Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

BLOGFebruary 02, 2018

Real-Life Heroes Turned Movie Stars Share the Story That Became ‘The 15:17 to Paris’

Three young Americans were at the right place at the right time to thwart a terrorist and save a train full of people. Now, their story of real-life heroism is a movie directed by Clint Eastwood.

Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos are playing themselves in the movie version of their trip on Aug. 21, 2015 on a train headed from Amsterdam to Paris.

The three 25-year-old friends recently chatted with Glenn about that fateful train trip and how Eastwood talked them into starring in the film.

“It was quick thinking, everyone else was running the other way, and they ran toward the problem and saved hundreds of lives,” Glenn said on today’s show.

Listen to their full interview here:

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Do you know why you were born? Do you know why you're here?

You ever -- have you ever thought your whole life is leading toward one moment, and you never know when that moment is coming?

August 21st, 2015, three American friends, really average guys. They boarded a train from Amsterdam to Paris. They had no way of knowing that their lives were building to that moment. And they would be worldwide heroes, later in the day.

The three friends, Anthony Saddler, Alek Skarlatos, and Spencer Stone, they were on a train, going to Paris. They took a lone gunman down who had 300 rounds of ammunition on board.

It was quick thinking. Everyone else was running the other way. And they ran toward the problem and saved hundreds of lives.

I spoke with them about that fateful day and how their story eventually caught the attention of Clint Eastwood. Alek, Anthony, Spencer, welcome to the program. How are you?

VOICE: I'm great. How about you?

GLENN: Very good.

All right. So I want to talk to you about one thing that, you know, I -- I had a problem with, with the story. And I just want to hear it from, quite honestly, Experience, I want to hear it from you, and then I want to hear the excuses from Alek and Anthony. At some point, you're on this train with this terrorist. And Alek says, go!

And then you go. He's got a gun. And I noticed, at least in the movie, Alek and Anthony, I'll give it to you, Anthony, you were asleep. But where the hell were you, Alek?

VOICE: I've been asking him the same thing for a few years now.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: He asked me to go. And then he waits for me to make it to him.

GLENN: Look -- no, no, no. Just didn't wait to make it to -- then you're wrestling. And you're trying to hold on to the guy. And, I mean -- I mean, I know that you took the butt of the gun to his head after a while, Alek. But it was a little sloppy and slow.

(laughter)

VOICE: Thank you! America speaks, finally.

STU: Yes. Let's hear the rebuttal, please.

VOICE: All right. Yeah, let's do this.

VOICE: So, first of all, Spencer was on the aisle seat. So he had to go first. I wasn't going to, like, climb over him and then trip in the aisle and just get shot.

GLENN: Right. Right. Usually, that is -- then that phrase should have been, go. I'll meet you in about five minutes.

(laughter)

VOICE: Well, obviously, I was using him as a human shield.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: I wasn't trying to get shot. And if he was dumb enough to go first, I mean, it's his own fault for getting shot, right?

VOICE: Natural selection.

(laughter)

GLENN: It's -- you know, it's -- it's an incredible story from -- from start to finish, with the three of you. Your friendship. But also the -- what happened on that day.

I was struck by the fact of how many people didn't do anything. I mean, really didn't do anything.

Some people were just paralyzed by fear. But -- but everybody else just ran. And there was no one that stepped to the plate.

VOICE: Kind of hard to ask people to do that, we know. We're all unarmed. And so nobody was really expecting that. So it's kind of a crazy situation to find yourselves in, that's for sure.

VOICE: Yeah, but, I mean, truthfully, we cannot even say that we would have done the same thing, if we hadn't had the confidence in ourselves, just based on the experiences that we had in life. And the skills that we had.

You know, the only thing that really gave me, you know, the confidence to run up at the guy and get up in his face was because I had been practicing Jiu-Jitsu for the last year. And all I said pretty much to myself was, man, if I could just get up in his face, I know I could do something.

You know, getting too close to him. He won't be able to be as effective. So I just -- that's what really gave me the boost.

VOICE: And also too, that I think our friendship -- I mean, we had been friends for so long. I think we knew we would kind of have each other backs. And we all kind of talked about similar situations before.

And we all knew we were kind of, of the same mindset.

