BLOG

Ben Shapiro on School Safety: ‘We Should Be Guarding Our Kids’ the Way We Guard Banks

In the wake of the latest school shooting, liberals only seem interested in gun control. Why is discussing school security and other bipartisan solutions controversial?

On today’s show, Ben Shapiro listed some ways to help keep students safe, discourage shooters and potentially prevent the next tragedy – all without eroding our Second Amendment rights. Liberals have turned the gun debate into a “moral push” even though we should be able to find bipartisan, commonsense solutions like these:

  • The media should stop publicizing the shooters’ names and faces and giving them infamous celebrity, something that encourages future school shooters.
  • Lawmakers should consider measures that let family and close friends petition to have someone’s gun rights suspended if there is enough evidence that they are dangerous.
  • Schools should increase their security, whether it’s through fences or more armed personnel.

“We should be guarding our kids the same way we’re guarding our banks,” Shapiro said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Editor-in-chief of the daily wire, Ben Shapiro.

Hello, Ben, how are you?

BEN: Hanging in there. How are you?

GLENN: Good.

Has anybody followed your lead on not giving the name of the shooter?

BEN: Not so far as I'm aware. So we over at The Daily Wire have taken up the policy in the last week and a half after Parkland of not turning the name or face of the shooter on our website.

I'm not aware that anybody else in the mainstream media have done that. We're not the first to the ballgame, of course. There are other outlets that have done that before.

But I am surprised that the same media that proclaims that every law-abiding gun owner in the country has to give up their rifle, is -- is happy to show continually on a loop the name and face of the shooter, when there are many studies suggesting that mass shooters actually thrive on the sort of publicity. It drives actually more common mass shootings.

GLENN: So, Ben, we are totally unhinged now from facts.

The CNN town hall debate last week was grotesque. And they still don't get it.

I mean, I think it would do a great service to CNN and a Jake Tapper, if they would just come out and say, you know what, having that crowd there was a horrible idea. Horrible idea.

Would you agree?

BEN: Totally agree. I mean, I thought it was Orwell's HEP -- I thought it was just a show trial for gun owners. I thought it was a show trial for the NRA.

And, you know, I know Jake. I like Jake. I think Jake does a good job, when he tries.

GLENN: Me too.

BEN: But I think that that -- I told him this, I thought that was a great injustice. I thought it was just a great injustice.

I thought the entire event was a setup from the start. Jake was not a moderator. Jake allowed the students to go up there and browbeat people like Senator Rubio, one of the students suggesting that when he looked at Rubio, it was like looking at the barrel of the gun of the shooter, which is just an insane statement to make publicly. And the crowd cheered that because it was more of a bang mob than it was an actual crowd of people considering possible arguments.

I understand passions are high. But that's the whole point of being in the news business. I mean, passions are high a lot of places. But there's a selective decision that's being made by news outlets as to which sorts of town halls are set up like this.

I mean, as I said at the time, I don't remember CNN doing a town hall in Texas on the border about illegal immigration after some high-profile killing of somebody by an illegal immigrant.

GLENN: No.

BEN: With all the members of the community. Of course they wouldn't do that. Because they would say, this isn't newsworthy. It's not newsworthy that people are passionate and upset after a shooting.

What's newsworthy is the argument that actually happens on the basis of reason and decency. And both of those things have completely fallen away are. And instead, CNN has decided to put on a particular set of students.

And there are a bunch of students who go to that school. I mean, there are thousands of students who go to that school. I know at least one of them who is a Second Amendment advocate who is not being booked every single day on CNN. The ones who are booked every day on CNN are, of course, these small group of students that you've seen their faces plastered all over the media, Emma Gonzalez and Cameron Cassty and HEP David Hog, and you know their names. You don't know the names of any of the people who were killed. But you know the names of these kids who are on TV the last two weeks, spouting gun control and suggesting folks like Dana Loesch, who we both know and like and are friends with, that people like Dana are actually uncaring about the death of children, which is just the sickest form of demogoguary. I mean, I've been calling that out since Piers Morgan. I hate that so much, this routine where we disagree on policy and therefore we don't get care if kids get killed. It's disgusting.

GLENN: Well, you could make the case that we care about kids getting killed in larger numbers than what is happening now. The greatest mass shootings in all of history come from out-of-control governments. And that's why we have the Second Amendment. To sit here and say we don't care about kids being shot, we absolutely do care about that. But we also care about protecting the freedoms of children and the children that haven't even been born yet.

