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.

Will Trump HIT Iran with a “bunker buster” bomb?

Will President Trump get America involved in Israel’s war with Iran by helping drop a “bunker buster” bomb on Iran’s main nuclear facility? Would that cross a red line? Glenn Beck asks House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who explains why she believes such debates are pointless right now. Plus, Rep. Luna addresses a 1980s CIA "playbook" that exposes a strategy to "set off riots and destabilize governments."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Representative Anna Paulina Luna is joining us now.

Congresswoman from the great state of Florida. You guys are kicking it, down in Florida.

I mean, you really -- you're making Texas look bad, quite honestly. But thanks for coming on.

ANNA: Thanks, Glenn. I would like to say, we're leading the nation not just in politics, but also the White House. So happy to be here.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. I have to ask you a little bit, about are we going to war? What's happening? Is this negotiation? What does your gut tell you on this?

ANNA: My gut is telling me, that we're not intervening. And based on the president's statement, he is still rightfully so, urging everyone to negotiate. Right now, he's definitely been very open about this.

But I don't want to -- what I will tell you, in the last 24 to 48 hours, I have seen so much disinformation circulating on the internet. Well, a lot of it not coming from security that is in the states, so I will tell everyone. That don't jump to conclusions, don't read into anything, that senator Lindsey Graham is saying or any other members of Congress, that are speculating, that there will be direct intervention. In fact, the White House just yesterday via Alex Sipher on X posted that the military is not intervening. We're simply defending our own. And so what I will tell Americans is first and foremost, President Trump has not changed his position on foreign policies. If he wanted to strike, he would have done it by now. So everyone needs to pray for him. Pray for our country. Pray for the millions in both Iran and Israel right now, and let the process play out.

GLENN: Can you tell me, do you think it's a red line to send over a bomber with one bomb?

Is that -- does that drag us into war?

Or is that just helping?

ANNA: I would say, as of right now, we need to not speculate, but continue to back the White House's position.

Because I think if I were to speculate on where the red line is, I don't think it helps.

I do think that our allies and adversaries are looking to see the members of Congress are doing. I will back the White House's position currently. Which is defending our service members and not intervening --

GLENN: It is. I'm so glad to hear you say that. That is exactly what I just said on the air. Just about three minutes ago.

ANNA: Oh, really?

GLENN: I said, yeah. The world is watching. You don't think the mullahs aren't watching everything that is said on X. You know, we must used to have these conversations where it was global. We're now in a global atmosphere.

And they're watching all of us.

And we can't eat ourselves up. Or they will -- if he's telling the truth.

I think a good negotiator, never bluffs. And he has to back it up.

You know, 60 days. You don't want to see what happens on day 61.

He wasn't bluffing.

And if they think, that we are eating ourselves, alive, they're more likely to go, no.

You know what, go ahead. Go ahead.

It's a really bad thing.

ANNA: What I will say, it's definitely a litmus test for our country right now. You're seeing a lot of people, jumping to conclusions. What I will tell you, there's only a very select few that fully understand what's happening in the situation room.

That's the president, his team, and it's left up there to you. What I will tell you, don't read in, don't speculate. And also too don't jump to conclusions.

Again, in the last 48 hours, I went online. I put out information, because I saw so much information circulating. Something that was said by Kash Patel. His CCP has engaged in basically election engineering. We just saw that in the 2020 election cycle.

They just got busted. This also comes on the tail end of these riots that are absolutely being hunted by the CCP. Neville Singham getting lots of money from them.

And it doesn't stop there.

We saw there was an -- so what I would say is that, you know, I'm partially inclined to think some of these accounts that are attacking the president, are foreign policy positions right now.

Are coming from China. Everything that we're seeing. Three times, that they've done things.

So we have to stick together. It's not, Democrat versus Republican right now. It's America, and fighting for Western civilization.

And so we need to make sure that we're very responsible about our commentary right now.

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

Can we talk a little bit about the -- let's start with Neville Singham.

The guy is -- he is an operative for the CCP. And he is pouring tons of money. And no one in the mainstream media, wants to talk about it.

