Mar-a-Lago ruling PROVES you CAN'T get a fair trial in a blue state



A New York court has ruled that former President Donald Trump and some of his children have committed fraud for years, in part by inflating the value of Trump's properties.

Glenn Beck has his doubts about the judge's ruling and thinks that anyone in New York should probably start thinking about getting out. “If I were in New York or I were in Washington, D.C., or any of these blue states, I’d be thinking I should probably leave here because I don’t think I can get a fair trial,” he tells Stu Burguiere.

The judge has claimed that Trump overstated the price of Mar-a-Lago, which he said is worth only $18 million, while Trump claimed it was worth much more.

“He did put probably $100 million into that place, and it is also a legacy property. I mean, it’s not going for $18 million,” Glenn says.

Mar-a-Lago is set on 17 acres of prime waterfront real estate in Palm Beach and includes tennis courts, a beach club, a golf course, a croquet court, and a spa.

Glenn notes that while the property may not actually be worth as much money as Trump says it is, it is surrounded by homes that are worth much more than they should be.

“I don’t know if you can get an apartment for $18 million right on the water,” he says.

Stu agrees.

“I’m just guesstimating here, but I mean, a 4,000 square foot house in West Palm Beach has already gotta be $4 million, $5 million,” he says.

Meanwhile, Mar-a-Lago features 126 rooms and is 62,500 square feet, with both sides on the ocean.

“If anybody is in the market for a really huge, really huge house that also has beachfront property on both sides of it, you might be able to get a deal soon,” Glenn adds.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Horowitz: Anatomy of a ‘CASEdemic’: Over 1,300 reported coronavirus cases at U of Alabama … zero hospitalizations

Several weeks into the new semester, I’m sure most of you have seen the panicked headlines that are bean-counting the number of COVID-19 cases found on college campuses. What you likely did not notice buried under the headlines is that nobody is dying from these cases and very few would even know they had any pathogen if not for the obsession over testing college students and the super-sensitivity of those tests. Yet a virus that is largely less disruptive than seasonal illnesses for young adults is now being used as a pretext to turn colleges campuses into prisons for students.

As of last Friday, the University of Alabama system reported 1,368 positive cases across its three campuses. But here’s the kicker: There has not been a single hospitalization among them. Thus, all the cases have been sub-clinical. What they fail to report is how many of the illnesses even rise to the level of the flu and how many are downright asymptomatic. A "casedemic" is an epidemic that can only be identified by mass testing, because cases are so mild that people don't know they have a virus. It carries no surge in hospitalization or rampant illness.

The New York Times has already reported that up to 90 percent of positive cases in several states are only positive because of the hypersensitivity of the tests, which are picking up viruses that are either already dead or too low in quantity to transmit. That would help explain why we are not seeing any meaningful outbreak of serious illness across any school, camp, or college setting despite frantic headlines about the number of reported “cases.”

The lack of transmission capability in most reported positive cases would also help explain why Dr. Ricky Friend, the dean of the University of Alabama’s College of Community Health Sciences, noted that there was "no evidence of virus transmission due to in-person class instruction." It’s very likely that these PCR tests are picking up viruses that these students contracted several weeks ago in their homes and communities from older adults before the semester began.

Unfortunately, the good news is lost on the leadership of America’s universities. In many ways, the fact that there are many cases, though with no hospitalizations, is more propitious news than finding no cases at all. In the latter scenario, one could always fret over the eventuality of a spread and its potential for destruction. Now that we are actually facing the virus head-on and discovering cases, we are seeing that there is nothing to worry about among young people. Moreover, the cases among college students ensure that they achieve herd immunity earlier and also contribute toward shielding the vulnerable by burning out the virus in this low-risk population.

