GLENN BECK: The GREATEST Christmas Gift Americans Can Give

This Christmas season, Glenn urges his audience to look to Bethlehem as our founding fathers would have. They understood what Christ’s birth was. It was the birth of freedom itself, of profound liberation, redemption and hope. But these gifts weren’t guaranteed. They are ours to freely choose. We have the freedom to lay down our guilt. But we are also in a spiritual war over truth. So, as we exchange gifts this Christmas, Glenn explains why Christ’s gift of freedom, peace, and hope is still the greatest gift we can give to both ourselves and others.

96.9% of Americans Charged with Hunter Biden’s Gun Crimes Get Jail Time

Lies Lie Detector Liar Concept of lies Lie detector Adobe Stock 76207749
Lies Lie Detector Liar Concept of lies Lie detector Adobe Stock 76207749

In the run-up to the 2024 Presidential election, President Joe Biden vowed not to use his presidential authority to pardon his son, Hunter Biden. He has doubled down multiple times through states and his press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, but now he has backtracked and pardoned his son, who was convicted of lying on an ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) Form 4473 and was accused of tax evasion.

Hunter Biden was arrested and successfully prosecuted for lying on an ATF Form 4473 that he filled out when he purchased a revolver from a Delaware gun shop. The firearm was recovered from a dumpster after his lover and dead brother’s wife disposed of it. When Hunter purchased the handgun, he was an addicted user of crack cocaine. Hunter would mark that he was not an unlawful user of drugs on the form.

After being charged, the younger Biden was offered a sweetheart deal not in line with those provided to others accused of lying on the government form. The judge rejected that deal, sending the case to a jury trial. He would be convicted on all charges and was waiting for sentencing. Even after the felony conviction, his father would maintain that there was no chance that he would pardon his son.

Hunter Biden was also facing charges of tax evasion. He allegedly hid large sums of money from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Hunter has always blamed his tax issues on his addictions. There have also been accusations of Hunter selling access to his father when Joe Biden was Vice President. Critics claim that the President’s son made millions from the scheme, leading some on the Republican side of the aisle to refer to the family as the “Biden Crime Family.”

Late Sunday night, President Joe Biden would break his promise not to use his presidential power to pardon his son. He claimed that the Democrat-run Department of Justice (DOJ) targeted his son for political reasons. He claimed his son did nothing wrong when lying on the 4473 because there wasn’t a victim. President Biden said almost no one is charged with lying on a 4473. Quick research shows that several hundred people each year are charged with lying on the ATF gun purchase form.

The President wrote: “Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.”

The DOJ issued a press release in January of last year stating that it is “aggressively pursuing those who lie in connection with firearms transactions.” The ATF and the DOJ are taking a hard line on those who lie when purchasing a firearm. The press release included examples of Americans charged and convicted of the same crime as Hunter Biden. Many wonder if President Biden will pardon these Americans as well.

United States Attorney Robert J. “Bob” Troester wrote: “Federal law prohibits knowingly making any false statement in connection with purchasing, or attempting to purchase, a firearm. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) requires prospective firearm buyers to complete ATF Form 4473. This Form requires buyers to answer several questions, including those about the buyer’s competency, criminal history, drug use, immigration status, and history with domestic violence. Applicants who knowingly make false statements may also face criminal prosecution for a felony and up to 10 years in federal prison.”

The ATF even had an operation that included going after people lying on a 4473. “Project Safe Neighborhoods” was a nationwide effort to catch and prosecute those lying on a 4473. The ATF and the DOJ disagree with the President’s accusation that lying on a 4473 isn’t a big deal. According to both agencies, the crimes are serious, and the government should be pursuing the violators with all available resources.

“Keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them is of paramount concern,” said U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester. “We will use the tools available to us to pursue those who use a straw purchaser or lie when trying to buy a gun. We will continue to work closely with ATF and our law enforcement partners to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands by holding accountable those who lie to get them.”