GLENN: Do we -- what do we know about the terrorist that was the guy that you took down?

VOICE: Actually, he was later found out to be connected to the Brussels airport bombing and the Bataclan Theater Attack. He was from the same village in Morocco as those guys. And one of the first to come out of that terrorist cell. And so, I mean, he's being held in French custody right now. And he's become a much larger investigation. And hopefully we'll be able to get some more information and be able to relay that soon.

STU: One of the things I remember of when this happened -- because obviously a terrorist attack starts. You start hearing about how bad it could have been. And there's such a moment of pride as an American, to hear that it was three Americans who stopped this.

GLENN: And can I tell you something, when I first heard it, thought it was, okay. Three Americans. And because two of you have background in the service, you just assumed, okay. They're probably Navy SEALs. And I know a lot of Navy SEALs. And they're just going to snap your neck if you get out of line.

VOICE: You're a wannabe Navy SEAL.

GLENN: Right. You guys are not that. I mean, no offense, but you're --

VOICE: Oh, thanks. I'm still infantry.

GLENN: Right. I mean, you're not me. But you're -- but you were -- you were not drilled over and over and over and over again to kill.

I mean, Spencer, you were drilled to heal.

VOICE: Yeah. I mean, but it was -- it was truly a life or death situation. I mean, we had no options. You're on a moving train going 200 miles an hour. This guy has an automatic weapon. I mean, Option A, you sit there, wait till he shoots you. Or you get up and try to do something. And, I mean, that was -- the fight was a fight for survival. It was either he was going to kill us, or we were going to kill him. But luckily, we were just able to subdue him and choke him unconscious.

VOICE: I think that's the best thing about the movie. Because like you said, of course, people remember the headline. And they're like, of course, two off-duty servicemen, of course they would.

But the movie does a good job at showing that we're three ordinary guys that none of us have ever seen anything traumatic like that before.

And I think that that's wild to speak to more of the masses of people, because they'll be able to identify with one of us or all three of us and see just how ordinary we are. And that we were really faced with an extraordinary situation.

GLENN: So, Anthony, if you were -- if -- you know, when they ask -- when Spencer said, hey, come to Europe. And you guys thought that there was a chance something like this would happen. Would you have thought that you were the three guys that would have stood up and done what you did?

VOICE: No.

That would have -- that would have definitely been hard to pay. I would have never thought nothing like that would have happened. But I guess hindsight being 20/20, I guess me being the civilian that I didn't have formal training.

I couldn't have picked two better guys to go on the trip with. So I couldn't have imagined being in that situation with any other two people. That's for sure.

VOICE: That's one thing our families kind of joke about, is that, oh, it would be -- it would be us that did something like that. Not just because of like our training or, you know, anything like that. But just because we're always getting in trouble together and always --

VOICE: And something always happens when we hang out.

GLENN: Yeah. You should stop hanging out.

STU: And stop getting on trains. Please, planes.

GLENN: The other interesting thing is, off of that is in the -- you know, in the movie, it shows that you are troublemakers.

I mean, none of you excelled in school. You were always in trouble. And been most likely -- not your moms. Your moms come off as wonderful mothers.

VOICE: They are.

GLENN: But, you know, besides your moms, doesn't seem like anyone with any authority in your childhood expected anything like this from you guys.

VOICE: That's for sure.

(laughter)

VOICE: There's one thing in life, we never being, like, told what to do. So, I mean, we were difficult kids to raise. But we all are super thankful for the parents that we had, feel like they really shaped us.

VOICE: That's a good theme to draw from the movie too. It's just that, you know, even our success, our failures, they were all part of the bigger plan.

And I think people would be able to identify like that. Like, if they feel like they're on the wrong path, that could be something pushing you in a direction that, for all, you know, could be working in your favor in the future. So it's all part of the bigger plan.

STU: What was it like when you were approached with the idea of actually acting?

GLENN: No. Go before that.

First, what was it like, when Clint Eastwood said, hey, I want to make your story?

