6/7/17 - Rethinking War On Terror

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

I will make a stand, I will raise my voice, I will hold your hand, cause we have won, I will be my drum,

I have made my choice, we will overcome, cause we are one.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Welcome.

I'm glad you joined the show.

My name is Mike Berman.

In for Glenn, today, a lot to talk about, obviously, what's happening around the world and terrorist attacks.

Again, yesterday, we now found out that in Paris at the Notre Dame Cathedral, there was a terrorist attack.

A man claiming to be a soldier of the caliphate attacked police officers and one that was then shot.

We'll talk about that for sure.

And then we're going to talk to an expert right here in the building on what we're seeing in the Middle East fighting the Sunni-Shia battle that rages on with a terrorist attack, a pair of terrorist attacks that killed a lot of people and an attack on the parliament and of all places, Tehran.

So in the first part of the first hour, now if they are attacking in Tehran, is anybody safe?

Is this part of a tribal war between the Sunni and the Shia more than it is anything else with the ISIS terrorist attacks?

This shows you the level of fighting that will go on.

And we can't, I guess it can't be stressed enough.

If you look at any of the divisions in churches in America, we don't see anything like this.

We see a lot of dissension.

We see anger.

We see hurt feelings.

We have a lot of theological arguments between denominations in America, depending on who you are and

what theology you subscribe to.

But we don't stoop to the level of murder.

And this is now what we're seeing in this battle.

And it happened now in all places in the nation of Iran.

If there was one nation, you would think ISIS wouldn't be attacking until you hear the details.

So we'll get that coming up here in just a few minutes.

But some of the other headlines, James Comey to testify tomorrow.

And if you watched any of the cable news shows this morning or last night, they are just salivating about this testimony.

And it was so funny to see a little bit this morning as I was getting ready to come to the station.

and flipping channels that some of the cable news networks who are obviously so far against the President of the United States and to be honest with you, to be fair, against anything on the right side of the aisle, giving advice to the Republicans on the committee where Comey will testify and how they really have an opportunity to do the right thing.

And I thought,

how funny it is that those people, of all people, would be giving advice to anybody on that committee.

There's not an ounce of fairness that I've seen in a long time in what we're seeing in traditional media.

I'm a little bit surprised.

I've been surprised at CNN that they are completely in the tank against the president, against all credibility in any other issue.

There's a couple of, later, later in the show, there is a story about tourism, international tourism into the United States.

A report is out that is up 4% in the month of April.

They're surprised because they thought because of the travel ban that the president was calling for and the way it was grumbling around the world that international tourism may take a hit here in America.

So one report says, look at this, we're very surprised that tourism is up in America.

Then you go to the CNN story and CNN says the president's agenda hurting tourism.

And it's the same report.

They're writing a story from the same report.

So it's basically who you believe.

So that's, again, are you getting accurate information?

Well, yeah, I mean, they're not lying.

Is it a jaded or an agenda-driven story?

A lot of times it absolutely is.

That's why sources are so important.

It's so important to have a well-rounded look at what's happening in a story.

You can read a story.

I'll give you an example.

You could read a story about one of the attacks and you can get it from Al Jazeera.

And what do you think they're going to say about about the attacks in Manchester or the attacks in London or even the attack in Paris yesterday versus what you're going to hear on let's say Fox News in America there's a huge difference or the BBC how they're going to report it

so

that the attacks in Tehran and Teresa May her comments

about changing human rights laws.

You're going to hear some audio that if you only hear the back half of the clip sounds ominous.

When you hear it in its entirety, and it's only about 14 seconds long, she's talking about protecting the people of Great Britain.

They've got an election coming up.

She's against an opponent that she's predicted to win, but they don't know because of this Labor Party leader.

But the Labor Party leader, Corbyn, is

has now, it's been discovered, has delivered a speech and given some comments during an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian

rally,

which anti-Semitic statements were screamed from the crowd in cheers.

So is this the future of Great Britain?

And that's really what they're voting on in the next few days.

So we've got to talk about the NSA leaker's parents.

Her parents have spoken out about how endangered she felt, that she was worried that they were going to make her disappear.

So they're now making excuses for what she did.

They admit that they don't have really any idea what she does for a living because she can't talk about it with her security clearance.

But the more we learn about this girl, the more we learn about Reality Winner, the more we realize

that she was was so far left and agenda-driven,

I am wondering when, inside the intelligence gathering community, it's going to be asked how she ever maintained that high-level security clearance or at least a job within the White House.

She has been trying to subvert that on social media.

She has been very active in speaking out against the president, insulting him by name, and talking about the agendas of even standing side by side with the Iranians.

So, this, I think, in the coming days is going to be a much bigger story.

The prison time she faces is no joke.

I mean, she is really facing some serious, serious prison time.

And one of the Rand Paul said that the Republicans should keep their promise, and I agree with Rand Paul on this, that the Republicans should keep their promise and repeal the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.

Not fix it, repeal it and replace it like they promised during the elections.

I think that the leadership, what's difficult about the leadership in the Republican Party is they are afraid to make a mistake.

And everybody knows when you make decisions out of fear, it's always a bad decision.

That decisions need to be made in confidence, where we're going to do the right thing.

If it ends up blowing up in our face, so be it.

We're going to do it because it's the right thing.

You ran on a campaign of repeal and replace.

Every Republican was doing it.

By the time the election came around, they all were on board, repeal and replace.

We have a plan.

Well, now they don't.

And Rand Paul said that.

The reason I say that is now another major insurance carrier is pulling out of the health care exchanges in the state of Ohio.

That's happening across the country.

This is imploding.

That's what's so fascinating about this.

The Republicans can't get out of their own way on this when all you have to do is look at the evidence of it imploding.

The people that are screaming, save our health care, the answer to that rallying cry is, what health care?

What health care do you have?

And yet they don't ask the question.

They don't turn the tables.

Why doesn't somebody in the Republican Party, when asked about repeal and replace, go after Nancy Pelosi?

How is Nancy Pelosi the spokesman still for the Democrats?

She's the one that got us Obamacare.

How is it that she gets to speak and criticize what the Republicans are doing?

She ramroded this thing through.

She was the one who, with that smile on her face, said that members of the House of Representatives had to vote for it to find out what's in it.

I mean, she said that statement alone, she should have been the laughing stock of the Congress.

We now know that every prediction of the horrible things that could happen with Obamacare are coming true, some of them faster than anybody thought.

It's costing more money.

It's not covering as many people as it's supposed to.

Nobody wants to sign up for it.

It's way too expensive.

And now insurance carriers are dropping out, which means you don't have all the choices they promised.

It used to be that it was billed as they're going to give you multiple choices.

If you like your doctor, you keep your doctor.

If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan.

None of that came true.

So with the failure that this is, the fact that they can't get America on board with a plan shows you that there's a a problem with the way they public relations and how they convey a message to the American people.

They keep talking about this three-bucket approach to what they're going to do.

And you've got to pass bucket number one and then do number two because of the way the Senate rules work.

There's no guarantee if you get bucket number one that either one of the other two are going to get passed.

But I'll be honest with you, very brutally honest with you.

I do this for a living.

I'm immersed in this every day.

I couldn't explain those three buckets to you if if my life depended on it.

I have no idea what's in those three buckets.

And I'm looking for the answers on a daily basis.

How do you think the average American feels when they're told we've got a plan?

Well, tell us what it is.

Get the people on board.

I guarantee you with an election year next year, if the people get on board, even Democrats in moderate districts are going to jump on board because they don't want to lose their jobs.

And they just aren't able to get out of their own way.

It is shocking to me.

Also, in the headlines, Jeff Sessions had offered to resign his position.

And they're very, being very quiet in the Department of Justice.

Sean Spicer says he can't say whether or not the president has confidence in Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.

So he hasn't resigned yet.

I don't think that the letter of resignation was ever submitted or was ever accepted, but the offer was on the table that Jeff Sessions said he would resign that position.

So that's kind of a big story today as well.

In a moment, we have a local expert here.

His name is Cal.

He is

Muslim himself, works here in the building, and is really able to help us understand why ISIS would have an attack, a pair of attacks, big attacks on parliament and by the statue of Khomeini in the square in Tehran.

These were obviously big political statements.

Why in the world would ISIS be attacking Iran when we would all think that the Iranians are the ones that are training and arming and funding terrorism across the world?

You would think they would be an ally.

Well, that's not exactly the case.

We'll explain why coming up here in just a few moments.

If you're a social media user, I'm on Twitter at Broomhead Show.

I'd love for you to reach out.

We'll kind of interact that way on social media.

Love to do that.

My name is Mike Broomhead.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I'll be back.

The Glenn Beck Program.

Look at

888727 back.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

All right, we're back.

And here's, here's, we know that the attack yesterday, there was a man in Paris at the Notre Dame Cathedral that attacked a police officer and making the claim that he was a soldier of the caliphate.

And that doesn't surprise anybody.

It was, you know, that you would have one, he would attack there.

That would make sense.

But we also know of a pair of attacks that happened in Iran, in the square, the Khomeini statue, also in the parliament in Iran.

That surprises a lot of people.

So Cal El-Sabai is with me.

You work here in the building.

I do.

And

give me your impression of why this would happen.

I was shocked at what happened in Tehran because you would think they would be allied in some way.

Right.

You know,

a lot of people say, and it's no secret, really, that Iran funds a lot of what ISIS does and a lot of the other groups as well.

The rift would be that

there's a rift in Islam.

There's Shia and the Sunnis.

So you're majority.

And

the ISIS are radical Sunnis.

So

they are against everything that the Shias stand for.

The major rift in the Shia is that after Muhammad died, the next, I guess you could call, apostle to take over was Abu Bakr, and that's what the Sunnis believe, but the Shia believe it should have been his nephew, Ali, and there's a whole kind of rift there and a little bit more detail of what happened there, but that's the difference in beliefs there.

And the Sunnis, especially the extreme radicals, believe that they're complete.

the Shia are complete blasphemies.

So they attacked the Khomeini's shrine, I believe, the Abdullah Khomeini shrine.

and that's kind of where that comes from.

So why would Iran fund or help them if there's such a rift between them?

Why would they help embolden them

when they know that they would battle?

I mean, is there a reason that you can think of other than that?

