Category: Conservative Review
Clintons defy Epstein subpoenas — but Glenn Beck says DON’T jail them. Here’s his shocking reason why.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to appear after the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed them for closed-door depositions regarding Jeffrey Epstein and the federal government’s handling of his crimes. The slippery duo even sent letters to Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in advance of their scheduled dates, calling the subpoenas invalid and nothing more than political retribution.
Now the committee is seeking to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress, which could result in jail time if they’re found guilty.
Many conservatives are elated at the prospect of seeing Washington’s most scandal-laden couple behind bars, but Glenn Beck says jailing the Clintons for this particular crime would be a huge mistake.
He equates incarcerating the Clintons over contempt of Congress to giving an arsonist a book of matches.
“We now have all of these scandals, all of these NGOs making all kinds of money on your tax dollars, funding the destruction of America as we know it. We’re all in bed with giant corporations and the WEF — the Clinton Foundation is all lined up in it,” he says.
This insidious network is behind all the violent anti-ICE protests, the death-to-America-style riots, and the push for socialism that is destroying the country from the inside. But all the while, these elites have been quietly building an elite-controlled system that will be implemented when the old system has been successfully burned to the ground.
The Clintons, Glenn explains, have their finger on the red button that could set off chaos like we have never seen before and usher in the Great Reset he has been warning about for years. To tempt them to push it — especially at a time when Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) is hinting at civil war — is insane.
It’s not that prosecuting and jailing the Clintons are completely off the table, but to use your ace card on the Epstein case, which Glenn insists will never go anywhere, is stupid.
“Are we going to find out what really happened with Epstein? I don’t think so — ever. Why? Because all of the evidence has been in the hands of the Republicans and the Democrats and the Republicans and the Democrats over and over and over again for years. … [The evidence] has all been destroyed. It’s all gone,” he says.
It’s no secret — even to the Democrats — that the Clintons “are very bad people. … They have spooked everybody because they’re so good at being very bad people. Even the people in the press who used to be for them are now just so scared of them,” Glenn continues.
“You don’t try to kill the king unless you can kill the king. You don’t try to take out the Clintons and wound them, because they’ll kill you. And I don’t mean that literally. Or do I?” he winks.
If you really want to take out the Clinton empire, “you better come prepared with the goods,” and unfortunately, to the utter dismay of all, the Epstein case isn’t the “goods” we were told it was.
Even so, there are plenty of “goods” on the Clintons, says Glenn. “We have it all,” he says, referring to the long list of documented scandals the Clintons have been central in.
While Glenn would “love” to see Bill and Hillary perp-walked for committing the same crime that landed former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro behind bars, he knows that it would only cause more chaos in America’s streets.
“Remember, they’re the arsonist. You don’t want to hand them matches. And it’s not because they’re above the law, not because they’re untouchable, but because this specific path leads to nowhere good. You don’t have anything on them. And they will use it for all that it is worth,” he warns.
To hear more of Glenn’s commentary, watch the video above.
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.
Venezuelan Oil May Not Come Easy
Despite all the congratulations and fanfare, the capturing of Maduro and wife may not have produced the effect many have…
‘Don’t Say His Name, For Heaven’s Sake’: Kristi Noem Slams CBS Host For Naming ICE Agent Amid Death Threats
‘He got attacked with a car that was trying to take his life’
When human worth becomes conditional, caregiving becomes impossible
Most people can care for an ill or disabled loved one for a week on compassion alone. Some can do it for a month. A few can make it a year or two.
But when care stretches into decades, compassion stops carrying the load. Emotion fades. Circumstances grind. What remains isn’t how someone feels about a life. What remains is whether they believe that life still matters.
When a culture treats reality as optional, action becomes dangerous and courage looks reckless. Without shared moral ground, bravery itself becomes suspect.
Caregiving strips life down to essentials. It forces a question our culture prefers to keep abstract: Why does this life still have value when it costs so much to sustain it?
C.S. Lewis warned that a society cannot survive if it mocks virtue while demanding its fruits. In “The Abolition of Man,” he described “men without chests” — people trained to think and desire but not to stand. Without a formed moral center, courage collapses. Duty feels suspect. Endurance looks irrational.
Caregivers learn this in a harsh classroom.
You cannot sustain decades of care if human worth is negotiable. You cannot rise day after day to guard the vulnerable if life’s value depends on productivity, independence, improvement, or the absence of suffering. Long care requires stewardship — the conviction that a life has been entrusted to us, not evaluated by us.
I once met a man who told me he was dating a woman in a wheelchair. He spoke with genuine enthusiasm about how good it made him feel to do everything for her. He sounded animated, even proud. He talked at length about his experience, his emotions, the satisfaction he drew from being needed.
He said very little about her.
I asked how long they’d been dating.
“Two weeks,” he said, beaming.
I smiled wearily and told him, “Get back to me in two decades.”
Care that depends on how it makes us feel rarely survives once feeling fades. What endures over decades isn’t the satisfaction of being needed. It’s settled clarity about the worth of the person being cared for, independent of what the caregiver receives in return.
RELATED: Christian, what do you believe when faith stops being theoretical?
