RADIOJanuary 23, 2024

Is THIS why Amy Coney Barrett sided with BIDEN on the border?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration CAN cut Texas’ razor wire at the southern border. But why would Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett side with Biden on this issue? Senator Mike Lee joins Glenn to give his thoughts: Is this all a political game? Sen. Lee also reminds listeners that this SCOTUS decision doesn’t stop Texas from doing anything — it only allows the White House to thwart Gov. Abbott’s actions. “Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face going to say, ‘cut the wires?’” Sen. Lee asks. And how should Texas and Americans react if they had to decide between securing the border and defying the rule of law?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee.

Because I will lead and not follow.

I believe and not doubt. I will create, not destroy.

Because I'm a force for good. I'm a force for God.

I'm a leader. And we can defy the odds.

I need your help today.

In understanding the news, and where we go from here.

Because if it's -- if it's not this, it will be something, because we're facing constitutional crisis, after constitutional crisis.

And I am -- I am not sure how to react.

But I know there's a lot of people saying, this is out of line. We should ignore the Supreme Court.

But that makes us them. But what else are you going to do.

First, let's go over what the Supreme Court decided yesterday, Mike.

MIKE: Okay. So yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an order, not an opinion. Just a very brief order, undoing an order that was released by the US Court of Appeals, for the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th.

Now, remember, the Courts of Appeals are -- are numbered throughout the company.

The Fifth Circuit includes the state of Texas.

And the -- the Fifth Circuit, on December 19th. Had issued an order, enjoining the widen administration.

From taking down barriers, put in place, by the state of Texas.

The state of Texas wanted to make sure that -- that they restore some semblance of the rule of law in their state. So put up barriers along the border. Say, we don't want to do this. The Biden administration started taking actions indicating its plans to take down the concertina wire and the other barriers.

So Texas brought suit against the Department of Homeland Security.

And others in the Biden administration.

And said, we want an injunction, telling them, telling the Biden administration, that they may not take down these barriers. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals, on December 19th, issued such an injunction.

And immediately, the Biden administration, went to the Supreme Court.

And filed an emergency application, to vacate that injunction.

In other words, to undo it.

And they offered a portion of the order from yesterday.

Is just found in a sentence.

It's inclusive of a total of four sentences.

But this one is the operative language.
The December 19th, 2023, order of appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated. That's it!

And there's a separate line that says, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would have denied the application to vacate the junction.

So with that, the Supreme Court of the United States undid this.

What this tells this. It was chief justice Roberts, along with Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson, who was in the majority on this.

And that's all we know about their rationale. All we know about what happened.

So all of a sudden, Texas, having won this litigation.

The previous round of litigation in the Court of Appeals.

Is back to square one. Being told, you lose.

And yet, we don't have the analysis as to why, and what this means.

And everything is in a state of disorder.

GLENN: So, first of all, can you explain Barrett's joining the other side.

I mean, any guess to what she was thinking.

MIKE: Yeah. So all I can do is guess. All I can do is offer conjecture. Because there's no analysis.

If I were to guess.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Before you go on. Is that up usual. That there was no analysis?

MIKE: It's not unusual. Given the procedural posture in which they find themselves.

In other words, this side of the court's docket. The emergency application court's docket. Is itself something that the justices have to do. As they're doing their other ordinary business. If they're writing opinions in other cases. And they -- they -- because the nature of it. It's a yes or no, up or down thing, most of the time.

So that part is not surprising.

But it's surprising, given the nature of this dispute. And the complexity, and urgency of this. That we would have this.

It's at least difficult to figure out what to do.

So if I had to guess, as to what her analysis might have been. And that of Chief Justice Roberts, it would be that they reached some kind of conclusion. That, you know, we don't want the courts to be weaponized.

We don't want to be perceived certainly as justices as playing only on the team of the political party of the presence who appointed us. And therefore, I, we, speaking, you know, either as justice -- either as chief justice Roberts, or justice Barrett, or both of them.