BEN: That's exactly right. It's also true that even if you were to put aside the arguments on the founding level for the Second Amendment, you're telling me that in this particular case, the FBI failed twice. They were told specifically twice about the shooter by name, and they did nothing. The local law enforcement had at least 45 calls according to CNN from the shooter's house, including the shooter himself calling the police on himself, a few months ago. And they did nothing. And then we had an armed deputy on -- was present with a handgun. And we're now being told by the media, of course, that a handgun could never go up against a rifle. Which is just an insane contention that is completely meritless, as anyone who has ever fired a gun knows. And then they're telling us that all these law enforcement bodies failed, but we have to give up our guns.

So just to get this straight. My self-defense now rests on me giving up my guns to a bunch of people who will do nothing if somebody threatens me with a gun. So even on the most basic self-defense level, why in the world would I possibly give up my rights to keep and bear firearms, when the authorities aren't even keeping me safe? I mean, according to the Lockian HEP bargain, this is like their only job. Their only job is to protect life, liberty, and property. And they didn't do any of those things. They're not protecting life obviously. They didn't in Parkland. They're not protecting liberty because they want to seize my liberty and not protect my life. And they're not protecting the property of the school.

GLENN: Ben, where do you think this goes?

Because we all know that another shooting is going to happen. Because we're not taking care of the real issues. We're not even willing to -- you know, I was talking yesterday about, you know, they'll take and send the police for, you know, a third grader, who is brandishing a second degree lookalike firearm, otherwise known as a finger gun, and yet we cannot have a conversation -- they'll say, that's leading to violence. And we can't have a conversation about our culture, about the violent nature of our culture. The violent nature of our movies. The video games that our kids are deeply entrenched in. I'm not saying I want to ban any of that or anything else. But we can't even have a conversation about it.

It's all about control over you and any way of you defending yourself. So where do we go from here?

Because half of the country is dead set on that, it seems.

BEN: Yeah. I think it's going to be hard to go anywhere. Again, the entire premise of this conversation has become, you hate children. And you can't have a conversation with someone when they're screaming you hate children. How are we supposed to any sort of agreement about that?

I think there are things that could be done. I mean, I've suggested a bunch of things I think would be effective. Not only HEP faces, but I think that David French has proposed gun violence restraining orders, which is a bunch of basically your family members and close friends can go to a court and petition to have your gun rights temporarily suspended if the court finds you mentally incompetent or a danger to yourself or others. That seems like a decent idea to me.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BEN: There's been talk about -- strong advocate of better security in schools. I went to a private school. And actually, my private school was nearly targeted by a mass shooter. Drove past our private school, targeting -- it was a Jewish school. Targeting the Jewish school. He saw there were armed guards. Or at least, he thought they were armed. He kept driving. He drove over to the West Valley HEP JTC, and shot that place up instead. That's because our school had hard security barriers, it had a certain number of security guards per number of students. There's bomb threats in our school every so often. Nobody at that school has ever been shot or killed on premises at least.

And it seems to me that we should be guarding our kids the same way that we guard our banks. All of this stuff I would assume should get wide agreement across the spectrum because it's relatively uncontroversial, that we should be protecting our schools in a better way. But the left doesn't want to discuss any of those things. Which demonstrates that there really is an agenda here, and the agenda has a lot less to defending schools and defending kids, and it has to do with a generalized gun control push that the left likes to engage in. And more importantly, the moral push that you are a bad human being if you disagree with them. Because again, this is what the Obama administration, in the early years, they had 60 votes in the Senate. They had the House. And they did nothing on gun control. Nothing. Because they knew the American people didn't want it.

And then as soon as the Republicans took back the house, suddenly it turned into, well, let's talk about gun control every single day and why Republicans are obstructionists, which says to me that this is a lot more about politicking than protection.

STU: Is their motivation to essentially get their base fired up. You're coming up to an election. They want all this new money coming in. And they don't necessarily want this money solved. (?) they don't have the argument anymore to take to their base.

BEN: Yeah, I think there's definitely some truth about that. I'm not going to say that their motive is awful and they don't care about kids. Or anything like that. (?) in the same way when they had the power to do so, because it was a valuable political tool for them, I think (?) if they do, number one, it's not going to stop the mass shootings. It's not going to. Not a single element they've proposed is going to minimize (?) which they proclaim they don't want. And so they would rather engine engine up the base for the elections. (?)