VOICE: Well, honestly, we were just extremely excited. Because we've all been -- I mean, we were raised on Clint Eastwood movies. So it was kind of a no-brainer for us. And even when we were talking to him about, how they're going to do the movie. Sully had just come out. So I watched sully. And once I saw how good of a job he did on that, especially, it was just kind of like, let's just let the man work. And let's do it. We were just -- we were just so excited. Because, I mean, you couldn't have picked anybody better to do it.

STU: Definitely. Clint Eastwood, he's legendary first as an actor. And now as a director.

But he made this choice. And in case people don't know, the movie stars -- the three guys you're hearing, the real people who are in the incident are the actors portraying themselves in a movie.

GLENN: Clint Eastwood, you know, didn't get Sully. He got Tom Hanks. So when he said to you, hey, guys, why don't you do it? What were your thoughts?

VOICE: I mean, we were just totally blown away and shocked. We never considered it a possibility because that's not the normal thing. And we also just really didn't want to risk the success of our story. Because we knew it was going to be forever, so we wanted it to be good.

And so, I mean, it's just something that totally came out of nowhere.

But how are you going to tell Clint Eastwood no playing yourself in your own film? It's just something we couldn't turn down. We just jumped at it.

VOICE: Nobody wanted to get that death stare from Clint Eastwood.

GLENN: No, I know. I understand that.

Spencer, you were -- you were wounded, seemingly in the movie pretty badly. I mean, at least painfully

VOICE: Just a flesh wound.

GLENN: Just a flesh wound. And then you went on and stuck your hands in a wounded man's throat to save his life. How long did that actually happen?

VOICE: On the fight took place probably tops two minutes. And then from the point when the attack started until when we got to the next train station, it was about 25 to 30 minutes.

GLENN: Holy cow.

VOICE: And so -- I was over with Mark. I would say it was, yeah, a solid 20 minutes, I had my hand in his neck.

GLENN: And he is -- and he is okay?

VOICE: He is good. And actually, that is another thing about this film. Is, you know, it's not only us playing ourselves. But Mark plays himself. His wife plays herself. We have Chris Norman, the British man who tied up the terrorist playing himself.

One of the same train employees. We had a lot of the same police. Had the same exact medical team that brought us up to train two years ago.

GLENN: Wow.

VOICE: And oftentimes, people, you know, think that we were the only ones that really did anything. But, I mean, without all those people contributing and doing what they did that day, we would have never been in the position to do anything ourselves and be successful at it.

So it's really awesome that they're going to be able to finally get the credit they deserve in such a big way.

GLENN: He did a good job of taking the television footage at the end with the president of France awarding you the legion of honor. Because he was, you know, mixing new footage with real footage. And I couldn't help, but wonder, are your parents the ones in that crowd in the new footage?

VOICE: No. They are -- they were actors portrayed. They were actors.

GLENN: No, no, no. I know that those -- I know the actors. But I mean the other people in the crowd. Did they include your parents at all in this, your moms?

VOICE: No. They weren't able to. But also, on the day of the actual ceremony, there's no footage of the crowd. It was just us.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: And we have, you know, Judy Greer and Jen Fisher playing our moms throughout the movie. So it would probably throw off the audience at the end if they would have put our real parents in.

GLENN: What was it -- what was it like when, you know, this happened and then you're called to receive the -- you know, the legion of honor award and you're standing how many days, three days later, a week later?

VOICE: Three days after.

GLENN: Three days later.

VOICE: It happened on Friday. And we're receiving the medal on Monday.

So we're going from hostels and doing the cheap way all through Europe, to terrorist attack on Friday, until all of a sudden, in the Élysée with the French president on Monday. So it's -- it's a quick turnaround, that's for sure.

VOICE: Yeah. Staying in the ambassador's personal residence, like, we were sleeping in the same bed like Charles Lindbergh slept in when he crossed the Atlantic. And it was honestly just, like, the coolest experience.

VOICE: My room was called the Benjamin Franklin room, okay? That's where the president stays, when he comes to France.

We really got an upgrade.

GLENN: Wow. And more importantly, the French people were nice to you.

VOICE: We love the French people.

VOICE: Yeah, we love them.

I mean, I feel like that's a common misconception these days, actually. It's very cliche to say. But they're very nice people.

VOICE: But our experience is a little different.

VOICE: Yeah.

STU: You're saving their lives, of course, they're be nice to you.

