The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | 2/5/24

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

Glenn and Stu go through all the ways this new bill will worsen the border crisis. Glenn exposes a new banking rule that could be implemented everywhere that would destroy the savings of everyday Americans. CNN hosts appear shocked when they are exposed to the truth. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's something else here now. Something new. From exclusively on Paramount Plus. It's the series Stephen King calls Scary as Hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi Vision calls it the best show streaming right now. We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules. Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch.

Saving those children is how we all go home. From binge all episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus. Hey, today we talk about all of it. We talk about the border and the new border bill, which do not even call it that. This is a war bill. We go through all of that, so you have all of the information. We talk about common sense and how to think critically about some of these things. We talk about politics, the economy, and the real jobs report, what you need to know.

So you're not sandbagged and bamboozled. All the world is but a sense. stage and it has never been more clear that we are merely the players. We have that coming up in today's podcast. First, let me tell you about Burn a technology. I've been telling you lately about this lethal, non, less than lethal, I can't say non, I don't think, less than lethal pistol that you can rely on. If you're ever in a situation where you need protection, but you don't feel comfortable pulling your gun, this is it. It's not lethal force. It's legal in all 50 states. You don't have to have a background check to get it.

You can have it shipped right to your door. And the reason why I say it's less lethal is if you shoot somebody up in the eye, I'm sure they're going to die. But use it as it's supposed to be used. And you know, you're not going to kill anybody. I have the SD launcher. It is great. It is a great compliment to my firearms.

All of the women in my family over 18, have one, carry one. We're training on them now. It has tear gas, not pepper spray, tear gas. And it can incapacitate somebody for up to 40 minutes. That's enough time for the police to come. Not accurate in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles. Well, you get the idea. Visit burnah.com slash Glenn, b-r-n-a.com slash Glenn in an exclusive 10% discount right now.

Legal on all 50 states, Burna, b-r-n-a.com slash Glenn. Here's the podcast. listening to. It's so very, very sad. Couldn't happen to nicer people. CNN's morning show has been canceled. They should just go dark in the morning. You know what I mean?

Are you sure about that, Glenn? I mean, in the morning? I mean, shouldn't they just consider it for the whole 24-hour schedule? Well, I was just thinking of the slogan, which is appropriate even today. Darkness in the morning. I think that would be good. You know, CNN, if you're looking to rocket your ratings, you could put this show on just as a simulcast and you'd rock the ratings. Now, the most heard thing from your newsroom would be, oh, pluck out thine eyes.

So you'd be all eyeless reporters, but they couldn't be worse if they were eyeless. So you might consider it. I'm going to put the possibilities that if you want to do another bet on that one for $1,000. I'm willing to take the no side. Yeah, yeah. Let's see. So not only does this bill codify 1.5 million illegal border crossings into law. You've got to call your senator right now and Oklahoma.

Oh, I feel bad for you. Really? Your guy in the Republican Party, he negotiated this? Wow. Is that a surprise to you? Not only does it codify a million and a half illegal border crossings and make it law, but the border emergency that automatically gets implemented at 5,000 crossings a day in a week can be overturned by Joe Biden.

Oh. And then it also locks in all green card giveaways through 2030. So that's another added, boy, I bet that was hard for Lankford to get, don't you think, Stu? Ooh, he probably. Here's the limiting part of the new border emergency authority. It's quite amazing. Okay, so remember, border emergency authority,

if it's over 5,000 a day, then the president, should he deem, can say, we're shutting this, no, we're almost shutting this down, which means those, you know, extra 2,000 people just have to go to ports of entry so then they can, you know, just go through the standard process at the ports of entry. That's great. Now, he can almost shut the border down for 180 days after the first two years of this bill, which is kind of like saying, we're going to make him enforce the border. gets really bad, but only for six months out of the year. And then I believe there's a 45-day clause as well, Stu. Yeah, the 45-day clause is they can suspend, once the border, quote-unquote, almost

shutdown kicks in. They can suspend the almost shutdown for 45 days at the president's whim. Basically, the only standard he has to hit on that is he feels that it is in the national interest, which of course means anything. Right. Like I am. So, yeah, I know. So let me ask you this, too.

