TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @glennbeck
reSee.it AI Summary
I question why the FBI hid Crooks’ violent anti‑Trump online phase, why they still toed that line after the election, and why Wray claimed little footprint when evidence shows otherwise. I’m troubled by ignored red flags about assassinations, meme arrests, the crime-scene cleanup, and digital traces of his political shift kept from the public. Do these patterns indicate incompetence, negligence, or manipulation? I’m not claiming conspiracy, but something is very wrong with the official story.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
MAJOR questions must be asked and ANSWERED after recent revelations on the failed Trump assassin in Butler, PA: Why did the Biden's FBI hide Crooks’ violent anti-Trump phase online? Why did the FBI, after the election, still toe that line? Why did FBI Director Wray insist Crooks didn't leave a significant online footprint when we now know he did? Why did they ignore the insane number of red flags Crooks must have tripped about assassinations in online searches while other Americans were arrested for memes? Why did they clean the crime scene prematurely? Why was every digital trace of his political shift from pro-Trump to anti-Trump kept out of public discussion? Why does every single "mistake" our government made on this case seem to point in the same direction towards either incompetence, negligence, hiding the truth, or shaping a political narrative? I'm not saying this is a conspiracy. But there is something VERY WRONG with the "official" story.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers:
- Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened.
- After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision?
- The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching.
- Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored?
- Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden?
- Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed?
- The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action.
- Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar.
- The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling.
- The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift.
- The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA.
Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Based on this, there are questions that need to be asked. And so let me give you a list of the questions that I have that need to be asked and we must demand answers. Why did the FBI present only the early pro Trump Trump posts and they hid the anti Trump phase? There's two answers that need to be had. The first one is under Biden and I think we know the answer to that.
They were building a narrative. Okay. But it should be asked and answered. Why did that happen? Who was involved in that decision?
Then you have to say, okay, after the election, why did the FBI still toe that line? Who made that decision? Next, we know they're monitoring people. I'm for the government finding, hey, how do I build a bomb? How do I get away from an assassination scene?
Successful assassinations and where are these political people being, you know, where are they going to be in the future? That is that should be tied together by an algorithm and it should be notified. So somebody is watching this. K? We know it's already being done.
So why did they ignore Crook's really unbelievable threats? When ordinary Americans were arrested for memes, why was he completely ignored? Why did the intelligence agency monitoring extremism somehow miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, and then connecting with some guy it looks like is from Sweden who is part of a big Nazi movement over in Sweden. Why was that ignored? Why did they clean the scene prematurely?
Why was every digital trace of his political shift kept out of the public discussion? Why did they say he had almost no footprint when the footprint looks to be really really large? It was just scrubbed. Why did every single mistake that our FBI and government made, why does it seem to point in the same direction? Towards ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, shaping a political narrative?
When every accident points the same way, it stops looking like an accident. So was this incompetence? I don't know what conclusion Tucker is pulling from all of this. I just appreciate the information. And I'm not telling you this is a conspiracy.
I am telling you there's something wrong here. There's something very wrong. The the official story is impossible to believe. And the question every American should be asking themselves is really simple. Why would our government, the same government that monitors everything suddenly become blind, deaf, and mute the moment a presidential assassin emerges on their radar?
It's not a partisan question because one under one president, you can say, oh, well, that's because they were doing an error. But then when the presidents changed and this president was the one that they tried to kill and he said I want answers to this, the narrative didn't change. Why? Why? That's not a pro Trump question, that's that that is a self preservation question.
If if the government can see everything that you do and somehow missed all of this, what does that say about our FBI and our DOJ and our CIA? Because they all would have been involved in this. I mean, they're either lying, they're incompetent, or they only monitor the people they want to monitor. None of these options should help us sleep at night. K?
The FBI and the mainstream media, MSNBC for sure, referenced leaks from Crooks' social media, the YouTube comment comments that showed he was pro Trump and anti immigration. We were also told that Crooks had almost no online social footprint, but he had Discord, Snapchat, very active YouTube. His YouTube comments in 2019, very violent, decapitating of government officials, and then something happened, he switches. Something's not right here. I think this iceberg is way beneath the waterline.
I think this thing goes so deep. I'm not sure I'm not sure that these I have a friend who said to me, I think the CIA is completely out of control. And this is a guy, you would not know his name, and you wouldn't know his name for a reason. But he was very very highly placed years ago, and this is the kind of stuff he did. And he said, I don't think the CIA answers to anybody anymore.
I'm not sure that it's just the CIA. I'm not sure, but it feels a little like you can shuffle the the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, but it's the it's what's below the waterline that really makes the difference on that ship.
reSee.it AI Summary
Pastor Son was arrested shortly after Charlie left South Korea. They met backstage at the event, and Charlie took a photo with him, joking that he’d share it on social media if Pastor Son was arrested. America, it’s time to take action.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
From @charliekirk11’s chief of staff: Pastor Son was arrested right after Charlie left [South Korea]. Charlie met him backstage at the event and took a photo with him. After the picture CK said ‘I took that photo so if they arrest you I can post it all over social media.’ You know what to do, America.
reSee.it AI Summary
On December 8, 2016, DNI James Clapper delayed the publication of a Presidential Daily Brief stating that Russia did not affect the US election results, citing "new guidance." The following day, President Obama met with his National Security Team, directing them to create an assessment on Russian influence per his request. Coincidentally, the Washington Post published a story that same day promoting this new narrative. It appears to me that Obama was dissatisfied and initiated a significant shift in the narrative.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Dec. 8, 2016: Obama’s DNI James Clapper orders the Intelligence Community to “push back publication” of a Presidential Daily Brief that found Russia “did not impact recent US election results.” The DNI’s office cites “new guidance” as the reason for the delay. What was that “new guidance”? We find out the next day… Dec. 9, 2016: President Obama meets with his National Security Team. The IC gets new marching orders: “produce an assessment PER THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST that pulls together the information we have” on how Russia influenced the election. On that SAME DAY, the Washington Post drops a story with the new narrative. What a coincidence! It sure looks to me like Obama was unhappy, gave the order, and commenced the coup.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In December 2016, talking points prepared for James Clapper stated that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks to alter the 2016 presidential election outcome and there was no evidence of cyber manipulation intended to alter the results. A presidential daily brief draft stated Russia did not impact the election results. However, the draft's release was stopped based on "new guidance," not new information.
On December 9, 2016, Obama's national security team, including Obama, Biden, and other officials, met, and Obama directed the intelligence community to assess Russia's tools and actions to influence the election and explain why Moscow directed these activities and how their approach changed. That same day, The Washington Post published a story claiming a secret CIA assessment said Russia was trying to help Trump win. The speaker claims that every assessment up until that day claimed all of this was bogus. The speaker concludes that this was the start of a mass conspiracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back to the new and recently declassified data. In these, from 12/07/2016, the talking points prepared for Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, claiming, quote, we assess that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on the election infrastructure to alter the United States presidential election outcome this year. We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter the results. Okay. Alright.
But nobody at this point was really even talking about were they hacking into systems. It was all about Trump having a tie to a Russian bank. Trump being in bed. He's gonna be a puppet now. All of that.
That's what people were talking about because that's what they were alleging through the press. Now on 12/08/2016, the presidential daily brief draft, just a month after the election, states that Russia quote did not impact the recent US election results. Well now this particular draft, because this draft comes out here, that means he's the president-elect. So if it's in the presidential daily briefing, Michael Flynn and Donald Trump will get that same draft. They will see the same report when it comes in.
So later that day, phone call comes in. Stop. Do not release that draft. Do not give it to the president. Why?
Well, it came from the office of the director of national intelligence. Quote, based on some new guidance, we are going to push back publication of the PDB. It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week. Notice it says on some new guidance. Guidance.
Not new information. New guidance. And who gave that guidance? Well, answer comes the very next day. 12/09/2016, Obama's national security team meet in the Situation Room for two hours 11:30 to 01:30.
Take a look at the names that attended. Barack Obama, Susan Rice, John Brennan, James Coney, Ben Rhodes, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Jay Johnson, Victoria Newland, and Joe Biden. I mean, this is like this is the deep state. It's, I mean, it is the biggest deep state officials, the gathering. It was, I mean, was like a deep state picnic.
How many other scandals are linked just to those names? Alright. During the meeting, the shift occurred. It was a shift that defied every single intelligence community assessment up until this point. Because remember, Trump was not supposed to win.
Now the president gives the National Security Council new marching orders. Quote, the IC is prepared to produce an assessment per the president's request that pulls together the information we have on the tools and the actions it took to influence the twenty sixteen election. An explanation of why Moscow directed these activities and how Moscow's approach has changed over time. Notice it doesn't say, you know, based on new intelligence, it doesn't say, hey, by the way, there was nothing that changed the election, you know, digitally, but as we've been talking about the whole time. No.
No. We don't have a new whistleblower. We don't have any super secret intercepts that prove yada yada yada. Nothing. It's direction from this man.
This is what I wanted to read per the president's request. Obama was unhappy, and the witch hunt commenced, or should I say the coup commenced. Oh, and guess what else happened that day? This is a wild coincidence. The Washington Post actually has a story that drops this day.
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win. Wow. The same day President Obama came to that conclusion and said, this is what I want this to the same day. Wow. What a coincidence.
Now keep in mind, every assessment up until that day claimed all of this was bogus. But Obama made the request and told them all to go back to the drawing board and figure out something else. And suddenly, that same day, the Washington Post receives information from super secret but high authority that furthers the narrative. At this point in the timeline, we're not out of 2016. And it gets crazier once Donald Trump assumes office, which I believe was the entire point.
The entire timeline now is about to snowball into investigation, threats of impeachment, questionable federal judges, media frenzy, and so much more. The entire mass conspiracy comes together by the end and I will show you the end of this board when we come back.
reSee.it AI Summary
The LA riots aren't about ICE or Trump; they're a collaboration of Marxists, anarchists, and radical leftists aiming to undermine capitalism and the West. Tonight on Glenn TV, I’ll expose the financial backing behind this Marxist color revolution masquerading as protests.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
The LA riots were never about ICE, deportations, or Donald Trump. They're exactly what I predicted back on Fox: Marxists, anarchists, radical leftists, and Islamists working together to destroy capitalism and the West. Tonight on Glenn TV, I follow the money and lay it all out. https://t.co/T6hsODCwz3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserted that radicals, Islamists, communists, and socialists will collaborate against Israel, capitalism, and stability. This claim was met with strong opposition. The speaker reiterated that these groups are uniting against Israel, emphasizing that this collaboration is fundamentally about freedom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I put this up and said, radicals, Islamists, communists, and socialists will work together against Israel, against capitalism, and work together to overturn stability. There are radicals, globalists, Islamists, all working together. Radicals, Islamists, communists, and socialists will work together against Israel, work against capitalism, work together to overturn stability. Let it be my tombstone. I was hammered for it.
Radicals, Islamists, communists, socialists, working together against Israel. This has nothing to do with Israel. This has everything to do with freedom.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
We're witnessing a Marxist color revolution disguised as anti-ICE "protests." Watch the full show here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmSR2Eybo2I
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
.@RogerJStoneJr: "After a couple of cocktails...I asked [Nixon] directly, 'who killed Kennedy?'... He said, 'let me put it this way: Lyndon and I both wanted to be president. But I wasn't willing to kill for it.'" https://t.co/p7DL3tE92k
Video Transcript AI Summary
After a conversation with Richard Nixon, five years of research led to the conclusion that the Warren Commission was a hoax. Fingerprints of Malcolm Mack Wallace, convicted of murder in Texas, were found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Six eyewitnesses saw a man matching Wallace's description in the window.
Lyndon Johnson had motive due to being under investigation. The CIA was involved because of opposition to Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. Declassified documents show the US removed missiles from Italy and Turkey in exchange for Khrushchev removing missiles from Cuba.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded organized crime played a role. Audio recordings exist of mob boss Carlos Marcello bragging about his involvement. Big Texas oil may have financed the assassination. Johnson had motive, means, and opportunity, plus eyewitness and fingerprint evidence. As Senate Majority Leader, he appointed himself to the subcommittee of defense appropriations, overseeing the CIA's black box budgets. He was also the neighbor of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who faced mandatory retirement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I spent five years researching this book after a conversation with president Richard Nixon in his post presidential years, after a couple of cocktails when Nixon became extraordinarily loquacious. I wish I asked him directly, who killed Kennedy? At first, he said, well, let me say that the Warren Commission was the biggest goddamn hoax in American history. I said, sir, what do you mean? He said, well, let me put it to you this way.
Lyndon and I both wanted to be president, but I wasn't willing to kill for it. That began five years of research in which I determined that the fingerprints of a man, Malcolm Mack Wallace, who was convicted of murder in Texas in 1951, which is why we have his prints, were found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. And no less than six eyewitnesses tell either the Dallas police or the FBI that they see a man who meets the physical description of Wallace in the window of the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Now, Glenn, I don't claim that Johnson did this and acted alone. I certainly understand his motive.
He was under investigation. So I I still believe that there was a I hate this word, conspiracy. Let's call it a plot. Yeah. The the Central Intelligence Agency clearly plays a role here because of their their opposition to Kennedy over what they believe was the bungling of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Right. Also, the dissembling over the Cuban missile crisis. We're told that Jack and Bobby bravely faced down Nikita Khrushchev, but fifty years later, declassified documents tell us that we removed our missiles from Italy and Turkey in return for a pledge from Khrushchev to remove his missiles, from Cuba, which did not include on-site inspection. But the other glaringly missing thing here, Glenn, is the house select committee on assassinations in the late seventies after an exhaustive investigation concluded that organized crime had played a significant role in Kennedy's murder. Yet none of the documents that had been released, reveal that.
Specifically, there are the audio recordings of mob boss Carlos Marcello that were reviewed by the assassination records review board in which Marcelo bragged about his involvement in Kennedy's murder both before and after, the assassination. And then, of course, there's big Texas oil, which I think paid for this. Lyndon Johnson has motive, means, and opportunity, and I believe there's eyewitness evidence, fingerprint evidence, deep Texas politics, that that build this narrative. He also, as the senate majority leader, takes the unusual step of appointing himself to the subcommittee of defense appropriations where the CIA's black box budgets have been prepared. He's the paymaster for the CIA.
And, of course, famously, he was the next door neighbor of FBI director j Edgar Hoover who faced mandatory retirement in 1964 without a waiver from whoever was president. So I I I think, I've made a pretty compelling think so. Yeah. I think you have.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Reacting to the so-called 'Epstein Files' release. This feels like internal CIVIL WAR. President Trump needs to fly to SNDY NOW and get to the bottom of this! https://t.co/0Z9ZCQH0Id
Video Transcript AI Summary
We've just reviewed the Epstein client release, a 20-plus page dump made public by the DOJ or FBI, but it's a huge disappointment. It's mostly procedural jargon, heavily redacted, with no significant new information.
I spoke with Liz Wheeler, and she reports that Pam Bondi and the President expected the release to contain everything Kash Patel had previously seen. However, the Southern District of New York FBI and Department of Justice may be withholding tapes and other information from the White House. If this is true, it signifies an internal civil war, with departments rebelling against the president.
I still trust that President Trump, Cash Patel and Pam Bondi are committed to exposing this evil. If these agencies are in rebellion, President Trump should personally go to New York, fire everyone involved, and padlock the doors.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll I'll maybe talk to you. Why don't you come over here, Jason? Hey. We are I'm still at the studio, and I've just been gathering the information on the so called Epstein client release. And I've just been I just talked to Liz Wheeler, and I was just watching her podcast because she has some additional information.
But we've gone through the list, and Jason is here, our chief researcher. Jason, what, what was what was in this big briefing, that was given by the president and everybody else today?
Speaker 1: This was so we went through the entire 20 plus page dump, that was released through the, I I guess, the DOJ or the FBI. It's on our website now. It's public information. And, it is the biggest disappointment, I think, that you'll find. I encourage you to do your own homework on this.
We have it's mostly procedural jargon, Glenn. Heavily, heavily redacted. Basically, no new information. Little bitty tidbits, but, again, it's inconsequential. It's just procedural stuff.
It's it's bad.
Speaker 0: So they were talking this was going to be release that everybody has been waiting for. Apparently, with the president, vice president, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel in the room, Liz Wheeler and others, were told this morning, given this binder, which is has absolutely nothing in it, and they were told that by Pam Bondi and the president that she had, because the president asked, ordered for the release of this. Cash Patel delivered it to her desk last week. They were going through it. They expected this to be full of everything, that Kash Patel has told me he has seen in the past, but, it was there was nothing.
There was nothing left in it. And Liz reports that she was told that the the feeling from Pam Bondi and others is that the Southern District Of New York, the FBI in the Southern District Of New York actually has the tapes and everything else and will not turn it over to, the White House or to Pam Bondi. If that is true, and I understand Liz correctly, and Liz is gonna be on my radio program tomorrow and my podcast tomorrow to talk about her experience. If that indeed is true, then we have a civil war on our hands, an internal civil war. You have a duly elected president, his duly elected con confirmed leaders of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and then you have the Southern District Of New York FBI and Department of Justice bucking the orders of the president and their direct bosses.
There is no other way to describe it. If that is true, there is no other way to describe it than you have a department or two departments under the president that are in complete rebellion. That's not something you take a doge scalpel to, that's something you take an axe to and you cut it out because that's a cancer and it is a rebellious cancer and, honestly, a civil war against the president and his duly processed appointees. I I this is not what I expected from Kash Patel and Pam Bondi and the president and the vice president and I take them at this point at their word because I know them. I know how serious, each of them are about rooting out this cancer.