We're going to decide to side with the Democrats on this one. So that we don't overpoliticize this. But I really find that difficult. To grasp. That they would do it in that circumstance.

And yet, I don't see a good reason. I don't see an explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

It goes much beyond that.

Because I don't understand why it's a bad thing, to have the state of Texas, trying to protect the people of Texas from these swarms of people, who are pouring from across their borders.

Without documentation.

And destroying property along the way. Converting property. As if it were their own.

And destroying it, as they -- as they cross in illegally.

I don't understand what the compelling need is.

Or what principle of law would be violated, by the state of Texas.

Trying to protect the people of Texas.

GLENN: Let me ask you something, the Constitution says that it is the -- the federal government's job to protect the borders.

But they're not doing their job, obviously.

In fact, they're enabling those people trying to come in. And they are enabling drug cartels. Drugs coming over. Killing our citizens.

Criminals coming over. We know terrorists have come over now.

They're enabling those who rape and sell into sex slavery.

I mean, it's -- it's bad stuff. It's not even close.

And what the justices are saying is, Texas, you don't have the right to protect your own borders. That's our job.

Let me -- let me ask you: If a military came over. Let's say these 10 million people all had military uniforms.

But, you know, only a few of them had guns.

Examine it was clear this was an invasion by an army.

And the federal government decided to say, eh. No. They can keep crossing in.

Would they have the right, to say to Texas, or anybody else, you don't have the right to have a militia, or, you know, call up your National Guard. And push these people back?

Is the Constitution a suicide pact?

MIKE: Certainly not. And specifically, in that kind of circumstance, it wouldn't be. There are two separate provisions of the Constitution, to tell us this.

One is found in article four, section four.

Which says, that the United States shall guarantee every state or Republican form of government

And on application of a state, typically the legislature.

Shall protect each of them from invasion.

So that's an affirmative obligation by the United States.

To protect each state from invasion.

Now, if there's also a -- something that defends in the Constitution. Separate right of the state. To stand up for itself. Upon being invaded.

And that's found in article one, section ten. Clause three.

Once in the provision, that tells the states, a bunch of stuff, that they can't do on their own, without the consent of Congress.

But then contains a carve-out for circumstances in which a state is actually invaded.

GLENN: Yeah. But the only the difference in one scenario -- the only -- the only difference is, in these two scenarios, is 10 million people are coming over.

Not in uniform.

But that's it. I mean, it's an invasion.

MIKE: Right. That's right. And it's no less of an invasion simply because they're not organized formerly, as a military or we don't think of them. They were not a military.

But it's an invasion, nonetheless.

Throughout history, there have been instances of invasions of many countries, around the world. Some are armed, organized invasions. Others are not.

But it's an invasion nonetheless. They are being invaded by people who don't belong there.

And people who have threatened to subvert the order of things.

And the rule of law. As they enter. So the fact that there is an invasion, and the fact that the state of Texas feels the need to protect its own citizens from this. Puts Texas, in my view, in a very solid position.

Now, I assume, that for the four justices who dissented, that is, for Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, that was their rationale. We are all still grasping to understand what the rationale of the majority is.

Other than as you say, immigration is the thing, that is done by the federal government. And it's not done by the state of Texas.

Therefore, case closed. But that doesn't answer the question. That doesn't answer the article one, section ten. Or the article four, section four question, that we just discussed. And as a practical matter, it leaves the state of Texas, in an untenable position.

GLENN: Okay. So now, Mike, I -- I -- we have to have a serious adult conversation.

And we have to start modeling these conversations, and having these conversations.

And have them as rationale, reasonable citizens of a republic. And as adults.

And if you as a listener can't handle that, then you should go away. Because I think some questions need to be asked. And if not now, very soon on whatever the next topic might be.

You know, Mike, there was a guy named Martin Luther King. I know you know.

And he -- he taught people how to resist peacefully.

And nobody is teaching that. Nobody is pushing for that. Pastors are all out to lunch.

But there are people now, who are saying, we need to go. In fact, could you read Tucker Carlson's tweet? From yesterday.

