©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about why the GOP won't resurrect the Obamacare repeal bill passed in 2015, his wild curiosity about evidence the administration might have about wiretapping, and why Republicans are suddenly in love with infrastructure spending.
Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.
GLENN: Senator Mike Lee who is at an airport getting ready to board a plane. We're glad you would take the time to hop on the phone with us. How are you, sir?
MIKE: Doing great. Thanks so much, Glenn.
GLENN: Good. Let's get to Obamacare repeal and replace. This thing is nothing like what the Republicans were promising us they would do. Nowhere even close.
Do we have a chance of getting something good out of this?
MIKE: Sure. Something good can come out of it. What happens, whether something good comes out of it, the extent to which it might be good depends entirely on how members of Congress handle this in the next few days, on how they choose to cast their votes.
Now, look, you're right. What we promised was to repeal Obamacare, as much of Obamacare as we possibly could, and then to start trying to find new ways to put the American people back in charge of their own health care.
Well, what this bill does is it doesn't repeal nearly as much of Obamacare as we could. It leaves all kinds of things intact. It leaves most of the Obamacare regulations in place. Most of -- many of the Obamacare taxes remain in place, at least for a time. It leaves expanded Medicaid intact for a period of time. And then doesn't make as many adjustments to it long-term.
Meanwhile, it comes up with a new refundable tax credit, which we don't know the cost of yet. We don't know how many people are going to take it.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, which begs the question: Why are we not just repealing? Why are we not just passing the same repeal bill that Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for in December of 2015? That's what I'd like to see.
STU: Mike, is it true that you can't just repeal it unless you have 60 votes? You can't do it through reconciliation with just a full repeal?
MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation. So there's an open question on that. But we do that know we could repeal all the taxes and all of the subsidies and possibly some of the regs through reconciliation. We know that because the reconciliation bill we passed in 2015 repealed all of the taxes and all the subsidies.
GLENN: So why aren't we doing it?
MIKE: That's a very good question. That's what I believed we were going to do. That's what many of us were told -- otherwise led to believe.
GLENN: Why aren't we doing it?
STU: He said it was a good question.
MIKE: There are those in Congress who chose to take a different path. Now, I can't speak for them. I can't speak to what their intentions are. I think the easiest, simplest way of explaining it is, they had other priorities that they wanted to attach to this. Priorities that were perhaps higher than simply achieving repeal, at least to the degree that --
GLENN: Can you give me an example of what might be more important than what you promised the American people?
MIKE: Okay. So here's how I think they would explain it, and I want to be clear, I'm always careful not to try to speak for somebody else. But I think if they were here with us, they would probably say, look, we don't want people to be in a state of too much uncertainty and doubt. We don't want them to be afraid. We want them to have a degree of confidence about what comes next after Obamacare repeal. And so we want to provide a soft landing spot for them. And that is so important. It's important enough to them, apparently, that they're willing to go a little softer on some of the repeal and provide more programs through this bill right now.
The problem with that is, it's -- it's not going to pass. And it probably shouldn't pass until they can answer more of these questions, more of these questions about why we can't repeal more of Obamacare than this bill does.
PAT: And the other problem with that, Mike, is that that's not what they promised us. That's not what they said they were going to do. They didn't say, well, we're going to think about this and provide a safe landing spot for people. It's going to take a really long time. We're going to not repeal -- it was repeal and replace. That's what they ran on. That's what they were elected to do. And now, again, as so often happens with the Republican Party, they're not doing it. Frustrating.
MIKE: Yeah, that's right. By the way, I love the Kermit the Frog imitation that both you and Glenn do.
GLENN: Thank you so much. Thank you. That's what happens when your best friend since 1980 --
PAT: Yeah.
MIKE: Well, he has, in fact, been the spokesman for the AHCA, so it's appropriate that we use his voice when doing this. But, no, you're exactly right, this is what we ran on, this is what we promised. Now, to my great dismay, to my great surprise, on many instances over the last week or so, we've had legislators from the House and the Senate somehow saying that this bill, the AHCA is somehow what we campaigned on, what we ran on. Well, that's news to me. That's news to me because we've had this bill for only a few days.
PAT: Me too.
MIKE: That's news to me if we somehow ran on this specific bill, a bill the score of which we still don't know. We still don't know how much this thing is going to cost. We still don't have any idea how many people will take this refundable tax credit. And, therefore, how much it's going to cost. So that's news to me, that that's somehow what we ran on.
What I remember that we ran on was that we would repeal every scrap of Obamacare that we possibly could, the whole thing, if we could get away with it under our procedural rules in the Senate. And that's what we should be doing.
STU: We're talking to Senator Mike Lee. And every time you're on, Mike, I like to ask you the nerdiest, most boring, uninteresting question to see --
GLENN: So please keep this answer short. Please, for the love of Pete.
STU: So I apologize in advance for this.
But when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed under reconciliation. And because of that, they expired after ten years. Would the same thing happen here? If we repeal all these Obamacare taxes, in ten years, are we going to be talking about the expiration of the Obamacare repeal, and then it's going to be back into effect again?
MIKE: No, not necessarily. In fact, almost certainly not.
GLENN: Good end to that.
MIKE: Because of the fact that we were dealing with taxes in that circumstance, rather than something else. So that wouldn't be it.
