BLOG

This Is Why Europe Is Vulnerable to Attacks Like Barcelona

Fourteen people were killed in two attacks in Spain Thursday, with 13 of them dying when a terrorist drove a van into crowds in Barcelona.

While police have arrested four people in connection with the attacks, the driver of the van is still at large after fleeing on foot. Authorities have identified 18-year-old Moussa Oukabir as the suspect, the Guardian reported based on Spanish media reports.

“This is the worst one since the 2004 attack,” Stu Burguiere said Friday on radio.

In 2004, 191 people were killed and nearly 2,000 were injured when terrorists detonated bombs on mobile phones in train stations in the Madrid area.

“Europe in and of itself is just very vulnerable to these things,” Stu noted, explaining how Europe’s more “lenient” border policies work.

PAT: It's Pat and Stu and Jeffy for the Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. Glenn is -- can we say where he is? Maybe not, huh?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: He's doing something with Operation Underground rescue today. So he'll be back on Monday.

But another terrible terrorist strike yesterday. This one in Barcelona, Spain. The same kind of thing. The vehicles used as weapons. Killed 14 people. Just another mass carnage. Bodies strewn all over the place. And, you know, it's just so senseless and so bizarre. And this seems to be their new thing. Even -- even over explosions.

STU: We're starting to probably hit that point, in which the vehicle barriers at street festivals need to seriously be increased.

JEFFY: All of them.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: I mean, because I think people -- whether -- obviously there's a low risk of something like this happening at any particular festival you're at. But when they block these streets off, these are the targets, a lot of times.

You know, in a bizarre way -- it's in a way kind of like the gun-free zone with the mass shootings. It's like you take out an area where there's any chance of traffic. And people just sort of -- you know, they're all gathered in one place where they all think they're safe. And when they all think they're safe, that's when people come that are bad actors. That's obviously not an argument against street festivals. But it is an argument for security at them, I think.

PAT: Definitely. I just heard this morning that they're going to ramp up security with vehicles in mind at the Texas State Fair next month. So they're already starting to do that. They're already taking that seriously.

STU: And people won't show up if these things keep happening. People are going to stop risking --

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Yeah. And that's the whole point, right? Of this kind of attack. You just want people to change their lifestyle. You want them to live in fear. You want to create terror. And they're doing a pretty good job of that.

So it would be -- they interviewed quite a few people who were just on vacation.

JEFFY: Yeah, this wasn't even just necessarily a street festival. This was a market where everybody gathers.

PAT: A lot of tourists.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: So can you imagine, you're just going to Barcelona, Spain, for a vacation. You're having a holiday there, and this kind of thing happens. It's just -- I mean, certainly it's no worse than the locals being killed. Because they're both bad.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: But it's just so senseless. And you just don't expect that.

STU: Yeah, that's the point I took from your comment. That it was worse than --

PAT: It's worse than the locals being killed?

JEFFY: And Americans were there on vacation.

STU: It is funny how we treat these things. The media -- like, I was watching Fox News when this was going on. And they went to report. They were like, "We have new information in that four NCAA basketball teams were playing in Spain at the time. All teams are okay." Okay. I don't know why that is relevant to this story, the fact that four --

PAT: It's the American angle, right?

STU: It is, I guess. And I'm not blaming Fox for that. I guess it is sort of interesting, particularly if you are a fan of one of the teams that is playing in that general vicinity. But the idea that -- like, three of the four teams have made a statement, and all three teams have said the same thing, that nothing happened.

Okay. I mean, it's probably -- there's probably something else in this story that you could cover at this particular moment. I'm just saying that it's possible that the basketball team, you know, being unharmed is not necessarily a story.

PAT: Right.

STU: Most people in the -- in the world were unharmed at that moment.

PAT: This does tend -- my wife and I -- I mean, we've wanted to go to Europe our whole lives. And I want to go to London. I'd love to go to Barcelona. I'd love to go to Rome. Love to go to France, even though the problem with France is the French.

(chuckling)

But I'd love to see it. I'd love to be there. I'd love to experience it. And now with all this stuff happening all the time, it does cause you to kind of wonder if you want to do that. Doesn't it? I mean, this is going to hurt tourism across the world.

STU: It is. And we're talking about a lot of people dead, a lot of people injured. I mean, the footage that you described earlier --

PAT: It was carnage.

STU: Did you notice a line that was different from other attacks, in which they showed a lot of just dead bodies on the street?

PAT: Yeah, they did. Yeah, they did.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: And they kept showing it over and over and over again. These were not people that were hurt. They were, I mean, motionless. No one is even tending to them. You know, it's not like -- when you have someone who is hurt and struggling, people rush over and try to help after one of these things. People were just walking by them, like this is over.

I mean, you know, a lot of people dead. A lot of gore. And they showed it for whatever reason, seemingly, without hesitance in this particular case. A lot of times they will -- you know, if you think of the clip in Charlottesville, right? Where one person died. They went to somewhat great lengths to not show you the actual person who died.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: The actual real carnage of that. They showed it from a distance. They showed parts of it. But this was really intense.