STU: I don't have that handy, but --

GLENN: Look for it. Basically, he says, where are the men of Texas, standing up.

Well, the men of Texas standing up, I don't know exactly what that means, Tucker.

Because many of us are standing up, and we're speaking out.

At what point do people, are people justified at all to say, yeah. It makes me kind of like them. But we have to stop this.

So, in other words, defying the Supreme Court, and just doing it anyway.

I don't like that.

MIKE: No. But look, the rule of law is important to us.

It's the whole reason why Texas is trying to take this action to begin with. Is to preserve the rule of law.

And for that reason, everything possible needs to be done to comply with the rule of law. And if it means going along with a court order, that one doesn't like, and finding other ways to be persuasive to get something done.

But keep in mind something, Glenn. The Supreme Court's order from yesterday, does not order the state of Texas to do anything.

As I read it. All it says, is that they vacate, the fifth circuit's order, from the 19th of December.

Which had itself, enjoined, the Biden administration from taking down the barricades.

So there's nothing affirmatively that the state of Texas has to do in order to comply with this order from the Supreme Court.

It just lifts the legal impediment from the Biden administration.

That previously told them, don't take down the barricades.

GLENN: Right.

MIKE: So one interesting question is, what exactly will the Biden administration do now?

Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face. Are they going to say, yes. Cut the wires. Remove all the concertina wire and do all that?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

MIKE: Glenn, remember something. We have seen in the last month, more people pouring across our border, unlawfully.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: Than has ever been observed.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MIKE: In our nearly two and a half centuries of existence as a nation.

And our Border Patrol agents, and everybody else, who works with them, on this. They're all overwhelmed.

I've been down at the border. Just in the last few weeks alone.

I've lived down at the border. For two years.

I know this area well.

Are they really going to say, this is where we want our efforts focused to be going New Testament, removing barricades. Whose sole purpose is to protect people in the state of Texas. And, frankly, even people who are being human traffic along the border.

Are they really going to say, that's where they are. Bring up the wire cutters. Stop everything else. Stop everything that you're doing.

GLENN: They've already done that, Mike. They've already done that. They were cutting the wires in Texas.

What makes you think they won't do that.

MIKE: They were cutting them. They had to stop for three weeks. In the meantime, Texas put down a whole lot more wire.

And they've got more wire now.

I mean, this really would be a massive undertaking.

And if after -- after the month of December, 2023. Just last month. Are they really going to go back in, and undertake that huge effort again?

If so, this raises all kinds of other questions.

And if so, I think this could end up being the very best thing that a single greatest momentum of producing exercise for the Donald Trump campaign.

Because this is a president of the United States, who loves lawlessness, if this is true the way he wants to do it. And we have to make that point loud and clear.

Are Antidepressants (SSRI's) Worsening America's Mental Health Crisis?

A former FDA psychiatrist reveals what Big Pharma never told the public: the “chemical imbalance” story behind antidepressants was never proven — and SSRIs don’t fix a biological defect, they numb the brain. Glenn Beck and Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring break down how America became the most drugged nation in the world and how millions are being overprescribed medications that can cause paradoxical agitation, emotional blunting, and even suicidal behavior. With 15% of Americans — including millions of children — on SSRIs, are we facing a public health crisis hiding in plain sight?

Cracker Barrel's internal crisis EXPOSED

Cracker Barrel’s massive public meltdown didn’t happen by accident. Behind the scenes, the company was bleeding institutional knowledge, taking disastrous advice from DEI strategists, and making decisions that alienated the very customers who built the brand. A major board shake-up, the quiet removal of DEI frameworks, and the sudden resignation of a key DEI-linked board member reveal how deep the problems ran — and how desperate the company was to course-correct. This breakdown uncovers what really went wrong, how Cracker Barrel was influenced internally, and why the Glenn Beck interview triggered major internal moves that the public was never supposed to see.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, you can just questions about the special tonight.

STU: Yeah, for sure. I'm interested in this.

