The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Alexandria DeSanctis & Will Maule | 2/26/19

Episode Date: February 26, 2019

Best of the Program | 2/26 - 'Louder with Crowder' (w/ Steven Crowder) -h1 - Flashback 2012: Dems Deny God x 3? -h1 - 'BlazeTV Wire'? (w/ Ben Shapiro) -h2  - This Is A Killing Babies Bill (w/ Alexandria DeSanctis) -h2 - 'Don't Take My Bible Away!' (w/ Will Maule) -h3  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Holy cow, what a great show today. We have Stephen Crowder coming up right off of the bat. Then we have Ben Shapiro, who's going to talk a little bit about the national emergency at the border. They're voting on that today. What does that mean? What do we do? Also, Pat Gray is going to stop by, talk about infanticide. I also talk a little bit about that.

And the new Mike Nike ad. And Will Mall joins us. Yes, lots of it. And you always see it, by the way, I'm pleased to. TV.com slash Beck. Yeah, they're great. In fact, you should hear what... You should hear breaking news.

What Ben Shapiro says about my idea. There was CR TV. There was the Blaze. We merge. Blaz TV. I suggested a new name. And you'll hear about that today. But you might want to sign up right away because it's...

Oh, I can feel it. It's happening. It's happening. Go to blazTV.com slash Beck. use Beck as your promo code and you're going to save 10%. You're listening to The Best of the Glenn Beck program. Welcome to the program, Stephen Crowler. How are you, Stephen?

Hey, you know, I'm doing well. I just saw that X-Chair commercial. Maybe you can get me one of those because this thing sucks. Well, would you get me one of those things on your desk right in front of you? Because that's great. No, no, other direction. Other direction. Oh, the Waltz, you know what?

Yeah, they're a spot that Walther P. Is this what we're talking about here? This is actually made back out of Fort Smith, Arkansas. I don't know if you're, I'm sure you're familiar. I say this with guests. Like, I don't know if you're familiar because I don't want to embarrass them, but I know that you know. There were all these pieces of legislation that just mounted up. And the Walther PPPK, you saw on James Bond, couldn't be imported into the United States just because it was too small.

So they created something called the PPPS, which is the exact same firearm that includes one more round. and they were made in Germany. They licensed it to Smith and Weston and these other companies. And now they're actually made here in the United States to German specifications. They're wonderful. So I probably can. We'll swap an ex-chair for a firearm. Okay, I'll get you an ex-chair.

And keep it on the QT about the X-chair. I don't want. Okay. You can't tell anybody in the government that I gave you a chair. I'll sign the background check for my buttocks. Right. Okay. So, Stephen, you had a great show on Sunday night.

very, very funny. You brought the whole team in and you had guests. And you, some would say, we're mocking the Oscars, which deserves to be mocked. And halfway through, was it even halfway through? No, it was after the very first. First off, you're very generous. It was an okay show. But, you know, I mean, yeah, it was right after the very first segment, ABC Disney struck us on YouTube with a hard strike so that they prevented the live

stream from continuing. So thank God we were able to, we were actually able to continue that night on Facebook and get this up here, obviously, at the Blaze TV. So you had worked on this for a long time. Tell me exactly what you were doing that Disney objected to. What they objected to. I mean, I don't know. It's take your pick at any point in the program. I think they're more so objected to the overall idea of the program. So we've done this for several years now. This is not our first annual Oscars live stream. These are the important things to note. We did this last year, no problems. We have a 16-hour CNN marathon live stream. No problems. I actually did that because it was a follow-up to the previous Christmas telethon where I'd been

waterboarded. And I said, well, what's worse than being waterboarded? Let's watch the entire CNN clock. And frankly, this isn't a joke. I would rather be waterboarded. Yes. We actually had people quit after the 16-hour. You know, you hear about bands breaking up. It was a 60-hour CNN livestream. People in the back room just toss up their hands and walk. They can't do this. So this was not the first time we'd done this kind of stream. What happened was this year, the second we crossed 40,000, we were well on our way to 50,000 viewers that very second, which I know people say, oh, on viewers on television.

This is very different. This isn't a rolling average. 50,000 people at any given second. We were shut off for copyright infringement, which, of course, it's not. We actually are adding up the numbers right now. I think there were 20-something sketches. There were five guests. And I think it's about 98% of the Oscars live stream

didn't actually include the Oscars. It was in a little tiny box with us watching it, mocking it, laughing hysterically. And ABC Disney decided to try and not only hit our channel with a hard strike, but a lot of people disconnect when they hear about these things. Everyone here makes a living off of creating content. And what they're trying to do is prevent conservatives from making a living off of content.

Another important thing to note, there are plenty of other Oscars live streams. Others that are far less transformative. They didn't actually have a shape of water fish mascot fixing himself a Manhattan. They just put up a stream and they're up there. We're the only ones who were targeted. Okay, so let me play devil's advocate here. ABC would say the same thing. Well, we worked very hard to screw this tradition up for many, many years.

Yes. And all the people at ABC, and if you can take our product and put it on something else where someone else can watch our product, we lose because you're cutting us out of the thing that we produce. How would you respond to that? Yeah, they could say that. I mean, there's a very clear precedent if it's transformative. And there have been two major lawsuits recently, H3-H3 productions and three, two equals. three productions, I think Ray William Johnson's previous studio at YouTube, where they won fair use fights. As a matter of fact, the law is on our side, the president is on our side, and it's

continuing to actually cross over to our side. Here's the thing. Obviously, we couldn't show just a full film, full film. I couldn't say, hey, here's Green Book, just running on my channel. That's ripping something off. That's not transformative. We actually had Shia LeBuff. Well, I guess his firm LeBuff Ronco Turner. What he did the, he will not divide us live stream. We said, hey, this is funny. We went down to his He Will Not Divide his camera and did our entire show from his broadcast camera and they sued us and they

lost because it turned out they had a greater viewership when we showed up in Queens to his public camera and did our show than they had at any other point and it was determined that it was transformative. So you can't just run a film. You can't just rip something off but for them to have a leg to stand

down would mean you can't be a critic. Things like mystery science theater couldn't exist. Rebuttals online can exist. We've had this before. We've had, I think, the Guardian and NBC go after us because we specifically point by point debunked something Seth Myers said or Trevor Noah has said or Samantha B. So they've done this for a while. It's not that they don't want to lose out on profiting off of their content. It's that their content sucks and they don't want people criticizing it. That's the issue here. If they wanted to say, hey, let's be honest too, this is free network television,