But this looks really, really horrible for the president because what others will say is, well, this is just the same old stuff, and names of people that they were friends of were on, and so they they had to blame it on somebody else. Well, I just don't believe that of the president and Cash and Pam. I know the passionate, response in private about these names and about this list and how how Cash in particular couldn't wait to release this. He is on a I mean, he is a dog with a bone. He is on a mission, and so is the president, and I believe Pam Bondi is too, on a mission to rat this evil out.
If it's true, we're in civil war. The state is at civil war with itself. If it's not true, then we will see this administration not move against the Southern District Of New York. If I were president Trump and I I gotta give him the benefit of the doubt here because I think this is I think giving him the benefit of the doubt. He is focused on, Russia and everything else.
But if I were Donald Trump and no matter what I had planned, if I had an agency in rebellion, I would get on my plane and I would fly to New York and I would personally fire every single person and I put a padlock on that door in Southern District Of New York. That's what the president I believe should do if I understand what Liz is saying, is correct and if it is indeed true. You cannot tolerate this. We already have 70 lawsuits internally from people who work in the administration suing the administration, trying to stop the duly elected president who is the CEO of the administration. These people think they don't work for the president of The United States.
The president of The United States was elected and given a mandate. He was he was hired and duly elected, winning the popular vote and the electoral college. To do what? To do exactly what he's doing. Clean this rat's nest of lies and vipers up and fire everybody if he has to.
If you don't work for the president and you're in the administration, whom do you work for? Congress? Because the administration is not constitutionally part of congress. It's part of the administration. That's the executive branch.
So if you don't if you constitutionally can't work for congress, I know you don't work for the judiciary, and you say you don't work for the president, who who hired you? Who can fire you? You say, well, I'm working for the American people. We don't even know who you are, quite honestly. None of us know who you are.
None of us elected you. We elected the president. If all of these things are true and we should know by tomorrow, president Trump, I beg you, go personally to New York and fire all of these people and set an example. This cannot stand. Talk to you tomorrow on the radio.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Why was the Tides Foundation - a progressive dark money machine - receiving US tax dollars? When you follow the money trail, it reveals Tides and other NGOs spread those dollars to each other and then spit it out around the world. Auditing USAID is NOT ENOUGH. https://t.co/aYAlivr71H
Video Transcript AI Summary
A lot of your tax dollars are going to organizations you may have never heard of. The Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening, or SEPs, gets $165 million. The East West Management Institute receives $25 million annually. The National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates, like NDI, get $167.3 million, while Freedom House gets $93 million.
The Tides Foundation, known for being a progressive left-wing dark money machine, also receives tax dollars. Money donated to Tides goes dark, so you can't trace who's giving it. A money trail search on Tides reveals connections to Freedom House, NED, SEPs, East West, and Intra News. These organizations are spreading tax dollars to each other, and then to places like Soros.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The names that keep popping up, the consortium for elections and political process strengthening. SEPs, where is that? Right here. K. They get a hundred and $65,000,000 of your tax money.
Have you ever heard of them? How about East West Management Institute? Because, they're getting $25,000,000 every year. The National Endowment for Democracy and their affiliates like NDI. Right here.
Right here, a hundred and 67, 3 hundred and 60 2 million. Then you have Freedom House, which is right here, another $93,000,000. And oddly enough, we notice that the Tides Foundation, our old friends, show up on the chart clearly showing the Tides Foundation is receiving US tax dollars. Now back in the old days at Fox, I showed you the entire purpose of Tides is to be a progressive left wing dark money machine. It is it's money laundering, legal, but money laundering nonetheless.
You cannot trace money. Once it goes in, it goes dark. You can see what's coming out, but you don't know who's giving it. Leftist billionaires, organizations, they all donate to Tide specifically so their money can go dark. So why is the Tides Foundation getting tax dollars?
Well, maybe this is a one off. Let's do a money trail search on tides and see what pops up. Are they involved in anything else? The Tide Center. Oh, holy cow.
Now, this is, again, we're going to find deeper levels here soon. But, this is showing the entire money trail for Tides. On the chalkboard, again, I have a few notable ones. Oh, Freedom House, NED, SEPs, East West, Intra News. Wow.
They show up again. So they're spreading tax dollars to each other and then they spit out to places like Soros.
reSee.it AI Summary
I urge @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk to keep pushing until all fraud is uncovered and those responsible are held accountable. Thank you for bringing real transparency into my life; I've been advocating for this for 20 years. Keep following the money and the leads!
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Please @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk DO NOT STOP until every fraud is exposed and every person that was involved is fired and or in jail. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE FIRST REAL TRANSPARENCY OF MY LIFETIME. I have been shouting about this for 2 decades and you guys are killing it. DON’T STOP. Follow the money and the squeals.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m trying to understand this: the Treasury Secretary can’t access treasury data? That’s surprising. It feels like someone is afraid of the secrets being revealed. This judge wasn’t elected and doesn’t represent us. We demand transparency—this is our money, not theirs.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Let me see if I have this right. The Treasury Secretary CANNOT access any data from the treasury? Wow. Who is afraid the secrets are coming out. This judge was not elected nor was he given the mandate by the people. Enough is enough. WE THE PEOPLE demand transparency. IT IS OUR MONEY, NOT YOURS.
@amuse - @amuse
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Thank you SLC and @tuckercarlson for the kind, kind welcome. Tucker was amazing. This is a wild ride.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights on how JD Vance could still play a crucial role as Senate Majority Leader despite potential obstruction from John Thune. There's a little-known Senate procedure that allows the Majority Leader to be recognized first on the floor, and the person in the chair at the front has the power to decide who gets that recognition. Since that chair belongs to JD Vance, he can assert his authority, reclaim the seat, and choose to recognize those who support President Trump's nominees, effectively controlling the proceedings.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Senate insider @DissidentClint explains how @JDVance could still effectively serve as Senate Majority Leader if John Thune obstructs the MAGA mandate: "There is a little-known procedure in the Senate that gives the Majority Leader the right to be recognized on the floor first. Who decides to recognize them? The person sitting in the chair at the front of the room. That chair belongs to JD Vance. Anybody else sitting in that chair is borrowing his seat. He can walk in the room, kick them out, take the seat, and recognize whoever he wants who is gonna move President Trump's nominees. He can actually decide who is running the show."
Video Transcript AI Summary
If Athune becomes obstructive, the president can direct JD Vance to take control of the Senate, similar to John Adams. There's a little-known Senate procedure allowing the majority leader to be recognized first, and the person in the chair can decide who to recognize. That chair belongs to JD Vance, meaning he can assert control and prioritize Trump's nominees.
In the past, there were discussions about using this power during the Trump administration, but it wasn't executed, possibly due to negotiations or discomfort from Pence. JD, being a senator, would be more comfortable with this approach.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you have Athune and he begins to become an obstructionist, does the president have the ability to say, JD Vance, go in there and take control of the senate and do what John Adams did?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So you've talked about this. You've been great about it. There is a little known procedure in the senate that gives the majority leader the right to be recognized on the floor first. Who decides to recognize them?
The person sitting in the chair at the front of the room. That chair belongs to JD Vance. Anybody else sitting in that chair is borrowing his seat. He can walk in the room, kick them out, take the seat, and recognize whoever he wants who is gonna move, his president Trump's nominees so he can actually decide really who's running the show.
Speaker 0: Why haven't they done that in the past?
Speaker 1: There was talk in the last Trump administration of doing this. I ultimately don't know why they decided not to. There's always a negotiation about these kind of things. Having this threat of doing that, is certainly powerful. And maybe maybe Pence just wasn't comfortable with it.
JD would be a lot more comfortable with that. Hell, yeah. He's been a senator.
reSee.it AI Summary
I asked the Pentagon to clarify Biden's changes to DOD directive 5240.01, which removed the First Amendment mention and included language about potential "lethal force" against Americans. Their response insisted there was no change in policy regarding lethal force and that the timing was coincidental. This raises suspicions, especially in light of the Left's recent 'Jan. 6th 2.0' war game discussing military force against Americans, which the Pentagon and Congress were briefed on. The bureaucratic language makes it hard to discern the truth, possibly by design.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
We asked the Pentagon to clarify why Biden's recent changes to DOD directive 5240.01 removed mention of the First Amendment and added language about potential "lethal force" against Americans. They responded by insisted that there's NOTHING TO SEE HERE: "It does not reflect any change to DOD's policy regarding the use of lethal force by DOD personnel. The release was in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event." I guess it's all just a bunch of coincidences? What makes this more suspicious is the Left's recent 'Jan. 6th 2.0' war game, which debated the use of lethal military force against Americans. The Pentagon, the White House, and Congress were ALL briefed about the results of that war game. So, are these two stories connected? All this government language, as usual, is so full of bureaucratic BULL CRAP that it's impossible to detect what they're really doing. Maybe that's the point...
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Pentagon recently revised DOD directive 5240.01, which outlines military intelligence's role in assisting domestic law enforcement. The new version removes references to the First Amendment and introduces terms related to lethality and serious bodily injury. This change raises questions about the timing, coinciding with an upcoming pivotal election. The Pentagon claims the revision is routine and does not reflect a shift in policy regarding lethal force. They assert that the directive clarifies approval authorities for Defense Intelligence activities and is unrelated to any events, including the election. However, the timing and language have led to speculation about potential implications, especially following discussions from a recent war game related to January 6th. Despite reassurances, uncertainty remains about the true intentions behind these revisions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: About a month ago, the Pentagon revised DOD directive 5240.01. This is a directive that actually dates back to the Cold War and stipulates guidelines for if or when the US military intelligence can assist, assist domestic law enforcement. Well, before last month, there was a revision made in 2016. And it stipulates that military intelligence involvement is pursuant to presidential or congressional action. In other words, a time of war.
And it also warns that, quote, it may not investigate US persons or collect or maintain information about them solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the constitution. Okay. So that's comforting. Also, the fact that the words lethal and deadly never show up. One time in this version of the direct, directive, they didn't talk about that.
But now, here's the new version. The words first amendment were taken out. Why? It also includes levels of authority and the language this time adds in lethality, lethal force, death or serious bodily injury. Why?
Why would there suddenly be a need to refine the rules on US military intelligence spying on Americans? A few pivotal, few weeks pivotal election. Why did they feel the need to add the potential use of those assets using lethal force just a few weeks before that election? Well, we asked the Pentagon to clarify and we got back an email that was very similar to the fact sheet they recently gave to congress. We obtained a copy of that fact sheet.
So this is apparently a nothing burger. They it's just, it's just, you know, business as usual. Well, this is the official explainer to congress and explainers to lowly outlets such as us. The response they gave us stated, and I quote, the reissue directive does not reflect any change towards the DOD's view toward its role in supporting civil authorities to include law enforcement. Rather, it provides clarification and delineates the approval authorities, for activities conducted by the Defense Intelligence Components.
While the paragraph that has been most frequently referenced on social media is new to this directive, it does not reflect any change to DOD's policy regarding the use of lethal force by DOD personnel. That is addressed in DODD 5210.56 arming and the use of force. Revisions of DOD issuances are routine and ensure that departmental policies continue to be consistent with law and the executive branch policy and that they could clearly articulate departmental policy. The release was in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event. Right.
There's a bit more. We have the full statement up atglenbeck.com if you want to read it. But let me just summarize. Nothing to see here. The timing on the election is just a coincidence.
And even though they added scary words, it doesn't change the meaning. And the DOD directive that they listed shows up as business as usual. DOD 5210.56. Now what the hell is that? Well, here it is.
And to me, this looks just like guidelines for the military that do security around their own bases and things like that. Now is it just me or why is this being used as the example? This just is business as usual. Could be nothing. Could be something.
We really don't know. The government language as usual is so full of bureaucratic bullcrap it's impossible to detect. This is a recent fact check done by the University of Washington. They state that quote, the spread of this story is due to a data void. In other words, nobody's telling anything so we don't know so people speculate.
At any rate, I find it suspicious given the last recent January 6th war game and what they discussed. Were these revisions made because of this war game? Just to reiterate one more time. Everyone was briefed including the Pentagon and Congress and the White House. Is there something being planned for certification day?
I don't think so, but I don't know anymore.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it infuriating how high fructose corn syrup affects our bodies. Casey Means explains that it disrupts our hunger signals, making us feel hungrier. Interestingly, hibernating animals like bears consume fructose-rich berries to gain fat, but this also tricks their brains into feeling insatiably hungry. It damages mitochondrial function, leading to fat storage. Food scientists recognized this and decided to add high fructose corn syrup to many foods, essentially making us feel like we're preparing for a never-ending winter.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
THIS IS INFURIATING. @CaseyMeansMD explains what high fructose corn syrup does to our bodies: "It subverts our hunger cues and makes us feel even HUNGRIER. Hibernating animals like bears...need to put on 20-30 more pounds of fat. They eat super-ripe, fructose-rich berries...it actually tricks the bears' brains to make the bears insatiably hungry...it breaks mitochondrial function which causes the bear to store all that sugar as fat. Food scientists figured this out and thought, 'wow, if we add this to every little piece of food we create, it's gonna make people think they're like hibernating animals preparing for a winter that is never coming.'"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Reister's corn syrup is described as a "weapon of mass destruction" introduced in the 1970s and now ubiquitous in American foods like ketchup, salad dressings, bread, and sodas. High fructose corn syrup allegedly subverts hunger cues, making people feel hungrier due to its concentrated liquid form.
The speaker draws a parallel to hibernating animals like bears, whose fructose-rich diets trigger insatiable hunger and fat storage by impairing mitochondrial function. Food scientists supposedly exploited this mechanism to make people "insatiable" and aggressively seek food, leading to fat accumulation.
The speaker claims this is an experiment happening to American children, contributing to the statistic that 74% of Americans are overweight. The speaker alleges that much of the food science and food research done in America is paid for by the processed food industry, which slants the findings. 82% of independently funded studies show harm from ultra-processed food, while 93% of industry-sponsored studies reflect no harm.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Reister's corn syrup is a weapon of mass destruction against Americans. People need to realize that this is not a ubiquitous aspect of American culture. This is brand new. It was created in the 19 seventies, and it's now as people might notice that they relabeled, it's added to everything. It's in our ketchup.
It's in our salad dressings. It's in our bread. Salad dressings. It's in our bread. It's everywhere.
And this is by design. Of course, it's filling our sodas as well. The reason it's by design is because high fructose corn syrup, unlike fructose you find in, you know, honey or or fruits where it's, you know, in fruit, it's surrounded by fiber and there's a very small amount. High fructose corn syrup is concentrated and it's in a liquid form, so it goes into the body fast. And what it does is it actually subverts our hunger cues, and it makes us feel even hungrier.
There's this fascinating, thing that we know from evolutionary biology with animals that hibernating animals like bears, when they when the fall comes and the berries are all ripe out in the wild, for a bear to survive winter, the bear needs to put on 20, 30 more pounds of fat. So how does the bear do that? It eats these super ripe, fructose rich berries, and that fructose in a super high concentration actually tricks the bear's brain because of the molecular structure of fructose to make the bear insatiably hungry rather than full. It's it's it's actually it's a very unique aspect of fructose, and it drives the bear to even be violent because the bear needs to outcompete other animals to eat as many berries as possible. And what does fructose do?
It hurts our, not to get too sciency here, but our mitochondrial function. Remember from high school biology, mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. And it it breaks mitochondrial function which then causes the bear to store all that sugar as fat. Okay? So this is fascinating.
So food scientists figured this out and thought, wow. If we add this to every little piece of food that we create, it's gonna make people think that they are like hibernating animals preparing for a winter that is never coming, and it's gonna get them to be insatiable. It's gonna make them to be aggressive in their food seeking behaviors, and they're gonna, of course, 3 d print fat just like those animals. That is the experiment happening to American children. That is why we're 74% of us are over at our beach in addition to many other, you know, environmental factors.
But this is it's and we know this. This is not so, you know, and then you look at what happens with the money. And you know we know that much of the food science and food research done in America is paid for by processed food industry. And this absolutely slants the findings. 82% of independently funding funded studies show harm from ultra processed food, but 93% of industry sponsored studies reflect no harm.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
After seeing RFK Jr. join forces with Trump to "Make America Healthy Again," my team dug into some of his claims about Big Food and Big Pharma. We were SHOCKED and DISGUSTED by what we found. Tonight on Glenn TV, I'll reveal how America is being CHEMICALLY POISONED. https://t.co/F3Dca98WS4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses adding sugar to Cheerios, something their kids do. They compare this to soda consumption, noting that two cans of soda daily equate to £10 of sugar per month. This is likened to children consuming two bowls of Cheerios with 3.5 tablespoons of sugar each. The speaker questions when their mother would have intervened, implying disapproval of such high sugar intake. They reiterate that this amount of sugar is equivalent to that found in two cans of soda.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I didn't have anything to eat. I'm just having a little cheerios. Okay? And, sorry mom but I just put a little bit of, sugar on my cheerios. Your kids do this.
Put a little just put a little sugar on your cheerios. You know it's like soda. We were never allowed to have soda when I was growing up. And, and if you have if you have just 2 cans of soda, every, every day by the end of the month you've had £10 of sugar. So that's just like your kids having 2 bowls of cereal and putting, 3 and a half tablespoons of sugar on their cereal.
At what point did mom say, enough sugar? I think it was probably before that. Just so you understand, £10 of sugar. That's how your kids are filling their bowl if they have 2 bowls of Cheerios and would put 3 and a half tablespoons on their that's what they have just from 2 cans of soda. I don't think my mom would be for that.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Why would the FDA approve putting potentially DANGEROUS chemicals like food dyes into our food? Well, maybe it's because payments from Big Food and Big Pharma make up 46 PERCENT of the FDA's funding? Let's call this what it is: BRIBERY. https://t.co/pJvtdK039b
Video Transcript AI Summary
Manufacturers must supply the FDA with evidence that their chemicals are safe before being added to foods. The speaker claims the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer seeking profit, not the FDA.