STU: I thought it was a tax, which is the only reason it was constitutional. Wasn't that -- tax versus fee. Wasn't that a big conversation with Roberts?
MIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question. Can you say that again?
GLENN: Good. No, no, let's move on.
STU: Let's move on.
GLENN: So, Senator, let me ask you about the intelligence committee has given the president until this afternoon, they say they can't find any evidence that Barack Obama was spying on Donald Trump. And to present some evidence -- and we'll go pursue that. Any indication that he's going to present that evidence? And is there any reason to believe that he couldn't present the evidence if he had it?
MIKE: Okay. That's a good question. I'll answer the first question, I have no idea. I would love to see what the evidence is. I'm wildly curious about it. As to whether he could present it, that depends on what the "it" is.
I will tell you, my first reaction to this, when I very first learned about the tweet, my first reaction was, he's probably not talking about a traditional wiretap, where somebody actually goes to a judge and the judge orders a phone line to be tapped. Perhaps he's talking about a foreign intelligence surveillance court order issued pursuant to Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which would say, you know, here is an identified agent of a foreign government. Let's monitor this person's communications. And that there might have been some incidental communications with some US citizens, perhaps including people who were involved in one way or another with the campaign. That incidentally got pulled into that. That was my first reaction is that seemed the most plausible possibility. If, in fact, it's that, there might be some reasons why we might be reluctant to share that. Or --
GLENN: No, but he could share it with the intelligence committee, could he not -- or committee?
MIKE: Yes, yes, they've got the clearance to do that. So there's no reason why he couldn't share something like that with them. They've got clearance to see pretty much all of that. But as far as his ability to share that publicly, that would seem less likely if my theory is correct.
GLENN: And there's nothing that the president can't get, right? If he said, I want to show it, but, you know, this agency won't let me, you know, have access to this. There's -- everybody in in the Senate, would be like, okay. We need to see this. Behind closed doors. But you will open these books or whatever it is that he's saying the evidence is -- there's nothing the president couldn't get to, is there?
MIKE: I assume so. Because -- and, look, he's the commander-in-chief. There's nothing that he doesn't have access to. And so if he can -- if he can back this up, if he knows what it is that he's referring to, there's no reason that I'm aware of why he couldn't come up with something that he could produce to these Intel Committees. Now, whether he will choose to do so or not is a different question. Perhaps there are those close to him advising him, hey, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. But that --
GLENN: Why wouldn't you?
MIKE: -- that requires rank speculation.
GLENN: Why wouldn't you?
MIKE: I don't know. If perhaps he didn't want to set a precedent that he could just be required to answer questions every time the Intel Committee wanted to hear something. But I would think in this instance, he would want to, particularly because these questions are going to be raised from time to time.
GLENN: Right. And we're talking about national security. I mean, we're talking about something that he's accused another president of doing. And if that president was doing that, that needs to be stopped.
MIKE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's -- that's -- all the more reason why I suspect he'll provide them with what they want to know because you're right. Look, this is one of the things I've been worried about for years. And I've expressed this concern on your show previously. But if you remember the Church Committee, the Frank Church Committee back in the '70s --
GLENN: Yep.
MIKE: -- conducted a series of hearings to look into abuses by our intelligence-gathering agencies, and what they concluded was startling, which was that in every administration from Ford -- from FDR through Ford and Nixon, who was in power at about the time they concluded their research, that the US government's intelligence gathering apparatus had been used to engage in political espionage. Now, look at what's happened since then. Our technology has improved dramatically. Our technological means of gathering intelligence have grown by leaps and bounds. And our laws haven't always kept up with that.
And so to me, it would be almost surprising if some of this were not occurring. That's why we need to be watchful of this. That's why I was concerned, immediately, when I saw the president's tweet was because I considered it plausible, if not likely that this kind of thing would be going on.
GLENN: One last question, let's go to infrastructure. The G.O.P. went out of their gourd -- and I believe rightly so -- for a stimulus package for roads and bridges and tunnels and everything else for $787 billion. I remember that number. It's burned -- seared into my memory of $787 billion. Now the president is proposing a trillion dollar stimulus package, and the Republicans are very excited about it. Can you tell me what made the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package an affront on the Constitution and this one a dream come true?
MIKE: Well, I can't point to any distinguishing characteristic between the two, as to why this one would be good and that one bad.
In fact, look, when I look at the Constitution, I see the powers of Congress being limited. They're enumerated powers, most of them in Article I, Section 8. And they talk about things like the power to provide for our national defense, to declare war, to regulate trade between the states with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. I don't see anything in there that says that it's the prerogative of Congress to create all infrastructure.
Now, look, it's one thing if we're talking about an interstate corridor here or there. But it's another thing entirely if we're talking about wholesale, top to bottom, soup to nuts transportation infrastructure, even intrastate projects.
I think whether we're talking about under the Obama administration or any subsequent administration, headed by a Republican or a Democrat, I think we've got to look carefully at what we're doing there. Not every transportation infrastructure is necessarily outside of Congress' authority. Because some of them do involve a distinctly interstate function. But where they don't, we have constitutional problems.
GLENN: Mike Lee, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.
MIKE: Thank you very much, sir. It's good to be with you.
STU: So positive.
GLENN: Yeah. He is. Boring as snot.
STU: Thank you very much.
Oh, I love him. He is saving my hope in the entire country right about now.
