Best of the Program | Guests: Cam Edwards, Alan Dershowitz, Jon Miller, Steve Deace & Burgess Owens | 1/20/30

Hey, it's Monday's podcast.

Great one.

We start with Martin Luther King Day, and I thought it was appropriate that people are voicing their opinion on their rights

in Virginia, or the big gun rally.

We have several people talking about that today.

Also, Alan Dershowitz, who is now on the Trump team, the impeachment trial, he explains what the media is complaining about.

Also, your rights, for instance, gun rights.

I try to explain this to the media and the left

exactly how we feel, But I turned it around on something that would matter to them.

Steve Dace talks about the Iowa caucus.

Burgess Owens is with us.

And how much trouble am I in when Tanya finally gets home after a week away?

You're listening to

the best of the Blendback Program.

We have Cam Edwards on on now.

He's the host of Bearing Arms Cam and Company and co-host of 40 Acres and a Fool.

It can be heard here on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

Just go to Blazetv.com and sign up now.

Cam is in Virginia, and he's actually at the state capitol where they have just started screening people for security to be able to get in.

He's also going to be speaking today in front of the Capitol.

Welcome to the program, Cam.

How are you?

I'm good, Blenn.

Thanks so much for having me back.

So when I was in Israel and I was doing a big project over there called Restoring Courage, the State Department was very well aware, and George Soros was very aware, of what we were doing.

And they did everything they could to discourage people from coming.

The State Department actually issued the day of

all Americans should not be anywhere near the Temple Mount because of security on that day.

I feel like the same thing is being done in Virginia.

Is there a real sense of foreboding and danger there, or do you think this is hype?

You know, honestly, Gwynn, I got to tell you, I mean, there are tens of thousands of Virginians that are downtown right now.

And the mood here is not one of fear and foreboding.

You've got a lot of folks with smiles on their faces.

They're energized to see their fellow gun owners.

I talked with folks from Lebanon, Virginia, which is about a six-hour drive from Richmond.

They headed out last night and arrived.

There are folks coming in from all across the state and really even all across the country.

I talked to the gentleman who drove up from North Carolina, not to start any trouble, but because he wanted to stand with Virginians in support of their Second Amendment rights.

And so far, that is what we have seen here.

There are several thousand people on the grounds of the state capitol.

There are far more surrounding the state capitol outside of that security perimeter.

But everybody has been peaceful.

Everybody has been calm.

And everybody is hoping to send that that message to Governor Ralph Northam that his gun control agenda is a huge mistake, and Virginians want no part of it.

So, Cam, you say there's a lot more people outside of the security brew in.

Are they coming in?

Are they out because they are carrying weapons?

Tell me what.

I think it's a mix of both.

There is a long line to get in.

There is one entrance into the Capitol.

There are multiple magnetometers set up by the Capitol Police.

The folks folks are being screened as they go in.

And there is a steady stream of folks coming in.

But yes, outside of that perimeter, there are a lot of folks who are carrying, either concealed.

I have seen a number of folks who are open carrying rifles.

You know, and it's, Glenn,

it's a very broad crowd.

I mean, you've got moms and dads who are here with their kids.

You've got folks who are, you know, up in their militia outfits.

You've got, you know, black, white, young, old.

It really is a cross-section of Virginia, but everybody's getting along, and I think everybody is here.

I believe the vast, vast majority of the folks here are here for that one purpose-to lobby lawmakers to oppose what Ralph Northam's trying to do.

Cam, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

We'll check in with you later, host of Bearing Arms, Cam and Company, and 40 Acres and a Fool heard on Blaze TV.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it, Cam.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

He absolutely is entitled to the best constitutional defense he can get.

What he's not entitled to is Alan pretending like he's some sort of neutral observer instead of what he is, which is Donald Trump's lawyer.

For For some reason, you don't want to admit that, and

that's up to you.

But

you are pretending that there is some sort of perfect constitutional sweet spot.

It doesn't have to be a crime, but it can't be simply being a bad president, that there is some magical area in there that is an impeachable offense.

And I think straightforwardly that abuse of power,

the framers recognized it.

That's what's the issue in this case.

and the senators are perfectly capable of determining whether what the president did is a violation of his oath.

Alan Dershowitz is here,

and I want to ask you, Alan, maybe I've missed this, but they're not accusing him of abuse of power, are they?

They're saying that

he refused to acquiesce to Congress.