The FDA relies on user fees and budget appropriations for funding. Manufacturers pay fees based on the weight of each batch, which supports the FDA's color certification program. The speaker suggests this system is essentially bribery, using a hypothetical example of a cartel making cocaine baby food and paying for a study to prove its safety.
In fiscal year 2022, user fees accounted for $2.9 billion of the FDA's $6.2 billion budget. The speaker concludes that nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from big food and big pharma, which they believe is a conflict of interest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, if we look at it from the top of the chalkboard, you can read it for yourself quote, manufacturers are required to supply the FDA with evidence that establishes each chemical is safe at the intended level of use before it may be added to foods. Oh. Okay. So the burden of proof to determine whether or not their food is dangerous is actually the guy trying to turn his product into profit. Not the governmental organization whose job it is to keep us safe.
And remember, it's just for his food. He can be making all of these food, all these foods but if he's only testing it for yellow number 7. No. That's but if yellow is in all of these, that might be a bit too much, wouldn't it? Wait a minute.
Is this gonna cause cancer? No. For, like, sure it won't. Trust us. By the way, did we show you our revenue projections for next quarter?
And the FDA FDA gets a lot of that too. Come on. Now I would think the government would have some incentive to make sure we're not getting chemically poisoned. I'm sure it does but I mean money doesn't talk. It screams.
Which brings me to the next part on the chalkboard, user fees. Again, read it yourself. User's fees quote the Food and Drug Administration FDA relies on funding from 2 sources to support its regular activities. User fees and budget appropriations and user fees paid by the industry. For food dye specifically, quote, manufacturers pay fees based on the weight of each batch and these fees support the FDA's color certification program.
Doesn't that sound like bull crap? Let's just call this for what it really is. Okay? Because if if I'm looking at this let's say I'm a I'm a cartel. Not like a drug cartel cartel.
Just a mob run cartel. Okay? If the mob exists which we all know it doesn't. And I'm like this cartel and I'm like, I'm gonna make food. I'm gonna in fact, I'm gonna make cocaine for babies food.
And I was just gonna mix a little cocaine. Now, I wouldn't mix a lot in there. I just write them out, for cocaine's cocaine so if they have this, the babies are safe. Now, not if they're eating it every day, you know, and eating other stuff with cocaine in it. But my food is absolutely safe.
So I go to my clown scientists and I'm like, hey, can you write up something that says that cocaine is safe in baby food? And they're like, absolutely. How much money? You give them the money, they come up with a study, and then you give money and the study to the FDA and the FDA is like, alright. Cocaine for babies it is.
That's a bribe. That's all this is is bribery. The manufacturing the manufacturers who are putting these chemicals into our foods are the ones supplying the totally safe data. Then they pay for fees, and the FDA is like, that's right. We're not I didn't see anything.
Cancer, schmancer. I don't know what you're even talking about. That's a lucrative relationship. Strangely, as was the vaccines. In fiscal year 2022, user fees represented $2,900,000,000 of the FDA's total budget of 6,200,000,000.
Nearly half of the entire budget from the FDA is coming from big food and big pharma. Now that sounds a little like a conflict of interest to me.
reSee.it AI Summary
I received alarming information that deepens my concerns, which I'll share this weekend or Monday on air. I want to confirm, but @elonmusk is correct. The State Department blocked our planes from taking off while we were rescuing over 20,000 heroes in Afghanistan. Because of their actions, we remain in Afghanistan assisting those in hiding, facing significant challenges and lack of support from the US government. This behavior is not representative of who we are as a nation.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
I just received some information from the inside that makes this even worse. I will be sharing sometime this weekend or Monday on air. I want to double check but @elonmusk IS RIGHT. It is what the State Dept. did to me in Afghanistan. They blocked our planes from taking off as we began to rescue 20,000+ heroes. Because of what they did then, we are still in Afghanistan helping those in hiding, with ZERO help and a ton of HURT from the US gov. They have become the bad guys and will block anyone who tries to do the right thing. This is NOT who we are!
reSee.it AI Summary
I spoke with the only FEMA crew in Asheville, North Carolina, stationed far from Hurricane Helene victims. They arrived a week late and suggested people use their app to get help, but many lack internet access. When asked how victims would know about their location, they mentioned the media, yet many don’t have TVs. The crew claimed they go door to door, but the crew lead contradicted this. It's clear that the victims need immediate assistance without bureaucratic hurdles.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
.@CoryMillsFL and I spoke with the ONLY FEMA crew we could find in Asheville, North Carolina. It was stationed OFF the main road where NO Hurricane Helene victims could easily see them: “We got here yesterday.” A WEEK LATE. “They could go online, make a phone call, or use our app to get them in the system...The app is great.” THEY DON’T HAVE INTERNET. How do people know this location exists? “That would be the news media’s job.” THEY DON’T HAVE TVs. “They sit in their cars to charge their phones and listen to the radio.” YOU MEAN THE CARS THAT WERE WASHED INTO THE RIVER? “We actually go door to door.” When will that start? “That’s way above my head. Do you want to talk to my crew lead?” The crew lead: “We don’t necessarily go door to door.” These people don’t need your red tape, FEMA. Get out of their way and let Americans be Americans.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A congressman and Glenn visit a disaster assistance registration site. The site aims to get people into the system for financial aid, starting with special needs assistance. Yesterday, they handed out flyers due to connectivity issues, directing people to online resources or a nearby PRC.
A major problem is that many lack the ability to access online information or even know the location exists. While the news media is expected to inform the public, many residents lack power. Door-to-door outreach is conducted by a separate cadre after the "mass people" are processed.
The registration unit just arrived and will relocate to the car wash area for better visibility. The priority is getting people registered for financial assistance, but verifying damages and residency is also necessary to prevent fraud. The team is from various states and operates from 9 AM to 5 PM.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, they have to move out. Moving chairs. Too much traffic. This is the first one you've seen. Right?
Speaker 1: In Nashville.
Speaker 0: Hey, guys. Doing? Good. How are you? Alright.
What can I do for you? Well, I just I'm I'm Glenn, and this is, congressman Mills. Congressman Mills, how are you doing, man? We're just wondering what you guys are up to. What's So they're all this in today, which gives us connectivity, complete connectivity, so we can do a lot more than we've been doing.
K. Because I did all of our equipment works now. Now. So they're registering, they're telling them over there. We're over here.
I think tomorrow, they're moving us over there somewhere more, but not exactly And what are you doing? So to what is it? Actually registering people for payment systems. Okay. So this is the check thing?
Them in the system. Not just a check thing, but housing, checking generator. Okay. So this is the list of So it's the housing and the Yeah. Good.
Production is working. Good. But we're basically getting in the system. And you guys got here today? We've been here for 2 days.
We got here yesterday. Yesterday, we didn't have any connectivity. So we took 28 100 people as near as we could count coming through the food distribution line and through the gas station food station and handed them all these flyers. We have flyers to any of our flyers from here, but they can take pictures of our fire, which told me to go online. They can make a phone call.
The giraffe could go online just to get them in the system. Also, tell them they're gonna be here eventually. There'll be
Speaker 1: a PRC located nearby at the center question. And and not stop. One of the biggest problems, though, is that most people don't have the ability, 1, to even get on their phones to verify what is going on. How does people even know
Speaker 0: that this location exists? So that would be the news media's job to tell everyone But they
Speaker 1: don't have power. None of the
Speaker 0: news media. Well, I mean, I watch the news. The people who Oh, yeah. Yeah. The people who They
Speaker 1: just don't have power. Be surprised.
Speaker 0: You would be surprised. They sit in their cars to charge their phones and listen to the radio. They're very very well known. That's how they knew the distribution center was here. So they knew were told to come here to get those supplies and they don't know we're here really until we they get here and we tell
Speaker 1: them to see us. But it is possible though that those who won are either cut off in the location because they're still rebuilding roads, obviously. Sure. Cable or rest or doesn't have power will know about even Right. Where this truck exists or if
Speaker 0: it doesn't exist. Right. And there is no way actually. So we're DSA disaster survivors sometimes. Right?
So what we actually do, we work items like these, and we actually go door to door. We go door to door and try to knock on every door in the county. And we go at the direction usually of the emergency manager because the fire chiefs are gonna tell us where people are when things are devastated. So we literally go door to door. So when does that start?
That's way above my head. So, you're talking to Pion Eddie. Yeah. You're not talking do you wanna talk to my crew do you wanna talk to my crew lead? Here, let me get my crew lead for you.
She she might have some answers
Speaker 2: for you. But,
Speaker 1: again, it goes back to my point which is that okay. So I need to fill out a form. I need to scan a flyer. Yeah. How do I know this exists?
Oh, the local media. Okay. Well, they don't have power. Yeah. They might not have a vehicle.
Speaker 0: Right. So what about I saw a lot of them washed away. That's right.
Speaker 1: Hi. Ma'am, how are you? Patricia.
Speaker 0: Hi, Patricia. I'm Glenn.
Speaker 2: I'm Glenn.
Speaker 0: This is congressman Mills.
Speaker 2: Hello. How are
Speaker 1: you, ma'am? Good.
Speaker 0: So, we're wondering we just asked when do you guys go door to door? He was telling that
Speaker 2: After we get the general stuff done, you know, we gotta hit the mass people first, wherever the mass people are. So the mass people are here. Let's get them into the system as quickly as possible. Once we get the mass system, then we start going door to door.
Speaker 0: K. How I mean, how how do people know you're here?
Speaker 2: Where did we just got here.
Speaker 0: Oh, you just got here?
Speaker 2: We were here yesterday.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And today is our first day, with this unit.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And then tomorrow, we're gonna move the unit up by the car wash.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 2: So yesterday, we couldn't do anything besides give them the information because we didn't have any Wi Fi.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I I will say unless there's someone who's we got lucky enough. Glenn actually spotted it before I did. But I think even having this vehicle more towards the front of the road where people even know that it exists
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: With for visibility, with people coming by might actually Yeah. We were
Speaker 0: in a we were in a van with 8 people. I was the only one that saw it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
No. No.
Speaker 2: That's what we're gonna do. That's what we gotta do. We just needed a temporary spot to turn around and get things up and running. Yeah. And, the guy that's running this facility here, I spoke with the manager here.
He said this would be a good spot. The guy that's running the parking lot is a different guy. I didn't know that. He said, so the car wash would be better. And I was like, boy, that's really smart.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. So that's where we're gonna be set up tomorrow. Yeah. And we should be doing registrations. Well, we'll be here between 9 and 10.
We're all coming in from Charlotte. He'll be here a little bit earlier, and then we're we'll start tearing down, about 5 o'clock so that we can get out of here.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 2: Because, we don't necessarily go door to door. It's not my cadre, anyways. There are there's 23 different cadres.
Speaker 1: Oh, I know. I understand how the bureaucratic levels of departments work.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. It's something. So And
Speaker 1: they don't always work clear together.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We we concentrate in getting people into the system so that we can get them financial assistance right away. That. And it's happening like that. What is it?
Are you guys recording me?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, he's he's filming. Filming. Yeah. We're here.
He's filming us.
Speaker 2: So, you know, one of the first things that are coming out is is, special needs assistance.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: That's just a little bit of into the account. People are gonna think automatically that that's all they're gonna get. No. That's not the case. That's just the beginning.
That is just the beginning because then there's going to be another much, much larger drop, and then there's going to be other things. So we still have to go through and verify the damages that have been done.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know? And that you own the house and that you are the resident.
Speaker 1: Limit the amount of fraud we can see in other areas. We we we
Speaker 0: We we got it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Thank you. We are all from different parts of the United States. I'm from Montana. I'm from
Speaker 0: Are you really? Florida. I'm from Texas.
Speaker 2: Oh, Where are you guys from? What? Where are you guys from?
Speaker 0: I'm from Tennessee. I'm working out. I was
Speaker 1: Hey, sir. Official birthday. Day.
Speaker 0: Bunch of old crap that works.
Speaker 1: I got here yesterday, official Thursday. We're tucked away almost 8 months.
Speaker 0: No. She no. She's where the masks are.
Speaker 2: But 9
Speaker 1: to 5
Speaker 0: She's where the masks are.
Speaker 2: Don't worry. 9 to 5. Well,
Speaker 1: but again, though, it still hasn't answered the question, which is that
Speaker 0: Adam, we're still
Speaker 1: in your area.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. She she was up she's where the masses are. Can't you see the masses lined up? They're not even in the right side of the parking lot.
You wanna be where the masses are, you put up signs at least or your stupid little table in front of where the food is. Well, but but but when she said we don't But
Speaker 1: then your question, you said when? He goes, well, that's above my head.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And then so let me let let me talk to my let you talk to my manager. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. And then the manager said, no.
We don't go door to door. I don't know when that happens. That's a different department. Oh my god. Kidding.
No. Exactly what was that. No. It was that that is when
Speaker 1: when when Glenn went silent, I knew he was done with this.
Speaker 0: Oh, I was done from the very beginning. I I I I could see these guys.
Speaker 1: But But, again, though, you wouldn't have even spotted them, Glenn.
Speaker 0: I know. Good. I
Speaker 2: know. Who
Speaker 1: knows that they
Speaker 0: were back here?
Speaker 1: And, again, my recommendation I thought was pretty common sense, which is, hey, for more visibility, maybe you put yourself on the main road.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You want to serve the quote, unquote masses. Let's go ahead and get the mass visibility.
Speaker 0: The food and the stuff is down there. Their truck, which just looks like a commuter, it doesn't have a sign, hey. Register for money. Register for help. Just a communications truck.
Right. And 2 people sitting at the table.
Speaker 1: If you saw that, would you know that your sign up for a
Speaker 0: Phoenix business? I don't know it. Well, that's the sign up for Phoenix.
Speaker 2: Yes. That's it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's it.
Speaker 2: You found it. No.
Speaker 0: It is. Yes. It is. Way. That's what their selves in the quiet corner of the back.
Right. That's right. And they said, and you ready? They said, we said, how do how do you people know? Well, they're watching TV and they're listening right now.
They don't have homes. That's what they literally said.
Speaker 2: That's what
Speaker 0: they said. I said, so let me get this straight.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m concerned that George Soros is acquiring numerous radio stations ahead of the election, and @BrendanCarrFCC has stated that the FCC is facilitating this by bypassing the usual foreign ownership review process for Soros's group.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
George Soros is buying up HUNDREDS of radio stations before the election and @BrendanCarrFCC confirms the FCC is HELPING him: "We have a very clear process... to review the foreign ownership at issue here... the FCC Commission, for the very first time ever, has SKIPPED that process for the benefit of this Soros-backed group."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The New York Post reported that the SEC fast-tracked George Soros' purchase of 200 radio stations. The FCC reportedly adopted the order in a 3-2 vote, skipping the usual 6-month to 1-year national security review process for foreign ownership. This is described as an unprecedented decision by the FCC.
While many stations may be classic rock or news, some are conservative news and talk outlets, including stations featuring hosts like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Dana Lass, and Mark Levin.
A similar situation occurred when a group of conservative buyers wanted to purchase South Florida radio stations, but Democrats spoke out, and the deal was abandoned. This is presented as part of a pattern of Democrats weaponizing the government against conservative speech, including efforts to pressure cable companies to drop Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN. A Baltimore Democrat prosecutor also called on the FCC to investigate a local TV station.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Brendan, tell me, is do I have this right, first of all, about the George Soros, takeover of radio stations? And if so, why was there an exception made and fast tracked?
Speaker 1: Well, as you know, the New York Post has a story out last week or actually yesterday that says that the SEC last week adopted an order that effectively fast tracked Soros' purchase of these 200 radio stations. And I haven't commented on that publicly because the fact is the FCC hasn't released a final decision to the public yet, but the reporting is that we adopted it last week in a 3-two vote. I've been outspoken on this particular issue for the reasons that you talked about. We have a very clear process of the SEC that we've set up that could take 6 months, could take a year to go through to review the foreign ownership at issue here. But for reasons that are not sort of plain to me, the FCC commission for the very first time ever has skipped that process for the benefit of this Soros backed group.
And I'll sort of let people draw their own conclusions about it. But it's again, it's it's an unprecedented decision for the commission.
Speaker 0: Never happened before.
Speaker 1: That's right. We at the commission level adopted one way that you can buy radio stations if you have excessive foreign ownership, which they do. And that one process is this lengthy 6 to 1 year national security review and it's been skipped here. Now, a lot of these stations are probably just classic rock or news, but not all of them. They're on the floor.
And they don't have to be. There's a number of stations that you're on, for instance, at least 3 stations that you're on that are part of this deal, same with Sean Hannity, same with Dana Lass, same with Mark Levin. So there's at least some of these that are conservative news and talk outlets.
Speaker 0: I got to tell you, if this was a conservative doing this, I doubt the FCC would have ok'd it. Any ramifications go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, Glenn, we actually have that example. So not too long ago, maybe a year or so ago, there was a group of conservative buyers that wanted to purchase some South Florida radio stations and a number of Democrats spoke up very loudly and said the FC cannot allow these conservative outlets to buy these radio stations because in the Democrats' view, it could cost them elections in South Florida. And amidst that pressure campaign, the conservative buyers abandoned the deal. And so we've seen across the board concerted efforts by Democrats to weaponize the government to go against conservative speech. There was California Democrats in Congress that wrote letter to cable companies telling them to drop Fox News, Newsmax and OAN because of the editorial decisions that their newsrooms were making.
