BLOGAugust 11, 2017

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Profound Change’ Is Disrupting the Way We Watch News — for the Better

News is shifting to a model where people have more control over their own content. On radio Friday, Bill O’Reilly shared an update on his latest project and explained why it’s important for him to bring news to people without “intrusion.”

Glenn remembered starting his own TV network and how people told him to stay locked into the old school model of cable news instead of making TV available on mobile devices.

“Those days are over,” he said of the shift. “We’ve laid the groundwork and the rails.”

O’Reilly talked about a new show prototype where he was in a studio and talked with guests over Skype, giving him far more independence than he would have with a network.

“We don’t want any intrusion: corporate intrusion or Media Matters intrusion or threats,” O’Reilly said to Glenn. “We want to control the product, as you do.”

GLENN: BillO'Reilly.com. Probably one of the more brilliant businesspeople. Definitely one of the more brilliant people when it comes to how to do a show and what people are thinking. Bill O'Reilly. Now at BillO'Reilly.com. He has his own show. It's a half-hour news show every day, and you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com. He started it earlier this week. It's really good. Not a lot has changed with Bill O'Reilly. Just the background has changed. And we'll talk to him about that.

I want to start here, Bill, with something that really bothers me, and that is the firing of -- what's his name? Jeremy Lions? No, what's his name?

STU: Jeffrey Lord.

GLENN: Jeffrey Lord, that's what it is. That's how much I care about this guy.

I actually care about his firing. I think he is horrible. I think he is one of the worst commentators on CNN. I think he's just a total sellout.

However, they fired him because he got into a Twitter spat with Media Matters. And Media Matters is starting to campaign again to get people fired, get them thrown off.

And he said, "What you're doing is fascistic in nature. This is fascism." And they tweeted something back. And he wrote, "Sieg Heil."

CNN fires him almost immediately because they say, "Nazi salutes are absolutely -- we will not tolerate this --

STU: Indefensible.

GLENN: Are you kidding me? So now he's out. Bill.

BILL: Yeah, I mean, look, anybody -- and I mean anybody knows that this firing was political. It wasn't for cause. It wasn't because he did anything outrageous. I mean, you can debate all day long whether Nazi analogies should be used in any kind of discourse. But this clearly falls under freedom of speech. And he was making a contextual point, which is accurate, by the way, that Media Matters is a fascist organization. It is.

And then when the president of Media Matters struck back at him, he, in a wise guy fashion, went, "Sieg Heil." Who does that offend? Media Matters. So, what? So they were looking to dump him. And this gave them the opportunity to do it. That's the only thing I can figure out.

GLENN: Okay. So, Bill, that's maybe a little bit better than what I thought, but not by much.

Are you saying that they only use Media Matters as a cover? Because, I mean, why not cover him because we don't want him around. We don't like him.

BILL: Yeah, if he were a valued employee, they certainly wouldn't have done that. Look, if Jeffrey Lord -- I don't know what his contractual situation is. But he is an actionable violation of contract, sued against CNN.

You can't do that. He didn't do anything out of the ordinary, in the sense of exercising his freedom of speech to slap back at an organization that he feels is fascistic. So it's got to be something else. I don't know whether -- if he even had a contract.

But it looks to me -- and I've been in this business almost since as long as you have, since the War of 1812, Beck, as you mentioned last week on your program. All right? It looks to me like they just want to get rid of the guy, and this was a convenient way to do it.

GLENN: So, Bill, doesn't this not empower Media Matters like crazy?

BILL: Of course, it does. But Media Matters is in bed with all these people. I mean, Media Matters doesn't attack CNN, ever. Media Matters -- well, let me amend that. If CNN put on a conservative like you or me, maybe Media Matters would attack. But they don't attack their editorial posture. They don't attack NBC. They don't very rarely attack the networks. They only attack people with whom they disagree with politically, which is anybody. Moderate or right.

You've got to be a far-left lune to be in there cogering (phonetic).

GLENN: So we found a Media Matters plan of attack. And we're going to be going over it in the next couple of weeks, with our audience. It is their plan.

BILL: Good.

GLENN: We found it on the dark web.

BILL: The dark web.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, who -- who even puts their stuff on the dark web? Seriously, who does that criminals. Evil people. Why are you putting stuff on the dark web?