ABC. Anyone can watch it. And anyone who's tuning in to me is Freddie Mercury from the live aid concert. My friend dressed as Spider-Man and Gerald is a gold statue and us doing a seven-plus-one canceled Jesse Smollett films bit. These are not people who are going to tune into the Oscars. It wasn't, huh, hold on a second. Do I want to tune in to watch the Spike Lee speech or Crowder and Michael Myers with a blowing up Nike sneaker? Right. So, Stephen, let me broaden this a bit. because this is something you and I have talked about just recently on the phone about how they are picking us off one by one. And I don't know if you saw the news today, but Tommy Robinson has been de-platformed because he said he stood by the proud boys and Gavin McGuinness. That's the reason.

Yeah, that's pretty silly. First of, I don't know enough about the proud boys or really what they are. I know they've been looking at Tommy Robinson for a long time. And I've talked with Tommy about this for a while. So they just try to find any reason. That's why it's also important to understand the law. And we're releasing the half Asian crackin today. We're releasing Bill Richmond on ABC Disney.

We haven't lost yet. And I've also just heard I can't talk about this exactly. There's going to be a video release from a prominent conservative who does investigative reporting. We just found out again that we were specifically targeted for throttling on Facebook under a bogus. label. And by the way, I was the subject of an N-Gadgett, I believe, article, or Gizmodo about two years ago. That's how I met my lawyer where someone released documents saying, nope, it's not algorithmic. We were told to censor Chris Kyle Foundation, Ted Cruz for president, and Stephen Crowder. And we settled out of court. So this has been happening on all fronts. I think it's really

important that people understand the law. What usually happens is it may not be because he said he supported proud boys. It probably could be. And they would love to get rid of him. for that. But what I think that's just an excuse. That's just an excuse. It's an excuse. It's an excuse. And usually what they do is if you file a counterclaim and you invite them to meet you in court, which we do all the time, by the way, this is important for people to note. Just inviting them to meet you in court often gets them to back off because they don't want the PR. There's there are two things. There's the courts. And then there's the court of public opinion. And right now major media outlets are using. My guess is with Tommy Robinson, without knowing all of the facts, they probably

found some kind of a legal loophole where either it was copyright or something that they could actually legally claim was a violation. That's what they look for. Don't give them an excuse. That being said, they'll find an excuse anyway. So what I do think is important is for conservatives to try and really create original content when they go out there. Try to move away from the herd and they tend to be, and I don't mean move away from the herd in the sense that we want them picked off one by one, but move away from just the, I mean, just the, you know, uh, uh, Donald Trump, you know, uh, I hate Obama kind of ranting, you know, into a camera thing. That's not real content. And basically, it makes it really easy for Facebook,

YouTube, Twitter, to pick you off with something. If you are creating a ton of original content, we have these documents that we're going to say, hold on a second, there was 240 minutes of the stream and three minutes were the actual Oscars. There's not a court in the world that would look at that and say, well, clearly you just ripped off the Oscars. and just ran it on your channel. Right. That kind of percentage is fair use. Stephen, I want to give you a plug on the mug club.

You said after a rather visceral rant when they pulled you off in the middle of the broadcast, you were a little hot. And you said this is why the mug club is so important. Right, and Mucklb, of course, is in partnership with Blaze. It's been going on for a long time, and then it was CRTV, now there's Blaze TV. This is something we started. It was, I can remember, have you ever seen the film Flash of Genius with Greg? And by the way, I don't know what just happened.

I just said Flash in my lip. It went like a massive flash of genius. I don't know if you guys could. It was very bizarre. Did you ever see that? No, you haven't seen that film with Greg Kinnear. It was actually a court case where this is the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper on cars.

Yes. And someone else claimed, I think he was suing Ford. It could have been GM. Please don't shut me down here, ABC, if I'm mistaken. I could be wrong. I don't remember which of the big three. But they asked him, when did you invent the intermittent wiper? And the other person didn't really have an answer.

They said, well, you know, I kind of just thought it would be a good idea. And Greg Kinnear, the man who actually invented it said, well, I remembered thinking with an eyelid that it closes when you need intermittently, whereas a wiper would smear everything. It was just basically it went at one speed. And he said, I thought, why can't a wind? wiper work like an eyelid. And that's what's called the flash of genius moment. And they use that in court. Basically, any invention you can trace back to a moment. And if they don't have a good enough story, they're often not believed. With Mug Club, I can tell you exactly where I was sitting. I was sitting at one of my favorite breweries in Michigan. And we were being attacked at that point from all

these false copyrights on YouTube because we were pretty early, pretty ahead of the curve there. And I said, you know, we need to create something where we can still be on YouTube, we can still be on Facebook. We can still be on Twitter, but we're not reliant on them. And I was drinking for something called Monk Club. It was this, because it was like an old Belgian kind of brewery and they had these these chalices. I said, I know, how about we do a mug club? How about we have a, this is a physical token for people to see that they're a part of something bigger, that they're supporting content out there. And of course, now they have access to everything, to you, to Mark Levin, to the whole lineup at the Blaze. And it's been, it's been a real blessing. We never wanted to be just shut down

behind a paywall, we wanted to use premium content to make sure that we could be a thorn in the side of the people at social media. Because we don't want to get ourselves into an echo chamber and remove ourselves off of the mainstream platforms. But we also understand that they do want a Tommy Robinson. So I think we're stronger together when we do this and we use both. We use both methods. We have to use both, but we have to prepare for the time exactly like you said when they

tried to Tommy Robinson all of us one by one. Stephen, best of luck. Thank you so much. If you would like to join Stephen's Mug Club, all you have to do is go to blazTV.com. When you subscribe, normally I ask you to put Beck in there and you get the 10% discount.