We had a Baltimore Democrat prosecutor call on the FCC to investigate a local TV station that was exposing her own corruption. And so this is sort of the reverse side of a pattern that we've been living under the last couple of years of weaponization of government power, in my view, frankly, against free speech.
reSee.it AI Summary
I predict that the Blue Team will not win the upcoming election, both in the popular vote and the electoral count. However, I believe this outcome won't be reported accurately. The Deep State employs various tactics to achieve a favorable electoral result, and I see the Blue Team as willing to cheat in visible ways. It's crucial for us to secure such an overwhelming victory that any potential cheating is overshadowed by the public's desire to reclaim our nation. This isn't just an election; it's the election we must win.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
.@BretWeinstein makes an ominous prediction for November: “I think the Blue Team will NOT win the election. I believe they will be defeated both in the popular vote and the electoral count.” “But it WON’T BE REPORTED that way.” “The Deep State, or whatever it is, uses every trick in the book to bring about an electoral result that it finds favorable. I see the Blue Team as perfectly willing to CHEAT in ways that are visible in public.” “We in the public have to ensure that it is such an OVERWHELMING VICTORY that any capacity to cheat is drowned out by the organic impulse of the American public to retake their nation and put it back on course.” “This is not AN election we must win. This is THE election we must win.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the "blue team" will lose the election in both popular vote and electoral count, but anticipates this won't be reported accurately due to media capture and voting method changes. They see the "deep state" as willing to use any means, including cheating, to achieve a favorable electoral outcome.
The speaker cites the suppression of the Biden laptop story as an example of election interference. They believe a phony vote count is possible, as the opposing force is willing to undermine American values to shape the election.
To prevent this, the speaker urges the public to ensure an overwhelming victory that nullifies any potential cheating. They see signs of alarm among the populace regarding the current administration, but emphasize the critical importance of winning this specific election to prevent the restriction of free speech.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You have said that you're actually very optimistic. You're you're confident, that or more and more confident that, blue team won't win, in your words. They'll be defeated. Why?
Speaker 1: Well, I have to, maybe back you up from thinking that was an optimistic statement because what I said was, I think the blue team will not win the election. I believe they will be defeated both in the popular vote and the electoral count, but the second part of that statement is that it won't be reported that way. I'm concerned that the rearrangement of the manner of voting, the destruction of the mainstream press or maybe capture is a better term, means that there's a capability to just simply portray the result as different than it actually was. So, yes, I believe if I look at the interactions that I have as I'm traveling or even here at home in a blue state, there are plenty of people awake to win this election and defeat this blue monster. But at some level, it has to be recorded as a loss for the Blue Monster in order for it to be to be made.
Speaker 2: Are you are you talking about election interference far as the vote count, or are you talking about, you know, propaganda that it was, you know, that it was an illegitimate,
Speaker 0: however they wanna spin it?
Speaker 1: Well, look. I'm an outsider. I don't exist in the realm where I understand exactly what does protect our vote count, but what I can see from the outside is that the deep state or whatever it is uses every trick in the book to to bring about an electoral result that it finds favorable. And that is obviously illegitimate. So I see the blue team as perfectly willing to cheat in ways that are visible in public, the suppression of the Biden laptop story, for example, was election interference and it was extremely broad and who knows what effect it had.
But the question I'm left with is, if you have a powerful force that is willing to cheat, is willing to destroy fundamental American values like freedom of the press in order to shape the outcome of an election, The only reason that I would think that that wouldn't extend to a phony vote count is that it would be too risky or too difficult, and I don't think it's either of those things. So I guess
Speaker 2: Unless it unless it was like a Reagan 84 kind of victory where it was overwhelming. But I don't think that's gonna happen. But I think that's the only way that they couldn't pull something off if they if they have the capability. They could pull it off unless it was just overwhelming.
Speaker 0: Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1: That is what I think we in the public have to ensure is that it is such an overwhelming victory that any capacity to cheat is drowned out by the organic impulse of the American public to retake their nation and put it back on course.
Speaker 2: Do you see any signs that that might happen?
Speaker 1: I do. Again, when I do an admittedly nonrandom sample as I travel through the world, I find a tremendous number of people alarmed, especially in light of what took place, ushering Joe Biden out of the the race and creating a phony picture of Kamala as some kind of heroic figure. So people are seeing that. But the question is, do they understand that this is not an election we must win, that this is the election we must win? In fact, what Kamala has said across many years, in fact, is that she thinks that free speech has to be reined in by the platforms and that she is intent on seeing that done in her administration.
So the ability to return the republic to the proper course is going to vanish on us if free speech is targeted in that way. It's already back on its heels.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
This is so very clearly hatred for the Jews. I am shocked and horrified by this. SHAME ON YOU Shane Hazel.
@ShaneTHazel - Shane Hazel
@glennbeck They* don't care who's elected. They* are already in complete control. https://t.co/v5VJ6OqDES
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Attorney @pnjaban on why the Left’s weaponization of justice against Trump is so dangerous: "The goal here is to trigger civil unrest in this country...that's going to be used to crack down on conservatives and try to influence the outcome of this election." https://t.co/8IYbC5crtQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe the justice system is at risk of being lost due to President Trump's upcoming sentencing in New York. This prosecution is seen as a sham and could lead to civil unrest if he is incarcerated. The goal may be to incite protests and crackdown on conservatives to sway the election outcome.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How close do you think we are to losing the justice system? Well I think we're gonna see when the sentencing occurs, you know, next month of President Trump and this sham, ludicrous prosecution in New York, which is the worst of the 4, the the shoddiest of these cases that he's been facing. I think I personally think the goal here is to trigger trigger civil unrest in this country. And if there's a incarceration sentence passed down, there will be unrest in this country because of people's shock and protest against this. And I think that's gonna be used to crack down on conservatives and, again, try to influence the outcome of this election.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
There are 7 conditions that must be met for a color revolution to successfully topple a government and it all must revolve around a national election. Well, this election season in America, ALL 7 are met. https://t.co/UBLOCslbt5
Video Transcript AI Summary
Revolutions are set up with a semi-autocratic regime, an unpopular leader, organized opposition, media exposing falsified votes, mobilized demonstrators, and divided coercive forces. This pattern aligns with national elections, as seen in recent protest movements every 4 years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is how revolutions are set up. But what are the conditions for one to be successfully conducted? When can regime change actually be attempted? Well, State Department learned this by doing it over and over and over again. And we know it because Obama's ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, literally wrote the book on it.
This is this is what, was required as per Obama's administration to topple a country. Are you ready? You need a semiautomatic regime, not fully auto autocratic. It has to be semi. You have to have an unpopular incumbent.
You have to have a united and organized opposition. Do we have these things yet? Then you have to have the ability to quickly drive home the point that the voting results were falsified. You need the media to inform people about the falsified vote. You need an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands of demonstrators.
And then you need divisions among the regimes, coercive forces like the military or the police Sounds like we have all of those, doesn't it? See, this is why all of this always moves in concert with a national election. Have you ever noticed last, you know, 8, 12 years, every major protest movement we have seems to kind of magically have this 4 year hibernation cycle. What a coincidence.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
.@alexnewman_jou tells me Bill Gates and the UN have teamed up to build a "GIANT DIGITAL GULAG for all of humanity": "They are using [CBDCs, digital IDs, & digital health certificates] to build a control system that will be able to manipulate what you do." https://t.co/ZfMWF63ifW
Video Transcript AI Summary
The UN and Bill Gates are collaborating on a digital public infrastructure plan called the 50 and 5 plan. This initiative aims to implement digital IDs, central bank digital currencies, payment processing systems, and digital health certificates within five years in 50 countries. The goal is to create a global control grid using biometric digital IDs and blockchain technology to monitor and manipulate individuals' actions on an unprecedented scale. This system will allow governments to control transactions and assets through a universal blockchain ledger.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Talk to me about the 50 and 5 plan. So the UN has partnered with Bill Gates, on this, what they call, digital public infrastructure. It's a very fancy term. And I think the simplest way to understand it is they're building a giant digital gulag for all of humanity. So the UN Development Program, has officially launched this.
It was officially launched at the end of last year where they're gonna get 50 govern they call them countries, but, really, they mean governments, to impose at least some major element of this digital public infrastructure on their population within 5 years. So 2020 sports. Digital IDs, and those are already emerging. In fact, many states are developing these. I just went through the airport yesterday.
You can scan your digital ID, QR code. Right? So that's happening. And that's that's really one of the main reasons for the COVID Absolutely. Nonsense.
The architecture that was laid down is the backbone of this global control grid that they're building. So you've got the central bank digital currencies, which are already being unveiled. Right? They they've already been, released. The World Economic Forum just said a few days ago, 98 percent of the governments, the central banks in the world are working on these CBDCs.
Once they're fully operational, I guarantee you, they're gonna start waging war on cash much more openly. They'll say it's a tool for terrorists and, pimps and and, you know, every nasty thing you tax cheats, everything you can think of. Then you've got the the payment processing systems, and you've also got we we just had the head of the World Health Organization talk about this recently, the digital health certificates, the digital vaccine passports. They're taking what the EU developed during the COVID, which, by the way, the the European Commission was promoting vaccine passports in May of 2000 19, long before anybody ever heard of COVID or anything like that. So they're taking all of this together, and they are using it to build a control system that will not just be able to surveil and monitor everything you do on an unprecedented scale when you combine it with AI, the ability to make sense of all this data.
It's just mind blowing, but also to manipulate what you do. And so they're talking about this again pretty openly. If you look at the World Economic Forum meetings, they talk about the benefits of programmable central bank digital currency, where they will be able to say who can buy what, when, under what conditions. And then the bank for international settlements, you know, Carol Quigley, to go back to him for a moment, Bill Clinton's mentor, the guy who really exposed this global agenda to create a one world system, he said the apex of the system was gonna be the bank for international settlements. This is an institution that's almost entirely unknown to Americans.
And what they are working on right now, and this is not a secret, it's not a conspiracy because it's not happening behind closed doors, is what they call a universal blockchain ledger. They wanna tokenize every asset in the known universe, every farm, every car, every house, every tree, put it on this ledger, this blockchain ledger, and then you're only able to interact with this blockchain ledger using your biometric digital ID, using your central bank digital currencies. And so if I wanna buy something from you, I can't just hand you a $100 bill. I've gotta go on my device, connect to this blockchain system, transfer the central bank digital currencies to you. And so this is a a mechanism for controlling humanity that I think is really unprecedented in human history.
And when you take it all together, it's very obvious.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
The FBI HANDCUFFED Blaze Media investigative journalist @TPC4USA and made him take a PERP WALK for his reporting on January 6th. This is unbelievable. https://t.co/yA2PILM9yk
Video Transcript AI Summary
Terry, a gentle man, was handcuffed today. It's unbelievable to see him in a perp walk on Blaze TV.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Terry is, the clip of him being handcuffed today. If you're watching Blaze TV Gotta be kidding me. Look at that. Perp walk. This is the nicest, quietest, gentlest man I know.
It's incredible. Unbelievable.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
.@TPC4USA was told by federal authorities to wear "shorts and sandals" when he turns himself into the FBI tomorrow morning. Instead of abiding by the humiliation process he tells me: "I'm going to pray, and then I'm going to put on my suit and tie and walk in with my head up." https://t.co/uokMFqVxkc
Video Transcript AI Summary
I have prepared mentally for over 2 years for this moment. I won't sleep tonight, it's my way. I'll pray, put on my suit, and walk in confidently.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So, mentally, how are you? I have my moments. I'm okay. I'm, you know, I've had I've had over 2 years to prepare for this. I've game planned it all out in my head.
I'm not gonna sleep tonight. I'm not even gonna try. It it is my way anyway. And so I'm just gonna, you know, prepare, pray, and, and then I'm gonna put on my suit and tie. Good for you.
And walk in with my head up. Good for you.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
When @TuckerCarlson interviewed Vladimir Putin, journalism suddenly became a CRIME in the eyes of other journalists. So, I sat down with Tucker to hear his side of the story. https://t.co/opRfWjMNlW
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, Tucker Carlson travels to Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin, defending the importance of open dialogue and journalists' ability to interview leaders from all sides. He criticizes the mismanagement of American cities, the decline in living standards, and the intentional destruction of the country by its leaders. Carlson highlights the need to prioritize American interests, restore order, and questions the effectiveness of NATO while expressing concerns about the erosion of American sovereignty. The speaker also discusses the power of communication, the need for change in the US, the influence of the media, the Ukraine conflict, and the dangers of the military. They express frustration with politicians and the ruling class, emphasizing the importance of focusing on fundamental issues. The speaker mentions their interview with Putin and their lack of concern for Navalny's death, advocating for independent thinking and prioritizing what truly matters for the country's well-being.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tucker Carlson just did something that no other western journalist in the world has either been willing or able to do in a very long time. He traveled to Moscow to speak to Russian president Vladimir Putin. And right on track, cue the collective outrage. Tucker Carlson is dangerous. He's a Putin lover.
Will they ban him from coming home? Is the EU sanctioning him? The news was actually kind of hilarious, and it still is. Take any war in history. I don't care with whom or which leader and any journalist worth their salt.
They'd be chomping at the bit to interview the leaders on both sides, but not this one. Why? Why is journalism now a crime to journalists? There's been, something that the media has now forgotten. Maybe the governments have never known it, but it is that open and free dialogue is the foundation for free society.
It is also the foundation that peace can be built upon. Talk with everyone. You don't have to trust them, even like them, but talk to them, understand where they're coming from. It's all very basic. And if anyone currently is criticizing Tucker for interviewing a person who is the leader of the country, we're currently involved with a shadow war, well, maybe you should just ask Tucker, why did you do it?
Why did you go? What did you mean by the showing us the subway and every what did what did you mean by that? What have you learned? And what does it mean all going forward? That's what we're going to do.
We're gonna ask him right now for his first interview back from Russia directly. To Americans, please welcome Tucker Carlson. Before we get to Tucker, sometimes the solutions we seek to fix a problem are easy But when you're living with pain, it isn't the case. It isn't. It doesn't feel that way.
For years, I lived with horrible pain in my hands. I searched up and down for anything that would work. I couldn't do this. It was too painful for me. I I couldn't write with a pencil.
I like to write. I like to do art. I'm a painter. I thought that was all behind me, but the solution was Relief Factor, and I never thought it would work. If you have pain, I want you to try Relief Factor.
It fights pain by fighting inflammation. It's a 100% drug free. It's a supplement. You take it every day as directed. If it if it doesn't work in 3 weeks for you, it's probably not gonna work.
It worked for me. It also has a money back guarantee. What do you have to lose? 19.95. Get their 3 week quick start kit.
Comes with the Relief Factor feel better or your money back guarantee. So give it a try. Relieffactor.com or call 800, the number 4, relief. Our American values are completely under attack. Our financial system is frankly broken.
You need to move quickly and find the safest ways to invest so you can protect yourself and your family from whatever dark thing might lie in the shadows just ahead. That's why I recommend to you that you would protect your hard earned savings with an asset you can trust and that is gold or silver. I made my first gold purchase, I don't know, 20, 25 years ago, after I was listening to Rush Limbaugh talk about Lear Capital. He was they were sponsors of Russia show forever. Today, I look back at the person that sold me that gold at Lear Capital.
It not only has my money more than quadrupled, the person that sold it there is still there. Lear helped me protect and prepare for coming insanity. Do the same now, will you? Just just call them. $3,000,000,000 in trusted transactions, 1,000 of 5 star reviews and 24 hour risk free purchase guarantee.
Lear. Lear Capital. Go there now. They'll count, credit your account $250 towards your purchases because you watch or listen to me. Call 808-89-3070.
800-889-3070. 800-889-3070. Tucker, welcome. How are you?
Speaker 1: Hey, Glenn. I'm great. I get in late last night. I haven't had a haircut as you can see. Yeah.
So pardon my appearance, but I'm I'm, grateful that you asked me. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Well, I I first of all, I just I I just wanna know, I mean, is this going to be a talk show, or are we gonna have a serious conversation? Because I'd like to start with the the history of the Beck family starting at 800 BCE. So
Speaker 1: what did
Speaker 0: you make of Zach. What did you make of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I was enraged because I thought, you know, I didn't go into the interview feeling like I had to, you know, posture morally. You know? The I took a look at the last interview I did with journalist, and the entire interview was the reporter from some dumb news outlet being like, I'm a good person. You're a bad person.
Speaker 0: You know?
Speaker 1: And that I I'm not interested in proving I'm a good person. People can assess. God can assess. You know? I I I just wanted information.
But I was infuriating because I thought he was really pretty straightforward the obvious question, which is why did you do this? Why'd you send troops into Eastern Ukraine? And he goes on this long answer, and so I interrupted him a couple of times. I tried to. It got very snippy.
And then I realized, no. This is the answer. And, you know, he just thinks differently. I've never met him before.
Speaker 0: So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. So I don't understand I don't understand the story because I had the same question you did at the very end.
So are you saying ancestral homelands should be given back to because that where does that end?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't believe in that anywhere. Yeah. Okay?
Speaker 0: Right. Neither do I.
Speaker 1: Giving my house back to the Passamaquoddy. Okay? I'm sorry. I feel sorry for people who are displaced, but I, you know, I there has to be a a statute of limitations. So I thought it was a silly argument to make.
I'm not sure he was making an argument, and moreover, I'm not sure I exactly what he was doing, so I shouldn't pretend that I do. There's a lot about that interview that I don't really understand. I don't think he was very effective if his goal was to win a western audience to his perspective. It didn't make me pro more pro Putin. No.
Not that I was. And by the way, I should just say at the outset, I've been accused of being pro Putin, and I'm not. But if I was, that's okay
Speaker 0: too. Right.
Speaker 1: I'm an adult man and an American citizen. I can like or dislike anyone I want. I can have any opinion I want. I'm not ashamed of it. And the idea that, like, a small number of people in DC get to decide what I believe
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Is not something I accept. So You know? So I reserve right to like anybody. Right. Period.
Speaker 0: And I and I want I mean, you like me. It can't go downhill more than that. The, I wanna get to that here in a second. But first, you had a, a tough time. The first time you tried to interview interview Putin, the NSA was involved.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They they read my text messages and leaked them to the New York Times. How do you know? Guessing, but
Speaker 0: Okay. How do you know?