GLENN: So we are either going to revive the enlightenment, or we are going to tie in darkness. Which one wins?

BEN: You know, I'm -- I'm with you on this. I think the enlightenment -- there -- it's become a controversial proposition to say things like, use your reason instead of your emotion. And stem cell the truth instead of (?) and if those controversial propositions, we're in serious trouble. There are some of us who are obviously trying to fight back against us. There are some of us (?) I think one of the great debates that's happening right now, inside even the group of us that are pro-enlightenment is what roots have to be restored. Can you just (?) without restoring respect for Judeo-Christian values and thought. Can you just take the cherry on top of the Sunday. And then leave aside the religion and leave aside the (?) relearn all those things. That's right now happening among people on the right and the left. It's a debate that I think is happening between people like Jordan Peterson and Steven pinker, for example. But there must be (?) broad agreement that (?) I don't think there's even broad agreement that we're trying to get enlightenment mentality.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm reading Steven pinker's book right now. He is really -- you know, he makes a lot of good points. But the guy just does not like religion at all, to put it mildly.

And I -- you know, I think we dismiss rel because of its ills. And we -- we fail to recognize that it's set up for the very first time a real civil society, where we -- where we're able to search for truth.

BEN: 100 percent. I mean, this is one of my great critiques of pinker's book. (?) in a very substantial way. Not because I disagree with him about the value of reason. But that I think he has -- the materialist atheist movement has fundamentally undercut a lot of the contentions that they're seeking to support. You have an entire book by Pinker (?) enlightenment thinking. And that neglects 3,000 years of history. (?) can you actually rip away the (?) on the one hand and Greek thought on the other, just take those away. And suddenly the superstructure is supposed to stand. He'll talk about reason. He'll talk about the value of reason. He'll talk about the value of enlightenment. And not once in the entire book does he mention the revolution.

Well, you can't do that. If you're not going to mention the (?) French revolution. If you're not going to mention the progressives of the early 20th century. If you're not going to mention the risks that came along with the enlightenment, an alignment on traditional values and Greek (?) the notion that the universe has a purpose, that we can discover as individual human beings. If you remove all of that, then people (?) they think is based on reason pretty quickly. And that I think is what Pinker neglects. And and I think it's a problem for him. (?) we are balls of floating meat with no free will.

GLENN: That is exactly the case, as I understand it, that Nietzsche was making, when he said in a God was dead. Well, then who becomes God? What man -- and that was the beginning of this whole collective idea that led to mass murder.

BEN: Totally agree. And I think that, again, Pinker (?) what he fails to recognize is that Nietzsche was making a diagnosis, Nietzsche wasn't making a recommendation. And Nietzsche was looking at the enlightenment mentality, which said, we are smarter (?) and we've come up with our own reason, and that reason is going to die with us. The cult of reason was actually a cult in the French Revolution. The first official state rev (?) was the cult of reason. The goddess of reason. And, of course, that immediately devolves into people chopping their heads off.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

BEN: I'm all for reason. I love reason. The reason has to be undergirds. (?) that can either be found through nature and nature's God. Or it can be found in the revelatory dictates of violence by a religion.

GLENN: Thank you, Ben.

Ben Shapiro, the editor-in-chief of the daily wire.

The CRAZIEST Baltimore Key Bridge Collapse Theory Yet???
RADIO

The CRAZIEST Baltimore Key Bridge Collapse Theory Yet???

It didn’t take long for people to cry foul when a cargo ship crashed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge and knocked it down. But while there’s still no hard evidence of a cyberattack or terrorism, Glenn, Pat, and Stu have another … weirder … theory: Has anyone seen Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg lately? Because there have been A LOT of transportation-related tragedies under his watch …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the bridge, Stu has a theory on this -- this Baltimore bridge collapse.

STU: I do not. I would not say I have a theory at all. I'm just saying, look, it wouldn't make any sense for this to be a terrorist attack the way it happened. 1:30 in the morning. Like, why would you do it that way?

Maybe you would argue, it was some sort of a test run.

PAT: Or just to disrupt our infrastructure.

STU: I don't know. But it doesn't seem like it will be that serious, in that. These places are able to -- it doesn't seem like. Like all the reporting is, they're able to reroute to other ports.