According to the CDC, not a single college or school-age Alabamian has died from COVID-19. Contrast that to alcohol-related car crashes on college campuses, which often cause close to 2,000 fatalities a year nationwide. Imagine if every college had a dashboard for every drug or alcohol hospitalization or for every case of the flu or other seasonal illness and used those numbers as a pretext for shutting down classes or placing students under de facto house arrest. Imagine if we had mass testing with hypersensitive amplification to check for any pathogen in the body of a college student and then recorded it on a dashboard without any context provided about the severity of the illness.

If the infinitesimal risk of coronavirus is the new threshold for locking down college kids, then we have a generation of young people who will face a growing mental health crisis. The restrictions are so draconian that many colleges have essentially confined their students to dorm rooms and are suspending students for simply living their lives. Imagine the effects of social isolation on kids who left their homes only to be confined within the college campus.

Some of the pictures coming out of college dorms like those at the University of Alabama look like they are depicting a hospital psych ward, which in itself is enough to create a self-fulfilling mental health crisis.

According to a CDC survey, 62.9% of 18-24-year-olds were already experiencing some form of anxiety or depression, while 25.5 percent had considered suicide over the preceding 30 days in late June.

What is going on in this country is an epidemic of coronaphobia, which induces a vicious cycle of intensifying fear and panic inverse to the threat level of the virus itself. Unlike the virus, which appears to be attenuating over time, as well as building herd immunity in the population, the phobia from the virus only gets worse and never achieves immunity. It only perpetuates and exacerbates a mental health crisis that will ultimately cost more lives.

As the president’s new coronavirus adviser, Dr. Scott Atlas, said yesterday, “We are the only country of our peer nations in the Western world who are so hysterical about reopening schools. We seem to be the only country willing to sacrifice our children out of fear.”

RNC blasts Kamala Harris … for not being pro-criminal enough

How much has the GOP changed since 1988? Whereas during the Bush-Dukakis campaign, Republicans ran a “Willie Horton ad,” highlighting the extreme position of Democrats on releasing criminals back onto the streets, now Republicans are attacking Democrats, who have lurched light-years to the left of Dukakis on crime, for not being weak enough on the issue!

Last night, during the Democrat debate in Ohio, the RNC communications teams sent out an email at 9:57 p.m. titled, “RNC Reality Check: Kamala Harris’ record on criminal justice.” California has become a cesspool of crime, with property crimes and rape skyrocketing in recent years since the state adopted the radical Left’s “criminal justice reforms.” But that’s not what Republicans were attacking Harris for. They’re upset that she “fought to keep inmates locked up in overcrowded prisons so they could be used for cheap labor.” They also criticized her for “increasing bail costs” and for defending capital punishment.

Is this some sort of October fool’s joke?

Republicans apparently need to highlight, negatively, the “tough on crime” record of a Democrat candidate way behind in the polls. This illustrates just how far the entire political class has shifted on the issue of public safety. Radical alt-Left Democrats of just a few years ago were to the right of where establishment Republicans are today.

It is simply insane that Republicans would misleadingly highlight Harris’ supposed tougher record on crime at a time when California is facing a resurgence of the 1980s crime wave as a result of the very policies Harris and every other Democrat candidate is now advocating for on national policy. Why in the world wouldn’t Republicans hit all the candidates on being weak on crime, including gun felons, while disarming law-abiding citizens? Who needs Republicans anyway if Democrats are already advocating their pathetic weak-on-crime policies?

Just last week, the American Conservative Union Foundation for Justice, part of the organization that hosts the annual CPAC gathering, referred to criminal justice reform as a “moral issue” that “conservatives need to own.” The problem is that these radical policies have already been implemented, with devastatingly immoral consequences to public safety. It is a moral issue conservatives should own, in exactly the opposite way that the ACU meant.

Keep reading...Show less

Levin on Congress' Trump tweet vote: 'Notice they won't vote on securing the border'

Tuesday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for her attempt to condemn President Donald Trump's tweets as racist from the House floor.