It's a big -- you know, a big special. You're back and forth with it. With them there. Was kind of fascinating. Right?

You have a situation where they -- they do seem to be sort of avoiding the question there on DEI. Is that how you read it? Oh, we lost connection with Glenn. Is that what's about to go?

Well, that's how I read it at least. You know, you listen to that clip of them going back and forth and it does appear to be them just sort of avoiding the question. We should get back to Glenn. Because I know he has this breaking news on this happen. Should we go to another clip on the Cracker Barrel thing, while we're waiting for Glenn to reconnect? Because it sort of sets the stage. You know, it was interesting to see their approach here, which is to try to explain themselves and try to work themselves through what is one of the biggest PR disasters probably in our lifetimes.

And let's go to this next clip.

VOICE: If we came out of COVID, A, trying to hire 50,000 people, we have a lot of our employees, original -- we did -- we lost a lot of very long tenured employees. A lot of them, a little bit older, and scared to come back into the -- into the environment.

And so --

GLENN: That's a lot of institutional knowledge.

VOICE: Oh, it hurt. I mean, it really hurt.

And in '22, as we started opening back up, we had the new menu that we had. So we lost a lot of people. We put a ton of training into that new menu.

Now we're coming back to open up, guests, any way we can get them. We had patio dining. We were testing a rock garden.

They were going to sit out in the landscape. And I always say that co-ed even made Cracker Barrel start drinking alcohol.

Because that's how -- it was out of COVID, that it was like, how are we figuring out how to drive top line sales and try to get a guest in.

GLENN: Okay. So that is a good example of you don't know any of the story. You think Cracker Barrel has never served alcohol before. Why are you shoving alcohol? That's a cultural. So it's easy to think, you're selling people alcohol now. What other values are you --

VOICE: And it's fair.

GLENN: That one, is at least understandable. Now that I understand the story.

VOICE: Yeah. Exactly. And so as we got into '23, I came out of my office administration role, and came into operations.

And I was leading field operations. And the best way for me to describe it, we were throwing Velcro balls at a wall to see what would stick.

STU: And it's understandable. You know, it's easy to kind of look at the Cracker Barrel situation and get lost at how badly it went.

A lot of these decisions come down to the information they had at the time. Right?

And they're looking at the time as a place that maybe people aren't coming into as much as they would like.

They are trying to -- maybe it's fading a little bit. Maybe some people find it's stale.

They think the situation at Cracker Barrel is not one that they're not necessarily trying to get involved with on a week to week basis, like they used to.

Maybe they had those warm feelings of the past. But they're not going in it anymore. Well, we'll freshen it up. We will do all these new things.

This will be great! And you realize, sometimes, when you're in that moment, you hit a -- you hate a vein. Right?

You're trying to do something positive for the company. And you hit a vein, and everything starts bleeding all over the place.

Let me give you another piece of this interview. Glenn Beck, up in the headquarters of -- of Cracker Barrel.

And somehow, I will give Glenn credit. Not eating throughout the interview.

I kind of thought, when they put food in front of him. He would just be shoveling it down his gullet the entire time.

You wouldn't be able to hear him. It would be like talking with his mouth full.

He got through it, without taking as many bites. Here is Glenn with the CEO of Cracker Barrel.

GLENN: Let's just get this out.

VOICE: Okay.

GLENN: What happened to the choices that were made?

I said on day one of this. I remember when they rolled out new Coke. And I thought, that was the dumbest marketing move, the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

We're taking the original formula and ditching it. And let's start over with a brand that people love.

The day this broke, I said on the air, new Coke!

That's what this is. And it was -- no offense. Stupid!

Just stupid from start to finish.

Can you walk me through how that happened?

VOICE: Yeah. Sure.

Look, our guests have every right to be upset.

GLENN: Yeah. You want to watch this. And I -- you know, what I really want to you watch for is a moment where I said to her, are you surprised you haven't been fired yet.

That spoke volumes. Her answer, and I hope it is captured on camera.