Who is organizing, we've proven it by showing you the actual maps and everything else. Who's organizing the people in South and Central America to get to our border? Who starts with an N. Yeah. Ends with O. N-G-O? Yes. Okay.

All right. Public-private partnerships, right? it's the thing of the future. I like to call it fascism. This authorized $933 million to go to FEMA. And it goes immediately for NGOs and towns. Another $350 million authorizes only if ICE has increased in detention beds to $46,000 and has hired two more deportation officers.

If the Border Patrol has hired 200 more. officers and if USCIS hires another 800 asylum officers, then, then they're going to get that money, okay? Then another 116 is available to FEMA if ISIS conducted 1,500 removal flights since the bill was enacted. So they get a little bonus there. And if you're looking, you know, at the $1.4 billion in funding available to FEMA. for disbursement to NGOs and municipalities.

It's great. It's great. They're going to give those, you know, those George Soros NGO. As long as border securing, hiring, and deportation provisions are hit. So we got that going for us. We're only going to give money to people who are trying to destroy our country if they hit the other benchmarks, which is great. hey, if you get deported twice within a year, you can't come back for a whole year. And I think that's, I think that's cruel, quite honestly.

So wait a minute, I've crossed illegally twice, and then they caught me and deported me twice. When I'm coming in for the third time and they catch me, I can't come in for a whole year? What? Wow, that's unfair. That's really unfair. And I appreciate your call for people to call their Congress people and senators, and it would not be the worst use of your time to do so. No, not at all.

However, what I will say is even if you do not call, there is almost no chance of this bill passing. I mean, there is Johnson is already saying it's dead on arrival. Yeah, but it has to be dead. the Senate too. It can't pass the Senate. I would, yeah, that would be, I mean, that doesn't, of course, if it just passes the Senate, it won't become law necessarily, but still, you're right. I mean, it's a good thing. People should be making stands on it, and I think they will. This is the type of thing that will get, you know, senators who stand up for it primaried, which is an important

outcome of this to know which, which people think this is a good idea, I think is an important outcome of this. Johnson is saying in the House side, they're not even going to put it up for a vote. Scalise is saying the same thing. They're not even going to get a vote on this. So hopefully this is dead on arrival and it's not a realistic thing. And it's funny because Glenn, this is really

you can make an argument. This is the optimal time to negotiate something just like this. No. I'm serious. No, there's an emergency. Why would what? This would be the time of pressure? Perfect time, right? But like we've had these situations before.

where there are times that pressure builds up, and there are certain dynamics that go on. And Republicans try to get things out of these negotiations, right? Right. And so, well, I mean, like, we like to think they are going to. Right. But like a good example of this is a government shutdown. The government's about to shut down. We know there's a funding thing that's about to happen.

They need money to open up the government. And so Republicans say, well, we're not going to vote for that unless you give us X, Y, and Z. And then what happens at the end of that process almost every single time, basically they get nothing. They cave. Or maybe they get something super surfacy that doesn't really do anything. And the reason for that is, in reality, the Republicans don't want the government to shut down. The thing that they're holding hostage is not something they actually want, right? So they're sitting here saying, well, you know what?

We're going to hold this thing open. But they know it becomes a political liability if the government is shut down for too long. and they also have lots of friends and themselves that are dependent on government funding, so they don't actually want that to happen. The weird thing with the Ukraine issue is it's in that sweet spot where, regardless of what you think of this, Republicans are kind of like shoulder shrug on it. They don't, I think they could deal with spending another $100 billion

and giving it to Ukraine or they could not. I think they don't really care. So they have good. Some do. Some do. Right. Right. Some really oppose it. Some really approve of it. Obviously, the Nikki Haley side of the Republican Party really wants this funding to go through. But as a party, they're kind of like could go, I think, either way on Ukraine funding, which puts them in a unique negotiating position. They can hold this hostage. And if they lose it, they lose it. If they win it. So wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So are you saying that the left has put the Republicans into a position where really it's a win-win for them?