Well, there are two articles of impeachment.

The second is obstruction of Congress, and that's just a false accusation.

It's a separate branch.

It's a separate branch.

The president's entitled to leave it to the courts to decide whether or not members of the executive have to comply with subpoenas.

But they do also charge him in the Ukraine matter with abuse of power.

But abuse of power was discussed by the framers.

It was given as a reason why we should have

impeachment in the Constitution at all.

But then when it came to coming up with criteria for impeachment, the framers refused to include abuse of power because it was too too broad, too open-ended, and in the words of James Madison, who's the father of our Constitution, would leave presidents to serve at the will of Congress.

And that's exactly what the framers didn't want, which is why they were very specific and said a president can be impeached only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Misdemeanors are crimes.

And according to Blackstone, whose book was the most influential one at the time, a misdemeanor is a species of crime.

We think of it now like jaywalking, but that's not what it was meant at the time.

No, misdemeanor.

In fact,

at common law, there was such a thing as a capital misdemeanor.

A person could be executed.

For example, if somebody shot the king's deer in the king's park, that would be regarded as a misdemeanor, but he could lose his head over it.

It's just that his blood wouldn't be attained, his family wouldn't be suffering, but because it wasn't a felony, but thus misdemeanors could be very, very serious.

They also included things like maladministration, but the frame is explicitly rejected.

There was actually a vote on maladministration, and it went down, I think, nine to two or something like that.

And then the person who offered that amendment withdrew it and substituted high crimes and misdemeanors.

I've now read, I think, every word of every framer.

debating impeachment.

And I've also, of course, read the Federalist Papers, and I've read

the statements made by the lawyers in the trial of Andrew Johnson, and I think I'm pretty well prepared to help inform the senators.

Jeffrey Toobin seems to think somehow it's a sin for me to

be presenting my case to the Senate because I'm not

involved in every aspect of the

trial.

Very often I come into a case as of counsel on the constitutional issues,

and I don't get involved in the day-to-day issues in the case, but I just present on the constitutional issues.

And that's precisely what I'm doing in this case.

It's consistent with what I've done in many, many other prior cases.

And there's nothing unusual about it.

But, you know, people don't want to address my arguments on the merits.

What they want to do is attack me personally.

And that's what's happened in this country.

Everything's become a personal attack.

People won't talk to me.

People won't engage with me because they think I'm representing the devil and I'm the devil's advocate.

And you are still a liberal Democrat.

Liberal Democrat?

Right.

I mean,

it's crazy.

All right.

Let me ask you on

abuse of power.

If they're charging abuse of power in the Ukraine, they're saying basically that he was trying to withhold money, et cetera, et cetera.

But how can you prove that without

going into what the president was concerned about on the abuse

of the Ukrainians through the State Department, you know, through our embassy in 2016 and also the use of our money being laundered and shipped back to Hunter Biden.

How can you possibly make this case without going into what the president said?

I need you to look into these things.

Well, I think there's a fair point to that.

And if witnesses are called by the Democrats, obviously witnesses will have to be called by the Republicans.

And one of the issues will be when the president said on the telephone call to the president of Ukraine,

I need you to look into whether or not there was an investigation of Hunter Biden.

We have to see, because remember, we do have a conversation between Joe Biden, who I like, and who I've known for many, many years.

But there is that conversation in which he said he told the Ukrainians that unless they fire the prosecutor within six hours, the money will be withheld.

Now, the question is, was that prosecutor corrupt?

Should he have been fired?

Was he looking into Hunter Biden?

Was that abuse of power?

That will have to come up.

And that will have to be, look, I don't think

abuse of power is a constitutionally impeachable offense, regardless of who does it.

I don't distinguish between Democrats and Republicans.

But I think that all these things would have to be looked at, and the trial would be interminable.

It would take forever if a witness is a call.

But if that's what the Senate wants, excuse me, they have the authority to do it because they make the decisions.

So wouldn't,

you know,

wouldn't abuse of power be

like what Nixon was doing, using federal agencies for his own?

Wouldn't abuse of power be Barack Obama with the IRS or his administration with the IRS?

Well, with Nixon, he committed crimes.

At least he was accused of committing crimes.

That is, paying hush money to witnesses.

He was accused of telling his associates to lie to the FBI, of erasing a tape.

All of those would be criminal if they could be proved.

Whereas what's alleged against President Trump is not criminal.