ImagineGolf via iStock/Getty Images
In that man’s excitement, everything centered on his emotions. What was missing was any recognition of her value apart from her condition — or apart from what caring for her did for him.
I didn’t hear, “I’m dating a woman,” or “I’ve met someone extraordinary.” I heard, again and again, “I’m dating a woman in a wheelchair.” The chair became the headline, not the person. He might as well have celebrated the better parking.
She had become useful to him. That’s not the same thing as being valued.
This way of thinking doesn’t stay confined to personal relationships. It scales.
The public reckoning surrounding Daniel Penny exposed it. He acted to protect others he believed were in danger — not because it felt good but because action was required. That kind of clarity now unsettles a society more comfortable with sentiment than obligation.
We claim we want people to intervene, to protect others, to act decisively when danger appears. Then someone does, and we hesitate. We second-guess. We prosecute. We distance ourselves.
We want courage but not conviction.
Lewis wouldn’t be surprised. When a culture treats reality as optional, action becomes dangerous and courage looks reckless. Responsibility suddenly feels threatening. Without shared moral ground, bravery itself becomes suspect.
Francis Schaeffer traced the path forward from that confusion. Once a culture detaches human worth from anything objective, it stops honoring life and starts managing it. Value becomes conditional. And conditions always change.
That logic now shows itself in plain view. When Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) pushes to legalize medical aid in dying in New York, the same fracture appears. We punish those who act as though life must be defended, while elevating leaders who treat life as something to administer and conclude.
Those aren’t separate debates. They’re the same belief, applied differently.
If life holds value only when it functions well, caregiving becomes irrational. If worth depends on autonomy, dependence becomes disposable. If suffering disqualifies, endurance becomes foolish.
And yet caregivers endure.
RELATED: Caregiving decisions begin in the bathroom
MTStock Studio via iStock/Getty Images
That clarity came back to me during a conversation on my radio show. A man described a brief illness his wife had suffered. The house fell apart. Meals became takeout. Work got missed. Romance disappeared. He sounded exhausted just recalling it.
“What carried you through?” I asked.
He paused. “I guess … love.”
“How long did this last?” I said.
“Five days.”
“I guess … love” carried him through five days.
Uncertainty can survive a week. It cannot sustain 14,000 days.
He wasn’t wrong though. Love matters. But love that sustains five days must anchor itself in something deeper to sustain 40 years.
Caregivers may begin with compassion. They endure with conviction.
A life doesn’t become less valuable because it becomes harder to carry.
Caregiving isn’t a special category of moral life. It is a concentrated version of the human condition. What sustains caregivers over time is what sustains courage, faithfulness, and duty anywhere else.
Lewis reminded us that our feelings don’t create value. They respond to it. When we reverse that order, we don’t become more compassionate. We lose our bearings.
Treating human worth as conditional may flatter our emotions. It may even make us feel noble. But it trains us to prize how we feel over the people entrusted to our care.
Over time, that trade leaves us prosecuting men like Daniel Penny while electing leaders like Kathy Hochul.
It might soothe the heart for a moment.
It cannot sustain a society.
A Founding Document Finds Its Principles
Akhil Reed Amar’s Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920 covers a period of American history that most of us learned as a series of familiar episodes: the crisis of the 1850s, the Civil War, Reconstruction’s rise and fall, the boom of the late 19th century, and the reforms of the Progressive Era. In the standard telling, the Constitution is the province of officials in the federal government—amended in dramatic fashion after the war, interpreted by courts in a mostly linear fashion, grappled over by men with names like Clay and Calhoun until the Progressives came along to say they no longer had any interest in it. (In my family we joke that there were no presidents or Supreme Court decisions between the end of Reconstruction and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt—our high-school and college U.S. history curricula pivoted hard to economic history for those three decades.) The business of the American people was business; obsession over constitutional text and foundational promises belonged to a small cadre of elites until it went underground and reappeared at the nation’s bicentennial.
The post A Founding Document Finds Its Principles appeared first on .
Witness to the Great Unsettling
The poet Marianne Moore is credited with describing what poets do as “the art of creating imaginary gardens with real toads in them.” Perhaps that is why it has taken a poet, Paul Kingsnorth, an Englishman who now lives in Ireland, to craft a compelling portrait not of a toad in an imaginary garden, but of the relentless march of the machine in the human world. In Against the Machine: On the Unmaking of Humanity, Kingsnorth offers a fresh take on an old question: How can we know when the technologies we have built to serve us instead end up enslaving us? Or, what happens when the toad destroys the garden?
The post Witness to the Great Unsettling appeared first on .
‘Time To Look for New Leadership in Iran’: Trump Calls for End to ‘Sick Man’ Khamenei’s Rule
President Donald Trump issued an unprecedented call for regime change in Iran, marking the first time any U.S. president has publicly endorsed removing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power after 37 years of hardline rule.
The post ‘Time To Look for New Leadership in Iran’: Trump Calls for End to ‘Sick Man’ Khamenei’s Rule appeared first on .
Drug Gangs, Child Gunmen and Antisemitic Abuse — Welcome to Marseille
Marseille has become a case study in how disorder embeds itself when authority retreats unevenly. This is not about perception…