Speaker 1: Well, it could be because someone who worked there warned me through a very close very close friend of mine, and I won't bore you with the whole details, but I flipped to Washington and meet person and his request. I couldn't believe this. It scared me. I immediately called the US senator. I don't know very many US senators well, but there's one I thought seemed kind of trustworthy.
So I said, I just wanna get us on the record this has happened. And then members of congress went to NSA, and they admitted that they had read my email. And so it's I wasn't spat I went on TV and described the whole thing, and I thought there would be widespread out of it. I am. I thought people would be like outraged.
You can't No. You can't use a spy agency that we pay for whose job is to monitor our enemies, our rivals, in other countries. You can't use that against the American population, and no one seemed to care. But I cared I did. Because I grew up in the US government.
My dad ran a federal agency in Washington. So I sort of knew what the rules were, and I had a really strong sense of how much this had changed. Like, this was not allowed 30 years ago. It was an outrage. It's a crime, but no one seems to be bothered by it.
But I am bothered by it.
Speaker 0: So I am too. And I think every citizen should be, especially journalists. You know, when you have freedom of speech, freedom of press, there's 2 rights that are going away here, and, and nobody seemed to care. But how so then what happened the second time? How did you arrange this?
Speaker 1: Well, I, I just kept trying. You know? I kept, actually, I did it myself, with, you know, texting and I thought and I talked to a bunch of different people after that happened to me. I I really tried to learn more about privacy and how can you communicate, outside the view of state actors' governments. Mhmm.
And you can't if you're doing electronically. That is what I arrived at, and I think any knowledgeable person would admit that. There's no privacy, which itself is very distressing, but I just decided I would do it anyway. And I enlisted some non Russians I knew, who I thought might be able to vouch for me, etcetera. And it took a couple of years.
And ultimately, they said, yes, we will, do this. But if if news of this interview gets out, we're canceling the interview.
Speaker 0: Wow.
Speaker 1: So I started to get so this is the best part. I got calls. I got a call from a New York Times reporter, and then a friend of mine got a call from another New York Times reporter asking when I was interviewing Putin. And there's no way they could have known that. I didn't tell anybody.
You know, my wife, my producers, not even my kids, I didn't tell anybody. One of my children was highly annoyed to to learn I was in Moscow. Why didn't you tell me? I said, because I didn't wanna text it, you know. But no.
I they clearly did it again. They leaked it to the New York Times in an effort to scuttle the Internet. And I just again, I I hate to be, you know, mister stubborn principle guy, but that is a principle worth defending. I'm an American citizen. I have not committed a crime.
I can speak to anyone I want. I can have any opinion I want, and you're not allowed to use your creepy spy agencies against me because I'm your boss. This is a democracy. Aren't you always telling me that? But again, nobody cares, so I'm gonna stop the lecture on that.
But it it did motivate me to keep going. And but my real motivation was, like, I just wanna know what's happening there. We're in a war with Russia. We've never had a vote in congress on whether we should be in a war with Russia. No one's ever explained to me why we should be at war with Russia.
Why I'm supposed to hate Russians. Why am I supposed to hate Russians? We've got an awful lot of things going on here. The country is in very tough shape, especially right now. It's completely out of money.
We're bankrupt. And so it does seem like we should have more information before we send another $60,000,000,000 that we don't keep track of to Ukraine. I mean, that's just I have very straightforward motives, which I've explained many times, but nothing crazy or out of the ordinary, esoteric, or anything like that. Just like like, what is this? Let's find out more.
Speaker 0: Any feeling on why he chose you?
Speaker 1: Probably because I just kept trying. I mean, that was my sense. I just kept trying, and and I was one of the few and I should just say again, and I don't wanna be defensive because I'm I'm not defensive, but I'm I've never been a I don't have anything to do with Russia. I don't I had never been there before. Russian, you know, it's so nuts.
But my first instinct when this happened was that the sanctions were gonna destroy the primacy of the US dollar around the world and stealing people's stuff, 1,000,000,000 of dollars of people's stuff because they were, quote, oligarchs.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: Without any vote on it at all, law enforcement proceeding, much less adjudication, much less real evidence that they had anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine, which a lot of these people didn't. You're a Russian oligarch, said American oligarchs. We're taking your stuff. I was like, whatever happened to the rules based order? You know, that's crazy behavior.
And it's immoral, obviously, no matter who you're doing it to. You can't punish people without a finding of guilt, without proof. And moreover, it's going to convince, in short order, the rest of the world that you can't trust the US dollar because it's become a political instrument. Instrument that we use to punish people who deviate ideologically or don't do what we want. And the second the rest of the world understands that they're gonna do everything they can to exit the US dollar to find another place to store their money.
And the second they do that, the United States is going to collapse because this is a society, an economy based on debt. And if that ever comes due, we're done. This is a poor country, and it's all super obvious. And I didn't know why no one was saying that. None of the geniuses in congress seemed to even think about this.
They're like, no. We're gonna punish Putin because I don't know why white Christian country, we hate him. I really don't know what what the motive is. It's business. Well,
Speaker 0: just okay.
Speaker 1: But the effect on us is scary.
Speaker 0: It's huge. Agree with that a 100%. Let me let me cast out where I stand on this issue, and then you tell me if it is close to your because I can't figure out where you are exactly, and I bet a lot of people feel the same way about me and others, because it's a complex issue. Putin is a bad guy. Cold blooded killer throws people off of roofs.
You know, he's he's a bad guy. K? Period. Dictator. But I don't like the Russian leaders either.
They are corrupt and dirty, and I don't think that, are Ukrainian, and I don't think the Ukrainian leadership, is in it for really anything but money, power, and I'm not sure where all that money is going to. But when you're spending more than you did, for the Marshall Plan in inflation adjusted dollars, something isn't right. And why are we just pushing this through? So I don't wanna support Putin. I don't wanna support the leadership of Ukraine, and I don't trust Biden and and the administration on what they're doing.
They have been in meddling in Russia and Ukraine forever. So I can't say I have a horse with any I I don't wanna put my name behind any of the 3 because I don't trust any of the 3. But I'm still proudly American. I just don't want to be involved in this because some this is a game that's being played where we don't have the information and what the real game is. How do you where do you fit in that?
Speaker 1: I think I'm pretty close to to where you are. I'm a little more agnostic on global leaders just because maybe I care less. I I having, you know, spent a lot of time out of the country, interviewed a bunch of them, I sort of assume every world leader all leaders, by definition, are up to no good on some level.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The only thing I care about is the United States, and that's it. And I think the only thing the US government should care about by definition is the United States. So to the extent an alliance is good for the United States and my children, then I'm in favor of it. And to the extent it's bad, then I'm opposed to it. I mean, that's I have a very clear lens there.
I have no emotional attachment to any other country. I just I frequently go to, say, Finland or Switzerland, England. I I have ancestors from all of those countries. I like those countries. I love them, actually.
But I don't I don't have an emotional attachment. I am American. That's it. And so the Russia, Ukraine, the domestic politics of either one of those countries, the I
Speaker 0: don't even know what that
Speaker 1: long standing conflict they've had. Exactly. It's of it's of less interest to me, almost very little interest to me, actually. What I care about is the United States. That's the first thing.
Second thing is the people around our country are destroying it, and they're doing it on purpose. And there's no doubt about that in my mind, and I've withheld judgment for a number of years now. But with Yeah. What they've done at the border, completely changing the population of the country, letting in millions and millions of people who have no connection to the United States, can't possibly help our economy, can't possibly unify our very fractured civic culture, and whose loyalty to and knowledge of the United States is completely in question. In fact, their identities are in question.
We don't know who they are. And they're coming through a country in the middle of a drug war. The whole thing is not by the way, bad management, or they're not doing their job. No. They're destroying the United States on purpose.
And so I begin with that. So the idea that those same people are going to somehow affect positive change in Eastern Europe, a region they know nothing about, and it's demonstrable. They don't know anything at all, is like insane to me. And the fact that Republican leaders who really are either, in many cases, just they just don't know, or they're controlled, that is true, are on board with this is just infuriating. So but but I approach this in a very non emotional way.
I'm emotional about my country, and I think all Americans most Americans feel the same way I do. So They care about what happens here because your kids live here.
Speaker 0: Right. And I feel the same way, but I look at what's happening around the world because at first, I just concentrated on us. And then after Build Back Better became the slogan for every president and prime minister in the entire western world, I realized, wait a minute. This isn't about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and this is we are being led in our own countries, each of us, that to believe that it's us versus the Nazis or us versus, you know, the Democrats. It's not.
It is the people in each free country in the west against I'm not sure yet what it is, but a really nasty blob up at the top, that has their own designs on the world and their own plans on the world. And, it just seems to me that I I haven't found a Winston Churchill anywhere in the world. Name one that you you see, currently in office.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no difference between most leaders in the west because no western country, including ours, has sovereignty. And sovereignty means you get to act in your own interest. You're a distinct country with, you know, borders in a democratic system where your population decides how it will be governed, sovereignty. And we don't have that and no other country does. So they act as a group.
And I and I do think, you know, always pay attention to the things you're not allowed to think or say. And NATO is is a huge part of this. NATO is, in addition to everything else, totally incompetent. Totally incompetent. I mean, NATO is a defense alliance aimed at Russia.
And it turns out that Russia has a 7 x military an artillery shell capacity, manufacturing capacity of all of NATO. So all the NATO countries together produce 1 7th the number of artillery shells annually that Russia, this country we were told was a gas station with nuclear weapons, totally incompetent country produces. So NATO wasn't even good at the military piece. But NATO is not a military alliance, of course. It's a political and cultural alliance.
And it's the tool with which, you know, whatever this multilateral alliance of unelected people uses to express its will. And it is an offense against our sovereignty. The US when I set up for the US military, I should fight for the United States on behalf of its territorial integrity and its interests. I shouldn't be fighting for Lithuania. Like, the whole thing is nuts.
And in Washington, criticizing NATO is considered, like, sinful or something. It's a religion. But, of course, what it really is is a scam. It's a it's a money laundering operation, and it's an attack on American sovereignty. And, like, nobody can say that.
You won't find one member of Congress who will say that NATO is terrible for the United States, but, of course, it is. It's obvious.
Speaker 0: So let me let me now go to some of the criticism of you that, you know, Jon Stewart just did a piece. I don't know if you've seen it on you, but Yeah. Yeah. I never watched
Speaker 1: the music.
Speaker 0: A lot of stuff. I know. So, you know, you went in. You said Moscow is clean. The the subways are wonderful.
Look at the chandeliers. Well, you I know you, Tucker. You're smart enough to know who built those to look like that and why. And Duranty went over
Speaker 1: I said it I said it in the piece. So Walter Durant, he denied the existence. He was a New York Times correspondent in Russia in the thirties. He denied, of course, the the Ukrainian famine, which was Stalin. That's exactly right.
And he denied the the show trials of 1937, 38, the the the terror, was was happening. So, those were lies. Okay? He told lies, and that's why his Pulitzer Prize was pulled from him posthumously. I told the truth in order to shame our leaders.
That subway station I showed was built by Stalin in 1939. Joseph Stalin, probably the worst person in human history. That was over 80 years ago, and it's still in perfect shape. Okay. That's the point.
Look at what Moscow has and compare it to what we have. So but we have ask yourself, like, no. This is this is an indictment of our leaders. And I would recommend to every single one of your viewers and listeners, if you can, go spend a week in Moscow. Not not because you love Russia, but because you love your own country, and compare that city to the largest city in Europe, 13,000,000 people, compare it to the city that you live in or the city near you, which is in better shape?
So so, actually, it's an indictment. It's a radicalizing indictment of our rapidly declining standard of living and the horrible mismanagement of our leaders. Why don't we have a subway like that in any American Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: Give a
Speaker 1: single American city with no crime? Like, what is this?
Speaker 0: Right. Well, I mean, there's not a lot of crime in North Korea either. There's no there's no drug problem really in China because you could just take them off street and kill
Speaker 1: them. But but but but we didn't but we didn't have that here. And I'm only 54, and I remember it.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: It's not like you have a fascist Devon orderly society. We had one. So And on Memorial Day 2020, with the drug OD of George Floyd, everything changed. And what we got was the intentional destruction of American cities. Now I don't live in a city because I don't like them.
But what I missed because I don't live in one is that you can't have a great country unless you have a great city, period. Or a number of great cities. Cities define your country. That's not my choice. It's just a fact.
It's always been true. And so if every one of your cities is a cesspool, then your country is collapsing. But they don't need to be that way. Crime is the easiest thing to fix. You say, we're not we're just not putting up with this.
We've done it before. I covered it. I wrote a book on it in 1994. I watched New York City go from a very dangerous place to one of the safest cities in the world. And it didn't take mass executions.
No. It didn't even take mass incarceration. It just took paying attention to the details. If there's graffiti, wipe it off. If people are jumping over the turnstiles, arrest them.
It's called the broken windows. Doesn't happen.
Speaker 0: It's called the window theory Yes.
Speaker 1: By James q Wilson and George Kelling, one of the most famous pieces on criminology and really on social science ever written and true to the state. But, anyway, the point is we have a drug crisis, a fentanyl crisis, a homeless crisis, a crisis of mental illness, and a crime crisis, and a filth crisis, just the dirtiness of it. That's all on purpose. That's what I realized when I went to Moscow. And not just Moscow.
Abu Dhabi, which is not a fascist city at all, it's much more a more tolerant place than any place in the west actually. If you want your mind blown, spend a week in Abu Dhabi. It's true in Singapore, which is pretty authoritarian. It's true in Tokyo, which is kind of authoritarian.
Speaker 0: I'm wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
I've been to I've been to Abu Dhabi. They'll cut your hands off for, you know, for theft. I can't talk about Yes. Christ in Abu Dhabi. So it does have some
Speaker 1: Oh, not true. Oh, not true. Abu Dhabi is a bigger Christmas celebration than almost any American city. Oh, no. Abu Dhabi I mean, I don't know when the last time you were there.
I was just there last week. And I've spent a lot and look, I'm not flacking for Abu Dhabi. Okay? I'm about Africa. The point is, this is the lie that they tell, and this is what I've realized after just spending a lot of time going to different places with an open mind, thinking about how the lessons of these cities might apply to the cities that I care about.
Like the city I was born in, San Francisco, the prettiest city in North America by far,
Speaker 0: by the
Speaker 1: big town.
Speaker 0: By far.
Speaker 1: Totally uninhabitable. My family's been there since 18/50. So I do feel like some kind of ownership, I don't have ownership, but I feel a connection to the city, and it has declined to a place that is 3rd world or worse than 3rd world, actually, because the people running it wanted that. It wasn't an accident. It's not a choice.
But liberalism and Nazism, and if you choose liberalism, then you're gonna have 50,000 people shooting drugs on your side walks or crapping in your doorway. That's not the choice. You can have a free society. We had one for 100 of years Yes. Where there's order and politeness and decency and self respect and concern for the individual.
If you allow people to OD on drugs in your park, what are you saying? I don't care about their lives. You are a cruel and vicious person if you allow that. And we are allowing. Our leaders are.
And going to Moscow, I'm like, how the hell do they get this? I mean, how did how did this is Russia. This is the country. And, again, I don't wanna live in Russia, and I'm not going to. But I should be able to live in a city like that, and I can't because our leaders, every big city mayor, most governors, the entire congress of the United States, the White House, they step over the bodies of drug addicts, of Fentanyl addicts, maybe the dead bodies, every day on their way to work, and they don't notice to go appropriate more money for a country they know nothing about and whose language they don't speak.
Like, this is peak insanity. And so, yes, of course, I knew I was gonna be compared to Walter Duranty. And by the way, if Bill Kristol accuses you of not loving America enough, Bill Kristol, no no concern for America whatsoever. Like, you just laugh it off. You're telling look, I have a lot of faults.
I eat too much. I'm kind of a jerk. I get all that. But I don't I don't think it's a really serious critique to say I don't love America enough. Really?
Who are the people saying that? They're the ones who've opened our borders, let fentanyl flow in here, kill over a 100000 Americans every year, and it doesn't bother them at all. And they're telling me I don't love America. I'm trying not to use the f word on your show, but that's how I feel because it's just so insane.
Speaker 0: So, Tucker, I'm not
Speaker 1: go to Moscow. You should go next week. It will radicalize you. You will not give up American citizenship. You'll come back to this country and say, we had cities like this.
And if even Moscow can do it, we should do it.
Speaker 0: So I I I think I agree with you a 100%. Where the sticking point is in America right now is there's a lot of people on the right and the left that are both saying, screw the constitution. We need a radicalized leader. When, you know, when you look at Orban, I think Orban is great for his country. That's not our system.
I think, you know, the, Moscow might be great, love to visit. That's not our system. So I think and I I believe you are you're you've already said this, but I wanna make sure it's very clear on the record. The only path forward for America is through the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and the constitution. Correct?
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. And by the way, I I should just be very, very clear. If I was I'm like the one person on the planet. You don't need to guess about my motives.
I'll just say them. And if I was advocating for a different form of government or for for authoritarianism, for strong man, I would just say so. I I would have no shame in saying that because I really believe that it's within my rights to say what I think. If I I've been called a racist. If I was racist, I would just say it.
I would just say it. But I'm not. And I'm not advocating for that. I'm advocating to return to America of, say, 1993. How radical.
Is that really radical? No. I don't think it's very radical. In fact, I think we should be demanding it. And if there's one thing that I will fault Americans for, it's low expectations.
You should not put up with this. You should not allow them. The governor of Texas should not allow millions of people to cross his border. And I don't wanna hear, you know, the excuses. And I don't wanna hear the excuses for why it's okay to have tens of thousands of people dying on the street or sleeping on the sidewalk in tents handed to them by the Episcopal Church forever.
