BLOGAugust 10, 2017

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

A Google software engineer lost his job this week after writing a 10-page internal memo critiquing the company’s diversity efforts.

In the memo, the engineer gathered some general observations based on research about men and women and what they can both offer to a company, suggesting some ways that tech jobs could become more friendly to women. He also objected to company programs that are only offered to employees based on race and gender.

“Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story,” he wrote in the memo.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a statement that “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Stephen Crowder of LouderWithCrowder.com joined Glenn on radio Thursday to share his take on Google’s decision to fire the engineer.

“Is that still hate speech?” Crowder sarcastically said of the memo. “When you read the entire memo in context … I go ‘OK, this is a guy who’s a classical liberal … and he’s writing something genuinely trying to be productive.’”

GLENN: Steven Crowder, welcome to the program. I was talking to a millennial yesterday, a very smart, well-thought out millennial who said, "You know, I don't agree with this, but I have to tell you what my feelings were when I first heard about this memo." She said, "I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do because of my genetics.

And she said, you know, "I heard the quotes, that he was saying that I can't do these things because I'm genetically predisposed to X, Y or Z." And she had a big problem with this.

Now, the good thing about this millennial is she moved past her feelings into thought, but that's not really happening, especially even in the press.

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks for having me, Glenn.

You're absolutely right. You know, a couple of points about the memo. I hate to use the fake news hashtag, but when CNN goes out and says, anti-diversity manifestos, they call it, like it's The Count of Monte Cristo writing on the stone wall, next to days in prison. Manifesto. Anti-diversity. And then it says anti-woman. Well, the quotes they take are where this guy essentially says, listen, Google is essentially pushing diversity, hiring for diversity's sake. And it hasn't really been that successful. We may want to -- and, by the way, I'm not saying that all men and women are the same. There's a significant overlap. Of course, there are people who would fall on both signs of the spectrum when it comes to attributes and perhaps some shortcomings.

But as a general rule, this may be why we don't have as many women in tech, and he talks about how women generally value work-life balance over status, whereas men will drive themselves into the -- they'll work themselves into the ground for status. It does say, "Yeah, you know, listen, women tend to handle stress more emotionally. It does list some characteristics that might not lend themselves well to high-stress tech situations."

But then, and here's what the media doesn't cover: On the flip side, he says, "No, I strongly believe in diversity." And I think if we want to hire more women, we might want to place emphasis on the -- on the issues where women perhaps are more valuable to the company.

For example, they're more cooperative. In general, they're more agreeable than their male counterparts. In general, they're more people-oriented. They're more empathetic.

We don't really place a strong value on those attributes that Google in these positions -- we might do better to do so.

So, listen, is that still hate speech? Do you lock this guy up with the Nazis? I don't know. Leave it up to people to decide. But when you read the entire memo in context, I can't see -- you know, Glenn, this is one of those issues where I read it, I go, okay. This is a guy who is a classical liberal. He even gets some digs in at conservatives in this memo. People read it. He's certainly not a right-winger. And he's writing something genuinely trying to be productive. Generally writing out points as to where Google may be able to improve.

And Google says, we can't -- this is hate speech. We have to fire this guy. Which tells me, if this guy can't do it, you know, you and I haven't got a shot. They're not interested in a dialogue. For the same reason we couldn't have anyone from Google or anyone on Google's side come on my program to argue this issue. They don't want to discuss issues anymore. They've gone too far around the back.

GLENN: So a couple of things: I would agree with you. And I have not been able to find somebody that can make a cogent argument on how this isn't the beginning of fascism in the Google world. The institutionalization of fascism in the Google world.

I really want to understand how silencing somebody who is really, truly making valid points. You don't have to agree with them. But bringing out a valid argument. How the best way to deal with that is to silence them and to shun them and to name-call. That's fascism.

And why this is concerning -- you know, if they were just making ashtrays, I wouldn't really care. But they're not.

