beauty box with two skin care best-sellers and free priority shipping. It's Genucel.com/Beck. G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com/Beck.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So let's go to Chat GPT.

And just see what it says about the Fourteenth Amendment and that particular phrase, between commas.

STU: And I will say our robot betters seem to have summarized this the same way that I understood it. So historically, the consensus among most legal scholars and historical practices has been the phrase, excludes only a few categories. This is the phrase of "not subject to the jurisdiction in the United States."

Those categories are children of foreign diplomats, enemy soldiers, and some Native American tribes, who maintain their tribal jurisdiction.

Legal precedent has largely supported the view that children born in the US to foreign citizens are indeed US citizens.

Regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

Then some conservatives argue, subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, excludes individuals who are in the country, illegally, as they are not legally subject to the jurisdiction in the same way as lawful residents or citizens.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They claim that because illegal immigrants have not entered the country, and remain in it legally, that they or their children should not automatically receive citizenship.

That is my understanding of the debate. And, again, you can say, you disagree with the conservative side of that debate.

GLENN: Right.

STU: You know, many do.

But to -- to actually skip the phrase, that is important to the debate. When talking to the man, who is arguing the conservative side of that debate. Is journalism malpractice, at the very least.

And I think it's intentional.

I believe it's intentional. But I don't know.

GLENN: Wait. I think it's NBC.
(laughter)

STU: It's not intentional. It's NBC.

GLENN: It's NBC.

STU: It's just what we are.

GLENN: It's just what they do. Of course it is.

STU: Yes! And that's, again, like -- it goes back to our original conversation, as opposed to whether you Meet the Press or not.

Do you need to go to a place that is intentionally doing things like that?

I mean, that is -- that is inexcusable for the one phrase that's important to the debate, you leave out of the amendment?

I mean, that's obviously intentional.

GLENN: I like the fact that the president was calm, cool, collected. Didn't name call. Went through that whole thing.

Wasn't a fair interview. It was exactly what you would expect. But at least he went and talked to the other side.

STU: Yeah. I think it's worth doing to talk to the other side.

I think it's worth doing adversarial interviews.

I wish he had a little honesty.

I feel like when you went back on the show with Russer. That's what you got.

Was -- it wasn't an interview liked. A lot of times, he took things, and took the democratic side a little unfairly. But you wouldn't eliminate the part of the amendment, that is the debate.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: He wouldn't have done that.

GLENN: No. And he would have given you -- there were times, that Ruser -- you would be pissed off at him. Because it was your guy. But you would also be cheering for the other side. Because he was fair. He was even-handed.

It was all that really, we asked for.

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.