It's almost hard to fail, right? Yeah, it is. Then you go to this negotiation and you realize in that situation, which is an optimal negotiating situation, this is the best they could come up with? Like, this is the thing they came up with when everything was in their favor. In the invasion of our country. Right. The only time that we have seen anything like this in human history, this is what they come up with. And this is the other side of.

it is part of this, right? In a government shutdown negotiation, Democrats can say, fine, keep it shut down. I don't care. Fine, because we know we'll win the politics of that, right, on the Democratic side. The Democrats this time realize they're losing the politics of this. They know the border is a massive story for them and a huge problem, so they know they have to do something or at least show they're doing something. And still with all of that, this is all Republicans were able to achieve. That's it. That's it. Now, let me just say this.

Republicans do not blame Donald Trump for losing this election. Don't. No. Don't. I mean, he can do his own part on that. But one of the reasons why people are going to say, what difference does it make? Because you can get somebody like Donald Trump who's willing to do things, but we don't trust that you won't flip sides and stop him. you won't flip sides.

He will have to do it all through executive order. And there's a lot of conservatives like me that don't want that. But what choice are you giving us? What choice are you giving us? You're worthless as a party. Worthless. By the way, go ahead. I was going to say quickly on the politics of this Glenn.

You know, Donald Trump is quite aware of those politics as well and is outwardly telling everyone he is the reason this bill is going to die. He's been telling people behind the scenes for a long time and publicly for a couple of weeks. He wants people to know, hey, this crappy deal, I'm the one that stopped it. And that's another reason for you to be confident it is not going to pass. Because when he's talking like that, there's no way the Republican Party is going to come. No way. And let me tell you, the people who stand against it should receive our praise. Should receive our praise.

They should be just as much. You know, Mike Lee is fighting this thing like crazy. I'm sorry I just spent the weekend with him. But Mike Lee is fighting this thing like crazy. And he should too say it's because of me and this guy and this guy and this guy and Donald Trump that stopped this thing. By the way, let me just give you a little tip. Okay, this is I don't do any car companies, you know, but I do care about your financial situation. So let me just give you this tip.

If you're thinking about buying a new car or a used car, do you. not let Mitch McConnell or any of the Republican leadership negotiate, okay? Because what he'll do is he'll say, and then he'll go back into the back room with the salesperson, and he's going to make an incredible deal. And then he'll come out and go, I got easier deal is really good. And you'll say, wow, this really sucks. And it's taking you months. I've been sitting out here for months. Yeah, well, you know, it's too late for you to back out. You're going to sign it right now. Sign it right now.

Sign it right now. And then it'll get to the point to where he'll tell you that you really didn't even need the car to begin with. But you just didn't sign a contract. Sign a contract. It says you'll never own a car ever, ever again, at least for many years. You'll never own a car. Wait, what? that's the way this negotiation is working out right now in Washington.

Don't be fooled. Back to the podcast in a second. First, let me tell you, relief factor. I don't endorse products on this show that I don't believe in. If I can't use it, if I haven't used it, or if somebody in my family hasn't used it, I won't advertise for it. And that's why relief factor, oh, man, they waited maybe three years, kept begging me to take it on the show and be a part of their advertising campaign, I wouldn't do it because I didn't

think it would work and I didn't take it. I wasn't willing to take it because I didn't think it would work. Finally, my pain got so bad that my wife forced me to take it and now they're advertisers because it worked for me. And that's the case with about 70% of the people who try it. So grab their three-week quick start kit. It's 1995. It comes with relief factors feel better or your money-back guarantee. If you take it as directed, it's not working within three weeks, then it's probably not going to work for you. Visit relieffactor.com or call 800 the number four relief, 8004 relief. Relieffactor.com.