I mean, it has to affect Baltimore pretty seriously. Obviously, traffic will be affected. If you're going for a major terrorist attack. First of all, 1:30 in the morning is a weird time for it. And, of course, the warnings from the ships and all these other things.

Beyond that, I'm looking at a broader picture here. And I'm -- again, I'm not saying this. What I want you to know, I'm not saying this.

PAT: Okay. What are you not saying?

STU: I'm not saying that Pete Buttigieg individually, is going to each one of these things and -- like unscrewing Boeing doors before the plane takes off. I'm not saying he's doing that.

I'm not saying he's loosening tires off of planes. I'm not saying that. That would be incredibly impossible. What I am saying, should we check his house, to see if he has scuba gears. Let's check it out. Why not go into his garage and see, Pat. Maybe he has a couple of -- you know, a couple of -- I don't know.

Rubber suits. That might be for other use. I'm just saying, can we at least check? We should at least know that.

PAT: Maybe he has a Phillips screwdriver or something.

STU: Right. Does he have -- it would just be interesting to know, what type of --

PAT: It would. Yeah.

STU: Underwater diving gear, the man owns. Like, does he happen to have a mini submarine in his garage? That would be something we should know.

PAT: That would be weird.

GLENN: First of all. First of all.

As I said, they always return to the crazy -- the scene of the crime.

So he never shows up after one of these.

He disappears after this.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Have I noticed that?

We never hear him talking about anything transportation. Have you heard him actually, you know, standing in front of a United airliner going, we're going to shut this thing down, until we figure out why the United Airlines keeps losing doors and wheels. And I heard the steering wheel or something, the other day.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Why? Where is he on that?

So he never shows up at the scene of the crime. So that immediately goes. It's also way too much work for him.

PAT: It's true.

GLENN: He would have to learn things, like how to put the mask on. Which I think is beyond his capability. You know, how do I -- the scuba gear goes where exactly. And you don't want to use it after him. After he tries it. I'm just saying, I don't know.

STU: I think, look, there are a lot of reasons to believe that Pete Buttigieg isn't responsible for each one of these things. It would be insane. It would be a crazy development, by all accounts.

GLENN: Yes, it would. Right.

STU: However, how else do we explain this?

PAT: It would be unprecedented, if it were our transportation secretary.

STU: I would agree, you be precedented.

PAT: Never in history, has a transportation secretary sabotaged so much transportation.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Can we look at the bright side, however?

That would be more than any transportation secretary has done probably in the history of transportation. I never know what they do.

STU: This is a good point.

Who knows the name of any other transportation secretary.

Yet, we all --

GLENN: You have chow.

STU: Yeah, Chow was one. And the other one that popped into my head was LaHood. Because back in the day. But not for, hey, he's screwing up all of our infrastructure.

It was like, oh, well, he's sort of a notable figure that occasionally comes up in policy conversations. This guy has overseen disaster movie sequel, after disaster movie sequels since he has this job.

We have American institutions. Boeing is just like, eh, we can't keep planes in the air anymore.

Like, what?

Why? Why has all of this happened under his watch. It's like he's trying. It's like he's Michelman. He's tied to -- we now have more footage to show in disaster movies, because of this guy. Allegedly. I mean, I don't think he is intentionally derailing trains across the country.

It does seem weird, that ever since -- we should look to see if he has a wedge or tools that would allow him to do it.

GLENN: You know, I would say the fact that everything is being derailed, would lead me to believe, that it's not one man.

STU: It's probably not. It's probably not.

GLENN: This is not bad -- the entire -- the entire country is going into a bridge abutment.

STU: That's true. That's true.

PAT: It would explain why we never see him though. Because he's always off skulking into one of these places, loosening some bolt.

STU: It's probably not him loosening bolts. It's probably not. Probably not.

PAT: Probably not.

STU: But wouldn't it be easy to rule it out. Let's toss that -- let's toss the individual possibility, that Pete Buttigieg is flying around the country, disabling our infrastructure.

Let's just rule that one out. It has to be easy to rule out.

PAT: I would feel a lot better. You know, I would. Even though, I understand, it's a --

GLENN: Call his husband. And find out, was he in bed with you, last night, or the night before, when this thing hit the bridge abutment. Just find out.

STU: Just find out. It's an easy one to rule out.

PAT: It did.

STU: Until we rule it out. He should go back on maternity leave.

That's all I'm saying. He shouldn't be employed on this job, as if it's a possibility.