PAT: Up close and personal with all the carnage.

JEFFY: Maybe we do need to see it.

STU: There's an argument there. And I think a strong one. I don't know what you do here, right? Like, they were talking about this. There was this terrorism expert on that I was watching. And they're like, "Well, there's nothing you can do to stop these incidents. There's really no way to stop them." And that's true really about everything, right? Like there's nothing to stop someone walking up behind you with a water balloon full of red Kool-Aid and slapping it on the back of your head every time you walk down the street. The only reason it doesn't happen is because no one is interested in doing it, right? Anyone can do it to you at any time.

And that's the only way that this is going to eventually stop, hopefully. That eventually we get to a point in which people are not motivated by this thing. White supremacy, we've gone a long way in essentially eliminating. And it's a weird thing to say after Charlottesville. But it's pretty freaking notable when there's a Ku Klux Klan these days, just because generally speaking, people in the United States aren't interested in it. There's not a lot of people that want to be involved in that nonsense, so they're not, thankfully.

Right now, Islamic extremism, that's not the case. You know, there's a lot of people around the world who are really interested in it. And until that ideology is defeated, until that strain of -- of extremism is gone and people just don't want to do it -- look, Naziism is like that.

I mean, at one point, Naziism was, you know, the dominant viewpoint of a country, of multiple countries, when you throw fascism in there. And now, you know, there's a lot less interest in it thankfully around the globe, and we have a lot less Naziism.

That's the only way you do this, right? I mean, and I don't know how you do it with a group like Islamic extremism because it's so large. There's so many people that even if there's just an infinitesimal percentage of Islam that goes down this road, it's still almost impossible to stop.

PAT: You either stop it that way or by killing every single terrorist on the planet, which is difficult.

STU: Really difficult.

PAT: Very difficult.

STU: Well, look, that's how we approached Nazis, right? It wasn't like we were like, oh, you know what, actually, we don't agree with your universal health care plans. And that's why they HEP disputed Naziism. We did it with a bunch of bombs.

PAT: Yeah. Yes.

STU: Which is -- look, that's certainly part of it. But it's a lot harder here. When you talk about killing every terrorist, it's a lot difficult to figure out who those people are and how to do it. And we've seen attempts at that, certainly, in certain countries. And so far, there have been parts of it that have worked and parts of it that haven't. So, I mean, right now, ISIS is being pushed back. And we may wind up seeing ISIS go away, that part of it. But we also -- you could argue that parts of al-Qaeda have gone away and were replaced by ISIS, right? So it's such a difficult task to do this in any efficient way, especially without the support and really unified action of the world with the Nazis. You had a lot of that.

PAT: And the Islamic State has taken credit for this. The perpetrators of the Barcelona attack are soldiers of the Islamic State and carried out the operation in response to calls for targeting coalition states. I mean, is Spain really even heavily involved in the War on Terror?

JEFFY: With the open border campaigns in Europe, I mean, Spain, France, all of it, they're all -- I mean, that immigration process for the extremes -- you know, you said, you don't know who they are. Nobody knows who they are. So they're just there in those countries.

PAT: Right. But they don't seem to be -- they don't seem to be targeting the Sunni militant groups in Syria, certainly. They're not in Iraq. They're not in Afghanistan. Why Spain? Why are they targeting Spain?

STU: Well, yeah, Spain hasn't had a big attack in a while. 2004, they had a big attack. But it's been a while. This is the worst one since the 2004 attack. You know, I think --

PAT: That one killed 191 people. 191.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Wounded 1800. It was a huge attack.

STU: Huge. And just -- Europe, in and of itself is just very vulnerable to these things. They have -- a lot of them have very lenient, to say the least, immigration policies.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: No guns.

STU: There's very little to push back. There's also very free immigration, relatively speaking between the countries.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So even if you have a more restrictive policy on your border, when it comes to immigrants from the Middle East or whatever, they could come into a neighboring country and then across that border. So it becomes very difficult.

It would be like trying -- it would be like trying to figure out immigration among the 50 states. If we were constantly on the border trying to stop certain people going from Texas into Oklahoma. It would be really hard. And, you know, it's a little bit of an exaggeration, but it's that type of arrangement. And, you know, it's difficult.

PAT: It also looks like police have caught everybody, but the driver, right? That's the last I heard, was that the driver fled on foot. And he's still -- the actual driver of the van has gotten away. To this point.

STU: And it seems like it was a bigger plot. An explosion they think was tied to this. There was another attack they think was tied to this, through family members.

PAT: Yeah, apparently they thwarted another attack.

STU: And they thwarted another one overnight, right? With five people trying to attempt an attack, and they shot all five of them.

JEFFY: Yeah. In HEP Cambrio? HEP Cambrio, Spain. And they -- again, you talked about showing the footage. That footage immediately was all of them dead on the sidewalk, showing where police had shot them.

PAT: Oh, wow.

JEFFY: Last night. After they got them.

PAT: I had not seen that.