They just -- oh, that's ridiculous. No, it's not.

Can you give us some information on --

ANNA: Yeah. Of course. So it's not ridiculous. In fact, there's a lot of money -- money at least back to Neville Singham. And I actually look at credit where it's due. So I was on X. And came across this account called Data Republican, and she actually pulled the money trail right to Singham. He also lives part time in Shanghai, China, and he's not registered as a foreign agent.

And so I was able to talk to Comer, and every single member of oversight after seeing the evidence that was presented, actually sent a letter, signed off on it, not just to Neville Singham, but also, to AG Bondi to also request an investigation.

And so what I will tell you is that this should have been done during BLM in Congress back then.

It was not. This needs to be replicated moving forward with everybody else who is engaging, who is not a registered foreign agent in this country.

Also, funding riots like this. In some instances have been acts of terrorism.

And so right now, it's not just a playbook for Neville Singham. We're also -- this is also up to Comer. Because Comer has subpoena authority. Whether or not he will send his subpoena to George Soros, which I've urged him to do.

Even though, Neville Singham is a Marxist and Soros is a globalist, but their end objective is, again, to dismantle the United States.

And so we're basically being hit from both sides right now.

GLENN: I am so -- it is so refreshing.

I mean, I've been talking about this stuff for 20 years.

It's so refreshing. Finally, to have some people step up, and present this in a credible way, in Congress.

And to the -- attorney general et cetera, et cetera.

You know, you had the playbook from 1983. From the CIA.

And this is -- you know, I think it was two or three years ago.

No. It was in 2019 or 2020.

I did a special on the -- you know, the Colour Revolutions.

And how there was the CIA playbook that was out.

And it looks exactly like what is happening here in the United States. I said -- I said, at the time, here's what's coming. And it's all here.

It -- where are you taking this?

And is there anybody, that, you know, can -- can stop this?

Because this -- we are -- we're using CIA tactics on ourself.

ANNA: Well, I would say, the CCP is using this against us.

Right now, just first and foremost.

Yes. We can stop it.

We have to go after the money stream. And I actually also found out via the data Republican.

That $270 million in the USAID fund, was issued to George Soros' NGOs prior to Biden getting out of office.

President Trump can stop that, sending a letter via executive order because Congress is moving very slow.

That's I think a separate conversation.

But we can stop the money streams. And if we don't do anything, though. If we don't do the investigations.

If we don't say, you cannot do this in our country, you're also, by the way, guilty of violating foreign agent registration, the Foreign Registration app, the FAR app. It's just going to continue happening.

So we have to do the due diligence on this.

And if not, every single member of oversight signed off on that.

And to Chairman Comer's credit, he will be playing ball with Singham. So it's going to happen.
It's just, When will it happen?

So the time line, it's possibly indicated on Friday. We're waiting for a response.

He's going to be called to testify.

We are looking at all transaction records.
That's the first thing. The second thing, I want to give some people hope. I actually know Director Radcliffe over at the CIA.

And the CIA back then, remember, there's both good and bad people at the intelligence agencies.

And to their credit, the people that he has appointed, actually are a people like you and I.

And so they are doing their best to weed out this corruption at the agencies. And so what's really been brilliant in all of this.

Kash Patel is also following up on these money trails, to see what outside foreign influences are engaging in this Colour Revolution here in the United States, and he's dropping that information now. So in previous administrations, this might not have happened.

But in this one, they're stopping it, and it's because of social media and kudos to Elon Musk, that we were able to get the information in time, in regards to the No Kings protest, who is funding that.
In regards to potential insider packets that were going to frame conservatives. Frame Republicans.

We are seeing this all unfold in real time. I will tell you, Hispanic Americans, specifically, are not used as pawns. So when you have basically BLM 2.0 happening right now at these ICE riots, and you realize that these are actually largely ANTIFA that are going to be questioned. They're why they're not Hispanic. They're not immigrant.

They have no ties to the communities, and they're simply interning, you know, Mexican flags or BLM flags. That doesn't bode well in the community.