If they had criminal issues to allege, you can be sure they would have done it.

If they could establish bribery or treason, they would have done it.

But they didn't.

They instead used this concept of

abuse of power, which is so broad and general, that any president could, as you say, any president could be charged with it.

So is it accurate to describe the impeachment?

Because I don't think a lot of people even understand how this works, but

on a very surface level, that what

the House did is almost like a grand jury.

That's right.

And then it's passed over to the Senate.

Now, can they continue to add new things?

For instance, this Lev Parnes stuff, which I find interesting at best,

but they

can they continue to evolve the charges?

Well, they can add new evidence of the original charges, but they can't add new charges without going through the impeachment process in the House.

And, you know, that's so Lev Pardez would be a hard case because to the extent he's alleging something different

that maybe require going back to the House, to the extent that he's simply allegedly adding evidence to what's already been charged, then it probably wouldn't have to go back to the House.

But, you know, these are issues that would have to be determined by the House and the Senate because the Constitution doesn't lay out the procedures.

It just says the House shall be the sole judge of impeachment, and the Senate shall be the sole judge of conviction or acquittal.

And what is the role of

the Chief Justice?

No one knows.

It's more than symbolic.

I mean, he's put there only in case of presidential impeachments.

Now, you can argue one of the reasons he's there is because the

president pro tempa, the Senate,

which is in the line of succession as president.

So he shouldn't be there.

But I think there's another reason.

I think they wanted to add a judicial element to so important a job as removing a duly elected president.

So I think the chief justice has some role to play, but what exactly it is, nobody is sure.

What are the things that we should be watching for,

Alan, from both sides?

What are the things that will show us one way or another which way this is going?

Well, I think the questions from the senators and the questions from the House managers, I'm looking forward to those questions already.

The media, some of the media, particularly in the hard left media, are predicting that I will be devastated by the questions.

I assure you, I'm going to be very well prepared for any question that's asked me.

I've argued 250 appeals over a 50-year period.

I've never been asked a question during that period of time that I wasn't prepared for, and I intend to be prepared for the questions here.

Whether my answer is suffice or not is going to be up to the senators, but I will be prepared.

So are you going to be testifying?

Are you going to be advising?

Because you're not arguing.

No, I'm going to be arguing.

I'm going to be making the argument on the constitutional issue.

I'm going to be presenting to the Senate an argument as to why the Constitution doesn't permit the conviction of Donald Trump based on these two articles of impeachment

of counsel on the constitutional issue.

Is this much different than the role you played with O.J.

Simpson, where you, if I remember right, you had a specific part of the trial you were

taking on, right?

So is there any difference?

Right.

I hadn't thought about that.

That's exactly an analogy.

In the O.J.

Simpson case, I came in and made arguments,

specifically arguments that related to the appeal.

Somebody on CNN yesterday compared me to a special teams player in the Super Bowl.

That's a fair point.

I mean, I'm going to come in and maybe kick the extra point or kick the field goal that hopefully wins the game.

How do you feel about the team that the president has assembled?

And if you've had any kind of look into what they're doing, do you feel confident that

they are going to be prepared it's a team of excellent excellent lawyers um uh pat zipolone is a first-rate lawyer uh so is jay secolo and of course uh uh ken star uh pambondi um the rest of the lawyers i really don't know but i have a high level of confidence in the lawyers that i know wasn't uh ken star stew wasn't wasn't he

i mean i thought he was making statements against uh donald trump this whole time well i was he was making statements against Bill Clinton.

He was the chief prosecutor, the special counsel.

No, I remember.

Yeah, I remember that, but I think recently.

I don't remember him.

I don't remember that.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Could be wrong.

Alan, thank you so much, and best of luck.

When will we be seeing you?

Probably Friday, but we can't be sure of the schedule.

We'll know better tomorrow.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Take care, Beth.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

All right, We're going to take you to John Miller, who does the White House brief on Blaze TV.

And John is on the ground now in Virginia.

John,

the pre-talk of this was it's going to be the most dangerous place on the planet.

How's it shaping up here in Virginia?

Yeah, well, you know, if this is the most dangerous thing on the planet, then, you know,

I'm at a loss because we're right here at the perimeter.

And, you know, know, beyond this line, beyond this

point, and I don't know how much you can hear, Glenn, people are chanting USA in the background.

There can't be rezoned valve.

There can't be a number of things, but the further you go, once you cross that line, you're not allowed to carry.