President Biden also insists that his son’s alleged tax evasion should be forgiven because of his addiction to crack cocaine at the time the crime was committed. Many will point out that the U.S. prison system is full of people who commit crimes because of their addictions. This contradiction causes many to think that President Biden is acting hypocritical by pardoning his son, not just for going back on his promise but for his push to prosecute aggressively those citizens who commit similar crimes. Others claim this is an example of a two-tiered justice system where the rich and powerful can commit crimes with impunity, even though Biden has stated many times in the past that “no one is above the law.”

Hunter Biden issued a statement on the pardon after it was made public by the White House. He blamed politics for his convictions. Hunter said he would dedicate his life to helping people who are “sick and suffering.” He thanked his family for supporting him through his trials.

Hunter Biden’s Statement: “I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction — mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport. Despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and the unwavering love and support of my family and friends. In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages. In recovery we can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded. I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

Hunter Biden’s legal team has filed motions with the courts in both cases to have them dismissed because of the pardon.


About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Warning Americans About the Dangers of Communism and Kamala’s Danger to America, with Xi Van Fleet

Megyn Kelly is joined by Xi Van Fleet, author of "Mao's America," to discuss her experience growing up in Communist China during the Cultural Revolution, how her experience there parallels Kamala's rhetoric now, the dangers that Americans need to know about, and more.

How Kamala's Policies and Rhetoric Based on Division Have Roots in Communism, with Xi Van Fleet

Megyn Kelly is joined by Xi Van Fleet, author of "Mao's America," to discuss the similarities she has noticed between Mao and Kamala's messaging, the focus on division among the left today, and more.

Hillary Clinton’s Decades-Long Fight to Silence Americans Reaches a Disturbing New High

Hillary Clinton’s relentless, decades-long fight to silence Americans has reached a new peak with her latest push to repeal Section 230, aiming to empower the government to control online speech, stifle dissent, and cement her power, continuing her long history of suppressing free expression both at home and globally.

Hillary Clinton has spent decades working—both subtly and overtly—to crush free speech in America when it serves her political ambitions. Her most recent comments are a prime example of just how far she’s willing to go. In a recent interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish, Clinton explicitly warned that if social media companies don’t moderate content more aggressively, “we lose total control.” This admission reveals not only her desire for increased control over information but also her broader agenda of suppressing opposing voices to consolidate her power.

Clinton’s demand for greater federal control over online platforms through the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Act is at the heart of her latest push. This crucial law protects internet platforms from being held liable for user-generated content. By dismantling these protections, Clinton seeks to grant the government sweeping authority to impose strict content moderation, effectively allowing her and her political allies to decide what can be seen or said online. Repealing Section 230 would mark the beginning of an era where the federal government can silence dissent and suppress free speech on one of the last platforms for open dialogue—the Internet.

In effect, it turns platforms like X or Facebook from functioning as neutral carriers—much like telephone companies or postal services—into publishers, making them responsible for every piece of content posted by users. The original intent of Section 230 was to provide platforms with the necessary freedom from liability, shielding them in a way that upheld the values of the First Amendment. But repealing it could be seen as part of a broader effort by the Democratic Party to erode constitutional limits on government and free speech protections, effectively ending the First Amendment’s ability to safeguard citizens from government overreach.

A History of Crushing Opposition

Clinton’s history of attempting to muzzle free speech dates back to her earliest days in politics. One notable example is her involvement in the Citizens United case, where she opposed the rights of private citizens and organizations to make independent political expenditures. Clinton’s drive to limit political donations was framed as campaign finance reform, but it was widely perceived as an effort to curb conservative voices that were critical of her policies. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court allowed greater political freedom in spending, but Clinton’s opposition to it was a clear indication that she favored limiting speech when it threatened her political career.

Her most insidious efforts, however, have come under the banner of “hate speech” laws and initiatives designed to curtail criticism of Islam. One of the clearest examples of this was her support for UNHRC Resolution 16/18, which sought to criminalize speech that could be perceived as “incitement to violence.” Cloaked under the guise of combating religious intolerance, this resolution was a dangerous step toward establishing global blasphemy laws, which would have severely restricted free speech. Clinton was one of the architects behind this resolution, holding meetings in Washington to discuss its implementation and laying the groundwork for policies that would silence critics of Islam worldwide.

