12/5/17 - Undermining Public Faith (David French. Austin Peterson & Mason Wells join Glenn)

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

love

courage truth Glenn Back Well, the US Supreme Court has finally, definitely, possibly, maybe, temporarily, but for sure, green lit the travel ban.

So are we ever going to get any finality on this?

This version of the the ban, the third, if anyone is still counting, was issued four months ago.

It's currently facing ongoing opposition from two lower courts into separate challenges.

Those cases are going to be heard this week.

So, the temporary win for the administration might end up being a short celebration, but we're not sure because they decided for sure

temporarily, kind of

it's carved in jello.

You got to give it to the social justice warrior activist, media, politicians.

You guys are good, man.

Pretty impressive on how you can take any issue at all, doesn't matter what it is, and turn it into a social justice jihad.

Are you pro-life?

Well,

why do you hate women so much?

You pro-religious liberty?

What a fascist bigot you are.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall on the strategy table, you know, when I heard people start to, how are we going to spin the travel ban?

Okay, guys, what do all these countries have in common?

Ah, yeah,

they all have a lot of sand.

Trump hates desert climates.

Nice, nice thought.

Maybe we could spin a climate change argument here.

Anybody else?

Oh, yeah.

All of these areas are conflict zones.

You idiot.

Stupidest idea you have heard yet.

You can't just say that and then not follow it up with an agenda.

Here, let me work with you here.

These are unstable areas.

A prime example of the effects of global colonialism.

Boom!

There!

That's how you get it done.

Wait a minute.

Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad.

Wait a minute.

There's a lot of Muslims in these areas.

Change the word from Trump's travel ban to a travel ban on Muslim-majority countries.

Now, we're going to have to find a way to get everybody to forget that North Korea and Venezuela are part of the travel banned as well, and they're not full of Muslims.

But

if we can just get them to forget, done and done.

Back to reality here for a second.

If this truly were a Muslim ban, then

why the addition of North Korea and Venezuela?

Why wouldn't you add in the most populous Muslim countries in the world?

Indonesia is 13% of the world's Muslim population, kind of big.

In fact, number one on the charts.

Coming in at number two, Muslim-populated country is India, followed with Pakistan at number three with a bullet.

The only country that the travel ban is including that breaks the top 10 is Iran.

So wait, this can't be a Muslim travel ban.

I know, I know, Trump said that, but he's dumb as a box of rocks.

Why are people so comfortable with putting up with a false social justice agenda?

Especially when it comes to national security.

Maybe it's because the people pushing this will never have to live with the consequences.

I mean, how many live in neighborhoods that are going to have illegal immigrants or refugee resettlements?

I mean, we find out really quick when we say, oh, okay, well, we're going to resettle them in your neighborhood.

How everybody's like, oh, no, no, wait, oh, no, hold on just a second.

You look at Hawaii.

The state has become famous for overruling the travel ban, right?

Hawaiians are not going to put up with this.

Except since 2010, you know how many refugees Hawaii has accepted?

Count them.

You can, because, well, unless you've lost a finger, 10.

10.

That's less than 1%.

And none of their legal immigrants come anywhere close to those conflicted areas listed on the travel ban.

Oh, but they're all about allowing North Korea to stay on the ban.

Yeah, we're going to ban those guys, you bet.

So here's to a little safety.

Well,

at least until the Supreme Court changes its mind, perhaps later this week.

It's Tuesday, December 5th.

This is the Glenbeck program.

It's going to be one of our topics today on television at 5 o'clock.

This is

so astounding how everyone is playing a game with the travel ban.

What is the travel ban really about?

Honestly, what is it about?

Safety, right?

It's about we have to know who's coming into our country.

So Donald Trump said, we need 90 days to be able to get our sea legs here, know who's coming into the country, and then we'll reevaluate.

Okay.

All right.

To me, that made sense.

The left immediately protests.

No, no, no, we have to have everybody come into the country.

We can't ask any questions.

Come on, you racists.

What is this really about?

At this point, Trump has had almost a year.

So

did you do that 90-day research?

I mean, because you should have an answer now.

We shouldn't need this temporary ban.

We should know the answer.

You've had almost to a year.

Or did you

did you think you only had the budget to be able to fight it in court or

do your homework?

Now, if I...

If I hadn't seen the deficit number, I would say, well, maybe you didn't have the money.

You had to pick one or the other.

But I know that's not true.

So why are we still fighting something where we were only supposed to have it for 90 days?

So we could do our homework and get our sea legs.

You should have that answer now.

We should be talking about an entirely new travel ban.

The White House should come out and say, hey, by the way, we've done our homework.

That's outdated.

We've now done our homework, and here's how we want to change this.

That's what it should be.

Okay, so that's on the right.

On the left,

this is all about winning.

This is about destroying Donald Trump, making sure that you're the biggest pain in the ass so you don't get anything done at all.

And if you want some example, could we go to the audio of what's her name, Joy Behar?

This is Joy Behar yesterday.

Now, remember, If you didn't want President Obama to succeed,

you were un-American.

You were a horrible American.

We all need the president to succeed.

And

a lot of us said that.

We don't want his policies going forward, but we do want him to succeed because otherwise we all fail, right?

That wasn't good enough.

Listen to Joy Behar.

So on Friday's show, apparently I was guilty of premature evaluation.

I hear they have a pill for that now.

To me, it's a mistake.

It's not he didn't deliberately put put out a false piece of information, he made an error.

I don't want to be sure I want him to succeed at destroying the environment, playing chicken with Kim Jong-un.

I'm not so

we want our president to succeed.

No, I don't.

Okay.

All right, Joy.

And I think this is the feeling on the left.

They don't want him to succeed at anything

because they hate him so much that that is the agenda now.

now.

Stop him no matter what.

He could come out and say, I mean, look at his tax plan for the love of Pete.

Look at some of the things that he's doing.

How come the gay community hates Donald Trump so much?

There's no reason for that at all.

Donald Trump is the most gay-friendly president in the history of the United States.

Well, except for Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, who we've now recently discovered were gay.

But other than those two gay presidents,

he is the champion

compared to all other presidents.

And wait, you hate him.

Why?

Just because he's on the other side.

He's the president.

He was the first president to ever take office without opposing outwardly gay marriage, right?

I mean, there's certain things that the gay community does complain about.

They're not Mike Pence fans, for sure.

Yeah.

But still,

but that's not Donald Trump.

That's not Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has been pro-gay rights long before Hillary Clinton or anybody else, long before.

Now, it's just this hatred

because they oppose him

on whatever, whatever else.

You don't have anybody saying, you know what, I agree with him on these things.

It's just destroy him.

Just destroy him.

Well, that's not going to get us anywhere.

And that's where the left is.

That's where the media is.

And they are so twisted at this point in their hatred for him.

They'll do anything.

They'll do anything.

And on the other side,

Donald Trump, what is

do you still need the 90 days?

Or have you done your homework?

Is this now just about beating the press and beating the left?

Because I, as one American, would just like to remind everybody involved,

this is about national security.

That's why this started.

We're supposed to know who's in the country.

That's what this is.

National security.

I don't care who wins.

Quite frankly, maybe you guys should spend more time on, ultimately, if you keep behaving this way,

who's going to lose?

This is the same thing that

is happening with

the Russia investigation.

The Russia investigation is

the media went went crazy on, you know, impeach Donald Trump, impeach Donald Trump, impeach Donald Trump.

And Donald Trump is not helping.

He's just not helping.

But can I just talk to the rest of America?

May I talk to the FBI, those who work for the CIA or NSA, those who are working on investigations, and

you

that actually want a safe, stable democracy?

Can I talk to you for just a second?

Because the Russia investigation is not about Donald Trump.

It is not about Hillary Clinton.

It is about Vladimir Putin.

Now,

there is a 25-page unclassified report that has laid everything out in detail.

Have you heard anybody talking about that?

Is anybody talking about the 25-page unclassified report that is explaining exactly what Russia is doing?

According to the CIA, FBI, and NSA, in this 25-page report, it says, Putin and the Russians have demonstrated a, quote, significant

escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations, end quote.

So what is their operation?

What is their goal according to this unclassified document the goal is quote to undermine public faith in the u.s democratic process

let me say that again to undermine public faith in the u.s democratic process so how do you do that well you have to make the democrats not believe in the democrats anymore and you have to get the republicans not to believe in the republicans anymore you got to convince everybody that they're all the same, that everybody's corrupt, and there's no reason to vote.

And even if you do vote, it's probably rigged.

Now, how close are we to believing all of those things?

The target was not Donald Trump.

The target was not Hillary Clinton.

The target was both of them.

Both of them.

If you look,

if you look at what Russia under Putin is doing, they were running both a covert and an overt operation.

The world has never seen, America has never seen anything like this, even during the Soviet Union.

The Russian military intelligence, this is all verifiable, we know this for a fact.

The Russian military intelligence, the GRU, led a cyber campaign that targeted members of both parties.

Do you remember the talk of Gussifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com?

Those were the Russian-run agencies or operations that went in and hacked the DNC.

And what did they do?

They immediately released those to Wikileaks.

So Russia goes in and they hack the DNC.

What was the result of that?

The result of that was the Democratic Party turning on itself

look at all the behind-the-scenes crap look what they were doing to Bernie Sanders I'll never support Hillary Clinton they got the DNC to start eating itself and it's still eating itself

then what then the Russians

went a step further and they started using fusion GPS

and pushing the steel dossier which was paid for by the Clinton campaign the DNC and the FBI and that campaign that whole thing came from Russia and what did it do it tried to make Donald Trump look like a traitor to the United States

what did that do that started everybody fighting We're eating each other.

Oh, and there's one more thing that the Russians did during the last last election that is verifiable and no one wants to talk about it.

Not only did they use Russia today to bring propaganda in, they used third-party intermediaries, basic trolls, to give us all kinds of fake news.