JEFFY: Yeah, they were: The suspects are dead. Police have shot them. And there they are.

It was amazing.

THIS New Rule Could Make CRIMINALS Out of Small Business Owners
RADIO

THIS New Rule Could Make CRIMINALS Out of Small Business Owners

Did you know the Corporate Transparency Act could make small business owners CRIMINALS? Former investment banker and “You Will Own Nothing” author Carol Roth joins the Glenn Beck Program to explain how the federal government is completely out of control. She also says she'll join Glenn in a lawsuit to end this UNCONSTITUTIONAL act.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Again, another horse on the highway. The Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is looking to collect your information on the beneficial ownership information, that you have to report.

And I -- I am just -- I am there at FinCEN.gov/BOIfacts. And I have no idea. No idea.

And I'm -- I'm the one, I'm one of them that has to do it. Stu, your wife has an LLC, right? You have an LLC?

STU: I believe. I don't remember if it's structured that way. But, yeah. I believe it is.

GLENN: So anyone with an LLC. Even if you're not using it. You have to file, right?

CAROL: Yes. It is every reporting entity. So if you're a single member LLC. S-Corp.

C Corp. Whatever kind of instructor you have.

If you're not exempted, which means you don't have 20 employees, or $5 million in revenue, or fall into one of their other categories that they exempted. You know, somebody like a hedge fund, of course, is not included.

Because why would they be, right?

GLENN: Yeah. There's no money laundering.

CAROL: Right. So if you have a reporting entity. That's why I said, it sounds like there are other reporting entities, like housing associations that may get caught up, because they file something with their state.

So if you're a reporting entity, you have to file. And I don't know if you notice, on that FinCEN.gov/BOI homepage, that the first alert they had is a fraud alert. Because, of course, people are taking advantage of this. And trying to --

GLENN: Because nobody knows anything about it.

CAROL: So recommend tell you about the media. First of all, thank you for being a platform of truth, and one that supports small businesses. Because we've been talking about this. But none of the mainstream media has done anything to alert people to this.

However, Glenn, When the state of Alabama Supreme Court said that we're going to rule this unconstitutional, what did they say?

This is a blow to corporate transparency, this is going to make it harder to fight the cartels.

You tell me, what cartel, and what money launder, is self-reporting to FinCEN?

Okay.

GLENN: Well, let me also say this.

We have been talking about a giant crime family, that is money laundering for a long time.

But because it was ten for the big guy, or five for the big guy, he doesn't have to report this!

Because he's already over $5 million.

So if you -- I mean, if you're small time. Small time money launderer.

Then you have to do it. But if you're an honest money launderer, you don't have to file. If your money laundering is forever 5 million. Unbelievable.

CAROL: Well, that's the thing is that is really frustrating. They have tools that alert them to suspicious activity. There are suspicious activity reports from the banks, which the Biden family had well over 100 of them. I think on a combined basis.

And they did nothing to look into potential money laundering.

So if there is suspicious activity, or there is something that looks, you know, awry. They have ways to go through the courts, to go after that, you know, particular entity.

The ones who are massive criminals, aren't going to be reporting to FinCEN. So all this is, is a mass surveillance program against small businesses.

And the penalties, as you said, are insane.

It's not just for not reporting. It's if you don't update. So a woman gets married and changes her name.

You move. You get a new driver's license. Because the other one was out of date.

You don't let FinCEN know, they can send you to jail!

Why this was ever passed. And, oh, by the way, Trump did veto this. And it went back to Congress.

And they overwrote it. And nobody has done anything to fix this, is absolutely insane!

There are 33 million small businesses, in this country, why are they being put under a microscope, and saying, you are criminal.

You are financial criminals. And we are going to hold your feet to the fire, if you don't let us track you. It is insane.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I am just looking at this website.

It scrolls. And it just keeps scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. On what you have to do.

I mean, this is -- this is as bad as the IRS, if not worse.

Because none of us have ever done any of this before.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: You don't even know. Is there an organization out there, that can help file this?

I mean, the bureaucracy is crazy!

CAROL: So that's part of the challenge.

Is that there are accountants and lawyers, who are trying to get on top of it.

Because everything is so vague and confusing.

Even they're not entirely sure what to do.

So again, my recommendation, if you have an existing reporting entity.

You have until January 1st of next year.

I personally, with my LLC. I am not doing this. Until the very last minute.

Because we're working very hard. We're talking with lawmakers.

We're trying to get it overturned. At least delayed so we have a little breathing room to try to do something.

The problem is, if you start a new business, Glenn. You only have 30 days. And I have heard some rumblings. Whatever it is that they're collecting this information. That they don't have a formal database, built yet.

Go figure.

Right.

And so that information is incredibly vulnerable.

And that impacts the ability to start businesses in this country.

If you're starting one. And you have an entity. If you don't a reporting entity, you don't have to file --

GLENN: What does that mean? A reporting entity? That's an LLC?

CAROL: So something that you have to file information with your state to let them know that you're a business. There are certain people who act as sole proprietors, who don't have a business around them, or an entity around them. Like you said, an LLC, an S-Corp.