But if you're a fan of Stephen Crowders, make sure you put Mug Club in that and you'll save, I don't know if you save or just get the mug. Do you get both? Is Steven still there? Yeah, I'm here. Yeah, it's, or there's also,

they can go through Latterwithcrowder.com slash mug club. It takes people to the same place. It's a $30 discount if your students, veteran, or active military. So you enter in the code, student, veteran, military. And I know a lot of people out there, they say, well, what if I'm homeschooled? Listen, we're pretty lenient. If you have a yellow belt and karate, you're a student, we want as many people to join up as possible. Congratulations.

Your mom's check cleared. You're an orange belt. Here's your discount. Thanks a lot, Stephen. I appreciate it. Stephen Crowder. The best of the Glenn Beck program. Yesterday we were at a turning point, and I'm going to get into the turning point for the country here in just a second with Pat Gray.

But I want to tell you, if you know of a Democrat, warn them, this is a massive turning point, and you are going to see the Democratic leadership run towards evil fast because there is nothing restraining it now. is there anything in our society that is lower than killing a baby? Every woman I know when they watch a horror movie or something like that, if they go towards the children, especially a baby, and they're going to use a baby in a blood or a killing scene, that is immediately the line for almost all Americans, but definitely women. women are like, do not touch that baby.

I remember there was a scene in the last, what was it, Halloween that came out? What was the one with Jamie Lee Curtis? You saw the last Halloween? I did. I haven't seen any of them. Jamie Lee Curtis was in this one. And for some reason, Tanya said, let's go to Halloween. And I'm like, okay.

So I know, it was her. It was bizarre. It was bizarre. I think she had been kidnapped and replaced. But so we went to it. And there's one scene where is it Jason? No, it's Michael Myers. Michael Myers is headed towards, he's in, he's killing everybody in this house.

And he heads towards a nursery and you hear a baby cry. And my wife said, we are leaving if he touches that baby. And I'm like, okay. It's so weird because these aren't real murders. She's aware of this? I know, she's aware of it. I'm just saying that that was, every woman I know is like that. Oh, yeah.

You don't mess with babies. Okay. The Democrats yesterday refused to make it illegal to kill a baby. And I'm not talking about a baby in the womb. I'm talking about a baby that has been born. Let me give you a refresher. In 2008, 2012, it wasn't cool to be a socialist. You were a racist if you said that. We don't want universal health care. We don't want socialism. We're all capitalists. And then the Democrats did something that I thought was stunning, absolutely stunning. Could you please give me the audio cock crows? This is from 2012. Governor, would you like to make your motion?

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing, and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates. A motion has been made. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor say aye. All those delegates oppose say no. In the opinion of the...

Let me do that again. All of those delegates in favor say I. All those delegates opposed say no. I am... Yeah. I guess. Yeah. I'll do that one more time. One more time. All those delegates in favor say I. All those delegates opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative. The motion is adopted. And the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.

There it is. That is the moment that the Democrats denied God in their platform. three times. I think it's highly appropriate that they denied him three times. Now, look at the race to insanity since that happened. Now you've just crossed the Rubicon of saying, babies?

What baby? Kill it. That's what they said yesterday. Every single Democratic presidential candidate voted against this bill yesterday. warning Democrats, you are going to see the mask is off and evil is embraced. You are going to see horrific things in the future from this party. Yeah, the clippity clop that you hear off in the distance is the four horsemen of the apocalypse galloping through town.

For that bill to go down, 5344 to stop filibustering, to just bring it to an actual vote. They couldn't get to 60 votes to bring that to an actual vote. Three Republicans didn't vote because they couldn't get back in time. And, you know, Tim Scott being one of them certainly would have been a yes for sure. Lisa Wikowski wasn't there. No, Rikovsky, I don't know about her. She would have been a yes. We don't know with her. But if only there was a way to get, I don't know, to have a vote even when you're not there.

But as it is, you've got to carve them into stone tablets and put them on a camel caravan. Oh, yeah. Back to D.C. There's just no way. No, you can't do that. Is there anything more archaic than you can't vote if you're not there? You can't tell somebody your vote. You can't call it in.

You can't do it on the internet. There's no way to do this. No, there's no way to keep that a line secure. It's crazy. It's like the president of the United States is on like doing like major calls with Kim Jong-un. The president of the United States can launch missiles from a briefcase. Yeah, right. This is ridiculous.

He doesn't have to be there to push the button. He's got in a briefcase on the beach. I swear that it's really a defense. with as to like the thing you've talked about, Pat, and I know you as well, Glenn, of getting these representatives out of Washington and back into their home states. I love that.

But I feel like they make it required to go to Washington to keep their little game going. Exactly. Exactly right. We should mention three Democrats did vote for this, and that's really going against the tide for them. Yes. It was Joe Manchin of West Virginia that you would expect. And Joe Manchin said,

Joe Manson said when he was running, once that baby is out, I'm there for him. Yes. And he was. What a wonderful line. It's better than most. Yeah, it's better than kill it. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones from Alabama are the three who voted for it.

Now, Jones, of course, is running in a state in which he, if he's not pro... It's Alabama. It's Alabama. He's doing this, you know, arguably for political reasons. Casey is... I mean, Casey has even calls himself pro-life. He's not the pro-life brand that I would like. but he's a famous.

His family is famous for fighting this as well. However, you know, and Mansion. But that's it. I mean, and none of them can just, none of them say, of course, that they want babies to just, you know, die after they're born after a, you know, a failed abortion.

They all say, well, what this does is it weakens women. It's health care. They just lie about it. It doesn't. It doesn't. They've made it clear that it only becomes human life when it grows up and registers as a Democrat. That's when it's left to a Democrat.

And before that, you can kill it. I don't care. They just don't care. It's, as we said yesterday, that's a really bad sign for American civilization. It's a really bad sign. I think it's a knockout punch. If it hadn't, if it hadn't have garnered 50 votes, I would say America was dead. I don't know where God's line is.