Oh, and then one more thing.

They started to hack our election.

They went in, and this is, we know, the worst hack was in Illinois, and they hacked the state and local level election boards.

What they were trying to do was they were trying to get to the, where the votes were counted, but they didn't do it because they were thinking, you know, they were

thinking like Russians, not Americans.

So

they targeted the wrong place.

Actually, I think they targeted the state level and everything is counted at the local level.

And they got into the state level and they broke it.

What was that trying to do?

That was trying to get us to say, somebody hacked the elections.

You can't trust the vote.

Please, America, please, I'm begging you, stop making everything about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to Russia, the bad guy is Putin.

And again,

his goal is to quote undermine public faith in the U.S.

democratic process.

We must not play into his hands.

Getting a good night's sleep is easier said than done, especially if you hear a noise downstairs.

What do you do in that situation?

Well, you can turn on all the lights and keep watch.

You can check your kids' beds every hour.

You can sleep with one eye open, or you can rest easy knowing that your family is safe with Simply Safe.

It's a complete arsenal, home security online that you can buy online in minutes, have it delivered to your doorstep this week.

You open the box, you plug it in, it tells you exactly where to place things.

You don't have to have tools, no hardwiring, nothing.

Simply Safe.

Also, no contracts, no hidden fees, no salespeople.

24-7 professional monitoring is only $14.99 a month.

You own the system.

SimplySafeBack.com.

It's the way to protect yourself and your family.

The smart way, the simple way, the inexpensive way.

10% discount if you order today at simply safeback.com.

Go there now.

Get your system at simply safeback.com.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

You know what's amazing is it doesn't seem like to me that anybody cares about what they're saying anymore.

They just want to win.

Listen to this tax bill.

A former Republican policy advisor, Bruce Bartlett, listen to how he's describing the GOP tax bill.

What would be the justification in your mind that Republicans would have for raising taxes on lower-income people?

Because they, you know, they spend all of their income.

So why would why raise taxes on them?

Stop.

Stop.

What is the answer to that?

The answer is: well, they don't.

It's at the end of the bill.

And so it's only going to raise it in 2024.

And the idea is that way they can get the money and say, oh, no, we're actually, it's not going to cost that much

for the CBO.

But they know that no one in Congress is going to allow those taxes to go up in 2024.

So they're just kicking the can down the road.

That's the answer.

Wait until you hear his.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

We have to stop listening to

the television news, quite honestly, on both sides.

We have to stop listening to it.

We have to stop listening to the people who are telling us supposedly the truth because they're giving us a spin and agenda that

is not true.

It's just not true.

And so we're looking, okay, what is the truth?

On the tax bill, what is the truth on the tax bill?

Okay,

if I said to you that the Republicans have in their tax bill, which is true,

a raise of tax on the middle class,

and I asked you, Stu, why would they do that?

What's the actual answer?

A, is that true?

And B, why would they do that?

First of all, it's not really true, right?

What do you mean it's not true?

It's in the tax bill.

Yeah, it's not.

There are parts in the tax bill.

So there are multiple things in the tax bill.

For example, the Senate bill has individual tax cuts that expire in, I think, it's 2024.

So what happens is

when the CBO scores these bills, they have to score them out for 10 years.

It is a very stupid part of the bill.

I'm not a fan of it.

But what it does is basically has these tax cuts expire so it looks so they can justify that they stayed within the requirements that they had to use to get only 50 votes instead of 60.

So

they make up rules, right, to say, okay, we can only get 50 votes, but it has to be within this particular parameter.

So it's not even a tax raise.

They're not raising taxes.

They're just allowing the cut to expire.

Right.

And so it's basically an accounting trick.

This is not something I'm a fan of, by the way, but if you look into 10 years from now,

some of these tax

rates, the tax payments will be higher.

But everyone assumes that in seven years they will just, okay, well, the middle class is going to have their taxes go up, and no one's going to want to vote for a middle-class tax hike.

So what will happen is they'll just continue those tax breaks.

Even Obama did that with Bush taxes.

Okay, so there you go.

That's the truth.

Now, listen to how the news has spun this.

What would be the justification in your mind that Republicans would have for raising taxes on lower-income people?

Because they spend all of their income.

So, why would raise taxes on them?

Listen, that's scary.

It really defies comprehension.

Maybe they think that the poor have it so easy that they need to have to pay more taxes to force them to go out and work more.

Stop

truth.

Maybe that's it.

Maybe that's it.

Maybe that's it.

I mean, I'm just,

the most logical thing I can come up with is that the GOP just thinks the poor has it so easy that they need to go out and work to pay more taxes.

Is there, in

anyone's imagination, is there anyone that thinks, even politically,

that's anything but insanity?

It's obviously not something.

correct.

Correct.

Okay, next.

It really, the amazing thing is that people seem to be accepting this so meekly and mildly.

It's really akin to rape.

It's akin

to rape.

Wait, so rape victims are acting meekly and mildly?

That's what happens with rape victims?

That's a new one.

I hadn't heard that before.

This is, by the way, a former Reagan policy advisor.

Okay.

So I don't know if he has some sort of mental disorder that has made him forget or he's changed his mind on a bunch of things or whatever,

and he also is unable now to figure out reality.

But this is the kind of stuff that we have to stop.

On our side, we have to stop saying it about the left, and the left has to stop saying it about us.

And

I have no real hope or belief that anybody in the media is going to stop doing that.

Not zero.

Nobody in Washington stopped doing that.

But you can stop accepting it.

We have to stop accepting it

and stop saying, okay, yeah, that's probably what's happening because that's not what's happening.

I think someone who worked in the Reagan administration would really understand that.

And that the left referred to tax cuts during that administration

in the exact same way.

He just wanted to hurt poor people.

He thought they were all welfare queens that didn't want to go out and work.

And that was never true.

It was always, and look at the results of those Reagan tax cuts.

The results were incredible for the economy.

Yeah, they actually helped the poor.

In the long run, they helped the poor.

I mean, if you look at some of the things that were said

by the left,

I really love the Patton Oswald tweet.

After the tax bill was passed in the Senate, he tweets, there's no America now, not the one we knew.

Sorry.

Feeling real despair this morning.

It's amazing.

First of all, the bill hasn't passed.

It passed in the Senate.

They have to go and they have to basically come up with one version that both the House and the Senate can agree on.

They have to pass that.

Then it needs to be signed for it to go into effect.

Secondly, the taxes, the rates they're talking about are much higher than they were during Reagan.

So,

like,

yes, they're slightly cut from the Obama levels, okay?

But they're higher than they were during the Reagan times.

And the Bush times.

Yeah, depending on there's yes,

certain rates are higher than then.

But it's like, what is the point of this?

What is the, what is the,

why?

Is it just like, I think it's just those markets.

He's got real despair.

He's got real despair.

I mean, good.

No, I know.

No.

A tax cut.

People get to keep more of their own money.

No, listen.

And this is another part of this club.

I've talked to the people who

we have rescued over in Iraq,

the Nazarene Fund, the Christians that were held by ISIS and threatened.

They know real despair.

They got nothing to Patton Oswald.

He's got real despair.

I've heard that ISIS might lower taxes as well, and then that's the real tragedy will kick in.

But it's like, here is a, they're talking about this as if it's this incredible transfer of wealth wealth from the rich to the poor.

You hear it all, from the poor to the rich, excuse me.

You hear it over and over and over again.

Massive amounts of money are coming from the poor, and they're going to the rich in this tax plan.

Well, ask yourself the obvious question.

If the poor had a lot of money to transfer to the rich, why were they poor?

If they have all this money to throw to the rich people, then they weren't poor in the first place.

And of course, the truth is they're not transferring any money to the poor.

What they're doing is the money they had before was money that came from the rich.

It was people who were rich people's money that was being transferred in large amounts to the poor.

And now slightly less of it is being transferred.

Although the poor will still get it, we'll just go into deeper debt.

And I will tell you, the Nouvea rich, not the rich rich, not the George Soros rich.

No, not the Kennedy rich.

Yeah, riches and quotes and all of these sentences.

Yeah, not the Bill Gates rich, not the Patton Oswalt rich.

No,

that rich, that rich keeps their money because that rich takes everything and puts it into a trust.

And they're just living off trust funds.

That rich, they're never

George Soros and

Warren Buffett, they're not worried about the income tax.

They don't worry about it ever.

And it's not because they have so much money, they don't notice it.

No, they're never affected by it because they have enough attorneys and enough money to go around.

They never pay it.

Do you know one of the we were talking about all the money in the world, the new movie that is coming out?

Yeah, that's the one that Kevin Spacey got pulled out of after his accusations.

They replacing with Christopher Plumber.

Yeah, one of the guys who was one of the richest men ever in the world.

Okay,

he was an American.

One of the richest guys, John Paul Getty,

Getty Oil.

he never paid more than $500 a year in income tax.

Those guys don't ever get hit because they don't take it in income.

So forget about all of this.

They're just helping the rich.

No, they're helping the new, they're hurting the new entrepreneur.

That's who's getting hurt.

The people who are on their way to becoming wealthy.

Once you're really wealthy, you got nothing to worry about.

Not in America.

Here's the truth.

44% of Americans do not pay federal income tax.

44%.

The top 1% of Americans currently pay 27%

of all federal taxes.

1%

pays 27%

of all federal taxes.

So

what, what,

wait, how are the poor who are spending all their money?

I mean, we don't have more than 44% of our country is poor, right?

Because the bottom 44% of our country pays zero in income tax.

And how do you cut that?

How do you cut from zero?

Their answer is

make it a negative rate.

Make it so that someone who's paying zero taxes is actually getting money from the government in that.

And that is a transfer of wealth.

Blinds.com makes it incredibly easy to update the look and feel of your home.