When you feel the difference, you know it works. Now back to the podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. We were talking about an update that I gave you last week. I told you about a South Dakota bill that is now massively under assault from the bank lobbyists and special interests in South Dakota. This is something that has to happen in your state as well. In South Dakota, the Republican leadership is buckling,

but you need to be their spine. What this is is a fight for private property, believe it or not. Private property. Right now, if you have any money in stock that you bought through a, you know, through an intermediary, like Fidelity or Merrill Lynch, You don't legally own that. So if any one of these big financial institutions go out, that's collateral for their debt. You don't own it.

It's just like the bank. You don't actually own what's in your savings account. That can be used as collateral for the bank. You lose. This wipes the average person out if there is a huge problem. I warn you, this is going to be. be told that you are hearing nothing but disinformation. It isn't true. I just ask who has a better track record. Me or the mainstream media. So this bill in South Dakota allows you to keep

ownership of your investment and all of your savings, regardless of whether they're in an intermediary like Fidelity or Merrill Lynch. Two, it restores the jurisdiction in, the state of South Dakota. This would put jurisdiction back into the state, which is hard to believe. But currently, if you live in South Dakota and you have a dispute over the ownership of your investments, say J.P. Morgan Chase, that will be solved in, I'm assuming, J.P. Morgan Chase is New York or Delaware. So Delaware or a New York court is the place you will have to go to argue your case if you live

in South Dakota and how do you think that's going to go? The legislators in South Dakota should not allow the big financial institutions to put their customers at risk, but the Republicans are buckling right now in South Dakota. They are going to vote and they should tell you how they're going to vote in advance, but this will tell you everything because any legislature in South Dakota that votes against you the citizen on this. They're either working for the people of South Dakota and the constituents they represent, or they're working for the special interests of someone else, the financial institutions

that are all too big to fail. That's the only choice here. On Wednesday, that's this coming Wednesday, February 7th, the State Affairs Committee is voting on this bill. It's HB. 1199. If this bill fails in committee, then the uniform. commercial cold will continue and you are at risk. To protect the people of South Dakota, you need HB199.

It is the Small Investors Protection Act. It will protect South Dakota investors and ensure that jurisdiction is restored to South Dakota where it should have always been. Now remember, this is not just about South Dakota. This is in every single state. all 50 states have the same dangerous law in place. Every state will need to update its laws if you are to be protected, the individual, from losing everything in a financial crash.

Here's what you need to do. First, if you live in South Dakota, you need to call the members of the House State Affairs Committee right now. You can find their names online. They have to hear from you today and tomorrow or early Wednesday. Also, call Governor Christine Ome's office as well or email. Make sure they vote in support of HB. 1199, the Small Investors Protection Act. HB. 1199 Small Investors Protection Act. They need to know that the people of South Dakota are watching this vote, and they want their property rights protected.

The one it really needs to hear the most is the House Speaker, Stevens. and the House majority leader, Will Mortensen, they're playing games with this and siding right now with the big banks. Over you, the citizens of the state, they don't want you the people to know what is happening here, and they will claim disinformation, but it is not.

This is true. They will use that to thwart so many people, and then it will go back and pass this Wednesday, day and nobody will ever think about it again until it's too late. Okay, so call. If you live in any other state, I want you to call your legislator, your state legislator, and ask them to take a hard look at HB199 in South Dakota. Every single state must pass a law like this.

The fight is focused right now on South Dakota, but that's going to change very soon. the people that I work with are on this nationwide, and it's a fight that we cannot afford to lose. You have to stop it before the next crisis begins. Okay, let's just talk a little bit about our strike on, you know, our retaliatory strikes that happened over the weekend on the Islamic resistance in Iraq. We struck, I think they said, 82 targets on Saturday, but that's not true. It's only seven targets and 87 or 82 strikes in those seven areas. So let's say there's an airfield, that's one target, but it has, you know, 22 targets in that airfield. I don't know why we gave the, you know, we gave Iran a week to do this.