But that answer was the first non, you know, when you're a CEO. You know, I've -- Stu, do you remember when we used to have to do really important interviews.

And our PR people would be like, drill, drill, drill.

No, don't say that. Don't say that. And we would be like, yeah. Whatever.

And when you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company. And you're in the trouble that they're in, you do -- you know, you follow the people that you have hired to make sure crisis management. You don't make any more mistakes.

And so everybody was very, very careful.

They were very honest. But, you know, like that DEI thing.

She didn't really answer the question.

Of course, we want everybody to be welcomed. Yeah. I know. But that's not answering the question.

When I asked her, are you surprised you still have a job, and you haven't been fired yet. Her answer spoke volumes.

Now, the other thing that you need to know, that while she didn't answer me on the DEI thing. And I -- I -- you know, I can't tell you exactly how this happened.

I just know that they knew, that they didn't answer the question.

And somebody has been in touch with my people. And said, hey. You might want to watch the board meeting that is happening.

We can't tell you that anything is going to be happening. But the DEI thing may be solved. At the board meeting. That happened this morning. And they were going to release something at 11:15 today.

We didn't know exactly what it was.

We had -- we had an indication that it might be about DEI.

And what they've done, at first.

Remember, in August. You know, they just deleted the Pride pages. And the DEI pages.

And they just got rid of it all, at Cracker Barrel. That is just hiding who you are. The real problem was, they had a guy who was on the board of directors. Named Gilbert Davila.

And he's just resigned from the board, today!

Okay? They had a meeting with the board, and shareholders and everything else. And they voted on all of these people. And they did not renew him. And so he is -- he has resigned.

Now, his job -- he was a member of the standing board committee.

And his job was to assess the social and political risk to the company's business.

Well, who is he?

Well, he's also the CEO of a company called DMI Consulting.

That's a DEI strategy firm, that's been in business since 2010.

So he's one of the guys. He was the guy who, his job as the CEO -- as the CEO of DMI, is to promote, you know, DEI.

To make sure everybody is living up to the DEI standards. So Robby Starbuck, who is a friend of the program and, you know, great conservatives, who has been responsible for -- you know, getting a lot of these people out of these companies, or at least drawing attention on what these companies are really standing for.

He's been asking trial. What does he do to deserve this seat on the board?

Well, that's it. He owned a DEI consulting and strategy firm. That was pushing DEI and DEI advertising. So what's happened here is I think while she couldn't answer that question at the time, because the board hadn't acted, I think it's -- I think it's not not coincidental that the day the interview with her drops. With us.

Which they've known for a couple of weeks. This is when this interview would drop.

They -- they announced that morning, that seat has been eliminated. DEI is gone from Cracker Barrel. So I think that's really, really good news if you're a fan of Cracker Barrel.

And the things that I saw at Cracker Barrel, I'm -- I'm going to tell you some stuff tomorrow.

I just have to make sure that it's exactly accurate. Because I don't want to cause more problems.

For us!

And I want to make sure that I get it exactly right. But there were some things that I learned in the show prep.

And, you know, studying up for this interview.

That no one was prepared to talk to me on camera about. And always says to me, oh, well, there's something there.

And so we have done even more homework on it. And tomorrow, I will tell you about something that you might have heard about. This guy who owns, what is it?

Steak and Shake?

STU: Yeah. He's a big activist shareholder, isn't he?

Kind of against some of the leadership there at Cracker Barrel. I think I read about that.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Yes.

And he has an interesting history.

And I want to -- I want to take you through some of that tomorrow.

I think by tomorrow, you're going to understand, what you saw with the DEI vote on the board today. Get that gone. That's gone.

The interview that you'll see tonight with Julie. The CEO. She's not who you think she is.

It doesn't mean she didn't make huge mistakes. She says she makes huge mistakes. But she's not who you think she is.

You may not agree with her or whatever. But it's important you know who she is. And what she said.

And the key tonight is that question: Are you surprised that you haven't been fired yet.