GLENN: They're going to be nice to you. Trust me, they're not going to be nice to me.

VOICE: We'll be the ambassadors for you, don't worry.

GLENN: Yeah, my wife and I are taking our kids over to Europe this summer for the very first time.

And just last week, we planned a trip from Paris to Amsterdam and back, on that same train. I'm not sure I want to take it now.

VOICE: Same thing.

VOICE: It's a popular thing.

VOICE: Well, now you know what to do.

GLENN: Yes. And here's the role I'll play, go!

(laughter)

GLENN: God bless you guys, thank you so much. And it was -- it was -- it's really stirring -- your story is really stirring. And it was really a great moment, I think for all Americans to -- to watch the French say the truth about Americans. And sometimes, you know, the rest of the world doesn't -- doesn't see us like this. But I think that's -- we all at least want to be in that -- in situations like that. And you guys actually did it. So thank you so much, God bless.

VOICE: Thanks for having us. God bless you too, man.

(music)

GLENN: The new Clint Eastwood movie, 1517 to paris, opens up a week from today.

Democrat’s INSANE Claims About the Moon & Sun BREAK Glenn’s Brain
RADIO

Democrat’s INSANE Claims About the Moon & Sun BREAK Glenn’s Brain

We have a new contender for “most insane thing a politician has said.” While speaking to high school students, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee claimed that the moon gives off energy, is made of gas, and because of that, might not be possible to live on. She later insisted that she misspoke and was talking about the sun … BUT she also stated that it’s “ALMOST impossible to go near the sun” because it’s too hot. Glenn and Pat review these … interesting … claims, as well as Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s latest argument for reparations.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

PAT: You know, you've been pretty hard on our representatives in Congress today. I think unfairly so. Unfairly so.

GLENN: Unfairly so. Unfairly so. Okay.

PAT: Because they're doing some solid things too.

GLENN: Really? Are they?

PAT: Maybe not the ones who are on the take on the insider trading.

GLENN: Right. Which is about 75 percent of them.

PAT: But other 30 percent, they're on the job.

GLENN: The other 30 percent.

PAT: They're educating Americans. Sheila Jackson Lee was out speaking to high school kids, for instance. And she was talking about the moon. You know, because the moon was just in front of the sun and blocked it for a while. So I think she had some interesting facts on the moon.

GLENN: Oh. Really? On the eclipse. And the moon.

Really? Okay. Here she is.

VOICE: Provide unique light and energy, to say that you have the energy of the moon at night.

And sometimes you've heard the word "full moon. Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see, a full moon is that complete rounded circle, which is made up mostly of gases.

GLENN: What?

VOICE: That's why the question is why or how could we as humans live on the moon.

PAT: Right.

VOICE: And the gas is such, that we could do that.
(laughter)

VOICE: The sun is a mighty powerful heat. It's almost --

PAT: Almost. Almost impossible.

VOICE: -- impossible to go near the sun. The moon is more manageable.

PAT: Yeah.

VOICE: And you will see in a moment -- not a moment, you will see in a couple of years, that NASA is going back to the moon.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: With all that gas?

PAT: Yeah. Well, yeah, because it's manageable. And it's a gas such that, you can stand on it.

GLENN: You can stand on the gas.

PAT: Almost like the gas was a solid.

GLENN: But it's not.

PAT: It's not. It's gas.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not -- now, see, I'm learning a lot here.

It's not impossible to stand --

PAT: No. But almost, on the sun.

GLENN: On the sun. Yeah. Right? When you go there, you'll be uncomfortable, if you try to live there, on the sun.

GLENN: I've been to places where it's hot before.

PAT: Right. It will just be a little hotter than that.

GLENN: A little hotter than that.

PAT: Big deal. Big deal.

GLENN: An air conditioner. Okay.

So I didn't know -- because I thought it was impossible to stand on gas.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

PAT: Yeah. She's saying that this gas is such that it's possible, to live there, and to stand there. Yeah. Because we already have, obviously.

GLENN: And hang on just a second. What was that full moon, thing?

PAT: Yeah. It's like a full circle. When you see the entire circle. The round thing in -- orb, in the sky. That's the full --

GLENN: You're not supposed to look at that round orb in the sky.