I don't think they would expect an attack to come from ISIS, but I wouldn't know why they would fund something that they would think would come back and bite them.

You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, maybe, is the idea that they're out there doing the work that they would want

against the West.

But

when you saw saw the story,

how surprised were you that it happened in Iran?

Pretty surprised.

You wouldn't think that it kind of says that nobody's off limits.

I wouldn't think there would be an attack in Iran, not in my personal opinion.

The opinion of people, the questions that a lot of Americans ask, especially Americans ask, are where are Muslims around the world?

If the Muslim faith truly doesn't believe in what these radicals are doing, they don't think that this is the right thing to do, where are those people speaking out?

Well, there are people like you, my friend in Arizona, Zudi Jasser.

What do people of the Muslim faith around the world think of these radicals, these Islamists?

I mean, your average everyday Muslim, myself being, I mean, I'm not a perfect Muslim.

I'm an American Muslim.

I was born in Cairo, Egypt.

I came here when I was young.

My dad came here for opportunity.

I grew up here.

I practice my faith.

I'm a very faithful person.

So there's plenty of people that speak out.

You just really don't see media coverage of it.

There's a lot, actually.

Lots of different organizations speak out.

Lots of personal people speak out.

But you don't see much of it really out there.

I guess it doesn't really sell or just not really headline news.

I mean, recently over the weekend, there was a pretty big,

I guess you can call it a gathering or a coalition of Middle Eastern countries.

I think Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, I think Yemen just jumped on board and then other countries which kind of don't make sense like the Maldives and things

have banned against Qatar because Qatar is also one of those countries that

I guess openly denies it but it's kind of unspoken that they do fund a lot of terrorism as well between ISIS and al-Qaeda and Taliban things like that they have cut ties with them they've sent all their diplomats out of the countries back home and they told any other citizens of Qatari residents in these countries that they have I think two weeks to head back and it's kind of an ultimatum for Qatar to get their act together and be serious about stopping this so we were surprised reading the stories after the the attacks in london on the London Bridge, we were surprised to hear about all of the Imams that would not do the prayer services for the dead terrorists.

That doesn't surprise you then.

That's more normal within the community.

No, I mean in the radical beliefs, dying as a martyr is like the

ultimate way to go.

It's the highest honor to die as a martyr.

So these guys think that they're martyring themselves in what they believe is what God wants them to do.

In reality, it's the exact opposite.

So the fact that the Imams are not praying for their deaths is a huge thing because to pray over someone's death is like almost mandatory.

Every day

there's five prayers a day in Islam.

And at the end of the day, the last prayer, they usually save it for anybody who's died for that day.

So they pray on their bodies as to kind of rest in peace and, you know, send them off.

So the fact that they deny that is a huge statement.

So do you think we're going to see more of that?

I thought the minds of people in Europe, especially Great Britain, would change when that bombing happened at that concert because it was filled with mostly young people, young girls especially.

And it doesn't seem to me, it seems to be human nature.

If you're going to attack our children,

that's a no-brainer that people are going to be against it.

Do you think that they're starting to change their minds about speaking out where they feel more comfortable now, they feel safer saying we are not going to do this?

Because their lives could be in danger by refusing to do these prayers.

Right, yeah.

No, I think I think you're going to see, and I've already seen it, I mean, on social media, it says that a lot of people speaking out, you know, social media campaigns like not in my name, not my religion, you know, not, I'm not a jihadi, you know, I think you're going to see hopefully a lot more of that.

And I've seen a bit more.

And I think the more these things happen, you're definitely going to hear more about it.

So are the tables, in your mind, are the tables turning here in America as well where people feel safer or people not feel safe in some cases speaking out?

I think it's from what my opinion, I see in kind of a 50-50, I see a lot of people that are afraid to and that a lot of people that are very vocal about it, you know,

considering the current climate in the country, there's a lot of, you know, it would do justice angst and anger towards Muslims.

But there's also a lot of people coming out in defense and also claiming that, yeah, not all Muslims are like this, you know, and it's good to see that.

Do you understand,

and how do you defend against the suspicion of all Muslims based on what we see since 9-11, even before that with the attacks on the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration?

Do you understand the fear from people of ignorance really that don't know any more than what we see?

And then how do you defend against that?

No, I absolutely understand it.

You know, it's warranted.

Look who's attacking.

It makes sense to fear that and be

aware of it and be afraid of it.

And I have no problem.

You know, I go to the airport and I don't look at, obviously, you know, but as soon as they read my name, I'm always randomly selected.

Fine.

I mean, I understand.

Do what you got to do.

I got nothing to hide.

And I think if any other person feels that way, it should be fine.

you know.

You always worry a little bit about the small minority of,

I guess, our own version of extreme racism on this side of

the globe, where I guess people feel a little bit more emboldened to come out and be a bit more aggressive towards things that they don't agree with, like Islam.

And you just hope that, you know, more people will understand and do the research on their own and kind of study and not just take what's fed to them, hopefully.

Do you think that relations in America are getting better?

I mean, do you think that the ability for people like yourself, because you're an easygoing guy, to speak out, do you think that it's helping that people are beginning to understand that it's not one size fits all, that this is a radical faction of

your faith?

I think so.

I think for the most part, people do understand that.

It depends on, I mean, look, if you really want to know and you really...

like you see what's happening in the world and you really want to understand, I think people who are educated and want to know the truth will go find it.

And I think if you're just going to, you know, take what's fed to you, even if it sounds ridiculous,

I don't think people like that really want to know.

So I feel like the majority do want to know and will understand what the reality is.

I appreciate the insight.

I do your willingness to speak out.

Cal Elsabai, who works here in the building with us, he's a great guy, and I really appreciate the time.

Coming up in a few moments, audio.

Teresa May wants to change human rights laws to protect the citizens of Great Britain.

You'll hear the audio coming up here in a few moments.

All right, thanks for being here.

Mike Broom head in for Glenn today.

We've got to talk about Teresa May.

She has made some statements.

about what they're going to do about human rights in and how they're going to protect the the British citizens.

There's a big election coming up.

They're saying her shrinking poll numbers.

She was out in front pretty far, but now the labor leader may catch her.

And there's a lot to be said about the person that's challenging her.

There's Jeremy Corbyn.

He is

now it's found out that he has attended some anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, but mostly anti-Israel rallies where he addressed the crowd, a lot of anti-Semitic statements being made.

And to a faction, to some people in Great Britain, that is something that they want more of.

We as a nation, and as a nation of Great Britain, they have been an ally of Israel as well, although we've been the closest ally to Israel in the world.

But when the terrorist attacks are happening now,

it's hard to ignore, it's impossible to ignore, the religious angle of this, that the Islamists are using what they believe is their religious right.

And the reason why it's important to know the reasons why someone does something is if you're going to battle against it, that's going to be how it's going to happen.

But in America, what you're about to hear may seem very ominous when you hear this soundbite in its entirety when Theresa May is talking about human rights, but what she's talking about is protecting the citizens of Great Britain.

So she was addressing a crowd of people and this is what she said about protecting the British people.

I mean longer prison sentences for those convicted of terrorist offenses.

I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own country.

And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.

And

if our human rights laws stop us from doing it, we'll change the laws so we can do it.

So there you have it.

We're going to change human rights laws.

Well, of course, people across the road say, that's the last time I'll go to Great Great Britain.

I'm not going to go to England anymore.

I'm not going to...

Well, there may be those that are far left that feel that way.

But in the end, is she saying that we have laws about, you know, here in America,

the temporary travel ban that's being argued that will go to the Supreme Court, where President Trump wants to argue at the Supreme Court that the travel ban that they have has been rewritten is constitutional.

That conversation is much the same as this one here.

And what is interesting in our country with that argument is that the Court of Appeals that shot down the second version of the travel ban didn't say that the verbiage in the law was unconstitutional.

Not at all.

What they said was they believed the president's words about a Muslim ban earlier was the grounds for him to use this in the wrong way to fulfill that promise or that desire.

Therefore, they deemed the law unconstitutional.

That's why it's going to the Supreme Court.

And it seems like it's very flimsy.

It seems very political for a judge in an appeals court or judges in an appeals court to make these decisions.

The interesting thing about it is how many Americans would say we have a right to know, we have a responsibility, our government has a responsibility to do the best they can, to know who we are accepting.

We have always been a benevolent nation.

I believe that with all of my heart that we should be a nation of immigrants, that we should be a place of refuge.

We should be where the world turns.

We are the world's superpower, but we are also the most benevolent nation in the the world.

At the same time, when you realize that the enemy is doing things, you alter how you do things.

We've done it in the way we fly.

We now secure the cockpit door.

You can't get into that anymore.

We now know that there are rules in place about how we get through security.

When you're on an airplane, we take our shoes off to clear security.

We do things differently now because of what the suspects, what the attackers have done and how they have changed how we must do things.

Now the ban on having laptop computers coming into this country from some some country, they have to be stowed underneath.

They can't be on your lap because they could be used as a bomb.

All of this is based on intelligence and the way that the enemy is acting.

And we're reacting to that.

When you see people driving down the streets and running people over, well, for the first time, and this may have happened before, but the election or the inauguration this time around, the streets all the way around the perimeter of the National Mall, all of the streets around a very big perimeter were blocked off.

The intersections were blocked off with buses or dump trucks parked too deep and they were perpendicular in across the intersections.

No car was going to run through those intersections to get anywhere close to the National Mall to run people over within that secure perimeter.

That didn't mean that all of those people were going into the event, but that was that closed-off area around that.

That was a direct reaction to the way the terrorists are behaving.

So we have been a nation of refuge, but when we find out that the terrorists that wish to do us harm are infiltrating and pretending to be refugees, how is it a lack of human rights?

How is it a lack of sensitivity to say we need to have a better vetting process of who we are accepting into this country?

Now, we know that the attackers in Great Britain, the ones on the London Bridge just the other day, that two of them were British citizens.

Parents

were refugees.

Now, that doesn't mean that all refugees are bad, but it is something that needs to be addressed.

So if Teresa May is going to say to the world, if we need to change our human rights laws, we'll change the laws, that sounds ominous.

Just that soundbite sounds ominous.

When you take that soundbite in its entirety and she said, we must protect the British people when we have evidence of wrongdoing, but we can't criminally convict.

You know, here in America, we are blessed because we have an immigration problem.