"She's been in the House of Representatives for over 30 years," Levin said. "She's been speaker twice. She was the majority leader, the minority leader. She doesn't know that on the floor of the House, you can't accuse someone of being a racist? But I guess all the rules are out the window when you attack the president of the United States, right? You can do it on TV, on any news network, in any newsroom, so why not do it on the floor of the House?"

Levin pointed out that while the House was put on hold for nearly two hours while the legislative council debated whether or not to condemn Pelosi's comments as unparliamentary, it is much less urgent in handling issues of actual consequence.

"Notice they won't vote on securing the border," Levin said. "They won't vote for physical barriers on the border. But this is what they spend their time doing. ... 'The comments are racist.' Too bad she wasn't as aggressive in talking about Omar, with her outrageous anti-Semitic comments. The president did not make any racist comments. He didn't refer to race once. ... This is the party for infanticide. This is the party that's created the chaos on the border. This is the party that tolerates and in fact celebrates these anti-Semites."

Listen:

Keep reading...Show less

Bozell & Graham: 10,000 Pinocchios from the Washington Post

The liberal subscribers of the Washington Post adored the latest grand ruling from the paper's "Fact Checker," Glenn Kessler. He asserts President Trump has just crossed the threshold of "10,000 false or misleading claims." Kessler did a round of interviews with delighted anchors on CNN and MSNBC.

Everyone knows the president can unload a whopper, like when he recently suggested of wind turbines, "They say the noise causes cancer." But the Post's 10,000 is a Democratic Party talking point, a marketing strategy to build a liberal subscriber base. "Readers begged us" to do this, Kessler said. Of course they did.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared on "CBS This Morning" on April 29, and co-host Norah O'Donnell asked, "Does it matter if he hits back with lies?" She cited the Post count. Gingrich shot back: "I find it hard to take anything The Washington Post writes seriously."

Here's a short list of reasons why he's right.

1. Bias by target selection. Did the Post have a database of former President Obama's false or misleading claims? No. Would the Post have a database of President Hillary Clinton's false or misleading claims if she had won? Don't be ridiculous. These people parse every sentence in Trump speeches, interviews and tweets. They're not doing that for anyone else, especially the Democratic candidates now running for president.

The Post wrote a campaign book in 2016 titled "Trump Revealed" -- for which Trump gave it hours of interview time. Did the Post write a Clinton book? Don't be ridiculous. This is why you can't take the Post seriously as an "objective" source.

2. Nitpicking. Is the Post checking facts or spin? Kessler & Co. fusses that Trump can't say he's building a wall at the border. Trump tweeted a picture of a wall being built. It's clearly a border wall under construction. But Kessler says the money (and the plans) came before Trump, so it's not "his" wall. Kessler also cried false when Trump said he had "nothing to hide" from the Russia probe "but refused to testify under oath." Kessler is spinning, not fact-checking.

3. Bias by multiplying nitpicking times 100. Once the Post throws a Pinocchio rating like the border-wall squabble, every time Trump says we're building the wall, it's counted as a false statement (160 times). Kessler repeatedly threw the false flag when Trump said there was "no collusion" with Russia. Which side was false on that one?

4. Lack of transparency. The Posties have dramatically increased the rate of the "false claims" it is finding. In announcing the 10,000 number, it claimed, "the president racked up 171 false or misleading claims in just three days, April 25 to 27." It admits that's a bigger number than it used to find in a month.

It claims Trump has literally said a falsehood a minute, counting 45 in a 45-minute Sean Hannity interview, 17 falsehoods in a 19-minute Mark Levin interview and 61 false claims in the president's Saturday night rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. But the Post doesn't list them individually so you can check its work.

5. Pinocchio forgiveness. Kessler also has a weird habit of skipping Pinocchios for Democrats when they call him on the phone and admit they fudged it. The Post just found that Sen. Kamala Harris wrongly stated at a CNN town hall that a majority of women earn the minimum wage. Kessler concluded, "Regular readers know that we generally do not award Pinocchios when politicians admit error, and we certainly give an allowance for a slip of the tongue during a live event. We don't play gotcha at The Fact Checker."