So in it, it talks about how they're now consulting with Google. They're now consulting with Facebook. They're trying to tell YouTube and Google and Facebook exactly what is offensive, what isn't. They're coming in as these moderate arbiters of --

BILL: Oh, they -- this organization, these are the people that orchestrated the sponsored attacks against me and you.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: They organized the demonstrations in front of Fox. They've got money. They pay people. They're awful. They're anti-democracy. And I hope you guys -- you know, I listen when I can. But when you get stuff, send it to me. Because certainly looking at these people hard, these Media Matters people.

GLENN: I'll send you the stuff that we just pulled up.

BILL: And you know what the worst part about this is? The worst part about it is these people were so closely allied with Hillary Clinton. David Brock, who was the founder of this, was Clinton's consigliere. If Clinton had ever been elected president, these people would be in the White House, these Media Matters. And I can't tell your audience how strongly enough how vicious and vile and anti-democratic they are.

GLENN: Actually I want to correct you on one thing.

BILL: Win after win after win because the media will never take them on because the media sympathizes with their far-left posture.

GLENN: Okay. I want to correct you on one thing: They're absolutely pro-democratic, which in the meaning of, all we want is a popular vote and majority wins. I mean, that is -- you know -- remember, Chavez was also very democratic.

BILL: They don't believe in freedom of speech.

GLENN: Yes, you're right. Correct.

BILL: They don't believe in freedom of speech. They operate in shadows on the dark web. They try to hurt people. They try to destroy people.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: This is not what our democracy is supposed to be about.

GLENN: It's a republic.

BILL: This is the most vicious, vile political organization in existence.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: And they have power. And money.

GLENN: So tell me how you feel about what happened with Google this week, with that firing.

BILL: You know, I didn't follow it that much because I'm not really into that world of -- and I know they're super powerful and all of that. But I'm more interested in the political component of this, rather than -- once you get into Google and Facebook and all of these organizations, you get into corporations. They're corporations. I mean, they may not wear ties. And they may give you kale for lunch. But it's a corporation. Okay?

GLENN: That's kind of what I want to talk to you about. As I said earlier this week, look, if Firestone or Goodyear was doing this, I wouldn't care. But this is the gateway to information.

We had this week a report was released that Apple has $58 billion in US Treasury bonds. That's more than most foreign countries will hold.

That gives that corporation real leverage on Capitol Hill. You know what, maybe we should just liquidate our government bonds because that's why we don't -- that's why we worry about foreign countries holding our bonds.

Does -- are these corporations that the left loves, are they becoming worrisome at all to you, Bill?

BILL: That's an interesting question. They are -- they are very, very powerful agents, and they control now most of the information flow. And with the destruction of cable news, and that's coming very, very fast.

GLENN: Very fast.

BILL: Talk radio is pretty much the only counter to the internet information flow, which is not an honest situation.

So, yes, it's dangerous. I'm not so concerned about them holding bonds. Although, yeah, I mean, I guess down the line, they could do a blackmail thing. You better do what we want. Or we'll liquidate or something. I see what you're saying.

GLENN: It's not like it's the top of my concerns. But it is -- it is a part of it.

It's like, wait a minute. These -- these guys are getting really powerful.

BILL: They are very powerful. But there's nothing you can do about that in a capitalistic society. The more successful corporations become, the more powerful they become.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: You can expose it. You can tell folks what's going on. And the information flow they're getting is not honest. That's certainly noble. But you can't stop them from accumulating assets.

GLENN: No. But you can start to say to our representatives, "I don't want you in bed with these people. There are no special favors for these people."

BILL: No, absolutely. Right. Right.

GLENN: So, Bill, I want to take a break. We have a ton to talk about, the news of the week. But I would like to pick your brain, honestly, because I have tremendous respect for you, as you know, on multiple fronts. But one of them is you are a very shrewd businessman. You are very smart.

You took every show. You know, I run on passion and gut and feelings. And you are much more of a scientific kind of guy. And you've made a brilliant move this week in not going -- running to somebody else and saying, "Okay. I'll fall under your umbrella." You're doing it yourself.

I want to talk to you about the future of cable news. I want to talk to you about the future of information.

BILL: Sure. It's fascinating what's happening.

GLENN: It really is. It really is.