You can't tell me that it takes a week. Really, they don't have a plan for Iran? I mean, that's a problem. Why did they give them a week? And what exactly are we doing here? What is the goal of this? because we're also giving in the so-called border bill, which is not a border bill. Oh, God, I said this during the Inflation Reduction Act, and nobody listened and they still pass the damn thing.

This is not a border bill. This is a war bill. This is a war bill, period. There's more money for war and refugees and everything else in this bill than there is on the border. but we are giving in the border bill so called the war bill we are giving Ukraine 60 billion 14 billion to Israel and 10 billion to Gaza and Hamas oh who are we giving it to well we'll probably run that through the UN which we know exactly what they're doing what do we do we're funding everybody on all sides. It makes

no sense. God, we are just suicidal. I'm sorry, Stu. I'm going to have another aneurism. Can you just get in here for a second? Suicidal is an interesting summary of the West. Isn't it?

Overall, yes. We seem to be going down that road. With extreme abandon. You're right. I mean, I think it's the border stuff is only included in the bill because they want the other stuff for Ukraine. They want the cash for Ukraine, secondarily for Israel, I suppose,

but basically for Ukraine. And this is their supposed flexibility on their border rules. And it's interesting because, of course, the far left also won't vote for this. So you'll have this situation where they're trying to cobble together the center left and center right to come up with some sort of, voting block that will get this thing through going to be difficult if not impossible for multitude of reasons but it just shows where their priorities are right like i mean it shows what

they really want to happen and and i mean correct me if i'm wrong glenn but like zelensky is announcing basically they have to reform the entire government because none of their war stuff is working they're just like ah you know we need to kind of we need a remix you know this is this just doesn't work as an acoustic we need a techno version and like i don't think that that doesn't seem like the situation you want to dump a hundred billion dollars into. Let me just say that. One of the things that we're doing is we are paying for their entire government. All of the government workers, you, your taxpaying dollar, is going over to Ukraine.

we are funding a second government. And that's not hyperbole. Correct me if I'm wrong, Stu. Hyperbole? No, I don't think so. I mean, it's, you know, not necessarily the most, the way they would describe it. But yes, this is. But that's what we're doing. That seems to be the realism of the situation.

Yeah, that's what we're doing. It is, it is just nuts. And anybody who tells you, you know, the Jamie Diamond thing, over at the WEF has bothered me for a while. There's a couple of things that have bothered me. One, Jamie Diamond coming out, and then Al Gore coming out and saying, you know, I really like the Trump supporters. I don't think we should say bad things about the Trump supporters.

And Jamie Diamond coming out and saying, you know, Trump wasn't really all that bad. Where have you been, Jamie? Where have you been? Now, there's two reasons for these kinds of switches. There's one. Jamie Diamond sees over the horizon and goes, none of this is good for the banking system. We're going to lose the gold standard. None of this is good.

And maybe we should take a look at Donald Trump. Or he's hedging his bet and thinking Donald Trump is going to win. And there's got to be somebody on the inside, maybe at the Treasury Department. Maybe I could say nice things about him and become the head of Treasury so I can keep this train running on the tracks it's already on. I don't know. Al Gore comes out and says these things. They are afraid. But what you're seeing is, remember when I told you that their whole thing was restoring trust? I talked to some people this weekend that were actually there. And I said, I have to ask you, restoring trust, who, whose trust are they trying to restore? I said, I haven't

said this on the air yet because it's just a theory, but I get the feeling that they're not trying to restore trust between us and the people. It's trust in the elite and in the program that people are starting to peel off up at the top levels and they're saying, no, no, no, we all have to trust each other. This is going to work. We got to stay together. They both laughed and said, that's exactly what they mean. They don't even think of us. okay, we are just totally irrelevant. They are in trouble. We've got to stand together and use our common sense,

be cool and collected and calm, and finish the job we started. Because we are winning. They're freaking out. We are winning. But it is going to be, at the finish line, it will be a photo finish. The best of the Glenn,

program. Okay, I want you to hear this. This is a question and answer from a teacher and his student talking about J.K. Rowling. Listen. So these guys want to talk about J.K. Rolling? So what's going out with that? What do you want to know? She's had a pretty controversial past. I just want to know, like, what are your thoughts on it? Like, do you still like her work despite her bigoted opinions? So let's get specific though. Let's define bigoted opinions. What opinions are bigoted? We're going to treat this as a thought experiment.