Like, that's not acceptable. It's not okay for my kids to use drugs at the breakfast table. I'm not gonna have a debate about it. No is the answer. I'm within my rights as a father to say that.
The US government is within its statutory rights as a government to say that. We don't need more laws. We have the laws. The they're not being enforced on purpose. And and to your point, why?
And, of course, the reason is because people will lose faith in liberal democracy.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And they will welcome a strong man. And that's exactly what this is about, is the left and not just the left. I would say that the quisling right, on Capitol Hill, for whom I just have boundless contempt, they're in on this as well.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: People are just gonna give up. They're not gonna vote. They're gonna steal the elections just as they stole the last one, which they did. Sorry. And they're gonna steal the next one.
And people are just gonna be like, you know what? I don't even care. I just totally give up. This is crazy. Just just get get the bums off my street.
Some guy just exposed himself to my daughter. My nephew just died of a fentanyl OD. Make it stop. Make it stop. You can have all the power you want.
That is absolutely what they're going for. And I don't want that. I wanna live in the country we lived in in 1993 or 1985. Not ancient history. Post Civil Rights Act, we can do that.
Let's do it right now. That's my point.
Speaker 0: You're right on that's what they're they're doing. It is it's amazing to watch. It's exactly the stuff that I talked about, back at Fox. It's tough down inside out. It's the way the communist did it.
It's the color revolution, and it's Cloward and Piven. It's it's all of it, and it's happening right in front of our eyes. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: People Americans need to know that because our sense of reality is shaped digitally and Wikipedia is our history and Instagram is our present and Twitter is our future x, you know, people forget that we didn't have this just a few years ago. And that's why going to places that are different really reminds you, it triggers in you this this chain reaction of thoughts, and you realize I cannot believe I'm putting up with this. I can't believe there's a homeless encampment in front of Union Station in our nation's capital directly across from the capitol building. That's so much more horrifying to me than anything that happened on January 6th. That's such an expression of contempt and loathing for the American people.
That's such an admission of defeat and lack of self respect. Like, no. You are not allowed to do drugs in front of Union Station. I don't wanna hear your excuse. I'm not responsible for housing you.
Get out of here. Like, it's just it's not hard. And that is kind of the society that they have in a lot of other countries. Right? I mean, it's it's people should travel and see this stuff.
It'll make you love America more and make you want better for America. That's the only point.
Speaker 0: No more interruptions, from here on out. Let me just tell you a couple of things. First of all, good ranchers. £5,000,000,000 of meat are imported and sold in the US every year. £5,000,000,000.
Why? Well, because because our government is doing everything they can to put our ranchers and our farmers out of business. Good ranchers are the number one source for 100% American meat that I would trust to my family and feed my family. Instead of getting overpriced imported meat at the store, yeah, they can legally put the little flag, product of the US, because they might wrap it here. Not kidding.
Good Ranchers delivers my meat to my family. We eat it, all the time, and they deliver it right straight to the door. We have chicken. We have beef. We have great, great bacon.
Right now, if you subscribe to any of their 100% American meat boxes to secure their leap year offer of free bacon for 4 years. That's £70 of Applewood smoked bacon you'll get just by subscribing. Beef, chicken, pork, wild caught seafood, all amazing. Remember, it's all 100% America, which your grocery store can't really say. Not sure which box to choose?
Try their best seller, the Rancher's classic. Or if you got a hungry household, check out their family feast bundle. Get quality, local food you can trust and feel proud to feed your family. Go to goodranchers.com. Use the promo code Glenn.
Claim over $900 in free bacon before the leap year sale ends. Goodranchers.com, American meat delivered. Also, let me tell you about SAT 123. This is something that, my family has. We always take it on vacation or anything, because I learned after 9:11.
Imagine for a moment that you have a phone that will take and receive calls literally anywhere on earth. No reliable cell network to worry about. I happen to live up in the mountains half the year, and I have no cell service up there. What if that phone also had an encrypted signal so no one could listen in to your calls? No one could read your text other than the person that you send them to?
That kind of phone, exists. It usually is in the military, and members of the senate use it for encrypted secure calls. But you don't have to imagine having one because what I'm describing is a sat phone, a satellite phone. You know, I'm always telling you how to be prepared for any emergency situation. Well, if we're in a situation where the cell phone service is down remember the Lahaina fires in Hawaii last year cell service was down The guy who's running the Marriott Maui Ocean Club used a satellite phone and ended up helping 14,000 people.
Satellite phone stores have got you covered with plans starting as low as 95.99 or they have discounted family share plans with up to 3 satellite phones. Go to sat123.com today. Sat123.com or call 855-980-5830. That's 855-980-5830. Sat123.com.
So let me let me go back to the interview. He Putin was telling you, weaving a story that our president isn't really in control, wasn't he? And did you Of course. Have you done anything and reached out to try to verify any of this that it was true? I mean, do you believe him?
Speaker 1: That the president's not really in control of him. Obviously, obviously
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The policies don't change.
Speaker 0: Well, I will tell you. I will. I when I heard him say that to you, I thought of something that George Bush told me in the Oval Office. I was asking about the policies and how they were gonna change, and he said, Glenn and then he tried to make me feel good by saying this. Glenn, don't worry.
Whoever sits behind this desk in that chair is going to have the same advice given by the same advisers, and they'll realize the president's hands are tied. I walked out of that room horrified. Horrified.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh.
Speaker 0: Then why do we even have elections?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I I, of course, I I couldn't agree more. And, I mean, look. They haven't released the JFK files Right. Over 60 years later.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: Okay? No president has just one. We have over a 1000000000 classified documents. So it's not a it's not a democracy in the sense that they told us it was. And I think it can be fixed.
I think the president's primary power is his communication with the public. And I continue to think that any president who decided to go right to social media, like a direct feed. Here's what I know. Here's what's going on. He could harness the power of the population, and he could make a change.
I mean, look, it's the US the federal government's the largest organization in human history. You can't probably not gonna change it in 4 years, but you could make this country more democratic. And you know what you could certainly do is change the conversation away from where they want it, which is getting black people and white people to hate each other. Okay? Race hate is a manufactured phenomenon in this country for the most part.
Yeah. And it's actually provable. That happened during occupy Wall Street in 2012. The mentions of white supremacy and racism in the New York Times went up 100 of fold. So this is an intentional strategy to get people to hate each other on the basis of race.
And as I walk around this country, I'm really surprised by how little race hatred there is. It actually hasn't worked very well. Most Americans don't want to do that. And they don't want to talk about foreign policy and the economy, which are the core functions of state. And on those two topics, like, why do private equity people pay half the tax rate that you do?
Like, that seems like a kind of an interesting conversation. Shut up. And why are we sending sending all this money to Ukraine? I I wanna hear an amazing story that just tells you everything about this. So I'm over in Moscow.
I'm waiting to do this interview. It gets out that we're doing it. And I'm immediately denounced by this guy called Boris Johnson who was for a short time the prime minister of Great Britain. And Boris Johnson calls me a tool of the creme on or something. And I'm thinking, well, that's kind of I mean, his name's not actually Boris as I'm sure you know.
His name is Alex Johnson. And he called himself Boris in high school. So the guy who calls himself Boris is accusing me. I was like so I was annoyed. So I put in a a request for an interview with Boris Johnson, as I have many times, because he's constantly denouncing me as a tool of the Kremlin.
He says no. So I'm thinking about something getting more annoyed. So I know a lot of people who know Boris Johnson. So I reach out to them. Finally, one of his advisors gets back to me and says, he will talk to you, but it's gonna cost you $1,000,000.
He wants $1,000,000 What? In US dollars, gold or Bitcoin. No. I'm this just happened yesterday or 2 days ago. And and I'm like, he wants a $1,000,000.
Yeah. And then he will talk to you about Ukraine. He will explain his position on Ukraine and explain what so he attacks me without explaining how I'm wrong, of course, or how he's right. This is, by the way, the guy who single handedly, at the request of the US government, stopped the peace deal in Ukraine a year and a half ago, and is, I think, for that reason responsible for the deaths of 100 of thousands of people. He won't explain any of that to me in an interview until I pay him a $1,000,000.
And I said to the guy, you know, I just interviewed Vladimir Putin. I'm not defending Putin, but Putin didn't ask for a $1,000,000. So you're telling me that Boris Johnson is a lot sleazier, a lot lower than Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Which is true. Yeah. So this whole thing is a freaking shakedown. Why $60,000,000,000 I mean, I could get boring on this because I've learned a lot about it. But $60,000,000,000 is not gonna allow Ukraine to prevail over Russia.
No honest person thinks that's gonna work. This is a money laundering operation. A lot of the people involved in it are making money from it. And if you're making money off a war, you know, you can deal with God on that because that's really immoral. Like, that's actually really, really wrong.
And a lot of people are including Boris Johnson.
Speaker 0: So I pointed out that, the Ukrainians were funding, really through us, this Nazi, you know, group on the border of Russia. We had been funding them for quite a while because they were fighting against Russia. Okay. Now I guess it's okay for everybody to be, you know, in bed with the Nazis. When Putin said that, do you is he just evoking the Nazis because what it means to his people?
Is that really one of his goals? Is that really what's what's hap whatever what what did you finally get from him on what's happening on his side? Why is he doing this?
Speaker 1: I thought it I thought it was stupid, the whole Nazi thing. I mean, there's no, you know, the Nazi party was a German party, which obviously repugnant, party, but was responding to a specific historical set of circumstances growing out of the Treaty of Versailles. So Nazism, there's no there's no Das Kapital of Nazism. Right? And so it doesn't kind of transfer.
Like Nazism died in April of 1945 when Hitler shot himself. So, you know, there are all kinds of ugly political movements in the world, but let's think of a new name for them. I I think it's like a weird Well,
Speaker 0: national socialist.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or whatever. But, like, what ideology are you talking about? I just don't even underst. So, like, look.
Russia moved into Eastern Ukraine because the Biden administration pushed them to. There's a war in Ukraine because the Biden administration wanted a war in Ukraine. And that's very obvious, and it happened in public. Biden sent his vice president to the Munich Security Conference days before the invasion, 2 February's ago, to announce in public at a press conference that we wanted Ukraine to join NATO. That would mean nuclear weapons on Russia's border.
Now this is not a new conversation. This has been going on for 30 years.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Russia does not want nuclear weapons aimed at Moscow on its border and has said that's the red line as it would be with with for any country for if, you know, know, if the Chinese did that in Mexico, I hope we would say no. We're going to war before we allow that. And they knew that. And they pushed him to do this. Of course.
Now their motive, you know, I we can only guess at it, but that absolutely happened. And you're, like, not allowed to say that, but that's true.
Speaker 0: Yes. It is.
Speaker 1: It's not a defense of Putin. It's an attack on the craziness of our foreign policy, which is, like, purely destructive. Nothing is built, only destroyed. It's nuts.
Speaker 0: Let me, let me switch here for, for a second on some things that have happened just recently while you were gone. Navalny, went for a walk in the Arctic Circle because he liked to walk outside, and then he came back. They say they tried everything they could to resuscitate. Was he assassinated or not?
Speaker 1: Are you asking me if I
Speaker 0: did it? Yeah. I did. No?
Speaker 1: I can tell you. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I should never I'd never admit it. You know, was he assassinated?
I have no idea. No one in the United States has any idea. All these buffoons like Chuck Schumer, the c our senile president jumping up and down in Russia to this. I mean, they don't know that. They don't know anything about it, actually.
I have no freaking idea. I can tell you it didn't help Russia to do it. They put him in prison. You can argue about whether they had justification for doing that. I'm not that interested.
Russia is not a free country in the way that the country I grew up in is, was, and I care about my country being free. That's all I care about. So, whatever. I don't know. I'm not that interested.
I haven't spent a lot of time reading about Navalny. I know this, Him dying during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of the debate on Ukraine funding, both of which they're highly aware of, doesn't help Russia. Yeah. So the people say, oh, Putin just had him murdered last week because they're idiots. They don't actually know anything.
They don't know anything. These are the same people who told us that Ukraine was gonna win. Really? Russia has a 100,000,000 more people and far deeper industrial capacity. Like, that's insane.
No person outside the United States thought that for a second that Ukraine could win. Not maybe they're rooting for Ukraine, maybe not. I mean, who knows? But as a factual matter, the information desert that we live in is really, really scary. And sometimes I think maybe the average North Korean knows more about what's happening in the world than the average American who watches NBC News because it's just so distorted.
The lies are like so it's like a vacuum. You don't even like like, the the two facts I just did, Russia has a 100,000,000 more people and the capacity to produce 7 times the number of artillery shells as all of NATO. Those are just two facts that I'm not sure the average person in this country had as ever before. And those are the determinative facts in a ground war. Do you have more people?
Do you have more material? Do you do you have more, howitzer shells? And, like, the people making these decisions, Anthony Blinken. Anthony Blinken. I can't believe that guy is the secretary of state.
What a mediocrity. That he doesn't know that or something? Like, the whole they're just so ignorant that it's scary.
Speaker 0: Super scary. But I don't know if they are ignorant. Look at look at the Iranian policy. Who doesn't know Iran is a terrorist state that really truly means they're going to burn the Jews in the fire of the Islamic fury? Who doesn't know that?
Who doesn't know that enough to say, you know what? We shouldn't send over $8,000,000,000. We we just shouldn't do it. We we shouldn't play
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest. I understand that. And then that was, of course, something that Obama did, and there was
Speaker 0: And quite a
Speaker 1: bit of debate with the party. And he, oh, boy, he pushed it through. And I've thought about that for almost it's been almost 10 years.
Speaker 0: No. But Biden has Biden, I think, has done another allowed them to dip in to another 6,000,000,000, you know, as long as it's used for peaceful purpose. You don't you would never make that deal with Adolf Hitler. You you you know who they are. You know, somebody said to me once, is a rattlesnake a bad pet?
No. It's a perfectly fine pet as long as you always remember it's a rattlesnake. We are treating people who are in our own country like enemies, and people who are oppressing people, we're we're treating them like friends.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I've I've noticed that. And and I have to say the disproportionate outrage at the Russians, is puzzling to me. But again, all of it is playing out against the backdrop that I care about, which is life in the United States. And I feel like we're in a moment where things are moving south at high speed
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Particularly the demographic replacement. American citizens being replaced by foreigners who are being encouraged to go into the military. Let's let's hand them we don't know who they are. They don't know anything about the United States. They may or may not be loyal to it.
Let's give them guns. I mean, where do you think that's going, Glenn? I mean, of course, the military will be used as it was on January 6th as a tool of domestic political control
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Obviously. And it's much easier to do that with foreigners than it is with people who grew up in this country. So that's way scarier than anything that happened to Navalny in some Siberian I mean, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. It's like I'm against putting Navalny or any political opponents in jail ever, whether it's the January 6 people who are still rotting, whether it's Navalny, whether it's Gonzalo Lyra, the American citizen who died in custody in Ukraine. I mean, I'm opposed to all of that stuff.
But all I don't understand this weird externalizing process of emotion that happens for a lot of well educated Americans where they they don't they're not mad about what's happening around them. They're mad about what's happening in some country they've never been to. It's like, what is that? In other words, it's like, you you you've got a kid who's a drug addict but you don't have time drive him to rehab because you're sending money to
Speaker 0: The drug company.
Speaker 1: Burkina Faso or something. No. But you're sending it to, like, some kid you've never met Oh. In a country you've never been to. It's like, what is that?
Yeah. And I and the last thing I'll say is I've noticed that a lot of the most passionate sort of advocates for this idea that, you know, the only problems are brought and we need to spend all of our money on those problems are people with very weird and hollow personal lives. I I'm sorry. I'm not I don't wanna be mean. I'm just being honest.
Very dishonest, personalized, creepy personal lives, unsettled inside, like a normal person in this in all countries wants like, I want to have dinner with my wife and play with my dogs and see my kids grow up and have grandchildren and I want my neighborhood to be safe and I want my friends to be happy and I want you know what I mean? Like those are the kind of core and concerns for most people. It really takes someone like Lindsey Graham, who doesn't have children, to be like, no. The most important thing is Kharkov or something,
Speaker 0: which is
Speaker 1: so silly in Eastern Europe. But, like, honestly, what does that have to do with El Paso or my kids? Nothing. It's a it's a syndrome, kind of. Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 0: I do know what, what you mean. The reason why I brought up Navalny is because Donald Trump this week is in trouble because he said, well, yeah. Navalny. I mean, that's what happens when you put political prisoners behind bar. When when you take somebody who is is running against you and the state has so much power, they pull you off and put you in jail.
Sound familiar? And while the left has a problem with Navalny, as you would say, oddly so, they don't see the connection on what we're doing here, what we're doing with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Oh, they see it. No. They see it. They just look. The one thing they're really good at, they're not good at engineering or building anything or even preserving what our ancestors handed us in New York City, for example.
They'll destroy everything in the physical world, but the one thing they're really talented at is occupying the moral high ground in an unjustified way, is flying into such a hysterical frenzy that they intimidate people into repeating their slogans. Why? Where are you in Navalny? Navalny? I don't know.
I mean, I'm against people being killed, I guess. I don't know anything about it. You know what I mean? And what? Where are you in Navalny?
You don't have a position in Navalny? He has not spoken on Navalny. You know, the the thing? Damn. It's like which was I I was I was I was, like, thousands of miles away 2 days ago in a car.
And somebody sends me this piece from the Daily Mail, which used to be kind of a good newspaper. It's like total garbage at this point along with the New York Post. It's like so weird how these papers get captured. But they had some peace. Like, Tucker Carlson has not said a word, issued a statement about Navalny.
Well, I didn't know. I didn't know anything about Navalny. I didn't know he died. I didn't know anything. Nobody I did have an airplane from Dubai.