I've done this myself with Tanya, and we updated

the bedroom just last year with Blinds.com.

We did a FaceTime session where they take pictures of the house.

They superimpose pictures of the blinds that we wanted.

Blinds.com, they not only completely transform the room,

but they also have, I think, the best customer service we've ever experienced.

I mean, it is as good as Apple.

Plus, if you accidentally mismeasure or pick the wrong color, they're going to remake your blinds for free.

They'll even send you free samples to make sure things look just as good in person as it does online.

And every order gets free shipping.

Their prices are the best, and right now they're even better.

You can find out for yourself why blinds.com is the number one online retailer of custom window covering, and their always great prices just got even better.

Now, through December 11th, you can save up to 25% off select products, plus an additional 5%

when you go to blinds.com and you enter the promo code BEC.

So, again, save 25% off select products and an additional 5%

when you go to blinds.com and enter the promo code back.

30% savings?

I think so.

Blinds.com, promo code back, rules and restrictions to apply.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

It was August 2014

that ISIS came into a small village, and the men were separated from the women, and all the men were executed.

They were executed because they were Christians.

The women were allowed to live, and one of those women was Amal.

She, her sister, and her cousin were all taken and transferred to Mosul with all the other women in her village.

She was then prostituted to members of ISIS.

Her two sisters, their cousin, were given to three soldiers of ISIS as a gift.

The women were forced to travel with the men.

They carried out these activities all through the Nineveh province.

In total, they were held captive for almost two years.

They were just rescued.

Eventually, two of the three captors were killed, leaving the girls with a remaining captor who happened to be injured.

The Nazarene Fund was alerted by the Yazidi Rescue Network that the women were there.

We sponsored the rescue and returned them to their family.

They are now receiving trauma care and are starting the long recovery from two years as a slave from ISIS in the Middle East.

This is the kind of impact that you are having on Christians and Yazidis and religious minorities all around the world that are being taken, and they're being taken because of their faith.

The Nazarene Fund concentrates in you know against ISIS, but we have expanded that now, and soon we will be going into northern Africa as well.

You know, you can do a little hashtag, return our children,

return our girls, but the hashtags don't work.

We've decided to take action.

We have a goal of twenty-five $25 million in the next 12 months, and that will rescue

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

women and children who are being held as slaves.

We also are going after the organ trafficking market

in the Muslim world, and it's nasty.

If you would like to make a difference, $5 makes a difference.

You know, pledge an Abraham Lincoln, a $5 bill every month

to the Nazarene Fund and become an abolitionist and help us break up this slave trade in the Middle East and all around the world.

The Nazarenefund.org.

The Nazarenefund.org.

I think it's one of those things, too, that winds up

falling a little bit out of our view because

the battle against ISIS is

going better.

We've improved our standing when it comes to the actual, they've lost territory and everything else.

And it kind of feels, I think, to me, and I think to a lot of people, because it's not in the news every day, we're not seeing the horror stories every day, that this has stopped.

It hasn't.

So it's actually gotten worse.

In some ways, it's gotten worse because now we've replaced ISIS with Iran.

And the Iran

brigade is now coming in, and they are actually advancing on the Yazidis and the Kurds.

Where ISIS, we had them at bay with the Yazidis and the Kurds.

Now

Iran is advancing.

So it's a mess, and we feel we have about 18 months to do some

real work to save these Christians and the Yazidis.

And we sure could use your help.

We asked that you would help us get the word out

and make a donation if you can.

Thenazareenfund.org.

The Nazarenefund.org.

Glenn Back

Love,

Courage,

Truth.

Glenn Back.

After eight years of progressivism gone wild under President Obama, it is startling when something

kind of actually conservative happens in the world.

Yesterday, President Donald Trump was in Utah to sign proclamations that reduce the size of two national monuments, Bears' Ears and

the Grand Staircase Escalante.

The monuments were created by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

And keep in mind, all that Trump did yesterday was reduce the size of these monuments.

He didn't abolish them altogether, and he certainly, much to my chagrin, did not give the land back to the states.

However, Trump clearly hates the environment, and I think we all know that.

At least that's the predictable mainstream media take on on what he did yesterday.

He just doesn't care about nature.

He wants to open up all the protected land so evil developers can swoop in and build condos.

Now, this kind of national monument I'm talking about is not a statue.

It's just land that Congress or a president is allowed to set aside and protect as a historic landmark of some kind.

Once the land is declared a national monument, it's closed to ranching and mining and recreation or development of of any kind.

You're not walking on that land anymore.

Even if the local community doesn't want the land to be protected as a national monument, it doesn't matter.

In fact, often the local community actually needs the land to make things like, I don't know, a living.

The power to create national monuments comes from a provision in the 1906 Antiquities Act.

Here we go with the progressives.

It's a kind of provision,

and it's like crack for progressives.

Bill Clinton, and then especially Barack Obama, went crazy during their presidency, scooping up ridiculous amounts of land for the federal government as national monuments.

Obama declared more national monuments than any other president in history.

Congress has only declared 30 monuments in the 111 years since the act.

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton declared 41 monuments just between the two of them.

Now, Trump is being criticized for his unprecedented use of presidential power

to undo the unprecedented use of presidential power by the last president that they didn't seem to have a problem with.

He reduced the size of Bears' Ears by 85%, the Grand Staircase by 50%.

Nobody was talking about unprecedented use of presidential power to create 265 million acres of new national monuments.

The left didn't care because they thought that was heroic.

President Trump is not a conservative.

This is not the action that I would have taken, but it is a good step in the right direction.

He should be applauded for the rare thing that it is.

A conservative principle actually put into practice.

Local control of land usage makes sense.

These federal lands belong to the state, as the Supreme Court has

ruled two times in history.

Federal government just will not give it back.

That's what really needs to happen.

But Obama's federal land grabs were an absolute overreach, and there is nothing wrong with Trump trying to fix that abuse.

It's Tuesday, December 5th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Today's a pretty important day in the court system.

Today is the day

that Jack Phillips goes to the Supreme Court.

He is the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, and he refused to custom design a cake to help celebrate a gay wedding.

And as a Christian, he says, I can't advance the message of

gay weddings and gay unions because it's wrong according to my religious belief.

But he said,

I'll sell you cupcakes.

I'll sell you

cakes.

I'll sell you anything.

I just can't do the wedding cake.

So he has no problem serving gay people.

In fact, going another step, he has refused to make cakes for several people that weren't gay because he said, I don't agree with the message that you want to put on the cake.

I'm sorry, you want a topless woman with big bazoombas, you know, made out of icing.

I don't do that.

I won't do that.

Okay.

So he has a law.

He has a law.

He's a very strong anti-bazumba stance.

That's very strong.

I hope that's supported by the Constitution.

No, I don't know.

I don't know that it is.

I don't know, but we have somebody on the phone that might know

David French.

And David, I won't start with the Bazumba

clause in the Constitution, but

you wrote a great article, and you said that

you're going crazy by the way this is being misrepresented.

And Jennifer Finney Boylan is really the head of the snake on this one from the New York Times.

Yeah,

it's a remarkable, it's the most misrepresented Supreme Court case I've ever encountered.

And here's how it's being misrepresented.

Essentially what people are saying is this

cake designer's decision not to design a cake that

advances a point of view that he objects to is the same as segregated lunch counters.

It's the same as

refusing medical treatment to LGBT people.

I mean, the parade of horribles

that you see spun out from this case is absolutely unbelievable.

Explain to me.

If you hit the nail on the head.

Explain to me why this isn't the lunch counter of the 1950s.

Well, it's very easy.

He doesn't discriminate on the basis of identity.

What he does is he decides not to advance certain messages that he agrees with.

So if you're black, white, gay, straight, male, female, and walk into his bakery, you're going to be served.

You're going to be served regardless of your identity, regardless of your membership in a protected class.

But if you ask him to use his artistic talent to design a cake or any other thing that sends a message that he disagrees with, like in some of these cases, it was like a Halloween message,

then he's not going to do that.

And this is just common sense.

This is normal.

Wait, wait, wait.

Is it because the witches had big bazoombas?

Is that what it is?

Well,

I've not explored that.

Okay, all right.

Well, you should look into it.

I know you're a serious thinker.

She goes on, the New York Times says this, and you just just use this word, his artistic ability.

She wrote in the New York Times, Mr.

Phillips certainly makes nice-looking cakes, but I'm not sure I'd call them artistic expressions.

At least not the same sense as, say, Joyce's Ulysses.

That argument demands that the court get into the business of defining art itself, a door that justices open at their own peril.

Is a well-manicured lawn a form of art

by this definition?

How about lean corned beef sandwiches?

Would they not be art if the court rules to protect icing and buttercream?

You know, that is so unbelievably absurd.

Here's what she is intentionally avoiding.

The actual cake that the gay couple settled on to celebrate their wedding was a rainbow cake.

Now, are you going to tell me that that doesn't send a very clear message that a well-manicured lawn doesn't send or a corned beef sandwich doesn't send?

She's acting as if the court has to decide the very definition of art itself when all the court has to decide is in this case, was he being asked to engage in artistic expression?

And this goes to something George Will sadly and mistakenly wrote just the other day.

He said he made much the same point, that this isn't art.

It's primarily food.

Are you going to tell me that a wedding cake is primarily food?

Is that why people spend thousands of dollars sometimes?

I have to tell you.

To make sure that it's just a spot above Pillsbury?

My father was a baker,

but

he made wedding cakes and he spent Fridays and Saturdays making wedding cakes.

And

they were pieces of art and they took him forever.

And it took him years and years and years of study and practice to be able to practice that art.

And people would come from all over to get his wedding cakes.

There is a difference.

Otherwise, you just get a wedding cake at a Costco.

Right.

I mean, all you have to see, all you have to do to know that it's art is like do a Google image search, Google image search for beautiful wedding cakes, and you'll see amazing things.