Remember, Hispanic Americans are largely voted for in favor for President trump.

So there is hope. But you can't sit on your hands. You have to get active, you have to get engaged, and you have to be telling people that.

GLENN: You know, for years, I've been angry at the billionaires on the right. That have just not stepped up to the plate.

I really, I suspected with the tides foundation and then with Biden and you all of these green new deals, and everything going on. That money was being funneled off the top.

And then as soon as we appointed DOGE. I said, oh, my gosh. The money is coming from us.

Then he started to find him. That is so critically important. Are we going to stop that funding?

ANNA: Well, yes. And so that's what we've been doing with some of these rescission packages at the White House, that has authorized. We have to move quickly. And we have to be more aggressive with it.

I will tell you, remember, I think just in general, sometimes people can be lazy.

And so what I've been telling people, is you have no idea, the level of personal sacrifice, that Elon really took on.

From taking on DOGE. Especially going after USAID. Which is just like a pot of just corrupt nonsense.

He actually just released, as we were about to call in. He released drug testing results. He had himself drug testing. Because they were saying, he was doing all this crazy stuff.

And he wasn't. Right? They've attacked companies. They literally used his personal family matters in the press. And then they tried to drag a wedge between him and the president.

So what I will tell you is, it's not just him. It's any member of Congress of the Senate. You saw what happened with the president. They tried to assassinate him twice.

Okay?

So if you take this on, the American people need to back these people up.

Because it's not like we're taking it on, because we, you know, want to have our personal lives and our family members put on the line here.

It's because it's the right thing to do. And if we don't do it, who will?

You have to really make sure, everyone sitting together. Remember, look out for the disinformation campaign.

And keep supporting people who do the right went.

Because we need more of them.

GLENN: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna.

Congresswoman, thank you.

JEFFY: Thanks Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. We'll talk again.

The KEY to understanding Trump’s threats to Iran

Many Americans are debating whether President Trump will attack Iran and help Israel, or if he’ll keep his promise to stay out of this war. Glenn Beck explains what he believes is the key to understanding Trump’s

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I think America is all warred out. I know I am.

I'm all warred out. We've been the police. War's policemen since I've been a kid.

It's never helped us. It's never done anything, except push us towards bankruptcy, and more of our people killed.

You know, we've had Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. And they ended for, what?

Nothing. Nothing.

What did we get out of that? Nothing!

Are we safer?

No. We're not safer. Look at our streets. Look what's coming across our border.

We have 8,000 terrorists, in our country, right now!

That didn't make us safer by any stretch of the imagination. What did we do that for?

We've also been lied to by our government, over and over and over again.

At least the last 100 years on this progressive nonsense, on the State Department, and how they want to fight wars now.

There hasn't been a real end of a real war, in how long?

Since World War II?

There's not -- are these all police actions. And they never -- they don't seem to work out.

I'm done with all of that. I think you are too. And we can't afford another war.

Now, that being said, I think Iran and I've said this since 2003, Iran is the head of the snake.

It wasn't Afghanistan.

It wasn't Iraq. You know, I thought the strategy from Bush was to take Afghanistan and Iraq and squeeze forever the government of Rand Paul.

Enough to have it topple and let the people take over, in Iran.

But that didn't -- I don't think that was even their strategy. I think that was me maybe hoping.

You know, and all the talk about the nukes in Iran, I have a hard tame. You know, weapons of mass destruction. George Bush. They weren't there.

They weren't there.

So now they have -- I mean, I've heard since, what?

Now. 2005.

Iran could be just days away from a nuclear weapon. Then once they have one, then they could produce all the -- I don't know. I've heard this since 2005. You have no credibility with me anymore, that they're just days away from a nuclear weapon!

Now, are they days away? Maybe!

I don't know.

So what do we do?

Well, I'm pretty happy with the current course.

Israel seems to be doing a bang up job.

You know, and have you noticed, it's not really causing any more problems in the streets.

In Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. Or any other place.

They all seem to be cool with what's going on.