A C-Corp, and the like.

But if you have that reporting entity, that's where you're getting caught up in this.

And it is just -- it is just absolutely egregious, nefarious, and an affront to small business.

GLENN: I have a friend who has just this week, started a new business. Guarantee you, he knows nothing about this. And because he's starting a new business, he has 30 days.

CAROL: Thirty days, or he can be fined. He can be thrown in jail.

GLENN: Is it 500 or $800 a day, for every day after 30 days?

CAROL: Yeah. It's some incredible amount per day.

GLENN: And up to ten years, in prison.

CAROL: Civil and criminal penalties. For not -- for not reporting, or not -- again, not updating your information.

Not like you do this once, and you're done.

You have to remember this, any time you do anything that changes any of the information, that would be collected, in the system.

GLENN: You know, Stalin said, show me the man, I'll show you the crime. Or his Stasi chief said that.

CAROL: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: That's what this is.

I mean, everybody is -- with all of the new guide lines and regulations and everything else.

There's no way, you can keep up with all of these things.

And I think they're intentionally designed to be able to say, sorry, dude.

You're a criminal.

You did this. Buh-bye.

Because you know people who are connected, are never going to have a problem, from the Treasury financial crimes enforcement network.

CAROL: Yeah. And if you were really concerned about massive corporate transparency. Or massive scale laundering cartels. Then you would be exempting the small businesses.

And you would be focusing on the large companies that have the financial resources and the capabilities to do reporting.

Like the publicly traded companies do.

But it's exactly the opposite.

So what other conclusion could we possibly draw, that you want to surveil what small businesses are doing. And could go everything you can, to hold them down.

And, basically, continue to transfer wealth from Main Street to Wall Street.

GLENN: So when is -- when is -- can the group that now has filed and they said it was unconstitutional.

They can't file. Because they don't have standing, to kick it up to the Supreme Court, right?

CAROL: So I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV.

I don't know what the procedure is. You have to ask the lawyer on that.

There are certainly a number of people, who are looking into additional lawsuits. There are some lawmakers. Who are looking into trying to get this overturned or at least delayed.

To give again, some time to rethink it.

And see what can be done. In terms of the court, I couldn't believe.

It's unconstitutional. But it's only unconstitutional for this person who filed the lawsuit. I have never seen anything like that.

GLENN: Have you ever seen anything like that before?

STU: No.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, I will -- I will file, for a federal lawsuit.

I mean, anybody --

CAROL: I'll join you.

GLENN: You will join me?

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: I have no expertise in this. I have no idea. But let's do it.

I -- this government is completely out of control. If they can do this, and then they also have said, you know. There's no gig workers anymore. Carol, what is that going to do to the grocery shelves, when you can't get private drivers to drive trucks!


CAROL: I mean, this is insane.

And it goes against the complete shift in the economy.

One of the great things about technology. Is it gave people flexibility, Glenn.

Flexibility to work the way you want to work.

And that's the wonderful thing about America. Not everybody around the world, gets to choose what they do for a living. And how to work.

And more and more people want work/life balance. They don't want to be an employee. They want to make their hours.

And, in fact, when they go out and survey, from the government surveys on down. And they survey independent contractors.

The majority of people, don't want to be employees. They love being independent contractors. And they make at least as much, if not more, than if they were an employee. So the fact that we have the Department of Labor, who went around Congress, and say, we will change the way independent contractors are classified. We don't want to have these standalone people. We want them to be employees.

We want them to be in unions. It's all about big business. It's all about making the unions happy. And it's against capitalism. And your own choice. Your work. Your choice. The people who are so obsessed with choice in everything. Why would you not have a choice in how you present your labor? You and I agree on something. What does the government have to do, getting in the middle going, I'm sorry. I don't like the way you decided on how you want to work.

GLENN: And let me ask you this, too. Biden is working so hard to get labor unions to grow. And these kinds of things make you say, I don't want to be an owner of anything. I just want to be a worker. I don't want to stick my head out for any risk at all.

That's what this does. Then, as they squeeze and squeeze, and you don't really have any rights, people want to join unions. But the unions are in bed with the people that are squeezing you!

CAROL: It's the great consolidation. It's taking away that freedom, that choice, that capitalism, that underpins America. What it is that made us successful. That productivity that we talk about, that will allow us to continue to grow and at least have a chance to save this country's fiscal foundation. They want to do everything they can, to put up barriers. They want to put up barriers to work. To earning a living.

Like, if you said this to somebody, ten years ago, 15 years ago, they would look at you, like we're in a bizarro world.

GLENN: People did, when we talked about it, two years ago. That it was coming.

They looked at us, like that will never happen.

Well, here it is. Here it is.