I mean, so you feel like people are being intentionally obtuse here.

Everybody knows when one of the centerpieces of an entire wedding reception is the cake.

It is one of the most talked about elements of

the entire reception.

And yeah, nobody wants it to taste badly, but they're talking about it because of the way it looks, the way it expresses

a view of the ceremony, the way it expresses the personality of the couple.

All of that is undeniably artistic.

And so, again, this is the most misrepresented case I've seen.

They misrepresent the nature of what Jack Phillips did, and they misrepresent the nature of his work.

Is this about art, or is this about advancing a message?

Well, it's a Well, in this case,

it's both.

It's about using your artistic ability to advance a message and whether or not the state can force you as an artist to use your artistic ability to specifically advance a message.

And that would run counter to generations of First Amendment case law, generations that say you cannot be compelled to advance a message that you disagree with.

So most Americans, as you point out, most Americans, if a white customer came in and said, I want a Confederate flag clan cake,

if that was an African-American baker, we would all say,

he doesn't have to make that, man.

He doesn't have to make that.

Okay.

We'd all understand that, and it would be fine.

Now, if that baker said, I'm not serving any white people, and I'm not serving you anything, we still would understand

I'm not going to serve you because you're a Klan member.

We'd still even understand it, but we would say it was wrong.

This is, this is, this is that you can't compare these two.

Yeah, you know, I mean, even when the specific art doesn't send a very specific message.

Now, think of, remember when Melania and Ivanka Trump were getting ready for the inaugural ball, and all these designers said, I don't want to lend my artistic ability ability to design dresses for Melania and Ivanka.

Well, that was their right.

They don't have to use their artistic talents to support a political family they disagree with, even though Melania and Ivanka are women and women are a protected class in public accommodation statutes.

So, you know, this time and again, you can come up with these counterfactuals.

And time and again, people on the left will go, oh, well, that's different.

Oh, that's different.

Well, how is it different?

And then they'll go, segregated lunch counters, Jim Crow.

Well,

they'll say on her,

she wasn't born that way.

She wasn't born that way.

She was born a woman.

She was born a woman, and women disproportionately wear dresses.

So, you know, or a person who wants a Confederate fillet cake is disproportionately white.

It's the same logic that they're using to try to claim their sexual orientation discrimination here.

They say, well, it's disproportionately gay people would want a same-sex wedding cake, so therefore it's discrimination on the basis of status, which is false.

So should, I mean, just to make this point, should Melania or someone sue those, I guess she'd be the only one with standing, sue those people to make the point that, no, you don't have to make a dress for me.

If you don't want to, you're an artist.

You don't have to make that dress for me.

Well, you know, I do think if this decision turns out against Jack Phillips, people will start to do that.

That you will start to see these kinds of lawsuits popping up around the country where,

say, for example, conservatives will then try to force progressives to advance their point of view.

And then, you know, we're going to get into this mess where we've seen this happen before.

And what ends up happening when it's a particularly important sexual revolution issue to the court, often they'll carve out these distortions in the First Amendment.

They did one for a long time, and it became known as the abortion distortion, where if you were protesting abortion, magically you would end up with fewer free speech rights than virtually anybody else what we're seeing in the clash between sexual liberty and free speech is all too often courts are carving out specific exceptions and specific special rules to help advance sexual liberty at the expense of first amendment freedoms talking to david french david i'm fascinated by this use of kind of a classic left-wing thing to say which is that the courts can't define art they've been saying that forever but it's always used the other way when something that might not be art.

It's always used to include everything is art.

And in this one case, they can't find any art in a beautiful wooden jar with piss and a crucifix is art.

But this cake is not.

But this cake is not.

Isn't that a complete reverse of the way they usually use that argument?

Oh, absolutely.

For generations, there have been progressive lawyers arguing to expand the definition of protected speech under in the First Amendment, and many times doing so rightfully, many times doing so in ways that have advanced all of our liberties.

But now, all of a sudden, this thing that is obviously to any person, any objective, reasonable observer, is an artistic expression, suddenly it's primarily food.

Well, it's primarily piss.

So,

let me just ask you this last question.

We got to cut you loose.

The court is hearing this case today.

The swing vote is Kennedy.

Kennedy has already ruled

in a way that looks like you should rule in favor of the Baker.

What do you think is going to happen?

Well, you know, if Kennedy holds to some of the language that he wrote in the Obergefell decision, then I think Jack Phillips will win.

I mean, in the Obergefell decision, Kennedy acknowledged that there are deep differences, religious differences in particular about the definition of marriage, and that the Obergefell decision was not designed to force anyone to profess agreement with a definition of a marriage that differs from the courts, that differs from the Obergefell opinion.

And in that circumstance, if Kennedy holds to that logic and holds to that reasoning and also holds to his own history of First Amendment jurisprudence, then Jack Phillips should win.

But we'll, you know, of course, we'll see.

Yeah, anything could happen.

Aliens could come down and just hold a conference on the steps of the Supreme Court, and it wouldn't surprise me at this point.

David French, thank you so much.

David French,

senior fellow and writer at National Review.

We'll tweet out his article.

You can go to at Glenn Becker at World of Sue to get it.

Your mortgage rate depends on a whole bunch of things.

Global economy, the loan you choose, how many points you pay, a whole bunch of variables go into this.

And this is the reason why you really should have, as a homebuyer, pre-approve.

You should get your stuff pre-approved

and and get the guidance before making any offer on the home plus another thing if you are a veteran and you have not used your va benefits with interest rates this low now is the time to get a new home or to refinance great way to start is to get uh is to get talking to the salary-based mortgage experts at american financing the most important thing is they're salary based they're working for you they are not working for the banks usually with a mortgage company, the banks give the mortgage people a bonus if they sell their what's called a mortgage instrument or a loan instrument.

When they sell that instrument from the bank, the bank says, Hey, thank you very much.

We're going to give you extra.

So they're pushing things.

That's not the case with American Financing.

They're trying to find the right one for you.

American Financing, 800-906-2440.

That's 800-906-2440.

Or go to American Financing.net.

Online, American Financing.net.

American Financing Corporation, NMLS 1-82334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

Wow, this is

stunning.

I don't know where this even came from.

Who would have seen this coming?

John Conyers is retiring today.

He's got some health issues.

Oh, no.

Any other issues?

No, no, no.

Nothing.

Nothing pops to mind.

Nothing that would be on Wikipedia later.

No.

No.

No.

Nothing.

Okay.

So he's retiring today.

It's time for change.

I think that's why.

And he's a change maker.

He is.

So

he's recommending change, big change.

So who's going to replace him?

He's almost irreplaceable.

Right?

Right.

Right.

You'd have to find the right person to replace him.

Who replaces John Conyers?

Right?

No one.

Except John Conyers, the third.

So he's endorsing his son for the seat.

Because he'll be a lot like his dad.

And

there is a couple of things that might spring to mind where that might be a problem.

Like, for instance, John Conyers, you know, the third?

No, the junior,

he has to take a pill to make things, you know, bubble up.

He hasn't had sex drive in 50 years.

Correct.

I would imagine the third, you know, can stand on his own.

Yeah, probably not a good.

Probably not a.

Maybe not the right choice for that particular season.

But it'll be the choice.

Oh, totally.

Totally.

We all know how these things turn out in the end.

Of course, John Conyers.

You know,

he holds it for 50 years.

I think Americans have always liked the Duke and Duchess idea.

You know, the prince, and you know, the king retires and gives his seat to his son.

That's such an American idea.

Yeah, that we've always embraced.

We always loved it since the 1700s.

Big fans.

Big fans.

Big fans.

So

we're going to miss you, John.

We're going to miss you.

Glenn, back.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

So today's a big day in the court system.

Today, the courts are hearing a plea to be able to

sue the President of the United States, the woman who was

a contestant on The Apprentice, who absolutely loved Donald Trump.

He, according to her, he asked her to join him in his hotel room when he was in town at the Beverly Hills Peninsula, I believe it was.

And she went and they were supposed to have a conversation and

he made sexual

moves towards her and

I believe said, you don't want me as an enemy.

And it was pretty bad what she said.

Donald Trump denied it.

called her a liar in the press.

She is now suing for defamation.

The White House attorneys are saying that you can't sue the president.

He'll take this up after

his term.

Just because of the Monica Lewinsky story, I don't think that's going to hold any water.

If that does, that means he's going to have to testify

and

go on record about what happened there, which is how it all began to fall apart for Bill Clinton.

But we'll see.

Personally, I think that is the way this is going to, that's what's going to lead next year, I think, is

that Russia alone, I don't think, is going to be the only tact from

the left.

Now, we have Austin Peterson on because there's another case.

We were just talking about it.

The wedding cake case is in front of the Supreme Court today,

and they're hearing whether or not a man's art has to be used to further someone's agenda.

If you have to do,

you you know work for somebody that you disagree with this this bakery has served gay people everybody he has no problem he'll sell them anything he just will not decorate the wedding cake for their service um they say that's wrong he says i have a long history of you know i won't i won't for instance he won't do halloween cakes because of religious uh his religious fervor he doesn't agree with with halloween so he doesn't make those cakes.

Nobody's suing about that.

We'll see what happens with the Supreme Court.

I wanted to get a libertarian on because I wanted to get somebody who I know agrees with gay marriage and would agree that you don't have to make a wedding cake to make the case here of why this is right

to be able to have the freedom on both sides.

Austin Peterson, welcome to the program.

Glenn, thanks for having me back.

You bet.

You know,

I wanted you on as you wrote back when we asked you.

You wrote back and you said, I have to say, it's a hell of a time being a secular constitutional conservative running as a Republican and defending religious freedom for people who think I'm some sort of spawn of Satan myself.

But as Glenn Beck told me in our interview last year, the only time defending liberty matters is when you defend the liberty of someone who disagrees with you.