So a number of people have made a point of carrying.

Virginia remembers an open carry state.

They've made a point of carrying to show that they are safer outside of a perimeter where they don't allow guns than they would be inside of that line.

And how many people are inside versus outside?

In the thousands, we're still trying to get a count, an exact count,

but it's already packed.

The rallies, and it's not a rally, I should stop calling it that,

because it really is just lobby day, which happens in Virginia every year.

They've been doing it for 18 years.

And

it's already packed.

It's supposed to start at 11, but they had to start letting people in at 8.

So

it's clear that this is something that matters a lot to people.

And we're still just trying to get

a headcount on numbers.

So, John, help me out and looking at the pictures of it.

It is incredible how many people are there.

But talk to me a little bit about

Lobbying Day.

This has been in place for 18 years.

This is the first time, I think, that they've ever had anything like this.

And the Democrats just freaked out.

Explain what Lobbying Day is.

Well, they come every year, and basically, you go to the capitol and they have meetings where you um you basically discuss legislation and it's essentially to boil it down a way for Virginians to actually get their voices to be heard.

This year, because of the anti-gun legislations, red flag laws,

basically clamping down on

the kinds of weapons that you can have, because of that, it reached a boiling point.

And like you said, the Democrats freaked out about it.

But this is something that happens every single year.

It's something that is completely legal.

It's something that Virginians have been doing for years.

And

because the kind of legislation that's on the table, which is gun rights legislation now,

it's gotten to be a much bigger, a much bigger deal.

John, tell me about the scene.

As I'm looking at some of the video, the people that are closest to the Capitol, generally

white men,

which is going to make this very easy for the left to paint this as a white supremacist movement.

Are you the only African American in the crowd?

Are there any women and children?

There I'm standing actually literally right next to an Asian woman who's standing on a, you know, on

one of the steps here.

I would say, yeah, it's probably,

it is a mixed crowd, but it's also

what I can see is not necessarily representative of who fear, so I'm not actually sure.

I do know that I've already said, you know, there's people of all colors, there's people of all genders, and

I wouldn't say it's all white men.

I certainly, I don't see any Nazis.

I guess we're waiting to see where all the Nazis are hiding because that's what I was told who would be here.

Yeah.

And I think, you remember, John, you were with me as my assistant at the time.

You may have been an intern at Restoring Honor.

Were you not?

When we went to Washington?

I'm trying to remember.

I was right, I think I had just ended my

sophomore year.

Yes, I was transitioning from an intern to an assistant, I think.

Yeah.

So you were my assistant.

Remember how much the

organs of the state tried to suppress

attendance there by saying that it was going to be very violent and awful.

And

we were told that the Black Panthers were coming.

Do you remember that?

And it turned out not to be that.

Does it feel like the same kind of thing happening with the state of Virginia here, trying to suppress these numbers?

I'm with one of my producers, Beth, here, who just told me everyone to her has been an absolute gentleman.

It has been nothing but peaceful protesters.

And it's this narrative that they try to frame where everyone's violent, everyone's getting in clashes in the streets.

It's just not, it wasn't the reality, Glenn, on 828.

It's not the reality now.

And that is completely just a fabrication that I think they use to dissuade people from attending these events because they want to suppress the numbers, because they want people to think that it's not important.

and they want people to think that no one's actually interested except for the fringe, which is just not the case.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of just normal everyday Americans who, believe it or not, actually value their rights, believe it or not, actually value the things that are afforded to them by the Constitution, the Virginia State Constitution, and

the country's constitution.

And so

they're probably going to find the craziest people they can and highlight those.

But we've been here now for about half an hour, and it's just everyday people you see every day, and no one's been anything but kind.

Do you see the mainstream media anywhere?

No, I have not.

It's all, you know, there's local news, there is

conservative outlets, but I haven't seen any flags, you know, Mike Flag from a PNN, NBC.

I don't know if they're here.

I haven't seen any coverage.

I haven't seen any coverage except on Fox, but I could be wrong.

The last question:

What time do you download today the White House brief?

And what are you having?

I believe it's 4 p.m.

That's when we

usually download.

So 4 p.m.

Eastern.

We're going to try to get some interviews with people on the ground here.

We're going to try to get some interviews with the organizers, the people who actually put this together,

and see

what they say.