It was like, you don't have a statement? And I do think if we're gonna reclaim our humanity from people who would turn us into slaves, one of the first things we need to say is I control what I think and what I say. I can have my own opinions. By the way, I don't have to have an opinion. I don't have an opinion on that.
It's not important to me. It's okay to say that. Your priorities don't have to be mine. Mine don't have to be yours. And if they do then I'm no longer a free person.
I'm a slave. You consider me subhuman. I'm like your dog. You can you can tell me what to care about, what to eat. But as a free man, no.
I I don't have to share your priorities. I don't have to be interested in Navalny's death. I can be very interested or not. But, you can't force me to be. And I think that's really important for people to to make the decision that they're going to think independently and not be intimidated by these these freaks.
Yeah. And they are freaks.
Speaker 0: By the way, I just, you know, as somebody who, emailed you something, I I just wanna say thank you for text messaging me while you're in Russia, and the NSA is watching. I just I just thought that was a great move from a good friend. Oh, thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm excited. I have this way of confident. Like, I have all these people, like, come to me. Well, you need to get this software. Do that or whatever.
Speaker 0: And you need to get your phone.
Speaker 1: You gotta throw your phone. No. No. In fact, I may I may send, you know, some naked pictures of myself to the NSA just to just to wreck their day. You know?
This no. I'm not I don't have to do that. I'm not you know what I mean? I'm an American citizen.
Speaker 0: I do.
Speaker 1: You're a criminal, not me. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Not me. You mean the NSA. Let me with that being said, when you were over and sitting in front of Putin, who has absolute control, and is a former KGB guy, Was there any time that you because he he said several times, like, oh, I I know who you are. I know you studied history. I mean, he knew you.
When you got to the question about the Wall Street Journal reporter, did it ever cross your mind that I'm not in my home country? I'm saying this to a very powerful man who does, do what he wants. Were you ever worried?
Speaker 1: No. Not at all. I wasn't worried for a single second I was there. I wasn't worried going over there, not because I trust the Russian government, I don't, but because my kids are grown and, like, I don't really care at this point. I feel protected.
I say my prayers. Much more worried about my government, much more worried about my country than I am about Russia because I'm not Russian. You know? I wasn't no. I wasn't intimidated at all.
I was annoyed a couple of times. I thought it was interesting. I thought he was interesting. He was hostile to me. Oh, he's said that he's somehow
Speaker 0: you didn't even ask hard questions. Whatever. Yeah. I know.
Speaker 1: Did he really say that?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. You didn't hear that? Yeah. He he came out and said he was very disappointed you didn't ask any hard questions.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's funny. Yeah. I mean, I what what's a hard question to Putin?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I I just wanted to hear his view. And I think one of the thing I mean, it's not about me. That's kind of the point, and that is one of the uglier things about journalism, if you can call it that. It's all the hair hats wanna make it about them because that's why they're in television in the first place because they're so they just like yearn for the adulation of strangers. They're empty inside.
I don't care about the adulation of strangers. I just was sincerely interested in who this guy is and I still don't think I know but I learned a few things and one of them is he's very wounded by what he sees as the rejection of the West. And and I think it makes him angry, really angry. I think he was angry at me about it. I've got nothing to do with that.
But no. I mean, the Soviet Union ended in August of 1991. I was on my honeymoon. I'll never forget it because my family had been involved in the Cold War. So, like, this was a topic of conversation.
And the idea was, well, why can't we work together? If not be friends, at least, you know, be allied in some way that's mutually beneficial. He in 2000 this is a he said this in the interview and it's true. He asked Bill Clinton if Russia could join NATO. Now NATO exists as a as a bullwork against Russia.
Right? So if Russia wants to join NATO, then there's no reason to have NATO, and we can just call it a big win and go home Right. And build our own countries, do something constructive. And they turned him down. And it's like, I've never no one seems to think that's a big thing.
I think it's a very big thing. Why would NATO, which exists to control Russia, turn down Russia's entry into the alliance? Like, it's insane. And then he asked again, George w Bush, I would like to be in a missile alliance with you against Iran. And Bush is like, yeah.
It sounds like a good idea. And then Condi Rice, one of the dumbest people ever, is like, no. We can't do that. Why why can't we do that? Why wouldn't that be in the interest of both of our countries?
And so you sort of come away thinking like there's a lot more going on here than Russia's unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine. That's not actually what happened. Yes. Russia invaded Ukraine. Yes.
It's bad. 100 of have died. Ukraine's been destroyed. A small number of people have gotten very rich. Boris Johnson hopes to get rich from it, etcetera, etcetera.
But there's a context here that does not make American policymakers look good at all. In fact, it's shameful. And the last thing I'll say is, you know, the point is to depose Putin, kill Putin, whatever, get Putin out of office. What happens then? So Russia is the largest country in the world by land mass.
It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It's an incredibly diverse country. It's about 20% Muslim. All these different republics, 80 of them, I think. And so what happens to the nuclear arsenal Mhmm.
Without Putin? Is is that good for the world? Like, it sounds like chaos. It sounds like the kind of chaos that we created in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, Afghanistan. None of that made the world safer.
None of it helped American interests. It actually made the world much scarier, more volatile, and allowed China to surpass us economically, which it has. So, like, why would we want to do that to the biggest country in the world? I think that's insane. If you're powerful and wise, you seek to bring stability and order and predictability and peace.
That's what a father does in his family. That's what a good CEO does in a company. It's what a good general does.
Speaker 0: But an abusive abusive husband or or father, creates instability intentionally, always keeping people on the edge.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Can
Speaker 0: I ask you, you were such a, I don't I don't mean this as a bad thing? You're just such an odd individual in the fact that your dad was in government. He was kind of obliquely in intelligence too, wasn't he? Or not?
Speaker 1: Well, I applied to the CIA. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. But yeah. But you're but you're Yeah.
Speaker 1: That was I grew up in a world like that for sure.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I couldn't less of the CIA now to be completely clear. I'm so grateful.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I know. I used to have real respect for our agencies. I think they're enemies of the state, quite honestly, or the people. Let me, help me understand how you grew up.
I grew up working class, and now I live a different life, but I always feel like I'm still working class even though I'm not. Okay? You've never really been working class. You've always been that upper class in the in all of the places that make people into the the leaders of tomorrow that are that don't care about the people. How how is it that you have held on to something I don't think you ever really had, and that is that that average everyday citizen that is going out punching a time clock and coming in and just trying to make ends meet.
Where did that come from with you?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I don't have that perspective. I never have. I mean, I've you know? I mean, no. I'm not from that background at all.
I'm from the opposite background for sure every day of my life. And so I would never pretend to be the voice of the working class. No.
Speaker 0: I know. But I the opposite. Right. I don't think
Speaker 1: that No. No. My my motive comes from not and I actually now live in a in a working class area, and I love the people there, but I'm not that's not my world. I'm motivated by my loathing of the people in charge. The one thing I know a lot about are the people who populate the ruling class because I spent my whole life with them.
I'm not against ruling classes. Every society has one. Someone's gotta be in charge. There's always an elect that runs everything. They're always Brahmins.
Okay? Always. And there always will be. So I'm not against it. I'm not a populist in that sense.
I'm just against incompetent, selfish, nasty, stupid people being in charge. That's exactly who we are. And I'm so mad about it because I know exactly who they are. And so when you're telling me that Anthony Blinken is a statesman, I'm like, no he's not. He's like a low IQ political hack who's acting for, like, personal reasons, have nothing to do with the welfare of the United States in his Ukraine policy.
And I know that. And I know them all. And I know I lived next to them my whole life. 35 years in DC. So it's like, I'm not fooled by that.
Oh, well, it's I've you know, we're I went to Harvard and, you know, and then HBS, and I'm at the you know, I spoke at Aspen this summer. It's like, I know how mediocre that is because I've been around it my whole life. So I'm just not impressed. I don't want anything from them at all. I'm not rich.
I have enough. So it's like, I I'm just in this weird position where I know exactly who they are. I don't want their stupid little merit badges. I couldn't have more contempt for them. And I'm old enough now that, like, why not just say it?
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And I am. I just don't I just don't care. I'm gonna keep saying it.
Speaker 0: That's what makes you so dangerous. So dangerous. So let me end we've just got a couple of minutes. Let let me end with, you know Max Benz, and I heard your podcast with him. Oh, Mike, Mike Benz.
No. Is it? It's Max, isn't it? Max Benz. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Mike no. No. Mike Benz. Yeah. That guy's so smart.
Speaker 0: So smart. So smart. And, he what he says is truly remarkable. And you kind of listen to it and say, wow, all of this makes sense. I think it's probably accurate and no way out, no way out.
That, you know, that doesn't help America at all. It doesn't help us to think no way out. I'm much more of a optimistic catastrophist. I think you're just generally an optimistic guy. How do we navigate the next 8, 9 months?
How do we bring people together with the armada that is arrayed against Americans?
Speaker 1: I think it's really important to create a hierarchy of importance just in life and in public policy and just every sphere of life. Like, decide what's most important, what do I do first? And my smartest friend, my wisest friend, who's been really successful, just because he's wise, always says, look, it it comes down to food, water, energy. You know, the countries rise and fall on the basis of food, water, energy. And And every time he talks like that, he talks in terms of fundamentals, like what actually matters.
It's not really about trans swimmers or black lives matter. It's about energy, food, water, and it's about the use of force. And so the number one thing you need to worry about in any country is the military. And we just don't have a history of worrying about the military, but we should be very worried about the military because that's where the guns are. And so if you wanted to take a pop a continental sized country like ours with the population of 350,000,000 people and you wanted to subdue them, you would need force.
And so it's the it what was so striking about what Ben said was, it's the DOD, it's the military that is censoring us, and they're doing it for political reasons. And that is a completely different thing from, say, the Democratic National Committee or even the FBI. The military has to be nonpartisan. It has to be controlled by elected officials, civilian control. So the voters have some control over the military.
And conservatives and it's such a wonderful and clever op on the part of the left because conservatives just imagine the people who serve in the military are just like them. But the officer corps is not at all. They're, like, speaking at the Aspen Institute. They don't share your values. They hate you.
They hate Christianity. And they're they're dangerous. Now the average NCO or one of the listed guys are great. And they're, you know, red blooded Americans that are met. But the leadership of the military is dangerous.
They're dangerous. They're dangerous not simply because of the many failed wars, they've been involved in, but because they're dangerous because they could be used against the US population. That's not crazy. And adding, you know, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to the military over the past 10 years, which they absolutely plan to do oh. And so I just think if you want to make the country better focus on the big things.
Let's make sure the power grid works. Let's make sure the military is not population. Like let's just start there. And those are the things that conservatives just miss because they're off on all this other stuff. No no.
Energy, force of arms, these are big things. The bigger it is, the more important it is. That's why I'm focused on Ukraine because it's like it's a war. Mhmm. People are getting killed.
What's more important than that? Oh, shut up. Leave it to the experts, no. No. Thanks.
I'm a citizen. You know what I mean? I can have a view.
Speaker 0: Tucker, I think at first, both of us years ago years ago didn't know what to make of one another. But tough times brings out the best in people. And I have watched you over the last, 5 years just become one of the the most frank and honest, journalists, in America. And I it's an honor to know you, especially at this time. I I hope you write down everything that you're doing every day because you are playing a big role in history.
You are. You are. You are.
Speaker 1: Well, it's accidental. Trust me.
Speaker 0: God bless you.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Thank you. See, man. God bless you.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Here’s the thing about the Epstein release that you should pay attention to: I've been told the FBI director has the black book. All of the evidence. So why are they sitting on it? That’s the real question. Everything else is just circus. https://t.co/xy4qJG3x2U
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker raises concerns about the power held by the FBI director, who possesses evidence and tapes from Jeffrey Epstein's house. They question whether it is appropriate for one person to have such information, suggesting that Epstein may have been an intelligence officer. The speaker argues that if this scandal involved ordinary people, their names would be known and they would be in jail. They criticize the FBI for not releasing all the information and highlight the agency's handling of Hunter Biden's laptop as an example of potential favoritism. The speaker urges a focus on why the FBI is withholding information rather than speculating about the individuals involved.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's the thing that you should pay attention to. When anybody is talking about this today, you should say, you know, the FBI director has the black book, has all of the evidence, most likely has all of the tapes because they they took everything out of Jeffrey Epstein's house and it is now under the purview of the FBI, the director of the FBI. Do you think that's too much power for 1 man to have, to have all of that information? Do you think it was most likely done as an intel operation, most likely Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence officer. Don't know for what country, probably ours.
That's why no hands on. Nobody's gonna say anything about him. He could get away almost with murder. So he was blackmailing people or using that for other countries or our country to blackmail people, should 1 man in a in a in our government have access to that? And because it is revolving around the rich, the powerful, the politically connected.
Shouldn't we all have access to that? Because if it was just a truck driver union, we'd know all the names. We'd know every single name. We'd know exactly what they'd done, and they'd be in jail if they had done something. So why is it the FBI is sitting on this?
To protect their own. Okay, even if you say that's okay, which I don't, hang on just a second. Should 1 person is that 1 person going to be able to use any of this because that 1 person could say, you know what? We're gonna release this on you. This is so incredibly dangerous.
It is exactly the kind of stuff that Stalin would have loved. It's exactly the reason why everybody hates J Edgar Hoover and thought J. Edgar Hoover was a nightmare. This one cache of information, has probably more damaging things than Hoover had collected over 50 years. I don't know.
I think we should stop talking about who's on this list where it gives us really nothing and start talking about why is the FBI not releasing everything. Remember, this is the same FBI that had the laptop of Hunter Biden for 2 years before you had even heard of it. They held that. They, quote, investigated that. Yeah, yeah, and what what happened there?
Were any favors done for anybody? Any what what happened there exactly?
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
My 2024 election prediction: Democrats will utilize their superdelegate process to remove Biden from the general ballot. And who would they put in his place? Well, Michelle Obama, of course! https://t.co/NgOGibR5lY
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that the Democrats will use superdelegates, a group of hand-selected party elites, to override the public's vote if they feel the people have been deceived. They predict that as the poll numbers for Biden decline, the party will need someone other than him or his vice president. The speaker suggests that Michelle Obama could be chosen by the superdelegates to unite the country for the greater good.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I really believe the Democrats are gonna do their superdelegate, which can vote differently than the public. So it's a it's a, hand selected group of people that the party elites select, And if they feel, for the party or for democracy's sake, the people have been duped, they can override their vote. And I think you're going to see the poll numbers going down so horribly that you're going to have to have somebody else besides Biden, and you can't have his vice president. Superdelegates stand in and they say, you know what? For the good of the country, we need somebody that can unite us all, and that would be Michelle Obama.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
I would LOVE Rob Reiner aka “Meathead” to join me on the “All in the Family” set I acquired at auction. The conversations the Bunker family had in the 70s are STILL relevant today. https://t.co/vnfkKwPHUc
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is Archie Bunker's house, with the closet door and familiar wallpaper. The stairs lead upstairs, and there are kitchen/dining room chairs, tables, pictures, lamps, and family photographs. More items will be added next week. The cost of this set is equivalent to Tanya's kids' future education. Tanya's kids will be paying for their own college. The speaker invites Rob Reiner to join them on the set to discuss the importance of "All in the Family" and the national conversation it sparked. The speaker urges Rob Reiner to come and sit on the set again.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What are we looking at? We are looking at right there is the closet door. Do you recognize the wall of paper? If you're above age 40, you might. You might.
This is Archie Bunker's house. The beginning You have the stairs. There's stairs that go upstairs. These are these are the kitchen or the dining room chairs, tables, all of the pictures, all of the lamps, walls? All of the photographs of the family, and we're gonna start putting it together maybe next week because there's more all the way down there.
But How much did this cost Tanya or your your kid's future education? Well, they're not gonna be they're gonna be paying their own way to college. But I I would like to invite, Rob Reiner to come on to this set with being when we assemble it and it's all assembled and sit and talk about the importance of all in the family and The conversation the national conversation that they had back then because nobody's having this conversation anymore? And I think it's important. Alright, Rob Reiner.
You heard it. Come sit on all in the family set again. Shut up, you.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
.@TPC4USA tells me he found evidence in Jan. 6 CCTV footage that Nancy Pelosi's head of security committed PERJURY in his testimony against the Oath Keepers: "He emerges and comes back into camera frame...he's NOWHERE NEAR" where he said he had a "very antagonistic" encounter.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Capitol Police Special Agent, David Lazarus, testified that he heard gunshots at 2:43-2:44 PM and immediately started heading back towards the House chamber. However, when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels at 2:48 PM, the encounter with the Oathkeeper officer Dunn was already over. Lazarus continued to move through the building, but by the time he reached the bottom of the stairs leading to the rotunda at 2:56:45 PM, the Oath Keepers had already left. Lazarus testified that his interactions with the Oath Keepers were antagonistic, but video evidence shows that they had already left the building during those interactions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You had, permission to go into the 14000 hours, of videotape. You knew what you were looking for.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 0: And in the story, you knew what time it even happened because the testimony was gunshots, you know, gunfire. And so that marked it at a certain time when they they shot an innocent. So tell me about what you found, what the story was in the testimony, and then what you found on the tape.
Speaker 1: Well, the story and the testimony from special agent, now this is Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, is that when he heard the gunshots at 2:43, 2:44, broadcasted over the radio that shots had been fired, that he was down in the tunnels escorting senators towards the, Rayburn building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber where, allegedly, these shots were fired. He said at that moment, at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards and we found him in the tunnels at that time. The problem with it is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels in the subway system below the capitol and by the way, Glenn, These are videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial.
Speaker 0: If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted with any of the testimony revolving around these guys, they would be released. Any other time in American history, they would be released because this is perjury and somebody Set this up. Somebody.