Unless you're Trump. Then you get 10,000 Gotchas.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Keep reading...Show less

The House that never deserved a majority

The last time I checked, Republicans still control the House with a simple majority vote until January. Yet, they are out of session until Wednesday and are aimlessly groping in the dark for messaging and policy. Which begs the question: Why haven’t Republicans ever passed a good continuing resolution or omnibus bill out of the House with the immigration fixes and other promises and stared down the Senate? They’ve had at least seven opportunities to do so over the past two years. Why has Trump not called for this?

There’s been a lot of focus throughout these seven or so budget deadlines since the Republicans won the 2016 elections on the fact that they lack 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. But Democrats also lack the votes to overcome a filibuster and they don’t have the House or the White House.

Republicans have always had the ability to swiftly pass their campaign promises out of the House attached to a budget bill with a simple majority and dare the Senate to oppose it. This could have built a narrative around the border and sanctuary cities and focused the debate where the Democrats don’t want to take it. Then, Trump could pressure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., every hour to force Democrats in the Senate to engage in a talking filibuster under the “two-speech rule” all the while having a robust floor debate over the future of our sovereignty, security, MS-13, sanctuary cities, and the drug crisis.

Instead, the House won’t even act. They wait for direction from the Senate and have been doing so for the past two years. This exposes the mendacity of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Nothing ever stopped him from passing a budget with a simple majority. Like anything else in life, why not take the first step that is easy even if you envision adversity during the second step? You can’t win if you don’t even get on the playing field, but taking that first step in and of itself builds momentum and applies pressure to Democrats.

By the House refusing to even consider good policy and by McConnell refusing to even have a floor fight, Democrats never felt pressure to negotiate. They are terrified of Willie Horton-type ads about sanctuary cities. They've never been confronted with an agenda that goes after criminal aliens.

As for President Trump, why didn’t he give a series of speeches using the bully pulpit for months, as I’ve been calling for, to demand that McCarthy pick this fight and McConnell sustain it by enforcing Senate rules? Why did Trump not threaten to support Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, as leader unless McCarthy complied? Where’s the 4-D chess?

The answer is very simple. Republicans don’t share our values. At all. Even if they had 70 Senate seats, they wouldn’t fulfill their campaign promises. Remember, majority control of the House is as good as having 100 Senate seats, yet for the past two years Republicans have refused to even pass a single stand-alone immigration reform bill of consequence to protect our sovereignty.

Remember when Kevin McCarthy had a number of phony conservative figures suddenly talking up his stand-alone border bill right when Jim Jordan challenged him for leadership? As I predicted, he refused to even bring it to a vote, much less attach it to the CR or omnibus and demand that McConnell follow the president’s lead and introduce the bill in the Senate while forcing Democrats to use all their debate time.

Rather than every Republican shaming Democrats for allowing drug cartels to shut down our Border Patrol and cause the drug crisis, they bemoan a 25 percent government shutdown? They have enough material to debate national sovereignty 24/7 on the Senate floor, yet there is no debate whatsoever. Instead, they are spending their final hours voting on a bill that will actually release some of the very drug traffickers coming through our border or individuals working for the cartels that are orchestrating this invasion at the border. They are spending time passing all of the liberal items … before Democrats take over the House. I guess they want to save the legislative clock so they can focus exclusively on impeachment.

It’s a vicious cycle. Trump doesn’t fight fully because there is no party standing behind him, and the “conservative movement” is too busy focusing on Soros’s crime agenda. The more Trump stands down, the more everyone else caves. Trump won’t lead without the movement, but there is no movement to back him.

The moral of the story is that when you believe in something with all your heart and soul, as Democrats do, you will find a way to win even with zero branches of government in your corner. When you believe in nothing beyond the campaign promise, you will find a way to lose even with control of all three branches. In the case of Republicans, it’s even worse. They won’t even get on the playing field and take the first step in fighting for border security. The only first step they will take is the First Step Act, which is the first stage to dismantling Reagan’s successes on crime.