I don't either. But because 53, I hope that saves us. With, to quote Jefferson, because I know God is just, I tremble for my country. This is, this is terrible. terrifying. And I will tell you this. If you're a Democrat, please, please notice who they are, where they are right now, and where they'll be in 18 months or two years from now. Because this is moving wildly fast. Did you see the new poll on Americans who now consider themselves pro-life? This is a 17-point change from last month. It's now four. 47, 47, according to a new Gallup. I think it's Gallup poll.

Just a month ago, it was 5438. Now it's 47 all. Really? 47% are pro-life. 47% are pro-abortion. And I kind of wonder if the bill in New York, Virginia, and Vermont had something to do with that. Oh, I think it did.

Has it just gone too far now where that's the tipping point for Americans? And they're like, wait, wait. I can't associate with that anymore. This is what I don't understand. That's what I'm hoping. The Politico article about this bill says Senate defeats anti-abortion bill. What does this have to do with abortion? Again, yes, we're talking about a failed abortion.

So the abortion's over. The baby's been born. Of what use is it to the mother? Once the baby is born and out, this has already occurred. Everything that could possibly go on with your involvement with this child is over. You can give it up for adoption and never see the thing again. Okay, I can understand the arguments about, you know, women's choice. I think they are BS arguments.

We've discussed it a million times. But the baby's already outside. Why would you oppose this at that point? All you have to do is get hands off, close your eyes, never have to think about it again. Because here's why. There's two reasons for this. One, spiritual, and you could dismiss this all you want. You got to sacrifice it at the altar of death.

you have to sacrifice this to the altar of progressivism, postmodernism, leftism, and death, culture of death. It demands a sacrifice. I think that's where we are. I think it is, too. We're not putting it in those terms, but the left has become a frightening religion. Yes. An anti-human and pro-earth at the expense of all humans kind of thing.

It is a frightening religion. So sacrifice is number one. And the second is, and this I say as somebody who would put yourself in this situation, you wanted to have an abortion. You chose to have it at the last minute. You carried it around for three days thinking it was dead. Then it was born alive. You can't give that thing up for adoption.

because you tried to kill it. Now that baby goes up for adoption. That is a testimony of your depravity and that you were wrong if it grows up and it accomplishes anything. It is always there. That child is always there for the rest of your life. I will say, too, you could easily be creating your own Michael Myers.

Because, I mean, if you think about it, you know, if this is one... He wouldn't die either. and you have now taken on this child who will grow up to be the spawn to come after you in like 19 movies. Can I tell you something? That makes as much sense as what they're arguing right. Yeah, it does.

Yes, it does. You could say, you could honestly stand up and be a leftist right now and say, you know, we've all seen the documentary of Michael Myers and he doesn't die. This might be a new Michael Myers. Pat Gray Unleashed podcast. wherever podcasts are available, you can find that one.

You should do it, and you should download it and subscribe and rate it as well. I would prefer a good rating. I think Pat would as well. Don't rate it like one star. That's not what we're asking you to do. I love that. Everyone says, oh, rate my podcast and review it. What we mean is review it well and give it five stars.

That's what we mean. The reason why, that is important. It's not an ego thing. It actually helps the algorithm sort out podcasts and the ones with the highest ratings and the most reviews they think people are more. more passionate about. And so it goes to the top for discovery, other ones that you might like, that other people like you like. And so it's important to rate and review. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Like listening to this podcast, if you're not a

subscriber, become one now on iTunes. But while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show. We only have Ben Shapiro for just a few minutes, so I want to get right to it. Ben, let's talk about the National Emergency Act at the border. How should this go down and why? I mean, the truth is that the president really should use 10 U.S.E. 284. That's the provision of law that allows the Secretary of Defense to declare certain areas of the border drug corridors, then the president can simply build additional fencing there. That doesn't require the invocation of a national emergency. Its power the president already has. He does have funding available under the Defense Department to do some of that. And all the areas that he's talking about,

the ones that smuggle people also happens to be the one that smuggle drugs. That doesn't mean to have to declare the entire border a drug corridor, but he can certainly declare the most high-trafficed areas of the border drug corridors. The reason that I prefer that approach is because once you have presidents starting to declare national emergencies when they can't get something through Congress, that's an incredibly dangerous precedent. Now, I hear folks on the right side of the aisle, and generally Republicans, conservatives, they'll say things like, well, you know, if Democrats had this power, they would do it.

Look how Barack Obama expanded executive power under his watch. That's true. But there is a difference between there are two problems with that argument. One is, right, we're the conservatives. That's what we're supposed to not do. And two, there's a difference between making the argument Democrats have already expanded the power. And we fear Democrats will expand the power. So now we're going to preemptively expand the power, handing them a tool without any excuse for us to fight back against it.

Because believe it or not, there will be a Democratic president again, whether it's in two years or whether it's in four or whether it's at some point, when we're in six, it doesn't, at some point, there will be a Democratic president. And the Democrats that we're watching right now are already saying that climate change is a national emergency. They're saying it's the greatest emergency that has ever faced the country. They're invoking things like World War II as comparison items. Well, if you think that they won't declare a national emergency over climate change and then say, okay, well, you know, President Trump built a wall on the border. What we need to do is retrofit and wreck every existing structure in the United States, as AOC said in the Green New Deal. You got another thing coming. These people want power, and any excuse to take it will be used.

I think the Democrats actually want Trump to use this because it will give them the green light to do, to really, truly become a dictator. You can do anything. The difference between this is national emergency is this one is tied directly to the purse strings. So the president can do whatever he wants after trying to get it through Congress three times, not being able to get it through Congress. and so then he shuts down the government, still can't get it. Well, now he can control the purse strings without going through Congress that is absolutely unconstitutional. And even if there is an emergency, we should not set this precedent.