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: These are the people who are the gateway to information. And if they are saying, "This information isn't worthy to even be discussed at the levels in Google," are they really going to allow us schlubs who don't know anything to access that information in an equal and fair way? I don't think so. It wouldn't -- it wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be completely inconsistent.

STEVEN: Well, you're talking about a company -- my friend Owen Benjamin talked about this on the program. You're talking about a company where when you Google how to be a better man, it shows you articles written from lesbians. So they can't help you be a better man, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

As a matter of fact, you mentioned fascism. You know, if you Google fascism, it says far-right ideology. You know, and then description. Description. But if you Google communism or socialism, there's no mention of the left. There's no mention of the left side of the political spectrum.

It really is -- and here's the deal: They have the right to do what they want. They have the right to fire this guy. I think we all agree on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: What they can't do is say, we believe in diversity. We believe in difference of opinions and then fire somebody for a difference of opinion. That's the issue here, is the dishonesty. When like you've said, I've read anywhere from between 60 to 80 percent of our online interactions occur either somewhere between Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon.

So when you think of how much information is controlled, it really is -- and there are a few. Listen, what's so offensive, are we really going to start firing people because someone says men and women are different? Are we at that point where it's offensive to say, hey -- and anyone who is married knows that it's true.

And, by the way, hey -- hey, men -- you can't say men and women are different. Men and women are exactly the same. Men can do everything women can do, and women can do everything men can do with the exact same results.

By the way, let's celebrate diversity.

Did I step into a time? What happened? What world did I fall into?

GLENN: And the fact that women and men are exactly the same, except they can't play the same sport. That's unfair. You're going to put women. Really? Women are going to have to compete with men on the basketball.

Well, wait. You were just saying that there wasn't a biological difference. What are you talking about?

STEVEN: Yeah. Unless it's a transgender, then just let him into the octagon to beat the living daylights out of women. That's progress.

I think, Glenn, I think that this is a real opportunity -- the pendulum swing states both ways. We've talked about that. You kind of saw that with Bush. Then the sort of anti-establishment sentiment from young people. Then it swung the other way with Barack Obama.

But the pendulum is swinging so quickly now. And I think the left has gone too far for it to swing back. I think you're seeing too many liberals. And we see this with our content, a lot of people who used to be liberal going, I just can't get on board with this. Once they read the memo, people go, "You know, it's offensive to say that men are more task-oriented. It's offensive to say women are more emotional."

It really is at a point -- and, by the way, really, what hurts people here is that they don't feel good about it. The women took a sick day at Google. They were so offended at the notion that they might find work too stressful, that they read this memo and took a sick day.

By the way, not all women are this weak, just the feminists at Google. That's important to note. I'm sure -- I'm sure your wife isn't.

My wife's reaction was so earnest. And it just hit me like a Mack Truck. She just said, "Do you have to talk about it? It makes me just so ashamed. Ugh, women who complain like that. They're just so weak. They're so obnoxious. Most women don't like to be around them. They're just draining." That's what my wife said. Isn't it ironic that a non-feminist, conservative, Christian woman finds feminists to be obnoxious in their weakness? And that's where we are.

GLENN: That's really -- but that is the progressive mantra, is weakness. Celebrate -- not celebrate diversity. Celebrate your weakness, and we will compensate. We will be your defender.

I think your -- this -- this millennial who said this, you know, I -- you know, this is the way I felt. I don't like people telling me one thing.

Well, wait. The other side is telling you that, oh, yes, you can do it, but only with special exemptions. Only with special protections. Only with special training.

No. I'm telling you if that's what you want to do, go do it. Go do it. How is that offensive to say, you don't need somebody in between you. That's just somebody sucking you dry of all of your power.

STEVEN: Right. A couple of things: You know, they say, I don't like being told what I can and can't do. And conservatives are saying, well, listen, we're not really telling you what you can and can't do. But we can all find common ground on one issue: Pullups. Right? Liberals want to lower the PT requirements in the military with pullups so that women can join more easily. And we say, hey, women biologically can do fewer pullups. So there's a great litmus test.

