Glenn Beck (21:48)
But listen to what he says. Go ahead. Mayor Fry, do you have it? And we're in a position right now where we have residents that are asking the very limited number of police officers that we have to fight. ICE agents on the street to stand by their neighbors. We cannot be at a place right now in America where we have two governmental entities that are literally fighting one another. Amen. Why are we put in this position? We're put in this position because we have approximately 600. You. We doesn't matter who's put you in this position. You don't do it. You don't do it. And at least he was saying. But you'll notice that he was couching this with, hey, they want. People in Minnesota want the police to join in and fight. But we, We. We understand why you feel that way. We understand, but we can't. And you can see it in the face of the police chief thinking like, you are outta your mind. What are you doing? Okay. The Federal Immigration Enforcement ice. The operation in Minnesota. An ICE agent was attacked two days ago with a shovel and a broom handle by multiple suspects. He was carrying out an arrest. He responded in defense of his life, shot one of the guys in the leg. The men have since been identified as illegal immigrants. What a surprise. From Venezuela. The first one was from Venezuela. The second one was from Venezuela, but the third one was from Venezuela. And they were beating the ICE officer. Now, who arrested them? Did the police come and arrest? Because that's the police job. That is the police should have been there and said, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. We have this under control. You're under arrest. Taken them in, and then by law, according to the Insurrection Act. It wouldn't have been a problem if they would have said, we're not cooperating with ice. We're not going to turn them over to ice. Might be a problem for you and me, et cetera, et cetera. But my understanding from reading the Constitution, they cannot participate, but they can't actively thwart, okay, they can't get involved and thwart and work against the United States government. And once there is violent attacks on any federal agents, once the federal government cannot carry out its federal duty because the court system or the system of the police or the governor is thwarting them and actually obstructing them, then you have insurrection. Okay? Imagine if you are standing in the middle of a crowd and you're chanting, block the feds. Stop them at all costs. That's what's happening on the streets. Except it's going beyond speech. It's not a peaceful protest. Real people are physically interfering with federal agents conducting sanctioned enforcement actions. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of petition means peaceful. Once you start actively engaging, that's out the window. Then you layer on top of that the actions of the state leadership from the governor and everybody else. It seems like they're encouraging all of this stuff, not condemning any of this stuff. You've got a real problem. So the. The perspective of the President and his advisors, there comes a point when the rule of law is under threat. When you have federal agents being attacked while attempting apprehensions, crowds that have repeatedly thrown objects at officers, causing internal injuries, other kinds of injuries as well, local officials unwilling or unable to assert state authority against that behavior, Then you can argue that ordinary law enforcement and all of its mechanisms no longer are sufficient to preserve order and protect the federal officers doing their duty. That is precisely when many constitutional lawyers say the Insurrection act, it. That's what it was designed for, designed to be invoked not because people don't have a right to protest. They do. Not because they don't have a right to disagree with policy. You absolutely do, and I will fight shoulder to shoulder with you for that. But because the machinery of law enforcement is being repeatedly obstructed and federal officers are being targeted in the performance of their duty. That's what the Insurrection act is for. So the president, in a statement, framed this not as a vendetta, but as a defense of legitimate authority. We have people that need to be rounded up. We have people that are here they're dangerous, they're illegal. They need to be taken out of the country. That is the federal government's job to do that. And the. The state is thwarting it. They're also thwarting it because they're trying to get away with massive fraud. So if the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don't obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionist from attacking the patriots of ice. This is what he said yesterday, who are only trying to do their job, then we, yes, will institute the Insurrection Act. The framing matters because it shifts the question from can the people protest? To who upholds the law when that law is being resisted. And before you say this is a peaceful protest, it is not a peaceful protest. There are documented cases, lots of them, of assaults. Watch the news. Well, depending on who you're watching, look for the tape. It's everywhere. Okay? And if that isn't the threshold to bring in the Insurrection act, if that's not the way we pull it in. Well, if that's not what they had in mind, and I don't know what to do. I mean, they gave the President extraordinary power to preserve civil authority. The same constitutional logic that says a governor cannot lawfully encourage or tolerate organized opposition to a federal enforcement. Just as the President cannot stand idly by when federal officers are attacked. That tension between order and chaos, between lawful protest and violent obstruction, is exactly the kind of crisis the interact the Insurrection act written to address. And in the face of escalating violence and political obstruction, some would argue it has to be considered, if only to protect the rule of law. Who protects the law? Who protects the Constitution? Look, it was an insurrection. That's what they keep calling it on January 5th or 6th or whenever it was, you know, up at Capitol Hill. Would they have let that go on for days and days and said that was just. That was. That was nothing but a peaceful protest? Of course not. And I wouldn't have either. It wasn't. It wasn't. When you have people beating cops, when you have people breaking windows, you have to stop it immediately. The President was the one who said, where's the National Guard? But the left didn't want the National Guard there because they wanted that act of insurrection. You wouldn't have done it for January 6th and you shouldn't do it now. That's my opinion. That's the President's opinion. But