We've got to be able to stop the Democrats from doing this, you know, when they want to do all of the things that they've already tweeted. Great, declare a national emergency, because we think it's a national emergency on X, Y, and Z. And they've already said it. Yeah, and they're not really hiding the ball here. And one of the things that I find to be such a problem here is that, you know, when President Trump talks about the national emergency at the border,

there's no question that in a colloquial sense we have an emergency at the border, but that emergency at the border has been there for 35 years. Yes. It's not as though things have radically ramped up in recent years. The numbers are actually down in terms of border crossings. That's not to undermine the idea that there's a serious problem at the border. But the whole point here is that if President Trump is running on the platform of I'm going to secure the border and Democrats won't allow me to do so, well, then run on that. I mean, if Democrats don't want to secure the border, then they should be made to defend that.

But to expand executive power simply by saying Congress won't give me what I want, I'm going to do what I want anyway, and I'm going to grab money to do it. It's a danger. It's just a wrong thing to do. And frankly, I don't see the upside except for some temporary politically expedient headlines. The wall is not going to get built under these auspices. It's just not. I mean, there will be courts that strike it down and create injunctions. It's already 2019. The idea that the wall is going to be completed by 2020 by the time of the election, I think as a fool's errand, that the best you're going to get maybe, maybe 10 to 15, 20 miles. You're not going to get a massive bill before the election. So what is the trade here? The trade is the power of the executive to now centralize this kind of authority in one branch of government away from the legislature.

And in return, you get a little bit of border fencing. That ain't going to cut it. Everybody in the line of secession, including the president, drop dead from a shellfish attack. You're Jewish. You haven't had any. So you're like, okay, I'm next in line. What does President Shapiro do today about this? Well, I mean, the first thing that I do about the border situation, as I say, is I invoke 10 U.S.E. 284. I declare that there are drug corridors along the border that need to be protected. I already have the statutory authority to do that. And I built fencing there. And then the next thing I do is I go out on the campaign trail and I say every day the Democrats don't have any interest in protecting the border. They have been attempting to ratchet down security at the border. I mean, this is a campaign issue.

Bottom line is the American people need to make up their minds as to whether they think this is important enough to merit an actual change in policy at the border. I just, it fails to, I fail to understand how the president can simultaneously claim that his program is immensely popular in terms of building a border wall. and at the same time refuse to campaign on that against Democrats and instead declare a national emergency and just do it from the executive seat. Ben, when Obama tried to pitch DACA a million times to Congress and got rejected and then decided afterwards that he did have the authority, he said he didn't have over and over and over again. It was my opinion that they didn't even believe they had this authority because if they did, they wouldn't have gone to Congress over and over again. The same thing here. I mean, it's not like Donald Trump goes to ask Nancy Pelosi's permission because he thinks it's fun. they obviously felt they needed this authority to get this money and now are going the exact opposite way.

I mean, it's a terrible precedent, and I don't even think they believe it. That is a great point. I mean, we just had a large-scale government shutdown, the longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history. What was the point of all that if the president could have just using his authority, declared a national emergency and been done with it? Why don't just do that? Why is he not using 1084? I think the reason that he's not using 10-284 is because he believes that if he declares a national emergency, then he's going to be able to go back to his voters and say, listen, I did all I can do.

I think he understands that he's not going to get a border wall built before 2020. He's going to be able to blame the courts if they stop it. He's going to say, listen, as president of the United States, I used all the authority that I could possibly have even thought about to try and get this done for you. Give me, give me Congress. So I think it's an election tactic. So in other words, he wants the I wasn't able to do it, but I will do it next time, as opposed to, look, I did all I can, help me. get some people in here that will actually pass this and we're already taking the steps that I legally can. He thinks that's a bigger win the other way?

Yeah, I mean, the president tends to be a man of extremes. And I think that when he looks at this, I think he wants to be able to say to people, listen, the maximum amount of authority that I was told I had by my own lawyers, that's what I tried to use here. And courts held it up. And the courts are stacked and we have to change the courts. And the Democrats have stacked against me and we need to throw them out of office. again, I don't think this is a practical strategy that is directed at actually building border fencing. I think this is a strategy that is directed at getting stopped in court and then being able to blame the Senate, blame the courts.

I don't like politics being played with the Constitution. And so, you know, the only Republican I've seen who stood tall on this is actually just an amosha in the House. But I think that, frankly, the founders believed that the branches of government were going to check one another. They did not believe the party loyalty was going to be able to overcome branch loyalty. So a member of the legislature who's a Republican should still stand up for the legislature when a Republican president encroaches on the authority of the legislature. They're wrong about that, obviously, because people now don't care. I mean, people in the legislature are happy to toss more authority to the executive branch so long as it means escaping censure from their own constituents back home. Ben, quickly, your thoughts yesterday on the vote that didn't pass with abortion?

Well, I mean, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that the Democratic Party has. completely freed itself from anything like a moral mooring. It's insane. I mean, it's frankly insane. In 2002, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed unanimously in the Senate, unanimously. This didn't even get, you know, a Democrat, what I get? Four Democratic votes, something like that. Three. I mean, this is three. I mean, this is, this bill does, all it does is it basically extends the law a little bit to say that if a baby is born alive, it has to be transferred to a hospital, and it has to be treated with the same care that any other infant born alive would be given. So it just removes any distinction possible in law between a baby born during a botched abortion

and a baby born not during a botched abortion. And the reason for the law, as Ben Sass pointed out, is that this distinction has been actually created by New York law. And New York actually had a law on the books. It was Section 4184 in their penal code. And it essentially said that if you were born alive during a botched abortion, then you were given the same. rights is a baby not born during a botched abortion. Well, their New York state abortion law completely overrules 4184. And so this federal law says, well, no, no, no, we're going to restore the fact that a baby born under any circumstances deserves the same rights. And Democrats, like,

no, can't do that. Sorry, we need to have special capacity, do something different. I haven't even seen even a coherent argument on the part of P. I was looking all right last night or any sort of coherent excuse for Democrats for why they would do this. There's not. Ben, I don't let you run, but just what do you think of this? One last thing. You know, we merged with CR TV and we became Blaze TV. What do you think about Blaze TV wire? Well, you know, I sort of feel like the girl who's proposed to in front of the entire

football stadium. I love you, Ben. Take care, brother. God bless. You love. I mean, I take that as he agreed. I just move forward. That's why I heard it.