Because what's fascinating to me is that these are people who it is so important to have this

right that they have literally said, hey, if the state tries to come after my guns, I'm literally willing to

go to jail.

I'm willing to face whatever consequences come my way, but I'm not giving up this right.

It sounds like another period of time that we're celebrating today, Martin Luther King Day.

Correct.

Correct.

And that's why it's so fitting that it's on this day,

because it shows that American people, when it comes down to their rights, when it comes down to the things that they are allowed to do and the things that make living in this country great, when it comes down to those things, they have to,

sorry, I'm getting pushed aside.

They have to,

they're not willing to give those up.

Yeah.

And they're doing it peacefully, but they're letting their voices be heard.

Well, let them all know that we're behind them.

And I

appreciate the fact that you're there, John, along with a couple of other people from the Blaze that we will talk to later on in the program.

Thanks, John Miller, the White House brief.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

Mr.

Steve Dace, welcome to the program from Iowa.

Probably, I think, the leading expert

on our program or on the Blaze TV

when it comes especially to Iowa, but maybe politically, you are really dialed into this.

You have been not only watching it, but participating in politics and the electoral process there in Iowa for years and years and years.

Welcome to the program, Steve.

Good morning, Glenn.

Thanks for having me back.

How is this race different than the other races that you've seen

over the years?

I think what makes this race different than any other is

this is 2012 for the Democrats, where if you go back to the 2012 Republican primary, it was all about anybody but Obama, anybody but Obama, anybody but Obama.

And then as the primary got going, it became anybody but Romney.

Romney was clearly established as the establishment candidate.

And so you had these flavors of the month come up and who could capture the imagination of the grassroots and stop Mitt Romney from being the nominee?

That's how this process began for them.

But they ended up with somebody who belly-flopped as a Mitt Romney and is underperforming in the early states, dramatically so compared to all of his national polling.

And just to show you how ridiculous national polling is, today there's a presidential primary poll of New Jersey for reasons only a law knows.

Okay, I mean there's there's no because I just wanted to bill people.

I wanted to call people that New Jersey's opinion on the presidential process is irrelevant.

And so it goes back to what I told you guys a couple of weeks ago that it doesn't matter what anybody thinks except that they live in Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, and New Hampshire right now.

And I think so there's this free-for-all because no one has established their lane.

They don't have a clear establishment candidate.

Biden is leading in that sub-primary, but he can't close the sale because, frankly, he's incompetent.

And you saw that come out in the debate last week, whereas the debate were on, so did he.

And so nothing is established.

It is really, to use a wrestling term, it is a battle royale right now.

They're all in the ring together taking shots.

So who's up and who's down from last week?

I think nothing has really changed from last week.

I think right now

you have a Warren Bernie Sanders free-for-all for the grassroots.

Bernie is the Ron Paul character.

He has an insurgent wing of people that just want to disrupt the process and see him either personally or ideologically.

And I'm not drawing a moral equivalency between the two, a situational one.

So whether they see him ideologically or personally as a disruptor, but there's not enough of those people to win.

And so he's got to grow his coalition.

And Elizabeth Warren has always ate into his ability to do that.

And in the last couple of weeks, it looked like he had pushed her back or whether she had made enough mistakes to hurt herself.

But now you're seeing, including with the New York Times editorial this morning, you're seeing the more establishment hard left now, meaning the more polished, softer side of Sears, as I call it.

They're now coming surging back to try to push her over the top on Bernie Sanders.

And that's where they're doing doing body language analyses of Bernie on these channels that are all pro-Warren.

And so I think that's really the only thing is there's now like a second TED offensive on behalf of Elizabeth Warren from the media.

So it's interesting to me

that you saw that bias in the last debate with CNN where they just believed Warren and just dismissed Bernie Sanders.

But also the New York Times now has, and

I don't remember the New York Times offering two candidates before, but this time they're offering two candidates as their editorial pick.

Explain.

I think this is a very strategic decision.

I don't think it's just ⁇ some of it is pathos.

It's just pure emotion of a newsroom that just wants it to be the year of the woman so bad.

But I think beyond that, I think that Warren is their candidate.

And Amy Klobuchar is not competing with her in Iowa.

Amy Klobuchar is running ads right now.

I get more done than any other Democrat.

I'm Iowa, Minnesota, nice.

She's running in Joe Biden's subprimary.

That's why I think this is, I think the New York Times here is trying to do two things.

Number one, they're trying to elevate Amy Klobuchar to diminish Joe Biden.