Most conservatives are dreaming of Trump getting re-elected and Republicans winning back the House. This is reasonable enough given the alternatives. However, ask yourself this question: Unless conservatives get together and recognize this as a cathartic moment, what will change two years from now, even if Trump is re-elected and Republicans win back the House?

Keep reading...Show less

WTF MSM!? WaPo editors blame Trump for Hurricane Florence

Master of all he commands …

Ridiculous … As I sit here in the western Carolinas watching for the latest forecast regarding Hurricane Florence, grown men and women at the Washington Post have been busy putting together one of the most ridiculous arguments about the weather you’ll probably ever see. You see, President Donald Trump is “complicit” in the damage that this massive hurricane will do.

Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.

That’s some top-grade Trump Derangement Syndrome right there.

The editorial board wrote, “Scientists also warn that climate change may be slowing the wind currents that guide hurricanes, making storms more sluggish and, therefore, apt to linger longer over disaster zones.”

Here’s some real science from the Weather Channel, which reported that it’s the “Bermuda high” steering this particular storm path. The report states, “This mighty ridge of high pressure is set to debunk climatology.”

Next thing you know, the editorial board at the Post will be blaming Trump’s rhetoric for causing that high pressure system.

Speaking of blowhards … Yesterday was a day to reflect on the horrible attack against the United States on 9/11. It certainly wasn’t a day for idiots like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to use the backdrop of thousands of dead Americans to attack the president. Nevertheless, Joe persisted.

I wrote yesterday about how Scarborough shamelessly said Trump is worse for the country than the 9/11 terrorists. In a column for the Washington Post – sensing a pattern? – Scarborough said:

Osama bin Laden was killed by SEAL Team 6 before he accomplished that goal. Other tyrants who tried to do the same were consigned to the ash heap of history. The question for voters this fall is whether their country will move beyond this troubled chapter in history or whether they will continue supporting a politician who has done more damage to the dream of America than any foreign adversary ever could.

Scarborough didn’t really shy away from the post later in the day, when he blamed “Trump supporters” for misunderstanding what he was trying to say.

Joe, we understood, loud and clear.

Keep reading...Show less

Democrats' total war against Kavanaugh proves they hate the Constitution

Senate Democrats know that they can't stop the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh's record is no more controversial than Justice Gorsuch's was, and three red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2018 voted to confirm Gorsuch. Kavanaugh almost certainly has the votes to be confirmed, but that's not stopping Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., from declaring all-out war against President Trump's nominee.

In an interview with CBS News the morning after Trump made his announcement concerning Justice Anthony Kennedy's successor on the Supreme Court, Schumer detailed his grand scheme to #StopKavanaugh, which amounts to demagoguery and using scare tactics to terrify the American people ahead of the 2018 midterms.

“Let me say this. I believe if we can prove to the American people, which I believe is truly the case, that this nominee will lead to a court that repeals women's reproductive freedom, repeals ACA with its protections for pre-existing conditions, we will get a majority of the Senate to vote for it,” Schumer said. “Obviously, even if we had every Democrat, we need two Republicans. But if we can make that case, we will get a majority.”

Focusing on progressive outcomes, failing to even consider the role of the Constitution or its meaning in judicial decisions, Schumer smeared Kavanaugh as a "hard-right" judge.

"I don't think he would have been put on [Trump's] list had he not been one of these hard-right judges. And the two issues I mentioned are important. There are several others,” Schumer said, claiming that Kavanaugh is "way at the extremes" and referencing a 2009 law review article authored by Kavanaugh to ridiculously assert that Kavanaugh — formerly a member of Ken Starr's investigative team into President Bill Clinton's Whitewarter and Lewinsky scandals — believes a sitting president shouldn't be investigated.