As far as what's offensive -- you know, offensive now isn't about intent. And we've talked about this with the Google algorithms. You know, for the most advanced tech company in the world, right? On my videos, Muslim singles and gay cruise ads are playing.

Well, we're trying to fix the algorithms. You're Google. If you can't associate proper advertisers with my -- who can?

So, I mean, we're talking about people's feelings. That is what it comes down to Google. It's not about intent. It's not about context. Leftists don't really understand context. Or they don't value context, I should say. Certainly, as a whole. Anyone can feel bad about anything. I'm feeling miserable this morning. You know why? It's stupid. But I have some nagging injuries.

So I haven't been able to go to the gym. So I've been doing these -- these water weight exercises. You know, those foam dumbbells in the pool. And I was thinking, you know, hey, good for me. I'm going out. I'm doing something.

So I go on Amazon to look to buy some, as opposed to the public pool where I've been going. And then I read the reviews, and it's nothing but 77-year-olds talking about their aquatic aerobic classes. And then all of a sudden, Amazon is tracking with advertisements and the ads, every time I'm in my browser of reverse mortgages. Or Wilford Brimley with diabetes. And I feel bad. I feel bad. It's my own doing.

STU: I believe it's pronounced diabetes.

It's interesting, Steven, it's a great point on the physical part of it. Because it's exactly the point he made in the memo, which is: If you look at the top 100 meter times of all time, the world record holder for women is slower than the yearly best times for high school men. I mean, there's a clear difference here. Right?

However, what that does not mean is that the all-time world record holder is not going to be a hell of a lot faster than me trying to run 100-meter. Point being, yes, on average, there are differences. But there are women in Google all the time that are outperforming men all the time. It's just a commentary on averages, and nobody is going to bother to take a look at that.

STEVEN: Sure.

GLENN: And who is it that is devaluing the basic intrinsic worth of the sexes? I'm not.

I believe that Women Are From Mars, Men Are From venus, or whichever planet it is. I believe that we are different for many different reasons. But it's important that we -- oh, my gosh -- celebrate that diversity. That we look and say, "This trait in a woman of being less about stuff is good." It's a good thing.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: And at the same time, the man is worried about stuff or thinking about stuff. When you put those two together, you have a nice balance. Why are we trying to destroy -- first, say that what men are is -- has no value. And what women are naturally also has no value. You have to be this thing that is not -- neither male nor female.

STEVEN: Right. And that's kind of -- you know, I want to go back to Stu real quick. I want to answer that. But I'll throw another one into the mix. We talked about 100-meter dash. You want to know something else?

Chess. There's a women's division for chess. Think about that for a second. It's not even close, if you look at the top players of all time. There is no female Bobby Fischer.

Now, women can enter the men's division in chess, and there have been some outliers. Maybe a couple cracked the top ranks throughout time, but then they have an exclusively women's division in chess, which is just significantly further behind.

Now, that does not mean that women are less intelligent. Chess is not an indicator of intelligence. But it is -- let's remove the physical. It is absolutely an indicator of how someone's brains work, how it processes information.

We can see the difference between standard people and ADHD people. We can see the difference between, you know, people who simply read differently, who have different faster reading comprehensions. It doesn't mean they're smarter. Some people are wired differently biologically.

To what you said, Glenn, you know, Christians, we have used this term for a long time, complimentarianism. You know, it goes back to Christ. Really, the first diversity celebrationist, I guess you'd say, where he said, hey, husbands, be good to your wives.

That was kind of new, the way he really placed emphasis on treating the women as the best among you. And then, women, submit to your husbands. And submit in the Biblical sense. Not submit like Muhammad. You're going to get a fresh one if you don't do exactly what I say, but submit meaning respect the authority in the household and love your husband. So this is what we've known for a long time, the truth we believe to be self-evident.