GLENN: He is so good and so smart. And, you know, he's just tickled pink by, you know -- I love -- I love because you know he's accurate. But when you're talking to him -- because he's like this all the time, well, I mean, in section 508, subsection B, paragraph four --
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: -- you'll see -- and he did that like four times during this. You just have to get used to, that's the way he is.
STU: He's that guy.
GLENN: And that's why he is so good and so needed in the Senate. Want to give you this from the New York Post today. Bank fees rise to an all-time high. The average customer now pays $666 a year in banking fees.
STU: Satan.
GLENN: Right. Right.
STU: This is how it happens.
GLENN: The overdraft revenue from the top three banks has surged from 5.1 billion to $5.4 billion. That's what they make if you overdraft.
$5.4 billion. Does anybody remember that we're providing them? It's a service that we're providing them as well. We're giving them our money.
JEFFY: No. No.
GLENN: So they can loan it out to other people. No, they don't care anymore.
JEFFY: No, they do not.
Are we destroying our minds with endless scrolling? Glenn reveals some shocking new evidence that Large Language Models (AI) trained on the same viral, low-quality internet junk we consume every day are experiencing rapid cognitive collapse — reasoning plummets, long-term memory vanishes, and even dark, narcissistic traits emerge. Worst of all? Even when scientists try to “detox” the AI with high-quality data, the damage is permanent. If we don’t choose to feed our minds better content — real books, deep conversation, silence, and reflection — we risk becoming a society that can’t think deeply, care deeply, or live freely… and we might be too far gone to even notice.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: The average person spends two hours and 21 minutes a day, on social media.
That's the average person! Two hours 21 minutes a day on social media.
Approximately 141 minutes every single day, scrolling.
The average American!
Our on screen time, overall, the average American spends six hours 38 minutes, every day, on screens, connected to the internet!
Oh, my gosh. Wow! Time just gone! Just vanished into -- into, what? Updates? Scrolls? What is it that we're reading?
Seriously, are we -- we exercising our soul with deep thought? Do you know that leash reading in the US has fallen?
Only 16 percent of Americans age 15-plus read for their own enjoyment on an average day? Fifteen [sic]. That number was almost 30 percent in 2003. Fewer books: US adults in 2021 said they read on average 12.6 books a year, down from 15 in 2002 to 2016.
So we're losing reading skills. We're losing deeper thought. We're losing hours of conversation. We're losing how many hours of reflection? At least minutes, maybe 100 minutes.
Our attention spans. How long can you focus on something?
You know, the second screen was different. When we first started TheBlaze, I talked about doing a second screen. Technology, and it wasn't because you couldn't watch something. They're now talking about taking your TV show or your -- your Netflix show, and dumbing it down so much because people are watching or they're scrolling while they're watching the TV. And so they can't follow a complex story line. Oh, my gosh!
We are just going to be stupid slugs. Everything that we're doing online is fracturing attention, memory, and sustained reasoning. And so at what point does this become an epidemic? At what point our are our minds starving for any kind of nutrition as we feed them calories of noise? Now let me tell you the real story. AI is holding a mirror up for us.
There's a new study that came out. LLMs can get brain rot. Okay? That caught my eye. Large language models, LLMs. They are trained on junk web content. So viral, shallow, high engagement stuff.
And all it does is it's just cataloging all this stuff and just consuming all of this stuff that we're scrolling through every day, okay? Do you know what's happening to the LLM?
It's experiencing cognitive decline. It can't -- its reasoning ability is dropping. Falling through the floor. Long context memory, gone!
And dark personality traits, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism has increased. This is within AI. Okay? And when the junk content ratio rose from zero to 100 percent, if you're just scrolling for junk, the reasoning benchmark falls from 75 percent to almost 55 percent.
Its ability to understand long -- you know, long form context, falls from 85 percent, to about 50 percent.
Now, here's the scariest part, they caught this and they're like, holy cow.
Look at what's happening to the large language model. It's completely decaying.
You know, we're just doing it for a year now, and look what's happened. It's not reasoning anymore. It's turning dark. It can't understand long form content anymore.
Let's get it off that!
Let's start putting good, clean stuff into it.
Even after retraining on clean high-quality data, the models never recover the baseline capacity.
Okay?
The rot remains!
As a man or now as a machine thinketh, so he becomes.
I just -- I've been blown away by this study, for the last few weeks. It came out a couple of weeks ago. I had it on my desk, and I wanted to tell you about it. And I just haven't had time.
And I just keep thinking. This is a machine. This is not our brain. This is -- this is a machine that is -- is using the same kind of crap.
I mean, what happens if you don't monitor what you think?
Or worse what?
When we stop thinking?
AI is teaching us a lesson. And I guarantee. This study has been out for weeks!
Never heard it, did you? Nobody is talking about it. It's screaming at us, "Hey, learn a lesson!"
When you feed nothing but lone nutrient attention-hooking, high engagement junk, the capacity to reason, to remember, and to care degrades.
Aren't we seeing this now? Do people care as much as they used to?
Nope! Can they reason?
Nope!
Can they remember what happened yesterday?
Nope. My gosh, don't worry about AI taking over, controlling us. Programming our lives. Look at ourselves. We've already -- we've already signed over our lives to an algorithm.
We're studying AI brain rot!
But is anybody studying, you know, brain, brain rot?