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD
RADIO

Former Border Patrol Agent Has NEVER SEEN Illegal Immigration This BAD

Randy Clark was a Border Patrol agent for over 32 years, from the Reagan administration to the Trump administration. But he tells Glenn Beck that he has “NEVER” seen anything like the border crisis that President Biden “unleashed.” In fact, he admits that over the past 3 years of the illegal immigration surge, he has had “no advice to give Border Patrol agents I meet… I cannot tell them how to cope with this” because of how unprecedented it has been. Randy also weighs in on something just as concerning: Are we being told the full truth from either the Right OR Left about the border? This is the subject of the newest Blaze Originals documentary, “Texas vs. The Feds: How The Elites Use The Border Crisis Against Us.” Randy dives into one of the questions raised in the documentary: What was discussed at a secret meeting earlier this year between Secretary of State Alejandro Mayorkas and the President of Mexico? And how do the cartels fit into all of this?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome. I brought Jason Buttrill in. He is the chief researcher for the Glenn Beck Program. And also, the -- the head writer for Glenn TV on Wednesday night specials. Welcome.

JASON: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: We sent you down to the border, because there was the truckers, the Take Our Border Back convoy. And everybody was saying, it's Christian nationalism. And it wasn't Christian nationalism. And I knew that. You knew that. Because I knew some of the organizers. And I thought, there's no way, unless it's infiltrated.

So we sent you down with a camera crew. And the story turned out to be nothing. However, you came back a changed man.

JASON: I hate to say that I was completely black-pilled, but yeah.

STU: Yeah, it's a big change.

GLENN: Big change.

STU: He still doesn't have hair.

JASON: How dare you.

GLENN: It's not that -- but you came back and you were like, Glenn, I can't -- I have to show you. I can't even explain what I learned.

JASON: Well, I know that -- we all know that the government and the media all bend the immigration and border issue for their own purposes. They all game it.

It's too politically valuable for them.

So, you know, the media uses it. We saw that with the trucker convoy, like firsthand.

That's the very first thing we saw. But then, you remember that time?

It was kind of awesome to be a Texan at that time.

GLENN: But all of a sudden, Texas stood up.

JASON: We were flying our flags. We took the matter in our own hands, we're finally enforcing the law. It felt so awesome to be a Texan.

And it's incredibly hard to describe, without you, actually, seeing the video.

Without you seeing -- you know, the Shelby Park. How it was kind of taken. It's impossible to explain.

But that right there, is when I was like, oh, my gosh. I feel like we're being lied to, all across the border.

GLENN: Even on our own side.

JASON: That's the worst part.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

Randy Clark is with us. He's a retired border patrol agent. He also writes for Breitbart.

And he was down on the border. And he's one of the guys that kind of black pilled you a little bit.

JASON: Randy Clark is old-school Border Patrol.

He -- you spend five minutes with him, and you are an expert. He's amazing.

GLENN: Randy, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

RANDY: Thank you for having me, Glenn. Jason, good to hear you, brother.

JASON: You too.

GLENN: So, Randy, let's talk about a secret meeting that is in the docket tonight. A secret meeting. I guess it wasn't secret. We just don't what an they did, that happened with Antony Blinken, and the president of Mexico.

RANDY: So we know they sat down together in late December. Right about the time we were seeing, you know, just the hoards of people, coming into Eagle Pass. All of that imagery. And when it gets that bad.

That's when it becomes a big deal. Because that's when you get those folks from the media, that never report on the border.

That's when CNN is obligated to come, and other outlets that just really don't care whether the border is open or not.

They would rather see it open. That's when there's a problem. This was shut down within three days of that meeting, between Biden and everyone talking. And Blinken and Mayorkas sitting down.

Again, late December.

Within a few days, Eagle Pass was down to zero when the congressional visit came with close to 60-some-odd members of the Republican Party, including Speaker of the House.

You couldn't find anybody there. We had a handful of migrants come near the boat ramp, during their press conference. Where normally, by that hour of the day, we would have had 5,000. So this was awfully fast.

And nobody has taken credit for it, except really the state of Texas with some wire.

Because the Biden administration doesn't want to let you know, we could have done this three years ago.

GLENN: This is -- because I know what you're showing tonight.

And it is -- oh. It's -- you -- it's a punch to the gut.

It really is.

Tell me the -- when did Texas put the razor wire up?

Before or after this?

RANDY: So that razor wire has been up for several years now. They augmented it around January 11 when they seized the park. By that time, the park had been clear of most migrants for 11 days.

The problem is, this thing is still moving to the West. In other words, the country still has a problem with illegal immigration and open borders. And fentanyl.

It's -- the government of Mexico, their main objective was to stop those trains. The best system, they call it. It's the best. Those trains are almost void of any migrants, when they were bringing in daily, three to 5,000, into the parts of Texas. Mostly in Eagle Pass, as of late.

GLENN: So the drug cartel had to be involved, because the drug cartel runs everything.

And if they decided to shift, that's either a wild coincidence, after we meet with the president of Mexico.

Or they're involved.

RANDY: So the cartels have not stopped their part.

Where there is value, they are moving that. If you look to Lucedale, Arizona, where you see there are migrants across the globe coming in. That's where the cartel is making the bulk of their money on human smuggling. They have not stopped them.