So talk to me about your position.

Right, right.

Well, that's what you, you know, I mean, you encapsulated it all right there.

I mean, the thing is, is that I think that he should bake the cake, but I would never force him to do so.

But the thing is, is that we're talking about religious liberty and gay marriage when in reality, the heart of this argument is the issue of private property.

The question is, should any business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

Well, they should, but that's not the world that we live in.

And now we have,

even the best laid plans of mice and men can go go wrong because what we've done is we've created these protected classes.

And everyone who is 40 years of age and older is a protected class.

But if you're a white male 40 years of age or under, well, you're out of luck.

So I think that the problem is that now we're going to get into the question of whether or not the gay marriage question is under threat.

I think it's not.

Justice Kennedy is going to be, I think, the crux of this, and the decision is going to come down to him.

He did vote for Oberfell, but he's also found an expansive definition of of free speech and religious liberty, which I think this clearly falls under.

No one should

force to bake the cake.

And that's why I asked Gary Johnson last year, should you force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?

Well, of course, nobody believed that except for Governor Gary Johnson for some reason.

I mean, even Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders didn't believe that, because most people don't understand where these laws came from.

And that's the real problem is the sort of historical illiteracy that we have in the United States.

Can you just, can you touch on that?

Where did this cut law come from?

Absolutely.

Well, in the 1960s, we had a stain of racism in Jim Crow.

Local governments were cracking down on blacks, and the federal government had to step in and say, according to the 14th Amendment and according to the Constitution, you cannot abridge the privileges and immunities of certain classes of people.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was used to say that people who are of color should be able to stay at hotels.

People of color should be allowed to sit at lunch counters.

And in the context of that time, it absolutely makes sense why the Civil Rights Act was passed.

But now, because of the Title II section of that definition, Title II stated that businesses are not private.

Businesses are public, and you are not allowed to discriminate.

So now we have these discrimination laws that are being used for the reverse of what they were intended for.

Right.

Discrimination laws, yeah, go ahead.

But they're not consistent.

I don't know if you remember the coffee shop owner in Seattle that kicked the

anti-abortion people out of his coffee shop.

They weren't handing out flyers or anything.

Somebody came in and had a flyer that they had and said, Hey, you know, these are the guys who are passing out these anti-abortion flyers.

The guy wigged on them, called them all sorts of names, and they said, We're not passing it out.

We're not talking to anybody here.

We're just having coffee.

I don't want you in my store.

And he literally chased them out.

It was a really ugly scene.

I believe he has the right to do that,

but I don't even think the court

would

stand against him on that one, but they certainly will with a bakery because we're playing favorites now.

Right.

And the problem, of course, is that both sides don't seem to quite understand the true position of liberty in this one, and that's the private property.

And, of course, the problem with defending liberty has always been that you end up defending scum or miscreants or the people like cigarette smokers who want to smoke inside bars and things like that.

So

unfortunately, you have to stop creeping tyranny in its crib before it can grow and metastize to what it's become.

And again, no secret that the left hates Christians, they hate white males, and they will do anything they can to use the law to go and oppress those groups that they despise.

Unfortunately, it will get used against them.

It will come back and bite them in the butt.

So I think that if we were to look at the true liberty position and say that anyone should have the right to refuse service, that doesn't mean that we condone it.

I don't condone racism.

I do think that gay couples should have the right to get married.

I mean, honestly, the true position is that government shouldn't be in a marriage business at all.

But, you know, unfortunately, we can't have that.

So we have to force governments to compel them to not abridge privileges and immunity.

So

how is this going to come back and bite them in the butt?

How, if you are a liberal, do you not see what's coming?

What is coming?

Well, I think that the Christians will get fed up and they will turn around and they will claim discrimination against them.

And there will be court cases where

a gay baker doesn't want to bake the cake for the Christian wedding, and then they'll get sued, and they'll come back.

Unless the court finds in favor of freedom now, which they absolutely should, the Department of Justice, the Trump administration have issued funding the court briefs.

Many of the more libertarian legal institutes, I believe, Institute for Justice as well, has filed legal briefs, funded the court briefs.

So this is the chance now to turn the tide against statism.

And it's not to say that discrimination isn't good.

We don't have to condone discrimination.

I don't think you should discriminate, but you should have the right to discriminate because the problem is that everybody thinks that we should force people to be good.

Government's job is to force people to be good.

I think that the role of government is to make us free, not to make us into better people.

That's what society is for, neighbors, families, friends, churches.

That's what this is all about.

And frankly, I mean right now in Missouri where I'm running for the Senate, these people, these Missouri voters are waking up to this, and I think that we're going to get a change.

I think the court will find in our favor.

It's really an amazing thing to watch, Austin.

I'm talking to Austin Peterson, who is running for Senate in Missouri.

The New York Times talked about trying to give this wide definition of art, as if being a baker is not art.

Because this situation, and it's a little bit different than some previous cases where people were arguing more on the basis of religious freedom, really here, this case seems to be more argued on the basis of, can you compel an an artist to advance a message that they don't like?

And they talk, and we've had these situations with photographers, for example, that I don't know how you would deny would be art, but they still seem to push back against this.

One of the examples the New York Times uses is: is a well-manicured lawn a form of art by this definition?

And they're trying to ridicule the idea that a cake could possibly be art.

But if you ever watch a sporting event, like the all-star game in the major league in Major League Baseball, they'll carve in

symbols, artistic symbols into the lawn as they do this even cutting a lawn can be artistic if if a if a person

let me ask it this way if you were if you were uh

mexican heritage and you were in san francisco and the owner of the lawn said i want you to cut in build the wall in an artistic way which side would the progressives argue for

exactly I mean, there's so many inconsistencies, but frankly, I think both left and right have inconsistencies.

The New York Times came out and said that Jack Phillips, who is

the defendant in this case, is an artist.

It's not a stretch.

He uses his skills to make wedding cakes, and

they are works of art.

But the adjutants, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, they are saying this is a civil rights issue.

But nobody is taking away their right to go to the cake baker next door.

I mean, it's not like there isn't competition, and people just don't have faith in freedom.

They don't believe that a cake baker next door is going to say, hey, well, they're losing business.

I'm going to set up a shop next door.

Or what about a boycott?

What about the freedom of people to say, well, I don't like how this business operates and I will choose not to go there so they lose business?

But people just don't have faith in freedom anymore.

I do.

I still believe in freedom.

That's what I'm fighting for.

And that's why I'm running for office again.

So how's that going to work out for you, Austin, and in Missouri?

Well, I'll tell you, it's not going bad.

I mean, honestly, I'm not the favorite in this race.

I'm not the Mitch McConnell pick, but we have raised quite a bit of money.

We've got thousands of volunteers.

I've gotten some good endorsements.

People like Ben Shapiro have told people to support me, the troop conservatives.

And what's strange is that even though I tried to run against them last year, a lot of the Trumpers like me too.

But I think they kind of like me because I tell it like it is.

And even when I disagree with them on certain issues, like the wall perhaps, or maybe the troop surge in Afghanistan recently with the president.

I do agree with them on most of the issues, and they do like me.

I mean, the president said some nice things about my opponent the other day, but then the Trumpers started calling into the radio show and saying, hey, Austin's our guy.

And I was like, okay, well, this is going to get interesting pretty soon.

It is a wild world we live in now.

It's nuts.

Austin Peterson running for the U.S.

Senate in Missouri as a Republican, a strong defender of freedom and a libertarian.

And if you are in Missouri, I strongly recommend that you check out his record and see if you don't agree with him more than you disagree.

If you are a constitutionalist, I think you're going to like a lot of what he has to say.

Austin Peterson, thank you very much.

Thanks, guys.

You bet.

If you want to get involved with Austin's campaign, you can go to austinpeterson.com.

He's on Twitter at AP4Liberty.

Uber disclosed a breach of 57 million passengers and driver's records.

Hackers

accessed personal information like the names and the driver's license and the numbers and the driver's names, the email address and phone numbers of the passengers.

I mean, they got everything.

The breach was just recently announced.

Hmm.

It's kind of a problem if, you know, you have an identity and you used Uber because

that means hackers have had your identity for a year.

The damage that could be done.

Now, if you're monitoring your credit only, your identity can be stolen in ways you're never going to detect.

That's why LifeLock is here.

LifeLock watches all of it.

They detect a wide range of identity threats, threats that you're going to miss just by monitoring your credit, like somebody stealing from your 401k or opening up a bank account in your name, committing a crime in your name.

And if there's a problem, a U.S.-based identity restoration specialist is going to to work to fix it.

Now, nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but Life Lock can help you see more threats to your identity.

So go to lifelock.com or call 1-800 Lifelock.

That's promo code Beck, and you're going to get 10% off your Life Lock membership at lifelock.com.

Lifelock.com, promo code Beck.

Glenn Beck,

Glenn Beck.

We have a really great hour coming up for you.

Next hour, we have some

laughs,

an amazing story of

really, I think,

a miracle, kind of.

Yeah.

I mean, in some ways, it's really bad luck.

Yeah, I mean, it's like

there's a new book out called Left Standing, and it's the story about a guy who was, I mean, was in the Boston bombing, the Paris bombing, and the Brussels bombing.

So he experienced three terror attacks, like in the hospital with his whole face, like, you know, he's the invisible man because he had, what was it, third-degree burns on his face.

I mean, really, really bad.

He's there at all three.

Now,

you kind of think,

okay, dude, dude, what is the deal?

It's a reason why we didn't have him in the studio.

He's going to be on the phone.

We don't want to be anywhere near him because the luck of this guy, but

his faith is what has brought him through all of this.

And I just, I can't imagine, wouldn't you say, Stu?

God,

what is, I mean,

it would be hard not to really question things after being in wood.

You know, you're in

three terrorist attacks.

You'd be like, why me?