BILL: And nobody is talking about it. So your audience is going to get a lot of information fast. After these announcements of interest.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Wow, thank you.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Back in just a second with Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

GLENN: So let me go to Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com, who just started his news program, the No Spin News. Every day you can see it and you can watch it at BillO'Reilly.com.

Bill, let's switch gears. I'd kind of like some advice from you and to pick your brain. What we did six years ago, when I left Fox and I built TheBlaze and the first OTT model around this, everyone said, "Glenn, no one will watch this on the Internet. They're not going to watch it on the phone. They want it on this."

It's why, honestly, we spent as much money as we did to make my network look -- quite honestly, the model was MSNBC. If it -- if it can't look as good as NBC in visuals, then people won't accept it.

Those days are over. We've laid the groundwork and the rails. And now you are the first one to come out as a really big guy and say, "Okay. I'm going to go and do this model, and I'm going to do it by myself. I don't need to join a network or whatever. I'm going to do it by myself." How long before, Bill, this becomes the absolute norm?

BILL: You know, it's hard to say. Our blueprint is that we want to deliver on a daily basis 30 to 40 minutes of honest news analysis, honest in the sense that it's fact-based.

And we're going to do that. And so we did a prototype this week on BillO'Reilly.com, where I was in a studio in a spiffy jacket and tie. And we had guests via Skype. And it went very well. I mean, it looked good. People liked it.

We have it up now, BillO'Reilly.com. Anybody can see the prototype. And it -- and it was tough. It was tough analysis. Talk about North Korea and stuff like that.

Now, we haven't decided exactly when we're going to launch this on a daily basis because we're doing our podcasts from my home office now. And it's working very, very well. But it's going to happen. And even if I decide to come back to cable TV, we'll still do this 30 to 40 minutes per day, because we don't want any -- I'm sorry about that. That's enthusiasm.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

BILL: Enthusiasm from the --

GLENN: That's Bill's head writer.

BILL: From the community.

Anyway, we don't want any intrusion.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: Corporate intrusion or Media Matters intrusion or threats or any of that. We want to control the product, as you do.

GLENN: Right. So you can control --

BILL: And I think this prototype that we put out is going to take root. And I think it's going to be very successful.

GLENN: Right.

BILL: The reason this is necessary, this is the key to it all, is there's been a profound change in cable news. And as we discussed in previous episodes of the Beck program, network news is largely irrelevant now. Remember Scott Pelley, the anchor of CBS News?

GLENN: No. Neither does anybody else.

BILL: Well, Scott packed it in, and nobody even knew.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: I mean, nobody even said a word. It was like, poor Scott. He was there six years on every night. He was taking Walter Cronkite's seat, and he's out of there, and nobody even cares. That's how irrelevant the Nightly News is.

The morning is entertainment. So when cable news starts then to change -- fundamentally change, not into a news service anymore. They're not a news service. They're basically a party apparatus. So MSNBC, CNN, they're a Democrat Party apparatus. And Fox News, to some extent, not to the extent of the others, it reflects a Republican point of view. Well, where do Americans go for the truth? People seeking the truth and not having a vested interest in one political party or one political philosophy. There's nowhere to go.

So that this, in a capitalistic society, this Blaze, the Beck Blaze, O'Reilly, BillO'Reilly.com, this now presents a very, very attractive alternative to millions of Americans who love their country and want to know about it in a truthful way.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: You're stunned at that analysis?

GLENN: No, no, no. I was actually --

BILL: You're absolutely stunned. It's so right on. Nobody has ever talked that way to you.

GLENN: I was actually hoping for a deeper insight. Why don't you put the dog on the phone?

(laughter)

All right. When we come back --

BILL: Corgi.

GLENN: When we come back, we're going to have to go over the strategy of North Korea, how Bill thinks that is going, where that ends up, and all the rest of the news of the week with Bill O'Reilly. You can hear him every day at BillO'Reilly.com. That's BillO'Reilly.com. BillO'Reilly.com.

GLENN: So let's bring Bill O'Reilly from Bill O'Reilly back. BillO'Reilly.com. And talk to him a little bit about North Korea.

First of all, Bill, are we going to war with North Korea?

BILL: No.

GLENN: Okay. If -- if it is just between us, we're having a private council, you're the president of the United States, and you've got your council split in half. And half says, "Mr. President, we've got to go. They've crossed too many red lines. It's only going to be a problem down the road. We got to go, and I'd like to recommend a first strike." The other half says, "No first strike and, no, don't go to war because millions will die." Which do you lean towards?