let me make a strong case for the other side. Same situation here. Let's go through before we cross a line that we. We can't Uncross. Let's slow down. Not politically, not emotionally. Now, let's look at things constitutionally, okay? Because the Insurrection act is not just a tool in the toolbox. It is one of the most extreme domestic powers a president can wield short of martial law. And once you normalize this use, you don't get to decide who uses it next or for what purpose. This is what my fear is. It's going to be used against us, okay? When they get in power, they'll use everything. They don't have these conversations, okay? I respect the Constitution. You do too. So we have to be very, very careful. Federal agents have been assaulted, and that is real. That's serious. And those responsible should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted to the full, full extent of the law. But here's the question that matters. Is this an insurrection? I won't. I'm just going to give you the opposite side here. Or is it just criminal violence within a functioning civil order? Because they're not the same thing. An insurrection is not defined by anger. It's not defined by even shocking violence. It is defined by the collapse of civil authority. When the courts in the state can no longer function, when the police will not enforce the law, and when the state itself has ceased to govern, that's what has to happen. You know, the. The Shays rebellion, this is around the turn of, you know, the beginning of our country. It was because, I think was Massachusetts, the court system was being attacked. Nobody would let the courts make any of the decisions. And so the federal government had to come in and put that down. Is this Minnesota today? Because the courts are open, the police are operating and arrests have been made. State institutions, however flawed, however political, still exist and are still functioning. So that matters, because the Insurrection act was designed for moments like the Civil War, when states are. And here's. Here you go again. Here's your really thin line. When states openly defy federal court orders during. They did it during desegregation and moments when the law itself had failed, what you're seeing now, is it the absence of law, Is it conflict within the law? A governor can oppose federal policy. A state can sue the federal government, believe people can protest, even loudly, even angrily, as long as it doesn't become a rebellion. The Constitution doesn't require obedience to federal policy. It requires obedience to federal law. And disagreement must be settled in court, not by force. Now, here's the really dangerous part. If we redefine insurrection to meet violent resistance by individuals combined with political opposition by state leaders, then we're seeing A standard that will be used again by somebody else or for something else. Because once the threshold becomes the President believes the state leadership is encouraging a resistance, then federal troops can be sent in for gun rights protest, environmental riots, labor strikes, you know, campus unrest, election related demonstrations, all justified by the same argument. Local leaders are not doing enough. We are facing some of the toughest decisions that we will face in our American life as civilians. We are going to have to make really tough, principled constitutional decisions. This is not a conservative principle. It is not a limited government principle. That is not an American first principle, that executive power is unmourned, unmoored from restraint. Yes, the attackers are illegal immigrants. Yes, they're committed to violent crimes. Yes, ICE agents must be protected. But criminal violence, even organized criminal violence, violence has always been handled by law enforcement, not the military. So if the answer to violent crime becomes federal troops in American cities, then we have quietly accepted something the founders feared above all else. A standing army enforcing domestic order at the discretion of a President. And once that door opens, it doesn't close neatly. The President I think is right about the danger and he might be even right about the negligence. He may be right about the politics. But the Constitution does not ask whether he is right. It he, it asks whether civil authority has collapsed. And if we evoke the Insurrection act before the collapse has occurred, then the greatest casualty will not be order, it will be precedent. I want you to think about this now. I have the answer from George AI, which is from all of the founding documents. And, and I think you might be amazed at what they said, what, what it predicted they may have done based on their writings in the 1700s and early 1800s. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. We are four days away from the fundamental transformation on how I treat the whole Pam Bondi situation. Four days away on the 20th of January, which is the one year anniversary of the President coming in, I said I give everybody a year. I wanted to see some real serious prosecutions. If it doesn't happen within the first year, I'm going to have some real serious questions. And I've got real serious questions. And we're four days away from some of those serious questions. You don't want to miss that show. Four days away. All right, let me look. Do you have any results from the poll yet? We've asked, we've asked the insiders to chime in. Maybe Jason can run in here real quick and get us what the insiders are saying and we'll look at the poll @glenn beck.com. we just ask it real quickly. But I laid out the two, laid out the two sides Insurrection act. And I, you know, Jonathan Turley just wrote last night that he believes that the President does have the authority. I believe the president has the authority. But I want to be really careful and not emotional about this. I don't want to do it out of anger or anything else. I want to make sure that we are very, very careful on all of these things. But I think if you look at, I mean, the country is, it's under attack. It is under attack. This is a color revolution that is going on and is well documented and all of these people are involved in it. And this is just their way of furthering a color revolution. And part of that is to claim is to create such chaos. So you can claim, because you have control of the media and the educational system and everything else that you can claim. See, this is a fascistic dictator. There he's got to go. That's the whole end of a color revolution. Create enough chaos. So the government must make moves that appear to be fascist. This is not a fascistic move. This is a constitutional move to protect. So tell me what the insiders are saying on this.