What is

the deal?

What is the deal?

Why me?

And maybe this is the deal, right?

Maybe telling the story and talking about that struggle is the deal.

Maybe that's why he was there in those three places.

I would like to hear his perspective on it because I'm sure he's done a little bit of thinking

about what his life is supposed to mean after going through three terrorist attacks.

Really amazing.

I mean, I didn't.

I think I heard this story

when it first came out.

I heard, oh, this guy has been, but I don't think I've heard the story told

where he is, he's at the bombing of

Boston, and then he's in Paris, and he's involved in that one.

And then in Brussels, he's standing there, and he's blown up and burned up.

You'd be like, oh,

imagine being his parents.

It's got to be an incredible thing to go through.

Incredible, incredible.

Great story of faith.

He's going to be on with us here in a second.

It's actually a new book called Left Standing.

Billy Hollowell is a good friend of ours and formerly with the Blaze, is one of the co-writers.

I'm looking ahead to next week.

If you have Blue Apron, we got a choice of a bunch of different menu items that would come to you.

Beef medallions and brown butter caper sauce, seared chicken and mashed potatoes,

basil pesto and broccoli pasta, which looks amazing.

Vegetable Lomain, Thai curry, chicken, all of these things are coming to you if you're on Blue Apron, which is kind of amazing because they send all all these ingredients to your house.

You might look at these things, you're like,

I might be able to make them, but it's not going to look like that.

It actually does look like that because they walk you through step by step how to make these things taste and look as delicious as they do in the pictures.

It's really incredible and it's easy to do, even if you have this kitchen talent of me, which is basically zero.

Check out this week's menu.

Get $30 off your first order with free shipping by going to blueapron.com/slash stew.

You'll love how good it feels and tastes to create incredible home-cooked meals with Blue Apron.

So don't wait.

It's blueapron.com/slash stew.

Blue Apron, a better way to cook.

Love, courage,

truth.

Glenn back.

A $750 birthday cake.

How many times have you had one of those?

Or you've spent $13,582 on your Beyonce concert.

Or you spent $15,000 on a box so you could go see the Jaguars.

Or

I remember when I went to the Barack Obama second inauguration and I took a bus trip from Jacksonville to Washington, D.C., and it cost me $89,852.

These are just some of the ways the former U.S.

Representative Corrine Brown used the funds from her charity, One Door for Education.

The $800,000 that was donated to the charity under the pretense that it would be used for scholarships was actually used, you know, for Beyoncé concerts and stuff.

Of the $800,000, only two scholarships were ever awarded,

and they added up to, let me see, carry the one, $1,200.

Wow.

She served 25 years in Congress.

She is now going to serve some time in prison, five years.

During the sentencing, the federal judge called Brown's actions especially shameless.

He continued, said, This was a crime born out of entitlement and greed committed to ensure a lifestyle that was beyond her means.

Think of the good that Corine Brown could have done with that money instead of throwing lavish birthday parties with $800 cakes or gone shopping.

Think of the children she could have helped.

Now her legacy is one of avarice, greed, and unnecessary Beyoncé concerts.

A legacy that is far worse than even Ebenezer Scrooge.

It's Tuesday, December 5th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I want to introduce you to a guy named

Mason Wells.

Mason was an Eagle Scout and awarded a trip to Paris, France.

He served as a missionary over in France.

He's now the United States Naval Academy.

But I'm not talking to him about those things.

That's not what got our attention.

What got our attention is Mason Wells is a guy that happened to be at the Boston bombing, the Paris terrorist attack, and was significantly injured in the Brussels attack.

I don't know of anybody else that, I mean, besides people who might have been involved, were at all three locations.

And I can't imagine

what it must feel like and how many times you must say, Why me?

There's a new book out

authored by Mason and a good friend of the program, Billy Hollowell, called Left Standing, and it's about his faith and what he has gone through.

Mason, welcome to the program.

Yeah, thank you so much for having me, Glad.

So, you know, we were talking about this, and you know, it's one of the reasons why we wanted just to have you on the phone and not here at the studio.

You have really bad luck.

Tell me about being in three terrorist attacks.

Oh, I think I actually have pretty good luck that I'm still here.

My first experience with terrorism was at the 2013 Boston Marathon.

And my mom was running the marathon.

Me and my dad were there to support her.

Me and my dad were actually 50 meters away when the first bomb went off at the finish line.

So being young at the time,

that was scary for me.

Fast forward, now I'm serving as an ecclesiastical missionary in France.

And I was actually in the city of Irwan at the time of the Charlie Hebdo shootings and then in the city of Calais at the time of the Paris attacks.

And to have those things go on in the headquarters of our mission, a place where we always were on the streets that we proselyted,

it

left me with a lot of questions and a lot of reflections.

And then I was 10 feet away when the first bomb went off in the Brussels airport.

And

that one there put me in the hospital for a good two months.

Yeah, we saw you.

We saw pictures of you all wrapped up.

You had third-degree burns to your face.

Your leg had some contraption,

you know, trying to piece it back together.

I mean, you were seriously injured there.

What was going through your head?

Well, when I was when I was first injured in Brussels,

I actually thought I had died when the first bomb went off.

If you can imagine that you're standing there for a moment

and suddenly everything explodes, that's what was happening to me, and I didn't know what was going on.

When I opened my eyes a couple seconds after the blast and looked around, there was no one standing but me.

Everyone else had been knocked down to the floor.

My friends had been knocked out, and I couldn't see more than a few feet in front of me.

So I made my way out of that airport, one step after another, on a ruptured Achilles tendon, completely severed, with with trapple on my legs, burned through my hands, into my face.

And when I got out of the airport and my leg collapsed, I was kind of faced with

these two roads in front of me.

I could either embrace bitterness, embrace anger, embrace frustration, or make the best of what was going on and choose to have hope that I would come out of this all right.

And I chose the latter.

So

I was faced with a very bleak future, you know, quite literally laying in a pool of my own blood on that sidewalk.

But through the grace of God and

through some mental decisions I made, I'm still here.

So

what was the

darkest

moment here?

Did you have a real struggle in faith or

were you prepared

spiritually to meet some of these things?

Well, I think that God prepares all of us for the things in our lives.

I was blessed that day to be comforted when I was injured, but I did experience a lot of things afterwards that led me to questions about my faith and led me to develop a deeper faith.

It prompted me to ask, you know, why do bad things happen to good people?

Where is justice in all of this?

What is God's plan for me?

And those sorts of questions, those questions of the soul, they're things that take time.

And

some of my reflections, of course, from the book, but a lot of

what I've learned about adversity and getting through trials came during my darkest moments, and there definitely were those dark moments.

So

what did you come to?

What was the conclusion?

You know, why is this happening?

Why does God,

you know, where is God?

I mean, you're serving a mission.

You're blown up.

And if I'm not mistaken, weren't you going home?

Weren't you on your way home?

I was about four months away from going home.

Four months away.

Yeah.

So I was pretty close.

All right.

So, I mean, what was the conclusion?

Why were you,

why does God let this happen?

Well, you know, I've asked myself many times why God allowed this to happen to me and why I'm alive when other people that were farther away from the bomb were killed.

But ultimately, I've come to find out for myself that God allows adversity to happen in our lives, knowing that it will make us stronger, knowing that we have a chance to come out on top, to allow these things to change us for the better or for the worse.

One thing I've learned for sure is that God God is there when we're willing to look for Him and ask for His help.

And ultimately, choosing to have hope amid the challenges in our lives is the difference between finding peace and being bitter about what's going on.

Honestly, I think just having a positive attitude, making every single day a new day and realizing that every single day was a chance for me to change, that mindset is what carried me through my recovery.

And I can positively say that the line that divides success from failure is attitude much more than it is outcome.

So I just told a story yesterday about Corey Tenboom, who had a hard time forgiving and extending love to the people that, you know,

in particular, one of the guys who was her guard in the showers,

and

she really,

really had a hard time after the war forgiving him and loving him.

How do you feel about the people that

have brought so much death and destruction?

You know,

that's a deep question.

It's a good question.

Ultimately, I've forgiven the people that did this to me, but it doesn't make what they did permissible.

And

I've actually prayed to God for them, that God would have mercy on them.

But I know very well that God is a God of mercy and a God of justice.

And

I hope they can go on living in the next life the best they can, given the guilt that they'll undoubtedly bear.

But, you know, that being said, just because I forgive them, it doesn't make what they did okay.

It's not permissible to do these things.

It's the epitome of evil.

What they did was evil.

And

I think that you can embrace forgiveness and also draw a hard line between good and bad.

Mason, if you were to win an all-expenses paid vacation, would anyone go with you?

Besides Tom hanks

you know what i'm not it's crazy it sounds i mean i'm not scared to travel the world i'm not scared to take public transportation to that wasn't the question

i mean the question is is anyone else comfortable with you being around

i mean you know if you were to give me an all-expensive paid trip to tunisia or something i don't know if i'd go there right now right okay all right but i mean um you know i'm not we can't let these things hold us back we can't let you know these these moments and these acts define our lives did you at any time

have a a moment where you're like i i'm i'm i'm cursed or i'm there's something wrong or what am i doing wrong or i'm afraid to go places was there any time that that started to happen to you Well, I have to admit, there was a time, I think it was about three days after I was injured in Brussels, but I was sitting in bed and I just kind of looked up and I just asked, you know, really?

Again?

I guess I didn't learn what I used to do the first time.

Okay, you're clearly telling me something.

What is it?

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So, you know, obviously, you know, I've thought about that.

I choose to focus less on the past, you know, that's why these things happened and focus more on the future, just making every single day a great day and making every single day a day I want it to be because, you know, I'm still here and I'm grateful to be alive.

Mason Wells, author of Left Standing.

Thank you so much.

Best of luck.

Yeah, thank you so much for having me, Bluetooth.