GLENN: Yeah. But they have stopped or cut way back in Texas. Right?

RANDY: Well, if you see the got away numbers, they're still there. The sheriffs in South Texas. And the Texas Department of Public Safety.

They are still chasing cars in pursuit on the highways.

And that's when -- that's the hand of the cartel. Those are paying customers. We hide them. They're even hiding them from Mexico.

They're trying to get around those checkpoints in Mexico. Mexico is finding them in semi tractor-trailers just like the border patrol finds at their checkpoints. It's now a game of cat and mouse in Mexico with the cartels, like it is in the United States.

So the cartel is still trying to beat this Mexican government initiative, and they're doing it by moving West. Because that was not hindered. But they are moving more of their migrants to the West. And we see those numbers coming up, where Texas is remaining low. There are tens of thousands of soldiers, that Mexico has placed towards this endeavor.

If they just kicked the people off the trains. You can take away about 5,000 per day from the equation. So we're seeing that. We're seeing crossings of five to 6,000 a day, where we were seeing up to ten and 11 and 12 during December, right before the meeting, between Blinken, Mayorkas, and Obrador.

GLENN: I saw that yesterday it was reported that two people -- or a -- two groups of people were taking Ubers across the border. I don't know who would have done that.

But they're -- the cars were shot up. One person was killed. Because it was the cartel. Because they didn't ask permission to come across the border.

Is that universal, across the border?

RANDY: You know, it is universal. And that's really what's at stake, that we can't lose sight of. Is that this cartel.

They will make money doing whatever they can. Whether it's extortion, whether it's robbery, whether it's fentanyl, whether it's migrants.

And that's really why, I think we have to as conservatives, stay true to this matter, and let the public know what they face. Because this is a greater thing going on in the background.

We have a silent selection going on, in Mexico, that's going to happen in June.

The leading candidate is way more liberal than Obrador.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RANDY: We're going to see the same feelings towards the cartel. The hugs, not bullets.

We will see that going on. We will face -- if we do not change in our election.

And we stay the course we're at right now, we will see an open border for years. And those 80,000 fentanyl deaths are going to continue or rise, because nobody will do anything about this cartel.

GLENN: Tell me about -- you know, they're bending over backwards to try to dismiss any crime coming from illegals, that are crossing over.

I mean, I just have to see, you know, some of the more heinous things that are going on right now.

Are coming from -- I mean, we have our own homegrown people. But we don't have to have the crime from people who shouldn't be here in the first place.

And the media doesn't seem to understand that.

And they're trying to make everybody understand, they're just good people coming over. Can you explain the -- the crime.

Is there any correlation, causation of the crime stats going up, beyond just reimagining the police.

RANDY: Well, there sure are. And not to paint migrants with a broad brush.

Because we know most are economic migrants. The problem is in the chaos. Just like when you saw in the Afghanistan withdrawal. In the highest chaos, you just cannot control, who gets on a plane. Who processes the border.

And even -- what -- wee we see now. Even a liberal media is poking fun at this. Almost as if it's funny, that people are getting killed at the hands of either drunk drivers, or strangled to death at a university. They're making light of that.

And what we see on the official side is, well, the only person responsible for that crime is the murder. Well, you hear that, because there was no gun.

If there was a gun. Well, then it would have been the gun.

This administration is not going to take any responsibility for what they have unleashed on America.

And I say unleashed, because I was in the Border Patrol, when Ronald Reagan was president.

And I left at the end of the Trump administration, in August of 2020.

Right at September.

This has never existed. What I have seen the last three years, I have no advice to give Border Patrol agents, I meet when I'm out on the job.

You know, they're just getting started, because I don't have experience. I spent 32 and a half years on the border patrol, I cannot tell them how to cope with this. Because we never saw it before.

I don't want folks to lose sight of this, that this is extremely dangerous. And you see the Democrat mayors, tapping out for a reason.

We have neglected every major immigration law or protection that we have in there. Such as public charge. Or public health issues. We have forgotten about everything.

And the crime, we have forgotten about as well.

Some of the gangs coming in from Venezuela.
They are masters at moving into other countries. They that did that when they left Venezuela.

They did that in Columbia. They did that in Peru. They know how to take over, the organized crime in that country.

And they do it with extreme violence. And I think we are going to see that, in some of our bigger sanctuary cities, coming up. These poor law enforcement that are already defunded in those areas, are not going to be able to cope with it.

GLENN: Yeah, America has never seen anything like Haiti before, and we are on that track.

Randy, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you for all your help on the docket.

And informing us. And helping us to figure out what's really going on.

Thanks for everything that you do. And have done.

Randy Clark. You bet. Buh-bye.