And why is that? Because everyone in the Middle East knows this is right. What is Egypt doing? First of all, maybe we should be a little more like Egypt, you know, without the authoritarian regime. Maybe we should look at our borders the way Egypt looks at its border with the Palestinians!

You know, there's a two-story wall, all just -- I mean, it is razor wire everywhere.

Nobody is coming across that border, coming out of -- of -- of the Palestinian section, into Egypt.

They don't want them.

Strangely, neither does Jordan. Strangely, neither does the UAE. Strangely, neither does Saudi Arabia, or any other Gulf culture. They don't want them. Why?

Because revolution always follows.

Thus, let me again, bring you back to Egypt. What happened over the weekend.

All these Palestinian protesters. The kinds that are on our streets.

The Palestinians just -- I mean, the Egyptians just picked them up.

Put them on a bus. And said, get hell out of here. Or we'll throw you in jail.

We can't protest peaceful. No. Not in Egypt.

It's not America.

You're not doing that in Egypt. And one of the reasons why you're not doing that in Egypt. Egypt knows, the Palestinians, no matter where they go. They sew the he seeds of revolution.

That's been the pattern over and over and over again, when one of the Gulf states take them.

So why is that a problem for Donald Trump to do exactly what the Egyptians and the Saudis and the UAE, and everybody else is doing. Which is, hey, Israel, keep going!

I mean, I'm not going to say that out loud. But keep going.

Can we help you with anything on that one? Because don't turn around on us. We will deny it.

But go ahead. They're all doing that!

All of them! What is the other thing they're doing? They're not siding with the Palestinians. They're not letting the Palestinian, you know, revolution break out in their countries.

So why is it such a problem in our country? To do what they're doing!

Which leads me to believe, maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of anti-Semitism on this one.

I've never seen a country exercise a war this precisely as the one that Israel is doing. I mean, it's unbelievable.

It's unbelievable.

Okay. So now, let me take to you the third part of what I want you to really think about.

Are we actually preparing for war?

Because every sign says yes. And maybe we are. I don't know.

Every sign says yes. We are mobilizing.

We are moving assets in. Yesterday, I think it was the Israelis said, everybody needs to get out of Tehran. That looks like massive bombing coming there. That doesn't seem like Israel. Does it?

We're talking about maybe using one of our B52s. And the only bomb that can get into the plant, to be able to get under the mountain to take out their nuclear facilities.

We're the only ones that can do it, and we're talking about doing that. However, at the same time, Donald Trump said, no, to killing the leaders of Iran. Which were the leaders that put the plan in place for the assassination of Donald Trump.

So it doesn't seem like he's being vindictive here.

What is actually happening?

How do you make sense of the world?

May I just suggest, what do you know about Donald Trump?

What do you know at the core of his being, who he is?

You know that he is a pro-tariff guy.

You know that he hates war.

To the core.

You know that he's terrified of nuclear war.

And he's a negotiator. I don't think that's in the right order.

I think he's a negotiator first. And when you negotiate at this high level, you don't tell everyone what you're doing.

First of all, the first thing you have to do is establish credibility.

And especially in a country like Iran, where the American president has never had any credibility.

Because they say, you know what, you cross this red line. And you're done. Then they cross the red line. And they're like, okay. Well, don't cross this red line or you're done.

Then they cross that red line, and nothing happens! Okay. Well, don't cross it. Shut up with your red line. It means nothing to us anymore.

What did Donald Trump do?

He gave Iran 60 days to negotiate. Sixty days.

What happened at midnight on Day 61?

Israel unleashed hell on them.

Donald Trump said, you have 60 days. And please, get to the negotiating table. You don't want to see what happens on Day 61.

Don't do it. Don't. Don't.

I'm holding them at bay. Don't. Let's negotiate. Okay? Now he has credibility.

So now when they're talking about, you know what, what we might do. He will say, yeah. Well, I'm talked to Israel, about letting them use that bunker buster.

You know, I also think you're a really dangerous knight right now. I think, you know, put us on a war footing, would you?

Now the American people are looking at Donald Trump going, he just might do it. Are we going to war? He just might do it.

What do you think Iran is saying? Iran is saying the same thing! Oh, good God. He just told us 60 days.