People want to come here, and there are good people that we should accept.

But how are we doing at making sure that we're accepting good people and doing our best to keep those that wish to do us harm out?

That's always been the immigration question.

Who stays, who goes?

We've done a horrible job with our visas.

We've done in watching and maintaining the people that are on them and overstaying them.

We do a terrible job of making it easier for good people to come here, whether it's on a visa to work or to get on a path to citizenship.

We don't do that well enough.

And we could do a much better job of it as well.

Then you put that together with a porous border that no one in the last eight years has done anything to secure, and you understand why the American people are upset.

Well, if we take that, now you look at what's going on in Great Britain, and there are factions within their government that hate the idea of a vetting process or what we're going to do, what they would do about refugees to protect citizens.

It is entrenched there much deeper than it is here.

And so it's an uphill battle.

When you look at the difference here in America, you have somebody like, let's say, Teresa May who is saying, we're going to make sure that we know who's coming and we're going to do what we have to do to protect our citizens.

And then you've got an opponent that is saying that, you know, anti-Semitic statements going to anti-Israel rallies,

it seems like a no-brainer in America which candidate would become the winner.

But if you look at the polling and how it's closing there, it's a toss-up of which way that's going to go.

So the ideology of that nation

is changing, but the reason it's changing is they realize tolerance is, is admirable, but blindly allowing people to run the show and then change the way you do things and then either support or defend or turn a blind eye to things like we're seeing right now is ludicrous.

When you are, and I hate to keep harping on this, but when you are detonating a bomb in a very big area of a concert where you know it's occupied by mostly young girls, the issue becomes very, very

dire.

And that's when people begin to think they will attack anyone.

Our children aren't safe.

Nobody's safe.

And so maybe the tides are turning, that they've always had an attitude of tolerance.

And they've always felt as if, you know, they need to be very tolerant, give everybody the benefit of the doubt.

People are good at heart.

And in the end, what they're finding out is that there's a lot of evil in the world, that it doesn't matter who you are or how tolerant you are, that there are people out there that just because of your way of life will kill you.

That doesn't mean everyone, but you've got to do a better job.

If they know that the refugees

are being infiltrated by evildoers, why is it a bad thing to say?

We're going to do our best.

to make sure we weed them out.

If we've accepted people into this country that we know are radicalized and and they're traveling to nations like Libya for training or they're sneaking into Syria for some kind of training to be a jihadi, they're espousing jihadi ideas and thoughts and trying to get people converted to their radical ideas.

What can we do about that?

I don't know why anybody would be afraid to address that.

In America, it seems ominous.

We're going to end people's human rights.

We have a lot of rights in this country that

we can make sure people are protected and their rights are protected and at the same time keep us safe.

Just are we willing to do that?

That's always been the question.

I mentioned earlier in the show that there is a new information out on international tourism.

The fear was when the president called for a Muslim ban, which he admits now he said, and has changed it now.

It's not a religious test.

It is a ban on people that would come here that are bad people.

It's not a religious test.

The fear was that international tourism into the U.S., they would boycott the U.S.

Well, I've got some firsthand knowledge of something like this based on an immigration law in the state I come from and what people said would be an end to tourism or a damage to tourism.

It wasn't.

Well, this report is out about tourism in America, people coming here internationally.

And if you look at one story, it says the president didn't affect it at all.

You read another story and it says, oh, things are dismal.

Who's right?

That's more to look at.

This is how the media is covering it.

We'll do that before we get out of this hour.

Again, Twitter users, I'm at Broomhead Show.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I'm Mike Broomhead, and I'll be back.

Glenn Beck Program.

888727 back.

Mercury.

The Glenn Beck Program.

All right, coming up in hour number two of the show, Reality Winner.

She is the accused White House leaker.

She's been facing a lot of time in prison.

We're going to talk about the prison time she is facing.

We'll learn a little bit more about her.

There is a poll out from Glennbeck.com and Glenn put up on Twitter asking what are some of the most egregious things she has tweeted.

We're going to talk about four of the things that she has tweeted about this while having a security clearance, which she got under the Obama administration, still working in the Trump White House, saying horrible things about the president himself, about white people, she called whiteness terrorism, supporting the people of Iran.

So she has said some pretty inflammatory things, to say the least, while maintaining a high-level security clearance and now being accused of taking top-secret documents and giving them over to the media.

Her parents spoke out.

I'll tell you what they had to say as well, and in defense of their daughter.

That will be coming up in the next hour.

Also, we'll talk about James Comey's testimony in hour number two of the show.

International tourism.

The suspicion was, you know, and I agree with the premise.

Everything the President of the United States says matters.

And it's fair.

And this is where I want to tread lightly with people because because I need to be fair about this.

I was very critical of what President Obama said about law enforcement and his knee-jerk reaction to things about the police acting stupidly in one occasion.

And what was interesting about that was he spoke out in a knee-jerk reaction and said the police acted stupidly.

Within a couple of hours, even he had to have realized that the police officers acted exactly like they were supposed to be.

If anybody was acting in a stupid manner, it was the homeowner.

So in order to fix it, they had that ridiculous beer summit at the White House.

If you remember, that was quite possibly the biggest cliche I've ever seen in my life.

And absolutely no one wanted to be there.

The cop didn't want to be there.

The professor didn't want to be there.

Biden didn't want to be there.

And neither did Obama.

But there they sat.

dress shirts, slacks, sleeves rolled up twice, sitting around, drinking a beer, and of course, eating a bowl of peanuts.

Because, you know, everybody sits around.

I don't ever have a beer without a bowl of peanuts with me so it was just the silliest thing to try to cover up the fact that what he said was speak out of line i agree with the premise that what the president says matters because he's the president so i have had disagreements when President Trump has said things that I thought was either a knee-jerk reaction or inflammatory.

I disagreed with the, I don't like some of the tweeting myself.

All of that I agree with.

So the fear was when the president called on this travel ban, that it was going to all these people across the world, we're not going to America, just as we talked last time, Teresa May said, we may change our laws.

Okay, I'll never go to Great Britain again.

So the fear was it was going to really hurt international terrorism.

So a story written yesterday by the AP says more international visitors came to the U.S.

than expected in April of 2017.

That's great news.

As a matter of fact,

asking the head of the Travel Association, CEO of the U.S.

Travel Association, his name is Roger Dow, they asked him, are you surprised with this data?

And he said, yes, there has been many claims that the administration's actions on travel have tarnished America's brand abroad.

We're seeing hard economic evidence that the U.S.

travel sector's remarkable resilience.

So you think that's great news.

There was no damage.

So, of course, there has to be a rebuttal from CNN.

CNN writes, Trump is hurting American tourism, citing the exact same report.

Now, which is accurate?

I don't know.

But here again, you've got CNN one day later writing a story that is going after the president of the United States.

It is interesting to me that there was no correlation between the uptick in violence against police, the uptick in disrespect toward police in America, the job of being a police officer, the riots that were happening against the police when they were unfounded.

Nobody accused that.

Nobody that I know of in the traditional media, especially not CNN, accused President Obama of being the cause of those things.

But now President Trump is the cause of a down in tourism and this anti-reporter sentiment that makes it okay to push reporters around.

Just one more thing you have to take into consideration when you think about what the media is saying.

Coming up, we'll talk about Reality Winner, your opportunity to jump on a poll at Glenn Beck's Twitter site where you can answer the question, which of hers is most egregious.

That's coming up in the next hour.

Stick around.

I'm Mike Broomhead.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Mercury.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

I will raise my voice.

I will hold your hand.

I have made my choice.

We will overcome.

Cause we are one.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck

program.

Welcome.

My name is Mike Brumhead in for Glenn.

Today, thanks for being a part of the show.

However, you're listening or watching.

We love the fact that you joined us for a few minutes.

Compelling questions this hour.

Who is Reality Winner?

A great poll.

If you've not read the tweets, we're going to read them here in just a little while.

But Reality Winner is top secret clearance, works for a security company out of Georgia, or at least worked for one, and has been charged with sneaking classified documents out of the White House and giving them to the media.

She has got, if you believe her Twitter account, is a very left-leaning activist and it looks as if trying to subvert the Trump White House.

One of the polls, if you go to Glennbeck.com, you can get a link to his, or if you follow Glenn on Twitter, there is a poll of which is her most egregious tweet.

And there are four listed there.

Hard to choose.

Hard to choose a favorite.

I've chosen mine.

If you want to vote on that, you can.

But we'll talk a little bit more.

Her parents have spoken out in defense of her to some degree.

And I'm waiting.

I haven't heard much of it yet.

We'll wait and see.

But there will be those on the left that will compare her to Edward Snowden.

And the differences between the two are staggering.

But we will discuss this at great lengths coming up here in just a few moments.

The headlines we've got to cover, James Comey to testify tomorrow, that coming up in this hour of the show as well.

We'll talk about the Comey testimony.

What is being said?

that he it's being said that he will testify that he went to Jeff Sessions after a meeting with the president and asked to not be left alone with the president.

And I don't know what that means, to be honest, but that's part of the discussion this hour as well.

But that testimony is significant.

The investigation into Michael Flynn and the Russian situation, it didn't seem to be hindered in any way.

But the insinuation is that they were trying to hinder that investigation.

There's so much hypocrisy.

on both sides of the aisle with things that are going on that at some point we've got to understand and if we don't start getting this right we're in big trouble that there is a major difference between right and wrong and if you are not willing to look at the differences between right and wrong and call right right no matter who does it and wrong wrong no matter who does it we are not going to live in a society based on principles we're going to live in a society that's a popularity contest which i think is one of the biggest problems we have in this country that you don't have to like somebody to respect them you don't have to like somebody for them to be right sometimes you don't have to like admitting it when they are.

But we still have to admit that right is right and wrong is wrong.

And so this testimony does matter.

Will this put an end to this?

So far, and I've been a defender of the president on this for a very long time when it comes to Russia.

There is not one shred of evidence, not one shred of evidence that anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

Not one.

Now, the accusations.

about Michael Flynn and his dealings with the Russians seem to be a Michael Flynn situation.

These were things that happened.

The speeches that he gave and the money that he took happened while President Obama was in office.

The question, of course, is what is going to happen or what happened while he was dealing with the Russians as a part of the campaign.