I'm not going to say what's right or wrong or what way to think. The whole point is to learn how to think, not what to think. So when you say bigot, you're starting with the conclusion that given her bigoted opinions. So first let's start with, does she have bigoted opinions? When you say bigoted opinions? She has had a history of being extremely transphobic, I've heard. You've heard. So can you give me an example?

If you look at her Twitter, I think you can see a few things. If you want, I could try and find something. See if you can find one. So one of these tweets that she came up with in 2019, she said, Dress however you please, call yourself whatever you like, sleep with any consenting adult who will have you, live your best life in peace and security, but force women out of their jobs,

for stating that sex is real. So you find that bigoted? What do you find about in there? It was deemed transphobic. Like, I myself. Do you find that transphobic yourself? I don't really have an opinion on it, but I'm just going with what a lot of other people have said.

So let's pause it. Let's not go with what other people are saying. Let's try and learn how to critically think. So let's analyze the tweet ourselves. So that statement, do you see anything problematic? Disregarding other people's opinions? She did try and pin some things on a specific group of people. Where does she do that? Can you read that?

But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real. So when I hear that, I'm interpreting that as meaning if a woman says that, you know saying that there's a difference between men and female and then being attacked as transphobic i think that's what she's saying by attacking someone for stating that sex is real that is exactly what she's saying is that transphobic to you so to me no stating that sex is real is not transphobic it's just a fact of life it exists so is there anything you disagree with in that tweet uh in that tweet I can't really see anything that I myself disagree with.

Do you think it's fair that there's a, that she's being attacked by a large group of people and people are calling her. Like you said, at the beginning of this conversation, you said, given the fact that J.K. Rowling is transphobic, how do you feel about Harry Potter? Now, retroactively looking at that statement, do you think that that was the best way to phrase? No, I feel like an idiot now. That's okay, though, but this is why we do this to learn how to think. Is that not fantastic?

That's why we do this to learn how to think. I will tell you that when I went to school, I could only afford one class. And it was here at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. And I had a teacher, Wayne Meeks, and I have no idea to this day where he stood on issues. No idea. No idea. And I would push back and forth with him, and he would push me. And just when I thought, okay, I know what he believes, he'd flip sides and he'd argue the other side like he was a passionate believer in that.

That's what we need. School is not to teach what to think, but how to think. And every single school has lost that. They teach you how, what to think. No, teach critical thinking. The way he brought that and didn't get involved in the argument. This is what we all have to learn. Don't get involved or heated or frustrated in the argument.

He just took his time and said, well, wait a minute. A lot of people say, well, what do a lot of people say? Give me an example so we can take that. And remember, we don't take anything a lot of people say. That's the problem. That's why we've smeared so many good people is because we haven't taken the time. What did they actually say? Was that in context?

What does that actually mean to you in context? Do you agree or disagree? With what part do you disagree? What part do you agree? So is that fair to say yes or no? We should be doing this with the bill on the border stuff. The border stuff. Instead, everybody claims disinformation.

No. Be specific. Be specific. What parts of this are really bad? Now, I got to say, I suppose I could find some good things in here. Stu, have you found any good things in here? Yeah. I mean, I think there's some, it's not a good bill.

It's theoretically could have some things. things that would be beneficial. I mean, making the asylum process better would be a good change. But wait, let's stop there and use critical thinking. What exactly do you mean by better? What do they mean by making it better? Well, as we know, one of the big problems with the asylum process is number one. You get onto our soil and say you want asylum and basically you're just released within the country with a court date that can be as far as 2032. What they say, again, I mean, I'm not saying I believe this, but what they are saying this does is it trims the asylum process from multiple years to months. So that would shorten the time period that these people were allowed to be in the United States with no real repercussions.