And I do think -- and you guys can tell me if you've noticed this or if you think I'm wrong, I think it's forced a lot of people to reexamine issues. They thought they were liberalized. You know, people -- I've had people go back to the same-sex marriage issue and say, "You know, I really just thought conservatives were just a bunch of anti-gay bigots." But now when I go back and I see some of the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, but I see some of the arguments where people said, "You know what, I just don't believe men and women are interchangeable. I do believe that a father is of intrinsic value and a mother is of intrinsic value. And that they are unique and not interchangeable." You know, once we said that's not the case culturally, we kind of opened the floodgates. And I've had people say, you know, I have to look back and see where we went around the bend.

GLENN: Steven Crowder from Louder with Crowder. I think you're exactly right. And I'm seeing it in not just this, but in many things. Sitting in Los Angeles with, you know, liberals who would have just thought that we were all just racist bigots for the last ten years. Actually sitting around a table and them saying, you know what, I'm actually for the Tenth Amendment. And I thought that was all racist. And now, suddenly, I find myself going, "Yeah, you know what, maybe we should have that Tenth Amendment." And then realizing, "Holy cow, wait a minute. I may have been wrong on this. I have to reevaluate a lot." That is happening.

And if we can open our arms and not say, "Yeah, told you so," and just be decent human beings with -- with the -- with the open mind and honest arguments, I think we will welcome a lot of people into the fold.

Steven Crowder, LouderwithCrowder.com. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, Steven. Appreciate it.

RADIO

The Bubba Effect: Is America headed for collapse?

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?

Transcript

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.

RADIO

THIS could FINALLY land Epstein’s enablers IN JAIL

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.

Transcript

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.

RADIO

Are Antidepressants (SSRI's) Worsening America's Mental Health Crisis?

A former FDA psychiatrist reveals what Big Pharma never told the public: the “chemical imbalance” story behind antidepressants was never proven — and SSRIs don’t fix a biological defect, they numb the brain. Glenn Beck and Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring break down how America became the most drugged nation in the world and how millions are being overprescribed medications that can cause paradoxical agitation, emotional blunting, and even suicidal behavior. With 15% of Americans — including millions of children — on SSRIs, are we facing a public health crisis hiding in plain sight?

RADIO

Cracker Barrel's internal crisis EXPOSED

Cracker Barrel’s massive public meltdown didn’t happen by accident. Behind the scenes, the company was bleeding institutional knowledge, taking disastrous advice from DEI strategists, and making decisions that alienated the very customers who built the brand. A major board shake-up, the quiet removal of DEI frameworks, and the sudden resignation of a key DEI-linked board member reveal how deep the problems ran — and how desperate the company was to course-correct. This breakdown uncovers what really went wrong, how Cracker Barrel was influenced internally, and why the Glenn Beck interview triggered major internal moves that the public was never supposed to see.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, you can just questions about the special tonight.

STU: Yeah, for sure. I'm interested in this.

It's a big -- you know, a big special. You're back and forth with it. With them there. Was kind of fascinating. Right?

You have a situation where they -- they do seem to be sort of avoiding the question there on DEI. Is that how you read it? Oh, we lost connection with Glenn. Is that what's about to go?

Well, that's how I read it at least. You know, you listen to that clip of them going back and forth and it does appear to be them just sort of avoiding the question. We should get back to Glenn. Because I know he has this breaking news on this happen. Should we go to another clip on the Cracker Barrel thing, while we're waiting for Glenn to reconnect? Because it sort of sets the stage. You know, it was interesting to see their approach here, which is to try to explain themselves and try to work themselves through what is one of the biggest PR disasters probably in our lifetimes.

And let's go to this next clip.

VOICE: If we came out of COVID, A, trying to hire 50,000 people, we have a lot of our employees, original -- we did -- we lost a lot of very long tenured employees. A lot of them, a little bit older, and scared to come back into the -- into the environment.

And so --

GLENN: That's a lot of institutional knowledge.

VOICE: Oh, it hurt. I mean, it really hurt.

And in '22, as we started opening back up, we had the new menu that we had. So we lost a lot of people. We put a ton of training into that new menu.

Now we're coming back to open up, guests, any way we can get them. We had patio dining. We were testing a rock garden.