And really, what happened after she answers the question. And she's very uncomfortable. Answers the question.

And then she immediately switches topics. And I'm like, wait. Wait. Wait.

Stop. Stop. Go back. Why are you switching topics here?

Because it was an amazing moment. Is she immediately changes the subject. After she answers. And then she comes back, and she he says a few things. You'll see.

And then I bring it back to her again. And she switches topics again. And I'm like, why are you doing that?

Why are you doing that?

And she said a very interesting answer on all of that.

That is one of the most honest things I think I've ever seen a fortune five company or CEO ever say.

It was really uncomfortable. But really, really honest.

I think once you see this. And then I tell you tomorrow about the -- the board member, on the things that I can verify. I'm not sure what we can verify yet.

But the things that I've heard. And the things I think I can verify tomorrow. You will see that -- that I think they made stupid moves. They have really bad advice from DEI people.

And they were set up.

To some degree.

They were set up.

The company was. Not individuals. The company was set up.

I think it will -- I think you will have every question you needed to know about Cracker Barrel and what happened answered.

WARNING: The Threat of Sharia Law in American Cities is Now a Reality

Texas is becoming the front line of a growing ideological struggle. While courts block the Ten Commandments from classrooms, public schools are opening Islamic prayer rooms as CAIR and other Islamist political groups gain influence across the state. Glenn Beck and Chip Roy warn that this isn’t about private worship, but rather a coordinated movement to weaken the nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations, undermine constitutional law, and smuggle Sharia-aligned norms into American institutions. As judges enable these shifts and political factions fracture, a broader conflict is emerging that most Americans refuse to acknowledge. Texas may be the battleground that determines whether the West wakes up in time.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We're talking to Chip Roy about the Islamification of Texas and the United States. What's going to be done. A -- a -- a -- a new attitude from Governor Greg Abbott yesterday. And a new proclamation that came out and said, enough is enough.

On CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. We're going to deem them terrorist organizations. We were just talking about what's happening with the Ten Commandments. And before we -- before we switch here, one more thing on this -- this Muslim thing. In schools.

You know, we can't have the Ten Commandments, Chip.

However, at liberty High School in the Frisco ISD in Texas, they now have prayer rooms for Islamic prayers.

How is it we can't have the Ten Commandments in Texas, but Frisco ISD public school, Liberty High School, can have prayer rooms, and nobody says anything?

CHIP: Well, first of all, this is the double standard of the left. But let's take a step back. What you just said out loud. Frisco, Texas. Frisco. My daughter was born in Frisco.

GLENN: Yeah.

CHIP: Has now got Islamic prayer rooms, okay? That should concern you.

GLENN: It does.

CHIP: And by you, I mean the listeners out there. Like, Texas listeners.

And, yes, the Ten Commandments case. It's judicial activism. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to have the Ten Commandments displayed in public form.

Again, the Ten Commandments sits on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. And the case like I said, Ted Cruz litigated as solicitor general. Working for then attorney general Greg Abbott. Governor Rick Perry, and we won that case.

And I think we will be able to win that case, when it goes up, and it's no doubt, it's being challenged in the fifth circuit.

Then likely the Supreme Court would look at it.

With past presidents and say, we have the Ten Commandments.

Look, we have to decide who we are as a people.

And we got to start acting like it. Because this nation has been blessed because we are a Judeo Christian people who formed a country. That is a -- liberal, in the classical sense. You know, republic liberal democracy.

And we allow the full range of views to be discussed. And for people to believe whatever they believe.

And you and I will die on the hill to protect that. To protect the government over the mind of man. But we are also are a group of people that's bound together by a common sense of ideals, in our history, in our founding. And when you break that down, you will no longer have a country. And that's what we've got to -- you know, when those men --

GLENN: Go ahead. Well, you were saying a minute ago. You know, that should concern you, that there are prayer rooms in Frisco, Texas. It doesn't concern me that there are prayer rooms.

What concerns me, this is a coordinated effort to bring Sharia law into our country.