That's a fair question that does need to be answered.

But so far, whether it's Dianne Feinstein or it is Maxine Waters or Chuck Schumer or anyone else who has been asked,

where's the evidence?

Do you have a smoking gun?

Do you have any evidence of collusion?

They all want it to be true, so they'll say, not yet.

But the answer is no.

If there's no evidence, what happens?

Can the American people move on?

So that's going to be a part of what we talk about for sure.

Big headlines.

Teresa May.

We played the audio in the last hour.

If you missed it, I'm sure you can find the podcast later on today.

But Teresa May said that in order to protect the people of Great Britain, they will do what's necessary to find people that are doing the wrong thing.

And if they have human rights laws that stand in the way of getting people out of that country that don't belong there, they'll change the laws.

Well, the reaction, of course, that we're seeing, there was three or four or five examples in a story that I read this morning of people around the world tweeting, well, then I'll never go to Great Britain again.

There you go, hammering human rights.

What about the rights of the citizens of a country to feel safe?

Now, I'm not talking about kicking people's

doors down or listening to people's phone calls, surveillance.

You know, in America, and I've made this, I was just talking about this yesterday

with Doc Thompson, that

I was a supporter of the Patriot Act when it was first

enacted.

And I thought, you know, we are going to surveil inbound calls from foreign countries that we know that are known terrorist nations.

We will surveil those inbound calls only for keywords.

And then if there's some keywords that pop up, then we'll go back and listen to the phone calls.

I thought there's a way to keep us safe by doing something like that.

And my friends, the libertarian leaning people especially, said to me, you give that government that kind of power and you will never believe what it's going to turn into.

And I said they were wrong and they were 100% right.

There's no doubt they were 100% right about that.

That surveilling the American people is against the law.

We know about FISA orders or FISA warrants, whatever you want to call them.

And that really warrants their orders.

And when a FISA FISA order is given, you're allowed to surveil a foreign national.

First part of FISA is foreign.

And if an American, and they call it an American person, is caught up in that surveillance, they are redacted and listed only as an American person.

Now, it could be a U.S.

person, I'm sorry.

It is either, it could be a person, it could be an entity, a business, but it's all listed in the broad title of U.S.

person.

Well, now we know through the leakers in the White House, names were not only unredacted or came to the light of day, they were then dispersed to people and then leaked to the media, which is the biggest violation within the intelligence community that's around.

So that is a valuable conversation about how we balance the laws of protecting people's privacy, but at the same time protecting our citizens.

The president is saying we need a travel ban, a temporary travel ban to fix the vetting process.

The courts so far have disagreed with him.

I think the Supreme Court ultimately sides with him on this regard.

The law that is written right now seems to be constitutional as it is written.

And I think that's the court's purview.

If the president abuses that law, that's a different story.

But you can't say, yes, he's written a law that's legal, but he's going to use it the wrong way.

Therefore, we're not going to make it legal.

That's legislating from the bench.

That's punishing someone for a crime they haven't committed yet.

So I think that he'll be on the side of angels.

I think it's going to be a 5-4.

Of course, Kennedy's going to be the swing.

I could be wrong.

He could lose this 5-4.

But I still think the American people deserve to be protected.

And Teresa May, in her statement, saying if we have to change our laws, we'll change our laws.

We'll see how the people of Great Britain respond in their election.

Another carrier is out of the Affordable Care Act.

That's going to be another part of the show in the next hour because the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, is falling apart at the seams.

It is crumbling, and the entire country knows it.

And yet, nothing is being done.

Rand Paul said we've got to repeal and replace like we promised, and I think he's 100% right.

I don't agree with Rand Paul on everything, but he's 100% right that if the Republicans making the promise that they will repeal and replace Obamacare don't, they will never have

the support of the people on the left, but they will not get the support of the people in the middle that supported him on that.

If you break your promise, people don't trust you.

If they don't trust you, they don't like you.

If they don't like you, you're out.

And they better get to work in the Congress.

They better get to work on health care.

They better get to work on tax reform.

They better get to work on fixing the Veterans Administration.

All of these promises that were made, they better get to work because leadership change will come and it will come because the American people will not vote for people they don't like.

I know it sounds trite and it is, that it's a popularity contest, but there's no doubt that's what it's turned into.

The Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered to resign his position.

It's been reported.

They're not saying anything at the DOJ.

Sean Spicer Spicer says he can't say whether or not the president has confidence in Jeff Sessions.

So in the coming days, we'll see what happens in that position as well.

In a few moments, the conversation about Reality Winner, the tweets that she put out there, how did she maintain the security clearance?

How was she able to get these documents out?

What are her parents now saying that she's afraid of?

It was an interesting interview with her parents and who they were defending or how they were defending her in all of this.

That's coming up here in the next segment of the show.

Once again, social media users, I'm at Broomhead Show on Twitter.

Would love for you to follow me there we can interact online that way my name is mike broomhead this is the glenn beck program and i'll be right back

this is the glenn beck program

mercury

the glenn beck program

All right, it is the Glenn Beck program.

We're talking about Reality Winner.

That is their name.

It's a name you're going to be hearing quite often, I'm sure, over the next month, probably year or so, as this is the woman that has been charged as the White House leaker, someone that has been charged with taking top secret documents, removing them from the White House and giving them to the media.

Now, she's going to be compared to Edward Snowden when she should be compared to Hillary Clinton.

And what I mean by that is I don't, Hillary wasn't trying to subvert anyone, but what she did was so negligent and it was the same act.

It's just that Hillary did it digitally.

I wish that point could be, if that point could have been made to the American people during the election better, they would have been much worse for her.

There is no difference.

And I guess it's a generational thing.

You know, I'm 50 years old.

So for me, a hard piece of paper being taken out of a room where it's not supposed to be removed from, you can see the crime in that.

Sending an email over an unsecured server versus a secured server for someone that's 50 years old, I don't know what that means.

I know that makes me sound old, but it doesn't resonate with me.

With young people, who have never lived without tablets or smartphones or devices where they do business online online, where there's paperless everything, you realize, A, there's not much privacy on those devices.

You're giving away your privacy.

You're being watched by everyone.

I mean, just try to buy something online.

Go to Amazon one day and look for a product.

And the next day when you open your Facebook page, the advertisement for that product shows up magically on your Facebook page.

I mean, obviously, they're watching what you're doing.

But when it comes to a crime like this, Somebody explained to me the difference.

I would love to have an expert try to explain that away.

That what Hillary Clinton did was no different than what this girl did, except she didn't give it to the press.

She was emailing it to other people on unsecured servers.

She took documents that were classified and put them in an unclassified place.

That's illegal.

That's where the comparison should lie with this reality winner.

But more importantly, where she's not anything like Edward Snowden, as far as we know, whether you condone what Snowden did or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong.

The government was doing the wrong thing, so he exposed it to the world.

What she is doing is is subverting a specific person.

She's working in the White House and she is subverting the president of the United States.

If you go to her Twitter account, some of the things that she has tweeted out have been horrible things about people.

And so there were a few tweets.

So on Glenn Beck's on his Twitter page, if you go to Glenn Beck, if you follow Glenn at Glenn Beck, or you go to Glenn Beck.com, the poll asks which of the tweets

was her most troubling.

The one in the lead right now is being white is terrorism, because she did tweet that out.

She tweeted out at Kanye West that he should make a t-shirt that said being white is terrorism.

The one that's in last place is calling the president foul names, because she did.

She called him all kinds of stuff, the tangerine and chief or something like that.

And then the other two are almost tied for first place, or the other one tied close for first place is the one I thought was the

worst was when the Iranians were tweeting out about the Americans and weapons.

weapons, she tweeted back to the Iranians that if the president, with a derogatory term, starts a war or declares war, which she must not know her constitution because the president can't do that.

But if the president declares war, there are people in America like her that will stand with the Iranians.

How does that woman get and maintain a security clearance?

That's the one I chose as the most egregious.

And then

there's also one in there about the Attorney General being a Confederate, which again is just name-calling nonsense.

But if you want to vote on that, you can go to Glennbeck.com.

You can find the story there, or you can go to at Glenn Beck, and it's pretty easy.

Then you can see the vote total and how it's gone up and where the percentages are.

To be honest with you,

this girl deserves to be punished.

She is subverting the American government.

And it's funny how people left and right

are asking such silly questions.

I have a close friend.

I think I mentioned yesterday on the show, my friend who I grew up with, he's like a brother to me, but is so far left of me that it's impossible to have conversations sometimes.

And he gave the caveat that if she did something wrong, she should be punished.

But then there was the big butt was,

but why are people more concerned about what she did than the information that she put out there?

And I laughed out loud by myself at that.

Are you kidding?

What was the mantra when the evidence was out there by the Russians about Hillary Clinton and her time as Secretary of State and this great firewall between her office as Secretary of State and the foundation in which she started, where she said there would be no interaction.

And then we found out there was not only interaction, there was collusion.

That there were people that couldn't get a meeting.

And that wasn't a Saudi prince, but it was a high, it was a government official, I think, from the Middle East, who couldn't get a meeting through proper channels with the Secretary of State.

So they reached through Huma Abedin, or to Huma Abedin through the foundation, who said, this guy's a big donor to the foundation, trying to get a meeting with the Secretary, can't do it through the other channels.

Can you help?

Huma Abedin replies, we've sent some dates.

Let us know which one works.

The most egregious was the Haiti relief.

And there's the documents that show if you are friends of Bill Clinton or a big donor to the Clinton Foundation, you are directed to people within the State Department that would get you expedited contracts or at least get your applications in to get the relief contracts to do the work that would be paid for by our State Department, by our government.

And it was said in those emails, if they aren't either A, a big donor or B, a friend of Bill,

they're to be directed to a website to submit an application.

All of that stuff was out there.

Was anybody on the left saying, we need to worry about the information and not worry so much?

So let's worry about the information in both cases.

What is it that Reality Winner put out there?

Reality Winner released a document that said, an NSA document saying that the Russians tried to hack into the elections in a few places.

They sent out phishing emails trying to get election officials to give them information, and they directly tried to hack into some of the voting poll places or polling software.

And there's no evidence that they were successful on any level.

So the uproar was, of course,

oh my gosh, look what's going on.

And I said two things.

Number one, who was president when that happened?