They were going to sit out in the landscape. And I always say that co-ed even made Cracker Barrel start drinking alcohol.

Because that's how -- it was out of COVID, that it was like, how are we figuring out how to drive top line sales and try to get a guest in.

GLENN: Okay. So that is a good example of you don't know any of the story. You think Cracker Barrel has never served alcohol before. Why are you shoving alcohol? That's a cultural. So it's easy to think, you're selling people alcohol now. What other values are you --

VOICE: And it's fair.

GLENN: That one, is at least understandable. Now that I understand the story.

VOICE: Yeah. Exactly. And so as we got into '23, I came out of my office administration role, and came into operations.

And I was leading field operations. And the best way for me to describe it, we were throwing Velcro balls at a wall to see what would stick.

STU: And it's understandable. You know, it's easy to kind of look at the Cracker Barrel situation and get lost at how badly it went.

A lot of these decisions come down to the information they had at the time. Right?

And they're looking at the time as a place that maybe people aren't coming into as much as they would like.

They are trying to -- maybe it's fading a little bit. Maybe some people find it's stale.

They think the situation at Cracker Barrel is not one that they're not necessarily trying to get involved with on a week to week basis, like they used to.

Maybe they had those warm feelings of the past. But they're not going in it anymore. Well, we'll freshen it up. We will do all these new things.

This will be great! And you realize, sometimes, when you're in that moment, you hit a -- you hate a vein. Right?

You're trying to do something positive for the company. And you hit a vein, and everything starts bleeding all over the place.

Let me give you another piece of this interview. Glenn Beck, up in the headquarters of -- of Cracker Barrel.

And somehow, I will give Glenn credit. Not eating throughout the interview.

I kind of thought, when they put food in front of him. He would just be shoveling it down his gullet the entire time.

You wouldn't be able to hear him. It would be like talking with his mouth full.

He got through it, without taking as many bites. Here is Glenn with the CEO of Cracker Barrel.

GLENN: Let's just get this out.

VOICE: Okay.

GLENN: What happened to the choices that were made?

I said on day one of this. I remember when they rolled out new Coke. And I thought, that was the dumbest marketing move, the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

We're taking the original formula and ditching it. And let's start over with a brand that people love.

The day this broke, I said on the air, new Coke!

That's what this is. And it was -- no offense. Stupid!

Just stupid from start to finish.

Can you walk me through how that happened?

VOICE: Yeah. Sure.

Look, our guests have every right to be upset.

GLENN: Yeah. You want to watch this. And I -- you know, what I really want to you watch for is a moment where I said to her, are you surprised you haven't been fired yet.

That spoke volumes. Her answer, and I hope it is captured on camera.

But that answer was the first non, you know, when you're a CEO. You know, I've -- Stu, do you remember when we used to have to do really important interviews.

And our PR people would be like, drill, drill, drill.

No, don't say that. Don't say that. And we would be like, yeah. Whatever.

And when you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company. And you're in the trouble that they're in, you do -- you know, you follow the people that you have hired to make sure crisis management. You don't make any more mistakes.

And so everybody was very, very careful.

They were very honest. But, you know, like that DEI thing.

She didn't really answer the question.

Of course, we want everybody to be welcomed. Yeah. I know. But that's not answering the question.

When I asked her, are you surprised you still have a job, and you haven't been fired yet. Her answer spoke volumes.

Now, the other thing that you need to know, that while she didn't answer me on the DEI thing. And I -- I -- you know, I can't tell you exactly how this happened.

I just know that they knew, that they didn't answer the question.

And somebody has been in touch with my people. And said, hey. You might want to watch the board meeting that is happening.

We can't tell you that anything is going to be happening. But the DEI thing may be solved. At the board meeting. That happened this morning. And they were going to release something at 11:15 today.

We didn't know exactly what it was.

We had -- we had an indication that it might be about DEI.

And what they've done, at first.

Remember, in August. You know, they just deleted the Pride pages. And the DEI pages.