I don't care if you're Muslim. And you respect the Judeo Christian laws that we have. That's what our country are built on.

That's what our laws are based on.

And you say, this is a really great system. Because it allows me and everybody else to worship God of our own understanding.

When you're part of a movement to subvert that law. And to fundamentally transform the United States into something that it is not.

That's when I have a problem! And that's when we should stand up, but that's one of the things that CAIR does. CAIR makes anything that we have said, Islamophobia. And so they shout you down, and make you afraid and try to paint you as a hater.

I don't hate. I don't hate Muslims.

I don't. I do despise Sharia Law, and I despise anyone who comes here, and wants to supplant the United States Constitution, and replace it with Sharia law. That's -- that's a no-go zone.

No. Sorry. Not going to do it.

JASON: And the history of Sharia law. And the history of those inherent to it, which would suggest that that is the goal.

GLENN: Yes.

CHIP: And that's what we've seen borne out in countries across the world. So we should recognize that in carrying out our policies and these activist judges, and they are going to cede the ground. Okay?

In the name of the First Amendment, they are going to cede the ground with a supposedly secular society.

And, you know, essentially, genuflecting to -- the Bill of Rights, while walking away from God.

They're going to cede the ground for a world in which we are going to invite those who wish to destroy America, to have a front row seat right here to do it, and we've got to stop those judges.
And we've got to act. And so, you know, the House of Representatives should act on such an obvious case like Boasberg.

We should -- and I know that my religious liberty friends will do that on the Ten Commandments.

And they're going to be litigating that. And I will be quite confident the state will litigate that to defend the state law and defend the schools.

Then you go to the -- you know, redistricting opinion. Right? It's really extraordinary. I don't know if you read the scathing rebuke of the two judges. The -- particularly, the one judge, Judge Brown by Jerry Smith, right? Who was dissenting judge in the three-judge panel. So for those of you who don't understand, when you have a case on the redistricting issues. Right? It goes to a three-judge panel. And this three-judge panel, it was a two-to-one opinion, and it was a Democrat appointee. Appointed judge.

It was a Trump-appointed judge. Judge Brown. And then Judge Jerry Smith, who has been on the bench for a long time. Very respected, conservative --

GLENN: Thirty-seven years.

CHIP: Yes, and Jerry was basically cut out. They didn't do their normal deliberation. He wrote a scathing letter yesterday.

In addition to them filing a dissent. Because he was blocked out of the process.

It was an extraordinary essentially power grab by the two judges.

Just to run this thing through. I don't think the Supreme Court will take kindly to that.

I think that the stay application that will be filed with the United States Supreme Court. I think that by tomorrow. They filed the stay last night with the strict.

In the district court.

But I think they will go to the Supreme Court, with the stay, probably tomorrow.

That attorney general Paxton and Abbott to strategize for the timing.

But I think that's right.

And, you know, I think the you court. Judge Roberts, his faults on many opinions, has been pretty good on race. You'll remember, the Supreme Court opinion that -- that struck down the abhorrent, you know, language in section five that was unconstitutional, Voting Rights Act. And they cleaned that up.

And in that opinion, Robert said, that divvying us up by race was a distorted business. That was his quote. And I think Roberts will be on the right side of this. I hope so.

Because this is very clearly political exercise by the legislature.

The judges tried to indicate that it was racial gerrymandering. No! It's the opposite.

Texas is trying to undo racial gerrymandering, which we believe is unconstitutional on its face. You've got California out there, who is taking five of the nine Republican seats away.
So it's currently, what?

I think, what? 45 to nine?

And it's now going to be something like 50 to four? My numbers may be off one or two. It's crazy.

And then in Texas, we were kind of trying to rebalance it a little bit.

Add four or five new states. A lot of growth in Texas. And now, they will say, that that's somehow not profitable. Because we somehow are doing racial gerrymandering.

We're undoing I think racial gerrymandering with a politically motivated goal of having more Republican seats in a very Republican state. So I hope the Supreme Court sees this for what it is.