GLENN: Oh, I see what this is. You just want him out as the transportation secretary. You are such a bad man.

PAT: Could that be it?

GLENN: Is it homophobia? Is that what's happening?

STU: It's definitely not homophobia. He can be as gay as he would like to be, while on paternity leave. In fact, I would encourage it. It would be almost odd if he wasn't, right?

But like, what I'm saying is, ever since this guy took this job, we have done show after show after show, out of --

PAT: About disasters.

STU: About transportation infrastructure collapse. What is happening -- like, why not just, either he's individually doing it himself.

Or maybe another possibility, is everything this man touches, gets destroyed like he's Ivan Drago. Maybe that's the thing.

GLENN: I have to tell you. I don't even know if he -- I think this is just -- this is just now four years of absolute incompetence.

The companies are all being distracted. From what they have to do. So they can meet new governmental mandates on bullcrap that mean nothing to any of us.

And this guy. This guy, I don't think he knows what his job is. I really don't.

STU: He seems to be terrible at it.

GLENN: Do you? This has and whenever he's involved in something, tragedies ensue. Again, we talk about these problems. With the border.

I don't know. What do you do? You have to make sure you're closing the border to illegal immigration. Before you're worrying about the immigrants that already cross.

You have to stop the flow. There's a leak. You have to stop the leak. Turn the water off. Then fix. With this. Shouldn't we turn the water off here?

Get this guy away from this thing first.

And then we'll figure out some of the other tails.

Whatever he's bringing to the table, is weighing down the table, and the table is collapsing. Can we do something about it?

GLENN: This is the best entertaining conspiracy theory, that I've heard in the last 24 hours. This is good. This is good.

STU: I don't think -- it would be absurd to picture Pete bite judge in a scuba outfit.

I mean, like, if somebody were to Photoshop that, and give it to us, and put it on Twitter.

That would be silly.

PAT: Irresponsible. Irresponsible.

STU: Irresponsible. He can't possibly do it. Let's confirm he doesn't have the equipment to make it possible.

Let's rule it out now!

GLENN: Have we seen close-up pictures of the American Airlines flight. When it was taking off, losing the tire. Was there a parachute after? Was he up in the wheel of -- as they took off?

Just, you know, like one of those poor Afghans, that were just like, I'm going to go to America. And he's like, wait. I'm not done.

I'll unloose the bolts here. I would like to see a close-up. Was he driving a tanker up Dr. Truck, last June 11th, and left it on I-95, in Philadelphia.

That bridge. When that caught fire.

PAT: Let's see who the driver was.

STU: Let's look. If you have the CCTV footage. You see a little guy scampering from the bridge right after. I would like to know, who is that?

Is that a leprechaun, or is that Pete Buttigieg? I want to know who that is. These are basic questions, we can ask, honestly.

And my goal here is to exonerate Pete Buttigieg.

PAT: Clear! Clear the air.

STU: That's my goal.

GLENN: Well, I don't think -- before you said this, I don't think Pete Buttigieg came up as a suspect.

STU: Hell. It would be so outlandish, right?

PAT: People were afraid to say it. Thank you.

STU: It was.

GLENN: Is that what it was?

PAT: We're saying what everybody was thinking, stupidly.

STU: But other people would say --

GLENN: As Jon Stewart said, saying the things that nobody is thinking. That's what he's doing now.

STU: Right. It could be. It could be. But then other people might say, it's the most logical explanation, that he's just going around and doing it himself. Why else would all of this happen. And that's why I just want to exonerate him. And let him get back to his wonderful family.

PAT: Real considerate of you.

STU: Yeah. And I think too, we should consider. For this particular role, whether paternity leave should only happen after the birth of a child. Maybe it should be like a constant thing.

Like a, whenever you need it, you take it.
Just go ahead. Go on leave. Right now. And maybe take eight to 12 years off.

GLENN: That would be good. Okay.

STU: Just in case, you know.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: These are just possibilities.

GLENN: Pat, thanks for standing and watching the whole thing burn with me. It's been fun.

"I Was Probably Drunk": Alex Jones APOLOGIZES for Calling Glenn Beck a CIA Agent
RADIO

"I Was Probably Drunk": Alex Jones APOLOGIZES for Calling Glenn Beck a CIA Agent

Years ago, InfoWars host Alex Jones accused Glenn Beck of being a CIA agent, and it caused some serious consequences. But in a recent BlazeTV exclusive interview on Pat Gray Unleashed, Alex apologized for the incident, admitting, “I was probably drunk when I said that,” and thanking Glenn for his work over the years exposing the global elites’ plans. Glenn responds to Alex’s apology and reveals the "peace offering" he gave Alex the last time they spoke about their past disagreements.