I think there's a fear that Amy Klobuchar is fading and that Joe Biden will kind of get that.

We've just got a win lane all to himself and overperform on caucus night.

So they're trying to elevate Amy Klobuchar as a viable alternative to him.

And then I think it's the idea that if she can do well enough, promoting an all-female ticket for the presidency in the general election in the fall, a Warren Klobuchar ticket.

So I think there's two different things going on here with what the New York Times did this morning.

Steve, what do you think of the people in Iowa that matter,

the big power players that are making these sort of calls and

pushing voters and have the real influence there on the ground?

What do they think is going to happen?

Well, they don't know.

And I think that's why you've seen, Stu, Tom Bilsack, who was our, I guess we call a more moderate Democrat governor in the early 2000s.

And I think that's why you're seeing him and John Kerry,

who won the Iowa caucuses here in 2004.

I think that's why you're seeing a lot of the old guard come back in here.

They're trying to rescue Joe Biden.

And I think if they thought for sure that he had this, they wouldn't risk outing themselves and alienating their own grassroots.

I think this is triage.

or maybe it takes a village to win a caucus.

I think they're all trying to chip in and carry him across the finish line here.

And I think the goal is just get Joe Biden to Super Tuesday and all those southern states with all those black voters and just have him be viable until then.

And he can at least sweep enough of those states to force a convention, if not win the nomination.

I think that's what their play is.

And I think the fact that they're getting so active here down the street or down the stretch, Stu, indicates they're concerned about his ability to close the sale.

Well, that's that, I mean, that's worse than a Romney candidacy.

I agreed.

Agreed.

Romney, whatever you thought about him as a candidate, and I didn't think very highly on an ideological level,

as a personal candidate, very polished, in charge, in command.

Seldom did you see him get

ruffled.

McCain did that to him in 08 in the New Hampshire primary, and he said, you are the candidate of change.

And the race changed in 08 right at that moment, because it was the first time we'd ever seen Mitt Romney not on his mark.

In 2012, when I was on the Newt campaign and Newt bloodied him up in that South Carolina debate, that changed that whole primary was in that debate.

But those are the rare instances where Mitt Romney did not command the stage when he was in the room with the other candidates.

Joe Biden cannot do that.

He could have probably done that.

I mean, Mitt Romney is also about 10 years younger, if not more.

He's about 10 years younger than Joe Biden.

So I think, and we're being hard on Biden, but in reality, guys, this is what most 80-year-old men are.

Most 80-year-old men get off a good blast or two and make you think, hey, the old man still got it.

And then you sit down for another half an hour and, you know, he's asleep with a cigarette dangling out of the side of his mouth.

You know, he's going to burn the whole damn house down.

Okay.

I mean, that's what most 80-year-old men are.

And that's what you've seen with Joe Biden out on the campaign.

We saw that in the documentary Christmas Vacation.

That exact thing happened.

And

it's not only that, but Mitt Romney had support, but it was milquetoast.

If nobody had to drag him across the finish line early on, if they're dragging this guy across the finish line, when you lose all the momentum of the Warren Sanders, the people that

voters are excited about, you've got somebody that no one is excited about.

No one.

And he's fallen into the trap.

All of his ads down the stretch here are his polling numbers against Trump.

I'm the guy that can win.

Regular Iowans on camera saying eventually we have to win.

And so he was supposed to be the Mitt Romney

of this race.

He was was supposed to be the adult in a room with experience while the grassroots kind of fiddled and played favorites and was going to kind of run and hide.

He's ended up becoming the Jeb Bush here.

And so

what matters now is whether Bernie Sanders can be the Donald Trump, meaning, again, the disruptor who can widen his coalition

beyond people who just want to watch the system burn because they hate it, or whether Elizabeth Warren can be the Ted Cruz.

Meaning, again, I'm not drawing moral equivalencies, just situational ones.

Meaning, beyond people who just passed her ideological test,

can she grow a coalition beyond that?

Cruz and Trump both passed those tests in 2016, which is why they were the last two standing candidates after Jeb Bush folded.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are trying to pass that test right now.

Imagine going back to the 2016 Republican primary, Trump and Cruz fail, and you're left with, well, I guess we go with Jeb Bush because there's nobody left.

That's essentially the argument right now for Joe Biden.

One last question.

Did you see the poll?

I think it's 86% of farmers overwhelmingly approve Donald Trump now.