He's not bluffing. He's not bluffing.

The guy does not bluff. He's nuts. He's insane.

Whatever you want to say about him. He's a negotiator. And the one thing that Iran really does not understand, I think is negotiating from the best negotiator in the world.

But I am afraid the American people don't understand that either.

Now, I could be wrong. So I'm not saying this is what's going on.

But I believe this is what's happening.

I believe he's negotiating.

And, you know, he will follow it up.

But what did he say?

As soon as the bombs went out. He said, I told them, 60 days. A, establish credibility.

Then the next statement was, please come back to the table. Or it's only going to get worse.

Okay?

Then while the whole world is watching the G7, something happens, and he flies back. He leaves the G7. And he flies back, at 3:00 a.m. He arrives, and he goes directly in to the situation room, and they're moving assets around the world.

And then says, hey. Iran, you should negotiate. You should negotiate.

We're still at the negotiation table. I would suggest you get back.

How freaked out do you think they are?

Now, here's the thing. Have you ever been in tough negotiations with somebody, and they start to say things. And you're like, wait. This wasn't part of the plan.

We didn't discuss this.

But they're the leader. What should you do? If you're in negotiations, you should be going, yeah.

Yeah. We talk about that. You know, all day long. You go out in a hallway. Or you go into another room, and you go, what are you doing?

What are you doing?

We didn't talk about this. But you never say it at the table. Never.

Because if they spot any division, that game is over. So what's happening online?

Right now, we're dividing ourselves. I think the president is negotiating. I -- I know the president hates war. I know the president hates nuclear war.

I know the president likes Israel, but he's not wanting to fight their wars.

I know the president knows how much trouble we're in, with Islamic extremism, especially the kind that comes from the Twelvers in Iran!

If I know all of those things to be true, he's negotiating. And he's hoping that Israel will do the job we won't have to.

But we can back them up by being tough negotiators. And saying, you know what, go ahead. Put us on a war footing.

Because then, their side is at the table going, what the hell, is this guy -- and somebody at the table is going, he told us 60 days. In sixty days, we were having bombs raining down on us.

He will do it!

But there's also somebody at the table that said, eh, just lost Tucker Carlson. That guy helped him get elected. Eh, just lost, you know, whoever, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.

And they're all fighting against each other. He's not going to be able to hold his base together.

If he's -- if he's bluffing, fine. If he's not bluffing, it won't be long, because they'll tear him apart.

Now, how does that -- because you, and me, and Tucker, and Sean. And, I mean, it used to be just the big anchors, on CBS. ABC. NBC.

Now it's not just even us. It's you!

They're watching us, as we're sitting at the table. We're blinking.

Repeatedly. I -- I don't know what -- I don't know.

I have no inside information.

I just think, I know Donald Trump, and what he abhors. I know Donald Trump on what he is terrified of.

And that is nuclear war. And global war.

He knows that will be the end of us. All of us. I just don't see him as that guy.

And so I have to ask, is the world's best negotiator, now negotiating? And I believe the answer is yes. For the first time, you have a president that is a good negotiator.

Stop blinking. That doesn't mean I'm for war. It just means, stop blinking!

Glenn Beck EXPOSES the Globalist/United Nations 'Mass Migration Plot'

Why has there been a major push for mass migration of unvetted immigrants into America in recent years? Glenn Beck reveals how it all ties back to the United Nations’ conspicuously updated list of "Sustainable Development Goals." Mass migration suddenly became useful to globalists, and after four years of Joe Biden as President, we now find ourselves in a precarious position.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: The REAL Reason for the Surge in Illegal Immigration

The One REAL "Nuclear Threat" that Everyone Ignores!

Is America prepared for a serious attack that could take down the power grid and destabilize society? We sometimes take for granted that a nuclear attack is too far-fetched to really occur, but could nuclear weapons be used in an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack? Glenn Beck breaks down the possibility and poses the question of the true preparedness of American society should such a thing actually occur.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Prepping 101: The Step-by-Step Guide to Surviving Global Chaos