It wasn't Donald Trump.

He was running for president then.

Why would the Russians

help Trump?

But more importantly, if you're going to blame the White House for this, why would President Obama help Donald Trump?

Because that's what happened here.

It was under his administration that these things were going on.

So she's releasing documents that this happened,

that they tried to get in.

So, okay, let's look at the reality of that.

Let's say the smoking gun is that the Russians tried to hack into the American election system.

They were unsuccessful.

What is the big, what's the big story there to be told?

So you compare that with the, okay, now let's pay attention to the the evidence against Hillary Clinton, where she had a server.

Well, don't we all, I mean, I just, I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here.

I think everybody keeps a private server for their email corporation and their business in their bathroom, right?

We all do that.

We all set up a private server at our house and put it in the bathroom.

And then when we become, when we get investigated, our people pick and choose which emails are going to be turned over when the law says you turn them all over.

And she said, you know, the other ones were just recipes and yoga stuff.

Okay.

First of all, no way you do yoga and no way you cook.

So let's just dispense with that right away.

And the fact of the matter is, all those emails should have been turned over.

If you taint the water by mixing your personal emails with your business emails, they all get turned over.

Didn't happen.

Then she sanitizes.

She has somebody sanitize and completely dismantle that server that took months and months and months and months to get information off of

and yet nobody wants to scream about that

reality winner stole documents and gave them to the press to the press to subvert the American president whether you like Donald Trump or you don't like Donald Trump if you respect the system how is this not a huge crime it is it is absolutely a huge crime James Comey set to testify tomorrow about his investigation into Michael Flynn, him being fired, pressure by the President of the United States,

and all eyes are on James Comey tomorrow.

They are salivating at the cable news networks.

We'll talk about the reality of what's happening here.

Not reality winner, the reality of James Comey.

That coming up in the next segment of the show.

My name is Mike Broomhead.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

All right, James Comey set to testify tomorrow.

All eyes on James Comey.

Every one of the networks, the cable news networks, salivating at the potential of what James Comey might say.

But remember, they have been disappointed so far with everything they've gotten.

This morning, I was watching one of the cable news networks, and you could probably guess which one when I tell you what I'm about to tell you.

And they had some people sitting around discussing James Comey's testimony and the people on the committee that will be questioning James Comey.

Now, remember, there are going to be two hearings.

One is going to be an open-door hearing in which the press and the public are going to be able to watch.

The other will be a closed-door hearing.

I don't know which one you think the information we want to hear is going to come out in, but I can guess which one it's going to be.

Obviously, if there are some top-secret things being discussed, it can't be done in public.

But James Comey, will he say anything publicly that's damaging?

And I don't mean damaging to the reputation of the president.

How much more are you going to damage the president's reputation?

I mean, how much more are you going to go after him?

But this panel on this cable news network

lamenting the Republicans on this committee

just carrying the water for the Republican Party, which I thought was the funniest statement ever, since these guys carry only one bucket of water.

It's got a big D on the side of it.

And so they were lamenting with the Republicans, and then, of course, encouraging the Republicans on the committee that they have an opportunity to do the right thing, that they have the opportunity to ask really hard questions of James Comey and get to the bottom of this.

Get to the bottom of what is my question.

They keep saying there's smoke, there's smoke, but there's no smoking gun, but there's a lot of smoke.

Well, okay, at what point do you cease and desist?

There is a lot of this that happens along the political divide in this country.

And I'm sure that on some level I'm a part of it.

That if you support one party or the other, you want them to stop the nonsense when it's against you and you want them to ramp it up when it's against someone else.

I don't want to be that person.

I have said from the beginning and I mean it from the bottom of my heart, if anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to fix an election, whether it worked or not,

there should be repercussions.

The American people need to know that.

But if there isn't any evidence of it, you have got to walk away at some point.

And so far, with all of the digging and all of the hunting and everybody that hates this president they haven't found one shred of evidence when it comes to Michael Flynn Michael Flynn it seems as if broke the law on multiple occasions and the president of the United States went to James Comey and said he's a good guy

do you think you can end this there is a big difference between saying to someone

When's this going to be over?

Or saying to someone, it would be in your best interest,

if you want to be around very long, to end this investigation.

I don't think James Comey is going to say that.

I think they're going to be very disappointed.

I don't believe that James Comey is going to, and I could be, I've been so wrong about so many things, but just remember when Brennan testified, when they talked about intelligence gathering and data and meetings with Russians, and the Democrats on the committee asked him, Could this be something that's, and I'm using the word nefarious, they didn't.

Could this be something something nefarious?

And he answered, yeah, it could.

It also could be nothing.

There was no smoking gun there either.

There was no smoke there.

It was mundane testimony and it was on to the next thing.

Now it's James Comey.

Does Comey have an axe to grind with the president?

The funny thing is, the other side of this argument was just that.

The president fired James Comey because of the investigation.

And I said, why would he do that?

Now James Comey is a free agent in the eyes of the people.

And I know that there is a confidentiality clause.

There's things that he's not allowed to say in public or to the news media.

But at the same time, if he's fired from the job, he no longer works for the president.

The president has no more oversight over what he says and does.

And he can now talk about the investigation as a private citizen to a certain degree, which is what he's doing.

Why would they fire him?

I mean, these are all logical questions.

That doesn't mean that there's clean hands in the White House and that I'm not looking to see if there's evidence of wrongdoing.

But the people that are salivating that this is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to impeachment, I just think are way ahead of themselves and they're way too hopeful for it.

Since when is it an American principle to want the American president to have done something so wrong that we are going to throw them out of office?

Richard Nixon.

Bill Clinton.

Anybody happy about those two things?

Anybody in America?

I guess they were.

I I mean, when they got Nixon out of office, I mean, I was a young boy when that happened.

I don't remember much about it other than my mom watching

the hearings.

But Nixon leaving office.

Yeah, there were people in the Democratic Party that were happy that the Republican president was gone, but Americans weren't happy that their president resigned in shame.

And when Bill Clinton was being impeached for lying, which it was proven he did,

he lost his law license.

There were those on the left that, I mean, I remember like it was yesterday, people saying, well, it doesn't affect how he does his job.

I mean, that doesn't make him a good person in his personal life, but that's between him and his wife.

And I thought, no, this is, there has never been a bigger disparity in power between President of the United States and an intern in the White House, the most powerful person in the entire world and an intern.

So for the left in their politically correct world to say,

well, that's between their, that is a political motivation.

That's not an intellectually honest statement.

Not at all.

But since when do the networks salivate at the potential of an American president being impeached?

I didn't agree.

I can't think of anything

substantial that comes to mind that President Obama did that I agree with.

I thought he was wrong on Cuba.

I know he was wrong on Iran.

He was wrong about the Affordable Care Act.

He was wrong about stimulus spending.

He was wrong about raising taxes.

He was wrong about all of those things.

His attitude towards the police, he was wrong about all of those things.

I never called for impeachment.

As a matter of fact, I wanted everybody in this country on the right side of the aisle to feel the sting of that presidency for all eight years.

I was surprised he got elected the first time.

I was surprised he got reelected.

But the American people, he was my president.

And I wanted everyone to feel that sting.

I didn't want it to damage the American people.

I wanted us all to see that elections have consequences.

He was the rightfully elected president of the United States.

He deserved the respect that that office holds, and he deserved to be supported to the extent that I don't want to see him leaving in shame.

Vote him out if you don't like him.

I was happy to see him go.

I was honored to be at the inauguration of the president.

Not necessarily because it was Donald Trump, although it was great to see that inauguration.

It was a great to be at Meteoro for that.

But I've got to be honest, there was a part of me that was so happy when I watched President Obama and the former first lady get on that helicopter and fly out of D.C.

I liked it,

but that's the way the American people voted.

So since when does the media jump on board?

James Comey is going to testify and everybody's talking about how this is going to bury Donald Trump.

Why does that make anybody happy?

My problem isn't with the political machine.

I mean, the Democrats and the Republicans have been doing this.

They did it better a long time ago.

It's become a schoolyard insult fight is what it's become.

It's become childish.

But this has been going on between political parties forever.

You know,

they say that the Affordable Care Act may need to be tweaked.

No, it's falling apart at the seams.

But the Republican plan is going to kill people.

Well, no, it's not, but that's what they do in politics.

The media is supposed to be different.

Journalists are supposed to be critical of both sides.

The journalists should be saying to Nancy Pelosi, how can you stand up here and lecture the Republicans about anything when it's you that gave us Obamacare?

They don't.

They just let her ramble on, not make any sense.

Let her continue to call President Trump President Bush over and over again.

There is no equal time as far as that criticism goes.

That's my problem with how this is being handled.

They are elated at the potential that they can destroy this president.

And that, to me, isn't an American principle.

I didn't want Obama to be destroyed.

I wanted him to not be reelected.

I wanted the Congress to

hold fast on a budget.

that was going to be

smart, balanced, no debt.

They didn't.

They're as culpable as the president was in that agenda.

But at the same time, when the American people speak, we're supposed to respect it.

And since when does the media decide that when James Comey testifies, we're going to have impeachment hearings and they can't wait to report that.

And that's all I saw today.

It was like a bloodlust to try to do what they can to just destroy this president.

And it was sad to see.

We've talked something, I think, before I finish the hour, something more along the lines of culture, pop culture.

The transgender restroom argument seems to be to a lot of us ridiculous.

I think what we've turned into with this conversation, though, is a political movement instead of concerns about people.

Because in the end, this really is about people.

And it's founded in comfort, not safety.

There has been a court case in a ruling of a public gym where a woman complained about a transgender, still a man, trans

into a woman, but still built like a man in the ladies' locker room and how the courts decided.

We'll talk about that before we finish up this hour.

And in the next hour, we're going to talk about Rand Paul and the Affordable Care Act and its implosion.

All that coming up.

I'm Mike Broomhead.

This is the Glenbeck program.

You're listening to the Glen Beck Program.

This is the Glenbeck Program.

Sign up for the newsletter and get all the info you need to know at Glenn Beck.com.

All right.

Before we close out the hour, coming up in the next hour, we are going to talk about the Affordable Care Act because the ACA, Obamacare, is falling apart.

There's no doubt about it.

Anybody that's watching and paying attention realizes that what was intended is not what we're getting.