Maybe -- maybe we do recognize it. Maybe we do recognize it. But, you know, we're too apathetic to wean ourselves off the digital era.
It's hard. It is hard. But when the nature of what we ingest for body and mind becomes shallow, the body suffers. But mind sinks deeper.
And we live in an age where we might be less full of nourishment, but full of distraction.
We talk less. We actually listen less. We read fewer books.
You know, where our minds just flit instead of dive. Our attention span, it's almost gone. And make no mistake, this is not just a matter of convenience or lifestyle. This is creeping into the structure of who we are, individually, and collectively.
What is this going to do to -- to our children?
I mean, even if we stopped right now, and we wanted to change, we -- according to the brain rot study.
We won't get that baseline back. Do we pass this stuff on?
Is it getting to a point, to where we're just pumping out morons.
I mean, we're already doing that. I mean, really pumping out morons.
At what point is this an epidemic, where anybody even recognizes it?
When -- when is it where our ability to think critically is so diminished, we cannot be a free people?
Are we there yet?
I told you earlier, I went to the bookstore yesterday. My son and I went to the bookstore.
And I was like, we're getting books!
Because I haven't read. I've been reading online.
It's not the same. It's just not the same.
You've got -- you can't remember. Because you remember sometimes with your fingers. You remember where it is in the book. You know, I can never find anything digitally. I can never find where it is in the pook. I'm -- I'm looking for it.
I can't find it. But I know right where those facts are, if I'm reading a physical copy of a book. And, you know, deep reading. Quiet reflection. Sustained dialogue. Pretty rare! Pretty rare! Our mental health, our social health!
You know, kind of going down. You know, civic health. I wrote it. A little bit. I think we all agree with that.
Even when artificial intelligence trained on junk content degrade in reason, we still feed ourselves the same thing.
Are we going to keep doing that? Or are we going to choose to do something different?
Well, first thing, we have to get people to understand it.
Can we really?
Can we get people to actually listen to this?
And then engage again, in thoughtful reading and conversation. And meaningful silence.
It starts with awareness.
And then choice. What do you permit -- what are you going to put into your body?
What do you permit into your mind?
Otherwise, one day, we'll all look around. And we will realize.
We didn't just lose time. We lost the capacity to deeply think. Deeply connect.
Deeply live.
And then maybe again, maybe we're so stupid and shallow, we won't know.
I'm happy. Are you happy?
What was the question?
What are you saying?
Maybe that's -- maybe that's -- maybe that's a better life!
I love my family!
I don't know who my family is, but I love them! Politics. I don't vote. I haven't voted for a long time. Look at -- (laughter) TikTok! TikTok! TikTok! Okay?
It's up to us, America.
Texas officials are warning that foreign ideological networks, including CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, and Sharia-aligned organizations, have already embedded themselves inside the state through political activism, funding pipelines, mosque expansion, Sharia courts, and aggressive community influence. Glenn Beck and Rep. Chip Roy explain why Texas is now the frontline of a coordinated movement that uses nonprofit status, immigration loopholes, campus activism, and foreign funding to undermine U.S. law and cultural stability. As Europe reels from decades of the same mistakes, Texas is declaring these groups a threat and moving to shut them down, but the question remains: Will America act in time to stop the network that’s already operating inside the country?
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So, Chip, when you saw this come from the governor, you and I have talked about things like this for a long time. This -- this -- we should have done this with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, a long time ago!
Instead, under -- I believe, it started really under George Bush. But then it just got worse and worse and worse.
We were letting CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood and everyone else, into our Department of Homeland Security. I mean, decades ago.
Tell me a little bit about why it's important. What Texas did.
And then let's follow it up with enforcement of that.
CHIP: Yeah. Well, first of all, you and I have talked about this for a long time, as I think I've talked to you on your show, it was the last substantive conversation I had with Charlie Kirk. Because it was very clear to me. It was clear on to him.
I think it was clear to you.
That our side, for way too long.
Even today. Thebe it's waking up. Have been asleep with the war on the left, that has been in process for decades.
Everybody is walking to London. They're waking up to Paris.
They're seeing now Dearborn. And Minneapolis.
And, oh, my gosh. Mamdani. Wait a minute. There's a problem in Texas too.
Some of us have been saying that for a while, and going back all the way to the Holy Land Foundation. Right? The Holy Land Foundation which was a Dallas/Ft. Worth issue, 25 years ago.
You and I talked about that last time. For listeners to understand how long this has gone back. You have unindicted coconspirators, associated with the Holy Land Foundation that are not tied to CAIR.
You have CAIR celebrating October 7th. You have all sorts of indications. In fact, the story yesterday in the New York Post.
Our friend Amy and her organization, they helped break that story, and having it out in the world. About the extent to which CAIR is tied, and their financial ties to the dispute issues on campuses.
All of the -- the connections that they have got with the radical terrorism, that we have to connect all of those dots.
And now, for the governor. I think, appropriately, you know, they've been targeting. They passed something in the legislature next spring.
We have to be much more aggressive. The governor is right to be aggressive here. This will have increased scrutiny and tools, and now I have to dive into exactly what those tools are, with respect to what it opens up to on the state level.
But the mere statement by the governor that both -- obviously, dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood. But CAIR. That CAIR is, in fact, an organization that we should treat as such is so critically important. Because it's masquerading as some, you know, oh, the councilman. You know, of American Islamic relations are -- it's crazy.
Like it's -- and the idea that they should get tax breaks is insane.
Which is why I introduced legislation to introduce their tax benefits.
That's the bear minimum.
I can tell you, but I can't go too far into it. Lots of really good conversations are occurring with the appropriate official law enforcement entities in Washington, to follow the money.
We've got to follow the money. I believe that there's a criminal organization, that is connecting all of these dots. You and I talked about that before.
It's not just the Islam issue. The Islamification of America, but also the Soros DAs, the open borders, Antifa. Southern Poverty Law Center. And, by the way, SPLC is now putting a target on me, because I'm daring to speak out about this.
It's all connected. It's all connected, Glenn.
GLENN: So what is it the state can do?
I mean, first of all, I think for anybody who doesn't understand, and, Texans, wake up!
If you lose Texas, you lose the West!
As Texas goes, so goes America.
And as America goes. So go the rest of the world.
And, you know, if you're looking at Dearborn. You're looking at, you know, these places in Minnesota.
And you're seeing that.
And you think that's not related to you.
It is worse in Texas. The numbers in Texas are staggering! And what they're -- I mean, just what's happening in the small little town that -- my studios are in.
It's the most diverse ZIP code in America. Las Colinas, Texas.
And I've been ringing this bell for 12 years when I first got there.
I started doing stuff on the Sharia law. The movement to bring Sharia law to Las Colinas, Texas.
And, Chip, I got to send you a copy of this interview I just did. I did it with the imams in the -- the biggest mosque in Las Colinas.
And one of them halfway through just blurted out, yeah, we all agree, hands should be chopped off if you steal. And I just let him go for a while. And it was clear, Sharia law is happening.
And now they have put these Sharia courts into place, to has come things. Because, well, it's their right to has come it as a religion.
No. No. No.
Not when it comes to usurping the Constitution of Texas or the United States of America. And that's happening now in Texas!
So give me. Give the person who is not necessarily paying attention some idea of what is coming and is here already in Texas.
JASON: Well, first of all, you know, you've got an explosive growth of the mosques that are growing in Texas.
We have over 300 and counting. More being planted in Texas, every day, than any other state in the union. You've got the Islamic center down in Houston, which is 150,000 square feet. That has major issues.
You noticed. I saw that imam down in Houston, going, well, you can't take this on the shelf.
They're trying to take over and change what should be done down here with the implementation of Sharia. There are activist Sharia courts in Texas, which the government rightly yesterday said, they're going to shut down, because they're in conflict with Texas law. And notably, what he's doing with the Declaration.
The governor is making very clear, that he connect the dots with the legislation, that the legislature passed.
With that declaration to say, no land and can be acquired with anybody associated with these organizations.
Now, again, I think this is the tip of the spear.
I think -- I don't mean this negatively. It's kind of obvious. Let's go after these guys. But there are myriad organizations that these will go after and shut down.
Let's be clear. I don't even know why we are allowing any foreign nationals to own Texas land.
GLENN: I don't either.
CHIP: Literally, let's just be very aggressive, and very clear.
I don't why massive corporations are owning our land, by the way. Separate issue, but all related. I'm bothered also by boardrooms in New York buying up our ranches and meat packing plants and everything else.
GLENN: Me too.
CHIP: Because, again, it's all related. The red/green alliance, the Marxist Islamic issue is all connected to root out and destroy western civilization. So that is to say, what the governor did is really critically important. It is a step so that we can go stop some of these things in these enclaves like Epic City.
But we need to be much more aggressive. And, again, I introduced legislation as you know to vet people for Sharia law and adherence to Sharia law when we're admitting them to the United States.
But today, I'm filing a bill called The Pause Act, to pause all immigration, until we have sorted our crap out, until we dealt with H-1Bs. Until we got rid of diversity and -- diversity chain migration. So we dealt with the veto, which, by the way, we need to challenge, which is the Supreme Court case thing that says we must educate illegal children. Until we've dealt with birthright citizenship. Until we've cleaned up our mess.
Until we've put in place, standards for not admitting people that are inherent to Sharia Law. Why are we importing more people?
Let's put Americans to work. Let's stop destroying our culture. Let's freeze it in Texas. Let's do exactly what the governor is doing, and more!
STU: Did you see what's happening in Germany?
In Germany, one of their ministers said, there's no longer a problem in Syria. The war is over. It's peaceful. Everyone in Germany who came for refugee status to Germany, you're all going home. Now, they're not going to do it. However, they did strip citizenship from a Serbian immigrant who praised Hamas as heroes. And this same minister came out and said, you know, your citizenship has to be contingent on shared systems of values.
And they're starting, at least to talk about stepping -- stepping up.
I think this is the right thing to do. Have we thought about -- have we thought about if you have refugee status, and your part of the world has now calmed down going, get out. Go home.
CHIP: Absolutely, we should do that. We have been talking about that, and the need to reverse, frankly, the abuse. There's two elements, okay? The reversal of the abuse of asylum, parole, refugee laws that were abused. Right?
You had people coming in, who really weren't in need of refugee status. Or weren't actually qualified for asylum. And they were abusing paroles on a case-by-case basis. So there's that whole mess. Then when you have a legitimate case for asylum or for refugee status, then we should review those. And say, okay. Guess what? They have calmed down. You can go back! Those are very specific provisions and laws.
You know, they're designed for that specific persecution, or very specific situations in war and otherwise. And when that's no longer the case, then you no longer have the reason to have that qualified status in the United States. So we should address that.
But let's remember, Glenn, I think it's so important, that we have to understand. Like, we're talking about the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't have it right in front of me. But I read that the proclamation by the governor. He was pointing out, that, you know, when that organization was founded like 100 years ago, or something.
Early last century. That it was founded. It was very specific about jihad. And very specific about jihad being an obligation.
Right.
And if that obligation comes from Allah. And that's for everybody adherent to Islam, in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood. And so understand what's happening!
And people need to realize that. Because this is -- everybody wants to go and say, well, you know, we can't talk about the First Amendment.
Bull! That is not true. Okay?
First of all, we can talk about it because of the First Amendment. Second of all, we can talk about it, because, yes. You can believe what you want. Right?
Our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights says that. But when you are turning that into a political movement, designed very specifically. To undermine our country.
And you undermine the rule of law. Then, no.
You do not have a right to do that. You certainly don't have a right to be admitted into our country.
And we need to recognize that and address it, or we're going to lose. And then we're going to be like Germany. And we're going to be like London or we're going to be like Paris. And we will be looking around going, what do we do now?
Right? We have 10 percent of the population, and growing. And, you know, 1500 seats in elected officials throughout the United Kingdom.
You've got 85 jurisdictions in Scotland, where they can choose Sharia law instead of -- as an alternative to Scottish law. We can't get to that point.
We have to stop this right now.
America just crossed a constitutional red line — and Glenn Beck breaks down why this moment may be the one historians look back on as the final warning before national fracture. From Congress signaling military insubordination, to judges erasing separation-of-powers, to a cultural class obsessed with ideology instead of safeguarding the republic, the “Bubba Effect” is now in full force. Glenn explains why collapsing institutions, media silence, and public distrust are creating a perfect storm — and why citizenship, not rage, is the only path to restoring the republic. Are we witnessing the moment America snaps, or the moment Americans finally wake up?
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.
We're glad you're here. I want to talk to you today. Today's theme of the show is the Bubba Effect. Because it's here. And we are seeing it in full force. I will show it to you in Dearborn, Michigan. I will show it to you with Nick Fuentes. I will show it to you, with Epstein.
And I just showed it to you, a different kind of the Bubba Effect, institutional Bubba Effect. With that statement that came out, you know, telling the troops to, you know, disown, you know, the president. Or don't -- don't follow orders.
Question orders.
And you should do that. And that is something they're taught in the military. But they're taught within the system.
You know, it's not just that they made a message to the military.
They sent that message.
Imagine if the Duma would have sent that message to Putin. And we received it, and saw it. We would be like, their government is fall apart.
Their military is falling apart.
Look at this. What message is that sending to China and Russia and all their allies.
It's bad. It's very bad. There is a moment in every republic. Every empire. Every nation. The historians will look back and say, yep. That was it.
That was the biggest warning. That was the last warning.
And I think we are living in that moment right now.
When Congress told active duty military to ignore the orders of the commander-in-chief, you've got a problem.
When you can't get a federal judge impeached, because he approved something that has never been done in American history.
Granting one branch of the government, the right to secretly surveil the other without notice.
You have to -- constitutionally, you must notify you're under surveillance.
Okay?
If they're doing a mass thing. You have to notify.
Because that's a second branch!
Otherwise, you break up the branches, okay?
These are not political stories.
These are constitutional earthquakes.
And no one is talking about them! So now the question is: What now?
What has to happen, if the republic has to survive the stress of these fractures. That everybody seems to be creating or dancing on.
Let me outline it plainly here. Because all of us have a role. One, Congress. Congress, you have to discipline your own. If lawmakers can publicly encourage military resistance without consequence, then Congress has surrendered its moral authority.
You cannot police the executive branch. You can't oversee the intelligence agencies. You can't demand transparency, if you cannot police your own members.
Censure is not vengeance. It's maintenance. It's routine. It's necessary.
Constitutional maintenance. And if Congress refuses to do it, then the precedent remains. It gets worse.
And history shows us, no nation survives a politicized military. Ever!
Two, the military.
You to have restate the -- the chain of command.
Publicly and immediately. The Joint Chiefs don't need a press conference. They don't need hearings. They just need to say, the United States armed forces obey all lawful orders of the president.
That sentence, those exact words, that's the firewall between an American republic, and every failed nation in history.
The silence so far is not reassuring.
Three, the judiciary.
Especially the Supreme Court. Close the door on the book -- the Boasberg case! He opened a door that is so dangerous.
No judge, no matter how noble his intentions, has the authority to rewrite the separation of powers.
If one branch can secretly spy on another, then you have no checks and balances! You had a surveillance government. The Supreme Court must intervene. Not Trump! Not even Congress. But for the survival of coequal branches, if they don't, this is the new normal!
And you don't come back from that one, either! And now, the hardest part, the that one everybody talks about. Nobody does. The role of the cultural leaders and people like me in the media. In a functioning republic, this is supposed to be where the media steps in!
This is where the cultural leaders. The voices, left, right, center, stop obsessing over click bait. And start explaining to the people, what just happened. Why it's unprecedented, why it matters. How we as citizens need to respond. But look around. Do you see anyone in the press doing that?
Do you see anyone in Hollywood, doing that?
Do you see anyone in academia doing that? No. You don't. Because America's cultural class no longer sees its role as the guardian of the republic. Who is the guardian?
They're guardians of ideology. So what do we do?
Well, we do what Americans have always done, when institutionals fail. We step in our self. But if we don't care, that's it.
The Founders never trusted the press.
They trusted the people.
So that's where we are now.
And we all have to model what a responsible media. Or a responsible citizen should be doing.
So let me show you right now, how a responsible broadcaster responds to a constitutional breach.
My fellow Americans. This is not about Donald Trump.
This is not about Democrats. This is not about Republicans.
It's not how you vote.
This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority.
Whether our adversaries overseas are given the indication that we are ripe for the taking. This is about judges, that want to erase the separation of powers!
The separation of power is what has kept this constitutional republic going for all of these years!
Most importantly, this is about whether your children will inherit a functioning republic. And if the mainstream media won't tell you, then I will!
That right there, is the job. To preserve the republic!
So our children and grandchildren and that is what we all should be doing. That's what the press should be doing. That's what the cultural figures should be doing.
You call out the violations of Constitutional order, no matter who benefits. No matter who gets angry. No matter what tribe demands your silence. This is what leadership looks like!
This is wrong! This has never been done before. This breaks Constitutional boundaries.
And it has to be corrected immediately!
Americans, you understand the Bubba Effect is here. And it's everywhere!
You're going to see people that you're like, well, he's really wrong on that! And that's really outrageous. And I don't agree with that.
But at least he's right on this one!
And it will always be to question the system. To break it down.
So what do you do?
Well, you don't riot. You don't panic. You don't is it fair. We're headed into Thanksgiving. Give thanks for the crosses that we bear. Give thanks because our liberty, our freedom, should we decide to keep it, will be more valuable to us.
But you should call your representatives. I'm so sick of calling my representatives. But you should do it anyway.
You need to demand transparency. You need to insist on consequences! Don't normalize what is happening. Well, they're all like that! Stop it!
Stop it.
If that's what you expect, that is what you will get. But understand this: The cure for Constitutional drift is not rage. The answer is not anger. It's not division. It is citizenship!
It's also not apathy. If we sleep through this, the system will break, guaranteed.
But if you wake up, stand up, and insist on boundaries, eventually it will happen! I know you're tired.
I know you don't want to do it anymore. I know you're just desperate for an answer. Because the time is running short.
But now is not the time to act in -- in ways where we dishonor ourselves. In ways where we -- we throw in with a lot. We're like, that's really bad!
But at least they're pointing it out. You point it out! Once you start standing up, once we as a people, all you need is 20 percent! Twenty percent. Anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of the American people. If they understand the Constitution, if they understand the Bill of Rights. If they understand that God has put us in this place, at this time, and each of us have a reason to live!
We're here for a reason!
Everything snaps back into place!
It always has!
From 1800 to 1868 to 1974.
Institutions bend.
People break. But the Constitution can be restored.
But if -- and only if, you know it, you love it. You never betray it yourself, and you demand it of the people who represent us.
New evidence suggests that JPMorgan Chase overlooked 5,000 "yellow ticket" suspiciouos activity flags connected to Jeffrey Epstein, which resulted in #1.$ BILLION in sketchy transactions. Glenn Beck explains why this may be the scandal that finally brings some of Epstein's enablers to justice.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So where does the real story lie with the Epstein story? And I think it's the money, okay?
That's the real story. I'll tell you about the billions who have gone to terrorists from the US and Minnesota taxpayers here in a second.
And when I talk about that, what most people will do, is they'll fight over ICE.
They'll say it's Islamophobia. They'll fight over CAIR. Whatever. USAID, when that went down. Well, that's just about feeding hungry children. It's all misdirection, to get you away from the money. So let me bring this now to Epstein.
When a banker detects suspicious activity, when they see something that looks like money laundering. Human trafficking. Tax evasion. Sending money overseas to terrorists. They don't send a polite note to the supervisor, in hopes somebody reads it.
They are required by federal law, after 9/11, to file what is called a SAR. It's a Suspicious Activity Report.
A SAR.
They have to report that directly to the US Treasury Department. Through FinCEN. Financial center of crimes. Okay?
Once a SAR is filed. The bank isn't even allowed to tell you that they filed it. They just hit send. It's locked. The Treasury is notified. Now, this system like I said, was built after 9/11.
Built after decades of financial corruption.
A system design that no single banker. No single executive. No single billionaire can make illicit money and then have it just disappear offshore.
This is -- this is activated. If you draw $10,000 out, of your account. You are moving $10,000. You get a SAR report. And it goes directly to the Treasury. And when the bank flags something suspicious, it's called -- the SAR is called a yellow ticket. And it's not a suggestion. It's not a memo. It is a federal alert. That triggers monitoring by the Treasury, the FBI, Homeland Security. Depending on what the flags indicate. Now, that you understand that, let me talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein.
Between 2002 and 2016, JPMorgan Chase filed seven SARS. Seven yellow tickets on Epstein. Seven! Over 14 years. Those reports flagged a grand total of $4.3 million in sketchy activity.
Okay. It's all -- you know, it's a decade replace plus, $4 million.
You can make all kinds of excuses for that. Right? But after Epstein died, when the government finally unsealed the sex trafficking details, details that they had held on to for years. JP Morgan Chase suddenly panicked. Because the floodgates suddenly opened. In 2019, two SARS were flagged. Two SARS were sent to the Treasury.
They flagged over 5,000 suspicious wire transfers. We're not talking $4 million.
This is 1.3 billion dollars. Five thousand suspicious activity transfers, and transactions, of 1.3 billion dollars.
Now, let me just say this clearly, so nobody really misses the gravity of this. You do not accidentally forget to report 5,000 suspicious wires.
You don't like, where did we put that $1.3 billion.
Okay. You don't misplace a billion dollars in wires, to foreign banks and Shell companies, connected to then a convicted sex offender under federal investigation. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen, because a Jr banker made a mistake.
It doesn't happen because the compliance officer was sleepy. It doesn't happen because somebody's inbox was full.
To not report that level of suspicious activities directly to the Treasury, first of all, is against all federal law.
And at a minimum, multiple officers, multiple departments. Multiple signoffs, choosing not to look.
$1.3 billion. 5,000 suspicious activities. Hmm.
Why?
Why did nobody report that?
Well, now, according to internal emails, JP Morgan Chase held off the filing of the SARS. Now, let me ask you this: If you had one suspicious -- if you withdrew $10,000 from your bank, are you really clear that your bank would do what the federal government directs. And I have to report this.
And it's going to go to the Treasury. Are you clear that they would do that on you?
Because the answer is, yes, they would. Federal law requires it!
But the bank decided, well, we want to continue to work with Epstein. He's valuable. He's connected. He's a referral engine to some of the richest people in the world.
He had sensitivities according to the bank. Wire transfers to Russian banks. Wire transfers to Shell corporations. Wire transfers from a guy who is engaged in sex trafficking.
Links to top political figures. Relationships with two US presidents. Both of whom Epstein at various times claimed to be very, very close with.
Let me explain: Something that most people don't know. Banks file SARS, suspicious activity reports, to the Treasury, for far less than this.
$10,000. They flag it. A business wires to an unusual location. They flag it!
It's sent to the Treasury. A client sends repetitive round number transfers to an unknown entity. They flag it!
It goes to the Treasury. A wire connected to anything resembling terror or human trafficking or exploitation. They flag it right now.
Banks don't wait for a 5,000 -- for 5,000 suspicious transactions. They don't wait. They file over one!
So how did Epstein get through 5,000 suspicious activity reports without triggering any alarms.
Not because the alarms were broken. Because they weren't. It's because somebody turned them off.
I would like to know who turned those off.
I would like to know, why they were turned off? I would like to know, if it was just the leadership of the bank. I would like to know, that every single one of those bank officers. All the way to the top, go to prison!
Not some slap on the wrist. Not some, well, you're well-connected. So we're going to let this other guy pay for it.
I want all of them in prison. You broke federal law!
Something we all -- all of us have to abide by.
We -- we have had our Treasury. We've had our government snoop into our lives. Watch everything we do. And we're not connected to human trafficking. We're not selling children. We're not convicted felons.
We're not transferring 1.3 billion dollars after we've been convicted.
SARS are not -- these suspicious activity reports, they are not decided by a single teller. They have to pass -- they pass through compliance teams. Risk divisions. Bank lawyers. Federal liaison officers. This isn't one bad apple. It's an entire system. And Senator Wyden, no conservative firebrand, I might point out, is now openly saying what everybody knows privately. JP Morgan Chase should face criminal investigations, and it should go all the way to the top!
And it should not be civil. It should be criminal. Because if you or I did this, if we had sent just a handful suspicious wires, the bank would freeze your account, notify the Treasury, before you could blink!
But Jeffrey Epstein, a billion dollars worth of exceptions. Hmm. Hmm.
Wow. That seems much more important than a stupid birthday card!
Let me ask you this, the question the DOJ doesn't want to touch.
How many people does it take inside a bank to make 5,000 suspicious transactions just vanish for 17 years? Is it five people? Is it ten? Is it a department head, a board member?
Five thousand. 1.3 billion dollars. Was Epstein. Did it happen because Epstein was useful to the powerful?
So nobody wanted to know. Did this happen because others were involved?
Does it really matter what their excuse was?
Here's the terrifying question. If a bank can look the other way on $1.3 billion for a sex trafficker. What else have the banks learned to ignore?
Hmm.
I'm beginning to think the banks are a real problem. Hmm.
There's a new idea.
This story isn't just about Epstein.
This is about the machinery that allowed him to operate. All of the middleman. All of the financial networks. All of the institutions, that treated him like an asset, instead of a criminal.
And I do believe he was an asset. Intelligence asset.
I do believe he was probably an asset to our intelligence. Although, you I hear both sides.
No, no, no. That's not true. Oh, yes. It's definitely true.
I don't know what the truth is. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, he was an asset for a foreign government. Maybe Israel.
Maybe somebody else. I don't know.
But also an asset for us.
That helps all the. Apparently.
We do all kinds of horrible things. Why not?
Senator Wyden says, he wants to follow the money.
Well, good!
For the first time in a long time, maybe the money is finally pointing us somewhere. And it's not just here.
And, by the way, if anybody still believes this ends with one dead man in jail. I don't think you're paying attention!
Because this is where it really leads.