BILL: Okay. You can't do a preemptive strike with nukes on anybody. That's not acceptable in the world we live in. You could do, you know, some bombing like -- like you did in Syria, take out a strategic military target. I mean, that's certainly possible. But I don't see that happening.

What I see happening is this is -- Trump is basically telling the world, "Look, I'm capable of this," which is true. I'm capable of it.

Which Obama was and everybody knew, no matter what you did, Obama wasn't going to do anything drastic. And it was like Merkel today, the German chancellor comes in and says, "Well, there really isn't any military solution to North Korea."

Now, just step back and analyze how stupid that statement is from Angela Merkel. What if North Korea launches a missile at Guam or Japan or South Korea? What if they do that? I mean, that's what this idiot is threatening to do.

And Merkel says there's no military solution to that. So, what, you let them do that? That's exactly the wrong message.

And Trump's message is basically symbolic. It's a symbolic message. I'm capable of this. But will he do it? No. Only if they attack, they being North Korea, one of our allies or any interest that the United States has. Then he will. But I don't see any new component in this. Because that's Armageddon. Once you start with the nukes, then, you know, the stuff kills south Koreans. It kills Chinese. You really can't do that.

GLENN: So here's where I've come down on this, on my understanding of what Donald Trump is doing. And it may be more wishful thinking. But I don't think it is.

As I've watched this game play out and I know, you know, how horrible war with North Korea would be and now especially with China saying, "You do a first strike, we're on their side. You fight back, we're going to leave them to their own business. And you guys can have at them." There's no way we're going for a first strike.

If we do, we turn the whole world against us, I think.

BILL: Yeah. And the generals -- look, Kelly is the guy calling the shots, a lot of the shots now. He's never going to do it.

GLENN: Yep, I agree.

BILL: People got to calm down. And the reason that this has taken on hysteria is because it's August. There's no other news. Cable news is all -- I mean, they're just going crazy. And they're whipping everybody up. And the left wants everybody to think that Trump is Dr. Strangelove. And so that's why it's whipping up.

But if you look at it, it's probably not going to lead to anything. It's going to fizzle out like most of the North Korean missile tests do.

GLENN: So here is the second part of that: If this indeed is strategy and Donald Trump is playing the strong hand because nobody has the United States for a long time and wants to put everybody on notice and does have a little bit of a twitchy eye, he may in the end, if this works, be remembered as Ronald Reagan, when it came to the Cold War. This is exactly the argument we had from the left on Ronald Reagan.

BILL: Yeah. But it's a different situation because you have irrationality in North Korea. I mean, this guy is pretty irrational.

But, you know, I want to personalize it a little. And I can do that by a plug. You know, Killing the Rising Sun is about -- primarily about the atom bomb drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the power of those bombs was so horrific -- now, they're 10,000 times as powerful. And if you really want to know what happened -- and kids should know it too. We have a kid's book: The Day the World Went Nuclear, off Killing the Rising Sun. We take you right down, we put you right down at Hiroshima when that bomb dropped, and you can feel what happened. And so that's why the horror of nuclear war, it gets people crazy. I mean, it really does. It gets people crazy.

And all Americans should know what the actual horror is. That you're going to have people vaporized on the spot, that you're going to have fallout that states for 50 to 60 years. Makes Chernobyl look like Disneyland. So I think that when you take that into consideration and then you're President Trump or whatever, you're not going to do that unless you absolutely have to do it. But I can see a surgical, you know, conventional strike on North Korea, if they keep it up.

GLENN: Bill, you were probably, oh, around retirement age back in '82 and '83, when -- when The Day After came out. And that was -- '82 was the year I graduated from high school. So I had a very different look at it then. I just looked it up this week. I was just kind of zipping through it on YouTube. And I remember how scary that was. But because of my age back then, I really didn't see it as really what it was. Nothing's changed. That is Hollywood and the press and the networks trying to make you more afraid of Ronald Reagan's rhetoric than really the Soviet Union. And trying to thwart Ronald Reagan. Would you agree with that?

Did you see that that way?