“With the Mueller situation, with the overreach of presidential power, we shouldn't put him on the bench. And then, on gun rights, on LGBTQ rights, on environmental rights, he's way to the right of the American people,” Schumer continued.

The Democrat leader talks of outcomes and policy, but has nary a word for the Constitution or how it should be interpreted. This was expected. The programs and policies championed by progressives are incompatible with the limits on government commanded by the Constitution. The Left recognizes this, and so they must destroy Kavanaugh, who is by no means a conservative ideologue but is instead a mainstream originalist judge. He's not going to move the Supreme Court significantly to the "right." He's not going to guarantee conservative outcomes like overturning Roe v. Wade. He is, hopefully, going to interpret the Constitution as it was originally intended by the framers and write opinions about the law from that point of view on a case-by-case basis — and some conservatives worry he won't even do that consistently.

Regardless, the Left, led by Schumer, is attacking Kavanaugh as "hard right." They are apocalyptically declaring his appointment will "threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come." Kavanaugh is a "Second Amendment radical," we are told, who will push an "extreme, right-wing agenda." There is even talk of impeaching Trump's Supreme Court justices if Democrats take control of the Senate. If strictly interpreting the Constitution leads to overturning liberal policies and statutes, it is because those policies and statutes were unconstitutional to begin with. But the Left doesn't care.

The unhinged reaction and immediate, vociferous opposition to Kavanaugh demonstrate that even the mildest of Trump's Supreme Court nominees, anyone with even a modicum of a claim to being a constitutionalist, would have been treated this way. In the face of such extreme opposition, with Schumer vowing to use "everything I've got," why couldn't Trump have swung for the fences with a nominee like Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, or Judge Amy Coney Barrett — two nominees with known fidelity to the Constitution and worldviews that might have guaranteed a few of the constitutional results leftists are so hysterical about today?

The clear advantage to either of those picks would have been a mobilized conservative base ready to go to war to defend Trump's nominee and proactively counter the Left. Instead, with a safer pick like Kavanaugh as the nominee, many conservatives are underwhelmed.

Keep reading...Show less

LOL: This Daily News reporter just claimed he got PTSD after firing an AR-15

Just a day after a radical Islamic terrorist took the lives of 49 Americans at a nightclub in Orlando, Gersh Kuntzman of the New York Daily News decided he was going to put his best liberal bias to work and show why AR-15s are "horrifying, dangerous and very very loud."

Kuntzman couldn't fathom why anyone would ever want to own one of these "military style assault weapons," so he traveled to a gun shop in Philadelphia and did what so many Americans have the right to do in their spare time: He shot a firearm in a safe setting, just for the fun of it. The results were highly entertaining:

"The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casing disoriented me as they flew past my face ... The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD ... I was anxious and irritable," Kuntzman journals of his poor little traumatized emotions!

OMG. LOL. Please excuse me while I compose myself ...

OK, Mr. Kuntzman, time to grow some balls.

I'm a 135-pound female and have absolutely zero fear of firing an AR-15. And I can tell you, without a doubt, it does NOT sound like a cannon, nor does it feel like a bazooka.

In fact, I've been using firearms since I was six years old, when my dad put a double-barrel shotgun in my hands and taught me to properly fire it. It's amazing how not terrifying something is when you're taught to have a healthy respect of it.

These little girls don't seem to have a problem firing their AR-15s either:

And to be sure you know I'm not being sexist, here is a little boy who didn't seem to have a problem firing AR-15s:

As Erick Erickson notes, Kuntzman's attempt at reporting is full of fabrications, fact distortions, and flat-out overheated false narratives.

One last thing to note in this ridiculous garbage the Daily News calls "reporting": the terrorist did not even use an AR-15. Why does the Left insist on using this terrorist attack to take away law-abiding citizens' ability to own these firearms?

So, Mr. Kuntzman, in addition to revoking your man card, I'll also have to revoke your ethical journalist card.

Keep reading...Show less