Even if you give the president the benefit, the former president the benefit of the doubt, what they had hoped for is not what they delivered.

And so drastic changes need to happen.

The Republicans promised to repeal and replace.

Rand Paul is demanding the Republicans do just that.

I agree with him.

I absolutely agree with him.

We're also going to talk about another major insurance carrier dropping out of the exchanges.

That's more and more realizing that there's no money there to be made.

They're losing money so badly that their companies are falling apart.

They have no choice but to step out of the exchanges.

Well, that's not what was promised to the American people.

So more details in the next hour for sure.

And then Jeff Sessions offers his resignation.

And then one final thought about gun control from an expert it's Kim Kardashian so we'll hear that in the final hour of the show

there is a story in a gym in Michigan where a woman has was sued or a woman sued Planet Fitness

after she saw a transgender person utilizing the women's rocker locker room A judge ruled last week against her who complained about a transgender person using Planet Fitness's locker room.

So let's have, let's start this discussion there.

When you think about this, is this about safety?

Is it about comfort?

Is it about politics?

And

you can't just say,

I'm a man or I'm a woman if you're not and say that's how I identify.

I identify as an NFL linebacker, to be honest with you.

But at 5'8, I don't think it's going to happen for me.

But that's how I feel.

I identify as an NFL linebacker.

You know, as a matter of fact, I don't even want to be a

linebacker.

I want to be JJ Watt.

That's what I want.

I want to be that monster of a defensive player.

So, therefore, because I identify it, does it make it true?

It doesn't.

And I'm not mocking people that are transgender.

I happen to know a few people that are transgender.

I'm not mocking them.

I'm saying that what this argument is about is comfort.

And so, you have people that have legitimate feelings that say, you know, I am making this transition and I don't feel comfortable in the men's room.

I want to use the ladies' room.

Well, then when you go into the ladies' room and a lady says, I'm uncomfortable with you here, whose comfort wins out?

That's when it becomes a political argument.

And that's where we are with this conversation.

But it's not just a restroom.

It's a locker room.

It is girls in a public school in a swim class with a gentleman that comes, I don't mean any insult, but a man anatomically

changing with teenage girls.

All of these things are really happening.

And at what point do we say one person's comfort over another?

There can be things that can be worked out.

You can say to somebody that's transgender, you're going to have to understand a little bit, just like you want them to understand.

That there's mutual understanding here, that by saying you're not going to change clothes in a room full of women does not insult the fact that you are making a transition to womanhood.

We're saying that the comfort of our guests matters.

And when there's 12 guests that are upset and one guest that's causing the problem, guess who wins out?

And if we can have that conversation, I think it's reasonable.

And I don't want to win.

I would never insult anyone because of that.

I had someone that worked on a job site for me that's transgender when I was an electrical contractor on a construction site where you would think there would be the most egregious of acts against this person.

Not at all.

Great worker, did a good job, within a day or two, accepted like everybody else on the job.

People will accept when they feel if you're accepting yourself.

But when you make demands, like you're going to do this, you're going to walk into a locker room and say, you can all be uncomfortable if you want, but I'm changing in here.

You're causing the problem.

At what point do we look at reality?

I know it seems silly, but it's becoming an everyday occurrence in our society.

Next hour, we start off with the Affordable Care Act and it's dismantling Rand Paul saying we've got to repeal and replace like was promised.

I agree with him.

So that's coming up in the next hour.

My name is Mike Broomhead and this is the Glenn Beck program.

I'll be back.

Glenn Beck.

Mercury.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

I will make a stand, I will raise my voice, I will hold your hand.

Cause we have won, I will beat

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, I'm Mike Berman in for Glenn.

Thanks for being here.

Some news about the FBI director's office.

The president just tweeting out this morning that he will be nominating Christopher A.

Wray.

And in the tweet, he says, a man of impeccable credentials to be the new director of the FBI.

FBI.

Details to follow.

Christopher Wray was an assistant

U.S.

attorney or assistant

Attorney General, is now a partner at King and Spalding.

And

he will replace the acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe, if he is confirmed.

He's got to be confirmed by the Senate for that to happen.

He's also set to testify.

Tomorrow, at the same time, you're going to see James Comey testify.

He is also set to testify in those proceedings.

So we'll find out more about Christopher Wray in the coming days and the potential for him to fill that that void.

Somebody that's been in the Attorney General's office before, he is somebody that knows the law, and we'll see if he's the right person for the job in the eyes of the Senate, if he'll get confirmed.

What's been interesting about Senate confirmations is no nominee has faced the scrutiny that Trump nominees have faced.

And it all has to do with the president.

We talked earlier about what's going on in this investigation into Russia.

And a lot of this,

you've got to give from just a political aspect, not for what's good for America, not the right thing to do.

But when you look at American politics, the Democrats are being obstructionists without being labeled obstructionists.

And it is a brilliant plan if that's their plan.

Because

we don't want to support or

put any nominee in place of the presidents while he's under investigation.

He's being investigated about the Russians.

Those are serious charges.

Well, it doesn't matter that there's no evidence six months into this presidency or or close to it, no evidence of any of it.

But there's still the charges.

There's still the investigation going on.

Therefore, we don't want to enact any laws.

We don't want to put through any nominees.

We don't want to seat anybody until this is resolved.

And that's only fair to the American people.

What if this president were to get impeached?

Why would we seat some of his nominees?

What a brilliant plan that is.

You can hamstring the agenda.

You can

damage the president's reputation.

You can do all of those things without appearing to be an obstructionist.

Because in the last election cycle, we found out that the American people on both sides of the aisle didn't want anything to do with the status quo.

Donald Trump beat

big political names.

He's never held public office before.

The first public office he's held is President of the United States.

And if you look on the other side of the aisle, if it weren't for the superdelegates and the fixing of votes the way the Democrats did that, from the beginning, Hillary was the heir apparent to the Democrat

nomination.

There was no doubt about that.

The superdelegates were hers the day she announced she was running.

Bernie Sanders didn't have a chance, but Bernie Sanders raised a ton of money.

Bernie Sanders had a lot of public support, still does.

Now, which scares me because he's a self-affirmed socialist, but he's got a lot of support in this country.

The status quo was not what the American people wanted, not even close.

And so, with that being said, we're looking at a replacement here.

We're looking at a guy that the president is going to put in place and nominate.

Will the Senate confirm?

Because so far they said, we don't want to do any of this because what if he's not around?

What if we find something in this investigation?

It is, it's a brilliant plan.

I mean, it's damaging to the American people.

It's not what the American people voted for.

It's not how the system was intended to be done.

And what's funny is when the Republicans have said, when a nominee for President Obama was put up, the Republicans said, you know what, the deal is that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt, that unless that person has some egregious thing about them that we can't tolerate, we have to put them through.

I mean, that's the president's purview.

That's elections have consequences.

So the Republicans have been the good guys.

And then part of the base says to the Republicans, you should fight fire with fire.

And they say, we've got to maintain the integrity.

At what point now are the Democrats going to be held accountable for integrity?

Donald Trump is the president of the United States.

Donald Trump is nominating somebody that appears to be very capable, a man that knows the law, a man that knows the American government, the man that's worked hand in hand because of his position with the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

We'll see how much pushback there comes on this guy.

You watch.

We get a Supreme Court justice that was just seated that was unanimously, unanimously voted.

Many of the same senators that opposed him for the Supreme Court voted for him or for the appeals court.

But when it came time for a Supreme Court nomination, all of a sudden they had problems with this guy, and he was an extremist.

Are we going to see the same kind of thing happen here?

That's the big question.

So in the coming days, you'll see, if you're just jumping in, Christopher A.

Ray, Christopher Wray

will be nominated by President Trump to replace, become the FBI director, replacing the interim director, Andrew McCabe.

We'll see if that happens or how quickly that can happen.

He is set to testify tomorrow, which is going to be a big part of that.

Now, people will be paying close attention attention to that testimony, as well as the testimony of James Comey himself.

So one of the headlines coming in.

Also in the headlines, we know that the Notre Dame attacker,

the man that attacked a police officer with a hammer at Notre Dame yesterday,

said that he was a soldier of the caliphate.

There was one police officer with minor injuries.

The suspect was shot and then taken to a hospital.

Twin attacks in Tehran, where they attacked the statue of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

They also attacked it parliament.

Multiple people killed.

There were injuries that were reported.

And it was a shock to many people that ISIS would attack in Iran.

Well, we had a great conversation today

with Cal, who works here with us, and explaining the difference with Sunni and Shia, and that this is more about a tribal battle within their religion.

But what's interesting about this is Iran has been helping to, there's been no doubt that they've been helping to fund ISIS, probably never imagining, even though politically, or I shouldn't say,

politically, because their religion is also their political system, that politically and religiously they butted heads on theology, that they hated each other to a certain extent, that there is this huge battle where the Sunnis see the Shia as basically

as being not treasonous as much as being blasphemers.

And yet they were funding the terrorism that they were taking out because they were fighting the Jews, they were fighting the West, they were fighting the Christians, they were fighting the infidel.

So they were funding them and helping them.

Now all of a sudden the funding, the training, and the arms were turned against them inside of Tehran, sending another message from the people of ISIS that no one's safe.

No one is safe.

But what now will the Iranians do when it comes to the funding and the training and the arming of ISIS?

It was staggering or shocking to me that that happened, but it did.

It was something that happened yesterday, those twin attacks.

Earlier, we talked about the attacks at Manchester at the concert, also the London Bridge attacks where 48 people were injured and seven people were killed, and Theresa May speaking out about the future of Great Britain and that if their human rights laws get in the way of the British government being able to identify and then purge from their midst people that don't belong there, that they would change their laws.

And people erupted on social media.

You know, it's the same way they erupted at President Trump when he said he wanted a temporary travel ban.

And I was someone that, when he said he wanted a Muslim ban, I was one of the first people that jumped in and said, you can't do it.

They're never going to allow it.

It's a silly thing to say.

That's a religious test.

We can't keep people out of our country because of their religion.

Our Constitution won't let you do that.

He has revised his statements ever since about it not being about a religious ban, but about it being specifically a ban on terrorism.

Well, you can't not look at the religious aspect of that.