Does that play a role anymore in Iowa?

Sure does.

I mean, we had 33 counties that voted twice for Obama

in 08 and 12, pardon me, that voted for Trump in 2016.

And he lost a lot of those counties in the 2018 midterms.

And that's why

it was a good Democratic year in our state in the last election.

So, yes, it does matter.

Well, let me put a finer point on it.

It matters not as much as the national media thinks, okay, because that population has diminished, but it still matters more than most people probably believe.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, but absolutely it does matter on some level, no doubt about it.

Steve, thank you so much.

Steve Dace from the Steve Dace Show.

You can watch his program on Blaze TV immediately following this this program every day.

And he is the guy to go to when it comes to the Iowa elections.

Thanks, Steve.

You bet.

You're listening to the best of the Glendeck program.

We have Burgess Owens on.

He is a NFL Super Bowl champion and a congressional candidate.

He is running, I don't even know which district is he on with us.

Burgess?

Hi, Glenn.

Yes.

Which district are you running?

Which is it?

District number four.

Number four.

Number four in Utah, and a good friend of ours, and

just a really solid, solid guy.

I wanted to have you on.

It's Martin Luther King Day.

So tell me, how old were you when Martin Luther King died?

Oh, gosh, I was a sophomore in high school.

And where were you living?

You know, Glenn, I was in Tallahassee, Florida.

We were actually,

I was in a school that had integrated Rickers High School, so we were going through a lot of

those issues during those days and pretty tumultuous times.

But

it was a time also where I can now reflect back, see the benefits of good men who did great things in that period, and now we're living the results of that today.

And if I can say this, I was looking at the search engine being today, B-I-N-G, and there's a picture of Jackie Robinson and his wife and his son and a bunch of other men and women marching together.

And I just highlight to people, that was a, I think Martin Luther King Day represents an era of good men, respectful, patriotic, God-fearing, family-oriented, astronomer, and visionary.

If you take a picture of that, you see the environment I grew up in, and I'm so proud to say that that was part of that great generation that taught us good things.

Well, there was a different way to go, and it was the Malcolm X way.

And there was, you know, the Black Panthers.

A lot of people were pushing for this

to go towards violence.

And I really feel, Burgess, that I don't see the Martin Luther King

agent of change

out there today.

Somebody that, I mean, the left, it's crazy.

The left has completely abandoned this guy because he's not radical enough.

Well, the left never has embraced Martin Luther King.

And this lets you have to understand, what Martin Luther King in that era represented was our Judeo-Christian values that made our country great.

They represented the culture that every person, every people, every group that comes here, once they embrace, they succeed and they become part of the middle class.

The left has always been anti

this American culture.

It has always been angry, has always been undermining,

and what they do best is they go after our kids.

They attack the most vulnerable, which

are children, kids

that are wide open, that are hopeful when they come off to school and they want to do the very best, and they come out feeling very angry, anti-God, and anti-American.

So, you know, the left is doing what they're doing best.

And unfortunately, we've allowed them to lean their way into my great community.

And what you see in that picture is no longer what we see today.

We don't see respectful men and women marching and talking and articulating themselves in a very intelligent way.

We don't see that because the left, again,

has taken us in a different direction.

So Donald Trump is, we're looking at, I think, 3.9% unemployment,

best unemployment since the 1960s, best unemployment for African Americans of all time

and I have seen African Americans Candice Owen is going to be on my on my TV show tonight this is the first time we're ever we're ever going to be doing something together and I have a ton of respect for her she has really grown into a remarkable individual

but

that's that is the

The things that I'm starting to see, and maybe it's because I'm living in my white world with white privilege, but I'm starting to see African Americans break out, be themselves, not just be, you know,

I hate to use this phrase, but it's accurate, a slave to the Democratic Party, doing whatever they tell them to do.

Is that real?

It's real.

And first of all, please tell Candace the Fellow.

She's become a good friend of mine.

And

Graham, I think of this, and when I was 30 years old,

I wasn't even coming close to having the wisdom, the courage, the insight that that young lady has.

And she represents

this new generation that's waking up.

And I'll say this, that the greatest presence of President Obama was he was such a lousy president that America is now saying, whatever happened to Hope and Change, what happens to the promises that not only this black savior is going to give us, but the Democratic Party has been promising us for the last 30, 40 years.

So, yes, we are not only waking up.