What We Currently Know About the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse in Baltimore
RADIO

What We Currently Know About the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse in Baltimore

A cargo ship that lost power has crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, causing the entire bridge to collapse. Thankfully, traffic on the bridge was reportedly stopped before the crash. But the incident has many people asking: was this an accident or sabotage? Former assistant Treasury Secretary Monica Crowley, who helped spread the word of the incident, joins the Glenn Beck Program to discuss what we currently know as the search and rescue operation continues.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of my favorites Monica Crowley is with us. She's a former assistant Treasury secretary. My gosh, Monica, how have they trashed that Treasury? They are just looting it like crazy. Anyway, I saw Monica, you post something this morning, and I couldn't believe my eyes. Can you tell us what happened?

MONICA: Yeah. Good morning, Glenn great to be here like always. America is waking up to real tragedy this morning. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, it's a massive span. And for those of us who live in the northeast, Glenn, I can tell you, I have crossed that bridge many a time, going from New York to Washington, and back, right?

GLENN: Oh, I have too.

MONICA: It is a major, major artery in the northeast. And at about 1:30 a.m. Eastern Time this morning, a cargo ship was approaching the bridge. And the video that I posted, which is now everywhere on social media.

GLENN: We're watching it right now.

MONICA: Yes. And it's all over TV as well.

GLENN: Go ahead. Yeah.

MONICA: It is a massive cargo ship. And it's under a flag, so the ship itself is registered in Singapore. And you can see in the video, that it approaches at Scott Key Bridge, and it loses power, Glenn, twice.

Not once, but twice in the moments leading up to its approach to the bridge.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

MONICA: And so, yeah. It -- it -- you can see in the video, it loses power twice. It regains power, but by that moment, Glenn. It's too late. And they can't get away from one of the massive lanes supporting bridge. And the cargo ship goes right into the piling. And the entire bridge collapses like a house of cards. just folds in on itself, right into Baltimore harbor.

GLENN: You know, I noticed, because I watched this video, a couple of times, after you posted it.

And I couldn't believe it was like toothpicks falling apart. When they had -- when you first start watching it. You'll see, the traffic is pretty steady on the bridge.

And thank God, right at the time it collapses, not a lot of cars, if any, were on the bridge. Do you know if there were cars on the bridge?

MONICA: Well, thankfully, if there's any silver lining on this horror show, Glenn, it is 1:30 in the morning. So it's relatively light traffic.

And you can see headlights of cars going both ways. And the moments the cargo ship, hits the bridge.

It looks like very few cars, if any, are on the bridge.

What we're hearing this morning, pardon me. What we're hearing is that two people have already been rescued, God bless. There are at least seven people missing that we know about.

So there is a very active search-and-rescue going on. The Coast Guard is out there. The National Transportation Safety Board is on site. The Navy is there. Navy divers are in the water, and have been there for hours.

And so we hope and pray that any victims that fell into the water in their automobiles and in their trucks, there's at least one semi that we know of, that collapsed into the water with the bridge. Glenn, so we hope and pray, that all of these people, who were part of this unfortunate accident. And at least now, it does look like an accident. And we will wait for the investigation. But we hope and pray that everybody will be rescued, and will be okay.

GLENN: So, Monica, do we know anything about the ship.

Because the first thought is. The power goes out. Then it comes back on. And the poor captain, man, you can see him just trying to turn that ship as fast as he can, when the power goes on. Then it goes out again.

Do we know?

My first thought is, is this some sort of a -- you know, a -- some sort of an attack with -- on electronics. Was there -- is there -- has anybody else thought of that? Or is it just me and my sick, twisted paranoia, I guess?

MONICA: Well, I think that too, Glenn. And we will have to wait for a thorough investigation here, in a lot of different areas.