That doesn't mean all Muslims must be banned, but when we're taking in refugees from Muslim countries like Syria, we need a vetting process to make sure that the rebels, or I should say the Syrian fighters, the ISIS fighters, the antagonists, the ones that are killing the Syrian people, killing the refugees, aren't infiltrating their ranks to come here to set up shop.

Somebody explained to me how that A is racist or somehow illegal or against our Constitution because it isn't.

But Teresa May echoing that, saying they'll change the laws if they have to in that country.

The NSA leaker's parents spoke out and said that she was, and we're talking about Reality Winner, that she was afraid she was going to disappear, that she felt like she was being coerced into cooperating.

If you look at that girl's Twitter page, there's absolutely no way anybody can believe there's collusion, that there's fear there.

She hates Donald Trump.

She says so in her tweets.

She sided with the Iranians over the Americans.

Can you imagine somebody in the White House with a top-secret clearance that is espousing on social media that she will go against the president she works for and stand with the Iranian people and keep a top-secret clearance in the White House?

And that's what happened.

And so she's been accused of leaking NSA documents, her parents saying she was afraid.

That's why she did it.

Another carrier out of the ACA, of the Affordable Care Act.

We're going to talk about this.

Rand Paul says the Republicans must keep their their promise.

I agree with him.

You've got to repeal Obamacare and then figure out a way to get affordable health care available to the American people.

And what would that look like?

And a story about one more company leaving those exchanges.

All those coming up here in the next segment of the show.

Again, this is the Glenn Beck program.

My name is Mike Broomhead.

I'll be back.

Glenn Beck.

The fusion of entertainment

and enlightenment.

And enlightenment.

We are winning.

The Glenn Beck Program.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

All right.

If you're just joining us, the president is nominating someone named Christopher Wray.

He is an attorney.

He was an assistant attorney general for a while.

He was working in the attorney general's office.

He's now a partner in a law firm.

Well, most known for, and I just found this out, is representing Chris Christie in Bridgegate.

He was a Bridgegate attorney.

So he is being nominated as the new FBI director.

That's kind of some breaking news.

Just in the last couple of hours, he will be nominated by the president.

Also, someone that's set to testify tomorrow before the same hearing that you will hear and see James Comey testify.

The Affordable Care Act, which is really kind of an oxymoron.

We all realize the implosion of Obamacare.

I was just talking with Doc Thompson a few moments ago, and being from Ohio, he was explaining that 18 of the 88 counties in Ohio are are going to be without a carrier.

That doesn't include the ones that only have one option without a carrier.

18 counties, that's 20%.

I was telling him about the state of Arizona where I live.

In the state of Arizona, premiums have jumped so much this year that in every single county in the state of Arizona, every county.

And if you want to go to one of our senators, Jeff Flake, Jeff Flake's website did a great job with this, with the table that the Flake website put out.

Every single county in the state of Arizona, a family of four on the exchanges pays more in health insurance premiums than they do for their mortgage on average.

Every county in the state of Arizona.

There was a time where there were none in some of the major counties in Arizona.

One company was put in place and that one company, they're all going to fall out.

They're all leaving because they are so broke from having to cover the pre-existing conditions and healthy people don't want it.

If you don't understand, I mean, I think everybody intellectually understands.

When you're young and single, you're 10 feet tall and bulletproof.

You have no need for health insurance.

And I'm not saying that's smart.

I'm just saying that's the way people are.

So you tell a 20, what are you, you can be on your parents' health care plan now until you're what, 38?

But you tell someone that's in their late 20s that now has to go out and find their own health insurance.

And you say to them, you've got to have it.

It's mandated.

And you're like, I don't want it.

Well, yes, it's mandated.

And by the way, the median price you're going to pay is $400 a month.

Well, that's a house payment for some people.

That's more than their car and insurance payments for many people.

That's not discretionary income people have.

So a healthy young person says,

I'm not doing it.

I'll pay the fines.

I'll pay the penalty.

I'll pay whichever is less.

So they don't have insurance, but they're paying a small fine.

The people that are signing up are the people with pre-existing conditions that it's actually less expensive to be $30,000 a year out of pocket as a family of four than it would be then to just pay for your own health health care or at least be on the hook for it.

That's the problem with the exchanges.

And just like automobile insurance, and people hate when I do this, but it's as close to comparison as can be.

With automobile insurance companies, they have deregulated a lot of that.

That's why they are in all 50 states.

That's why you see all of the major insurance carriers with, you know, with different, whether it's a lizard or it's that woman flow or mayhem or whoever they are, they've all got some kind of a mascot to make you remember them and want to buy their insurance.

Well, what helps them, and here's where the comparisons are, with health insurance, you have pre-existing conditions.

With automobile insurance, you have risk.

You have people with a lot of tickets, you have people with accidents, you have people with DUIs, you have people that live in dangerous neighborhoods that are high crime areas, high auto theft areas.

So if you live in a gated community or park your car in a garage, you're a safer risk.

If you're someone that's never had a ticket, you're a safer risk.

Never had a DUI, safer risk.

No accidents.

There's the difference.

So someone with a pre-existing health condition and somebody that's a risky driver, it's not exactly the same, but they're comparable.

When you have that many insurance carriers fighting for your business, two things happen.

One, they share the risk.

Everybody takes their share of the high-risk drivers, but they also realize there's eight or 10 companies fighting for your business.

So the costs go down.

The options are open.

Now, when I was young, I drove cars that were worthless.

When it broke down or something happened, you drive it into a bridge.

Who cares?

I'm not going to get full automobile, not going to get full coverage on a car that's worth $500.

Well, now I'm older and I've accumulated some stuff and I drive a beautiful Ford F-150 that I love.

So what do I do?

I have, not only do I have full coverage, glass coverage, towing, roadside assistance, I've upped all of my limits to make sure that if God forbid something were to happen, I'm covered.

We should be able to do the same thing with health care.

Provide a catastrophic plan for a young person that says, if something happens, you're only going to come out of pocket $10,000 or $20,000 max.

Everything else is going to be covered, but it's not going to cover anything until you meet this huge threshold.

Well, people would buy that possibly.

But then you say to a couple that's got a young family or planning a family, now it's time to get better insurance.

What if?

You know, you're going to need maternity coverage.

I mean, it makes common sense, but you also have to deregulate deregulate and invite the insurance carriers in en masse.

So when the president, the former president promised if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

That was a lie.

If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan.

That was a lie.

If you didn't meet the criteria, you were told that you were out of compliance.

Therefore, you had to get insurance through the exchange.

That's the problem with Obamacare.

Rand Paul says the Republicans have to keep their promise to repeal and replace.

I agree with him 100%.

With this company Anthem leaving Ohio, dropping out of the exchanges, 18 counties, no insurance, no carriers.

That is not how this plan was billed to the American people.

If the Republicans fail to do this, not only will they lose the majority in the House and the Senate, they deserve to lose the majority in the House and Senate.

You made promises of repeal and replace.

You have got to have the guts to do the hard work to repeal it first

and tell the American people what I just said.

If I can explain it that way to people and they all nod their heads and say, you're right, that makes sense, you can do it too.

But then you have to have the courage to sit down and figure out a way to have the American people have access to affordable health care.

Maybe it's not government mandated, maybe it's not a government exchange, but it's something that allows the insurance carriers to work in all 50 states where they don't have three or four in a state that is fighting over this and then suffering the consequences for not having the shared risk of preexisting conditions.

And it doesn't, it's not rocket science, but it does take courage because you have these people screaming, save our health care, and doing die-ins inside people's offices.

They did that in Arizona.

They went to the senator's offices and did a die-in in the lobby.

Well, no one pays attention to those people.

If you're going to go lay on the floor somewhere as an adult and kick your feet, people are going to laugh at you as they step over you.

They don't care.

You've got to have the courage to do the right thing.

You make the campaign promises.

If you don't follow through, the American people will elect somebody else.

It's going to happen.

So I agree with Rand Paul that it needs to be repealed, not fixed, because it can't be fixed the way this legislation was written.

And the other thing is the pushback.

I wish somebody For all, I mean, I am a registered Republican and I'm going to stay that way.

I'm not going independent.

I would rather be a Puritan.

I would rather stay and fix it from within.

Somebody reach out to someone that's at common sense when it comes to public relations and talk to people about what's really happening.

When someone says, save our health care, turn around to them with all honesty and ask them, what health care?

What health care do you have?

You're paying $15,000, $12,000 a year for coverage, and you've got a $14,000 deductible.

You're going to spend $26,000 that year before your health care even kicks in.

Is that coverage?

That's what they need to do.

All right, coming up, just a few minutes.

Jeff Sessions offers his resignation, and we'll talk more about Christopher Wray, the new FBI nominee.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Okay, Jeff Sessions offers his resignation.

The Department of Justice has no comment on whether or not it's been accepted or anything else.

We don't know that.

We know that Jeff Sessions, what we're hearing from the report, now Sean Spicer was asked if the president has confidence in Jeff Sessions.

Spicer says, I don't know the answer to that.

So what's coming and why with the rift with the Department of Justice?

What's interesting is now the nominee, Christopher Wray, who the president again said, now this is a lawyer.

Christopher Wray was an assistant attorney general.

He defended, I believe it was Christie, but he was part of the Bridgegate, the legal team in Bridgegate in New Jersey.

He's a partner in a law firm right now.

And Christopher Wray is, he said,

I will be nominating Christopher A.

Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new director of the FBI.

Details to follow.

Interesting to note that Christopher Wray testifying tomorrow at the hearing where James Comey will testify.

And so I want to, I would love to hear, and I'm sure you're going to, I'm going to make a prediction to you because this announcement only just came out just a few hours ago.

So it's still fairly new.

And I haven't had a chance to go back and look at what anybody else has said about this topic yet.

But I guarantee you that there's going to be some kind of Chris Christie bridgegate connection made here, some kind of a conspiracy theory as a payback or something done for a friend.

They will start to now damage the reputation of a guy that probably doesn't deserve to have his reputation damaged.

They will go after him.

Much like they did our most recent Supreme Court justice in saying things about his character and him being an extremist and him being outside of the mainstream, which is absolutely, positively 100%

false.

That we know that when it came time for him to make decisions on the appeals court, he was only overturned once,

a couple of thousand cases.

He was in the majority over 90% of the time.

So no way he's outside of the mainstream.