That's the way America heard it. All right. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn. And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed. His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast. I think the country is at a crossroads. Today, we are voting on whether or not to the president has the power to spend money and declare a national emergency.

In my opinion, he does not. We should not do this. We're going to give this power to the Democrats, and they will use it for all of the things. We've been trying to tell you about, you know, the free education and the green movement and trying to get these common sense things enacted, and they won't. It's a national emergency. We've got to pull the guns off. I mean, they will use it.

We should not be doing that. And here's another reason why I say extreme caution. Yesterday, Ben Sasse wanted the born-alive bill to be passed. And we'll talk about that here in a second. But the Democrats and all of the candidates that are running for the Democratic nomination voted against it. This is a bill that basically says if a baby is born alive, you cannot kill it. this to me is a turning point. I don't know where God stands on how many votes we need to have

before we lose our status as one nation under God. But we're getting pretty close. But I will tell you this, the Democrats certainly have detached from reality and God. And I expect to see a race to the bottom of the barrel now with the Democrats. They have chosen death and evil. Alexander DeSanctus was covering this all over the place.

She's with the National Review, and she really went through not only the entire story from day to day, but also suffered through every single speech yesterday. She joins us now. Hi, Alexandra. Hey, great to be with you. So what was it? Can you find any reason at all, Alexandra,

that the Democrats have a legitimate case, to not vote for this? They really don't have a legitimate case, and I think you can discern that based on the fact that they're giving two conflicting reasons for not voting for the bill. On one hand, they've said, well, this is redundant of existing law.

Infanticide is already illegal. And then on the other hand, they've said this bill is anti-abortion, and it criminalizes doctors and punishes women. And so I'm here wondering, which is it, right? Right. Yeah, it can't be both at the same time, I don't think. I saw a bunch of stuff that they said

was in this bill like it was going to vilify doctors and make them more vulnerable, or are these just completely made up lies, assuming that their audience and voters would not read the bill? Right. They've gone with this line that the bill punishes doctors, and it does enforce criminal penalties for a doctor who does not give medical care to an infant. But I think the important thing to keep in mind about the legislation is it doesn't prescribe a particular kind of care. It just says that if an infant is born alive in the context of abortion, it should be treated like any other living infant. It does not say you must give it this particular treatment. That's left up to the doctor. So is there any doubt in your mind? Well, how would you describe

what happened yesterday with the Democrats? Was this just politics or is this something different? I think it's very clear that the power that groups like Neerol and Planned Parenthood have over the Democratic Party. because if you look at public opinion polling, nobody really is in favor of denying medical care to viable infants. A lot of Democrats even describe themselves as pro-life now and support some limits on abortion. And this bill itself has nothing to do with abortion, but they're so sort of in thrall to the abortion industry that they feel like admitting any weakness in their case would be a problem for them. They're going to get hit by the really extreme parts of their party. But this isn't, this is, I'm sick of everybody calling it, including us, an abortion bill. It's not an abortion bill.

There's a baby right there. It's not inside. It's no longer part of her. So it has nothing to do with women's health. And it has nothing to do with abortion at all. Am I right? Yeah, that's exactly right. And if you listened, well, I guess you didn't,

but I listened for you to every Democratic speech yesterday. And they all kept claiming that this was an attack on women's health care, but not a single one of the Democrats pointed to a line in the bill that showed how it harmed women or had anything to do with women's health care options. This is about health care for a living infant that has been born. Alexandria, back in 2002, there was a bill that was roughly similar to this that passed, I believe unanimously. We're just talking to Ben Shapiro, and he said it was unanimous on that vote.

So is this just the fact that this can't pass? Is that an example of how far the Democratic Party has come? I mean, is there any part of them that thinks that this is a little bit further and does something they're uncomfortable with? Yeah, so the bill in 2002, all that did was define an infant born alive in the context of abortion as a person, whereas this bill would be the only federal law that would actually affirmatively mandate care for infants. And I think that's a step too far for Democrats simply because, you know, like we've said, this isn't an abortion bill. But if we're going to start, you know, defining an infant that's been born alive in the context of abortion as somebody who's, you know, deserving of medical care, suddenly we can start asking questions like, well, one minute earlier when it's inside its mother, why is that not an infant? And then, you know, they're having to defend the entirety of abortion and they don't want to have to be doing that.

Yeah, but, yeah, I mean, you're going the opposite direction. If I can kill it at birth, why can't I kill it the next day? Why can't I kill it the minute it becomes non-viable? I mean, that, that argument goes, uh, it cuts both ways. And the American people are not on the side of killing infants, period. I mean, I have to actually state that. I know. amazing point. It's like pretty basic, I feel like. I can't believe the world we're living in. Does it shock you? Or can you explain how we've gone from a country that was having a debate about, you know, even first trimester abortion? And we were all very clear. Partial birth abortion is wrong. Third trimester abortion is wrong. But some people, you know, we were saying, I don't know when it's a baby. Is it the heartbeat or whatever? We were having that argument to all of a sudden, we're now having an argument about the most extreme, more extreme than partial birth abortion.

The baby's been born. How did this happen so rapidly? I mean, that's obviously a really complex question. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons. And I hate to blame the media for everything. but I do think that's a huge part of it because I've been covering this sort of thing and abortion broadly now for a couple of years. And it just astounds me how much misinformation is out there and is spread oftentimes it seems intentionally by media outlets and by people who call themselves reporters. And the average person just doesn't know.

And so I think when you have Democratic senators standing on the floor claiming that this is an attack on women's health care, it's going to be portrayed like that by a lot of media outlets or just totally ignored and brushed under the rug. And I think the average person doesn't know the difference, unfortunately. This is a, you know, third trimester abortion, I believe, is 80 to 14 against when when polled in the American public. And it's such an unpopular position to keep extending as Democrats tend to do. And I'm sure Republicans are putting them in the position to defend this intentionally because of that polling. But, I mean, I can't think of anything on the other side where Republicans are supposedly won over by special interests and are supportive. something that only 14% of the population agrees with. I mean, is Planned Parenthood that, that powerful?