The Globalist Mass Migration Agenda that Led to Laken Riley’s Murder | Ep 340
TV

The Globalist Mass Migration Agenda that Led to Laken Riley’s Murder | Ep 340

On February 22, 2024, Georgia nursing student Laken Riley went for a jog and never returned. This is a murder that could have been prevented just by enforcing our immigration laws. However, Democrats and the media seem more bothered by President Biden’s use of the word “illegal” in his State of the Union address than the ILLEGAL act of murder of an innocent U.S. citizen. It wasn’t always this way. More than a decade ago, Barack Obama said citizenship is “not guaranteed” and immigrants “must learn English.” So, what changed? Why is there now a big push for mass migration of unvetted immigrants? Glenn reveals how it all ties back to the United Nations’ conspicuously updated list of Sustainable Development Goals. Mass migration suddenly became useful to globalists. He also calls out Cato, the Washington Post, and Jon Stewart’s heartless and bizarre defense of deadly open border consequences. Plus, Glenn’s head writer and researcher Jason Buttrill gives a sneak peek of the new Blaze Originals documentary “Texas vs. The Feds.” He saw the standoff at Eagle Pass firsthand and says the border fight between Republicans and Democrats is smoke and mirrors, and you’ll never look at the immigration crisis the same way again.

Biden Classified Documents Testimony Reveals Why America is SO DIVIDED
RADIO

Biden Classified Documents Testimony Reveals Why America is SO DIVIDED

The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from special counsel Robert Hur, and it was eye-opening. Glenn reviews some of the most shocking moments, including Hur’s admission that President Biden appeared to have kept classified documents in order to write a book. Plus, Glenn reviews some of the dumbest Democrat takes from the hearing. But perhaps most importantly, Glenn explains what this testimony reveals about why America is so divided…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I -- I want to start with just the -- just the people yesterday, who were -- who I guess were asking questions of -- of the FBI agent, her, that was -- was the guy that wrote the report about Joe Biden and his records.

And -- and whether he committed a crime. Or not.

And why he should be prosecuted or not prosecuted.

Okay. First -- you know, let me start with Jim Jordan. The cut we just played from Jim Jordan.

VOICE: Mr. Hur, why did he do it? Why did Joe Biden, your words, willfully retain and disclose classified materials?

I mean, he knew the law. I think you told us, Mr. Hur.

Hey, it's 231. You said this!

President Biden had strong motivations. That's a key word.

We're getting to motive now. President Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. Why did he have strong motivations?

Because. Next word. Because he decided, months before leaving office, to write a book. To write a book. That was his motive.

Mr. Hur, how much did President Biden get paid for his book?

VOICE: It may be 8 million.

VOICE: $8 million!

Joe Biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules. Took classified information and shared it with the guy who was writing the book. And the next thing you say in your report is, quote, such a record would buttress his legacy as a world leader.

You know what this is? It wasn't just the money. It wasn't just the $8 million. It was also his ego. Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, what was Trump in trouble for?

What was the big argument that Trump was releasing this classified information, that he had on files. Do you remember what it was?

He said something to somebody.

He was -- he was talking to a reporter.

STU: You know, it was a biographer, right?

GLENN: Right. Right. And what happened?

STU: Gosh, he was talking about plans of Iran.

GLENN: He said, he said, and if -- if people only knew.

I mean, look, it's right here.

STU: Yeah. Someone -- was it Milley, wanted to invade Iran, or something to that effect.

GLENN: Right. And so he's holding up a document.

This is what is alleged. We don't know. But what's alleged is he held up a document.

And said, look, here it is. Here is proof of it.

Didn't hand it to the reporter. Didn't read it to the reporter.

Didn't send it to the reporter.

He just said, it's right here, okay?

That's why Donald Trump has got to go to prison.

Now, what did Joe Biden do with all of these documents, well, you just heard he was paid a million dollars. He was holding on to them, so he could show that he -- you know, what he did, as vice president. And make sure that he looked good.

That would be pretty much the same charge, except without the $8 million. Right?

Except, Donald Trump allegedly, only held the document up.

Listen to what is it?

Cut 12. Cut 12.

VOICE: Biden. This is a quote. Joe Biden risked serious damage to America's national security, when he shared information, with his ghostwriter.

Shared it with his ghostwriter. The guy who was helping Joe Biden get $8 million.

And, oh, by the way, Mr. Hur, what did the ghost rider do with the information Joe Biden shared with him, on his laptop! What did he do after you were named special council?

VOICE: Chairman, if you're referring to the audio recordings that Mr. Zwanizer (phonetic) traded of his conversations --

VOICE: Exactly what I'm referring to.

VOICE: He slid, if I remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycle bin on his computer. Tries tried to destroy the evidence, didn't he?

VOICE: Correct.

VOICE: The very guy who helped Joe Biden get the $8 million. Joe Biden used -- the motive for Joe Biden to disclose classified information follow up retain classified information, which he definitely knew was against the law.

GLENN: Okay.

So we've established, already, because of -- because of Hunter Biden's records.

That Joe Biden will sell America out.

It's just a matter of price and negotiation.

Here we have $8 million. Now, if you're not offended by that. If you don't think that that's bad, what he did, then you cannot go after Donald Trump.

Donald Trump didn't share the information. Joe Biden talked openly about. Apparently, either sent or showed the documents. Okay?

So one way or another, it's pretty much the same thing.