But of course, because of the political atmosphere, the political climate we live in right now, anybody nominated by this president is going to be deemed an extremist, which

really puts me in a bad spot because when I compliment or defend something the president does, I'm labeled one of those extremists.

When I'm critical of something the president says or does, I'm labeled a traitor by the die-hard Trump supporters.

I'm neither.

I have common sense, and I disagreed with things that George W.

Bush did, and I loved George W.

Bush.

I was on the stump for GW in 04.

I have met him on a number of occasions.

I know he is a very good man.

The way he reached out to my family, the conversations I had with him about my brother's service and sacrifice, the fact that he was just in Dallas, I think yesterday with Paul Ryan or the day before with wounded warriors, how he has dedicated himself to them and how well received he was as commander-in-chief whenever he traveled to visit the military.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for George W.

Bush personally.

But I was disappointed as others were about things that happened.

And that's a part of how we operate.

If you were to have an honest conversation with George W.

He would tell you about people he admired that he had he disagreed or was disappointed in.

But

to now watch what's happening, where if you're a nominee or associated with this president, you are labeled and then demonized.

It's not just that you're wrong, you're evil.

It's not just that the new health care plan by the Republicans

is not right.

It's that people are going to die.

That's always the argument.

It's these extremes that we go to all the time.

So Jeff Sessions, is he going to end up leaving that position as Attorney General?

I don't know.

I don't know why the president would not have confidence in him.

Is it because of the Russia investigation that he needed to recuse himself?

I don't know the answer to that either.

But for the conspiracy theorists on the other side that would say it had something to do with the Russia conversation, how could that be?

Why would you want to kick the guy out

of there?

Something else I hadn't touched on this morning, and I wish I had more information.

I'm trying to find some information on this, is I was just reminded from somebody that

wrote a piece about my interview with Jay Dobbins yesterday.

There is the investigation today into Operation Fast and Furious.

There's another promise that the president can keep that the American people would largely be on board with.

There was an executive order issued, an executive privilege, an executive order issued by President Obama that covered up a lot of the documents from being investigated by Congress, by the committee that was trying to find out what happened in Operation Fast and Furious.

Operation Fast and Furious should have been one of the biggest black marks on the American law enforcement community.

Not the agents in the field in Arizona with Arizona alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, with leadership out of that office.

They set in motion a plan to allow a couple of thousand rifles to head into Mexico.

Now, you don't do that as the head of the ATF by yourself.

You get the okay from the U.S.

Attorney for the state of Arizona.

And you go to the U.S.

Attorney, because you know how the attorney's offices, prosecutor's office works with investigators, is a prosecutor says, if you want me to arrest this person, I need you to get me this evidence.

Not make it up, but we need to have evidence to arrest and convict this person.

This is what I need for a conviction.

So they work hand in hand.

There's no way that the directors of the ATF decided they were going to make this operation work with over 2,000 rifles without the input from the U.S.

Attorney's Office.

There's no way the U.S.

Attorney's Office in Arizona says, sure, allow a couple of thousand thousand guns to cross the border.

Because what they were saying, the problem with that whole ordeal was

that people would go to the border with a truckload of guns or grenades or whatever.

And in one case, it was grenades as well.

And they would get right to the border.

They'd be pulled over by the American authorities.

The authorities would pull them over and arrest them for smuggling guns into Mexico.

Well, they hadn't done that yet.

So what they would say is, you know, I'm so glad you stopped me.

I had just changed my mind.

I wasn't going to do it.

I couldn't possibly go through with it.

How can you prove it otherwise?

So they had the brilliant idea of let's let the guns cross the border.

No way that happens without a conversation between the U.S.

Attorney and the Department of Justice.

It doesn't happen.

And yet the executive order that was issued to cover up, and it did cover up then, And now no one's being held accountable for the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Jason Chaffetz is holding a hearing today in his committee and looking into the death of Brian Terry, asking the White House, and we're hoping that they are going to ask the White House to keep their promise and unseal those documents, unseal those files.

Let Chaffetz and the rest of the investigators see exactly what happened.

And I hope that the president does that.

The American people deserve the truth, but so does the Terry family.

So do the families of so many other people.

that have been killed at the hands of fast and furious guns, both in America, in Mexico, and abroad.

There was even a report, and I don't know if it was, it was, I know it was confirmed.

I mean, it was said to be true, but I don't know if it was ever later retracted that one of those fast and furious rifles ended up in the Paris attacks.

You're talking about a couple of thousand rifles being put into the hands of the wrong people.

So

the Department of Justice has a lot of answering to do, and the Department of Justice has a lot of investigating to do.

Is Jeff Sessions the person that the president trusts to carry on that job?

The president has the ability to hire and fire who he wants.

Why would Jeff Sessions offer his resignation?

And why no word from the White House or whether or not they even entertain the idea of him resigning the post only six months into it?

Is this part of the chaos that the media wants to say is in this administration, that Jeff Sessions is leaving, Michael Flynn was booted out?

Or is it just some kind of a conflict when it comes to how those offices believe they should be interacting and what they should be doing?

Before I close out the show today,

I don't know why this made me laugh, but I saw a story this morning.

Kim Kardashian, you know, well-known gun rights activist and expert in the field, wrote a letter calling for more gun control.

And when I first saw the headline, I thought,

so?

I mean, Kim Kardashian calling for gun control, that's like me writing a topic on fashion.

It just doesn't make any sense.

And Kim Kardashian, though, is calling for this while acknowledging that her security team is well armed.

So I think it's great that somebody has enough money to travel with armed security is going to dictate to the rest of the country that it should be more difficult for you to get a firearm.

So I just thought it'd be a funny story to talk about to kind of dovetail what we talked about earlier yesterday when it comes to the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, or any of these other shootings around America.

We'll talk about that and a few other things before we close it out.

Again, if you're a social media user, you can always reach me at Broomhead Show on Twitter.

I enjoy the interaction.

That's where you can find me.

My name is Mike Broomhead, and this is the Glenn Beck Program.

I'll be back.

This is

the Glenn Beck Program.

Mercury.

The Glenn Beck Program.

All right, before we close it out, some great tweets.

Again, at Broomhead Show on Twitter, if you want to follow up with me in the next few days, today's my last day in for Glenn, but you can always reach me.

I maintain maintain my own accounts.

At Chef Murph tweeted back to me about health care.

My annual medical for a family of four at Blue Cross went to $28,000 a year, more than double my mortgage.

Thanks Affordable Care Act.

There you have it.

That's what the exchanges are doing to people.

It's just an acknowledgement of the failure.

We just need to acknowledge the failure and let's find a way to fix it.

Again, why does it got to be partisan politics?

Why can't we say the president, the former president, was trying to do the right thing, but it was a failure and he didn't listen to sound advice?

Why can't we say it?

They won't.

The political left will not let go of this.

And the worst part about it is whenever the media wants to talk to somebody about the Republicans' health care plan, who do they go to?

Nancy Pelosi, the one person who is responsible for hammering that bill through the House.

Shouldn't she be the one person that everybody tells to shut up on this topic?

If you're the one that gave us what is falling apart why would we come to you as the expert against the people that are trying to fix it and no one's telling her to be quiet on this issue before we close out the hour though Kim Kardashian yesterday the day before yesterday we talked about the Orlando shooting then the day after the Orlando shooting when it came out that it wasn't a terrorist attack that it was a disgruntled employee a former member of the military had been arrested on some misdemeanor charges and had had a fist fight with a co-worker was fired from his job returned to his old place of business shot five people dead then turned the gun on himself and of course what happened the gun control people came out of the woodwork like they always do well

here you go kim kardashian despite admitting that her entire security team is armed reality television personality kim kardashian called for stricter gun control.

So here's the comment that I loved yesterday i told you there is nothing more insulting than saying that people that are defenders of the second amendment uh care more about guns than they do people leave it to kim kardashian it's more important to protect the second amendment than to protect our own children no the second amendment protects them too

um kardashian went on to explain that better gun control looks like this to her I believe that we should restrict access to firearms for people with mental illness.

Always happens already.

Anyone previously convicted of a misdemeanor.

So if you're convicted of trespassing, they should take your gun away.

I'm asking,

if you get convicted of a misdemeanor, the government should be able to take your firearm.

Those who have been subject to a temporary restraining order and those at a higher risk of committing gun violence.

There are already laws that do that.

We have laws against felons possessing guns.

How many times have murders been carried out by a felon with a handgun or a rifle?

How many?

Well, shocking that the very same people that don't care about the laws against murder don't care about the laws against carrying a gun either.

It's a ludicrous premise.

But the fact that Kim Kardashian pens the letter and anyone pays attention to it shows you that this is about popularity, not about policy, and not about what makes common sense.

Anybody like myself that says I am an adamant defender of the Second Amendment, you are labeled some kind of an extremist.

Well, there's your extremist.

Here is a woman that is surrounded by 24 hour a day armed protection.

Why?

Because she's a target.

She is a target as a celebrity.

So what do you do to protect yourself?

You put armed people around you.

Well, you know what?

I don't have the luxury of surrounding myself by armed people.

It's such a hypocritical premise that somebody wouldn't say to her, get rid of your armed guards then.

If you don't think people should have guns, she thinks it's ridiculous that she would go out unprotected.

It's absolutely...

It really is absolutely a joke.

Before I close it out today,

I want to thank some people that

really made it easy for me this week.

But I got a great email from someone, if I can find it.

There was a guy that emailed me that served with my brother.

And it's one of the cool things I get to do on this show is to talk about the men and women that served our country.

And

for the people that served, that have reached out to me, that served when my brother served and were there when he was killed, it really is.

It really is an honor to be a spokesman for the military and for veterans.

And it really is the, it is my favorite part of my job.

My youngest brother is a police officer, and so my respect for law enforcement also comes from my family because of all the people in the world that I know, my surviving brother is my hero.

My brother Brian is my hero.

And so the men and women that put on a uniform, whether it's to defend us internationally or it's the one to defend us in our community, my hearts, my prayers are always with you.

So it's always great and thank you for your service to your community and to your country.

For everybody here at the Glenbeck program, thanks for making it a great week week for me.

And most of all, thanks to you for listening to the show this week.

Again, I'm at Broomhead Show on Twitter.

Have a great week, everyone.

God bless.

This is the Glen Beck Program.

Mercury.