Speaker 1: And we're working on that trail as well. Good. But going back to Lazarus, so he emerges and comes back into camera frame on the Capitol TVs with absolute proof of the exact time down to the second of when he emerged back into camera. He even passes under an analog clock in the subway at exactly this moment. And it's at 2:48 PM when he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings.
And when that happens, the Oathkeeper officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then. He's nowhere near it, and he still has a long way to go. And then we were able to triangulate, because you know, he will go out of camera frame for a while, then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera. Right. And then he's down another hall, and then he enters another hallway, and then he shows up on the Senate side.
And then, by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs that lead up to, the rotunda, and it's in a little area that variously called the mini rotunda or the speaker's lobby. When he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 2:56:45 PM and the Oath Keepers are long gone.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now let me let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony testimony in the court case. Lazarus, the guy you've been talking about, explained that 1 rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial transcript, he testified.
And, you know, 1 attempted to, I mean, I had my lanyard on with my ID on it. And one, They were videotaping, and one attempted to pull up my ID, and I was kind of like grabbed it back and and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening. So there's just kind of like, I walked fast to get into the office and check on the staff again. He then detailed description of what took place, what Lazarus described as a very antagonistic, in 3 or 4 times that he passed by these Oath Keepers.
Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath. When he was then shown in court, A video clip of 4 Oath Keepers standing in front of Don. Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed? Yes.
Yes. At any point in these 3 or 4 interactions in this space, did you observe any sort of anything but antagonistic conversation? No. That's correct. Here's the problem.
They were already out of the building. At the time we know him, now on camera, we have the videotape. The Oath Keepers have been gone for almost 10 minutes.
Speaker 1: Doctor. It was not quite 10 minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room viewing this. We can put multiple cameras up on the screen at the same time and then we hit one button and it syncs all of those cameras to the exact timeline. So, we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen and then we can watch when the Oath Keepers leave.
So, as the Oath Keepers leave and they're walking back out through the rotunda about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side. It wasn't until that moment that finally Lazarus reaches that area. Were in great detail in the trial. And we have the trial transcripts, obviously. In great detail, he describes what he saw and it just did not happen.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Arrest him. The footage is there. This is the same violation of obstruction that took down those at Jan 6th. Arrest him. #jamaalbowman
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Did you know Pete Buttigieg’s dad set the stage for attacking our civil institutions? @Liz_Wheeler tells me she was SHOCKED to discover this connection, but it all makes sense now!
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses the historical connection between a man named Antonio Gramsci and the current state of civil institutions in America. Gramsci, a co-founder of the Italian Communist Party, studied Marxism while in prison and recognized that successful Marxist revolutions were based on destroying civil institutions such as the media, education system, religious institutions, the law, and the family. The speaker also mentions the infiltration of these ideas in American society, which began before the 1960s. They highlight the translation of Gramsci's work by Joseph Buttigieg, the father of Pete Buttigieg, as an example of the influence of Marxism in certain circles.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me take you back to history. The guy who, taught people to to attack the civil institutions in America has a modern day connection. But let's start with the history first.
Speaker 1: Yes. This this was this blew my mind when I was researching the book. I think I was doing this at like 1 am. I did a lot of the research for this book after my daughter went to sleep. And I like jumped up from my laptop when I realized this.
And I was like, everyone's asleep. Whom am I supposed to tell? So I ended up making it the beginning of my book. So When we look at the cultural institutions that are that have been compromised in our nation, it's pretty obvious. Like the media has been compromised.
The education system has been compromised. A lot of religious institutions sadly have been compromised. The law has been compromised and they are actively the other side is actively seeking to subvert the nuclear family. So we identify those things and we're like, okay, cool. Well, you take a little step back in history and you realize the communism or Marxism of Karl Marx, It went out of fashion after the Communist Manifesto died out because Karl Marx envisioned this global Marxist revolution that didn't really happen because Discontented working class really wasn't enough to spark that.
But then you have this guy in the early 20th century named Antonio Gramsci. He was the co founder of the Italian Communist Party and he was put in prison in fascist Italy. And while he was in prison, he was study Marxism and what what made the Marxist revolutions that were successful successful. And he accurately recognized that when a Marxist revolution was successful. It wasn't based on economic discontent.
It was based on first destroying the civil institutions on which the working class relied. And he named among others, the media, the education system, religious institutions, the law, end the family. Once you see this stuff, you can't unsee it. But Gromsey's work was not prevalent in the United States for a long time. It didn't become prevalent until The 1970s.
So here I am sitting, leafing through.
Speaker 0: Hang on just a second. The theory of mine, I don't know if this is true. Because they lost in the 1960s. These Marxists lost. They realized this is not going to work.
That we have to have all of them. And then in the 1980s when Reagan came in, they still didn't have the boardrooms. And that's when they really started doubling down and getting the companies. Is that do you think that's accurate?
Speaker 1: Yes. It is accurate. I think it it Really did start before the 1960s. The infiltration of our institutions and these ideas being planted in different places In our society. What it wasn't something that happened quickly.
Speaker 0: You're right.
Speaker 1: Which is why I think we're not gonna be able to fight back against this immediately because it took a 100 years to plant this. We're not gonna be able to eradicate in a day. But I'm leafing through these prison notebooks that Antonio Gramsci wrote. And I realized on the front cover page, it's probably the 15th time I had this book open, That the reason I'm able to read Antonio Gramsci, he wrote in Italian, translated into English is because of a man who translated his work. The man's name Was Joseph Buttigieg.
Yes. Matt Buttigieg.
Speaker 0: I
Speaker 1: This is Pete Buttigieg's father who ran an international fan club for Antonio Gramsci translated these works.
Speaker 0: So it's not just that he's, you know, been intersect by by heterosexual men that the, you know, he's been oppressed because of that. He's probably legendary because of his family tie in the Marxist
Speaker 1: circles.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
What you were able to get at the grocery store in 2003 versus today is SHOCKING. This is the inflation that Biden says he’s ‘fixed.’
Video Transcript AI Summary
Under the previous shopping conditions, $30 could buy you several items including bread, eggs, milk, ground beef, chicken breasts, and Coke. However, due to the current economic policies, you can now only purchase limited items such as a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, a gallon of milk, a pound of ground beef, three chicken breasts, and one Coke. This demonstrates the impact of the administration's actions and inflation on the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the shopping cart, this is what you could have you could have purchased for $30. You got a couple of loaves of bread. You have a couple of cartons of eggs, 2 gallons of milk. I mean, it's it's not Great. We're not living high on the hog, but you've got 2 pounds of ground beef and you've got 6 nice chicken breasts And then Coke, a couple liters of that.
Now, today, thanks to Bidenomics, How much of this do you get at the grocery store? You get 1 Coke. You get 1 dozen eggs. You get a loaf of bread. You get gallon of milk.
You get 1 pound of ground beef. And You get 3 chicken breasts. This is what this administration And inflation has cost the American people.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Have you ever wondered who the first person was to receive trans surgery and how it worked out? Spoiler alert, it did not end well for the man.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses the dangerous ideas of early American progressives and their belief in reducing the population by sterilizing or aborting certain individuals. It also mentions Yuval Harari's solution of drugging and keeping the "useless class" online. The video highlights the disturbing views of George Bernard Shaw, who advocated for killing people deemed unworthy of life. It further explores the connection between science and eugenics, showcasing the lobotomy and the first transgender surgery. The video emphasizes how eugenics was taught to the Nazis by the Human Betterment Society in California. It concludes by discussing the Nazis' implementation of euthanasia and categorization of individuals in concentration camps.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna show you that this I believe this was in Yale. I I could be wrong, but this is early American progressives. And it talks about every time this light flashes every 15 seconds, $100 of your money goes to help, somebody who is too feeble or doesn't have, you know, a worthy life. And it's tying your money to life. It goes on to talk about how families, of the infirm, those who have disease, etcetera, etcetera, how this is making the point we need to reduce the population.
We need to be able to selectively sterilize or abort children, now this is Yuval Harari. He is one of the big thinkers of today's world, he's with the World Economic Forum, but you have a hard time finding anybody, in power today that doesn't love this guy in it. He talks about how there is a great unemployment crash coming before 2030. How do we handle the useless class? Very dangerous language.
His solution is we drug them and keep them online, but there'll be useless eaters, extraordinarily dangerous. This is George Bernard Shaw. He was a wicked Fabian socialist. He says in this film, you know, there's gotta be some people that we all know that don't have a worth, a life worth living, some people that we'd all like to kill.
Speaker 1: But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill, not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you. You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. And, I think it would be a good To, make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioners And say every 5 years or every 7 years, just put him there and say, sir or madam, Now, will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, We cannot use the big organization of our society, for the purpose of keeping you alive.
Speaker 0: This is George Bernard Shaw, who is celebrated still today, gas chamber, his idea. This is now you're mixing science with Eugenics. You have this science. It's okay. They're subspecies and evolution.
So maybe we can speed evolution up, and we have science now that will tell us all kinds of things. This is the guy who created the lobotomy. His instrument here, it's a luke leucotomy is original because the idea was women sometimes, you know, at that time of the month, they can be cranky. This will help them and it's a device you stick into the eye and basically it scrambles the frontal lobe. We now know it is a lobotomy, but it was started to help women, it's important to see compassion for what it turns into.
This is the man who's was the sexologist in, the Weimar Republic. He did the 1st trans surgery. This is that man. He died. The 1st trans surgery was done in the Weimar Republic.
It became very, very decadent and out of control. He did this surgery on this man. He stuffed a uterus inside of him. He obviously obviously died from, I believe, toxic shock. You, you know, body kind of rejects that.
I want you to see that Eugenics, we are the ones who taught Eugenics to the Nazis, I wanna show you this, where is it? Human Betterment Society. I am currently scouring the country trying to find more from the Human Betterment Society. This is one letter and it is from the Nazis to the Human Betterment Society in California, this was at Stanford. And they went over and they taught the Nazis how to do all of this stuff.
And this letter is from the Nazis back to him. They say, and I hope this is true. The last line of the letter is we hope you never ever forget the role you played in waking up a nation of 60,000,000 people to the power of Eugenics, we taught it to them. They took it and you'll see in a minute what it becomes. Also notice here that there are pictures of Nazis gathering in groups.
They are pictures from the American Bund movement. The Nazi party filled Madison Square Garden, right prior to the war. So come on down. We go from the Nazis and what they're doing, out of compassion and to make sure that the country is healthy and whole to, again, cat compassion, the baby nower case and child Kaye, these are the 2 children, the 1st children to be executed, Hitler sends his own physician to be able to look at the baby and make sure that it was the compassionate thing to do to kill him, and he has his own doctor, kill him, and drug him. That turns into the T4 project, which was emptying out the children's hospitals.
And then they went to old people. Then they went to sick people and they would back a truck up, load all the passenger or all of the patients in seal the truck off, put the, hose, from the exhaust in, and it was a horrible, horrible way to die. And they just gas people over and over, and then they had to expand into buses, and then it turned into the camps. This is the letter here authorizing the death of children and authorizing doctors to kill people in compassion. Then they started to categorize people.
This is the German category, categorizing of different people. And you will see red is a political per prisoner. Green is a convicted criminal. Immigrant is, blue. Jehovah Witness or anyone who actually stood religiously speaking against Hitler.
Pink, is a homosexual. A socials really, really nasty people were black, violent black, and they got that black triangle. And most likely, if you were in a concentration camp, the guy who was the guard, the prisoner that guarded the prisoners would be a black triangle. And they categorized from down there. At the end of the hall is an exact replica of the shower door of Auschwitz that was closed.
You can look through the peephole if you want.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Remember how the Left works? Donald Trump’s house was raided by the FBI. Joe did the same thing he is accused of…where’s the raid? Hillary Clinton did the same thing Trump is accused of with campaign finance violations. She paid a small fine, but The Left weaponized a radical District Attorney to haul him up to court.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump's house was raided by the FBI, while Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton faced no such action for similar accusations. The left is accused of using a radical district attorney to target Trump. The House Oversight Committee has found evidence of influence peddling and financial deception, but there is a lack of immediate action. The speaker calls for someone like John Adams, who defended British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, to uphold the rule of law. The focus shifts to Hunter Biden, comparing his alleged crimes to those of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro's children. The audience is urged to take action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You remember how the left works? Donald Trump's house was raided by the FBI. Joe did the same thing he was accused of. Where was the raid? Hillary Clinton did the same thing Trump is accused of with campaign finance violations She paid a small fine But the left weaponized a radical district attorney to haul Trump into court.
Can I tell you something? We suck at this. We suck. We just expect things to go well and people be honest and then they're not honest and we're like oh gee, wow that hurt. Check this out from a recent house oversight disclosure quote.
The committee has uncovered evidence indicative of influence peddling and financial deception warranting further investigation and legislative solutions influence peddling and financial deception And all we're hearing about is potential legislative solutions? I mean, I'm all in for writing laws that Sure, another Biden crime family is never allowed to engage in this kind of behavior, but, Who's going to do something right now about this problem? Where is the anti Alvin Bragg? Someone that instead of using the justice system to persecute rivals will instead just uphold the rule of law. Where is John Adams?
A guy who actually defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. That didn't make him popular, But he did it because we're either a nation of law and order or we are not a nation at all. So let's change this shall we beginning tonight is Hunter Biden protected in the same way as Children of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro his list of alleged crimes is worse than you think But you can do something about it.
reSee.it AI Summary
Governments and media often label certain ideas as "conspiracy theories" to shut down questioning. However, history has shown that many of these theories turn out to be true. Examples include Obamacare causing people to lose their doctors, Twitter shadowbanning conservatives, and the Wuhan lab leak theory. It's important to question the approved narrative and track what the government wants to hide. Control the media, control the experts, control the narrative, control the country.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
The government’s APPROVED media and experts shut down questions & speech they don't like with two words: "CONSPIRACY THEORY." But you can often tell what the government wants to HIDE by tracking what gets labeled a conspiracy theory. This list is just from recent history:
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
June 2010: The Obama Administration told us it was CONSPIRACY THEORY to think that Obamacare would make you lose your doctor and health plan. October 2013: NBC News finally admitted that the “conspiracy theorists” were right after all.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
February 2011: I got LAUGHED at for the "conspiracy theory" that the Caliphate would reform. June 2014: All those laughs stopped when ISIS formally established the Caliphate.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
2018: The media insists Trump was colluding with Russia. It’s a conspiracy theory to claim otherwise! July 2022: The New York Times admits they were wrong.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
2018: Twitter shadow-banning conservatives was a DANGEROUS conspiracy theory. December 2022: Elon Musk and journalists reveal it WAS happening and the government was even involved.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
February 2020: The approved narrative was that masks WORK to stop the spread of COVID. It was DANGEROUS RHETORIC to suggest otherwise! February 2023: The New York Times felt it was safe to suggest otherwise.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
March 2020: It was a DANGEROUS conspiracy theory to question government-mandated lockdowns. February 2022: It was admitted that they actually provided NO BENEFITS and inflicted painful costs.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
October 2020: Damning documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop were part of a Russian disinformation campaign, "the experts" say. March 2022: The majority of the mainstream media finally accepts that the laptop was IN FACT real all along.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
October 2020: It's a conspiracy theory to claim that COVID deaths are being inflated. January 2023: A CNN analyst claims COVID deaths WERE overcounted.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
February 2021: Nobody's pushing everyone to ditch meat and eat bugs. That's a CONSPIRACY THEORY! May 2021: You know … to save the planet, you all should eat some bugs.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
February 2021: The Wuhan lab leak theory was a xenophobic conspiracy theory. February 2023: The Department of Energy said … well actually, that’s probably what happened.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
July 1, 2021: Critical Race Theory is not being taught in our schools! July 15, 2021: It was confirmed that the National Education Association voted and APPROVED CRT in all 50 states.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
September 2021: Natural immunity is NOT a replacement for vaccination and it's DANGEROUS to suggest otherwise! February 2023: Research published in The Lancet admits natural immunity is just as effective, if not BETTER than any vaccine.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
October 2021: Fauci insists there was NO gain-of-function research going on. September 2021: The hubris of this one is amazing. NIH documents debunked it one the month BEFORE Fauci’s denials!
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
August 2022: It’s a conspiracy theory to say that the White House was somehow involved in the FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago. April 2023: It's revealed that the White House granted the FBI a “Special Access Request”.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
October 2022: It was ABSURD to say the dollar was losing its dominance and at risk of losing its reserve currency status. March 2023: Media outlets all over the place started reporting that the dollar is now at risk.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
Control the media, control the “experts”, control the narrative ... control the COUNTRY. This list could be a LOT longer. I explain a few of these in more detail tonight on Glenn TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cByPLU34kHI
reSee.it AI Summary
Leaving FoxNews was both exciting and frightening. Despite doubts, we gained 300k subs in a week. Talent is now needed more than ever. Tucker's timing is perfect. Millions stand behind him. Joining Blaze would be epic. Together, we could bring the Fire of Righteousness to corrupt DC.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
1. The Morning after I left #FoxNews was the most exciting and frightening day of my career. Even though by the end of the week we would have 300k subs - only MLB had a live streaming network and everyone said it couldn’t be done .. (cont)#TuckerCarlson
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
2. I knew a time was coming when the network would need talent more than talent needed them, but 2011 wasn’t it … yet. 12 years later, I am guessing that #tucker feels much like I did. Yet his timing is perfect. (Con’t)
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
3. #Tucker, everything will work for His benefit. You are too smart to legitimately worry. Millions are standing behind you. I am one of them. What you choose to do next could make all the difference in our country’s next chapter. I can’t wait to see what you do.
@glennbeck - Glenn Beck
4. And for those who suggest #tuckerattheBlaze, YES. We are all for it. We have the money and experience plus, Blaze has zero content interference, we have partners not employees and together, corrupt DC/Pharma/Military/Banking/EDU would need asbestos suits, as the Fire of Righteousness would be an epic Blaze.