BILL: Yeah, the left historically never wants to fight for anything. And anybody who counters that is a war-mongering fascist. So even before World War II, there was a big strain of Americans that didn't want to confront Hitler or Tokyo. They didn't want to get involved.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: And some of those were conservative people.

GLENN: Yeah. The America First -- the America First campaign.

BILL: Yeah, just stay away. We got two oceans protecting us. Well, now we don't have any oceans. Okay? So it is an emotional issue, but people should know, this isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan. You know, sending in the Special Forces to track down ISIS. It's nothing like that.

This guy is playing with something that could obliterate millions of people. And so I -- I have, you know, confidence in the American system that we're not going to do anything irresponsible. That's the key word. The rhetoric is the rhetoric, all right? Trump is definitely sending a message to the world that he's capable, like Reagan. Okay? But I don't think anything more will come of this, at this point.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you just some quick hits here and just get your comments on. Chelsea Manning being described as an American beauty in a woman's swimsuit on the beach in Vanity Fair. Comments?

BILL: What do you want me to say about it?

GLENN: Just any comment on --

BILL: I mean, look, if she wants to be in a bathing suit and on a beach, she has the perfect right to do that. If Vanity Fair wants to make a deal about it, I don't care.

GLENN: It's not that. It's that she's an American traitor. How many people lost their lives because of her?

BILL: Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah.

GLENN: And now we're being spoon-fed, that, no, she's just a beautiful woman.

BILL: And if I could just remind everybody, President Obama commuted her sentence. Okay. So that's why she's in the bikini. Now, maybe that was part of the deal. I'll let you out, if you go into a bikini in Vanity Fair. That's the deal.

PAT: That's a weird deal.

GLENN: That's a weird deal.

PAT: But okay.

BILL: It could have happened.

PAT: It could have.

GLENN: Paul Manafort, the raid of his residence by the FBI.

BILL: You know, not since Eliot Ness and the Untouchables has there been a crime drama at this level.

You know, Manafort, I've always said this from the very beginning: If there's one Trump person that's got a deficit in this whole thing, it's him. Because he made some big money representing pro-Russian interests in the Ukraine situation. He had the contacts. He knew the guys.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

BILL: He knew Boris and Natasha. And so, you know, they went in. They try to find out what he has, and I'm glad I'm not Paul Manafort.

GLENN: Mitch McConnell said the reason why the G.O.P. is getting a bad brand or bad name is because Donald Trump and others had excessive expectations.

BILL: I just think this guy is such a dweeb. I hate to be -- you know, I just think McConnell is such a dweeb. D-W-E-E-B. Word of the day.

GLENN: Yeah. Word of the day.

BILL: I mean, this guy, when I was very close to getting Kate's Law on the floor of the Senate, it was him who sabotaged it. Because he wanted to attach all kinds of stuff that he knew wasn't going to pass it.

I just think this guy is just -- I don't know him. I don't -- he never came on my program. He was always afraid to do that.

I just don't have any use for him at all. So I wish -- I wish there was more dynamic leadership on both sides. On the Democratic side, you have Chucky Schumer threatening all of his people.

If you don't do what I say, we're going to run somebody against you in the primary and cut off your money. That's why he's got all these Democrats, you know, voting against their country's best interests.

And on the other side, you've got Mitch McConnell playing whatever game he's playing. So it's just really -- and I think Americans have got it. It's disgusting. It really is.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly, writing some great history books and books now for your kids as well. You can hear his commentary every day at BillO'Reilly.com.

You can get his podcast and his members also are chiming in now on, how do we make this internet newscast work for you? And he's taking your comments on it. And you can watch it now at BillO'Reilly.com. Thanks, Bill, appreciate it.

BILL: Now, Beck, one more thing before you dump me here, if I send you an advanced copy of Killing England: The Brutal Struggle for American Independence, will you read it, Beck? Will you read the book if I send it to you in advance? It's out September 19th.

GLENN: Are there some things in the pages that maybe might fall out?

BILL: You're going to find out what Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson were really like.

GLENN: I only care about Benjamin. If Benjamin happens to be in those papers and it slips out of the book, I might read it.

BILL: All right!

GLENN: But I'm interested in the Benjamins. Thank you very much, Bill. Appreciate it. God bless. BillO'Reilly.com. BillO'Reilly.com.

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: ‘Profound Change’ Is Disrupting the Way We Watch News — for the Better

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