Okay, so stop for a second. Stop for a second. So I'd like to ask you a series questions here. And not what you just, not on the facts of what you just said on what's in the bill. I want to back up and ask you, when you said they say that you can read the bill, you know it's in there, what do you mean by they say that it will do X, Y, Z? They claim that if this was implemented into law, they would enforce it. However, my hesitation here is because there's lots of things that are implemented into law that they do not enforce. And that is why it is difficult to take any of these proposals seriously. And would you say that happens on both sides of the aisle with almost any topic or just this topic?

I would say that it does hit both sides of the aisle on various topics. However, there is a heavy, heavy bias toward the left doing this. They continually, you know, do not follow the law. And I would say there's a heavy bias toward this particular issue as well, being one that they do not enforce the law on. So it makes me incredibly suspicious of it. Okay. So I could go on to give me examples, but I think in, you know, just in because of time, I'm not going to ask you that. I think we can all find examples of that being true.

But what does that tell you now about the bill? I mean, it tells me the bill isn't worth the paper. It's typed on. Yes. So that tells me what? So how much time should you spend on a bill that. that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I would argue zero minutes,

but we've obviously spent more than zero minutes on it today. I know. Because we do have to inform people what's in the bill so they see. But I would add the caveat that we all know the game that is played on the border. We all know it. So it's not worth, I mean, you can put as many, you know, shall over will. in any bill and the shall is meaning, well, they have to do it now.

I've seen that game played over and over and over again. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. They're not following the Constitution. So these bills don't mean very much. The best thing that Congress and the administration can do now is not pass anything until they've restored their trust with the American people. But are they apt to do that? I would argue no but let me follow up with this on your on your side here Glenn

because and I will do this as someone who's completely dead inside on all of these issues I admit my devil's advocacy here is not heartfelt Oh no mine isn't yeah I know I know but let's play devil's advocate

but like if because I my initial reaction to this bill is to read it and say okay there are maybe a couple things that could theoretically be good in there but I don't trust them at all because they're never going to enforce

these things anyway. If that is the case, then how is there ever a solution to this problem? We could sit here and say that like, well, you know, we are skeptical they're going to implement this, but we're going to be skeptical that they're going to implement anything forever. I think rightfully so. So with that being said, how do you ever get to a place where this problem is solved or at least alleviated? So this leads me to a place that I didn't think we would go to. but I'm glad you asked that question. Civil war. Now, I'm just going to answer.

No, no. The answer to that question is, none of this will be solved by the people who caused the problem. The people that are currently saying that they are going to solve this problem are all of the people that have caused this problem. Joe Biden, the GOP, that says they want to solve problems, but they don't actually want to solve them. The, you know, Chuck Schumer, all of the same people are involved.

So the real answer is, shouldn't we be spending more time on finding the right people to run, ensuring that they get in, helping them get in, and finding new candidates that won't play this same game? I mean, we've seen that's almost as harder, almost harder than solving. the border problem. I mean, what you've just said is basically Donald Trump's argument, right? His argument is put me back, put me in an office, and I will take care of this. And we shouldn't, even if there are improvements in this bill, we shouldn't look at them because the more important thing is to get me back in office and therefore I can do these

things because I alone can do this. Well, no, wait, that's not what I said. That's not what I. But I think that's similar to what I'm not saying. I'm not saying you're signaling this to Donald Trump. I'm just saying I'm personalizing to Donald Trump because he's making this argument explicitly. Yes. But again, he, he, if that was indeed what he was saying, and, you know, he didn't say it,

so let's not attribute it to him. But indeed, if that's what he was saying, well, then that would be a problem because that's not our system. That's not our system. If he would say, hire me, hire these people. in their respective roles and together we're going to fix this, that would be the ultimate. That would be the ultimate. If everybody did what they said they were going to do and they were fresh, fresh blood,

that would be great. The next best thing is to do it by executive order, but I hate that solution. For one reason, they can change it the next president that comes in.