I mean, it just seems, it seems almost self-defeating to go after these bills, unless I guess maybe you have the backing of the media to cover each step of your tracks. Yeah, I think that they're just banking on the fact that no one's ever going to know the difference. And I think with Planned Parenthood, not only is it about, you know, the huge amount of money in the abortion lobby that gets poured into the Democratic Party, but it's also about the fact that fact that these groups then go out and lobby heavily against you. And if you vote against or vote in favor rather, something like the Born Alive bill, you're going to be cast as an anti-choice extremist. And I think Democrats feel like they can't afford to take that risk.

What do you think is in the in the future? What does the future hold for the Democratic Party if they can take this extreme of a view plus say the the days of the free market and capitalists are numbered and we will be a socialist nation. What is in the wings that they haven't said that is in their heart that they will do? Oh, man. I mean, who knows what they'll come up with? They've been astounding me now for the last year. Just every day has surprised me with their new extremism.

But I think on abortion, I'm trying to be a little bit hopeful at least, and I've been looking at polls for a really long time. And the latest poll I saw just out yesterday now shows that, 47% of Democrats call themselves pro-life, which is a double-digit leap from just last month. And I think, you know, the tide is shifting on this issue, especially among younger Democrats. So that's where hopefully, hopefully they can turn it around maybe in time. I have a feeling we are going to ban abortion in my lifetime, and I think it could be in the next 10 years. I think there is a massive shift, and I think they've overplayed their hands.

I've been looking at the Labor Party with the anti-Semitism and the, and the communism embrace over in England. And in the last few weeks, we've had seven Labor Party members leave the Labor Party. That would be like, you know, seven in the Progressive Caucus leaving and saying, these guys are crazy. When do you think the, not talking about Washington, but the average Democrat who is not a crazy, not a socialist, not a baby killer, when do you think or do you think they will hit hit a point where they say, I can't be with these people anymore. I mean, I used to be a Democrat,

but if this is what a Democrat is, I'm not with these people. You know, I would think that we would have reached that point with the Born Alive Bill, which is why it's hard to really know for sure where we're going to go from here. But I do think if public opinion polls keep shifting like this, they're going to start paying an electoral cost for being so extreme. And I don't know, you know, I'm glad you're hopeful. I'm not sure how soon it'll be. But I do think over time, science really does back up the pro-life position. Yeah. Alexander, thank you so much. The best of the Glenn Beck program.

This is the Glenn Beck program. We're just talking about the vote that is coming down today, another big crossroads for America to decide what is right. My heart is with the president wanting to build a wall, but my head is dead set against an emergency act, only because you're a he's not going to be able to finish it is going to be tied up in court and you only maybe maybe you get 10 miles out of it but then you have violated the constitution and given the democrats who they will don't get me wrong i believe they'll take it anyway

i believe they'll try it anyway but we have no leg to stand on if we set a precedence um we we can hope and pray that that the courts will stop an emergency act on taking away your guns, taking away your money for global warming. What's the other one they've said they want to do? There's three of them. It's global warming and health care. Yeah.

I mean, guns is going to be the hardest one because you have a constitutional amendment that would theoretically prevent at least extreme action. But the climate? I mean, they've got tons of stuff they can do on that one. You know, all the drilling gains, for example, that Trump has, you know, he's been able to do ANWR and several other things that previous presidents had not been able to accomplish. That all goes away the second, the Democrat gets in office because they will just now do it with national emergency. And, you know, again, you're getting so little out of this, you know, people are like, well, you know, I want to get the wall up. Well, let's just say, theoretically, if you got the full wall, the way it was supposed to be built and promised to be built, you know, you can make an argument, maybe it's, you know, you can make an argument.

maybe it's a tradeoff you'd be excited about. They're not going to get any more close to that because it's going to be tied up in court. And the other thing, too, is we act as if these walls are permanent structures. I mean, terrorists took down the twin freaking towers. They will use environmental or border or whatever. They'll say there's a humanitarian emergency on the border

because we're blocking all these people with the wall they put up and they'll knock that thing down in a week. I mean, it's like it is just not worth. it and also just not right. I mean, it's not constitutionally correct, in my opinion. It's also not what the law was intended to do. I think people need to understand how close we are to losing our country. We are truly perhaps one election or one disaster away. We don't have the right person in office for a real national emergency. World War III, your freedoms are going away. if we just elect the wrong socialist next election,

if the economy falls apart and Donald Trump isn't just absolutely perfect and the Democrats happen to catch a wave of some sort, you have a socialist and perhaps a giant radical leading this country. That changes us forever. It changes us forever. we're that close to the precipice. I want to play something that happened in England to a guy who was just peacefully speaking about the Bible in London

and a police officer approached. Now, the guy was preaching in the public square and he had a Bible and he was quoting the Bible and a preacher comes up to this new immigrant. from Jamaica. Listen. I am preaching. You are preaching. I'm going to require you to go away.

You can never. Okay, then I'll bring you for a breach of peace. What breach of peace is what you're doing at the moment? You're causing problems. You're disturbing people's days and you're breaching their peace. Okay, so to meet with that. If you won't go away voluntarily, we will have to arrest you. I will not go away because I need to tell them the truth.

Because Jesus is the only way. The truth. Jesus is the only way, the truth and the life. I appreciate that. Nobody wants to listen to that. They want you to go away. Nobody wants to listen to that. You were listening when you are dead.

You would listen when you are dead. You would listen. Now they grab the handcuffs. And they start to arrest him. Don't take my Bible. And they take his Bible. And they take his Bible. And he just peacefully says, please don't just.

Fine, just don't take my Bible away. Please don't take my Bible away. This is something, if you see this video, is like from some dystopian futuristic movie that you hate. That's England. And soon we'll be here. Will Moll, writer from Faithwire. How you doing, Will?