There's one report that I saw this morning, that indicated that the crew, and apparently there was one pilot and two captains on board. And, of course, an additional crew, which you would expect for a vessel of this size and magnitude, under an international flag. Again, Singapore. And there is one report this morning, that indicates that the crew alerted the Maryland Department of Transportation when they were leaving the port, that they had lost control of the vessel. And again, I don't know how reliable this report is. But it's up on the New York Post website this morning. So, again, I don't know if that report has been vetted. But, you know, most of these vessels now, are under electronic control. Not unlike some of our voting systems. And might very well be -- might very well be open to hacking by nefarious players here.

So, again, we will to have wait and see. I mean, sometimes the cigar is just a cigar. And accidents unfortunately do happen.

GLENN: Right. And I hope that's the case. But with all the cyber terror that is predicted, I just -- you know, I know we're all on high alert for that.

Monica, thank you very much for reporting and calling in. I appreciate it. God bless.

MONICA: Oh, it's my great pleasure, Glenn. Thank you.

GLENN: So we have an update on the bridge collapse. The Fort McHenry Bridge. Very important bridge and port in Baltimore.

Here's the update that is pretty remarkable.

STU: Yeah. Apparently, the ship was able to issue a mayday, and say they were experiencing a power issue. And this enabled transportation officials to halt traffic on the bridge, at the last second.

I mean, if you watch the footage, you can see the cars crossing the bridge as normal, up until the very last second. And all of a sudden, they just stop. And you just kind of assumed, it was a break in traffic.

But, apparently, they knew something was wrong, and were able to stop it. I mean, they must have saved dozens of lives by doing that. So that's an incredible part of the story.

GLENN: These -- these -- yeah. These guys are heroes.

If you're watching TheBlaze right now, we're showing you the bridge collapse. It is absolutely unbelievable.

And you can see how the boat is trying to turn, as sharply as they can. And then the lights -- the lights come back on. They try to steer it away. And then it goes out, at the second time. And it's too late, and the whole thing collapses. It's remarkable.

Jeez. And they've now -- that port is closed. I'm not saying that this is by any stretch of the imagination, other than it reminds me of, the cyber attack on -- I think it was a Navy ship, wasn't it?

That was in the South China Sea. I'm pulling this -- I'm sorry. I have CRC. Can't remember crap.

But it was in the South China Sea. And it -- it lost control. And it made a circle.

And then rammed right into an oil tanker. Clearly controlled by somebody else.

I'm not saying this -- that's what this is. This is probably just mechanical error.

But we have to start thinking about those kinds of things now. Because they're all possible.

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES
RADIO

EVERY Constitutional Right that Biden’s New “Red Flag” Office VIOLATES

President Biden’s Department of Justice has launched a new office to train state and local authorities on how to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who could pose a “threat.” But what does it consider to be a threat? People have already accused this "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center" of violating the Second Amendment. But Glenn believes it may violate a handful more of the Bill of Rights. Glenn reviews how the Department of Justice has sidestepped Amendments 1-6 of the Constitution with this order, along with others.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, you know, I thought we would look at the Constitution. A caller last hour was right on the money. When he said, you know, this center, that can take your gun away, without due process. Yeah. That's -- that's a big one. That's a big one. That's a violation of the Second Amendment. But it's also a violation of many other amendments. I want to go through the -- the -- you know, just the first ten amendments.

Okay?

First of all, do you know how the Bill of Rights came about?

Listen to what they wrote.

This is at the top of the page. Resolved. Resolved by the Senate and the House of representatives of the United States of America. In Congress, assembled. Two-thirds of both houses concurring. That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States. So here's a group of people. Imagine this. Two-thirds, say, we believe these things should be done. But we have to send them to all of the states to ratify, and they need two-thirds to be able to pass it in their states. And then we will need two-thirds of all the states to agree. Okay?

Wow. What a process! And what are they trying to do, get themselves a raise? Give themselves more power? No.

The exact opposite. Here's what they say. The amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures to be valid in all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution.

Articles, in addition to, and amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, ratified by the legislature of several states.

They're saying here, that the -- after the convention, a number of states, having at the time, adopted the Constitution.

This is in the little preamble here. Expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse its power.

So the guys in the government said, I am afraid people will abuse the power and misunderstand the Constitution.

So, quote, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence, in the government. Will best ensure the -- the benefit ends of the institution.

So they're saying, look, nobody trusts the government right now.

Does that sound familiar. Nobody trusts the government right now.

So we want to pass several amendments right here, that will protect the rights. And make sure that the hands are tied of the federal government.

They're saying, these are restrictive clauses. And by telling the people, we will never do these things.