And issues a statement. You know, we'll have to see what they do.

GLENN: Let me take to you Washington again. This Comey thing is driving me out of my mind.

Because once again, here's somebody, that looks like they will not pay a price for anything.

James Comey. A judge has said that the government has screwed this -- this up. In gathering information.

And filing.

And so now it looks like the Comey case will not move forward. Any thoughts on this?

CHIP: Well, look, I have not had a chance to dive into this as deeply. I know that the district Judge Nachmanoff, or whatever the judge's name was. Pressed, you know -- this -- this opinion forward.

And, you know -- or I'm sorry. Not pressed the opinion. Pressed prosecutors. A hearing.

And I don't know what the exact result is going to be.

The Biden appointee. And, you know, we're -- we're going it to see what the result is.

Obviously, Comey, we believe lied to I think the Senate judiciary committee, among others. Under oath.

And that is, in fact, an indictable offense.

And so, you know, I'll go look and see what they're claiming in terms of whether the grand jury got to see the final indictment.

Or whatever these issues are.

Obviously, the former prosecutor is important. You have to follow the procedures.

GLENN: You have to.

CHIP: Do it right. But also can't lose the forest for the trees. I think Comey very clearly lied. And so, we're going to -- hopefully, this will proceed. That's about all I've got on that one.

GLENN: All right. Chip, thank you very much. If anyone wants to get involved in your campaign for Texas attorney general, how do they do it?
CHIP: ChipRoy.com. C-H-I-P-R-O-Y.com. You can follow me at Chip Roy TX on X/Twitter.

And, Glenn, always appreciate what you're doing out there. Thanks for being on the tip of the spear. And the forefront of talking about this important issue. About defending Western civilization.

And all the issues. I'm deeply appreciative.

GLENN: I tell you, Chip. I -- I've been saying recently -- I've been saying it for a while, since I wrote the chalkboard on what was going to happen, back on Fox days. And I said, all these people will gather. And then they'll sort it out.

Once they think they have it, they will start eating each other.

And they're starting to see that with the left now eating the Democrats. So Democrats are over. Now it's just going to be Marxists. But it will come down to the Marxists and the anarchists and the Islamists. And as I said then, in the end, it will just be the Islamists, against the Western world.

Because I would bet on people who believe something, much more than the Marxists.

These people have religious zeal. And they will -- they will eat the Marxists. And then it will just be western world against the -- the Islamists. And I think, chip, we are in World War III.

We have just not declared it yet. And people haven't woken up to it yet.

We are in the beginning stages. You will see history in 100 years from now. Will write, this is the 1930s, if you will.

This is the beginning of a world war, and nobody has caught up with it, yet.

Would you agree with that?

CHIP: Yeah. Glenn, I agree with you. You have, and you were a long time ago -- others have caught up to it. And, frankly, caught up to where you were. And, look, it is one of the core reasons I'm running for attorney general.

Look, I can keep doing what I'm doing up here. God blessed me the ability to fight and make changes up here.

We've done some good things.

Look, we have to preserve in the state of Texas. And the battle is exactly what you said. You can't win a war. If you don't even acknowledge that it's happening.

That's the problem. People are asleep at it. Again, like I said, it's what I last talked about. Because of the reality that you just said.

And that vast network, we have got to follow the money and destroy that network. It's an integrated, related network. You know it. I know it. I can promise you, smart people in Washington are looking at this.

I can tell you, I'm building teams in Texas, to look at this right now. And connecting those teams in Texas and in Washington. And other AG's offices, which is what I'll do on day one of AG. Frankly, once I'm blessed with the nomination, I will be working on it all next year. We will build the team, and we will fight to dismantle it.

Glenn Finally Gets a REAL Job: Cracker Barrel Biscuit Maker | Glenn TV | Ep 471

If this whole media thing doesn’t work out, Glenn can always fall back on his biscuit-making skills! Take a break from the apocalypse and enjoy some Cracker Barrel carbs made by everyone’s favorite son of a baker!