Alert me.

If you're ever on a flight and you see me, alert me.

I need to get off.

Will do.

Will do.

Thanks a lot, Mason.

Merry Christmas.

The book is Left Standing, the miraculous story of how Mason Wells' faith survived the Boston, Paris, and Brussels terror attacks.

It's an amazing story.

Mason Wells.

What?

Osama bin Laden survived all of them.

Well, no, he didn't actually.

No, he didn't, actually.

But

yeah, that's an amazing story.

The Brussels, I mean, there's been so many of these attacks by

largely Islamic extremists around the world.

The 2016 Brussels bombings, 32 killed, over 300 injured.

You'll remember

the security camera tape, the guys walking through the airport.

But, I mean,

there's been so many of these, particularly in Europe.

And it's amazing that this is...

10 feet away from the bomb.

And ISIS did claim responsibility for that afterwards, to be able to muster the strength of will to

forgive ISIS,

while obviously acknowledging what they do is not right.

It's an amazing story.

It's left standing.

Liberty Safe is giving you a rebate with savings of up to $500 off their top line of safes.

You can save hundreds of dollars during the entire month of December on Liberty's Franklins, the Fat Boys, the Lincolns, the Classic, the Nationals, the President.

You know, can I ask you something, Stu?

Let's go over those list of names again.

Can we go over those list of names?

They have the Franklins, the Lincolns, Classics, the Nationals, the Presidentials, and the Fat Boys.

One of those

doesn't seem to fit.

It's specific to this show.

They only send it to the fit.

I want to sell the fat boys to people who are on the show.

I think so.

Anyway, you can right now get 18 months interest-free financing or payments as low as $20 a month on approved credit.

If you or somebody you know that's on your Christmas list,

maybe your husband, maybe your wife,

has been wanting a safe, buy one now.

I have not seen discounts like this or the payments like this before.

Any Liberty safe,

$850, if it's over $850, you get 18 months interest free or payments as low as $20 a month.

There's nothing like owning a Liberty Safe.

The peace of mind, the lifetime warranty, the in-home delivery, the 350 dealers nationwide who are just the best.

May I suggest the only thing, this is their number one complaint, I should have bought a bigger one.

I know this firsthand.

I got a smaller one, the first one, and it was full.

And we were like, What the?

How did this even happen?

Once you start putting it in, you realize I've got a lot more than I thought that should be in a safe.

Sale ends December 31st.

Liberty Safe, best-built safes on the planet, bar none.

Go there now, liberty safe.com.

Glenn, back.

Yes, William.

Glenn, back.

So I'm worried about revisionist history.

I think many in our audience are.

That, you know,

precious things are being lost over decades, but

there's a new pattern emerging that is even more terrifying.

Yeah, I mean, quickly on this Roy Moore thing, the thing that's concerning is it's getting harder and harder to put together a logical sense, like sequence of events to justify all of his behavior and excuses.

There's another

Because of him.

Not because of the stories, but because of him.

There was another person who came out with a card that was written to them, one of the accusers that had a very similar signature to what was on

the yearbook.

But

this part is,

I have a real problem with.

Here is Roy Moore at an event just the other night talking about these accusers.

Let me state once again, I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women, have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone.

Now, that is a

blatantly false statement.

Okay.

Now,

what evidence do you have that that's blatantly false?

He just said he doesn't know them, he never dated them, and he never had sexual relations with any of them.

My source on this would be Roy Moore.

Here he is talking to Sean Hannity in his interview after the accusers came out.

I do not remember speaking to a civics class.

I don't remember that.

I do not remember when we I seem to know remember knowing her parents.

I can remember that they were friends.

I can't recall specific dates because that's been 40 years, but I remember

her as a good girl,

but neither of them have ever stated any inappropriate behavior.

She didn't say anything.

Well, she said, let me, but do you remember ever going on a date with her?

She said that you asked her out on on the first of several dates, but nothing progressed beyond kissing.

I don't remember specific dates.

I do not.

And I don't remember if it was that time or later,

but I do not remember that.

But you know her, but you never dated her ever.

Is that what you're saying?

Know her, but I don't remember going out on dates.

I knew her as a friend.

If we did go out on dates, then we did, but I do not remember that.

So he knows her.

And earlier in the interview, he says says both of their names, Gloria Thackerdeeson and Debbie Wesson Gibson.

He mentioned specifically those.

And he said, I remember their moms.

I talked to their moms.

Talking to their moms.

And Debbie Wesson Gibson is the person who has just

come up with the new, the card with Roy's signature on it, the one he said he knew.

And now he's saying he never knew.

He's saying, now both of the people he admitted to knowing, he doesn't know.

So this is really weird because

it always goes the other way.

I didn't know them.

I didn't know them.

More evidence comes out.

Okay, I did know them, but I never did any of those things.

That's the way it normally goes.

Normally, yeah, this is okay.

I know them, but I never did any of those things to

I didn't know them.

I've never even heard of them.

I don't know them.

I don't know who they are.

Billy Bush, the tape,

the president.

Yeah, okay, I apologize.

That was, you know, locker room talk.

To now,

I never said that.

That was not my voice on tape.

What?

Yeah,

it doesn't normally go that way.

Usually it's the other way.

I mean, look, I fully expect Roy Moore to win that race.

I mean, I don't think he's going to lose it unless there's another people in Alabama bombshell.

Yeah, I mean, that's how their system works, right?

He's not being accused of crime.

I mean, he's saying of criminals.

It would have been a crime at that time, but it's long past.

He's not going through legal proceedings now.

It's just a matter of whether you believe him or not.

And I hate that.

Did you vote for him?

I wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

I liked Mo Brooks

quite a bit and would have been very happy with him as the candidate, as we talked about at the time.

He was really conservative.

You've got a candidate that's going to cause you real danger.

This is not a grand slam here.

This is not an easy thing to happen.

Yeah, but I do expect him to win.

The polls are fairly close there, but I don't think it's going to wind up being close.

Unless there's another big bombshell that comes out, it's possible.

You know, if something were to really prove him wrong, but honestly, I would be stunned.

America in 2017 did not put this guy in office.

I'd be stunned.

We would take him out if he was the head of 7-Eleven, but we will put him in to be in the Senate.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Welcome to the program.

A couple of things that we're watching.

First of all,

we got to get

the writer of the article that said that

doing

an interview with Pence's wife, Pence's wife said that Donald Trump was, what does she call him?

Vile and reprehensible.

But I think she meant that with love.

Don't you feel that way?

Yeah,

now they're distancing themselves from that and saying that's not true.

What are they going to say?

Yeah, my wife hates him.

Oh my gosh, she can't stand that guy.

Oh my gosh, yeah, she thinks he's a pig.

Yeah, that's not good.

Yeah, they have to deny that.

Yeah, um, here's another thing.

This is where,

to me,

uh, this is where I think this Russia thing is is going to get bogged down and

gonna bear possible fruit if you are looking to uh Barry Kushner or Trump.

Um, the

uh, One of the guys who was the

guy who

was

gagged by the government, one of the informants on the Russian deal, said where you really need to look into

collusion with Trump is in the business dealings.

You'll find it in the bank records.

So

it looks like the FBI has just subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for financial information on Donald Trump and his kids.

Deutsche Bank has already had rulings against them and faced severe fines because

they have been convicted of money laundering for the Russians.

And the day, let's see here, was it the day before, several weeks ago, let's see, blah, blah, blah.

One month before Election Day,

Jared Kushner finalized a $285 million loan from Deutsch Bank

as part of a refinancing package.

The Deutsch Bank has already received $630 million in penalties because it's involved in a $10 billion

Russian

money laundering scheme that involves the banks in Moscow, New York, London.

Apparently, that's where a lot of

bones are

buried and bodies are buried.

We'll see, but they are now moving into the banking of Donald Trump.

I tend to believe most of this stuff is,

a lot of it's overblown, at least.

But do you remember one of the main pitches during the campaign was Trump saying, if you put Hillary Clinton in, it's going to be non-stop investigations for the inferno.

That was like a selling point.

I guess at this point, any president who's in there is going to be

investigated over something or be in the middle of some controversy.

I don't think Hillary would

I don't think Hillary.

I'm not sure they would have done this against Hillary.

I'm not sure.

Maybe.

Yeah, maybe.

Well, she'd have the press on her side.

So

she'd have to kill off some of the dogs, I think.

So it depends on who she had as vice president.

If they liked the vice president, it was like if she would have had Corey Booker as her vice president, they would have fed her to the dogs.

They would have fed her to the dogs.

But maybe that's just me.

Welcome to the program, Pat Gray.

Also, John Conyers

has announced his retirement

as of today.

Who saw that coming?

Nobody?

I don't think anybody saw that, right?

Now,

he's in the hospital.

He's retiring because of his health.

This has nothing to do with the sexual allegations.

The sexual harassment allegations.

I don't even recall those.

Just vile, awful people saying mean things about John because they don't like him.

Right, okay.

Okay.

But he's 88 years old.

And some would say, maybe it's time to, maybe it would have been time 20 years ago to go.

Really?

Yeah, he called into a radio show in Detroit, the Mildred Gaddis show.

Oh, huge.

I'm guessing Mildred is not a millennial.

Oh, no, the Mildred Galatis show.

That was the last baby ever named Mildred.

It's got to be only 60 years ago.

That name is huge in Silicon Valley.

They stopped with that name right after they stopped with Gertrude.

And I think they've retired both of those names.

Mildred?

Mildred Gaddis.

Apparently, she's a big deal in Detroit.

So he called in on her show and said, as of today, he's retiring, and he endorsed his son.

What a surprise.

He endorsed his son for his seat.

That's so good.

It's like, all right, I'm leaving, but my hand puppet is staying.

All I'm going to do is stick my hand up its butt and tell it what to say, but you won't see my lips move.