This effort continued on the domestic front with her support for House Resolution 569 in 2015. Introduced just days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the resolution condemned what it called “hateful rhetoric” against Muslims. The timing was telling: Clinton and her allies were quick to push legislation that made it appear as though Muslims were the victims, rather than addressing the very real threat of radical Islamic terrorism. The resolution conveniently ignored that the vast majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against Jews, not Muslims. Instead, it sought to criminalize criticism of Islam under the pretense of combating hate speech, all while turning a blind eye to the far more widespread attacks on Jewish Americans.

Section 230 and the New Front in Clinton’s War on Free Speech

Clinton’s latest attack on free speech comes in the form of her desire to repeal Section 230, which protects online platforms from being held liable for third-party content. By stripping away this protection, Clinton seeks to empower the federal government to impose “guardrails” on what can be said online. Under her proposed framework, platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others would be forced to moderate content far more aggressively, ultimately silencing voices that don’t align with the mainstream narrative. This move would disproportionately affect conservatives and dissenters who already face de-platforming and censorship for challenging leftist policies on issues such as immigration, gender ideology, and public health.

Clinton’s comments to Smerconish, where she lamented the lack of national action to regulate social media, are just the latest in a series of alarming statements. She previously suggested that Americans accused of spreading so-called “propaganda” in support of former President Trump should face civil or even criminal charges. This echoes the same tactics Clinton used after her 2016 election loss, where she pushed the narrative that “Russian interference” and misinformation were responsible for her defeat, rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns many Americans had with her candidacy.

Criminalizing Criticism and the Orwellian Istanbul Process

The broader implications of Clinton’s war on free speech become even clearer when examining her international efforts. Her backing of UNHRC Resolution 16/18, known as the “Istanbul Process,” sought to limit speech globally that could be deemed “discriminatory” or inciting violence against religion. What began as an effort to shield Islam from criticism morphed into a global campaign to censor anything considered offensive to religious groups—particularly Muslims. The Istanbul Process was an attempt to undermine the First Amendment by creating international pressure to criminalize speech that offended Islamic sensibilities.

The resolution is eerily similar to efforts Clinton supported domestically, such as House Resolution 569, which attempted to redefine what constitutes a hate crime. Instead of protecting all religious groups, Clinton and her allies focused narrowly on Muslims, using this framework to create an environment where any criticism of Islam could be labeled as hate speech, effectively silencing legitimate debate about the religion and its role in global terrorism.

It’s important to note a critical distinction here: laws such as UN Resolution 16/18 protect the religion itself from criticism, whereas laws protecting Jewish people or other groups focus on protecting individuals from discrimination, not shielding the religion from scrutiny. This is a fundamental difference, as the First Amendment was designed to ensure the freedom to criticize religious and political authorities remains unassailable. Clinton’s support for these international measures threatens to dismantle this core principle, enabling the criminalization of speech that questions or critiques religious ideologies, particularly Islam.

The Real Danger: Hillary’s Long-Term Vision of Control

Hillary Clinton’s drive to crush free speech is not about protecting people from harm—it’s about consolidating control. Her decades-long history of advocating for policies that silence dissent, whether through campaign finance reform, international resolutions, or content moderation, reveals a disturbing pattern. Clinton’s fear is not that harmful speech will spread, but that she will lose control over the narrative. Her comments about losing “total control” of social media reflect a mindset that views open dialogue and dissent as threats to her political power.

If Clinton’s vision were realized, Americans would face a future where dissenting voices are criminalized and online platforms are forced to operate under the watchful eye of the federal government. Social media, one of the few remaining outlets for free speech, would be transformed into a tightly controlled space where only government-approved opinions are allowed.

Conclusion: A Call to Defend Free Speech

The American people must recognize the dangerous path Hillary Clinton and others like her are pushing us down. Free speech is not just a right to be cherished—it is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny. As Clinton continues her long-standing campaign to silence dissent, Americans must remain vigilant and fight to protect their First Amendment rights. If we allow her vision of government-controlled speech to become reality, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak out at all.