We are advocating strongly, come off this plantation.

We have more and more black Americans now wearing the MAGA hats.

And I was talking to Sarah Carter today, and I asked the audience, you ever see a black American with a MAGA hat on?

Please go up and shake his hand and say thank you because they are on the front line.

These are the guys, these are people, men and women, old and young, that say, you know what, I can care less what people call me.

I can care less what the, quote, means of our community are right now, what they want us to believe.

We are now saying we're going to run off this plantation, not only bring our kids back and our community back, but make sure the rest of America realizing do not trust these people.

What they've done to us for the last 60, 70 years is exactly what they're trying to do to our country.

So I'm very proud, number one, of our country overall, but I'm extremely proud of a president who is standing up against these elitists and has done a great job.

And again, I was one of those guys that was very reluctant four years ago.

But when I saw the three years ago, when I saw the promise,

the New Deal, the promise of the New Deal for America, and I saw those 10 tenants that

candidate Trump had put together.

I said, if only he does this, he'll be worth it for me.

He's done that and more.

And thank goodness America's coming together to be proud again of who we are.

And we can have this conversation that we're going across, getting past this racial thing that the left has been driving us toward for the last few decades.

As we're looking at the impeachment now, the hearings start tomorrow.

Earlier on the program, we had Alan Dershowitz talking about it,

and he's getting his head handed to him.

Here's a liberal Democrat who didn't vote for Trump

and, in fact, wrote his book about impeachment.

And the original name of the book was the impeachment of Hillary Clinton because he thought people would impeach Hillary Clinton.

It turned out to be Donald Trump.

What are your thoughts going forward here on

this impeachment?

Okay.

Well, first of all,

the campaign that I put together, Glenn,

is based based on four tenets that was given this

by Booker T.

Washington,

head, heart, hands, and home, education, God,

industry, and family.

What we're doing now, we're seeing the fact that when

godless ideology takes over, which is what the socialists and Marxists are, they could care less about the rule of law, they can care about what's fair, and they will turn on their own because they really care more about power than any type of loyalty.

So this is what people have to recognize.

Take God out of the the picture and you get total evil.

And what we're dealing with, I'm not talking about people.

There are people who adhere to this evil, but more importantly, it's an ideology that nowhere in the history of mankind has ever done anything but giving misery, hopelessness, and anger.

So what's happening now is we have a president who's giving our country the best society, the best economy we've ever experienced, jobs,

entrepreneurship, 400%.

amount of black entrepreneurship in the first two years.

Women working like crazy.

I mean, it's it's across the board.

It's never been this way.

And the left has never been more angry because the people, we the people are not miserable.

They are not, they don't have the power.

So President Trump is slowly but surely pulling back the curtain, first of all, to realize how insidious these people have been for a long, long time.

And not only that, but to realize in that, you know, we can have a very happy society that's based on harmony and looking each other inside out.

And we can have our kids excited about our future.

And those are things that they have, they hate with

everything that they're all about.

And so they're trying to destroy him because of it.

So it's going to be very obvious, I think, to most Americans, those who are fair, and I think that's what most Americans are, they're fair and they just want people to keep their word, keep it very simple.

And because he's doing that,

they are losing power and they don't see it because they have no wisdom because there's no God in their purview.

So we're going to continue to move forward and get our country back.

And I'm very, very excited about being part of that process.

Burgess, we'd like to give the web address for people to come and help your campaign.

However, we can't do that unless we get a Super Bowl pick.

Chiefs, 49ers.

Well, listen, I'm a Philadelphia guy like you are.

So, you know, I got to go with Andy.

Andy's a great, classy, classy guy.

He really is.

I'm at a point now.

I'm at a point now where our group of teams based on coaches.

So, for the last few years, if the ratings haven't been close, it's always been Kansas City because Andy Reid is a first-class individual.

So, by the way, my website is Burgess4TheFourTenants4Utah.com.

And if I can say this for those in the audience, it's not just Utah.

The values we have here are those four tenants I mentioned.

And it's time for us to take those values back to D.C.

and instead of letting D.C.

come here.

And because it's the most important seat, one of the top seats in this country, the Democrats need to have this seat to keep the power.

We need to have the seat.

to get back our back our country.

So America's cross-the board.

Please support me in this process so we get our country back at burgess4utah.com.

Thanks a lot, Burgess.

Appreciate it.

Burgess Owens,

you bet.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.