Confidence will be gained. I contend, our -- our problem is, we're no longer unified on these ten articles. We no longer care about them. We no longer learn them. Teach them. Know them.

So here's article one. Amendment number one. Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion.

I contend, we are violating that right now. Because what we are celebrating is a religion.

It has a cult following. It has nothing to do with science.

Or even common sense. It has a tribunal. That will excommunicate you from society. If you don't get involved. It has rituals. It has laws, that you just must accept on faith. I know that's pushing it. But I think they're doing that. They are also breaking the second part of the First Amendment. Prohibiting the free exercise of religion. They did that during COVID. Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. And the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They don't want you standing up. They don't want you standing up. They will do everything they can to make sure you are sitting down. Enough of this Christian nationalist stuff. Enough that. Don't dismiss it. It's real. It's very, very small. But it's real.

So don't call yourself a Christian nationalist. Don't allow yourself to fall into that trap. You might be a Christian. But you are also a constitutionalist. You believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the articles of the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. You believe in all of that stuff. That's all you want.

Article II, a well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the one that everyone should look to, on this particular new center from the Department of Justice. They -- well-regulated militia. Would that make sense? Would it make sense, that the people couldn't have guns? And the federal government would have a huge army? No. In fact, we never had a standing army. We were the soldiers. We would be called up to arms. So you would have your own arms. And then when there was war, you would be called up in a militia. Okay? But you had the right to protect yourself with a gun as well. No. That was for fishing or hunting. Or one of those things. No. It wasn't. No, it wasn't. Article three. I think we can skip over. Well, no. Actually, not. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war. But in a manor to be prescribed by law. So article three, I think you could make the case. I don't think you would win. But you could make the case, that our government is quartered. Soldiers are quartered in our house. Because they are in a public/private partnership. With Amazon. And everybody else.

They are -- they are gaining access to our papers. To our letters. To our emails. To our phone calls.

That's what the government was doing, that made this article important.

The king would say. You know what, find out what those guys are doing over there.

And, you know what, just go into their house. You live there. I will quarter you into their house. So you can spy on them.

Well, it's just in a different way. But that's what's happening. Fourth Amendment. The right of people to be secure in their persons. Do you feel secure in your person?

Houses. Paper. Effects. Against all unreasonable search and seizures. Shall not be violated. It's violated all the time.

We've talked about this many times. How many people have been driving down the street. And they have money in their car. And they were going to buy another car. They will buy it in cash. And they're stopped. Their cash is taken. No due process. I think you're a drug lord. Wait. What?

No warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. This is a general warrant. This is why they -- this is why this is in here. In article four. No warrants shall be -- no warrants shall issue. But upon probable cause. General warrants, used to be, you know, there's something going on with that guy. Go find out.

And they could search for anything. Anywhere. No. No general warrants.

You have to know, and tell the judge, I'm going in, for this document, or this particular item. And I believe it's here!

Great. So the judge will say, you can go there, in their house. And look for it. But no general warrants. You can't occasion you can't go in and just try to find something. No person shall be held to answer for capital. Otherwise, infamous crime, unless the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Except in cases, arriving in the land or Naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war, or public danger. Nor shall any person be subject to the same offense twice, to be put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Without due process of law.

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Those are being violated, but in particular, with this new center, where they can take -- come into your house, and take your guns without due process.

Clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Clear. So you have three of them now. That have been broken just for this one law. Don't tell me I love democracy. Don't tell me you love freedom. Don't tell me you're trying to save the republic, and you love the Constitution if you're violating this many. And we're only halfway through. You're in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

Article six, in all criminal prosecution. The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Has that happened with those who are still waiting for trial for January 6th?

How is it they can -- they have to wait so long?

But Donald Trump has to be done by this summer?

Why is that? Are all men created equal?

Are we -- are we -- are we looking at the people of January 6th?

With the same blind justice eyes, as Donald Trump? No. Of course, we're not.

Violation of the Constitution by an impartial jury of the state and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed.

In partial jury. If you can't get an impartial jury. What do you do?

You can't get an impartial jury, you ask for a change of venue, where you can get an impartial jury. You don't have an impartial jury pool in Washington, DC. You don't. And to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. To be confronted with the witnesses against him. To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and have the assistance of council for his defense.

In this new center that they have announced, you don't get the due process.

You don't get to face the witness. You don't know the cause of accusation.

You have nothing.

On your side.