So.

Wow,

I don't hear you say this about Prince Charles when people talk about Queen Elizabeth dying.

She's going to hand it to her son.

No, I don't.

No,

that's actually a different system of government.

It has actually nothing to do with a system of government anymore.

In fact, I think we fought against that system of government.

Even England has basically overturned that form of government anymore.

Even England is even saying, we don't want Prince Charles.

But that only happened 200 years ago, so I'm glad they still pretend.

Well, we don't want to stop pretending that they have power.

I mean, John Conyers was almost alive when it happened.

Think of it,

think of that.

He was halfway there.

At the beginning of his life, we're almost halfway.

That is incredible to think about.

It's incredible.

88 years old.

What was it?

How many terms was it?

27.

27.

27 terms.

I mean, it's unconscionable.

And then what does he want to do?

He wants to, quote unquote, retire so he can essentially extend his family's reign.

Yeah.

I mean, it is.

Yeah.

That's ball.

It's as if we hand this down from, I mean, they still have to elect the guy, but he'll, somebody's going to be appointed, right?

In his, until they have a situation.

No, it will be John Conyers' son.

John Conyer's the third.

Just like Jesse Jackson Jr.

And

the way they

even advertise these races, I remember when we lived in Pennsylvania, I used to drive to the studios the same way every day, and I would go through this one area that had, during an election, and it would just be vote number seven.

Like not even telling you what the issue was, not even tell you

what the name was, nothing.

It was just vote number seven.

So people would see signs and vote number seven.

They get in in front of the ballot.

It would say number seven.

They did say vote number seven.

So I better vote for number seven.

Wow, did you ever look it up to see what number seven was?

I don't remember.

But did you vote for number seven?

Obviously, it's a sign

number seven.

But there was no other choice.

Are you not going to do what you're told, buddy?

No.

But I think like when you go to

when these, you know, this voting constituency is going to go to the polls, they're going to see a name that's familiar.

It's not, maybe it's just three instead of.

Half of them won't even know that it's not the same John Conyers.

Yeah.

And, you know, that is just the, I honestly think, because people talk about party, like

ideology is totally backseat to party.

But honestly, I think party even is backseat to name.

If you have that name that people recognize, they don't care what the hell you do.

They don't care if you switch parties 900 times.

They don't care what it is.

If you're famous and they know you, you're going to get votes.

Well, that's why dead people have been elected.

Wasn't that Missouri where that happened?

Years ago?

Yes.

The person won the election.

I guess John.

Wasn't that John Ashcroft?

I think it was.

John Ashcroft.

Was it Callahan or the other?

Yeah, Callahan's.

His wife served instead.

Yeah.

Right?

It was like, oh, well,

same last name.

They just knew his name.

The fact that he wasn't breathing anymore didn't mean anything to the voters.

He'd probably be better now that he's not treated.

He'd probably.

I mean, he'll be better.

You know, wait a minute.

Hang on.

Let's think about that.

That's not bad.

It's not bad.

If we just elect a Congress full of dead dead people,

we might get better laws.

Yeah, it's going to be a lot less offensive.

I'll tell you.

At least it wouldn't be.

I could watch C-SPAN all day long.

Be really quiet, fall asleep to it.

It would be weird.

If they would just wheel one of them up once in a while, you know, just to prop him up.

Somebody who's on an iron lung, not quite dead yet, but just about to die.

No, I want him dead.

Okay.

I want him dead.

I want him back.

And to be clear, we're talking about people who are previously dead to now elected.

I see bring back, what, Charlie McCarthy or whatever that guy whose name was.

Let's go back to the founders, man.

If we can pick anybody, let's go back to the founders.

I want to have some of those.

Washington.

I want the famous ones, too.

I want those guys, sure.

But I also want the famous guys.

I would like, you know, who was the guy that, you know, beat the other one with

the cane?

Charles Sumner.

Yeah, that was Charles Sumner.

But

who was the guy who beat him?

I can't remember.

I don't remember.

I want that guy because you don't know.

Maybe he'll do it again.

You don't know.

And this time it'd be on video.

It'd be

viral.

Imagine if he's serving

and one day he shows up and he's got a cane.

And then you're watching.

And the next day, he's just like a foot closer to somebody else.

And you just move him every day.

Like weekend at Bernie's.

Exactly.

Congress edition.

Yeah.

I like it.

But they just, they're in that position every day.

So it's like a, it's like a Macy's Christmas Day window, you know what I mean?

Where every day C-SPAN goes on and they're all in a different position.

You're like, what happened?

They only do laws when we're not watching.

It's like elf on a shelf.

It'd screw up a lot less.

It would be great.

I'm all over it.

Yeah.

Well, that's why we have, I mean, you know, the system government in many states, Texas being one of them, they don't show up all that often.

That's good.

Every other year.

Every other year they show up, vote on a couple things.

How long have we said that?

That the National Congress should do what Texas does, just stay away every other year.

Can you imagine how great it would be?

That's the way it was.

Yeah, that's the way it was.

This was not a full-time job.

You were there for a few months every other year.

And you had a job where you worked around other people.

Yeah.

And so you got to hear and stay in touch with people because you were there with them.

The reason why they really liked Washington, D.C.

is because it was so miserable and it was so full of malaria that they were like, nobody's going to want to stay here.

Nobody's going to want to stay here because it's just miserable.

It was a swamp.

Right.

I'm sure the American people are ready for more personal time with John Conyers, though.

I don't think that's a good idea for them.

I think maybe why?

What could possibly go wrong?

Mel Carnahan, not what it was.

Oh, yeah, that's it.

That's right.

Callahan.

He was.

I don't know.

I think he was was a dirty, hairy guy, wasn't he?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Dirty Harry Callahan, I think.

Okay.

Fat Grand Unleashed is the name

I do know.

That show appears on the Blaze Radio and Television Network right after this one.

Go to theblaze.com/slash TV and check it out.

So, Goldline has been a sponsor of mine for

years and years and years.

And

the reason why I like them is because they listen to you and they really try to do the right thing.

They're really transparent.

They're far more transparent than the law requires them to be and a million times more transparent than all the other businesses that sell gold.

And they try to do the right thing.

Now,

they have just been purchased by a company named AMARC.

AMARC is the largest publicly traded precious metal wholesaler in,

I think, the country for sure, maybe the world.

And so what they offer is a way to buy a much more efficient way

precious metals.

And so they've been able to, now that they own Goldline, they've been able to say, we already have that, so you don't need this, you don't need that, and we can get everything and save you a buttload of money.

This is the kind of people that work at Goldline.

They wanted to pass those savings on to you instead of just adding to the bottom line.

They wanted to lower the price of what they sell because what they sell is not just gold bar.

They sell, I buy, the antique coins.

And I do it for a reason.

You can ask them why I do that, but I buy the antique coins.

So there is a price to that.

But because Amark now owns them, they can get those at a much more efficient way and price.

So now the savings go to you.

I have never seen Goldline offer any of their products for the prices that they're now being offered.

Goldline, the prices are coming down

while everything else is going up in our world.

Goldline is doing it right.

Call 866 Goldline.

Find out if buying gold or silver is right for you.

866-465-3546.

1-866-GoldLine or Goldline.com.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

Welcome to the program.

Glad you're here.

Today at 5 o'clock, we're going to go in depth on a couple of things.

First, the travel ban.

The Supreme Court has said, yep, we're good with a travel ban.

What?

We might change our mind later this week.

So it's just, it's nonsensical what is happening.

We're going to break it all down for you.

And then I want to talk to you about what the president did yesterday in Utah.

It was a good step in the right direction by

overturning the huge land grab that Barack Obama did with bears' ears in Utah, just seized all this land.

We have some pretty shocking inside information on that that we will give to you.

And what should happen, what we should be cheering for is not necessarily what happened yesterday, but it was a step in the right direction.

And we'll give you that at 5 o'clock.

Also, we'll give you an update on the

Supreme Court hearing on the gay baker or the straight baker who didn't want to make a gay wedding cake.

A very lefty kind of reporter just left the Supreme Court and just tweeted this.

That things did not go well, apparently, for that side of the argument.

It was someone from Think Progress who said the argument went terribly for the pro-equality side.

Kennedy is almost certainly going to side with the gay Baker, the anti-gay Baker, was the way I believe he put it.

So I would not agree with that analysis, but it's a good sign if he thinks it went badly because this is not about whether you like gay people or anything like that.

It's about the freedom of being able to do what you want with your day.

And your talent and what you have to endorse if you are are religiously against it.

But there's limits to freedom.

I think we all recognize that.

I mean, for example, this guy in Illinois,

he had Dunkin' Donuts vanilla latte-flavored Pop-Tarts he was eating.

And he says, you guys ain't from Illinois if you don't put mustard on your Pop-Tarts.

No, you're not from Earth.

You need to be in prison.

It's interesting.

You say that because you're right.

I was thinking, when you said, you know, there are some limits to freedom, I thought.

I can't think of really any real big ones.

Now you can, right?

Yeah, mustard on Pop-Tarts.

You bet.

On what kind of Pop-Tart?

On a Dunkin' Donuts vanilla latte Pop-Tart, which I did not know existed.

Now,

Pop-Tarts, the official Twitter handle actually responded and says, can you guys handle this to the Illinois state police?

They did not respond, but the Dixon police said, let us know if they don't handle this Pop-Tarts, because we will.

Nobody's putting mustard on their Pop-Tarts in Illinois.

So at least I think.

Look, I'm not a fan of big government per se.

No, but when you're

desecrating a Pop-Tart.

Okay, can I ask you a question?

Everybody thinks I'm nuts.

Do you.

There is a topping for Pop-Tarts that I.

Oh, but you're looking at me wrong.

We'll get into this tomorrow.

This is important.

But I want this is important.

Okay, yeah.

I'm in.

Glenn, back.