And they just got rid of it all, at Cracker Barrel. That is just hiding who you are. The real problem was, they had a guy who was on the board of directors. Named Gilbert Davila.

And he's just resigned from the board, today!

Okay? They had a meeting with the board, and shareholders and everything else. And they voted on all of these people. And they did not renew him. And so he is -- he has resigned.

Now, his job -- he was a member of the standing board committee.

And his job was to assess the social and political risk to the company's business.

Well, who is he?

Well, he's also the CEO of a company called DMI Consulting.

That's a DEI strategy firm, that's been in business since 2010.

So he's one of the guys. He was the guy who, his job as the CEO -- as the CEO of DMI, is to promote, you know, DEI.

To make sure everybody is living up to the DEI standards. So Robby Starbuck, who is a friend of the program and, you know, great conservatives, who has been responsible for -- you know, getting a lot of these people out of these companies, or at least drawing attention on what these companies are really standing for.

He's been asking trial. What does he do to deserve this seat on the board?

Well, that's it. He owned a DEI consulting and strategy firm. That was pushing DEI and DEI advertising. So what's happened here is I think while she couldn't answer that question at the time, because the board hadn't acted, I think it's -- I think it's not not coincidental that the day the interview with her drops. With us.

Which they've known for a couple of weeks. This is when this interview would drop.

They -- they announced that morning, that seat has been eliminated. DEI is gone from Cracker Barrel. So I think that's really, really good news if you're a fan of Cracker Barrel.

And the things that I saw at Cracker Barrel, I'm -- I'm going to tell you some stuff tomorrow.

I just have to make sure that it's exactly accurate. Because I don't want to cause more problems.

For us!

And I want to make sure that I get it exactly right. But there were some things that I learned in the show prep.

And, you know, studying up for this interview.

That no one was prepared to talk to me on camera about. And always says to me, oh, well, there's something there.

And so we have done even more homework on it. And tomorrow, I will tell you about something that you might have heard about. This guy who owns, what is it?

Steak and Shake?

STU: Yeah. He's a big activist shareholder, isn't he?

Kind of against some of the leadership there at Cracker Barrel. I think I read about that.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Yes.

And he has an interesting history.

And I want to -- I want to take you through some of that tomorrow.

I think by tomorrow, you're going to understand, what you saw with the DEI vote on the board today. Get that gone. That's gone.

The interview that you'll see tonight with Julie. The CEO. She's not who you think she is.

It doesn't mean she didn't make huge mistakes. She says she makes huge mistakes. But she's not who you think she is.

You may not agree with her or whatever. But it's important you know who she is. And what she said.

And the key tonight is that question: Are you surprised that you haven't been fired yet.

And really, what happened after she answers the question. And she's very uncomfortable. Answers the question.

And then she immediately switches topics. And I'm like, wait. Wait. Wait.

Stop. Stop. Go back. Why are you switching topics here?

Because it was an amazing moment. Is she immediately changes the subject. After she answers. And then she comes back, and she he says a few things. You'll see.

And then I bring it back to her again. And she switches topics again. And I'm like, why are you doing that?

Why are you doing that?

And she said a very interesting answer on all of that.

That is one of the most honest things I think I've ever seen a fortune five company or CEO ever say.

It was really uncomfortable. But really, really honest.

I think once you see this. And then I tell you tomorrow about the -- the board member, on the things that I can verify. I'm not sure what we can verify yet.

But the things that I've heard. And the things I think I can verify tomorrow. You will see that -- that I think they made stupid moves. They have really bad advice from DEI people.

And they were set up.

To some degree.

They were set up.

The company was. Not individuals. The company was set up.

I think it will -- I think you will have every question you needed to know about Cracker Barrel and what happened answered.

Glenn's Show Prep

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

The Bubba Effect: Is America headed for collapse?

Transcript

THIS could FINALLY land Epstein’s enablers IN JAIL

Transcript

Are Antidepressants (SSRI's) Worsening America's Mental Health Crisis?

Cracker Barrel's internal crisis EXPOSED

Transcript