Except the guy, who had the information.

The -- the reporter, unlike the reporter with -- with Donald Trump.

He didn't try to hide anything.

He didn't try to destroy his records.

As soon as the -- the special investigation started on Joe Biden. And this guy was appointed, what happened?

The reporter tried to get rid of all of are of the evidence.

That's obstruction of justice. Now, they say, Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice.

Great. So what do we have here?

What do we have here?

We have the same exact charges. Motivated by money.

And I think the other one motivated by, I've been screwed. And I've got all of this evidence here, that shows, that it's them, not me.

Both of them are wrong.

One has some righteous indignation to it.

The other is just money.

But both of them are against the law. Right?

Here's why our country cannot function anymore.

There -- there is no principle or value, to truth. None!

The truth only matters when it's convenient. And you could say that about both sides.

I mean, here's the -- that's the case. Both of them did the same thing.

Different motivations. But both of them did the same thing.

How many on the right, would be absolutely fine, with the conviction on Trump doing it, if Joe Biden received the exact same conviction and punishment.

I would be. If it's a crime.

Everybody should be treated exactly the same.

Now, the reason why this special prosecutor didn't say that it was a crime. Or no. I didn't say that. Decided not to prosecute, is because it is his job. Do I waste all this money, or not? Is it likely to end in a conviction?

And he said, no!

It wouldn't. Because the jury would most likely hear him and see him as a really nice old man, who is just kind of befuddled at times.

Do you think that the jury in DC, would see it any other way? Because I don't.

I would like to see the prosecution. But you know that it wouldn't end, in anything.

But should he go through it?

Yeah. I do think he should.

You know, we don't give any special benefits for people because of their age, usually. If they're incompetent. Then he should be declared incompetent to serve as president.

If he's not capable as testifying, then he shouldn't be capable of doing his job.

Of course, then again, maybe that's why the Democrats selected Joe Biden.

Because it's just Joe.

We all know Joe. He's been around for a long time.

And so people will just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, I think that's absolutely why he was selected.

He's going to return us to normal.

You know him. He's a -- he's just a union Democrat, but he's an old-time Democrat. They knew that he was a doddering old fool. That they would be running the White House.

So it was good for them. He would do what he was told, and America would give him a lot of rope. And here's America giving him a lot of rope again.

I want to show you how corrupt things are. I want you to play, let's see. Cut -- hang on.

Sorry. This is such an amazing piece.

Cut five.

VOICE: This lengthy, expensive, and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden. For every document you've discussed in your report, you found insufficient evidence that the president violated any laws about possession or retention of classified materials.

VOICE: I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, exoneration. That is not a word that I --

VOICE: Mister, I'm going to continue with my questions. I'm going to continue with my questions. I know that the term.

VOICE: Ultimately reached -- sufficient evidence existed such that I think the likely term --

VOICE: You exonerated that. I know the term willful retention. Mr. Hertz, my time. Thank you.

GLENN: When is it the witness' time. When is it the witness' time?

Everybody does this. Every time. Every time. They just filibuster. And this is the worst I've seen. The filibuster that she's doing, she's not asking him a question and not allowing him to answer. She is making a statement, formed as a question, that is inaccurate.

You exonerated him. No. I didn't exonerate him.

So everything after that, should be dismissed.

He did not exonerate. But we don't care about principles.

Values. Or truth.

And when the government, when the body that is elected to protect the Constitution, which is, why are governments established among men?

To protect the rights of the people.

When the government doesn't recognize those rights, when it no longer recognizes the truth, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

It doesn't matter. We'll never agree.

Let me play one more.

Cut six.

VOICE: You --

VOICE: Whatsoever in --

VOICE: You are a member of the Federalist Society, are you not? Are you a member of the Federalist Society?

VOICE: I am not a member of the Federalist Society.

VOICE: But you are a Republican, though, aren't you?

VOICE: I'm a registered Republican.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. Stop for a second. What's the Federalist Society, Stu?

STU: People who actually look at the Constitution, occasionally respect it.

VOICE: Yeah. Are you a member of the Federalist Society? Do you mean the society that is built to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

No, I mean the Federalist Society.

No. But that's what they do. It's an accusation. It's a smear, to say he's part of a society. Which he claims he's not.

I'm sure he's not.

Why would you deny that you were a member of the Federalist Society.

STU: Right. A really highly respected institution.

GLENN: Right. He's saying to him, do you believe in the Constitution, as written.

That's the charge. Then he goes on, and says, but you'll admit that you're a Republican.

Since when is that a crime?

Now, I just, to lighten things up.

I just want to remind you, who Hank Johnson really is.

VOICE: Now, and about 24 miles, if I recall, long.

GLENN: Guam.

VOICE: 24 miles long. About 7 miles wide, at the least widest place on the island. And about 20 -- about 12 miles wide.

My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated, that it will tip over and capsize.

VOICE: We don't anticipate that.
(laughter)

GLENN: Putting too many Marines on Guam, it could capsize the island.

And he thought it through. That's who is the defender of truth, yesterday.