Hi, Glenn. How you doing? Good. I know you've been following this in England. Tell us what's going on. Yeah, it's a crazy, crazy story. I mean, it popped up on Twitter the other day, this video, and looking into it, it was very clear that really this guy who was preaching had done actually nothing wrong. He was just expressing himself is just basically preaching to people who had listened when they're walking past.

It's done nothing wrong with it until, wasn't threatening anybody. And the police were called, actually spoke to the Metropolitan Police about it, They said to me that the police were called because he was supposedly being Islamophobic. Now, that was quickly denied a few minutes later because clearly he wasn't being Islamophobic at all. That was just hearsay. And the police officers, they said, didn't hear him being Islamophobic. So he was basically just preaching. And clearly the officers, and there were a few people gathered around who weren't best pleased with him,

and the officers kind of took their side and decided, actually, we don't want you here anymore. So the, as you can see in the video that you just said, the officer effectively said that he was breaching the peace, which he wasn't. I mean, he wasn't inciting violence. He wasn't doing anything illegal under the law. So he said, well, you're breaching, you know, people's peace who are walking past. You're causing disturbance at a day, and nobody wants to hear it, basically. So that was an interesting comment. And so then he basically marched him off.

He arrested him and marched him off, which was completely unnecessary. I actually only came out today that he, they affected all. The police told me that they then took him down to the station, realized they couldn't charge him with anything, realized they'd done nothing wrong and de-arrested him was the phrase they used. De-arrested. And let him go. Yeah, I'd never heard that one. You know what's amazing to me, Will, is here in America, we just had these radical preachers

preaching hatred, preaching race riots. and they were on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and innocent kids are listening to it they're blamed for causing, breaching the peace, if you will, being racist. And nobody said anything about the preachers who were just absolutely vile, but you don't have freedom of speech in England.

No, well, what we do in some senses, we have a freedom of expression, the European Convention on Human Rights, which is part of the UK Human Rights Act in 1998. that should give us a sense of freedom of expression, particularly. And obviously there are the laws that govern how you behave in the public square. If you're inciting hatred or violence, then that's legislated upon, and that can be illegal.

But it was clear that he wasn't doing this at all. He was basically just expressing himself, putting out an opinion in the public square, and there was absolutely no grounds to arrest him at all. So, yeah, and I mean, there's another interesting aspect in that the police officer, You can actually hear him in the video after he snatches the Bible away from him, which is just a horrible thing. And he says, oh, please don't take my Bible away. He says, well, you should have thought about that before you were being racist. And I asked the police about this.

They actually didn't get back to me on this particular point, because I said, you've just told me that actually there was no Islamophobia. There was no racism that he was projecting on anybody. The police officers didn't hear any racist remarks. So what's that about? What's that about? Why is the police officer suddenly accusing him being racist? So they didn't have an answer for me on that one. And it's amazing these were two white officers talking to a black Jamaican about being racist.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. So the outrage has been pretty big in the UK, particularly amongst quite a lot of clergy. There's quite a few people, senior Christian leaders in the UK, who've wanted to see more from the Archbishop of Canterbury and a few other people to actually speak out on this guy's behalf. I did actually hear today that the guy in question the preacher, he was eventually de-arrested, as the METI said, and then dropped off somewhere, and he actually had no money on him, so he basically didn't know what to do and where to go. But then they said that someone helped him out, and he ended up actually going back to Southgate Station, North London, and continuing on preaching. So that's good on him, I'd say.

Wow. What is the, what's the health of the, of Great Britain now? I mean, we, yesterday in America, we, we actually had half of the Senate refused to vote on saving children's lives after they're born. And refuse to call that infanticide and force doctors to take care of a living baby outside of the wool. boom. I'm shocked with what we're going through, and because I know God is just, I am gravely concerned about the health of my country. What is it a health, what direction is it moving over there, spiritually? Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, I think that we are in, we are in dire straits in many

ways spiritually. I think there's a lot of issues being raised by Christians and by Christian leaders, So then there's lots of issues that are just being passed by the wayside. I mean, he talked about abortion, and the UK, well, in Northern Ireland, it's slightly different, but in the UK, in the mainland, the abortion laws, since the 60s, have been incredibly liberal, and there's over 300,000 abortions every year in the UK. And that seems to have just taken a real backseat in terms of what issues are actually important to Christians or to the people who are in the public square and in the public eye as Christian leaders. And then, of course, you see these situations where you think are religious freedom and freedom of speech,

just in a general sense, it's just being whittled away, and no one bar a few smattering to people on social media who are outraged by it. And there's not a vast outrage at all. It just seems to be becoming more and more normal. And that's partly why I think we picked up on it and said, of made a thing about reporting on it because I think it's just so vital that we do that. But there's just a sort of passiveness, I think, in the UK, which is just very dangerous. And over time, that can become the normal. You know, those sorts of incidents can just become very normal and we don't even realize it anymore.

We don't see any, we don't see any Democrats here leaving the Democratic Party, no matter how extreme they go, anti-Semitic or, you know, death, you know, with the abortion embrace. We don't see the Democrats leaving, but do I read this as a good sign that you've had seven Labor Party leaders leave the Labor Party because they've gone too far? Yeah, absolutely. The anti-Semitism stuff has been sort of brewing under surface for a quality few months. And a lot of Labor politicians getting very, very just frustrated with Jeremy Corbyn and his inability to address that head on and actually take responsibility for it. So they've defected, and then there's obviously some conservative MPs have defected as well. No one's quite sure about that independent party and what that's actually going to look like in the future. But it is definitely, I think, an encouraging sign that at least politicians on both sides are actually saying,

we're not happy with this, and particularly the anti-Semitic stuff was horrendous, and the Labour Party didn't deal with it properly. So it's good to see principled politicians actually come out of the woodwork and standing up for things. but I'd say it's still a long way to go on that front. Will, thank you so much for talking to us about this. Will stay in touch. Will Moll. He's a writer for Faithwire.

You can find him at M-A-U-L-E underscore Will. You can follow him at Twitter. Also find him at faithwire.com. The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand.