BLOGJuly 07, 2017

Bill O’Reilly: G-20 Is Just a ‘Schmooze Fest’ and Putin Will Cave to Trump or Be ‘Subject to Tweets’

Russia has managed to put itself in the middle of just about everything these days. Whether it's in Syria or Iran, meddling in our election and now in North Korea --- Putin is a force that can't be ignored. While the left went wild about the first handshake between the two, Glenn and Bill O'Reilly talked about what exactly the G-20 is and what to look for.

"One last topic on the G20 meeting... with Putin and with everything that's happening in the United Nations, with North Korea. Where are we headed towards here, Bill?" Glenn asked on radio Friday.

"So the G20 cache nobody knows what that means. It's supposed to be fostering everybody's economy and doing deals to help everybody else, but it's really a schmooze fest. The real interesting part is the Putin, Trump meeting. And Putin's got to give Trump something today, and I have predicted on BillOreilly.com that he will come out, Putin will, and he will say you know what? We're going to scorn North Korea too," O'Reilly said.

"We don't like that. But he's got to give Trump something. Because if he doesn't, he's going to make an enemy out of Trump, and then he will be subject to tweets. I mean, you know, if you're Putin, and your economy is terrible in Russia, which it is, you don't want to be Trump's enemy, you know?"

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Wow. There is so much to talk about. So much has happened this week, and the good thing is we have the guy who is going to give it to us with no spin. Bill O'Reilly's look at the week's news begins right now.

Mr. Bill O'Reilly, who now is making his home at BillOreilly.com where you can listen to his daily podcast, which is always riveting because he's always exciting and up tempo and upbeat and positive. Bill, how are you?

BILL: Are you reading that, Beck, or is that from the heart?

GLENN: Well, it's not from the heart. It's more from the --

BILL: Knee.

GLENN: Lower regions.

BILL: Jeez.

GLENN: The heart of my bottom.

BILL: Oh, man, Beck, come on.

GLENN: So how are you, Bill?

BILL: So what's on your mind today?

GLENN: Well, I have a lot of things. I would like to hear your comments on's speech in Poland yesterday, which I thought I was so refreshing to hear.

BILL: Well, I agree that the message was worthy and needed to be said to the Europeans on their own soil. But I thought it was a standard -- I said this to my audience. I thought it was a standard political speech in the sense that if I were writing that speech, I would have singled out a few examples of where Europe is in trouble. For example, in Sweden, that country has accepted way too many refugees and migrants. They can't assimilate them. They are causing all kinds of trouble, a big rock music festival had to be canceled because they're afraid that it would get out of control in Sweden. These kinds of things would have made the speech more vivid. But I agree with you that the message needed to be said.

GLENN: Honestly, it was nice to hear somebody stand up for the western way of life. You say it's standard, but I haven't heard that for eight years.

BILL: Yeah, and the secular progressives hate it, that's what all of these demonstrators are about. They hate capitalism competition, free markets, freedom in general. These peoples, you know, loathe that, and they all gather together to cause trouble. It's not an antiTrump movement, it's an anticapitalist movement.

GLENN: I got a note from mine Mike Opelka who does a show on The Blaze radio, and he said in the early '90s, we debuted a play in the former Soviet Union, he and his brother wrote this play and said my brother came home from Russia with a woman he eventually married. My brother took her to a grocery store to show her where the local market was located. Within seconds, she was standing stunned began crying. She could not believe what was in front of her. The products, the variety, just the vast array of food that was available to everyday citizens.

We were talking last hour about Poland and how there were just a few years ago 4,000 items on grocery store shelves. There are now as many as 40,000 different items on grocery store shelves and how the west and the free-market system probably the best testament or monument to it is the grocery store. And people don't get it.

BILL: You know, when I was in Berlin when the wall came down, I was covering that story, and I was there, and when the people poured across into West Berlin, the first place they went to was the grocery store, and they poured into the grocery stores and what they wanted most of all -- take a guess. What food did the communist prisoners want most of all?

PAT: Hamburger Helper.

STU: Kale.

GLENN: I would say candy.

BILL: Bananas. They swarmed.

PAT: That's really uninteresting.

[Laughter]

GLENN: I mean, let's just be honest here, Bill. Hang on. If you're a prisoner behind the iron curtain, the highest thing you're dreaming of is a banana.

BILL: I just want it to put this into perspective. Tatiana going to the grocery store is more interesting than news reporting in Berlin?

PAT: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Is that what you're me?

GLENN: I think so. I think it's more because of the way the story was told.

BILL: Oh, I see.

STU: Maybe you need to read an e-mail from a friend, maybe it will be interesting to everybody.

BILL: My friend Kurt ate a banana.

[Laughter]

GLENN: All right. That was a great story, Bill, and I am so glad.

BILL: Yeah, thanks, Beck, I really appreciate it.

GLENN: I will take that banana story with me to the grave. It's one of the greatest moments of airtime.

All right. So let's shift gears a bit. We haven't heard your take yet on the CNN, you know, Donald Trump tweet clown show thing.

BILL: I think it is a fact now that CNN, MSNBC, the network news broadcasts along with the progressive newspapers have basically stopped covering the news in a fairway and have put together a program to try to destroy Donald Trump. Would everybody agree with that?

GLENN: Yeah, but don't they -- when will they understand that doing that is only going to strengthen Donald Trump? They're not going to -- they're not going to release something, like -- because every time they come out with something, it's always, like, well, this is -- here's a constitutional crisis for you. And everybody -- America's, like, okay. No, it's not. We get it. It's coming with the package. We got it. He tweets crazy things. Oh, what an idea.

BILL: Well, it's all about money, though.

So the two liberal cable networks have increased their audience by doing we hate Trump all the time, and there's an audience for that that comes in just to see that. So if they stop doing that, their audience goes down. So, for example, Greta Van on MSNBC did not do that and therefore her ratings were not very good, and she got replaced. So it's about money -- ideology, of course. But it's also about money. So the New York Times understands that its readership is 90 percent liberal, and we're going to give that readership what they want, rather than giving the folks the truth. And that's where it's really shifted, so it's a combination of ideology and money. And therefore -- and you're right. Trump's base, basically, don't even listen to it anymore, and they dig in to support their guy against this assault.

GLENN: One last topic on the G20 meeting from Putin or with Putin and with everything that's happening in the United Nations, with North Korea. Where are we headed towards here, Bill?

BILL: I think that the catering will be heavy on bananas at the --

GLENN: Well, he is in Germany, so I've heard they love their bananas there.

BILL: A lot of fresh fruit. All of this stuff, basically, is schmoozing. So the G20 cache nobody knows what that means. It's supposed to be fostering everybody's economy and doing deals to help everybody else, but it's really a schmooze fest. The real interesting part is the Putin, Trump meeting. And Putin's got to give Trump something today, and I have predicted on BillOreilly.com that he will come out, Putin will, and he will say you know what? We're going to scorn North Korea too. We don't like that. But he's got to give Trump something. Because if he doesn't, he's going to make an enemy out of Trump, and then he will be subject to tweets. I mean, you know, if you're Putin, and your economy is terrible in Russia, which it is, you don't want to be Trump's enemy, you know? So I expect Putin to give him at least verbally something today. But the conference itself is just a schmooze fest and, you know, they all have agendas, and they try to get a little here and there kind of deals and stuff like that, so that's what it's all about.

GLENN: Back with BillOreilly.com. Do you have to say it this way? Or can you say it BillOreilly.com like all human beings?

BILL: It doesn't matter, really. It's how you feel it, Beck. And right now, I don't think you're feeling it at all.

GLENN: You know, I am thinking of bananas right now. As I think of bananas, BillOreilly.com. Okay. I get it. BillOreilly.com where you can see his gear and his books and everything else and also get his take on the news every single day, and he's launching his own TV show at BillOreilly.com, and we'll continue our conversation with him here in just a second.

PAT: Glenn Beck Program. Pat, Stu, Bill O'Reilly's with us. Glenn just had a family issue he has to resolve for a few minutes, so he should be back any minute now.

BILL: Okay. Sure. So, Bill, what are your thoughts on the GOP seemingly caving in now and just almost admitting that they're going to bring the Democrats in on this, and we're going to go from a Democrat light bill, which is was with the Republicans anyway, to a full on Democrat-inspired bill, they're just going to fix ObamaCare?

BILL: Well, I think that's a message to the Republicans who are being obstinate about compromising and being the senate majority leader and saying okay. Look, if you're not going to compromise with us to get free market back into the health care system, then you're going to have to deal with Chuck Schumer and the guys to socialize it up, and we're going to have something worse, so that's the play.

You know, look, it's a very complicated thing, obviously. A lot of people are confused about it, and I think the big thing is that the Republicans have got to get something on the board. And if they don't, they risk losing the senate in 2018. Because they -- the people are waiting for some kind of accomplishment. We need a tax cut, we need new health care.

PAT: We've got nothing.

BILL: The jobs report today. We had a very good jobs report. Trump should be running around screaming about that. I think Trump's free marketplace philosophy. But, you know, we've got to get -- we as a country have to get stuff passed. And right now, it's not happening.

STU: As a general philosophy, Bill, do you think it's good to take these baby steps?

BILL: You have to because the constituencies so vary and when you have ObamaCare saying we're not going to

issue any policies to Americans, well, what's going to happen is that there are going to be a lot of people who are not going to be able to buy health insurance, and then you're really in trouble. So you have to basically stabilize first and then build on that.

PAT: Why is it, though, and maybe it's just the way it feels to me. But it seems like it's always when we have the -- we have the executive branch, Republicans have the executive. They have the Senate, they have the house. When Democrats are in that position, they never take baby steps. They get ObamaCare done. When the Republicans are in the majority and have the White House, we have to do baby steps. Why is that?

BILL: The Democratic party is run now by the progressive left which has intimidated moderate Democrats, all from one Joe Manchin from West Virginia. He seems to be the only one who will look at things and come up with a problem-solving idea. So whatever it is, it's either Democratic hierarchy, the Democrats are afraid of their leadership. The Republicans are not. They're not afraid of Ryan or of McConnell. So very conservative Republicans say, look, we're just not going to go along with it because we want X, Y, Z. There isn't the fear that there is in the Democratic side. Democrats vote block. I mean, can you believe that Kate's law might go down in the Senate? A law that is so badly needed and would protect all Americans and even immigrants and illegal aliens. Everybody would be protected, and the Democratic party is going to vote and block against it in the Senate? It's insane. But they are fearful because if they go against the hierarchy, they'll cut their money off. Okay? The packs control all the money for people going for reelection in the senate and the house, and then they'll launch a primary. You know, if you're a moderate Democrat, the progressive leadership will put somebody up against you, a far left person up against you and if you understand them, and these people are scared to death of that. So that's why the Democratic party votes and block, whereas Republicans don't.

STU: I mean, the border's a good example of this too because it's a constant let down when they get into power. Health care feels that way as well, and I think what's frustrating about a lot of people, Bill is that a lot of the people now who are saying we can't get a full repeal. We can't have a much more aggressive free market health care plan. We have to settle for this because we have a bunch of varying constituencies, which I understand. That's a very valid point. However, these same people when they knew Barack Obama would veto it did vote for stronger things. They acted as if they wanted those things when they knew it wouldn't pass, and that I think is what makes people so cynical about politics.

BILL: Well, people are furious on both parties. They're angry that our leadership in Washington is basically blunting, and whether you like Trump or not, Trump basically rises above that and says, look, we're going to do X, Y, Z on immigration, so what happens? Well, people don't come here now. I mean, a series of articles, even in the liberal press where Central Americans and Mexicans are saying I'm not even going to bother, it's too expensive and dangerous to do it and if I get caught, I'm going to get shipped right back. So the crossings on the southern border way down. Way down. Not because of any legislation. Not because of a wall because that wall hasn't been built yet. It's because of the perception that Trump is going to send us back. So that's the kind of leadership that is appealing to many Americans and why Trump won. But the gridlock in Washington, my god, they don't get anything done. You can't get Kate's law done? You can't get that? It is. It's infuriating. Money dictates what these people do.

STU: How do you expect the G20 negotiations to affect the global banana trade?

BILL: I think the banana trade after this show, the Glenn Beck show.

PAT: It's going to be huge; right?

BILL: He was insincere about bananas.

[Laughter]

PAT: He was kind of insincere.

BILL: It's going to skyrocket. There's a lot of potassium involved, and we know that. Now, the global warming people don't like potassium because it can impact, you know, and make things a little warmer. But I still think the banana trade is going to go through the roof as this program spans the globe.

STU: You really could do a monolog about anything, huh?

BILL: Any topic, I can do five about it. Whatever you want.

STU: Will you come back on the other side, Bill? I would love to get your take on Chris Christie. What his future could possibly be. (888) 727-Beck. Bill O'Reilly is with us. Glenn is going to be back here in just a couple of minutes to talk about Chris Christie, who may be the least popular governor in American history, according to polling.

PAT: At least who hasn't committed a major felony; right?

STU: Yeah, that's the way it's going to turn out.

PAT: Pretty amazing.

STU: Back with Bill here in just a minute. (888) 727-Beck is our phone number.

GLENN: Back with the one and only legend Bill O'Reilly.

PAT: What? Oh, sorry. I didn't hear.

GLENN: I said legend.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: In his own mind. Bill O'Reilly from BillOreilly.com. I don't appreciate the fact that he was on my program just a few minutes ago saying I didn't take the seizure of bananas by the oppressed as a riveting, riveting story and somehow I was belittling bananas, the banana industry and the need, desire, and just crave and want of bananas by the oppressed.

PAT: You did take umbrage to that?

GLENN: I did. Bill O'Reilly, welcome back to the program. I heard you talk about the border wall just a second ago. Do you think that the border wall is still going to happen?

BILL: Somewhat. It's not going to be a full border wall, but they will put in, you know, a high-tech situation in various sectors that they believe --

GLENN: Without any movement on this now with the trouble that he is having, does this happen as something that he can run on and say see? I told you I was building a wall, and I have broken ground on a lot of the wall, or is this -- I need a -- I need these guys, you know, in the senate to help me to get started.

BILL: No, I don't think so. Just today over in Europe he said once again that Mexico's going to pay for the wall. He's going to do something. He can do it by executive order.

PAT: But there won't be a big, beautiful 40-foot wall with a beautiful door in it.

BILL: No, for example, where you live, you're not going to have a wall there. It's very hard to get through and all of that. You don't need it. But, you know, in places like Arizona where, you know, there's a lot of trouble, then you'll see, you know, the thing go up. So it's more of a symbolic thing than anything else.

STU: That's quite an admission, though. We're not even six months into this thing, and it's his signature issue, and it doesn't seem like anyone actually believes he's going to build this thing at this point. Not even Ann Coulter.

BILL: Well, the signature issue is really the economy. That's really what it's all about. So if the economy gets better and people are making more money, and they feel more secure, they're going to give him a pass on some of the other things, as long as the intent is there, and that's what's going on.

GLENN: Okay. Let me switch gears and talk about a couple of other things. First of all, the beached whale story that happened over the weekend. Oh, no, I confused that with the other story. Chris Christie in New Jersey.

PAT: Why do you confuse that with the Chris Christie story?

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: That's weird.

GLENN: He is the most unpopular governor in America now. And that's saying something. There's only three people -- is he number three at the bottom?

STU: He's number four right now the least popular governor as far as polling has ever shown. And that is ahead of him -- first of all, he's at 15 percent. That was taken before the beach incident. So I would assume that's going to drop. Only governor ahead of him 2016 Frank in Alaska, at 14 percent. He named his daughter to be senator, so that was not a popular move. 2008, rod went to 8 percent. Obviously, he's in prison.

GLENN: Yeah, went to prison.

STU: And 2005 also criminal charges against Bob Taft in Ohio, he's at 7 percent.

GLENN: So what happened with Chris Christie?

BILL: Well, Christie's play is this. He know he's not going to do public service ever again. This is what I believe. All right? So he's out of the public service business. So what business does he want to get into besides importing bananas? He wants to get into the media business; right? That's what he wants to do. Now, there have been all kinds of rumors in the New York area that he wants to do sports radio, radio talk, that kind of thing. So what better way to get his name out there as a controversial guy than to go to his lavish beach home as the state of New Jersey provides their governors when all the other beaches are closed because the state couldn't pass a budget. So he's the only one on the beach, and then he allows himself to be photographed in a lounge chair with his grin on his face. He knows what he's doing. Gendering controversy, get his name out there, so he will get some kind of media play.

STU: But that's not a guy --

GLENN: I'm not excited to tune into the guy who just gave his state the shaft. It's not, like, oh, man, I can't wait to hear what he has to say.

BILL: He could go to sports. He could go to news too on the radio. I don't think he could do TV.

JEFFY: Are you fat shaming?

BILL: He'll get a sampling, Beck. He will. People around here will tune him in.

GLENN: I think you're right. On politics, radio is so heavily right and Chris Christie has almost zero credibility with the right, which is amazing because he went from --

BILL: He'll go in, and he'll shake it, you know? So he's got -- that's what he's angling for, and I think he's going to get some kind of media contract.

STU: For fat TV host better male, this is a place for them at the Blaze.

GLENN: Yeah, we're all fat here.

BILL: Maybe you want to use the word zoftig. Fat is a little blunt.

STU: Zoftig? I've never heard that.

BILL: It's a German-based word. I picked it up when I was in Berlin.

GLENN: Bananas.

BILL: Maybe rotund.

GLENN: Rotund I know. Zoftig is not a pretty word. Let's switch gears to the baby in England. 11 months old. National health care, they want to pull the plug, we're waiting for the English version of the Supreme Court to give the ruling. The baby has already been accepted to a hospital here in New York. The Vatican has offered to take the baby at the Bambino hospital. In fact, the Pope yesterday said they will issue the family a Vatican passport so the baby can be taken out of the hospital and make them Vatican citizens. What do you think is about this story?

BILL: Well, I think the British authorities would be insane not to allow the Vatican to take the baby and treat the baby and, you know, Trump has weighed in and said we'll take the baby here in the USA, and there will be enough people, of course, to donate money to pay the bills and stuff like that. So if the British government says, no, we're going to allow the baby to die, that's going to be an enormously big story that's going to be really bad for the UK. So I don't believe they'll do it. But I would like to see them cooperate with the Vatican on that. On a life issue like that.

GLENN: What's amazing -- if you haven't followed this story, go to Charlie's fight.org. I think this is a battle more than for western life, this is a battle, Bill, that is a bellwether on our humanity as the west.

BILL: Well, it certainly goes right into euthanasia and abortion debate. But, you know, clear-thinking human beings will say, look, if the baby is going to be treated, let the process play out, you know? Why would you want to abort the process?

So, yeah, you're right. I mean, these crazy, insane choice people -- not everybody is at that level who just say euthanasia, fine. State of Oregon totally out of control, no limits on abortion. You can do whatever you want for any reason. Nothing stopping the fetus, the unborn. We reach a point in a moral conversation where you can't defend these kinds of actions. And the UK could not defend not allowing that baby every opportunity and its family.

GLENN: So, Bill, this is the Slate magazine came out immediately and said the right's going to make this into death panels and. And that's what this is. This is a death panel.

BILL: Right. It's a ruling that the baby doesn't have the right to treatment.

GLENN: To eat up more resources.

BILL: Yeah, to treatment. Even though the baby is now -- has an opportunity to go away from the UK so that they don't have to deal with the situation any longer. So that's why I'm saying the British aren't stupid. They're not going to do that.

GLENN: Let's just noodle this out for a second if you have socialized medicine, and you're going to have to ration medicine, which they are. They're so far in debt with their nationalized medicine over in Great Britain, it's killing them. And they have to ration the care. So if you're rationing the care, you have to make this decisions that says this is not worth the investment because the odds of survival are so low. What makes that -- argue from the logical point of view to a liberal that says, well, yeah, but why should this baby have a chance? Because they have wealth or access to money. But nobody else's baby has that chance. We have to even the playing field and everybody has to have a fair shake.

BILL: Well, when you're talking about life and death, there is in a matter of a comparative matter. Of whether you can save the baby or elongate the baby's life, you do it. And economics shouldn't enter into it. I don't believe in socialized medicine. I lived in England for a year. I know that there's a back up. I know in Canada, for example, you have to wait for a complicated surgery, which is why thousands of Canadians come to the United States for it. So that kind of the government makes calls the shots on life and death. That is not compatible with my he view of life, and I would think most people in America would say the same thing. They don't want the government to say who lives and dies because of money.

GLENN: Did you read the pope's actual statement?

BILL: I did not read it.

GLENN: You should, Bill, as a Catholic, I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Because he didn't say -- he said, you know, this is a very complicated matter -- which it's really not. It's not complex. The money's there. The baby has been offered treatment elsewhere. It's not complex at all. But he was not John Paul, who would have come out and had come out and said, you know, that big state making and decisions for families is not right and the family needs to be empowered and all life is sacred. He didn't use any of that language. He said it's a complicated matter. He understood and we shouldn't reject the state being involved. Basically saying, you know, we need to understand that parents sometimes have a hard time with these decisions and shouldn't be left alone. It was a really treading the line kind of statement.

BILL: All right. Yes, ma'am, the offer, so that's number one, and he is a different guy. He's not doctrinaire. He tries to get as many people as possible into his outlook or his point of view, and he doesn't like to make judgments about certain things because then he believes that alienates people and cuts off the conversation. So I'm a big actions speak louder than words guy, and I applaud what the Vatican is doing, I hope the UK takes their offer and sends the family to Rome and let the life process play out there, and that would be a huge win for not only the family and the baby, but for the cause of life. And so that's what I hope happens.

GLENN: BillOreilly.com. BillOreilly.com is the website where you can hear Bill every single day. You launch maybe this fall with a new TV show?

BILL: We're not sure yet what we're going to do with the TV thing. It's complicated.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: But we're certainly going to upgrade the BillOreilly.com. And I love how you say you said it this time as opposed to the beginning of the interview when I didn't feel the sincerity.

GLENN: No. Bill I didn't. When I say BillOreilly.com, I mean it. When I say BillOreilly.com, I don't feel it. It's not the same.

BILL: I want you to read Legends & Lies: The Civil War.

GLENN: And there's nothing like Legends & Lies: The Civil War.

BILL: That's right. I know you're a history buff and like to learn.

GLENN: I was in a bookstore, and it's shameful how many books he has. But they're all great. Great for your kids as well. History at Bill O'Reilly. Thanks, Bill, talk to you next week.

BILL: All right. We'll talk to you.

RADIO

Congress Will Allow the FBI to SPY on YOU, But Not THEM?!

Congress is voting on whether to re-authorize FISA Section 702, which would allow the FBI to secretly spy on Americans without warrants. Glenn speaks to 3 congressmen who are leading the charge to prevent this. First, Rep. Chip Roy accuses House Speaker Mike Johnson of standing in the way of an amendment to force the FBI to obtain warrants before spying on U.S. citizens. Then, Rep. Thomas Massie lays out the "biggest red flag" he's seen: “There’s 2 carve-outs in here for congressmen…Only if you’re a Senator or US Representative do they have to notify you” if they’re spying on you without a warrant. And lastly, Rep. Warren Davidson explains his his “Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale” amendment, which would put an end to this shady practice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: House Republicans are divided. I don't know how they're divided on this.

Read the Constitution. Where do you find in the Constitution warrants, Pat?

PAT: Well, you have the Fourth Amendment. For instance.

GLENN: Which is?

PAT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Supported by oath or ampliation.

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

That's the Fourth Amendment. What does that mean?

The reason why this was written in, is because the king used to issue general warrants. And that meant Pat Gray, there's something wrong with him. Go find it. And they could look into anything.

They could go into your house, go through all of your papers. Where a warrant, now, our kind of warrant has to be sworn out. By the police and somebody else, you know, somebody tips them off.

And they say, look, I know he robbed somebody, or he killed somebody. And he's keeping their necklace in their house.

It's in his safe, in his wall, and in his bedroom. They go to the judge, and the judge says, really?

And listens to all of it. And he's supposed to be skeptical and protect your right to privacy.

But if they have enough evidence to make the judge go, I think you're right. He did.

Then he issues that specific warrant. They can't just go into your business. And everything else.

And just look through stuff.

They have to know what they're looking for, and generally, where it is.

PAT: And if they find something else, that incriminates them on some other issue. You can't use it.

GLENN: You can't use it, okay?

That's the Fourth Amendment. This is where we get warrants. This is why you can't just stop people in the streets, and search them.

Okay?

This is why America doesn't say, papers please. You can't do that! Because of the Fourth Amendment. Now, we were all really drunk and stupid, when we passed the Patriot Act. And in the Patriot Act, it has Section 702.

And it's the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

And we ail talked about it, at the time. And we all trusted our government, at the time.

Strangely, except for actual liberals, which I don't think exist anymore.

And they were the ones that were saying, tonight. Don't do this.

This -- this will -- they will scoop Americans up into this.

PAT: And we said at the time, eh, that's fine. It's not going to happen. Because I was for it, at the very beginning.

A few weeks into it, I was like, oh, wait. It's going to be a problem.

I remember thinking, all they have to do is just change the meaning of terrorist. If they -- if they decide a group of Americans are terrorists, we're done.

And that's exactly what they've done now.

So what happens is, they -- they get a warrantless surveillance of foreigners.

We don't have to have a warrant on foreigners.

So they go to the FISA court, and they say, look, we're going to listen to these people.

And they don't need a warrant. And they go and they listen to those people.

The problem is: It's a giant chain.

That person, if that person is foreign, and he calls somebody here in America, then that person is tracked.

And everyone else that he talks to. And everyone else that they talk to.

And so on. And so on.

Do you remember the old -- you know, the shampoo commercial?

And so on. And so on. And it kept dividing itself, until the whole screen was just nothing, but faces.

That's exactly what is happening. And they are scooping up all kinds of information on you. That doesn't have anything to do, with terror overseas.

This has got to stop. You know, when they -- when they built, after 9/11, they built the visitor's center of Washington, DC.

What you don't know, is -- or may not know.

Is underneath the visitor's center, we don't even know how many floors, there are.

Underneath that.

It's all top secret.

Your -- some of your senators and some of your Congressmen can't even get into the floors. They're top secret, because they're FISA courts.

We know now, that the FISA courts are completely corrupt. We know that the FBI is changing the facts, when they go to the court.

They're changing -- they've actually changed, sworn testimony. And no one is punished for it.

We cannot allow section 702 to pass.

Now, there is a -- an amendment to the bill. That has been suggested.

But the bill is coming up, this week. The G.O.P. representative Laura Lee of Florida, is the one who has put the amendment in.

Titled reforming intelligence and securing America act. It would reauthorize section 702 of FISA for five years.

And aims to impose a series of reforms. I don't believe any of the reforms.

I don't believe those will ever happen. We have given the keys to everything about us.

To the government. And the government has turned hostile on many Americans.

So, what do we do? We have Chip on yet?

CHIP: We passed a rollout committee yesterday, that would include -- that had a rule that said we will have a vote on a warrant. The problem is that the Speaker of the House, has now come out against the warrant amendment. That's a problem. Because the Speaker has pit his finger on the scale to shift the conversation. And to say publicly, we don't need the warrant.

GLENN: What the hell is wrong with this guy?

CHIP: Well, that's for another conversation. For the purpose of today, when we go to the floor, in an hour and 40 minutes, we're bringing to the floor under a bill that has an amendment to add the Fourth Amendment protection, the warrant protection that we could still pass, but seems like we won't. Because the speaker has put his finger on the scales.

So now since the speaker has done that, we now have to decide, whether or not we stop the whole process by killing the rule.

And then force it to be only reauthorized under its current form.

Which, of course, still wouldn't give us the protection of the warrant.

GLENN: No.

CHIP: But our concern is, there are other amendments in this, that would expand FISA in the name of going after --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHIP: Right. And so, for example, there is well-intended legislation, to go after. To be able to collect data. Collect information. Relative to drug trafficking like fentanyl.

The problem is, in the definition, about precursors, and other stuff. It expands FISA. Expands the amount of information they were collecting. You could be about talking about an American citizen, buying, you know, whatever. Cold medicine.

That's the precursor for making meth.

So we're all alarmed, that it's expanding FISA, and we're trying to run all these pieces to ground.

Meanwhile, that's all stuff that's been added to it. You know, by the leadership.

So now, we're trying to figure out, what we do. With a rule here at noon.

We are conflicted because of the current regime, doesn't have the Fourth Amendment warrant, you know, a language in there.

Obviously, we still have protections in American citizens under the Constitution. But if you don't put this provision in place, it's not as strong in terms of what we're trying to do to protect American citizens.

THOMAS: The biggest red flag in this. And I spent 15 minutes last night. The rules committee, going back and forth to the chairman of the Intel committee. We finally got him to admit, this is inside his bill. A carve-out for congressmen. I don't know if Chip mentioned it.

GLENN: No. He didn't.

THOMAS: Okay. They are trying to tell you, they have 53 reforms in here that will take care of all the problems. Well, the congressman who are voting for this aren't convinced, because they get a carve-out. There's two carve-outs here for congressmen.

Number one, the FBI is surveilling you, using FISA. They're going into this database, and searching with your name and your congressman. And they're ostensibly doing it for your own good.

Because they're worried about foreign actors. They have to notify you.

Only if you're a congressman. Only if you're a senator or US representative.

Do they have to notify you. And I asked, why did they put that in there? They were afraid of political bias.

What about school boards? Aren't you afraid of political bias there? And oh, by the way, does this apply to candidates, or just incumbent congressmen? It only applies to incumbent congressmen. How special is that?

So my solution here is, get a warrant. And then you don't have to put out carve-outs for congressmen.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: And here's what's especially despicable about the carve-out. That's to get congressmen's votes. There's at least one Congressman we know -- Darin LaHood. He's said this publicly. He's on the Intel community, and he was being spied on by the Intel community.

He's responsible for their oversight. So he was worried enough about this. That he insisted, there would be some provision. Now, his concern is legitimate.

I'm not tingeing him, per se.

GLENN: No. I know.

THOMAS: For asking for this. It should be solved for everybody, not just congressmen.

GLENN: Thank you. So tell us what your amendment actually will do.

WARREN: Okay. So the amendment we have is called the Fourth Amendment is not for sale. So one of the most important ones in the bill is to get a warrant.

And let's go back in the fall. The base tax had getting a warrant, and the -- what is the Fourth Amendment not for sale do?

It prevents the federal government from buying data from data brokers that they would otherwise have to get a warrant for a subpoena to obtain. So it was in the data broker loophole. So it was in the base text. The Speaker essentially works with the Intel committee to gut the bill, of some of these important provisions.

And at least the warrant requirement is going to be able to be offered as an amendment. But he basically strips the Fourth Amendment is not for sale, from even getting a vote.

And part of the reason, I still remember, you know, a long time member of Congress, again, Walter Jones, asked him one time when a bill was popular in the House. Passed with like 420 some votes.

Only seven no votes. Would help solve a problem. Be popular with the public. Why in the world won't the Senate pick this up?

And he said, well, I hate to be cynical. But probably because it would pass. And why would they strip this out?

Well, because Dick Durbin, who is the Chairman of Judiciary in the Senate has a similar bill in the Senate, and Chuck Schumer is a cosponsor.

So this is an issue that does not break on party lines. When it was offered as a standalone bill in the Judiciary Committee last summer, it passed 36 to one through the committee. So how often did Jim Jordan and Jerry Nadler agree on something? Pretty rare.

But this is one that at least, this isn't a total party line issue like so many other things are.

GLENN: So they're stripping it out.

And he's actually going around the rules to make sure that it's -- that it never makes it to the floor, is it he not?

WARREN: Well, it doesn't make it as part of this debate. He has offered to give us a vote at a later time. But this is the problem.

If it's not attached to something that has passed like FISA. Well, of course, the administration wants to keep spying on Americans. They have already said that. So if there was a way to pass it through the House -- and even if there is a way to pass it through the Senate. The administration, you know, simply would veto it.

That's why it should be part of the FISA debate. That's why the judiciary committee had it as part of the base text of the bill, that essentially the Speaker reworked.

GLENN: So I'm hoping that most of the people that are hearing your voice right now, are the kind of people that maybe used to say. Well, I don't have anything to worry about.

Because I'm not doing anything illegal.

And realize now, the government has turned hostile towards American citizens.

And all of the information that is out there, it's very dangerous for individuals.

Tell me what -- why the average person should care. Why does this matter?

You know, to those people who are not breaking the law, et cetera, et cetera?

WARREN: Well, the barbecue to the founding of the country, and why was the revolution ticked off. One of the major causes according to John Adam was the general warrant stop the king. King George was basically saying, well, we're looking for bad people. So under the guise of looking for bad people, we will just come and rummage through your personal effects. And, you know, in the concept of privacy.

Well, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say, well, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

It says that as an American, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That without probable cause, and they can't search your stuff, and with probable cause, they have to get a warrant. Even for really bad people.

Even to go after pedophiles. You have to get a warrant. And that's the way. The foreign surveillance act, is designed to collect intelligence on foreigners. That part is broadly supported.

It's been very effective. We want to stop threats to our country. But when it comes to citizens, there's a reason there's no Domestic Surveillance Act. It's because the Fourth Amendment says that we have an expectation of privacy.

And we have to defend that. It's probably the most infringed part of the Bill of Rights at this point.

GLENN: So what is the most effective thing people can do today?

WARREN: Call their member of Congress. Tell them to demand that their number of votes are for a warrant requirement. And ask them to say, we should be voting on the Fourth Amendment is not for sale.

The government should not be circumventing the warrant requirement, to buy data, that they would otherwise get a warrant. They don't want the warrant requirement in the first place. But in the event, that should pass, in a lot of ways, they're saying, well, it's not as consequential. Because we could just buy our ways around it.

RADIO

What’s Happening in Brazil is EXACTLY What’s Coming to America

Elon Musk is challenging a Brazilian judge who is trying to clamp down on free speech. The judge has demanded that X take down alleged “far right” accounts or face severe punishments in the country … sound familiar? In its attempt to "prevent" a right-wing “dictatorship,” Brazil’s leftist government has created a fascist dictatorship of its own. And allegedly, the United States played a big role. Glenn breaks down the story and warns that what’s happening in Brazil is exactly what’s coming to America: “If we don’t get out and vote, this is our future in America.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Pat, are you following what's going on in Brazil?

PAT: Not terribly closely.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So I haven't either.

And I just started paying attention to it, over the weekend.

Because of Michael Shellenberger.

He did a video that was just incredible.

And very disturbing.

He's talking about the -- you know, the same kind of corruption, that is happening in our government.

Down in Brazil. Where they are stifling the media. But it's much, much worse than that.

Let me give you a couple of things that we have found during our -- during our research.

Listen to this.

This is from the New York Times.

He's Brazil's defender of democracy.

Is he actually good for democracy?

Alexandre De Moraes. A Brazilian Supreme Court justice. Was crucial to Brazil's transfer of power.

But his aggressive tactics are prompting debate. Can one go too far to fight the far right?

Think of that question.

How unbelievable that question is. Of course. And why is it just the right?

When Brazil's highway police began holding up buses full of voters on Election Day, he ordered them to stop.

When right-wing voices spread the baseless claim that Brazil's election is stolen. He ordered them banned from social media. When thousands of right-wing protesters stormed Brazil's halls of power this month, he ordered the officials who had been responsible for securing the buildings, arrested.

Alexandre De Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice has taken up the mantle of Brazil's lead defender of democracy.

Using a broad interpretation of the court's powers, he has pushed to investigate, prosecute, and as well, silence those on social media. Anyone he deems a menace to Brazil's institutions.

As a result, in the face of antidemocratic attacks from Brazil's former far right president, Bolsonaro and his supporters, Mr. De Moraes cleared the way for the transfer of power.

Many on Brazil's left that made him the man who saved Brazil's young democracy, yet many others in Brazil say he's threatening it. He kind of has a -- hmm. Heavy hand. These are some of the things, according to the New York Times he has done. He has jailed people without trial, for posting threats on social media. He helped sentence a sitting Congressman to nearly nine years in prison for threatening the court.

He has ordered raids on businessmen, with little evidence of wrongdoing. He has suspended an elected governor from his job. He has unilaterally blocked dozens of accounts and thousands of posts on social media, with virtually no transparency and no room for appeal.

In the hunt for justice after the riot, he became further emboldened. His orders to ban prominent voices online, have proliferated. And now he has the man accused of fanning Brazil's extremist flames. Mr. Bolsonaro in his crosshairs.

Last week -- now, remember this is an old New York Times from about two years ago.

De Moraes, included Bolsonaro in a federal investigation of the riot, which she is overseeing, suggesting the former president inspired the violence.

Sound familiar? His moves fit into a broader trend of Brazil's Supreme Court, increasing its power and taking what critics have called a more repressive turn in the process.

So he is -- he is taking extra constitutional powers. Over the weekend, he said, if you don't give me your data, Facebook, Google, and X, on all of the people that are posting. If you don't give that to me, you're banned from being in Brazil.

A judge. So everybody did, except for Elon Musk. Elon Musk said, the guy is a fascist.

Michael Shellenberger is down saying, Brazil is becoming a fascistic dictatorship with this guy in charge.

Now, if you remember, the left was saying Bolsonaro was a dictator. And so now, to prevent the dictator, they have become dictators.

The exact scenario, that we were worried about here, in America. But nobody seems -- nobody really seems to care.

So there's a guy named Mike Benz, who I'll follow and watch from time to time, he had a really good look at this.

He was down, looking at censorship in Brazil. And he said, I found the United States, all over it.

He said, the United States department funded NGOs. And not just State Department funded NGOs. But National Endowment for Democracy is also down there. He said, you had USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, funding a bunch of domestic censorship groups in Brazil. And he says, it goes back to the beginning of Bolsonaro's reign as president down there in 2019. So the same thing that was happening here with Donald Trump, the United States through NGOs took your tax dollars and started fighting against Bolsonaro.

In June 2019, the Atlantic Council convened a meeting about what to do about the rise of disinformation in Brazil. That was pro-Bolsonaro in nature. What a surprise.

The Atlantic Council panel called election watch in June 2019. Bemoaned the fact that in Brazil, people were paying attention to their own friends, family, and clergy, than they were institutions. Global institutions such as the Atlantic Council, which is a CIA pass through. It has seven CIA directors on its board.

It's annually funded every year by the Pentagon for the State Department. And the National Endowment for Democracy. Which is also a CIA cutout.

In addition to that, a bunch of these university centers in Brazil and civil society groups, get National Endowment for Democracy funding.

So this is the CIA and the State Department, and USA ID, directly funding, in June 29, the censorship apparatus, in Brazil, against Bolsonaro.

In 2019, social media was already censored in Brazil, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were hit hard bit censors. The same way it did in the United States.

So the Bolsonaro supporters switched to WhatsApp and Telegram to spread their messaging, because they were basically kicked off of Facebook.

Does any of this sound familiar?

This is why one of the biggest audiences for Gab, one of the first free speech alternative platform attempts, was the Brazilian population in 18 and 2019, because they were hit with that first leg of the censorship board.

So what the Atlantic Council and a bunch of these other national endowment for democracy-funded CIA proxies did, is they then targeted WhatsApp and Telegram.

And then promoted these activities, these proxies within Brazil, to put pressure on the Brazilian government to take out WhatsApp and Telegram.

So WhatsApp and Telegram then censored populous supporters. Right-wing populous nationalists. Bolsonaro supporters.

This -- this -- this is the United States government.

He goes on to say, let me ask you something. When has an ally ever threatened major corporations?

American corporations, and said, you will give me this stuff. Or you will be chased out of the country.

Since when doesn't our State Department go down and say, excuse me. Really good friend of Brazil.

We've been there for you, forever. We're helping pay for stuff in your country.

You do not hurt American corporations. You don't tell them, what they can and can't do. When it's in violation of your own doctrines.

PAT: Except that sadly, our American government is behind it.

GLENN: Is behind it.

PAT: Yeah. They're pushing it.

GLENN: It's behind it.

PAT: Yep. Because they're doing the same thing here.

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: They can't -- they can't win on the battlefield of ideas. So they have to shut down the battlefield.

GLENN: Correct. And I want you to know, what's happening today in Brazil. The Supreme Court, which was messed with. The Supreme Court now has ultimate power, to do everything. There's no checks or balance there, on the Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court takes over and says, just, we're going to put people in jail without trial. You don't have a right to speak out. We can tell companies exactly what to do.

And in their hunt for dictators, they have become a dictatorship. That's really important for everyone in America, to understand.

Democracy dies in the darkness. Yet, shut everything down, and keep it real dark.

What's happening in Brazil, is what's coming here if we don't get out and vote.

This is our future, in America.

RADIO

The Disturbing TRUTH About Biden’s “Job Growth” LIE

Glenn can’t take Biden’s LIES about “creating jobs” anymore! Biden claims he has created 15 million jobs while in office. But Glenn reads an article by Daniel Horowitz on theblaze.com that breaks down why that’s a massive lie. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Biden only created 2.3-5.5 million jobs when you take out people returning to work after the pandemic. But even that isn’t the full truth. When you account for population growth, illegal immigration, and people taking second jobs to fight inflation, the jobs market is actually DOWN under Biden! So, where does Biden’s 15 million number come from? Glenn reveals the truth …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I can't take it, every time that Joe Biden says, well, we've created 15 million new jobs, since January 2021.

Can't take it. Cannot take it. Why, Pat.

Why did you roll your eyes?

PAT: Well, he didn't create 15 million new jobs. Nowhere near. Those jobs came back after the -- after the COVID situation was over. And people went back to work.

GLENN: Okay. It's much worse than that.

It's much worse than that. I want to give you just the facts. This is compiled in a great story on Blaze media. Just go to Blaze.com. Blaze.com.

Daniel Horowitz writes an unbelievable. This should be sent to everyone you know.

He says, he says, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, publishes two jobs reports. The establishment survey and the household survey.

The establishment survey samples actual employers and shows the growth in nonfarm payroll jobs as well as a breakdown from specific industry. While the household survey, samples individual households.

And measures broad census data. Such as total of employment age population.

Size of labor force. The U3 unemployment rate. And the total of employed and unemployed.

So he always has this talking point, where he says, oh, I created 15 million jobs.

Daniel Horowitz starts with, his talking point about job creation is the ultimate self-indictment.

Listen to this. Getting a precise picture of the US unemployment -- or employment, requires conflating data, from both of those surveys.

Typically, the data compliment each other. But in the last couple of years, the numbers have diverged.

For example, the establishment survey shows 3 million additional people employed, since January 2021.

This may be due in part because the employer-based survey picks up more illegal aliens, than the survey of households.

The White House obviously prefers to tout the establishment survey's figure. In any event, the reality is, Biden has a much worse record on job creation, than Donald Trump.

And that's before we delve into the nature of these jobs. When COVID-19 shut down the world in March 2020, employment cratered.

It took well over a year to come back from the lockdowns and nearly get back to par, with the pre-COVID baseline in February 2020.

As such, the only fair comparison for Biden to make, is to measure the number of employed individuals today, compared to February 2020.

I think that's fair, right?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And not even all jobs. I think it's being generous. Not everybody's job was back by February 2020.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Viewed that way, we don't have 15 million new jobs. We have 5.5 million new jobs created between January 2021 and February of this year.

According to the establishment survey. And just 2.3 million according to the Household Survey. Let's go with the more impressive 5.5 million figure, even though the Philadelphia Fed believes that's overstated.

Although 5.5 million still sounds meaningful. Remember, the country is constantly growing. Since February 2020, the civilian noninstitutional population of working-aged residents grew by 8.1.

I wonder if this is even counting the illegals.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So job growth has not kept pace with population growth. Especially judging from the household survey.

This is why the civilian labor force participation rate is down, from 63.3 percent. Ahead of the lockdowns to 62.5 percent.

When factoring in population growth, the fact is, we find an additional 729,000 unemployed, individuals, today.

Put another way, 611 out of every 1,000 Americans, of unemployment age, were working before COVID. Compared to 601 today.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Also, an additional 5 million people are no longer in the labor force, but of working age, which means that for whatever reason, they gave up on job -- the job market.

Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell explains these missing workers are the result of excess retirements.

Really? Those are the workers that we're missing. The ones who are ready to retire?

In short, we have a much larger population without jobs than before COVID. Compared to the same period under Trump, the current labor market today is terrible.

After 37 months into Trump's tenure the establishment survey showed 6.7 million jobs created.

But here's the kicker. The population only grew by 5.6 million. Which means the job growth under Trump outpaced population growth by 20 percent.

Under Biden population growth has outpaced job growth by 47 percent. Or 252 percent, going back the household survey.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Okay? Hence by virtue of population growth, alone, we have gone backward in job creation since COVID.

But it get worse. As Daniel Horowitz noted before, we have been losing full-time jobs.

All the net job growth has come from part-time employment. In total, 3.4 million part-time jobs have been added since January 21. With 1.7 million just in the past nine months. This isn't a story of growing economy, of go-getters seeking upward mobility. These are people taking second and third jobs, just to afford the basic standards of living.

In fact, the number of those who have held multiple jobs has surged by 1.6 million since Biden took office.

That's why the establishment survey shows greater job creation.

It is double counting the increasing number of employed people with more than one job.

Also, many of the new jobs are classified as self-employed. Thanks to tax change laws. Tax law changes, it now includes a number of Uber and Lyft drivers. Are records of numbers of people starting their own businesses?

No. These are unemployed, and underemployed people taking nebulous jobs, or struggling workers, forced to take a second gig just to tread water.

Meanwhile, thanks to the endless revisions of the unemployment data, full-time jobs are now down 1.8 million since June of last year.

A large share of the remaining lethargic, full-time job creation has been fueled by government itself.

Over the past year, government employees have -- government employment has doubled the growth rate of the private sector work.

Government jobs have comprised between 21 and 58 percent of all job creation, in the past six employment surveys.

Between 21 on the low end. And 58 percent. 60 percent of all job creation. It takes no skill or ingenuity to print trillions of dollars and create phantom jobs, while saddling consumers with the consequences.

This is perhaps one reason why all the job creation has been concentrated in 15 percent of US counties.

Think of that. All the job creation has been concentrated in 15 percent of US counties.

All of the job growth over the last year, came from just 59 out of 389 metro areas, across America.

They were part-time. They went to foreigners. And 15 percent of the country.

Perhaps the most shocking data point.

I mean, I'm already spinning.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Perhaps the most shocking data point, that nukes the Biden administration's entire job growth narrative. Is the drop in -- since October 2019, native-born US workers. They have actually lost 1.4 million jobs.

Over the same period, foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs.

In fact, there has not been a month of net job creation, for native born workers since July 2018.

PAT: Wow!

So -- where do they even get the 15 million figure? Because it's not even from COVID jobs coming back.

GLENN: No. No. The 15 million is with COVID.

At the present million in COVID. 5.5, they say.

PAT: So you add -- when the jobs come back. And then the 5 million they created. That's where they get the 15 million?

GLENN: Yeah. So if you stop after February 2020, or February 21, I can't remember.

When they say, okay. Jobs were come back.

People were going back to work. If you take all those jobs, that people were going back to work in. Okay?

Then you start from there. You only have 5.5.

PAT: But we've had over 8 million new people.

GLENN: Correct. And I don't believe we should call Daniel. I don't believe that counts for the illegals.

PAT: The illegals. Jeez.

GLENN: That's another 10 million.

And the natural-born citizen, not the foreigner.

But the natural-born citizen here, has actually lost employment.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That employment number is going down.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: So all of the jobs created are from foreign workers.

Part-time jobs.

Or government jobs. That's not good.

PAT: No.

GLENN: That is not good.

RADIO

Biden All But DEMANDS a Yellow Star on Jewish-Made Products From the West Bank

The Biden administration is now weighing whether to change the way products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) are labeled. The rule would force these products to state that they were made in the West Bank, instead of in Israel, allegedly as a way to make boycotting them easier. But who's vote is this buying? Maybe, Glenn says, it's the vote of the pro-Palestinian Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, who have been organizing anti-American protests featuring chants of "death to America." "We are on the side of evil," Glenn says, if our government continues down this path.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hey, what did I do for al-Quds day? Right?

Al-Quds that's the Muslim word for Jerusalem, because Jerusalem doesn't exist. It's al-Quds, of course.

So they were celebrating al-Quds in Dearborn, Michigan.

And, oh, what a celebration it was.

Do you have -- can you pull this up a little bit?

VOICE: Why are our protests, on the International Day of Quds.

VOICE: This is Dearborn, Michigan.

VOICE: Why don't we just focus more on Israel and not talk so much about America?

GLENN: Yeah, amen.

VOICE: They've shown the entire world, why these protests are so anti-America. Because it's the United States government, that provides the funds, for all of the atrocities, that we just heard about.

And this is why Khomeini, who declared the International day of Quds.

This is why he would say, to pour all of your chants and all of your shouts, upon the head of America.

GLENN: Death to America. Death to America. Death to America.

VOICE: Malcolm X said, and I quote.

GLENN: Hmm.

VOICE: We live in the rottenest countries that has ever existed in this country. It's not genocide Joe that has to go. It's the entire system that has to go. Any system that would allow such atrocities, and such devilry to happen. And would support it. Such a system does not deserve to exist on God's earth.

GLENN: Amen!

Now, I -- you might quibble.

We might quibble a little bit on certain things.

Like death to America.

I mean, wanted to play that. Because this was happening in Dearborn, Michigan.

By the way, in unrelated news, that great-grandmother, 71 years old, that walked into an open door in the Capitol. They busted her, finally. Finally.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: She's been convicted. She's going to jail.

We don't know. You know, we don't know how strong.

I hope it's ten years, for parading. But they got her over the weekend.

This guy, anyway. Back to the real story. This guy is chanting death to America, in the city that is known as the jihad Capitol of America.

Dearborn.

STU: Is that on their, like, sign when you pull in?

Dearborn, Michigan. The jihad Capitol of America.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: It is?

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yeah.

So, by the way, the US is on high alert, and actively preparing for a significant attack that could come as soon as this week by Iran, targeting Israeli or American assets in the region of -- of Syria. So we might get hit over there. But who knows?

We have the protesters there, shouting death to America.

You know, but they're not -- that's not really terrorists. They're just speaking their mind. Some would say, that's maybe mis or disinformation.

Maybe even malinformation.

But not our government, I'll tell you that right now. Instead, President Joe Biden is -- is trying to garner the votes of those people.

He is reaching out to Michigan, and jihad city. And he is wanting the Muslim vote.

Now, I will tell you. Not all Muslims, you know, want jihad.

Some of them came over here and went, hey. You know, I kind of like the idea that, you know, we're not going to be killed, if we disagree.

Yeah. Well, things are changing in America.

So Joe Biden is doing everything he can, to cater to this vote.

To the people who are against Israel.

And for the Palestinians. And, I mean, want to say, that would leave out, then, people from Jordan.

People from Egypt.

And -- and people from Syria. Anywhere in that region, because none of them want the Palestinians. None of them.

None of them will do anything, except condemn Israel and the United States.

So they're not there helping at all. Why? Because the Palestinians are a revolutionary people, when it comes to their leadership. Always a revolutionary people.

And they've -- and they've experienced it firsthand. Both in Egypt. And in Jordan.

So everybody is like, yeah. I don't think so.

I don't think so. Let Israel. Let them just be the revolutionaries in Israel.

And we can all say, we support them. Even though, they really don't.

But Joe Biden is catering to those people, to the point that he is preparing to force Jewish-made products from Judea and Samaria. To be clearly labeled so consumers know where the products are from.

STU: What?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That can't be real. Really?

GLENN: It is. Reports said, the move from the administration would reverse a policy enacted by President Donald Trump. That required goods made in Judea and Samaria as to be labeled, Made in Israel.

Biden administration -- what do you think? Hang on. Hang on. What do you think, if we put just a little yellow star on those products? You know what I mean?

STU: Oh, that would be helpful for people.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

And you can only use those products. Or if you buy those products, maybe you get striped pajamas. With a little yellow star on it. We could do that.

STU: Interesting roach. Is it too subtle though? What about big block letters that say, made by them Jews?

Something like that. So people really know.

GLENN: How about, made by them enjoys, in Jew land. Yeah. We can do that. We can do that.

STU: That's the way to go. That's the way to go.

GLENN: Pretty good.

Joe Biden. I don't know if he's thinking about that.

We are actually talking about changing labels, to make sure everybody knows that's in Judea.

Stu, why does that sound so much like Jew, just with dea at the end? You know, it's weird.

STU: It's a real mystery. It is a mystery.

You know, but this hopefully will help to win over that gentleman, that was speaking so nicely in front of the death of America crowd. Maybe he can win that swing vote.

Won't that be so worth it?

You know, abandoning Israel and labeling all the Jews. But you might get that Dearborn, Michigan, vote. Maybe you'll get Rashida Tlaib to support you again.

And what an honorable pursuit that would be.

GLENN: We are actually on the side of evil now. We're on the --

STU: Who is we?

GLENN: The country.

STU: The country's leadership.

GLENN: Yeah. The United States of America, as an endorse factor.

Not the people, per se.

But we are actually fighting for the side of -- of evil now.

We are -- when you can't see, in a nation, that, you know, many people in Washington might remember something called 9/11.

When you have somebody on the streets, chanting, death to America.

Death to Israel.

Quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iraq.

I'm sorry. In Iran.

Who we are worried is going to attack us this week. When that happens, and you have the government coming out and condemning Israel and trying to get the vote of those people who are on the streets. Condemning America.

We're on the side of evil. We are on the side of evil.

And, you know, God bless it. If that's what the people want, that's exactly what the people will get.

It's not what -- it's not what God's people want, quite honestly.

STU: And you listen to the coverage of it.

It's as if -- first of all, and we were six months away from October 7th.

Six months in a day.

GLENN: Six months.

Took the world six months.

STU: And it didn't take the world six months.

It took the world like six weeks tops.

But, I mean, you know, the -- the administration who initially came out. And Biden doing his old school Democratic calculus, which there were some.

You know, there were some supporters in the Democratic Party of Israel. I don't know if there were any left. But Chuck Schumer is a great example of this, right?

He would be a guy that would at least come out and say things about Israel.

Seems to be gone now, entirely from the party.

GLENN: Nancy Pelosi.

STU: Nancy Pelosi. It's incredible.

Even Hillary Clinton. Go back and listen to Hillary Clinton a few weeks after.

She was on, I think The View.

If that's not the worst collection of people. Hillary Clinton as a guest.

It's like a wormhole.

GLENN: Of bad people.

STU: Of bad people. But she even --

GLENN: The Nuremberg might have been a bigger collection.

STU: There's an argument.

But I think there's a -- not helpful.

You go back and listen to even her explanation of this situation.

Hey, you guys don't understand the history of this.

Let me lay that out for you.

She even has encapsulated to what has happened. They all started to ignore it now.

The guy who is running the world central kitchen.

And I get it. He's, first of all, a lefty. Second of all, in the middle of a ridiculously tragic situation, a bunch of his workers are killed.

It's hard to even -- I don't know we should be listening to any -- he's a chef. I don't know if there's any reason why we would be listening to his political opinions anyway.

He's completely accusing of killing these workers intentionally. Like, why on earth would they do such a thing?

Even if they were evil, and their whole goal was to rule the world with their Jewish evil, why on earth would they kill aid workers intentionally?

It would work against their interests. In every way. But like, because Jews are just comic book evil. We're supposed to believe this nonsense.

It is -- it's incredible.

It's so absurd. And if and thankfully, I have not even all of the footage. And I am going to avoid it, if at all possible. Of what happened after -- we talked about this off the air. I made the decision, I don't want to see it. I understand what it is. I've read a lot about it. I understand it. You're talking about potentially seeing it.

GLENN: Yeah. I'm going to see it.

I think in a couple of weeks.
STU: And I don't think that's a bad -- I think that's a good thing for you to do.

GLENN: I think it's been -- I'm not sure. But I think it's been offered to many people at the Blaze. I asked for a briefing.

I want to see -- I want to see the details.

I want to know what Israel knows. Okay?

And so it's a -- very high security thing.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: And so I've asked for it. And I think selected people here at the Blaze are going to be able to see it as well.

And I think you should see it, Stu.

STU: I understand what happened. And I don't need to see to understand it. I think if you're on the fence and you don't understand it, you should definitely see it. But I talked to Dave Marcus, who will be on with Megyn Kelly by the way today. With Dave. He saw it. And his summary of it, walking out of it, after watching the footage.
He said, if this happened in the United States, there would be a million people dead somewhere.

That's how serious it was.

And I don't doubt it.

I -- the -- he said. And I think this is accurate.

Israel showed restraint here. This is not -- Israel does -- could be doing a lot more than they're doing. And I feel like, the media would think that that's the most insane thing for them to say.

And I don't think if they think that. I -- the fact that they have eliminated or captured something like 60 or 70 percent of what they believe is Hamas.

And we're asking them to just leave the other 30 percent hanging out. Which, by the way, has still not returned, the hostages.

GLENN: Right. Won't even let the Red Cross in to see the hostages or talk to them.

STU: Yeah. When does Hamas get asked about a cease-fire?

They don't. It's just supposed to be Israel doing it. And Hamas is able to do whatever they want. Well, forget -- I'm sorry. We would -- everybody calling this show, if this happened in America, would be asking for what Israel is doing and more.

Glenn's Show Prep

Bill O’Reilly: G-20 Is Just a ‘Schmooze Fest’ and Putin Will Cave to Trump or Be ‘Subject to Tweets’

Congress Will Allow the FBI to SPY on YOU, But Not THEM?!

Transcript

What’s Happening in Brazil is EXACTLY What’s Coming to America

Transcript

The Disturbing TRUTH About Biden’s “Job Growth” LIE

Transcript

Biden All But DEMANDS a Yellow Star on Jewish-Made Products From the West Bank

Transcript