PAT: No. That's okay to look at. Its energy is such that --

GLENN: Oh. The moon's energy.

PAT: The moon's energy. And the moon's light.

It's a pretty good light.

GLENN: It's more of a night light.

It's kind of nice.

PAT: Yes. I don't think she understands the moon doesn't have its own light. I don't think she knows that.

GLENN: I don't think she knows that either. I don't think she thinks.

PAT: It's awesome. Is that incredible? Wow!

GLENN: Gas.

PAT: Yeah. The moon. Gas.

GLENN: You know what, could you play that again?

Because notice, no one laughs.

PAT: Right. Because she is not joking.

GLENN: I'm not sure -- right. I know. But no one laughs. I'm not sure anyone in the audience knows she was wrong.

VOICE: Provide unique light and energy. So that you have the energy of the moon at night.

GLENN: No, you don't.

VOICE: And sometimes, you've heard the word "full moon."

PAT: You've heard that, yeah?

VOICE: Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see, a full moon is that complete rounded circle, which is made up of mostly gases.

PAT: Right. Right. No.

VOICE: That's why the question is why or how could we as humans live on the moon.

GLENN: We don't.

VOICE: The gas is such that we could do that.

GLENN: We don't.
(laughter)

VOICE: It's almost --

PAT: No. Almost.

VOICE: -- impossible, to go near the sun.

PAT: Impossible. Almost. But not --

VOICE: And you will see in a --

GLENN: I -- I --

VOICE: You will see in a couple of years, that NASA is going back to the moon.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: The gas. With the gas.

PAT: Yes. To stand on the gaseous moon, so it's going to be cool to see.

GLENN: Wow. Wow. So how much gas do we get from the moon?

I mean, it must cost Exxon a lot to get the gas to the pump. Or is there a way, do we have a hose running from the pump?

PAT: To get a gas from the moon to here?

It's a pipeline. It's a pipeline from the moon.
(laughter)
She has been representing her district in Houston, Texas, for over 30 years. It's -- wow. She should never talk about space, ever again. Or anything else, for that matter.

GLENN: But definitely not space.

PAT: She was at NASA, and asked them while she was doing a tour of NASA, about whether or not you could still see the American flag that was planted on Mars. That was the -- like late '90s or early 2000s.

GLENN: We didn't plant one.

PAT: No, we didn't.

GLENN: We've never been -- wait a minute. That's new. I knew we didn't bring a flag.

PAT: Didn't bring a flag. God forbid. We forgot the flag, and then we forgot to put the human on Mars. So, yeah. There was no human on Mars.

GLENN: Right. We forgot to put the human on board too. Who was responsible for that?

PAT: In years.

GLENN: We landed a ship down there. And nobody was on board.

PAT: Pathetic.

GLENN: Did it slip into the gas?

PAT: No. Not on Mars. What are you, stupid?

PAT: Not on Mars. It's the moon that's gas.

GLENN: Right. Mars is cheese.
(laughter)
How do you get that butt stupid?

PAT: I don't know. I really don't know.

GLENN: Seriously. How could you -- because if you were sitting in a meeting. Now, imagine this.

Okay?

You've been to meetings where you're like, this person is a moron. But you're doing work. There's something that you have to -- I just -- you just have to plow through it. You have to get through it. You're selling this person, something. Whatever it is, you're doing for a living.

And you're sitting in that meeting. And they say something stipend. And you just have to go.

PAT: Hmm, yeah. Huh.

GLENN: Huh. And you just move on, right?

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: I don't think I would have the human restraint.

PAT: No. No way.

GLENN: To sit in a room, and have her say, and, you know, that's the full circle. And it's mainly gas. I don't -- I don't think I could do it. I think this is a really -- don't do this, kids. Because Jesus would not have done this. But I'm telling you, I probably would have. I probably would have played with her like a mouse and a cat. I probably have been like, wow. Really? Gas? What kind of gas is that? I think I would have --

PAT: That is such that you can land on it, and live there? I would like to know. Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. And so this gas, does it have any air in it? Or is it just oxygen?

PAT: Or is it like a -- like a really hard gas, like a rock gas? Sort of thing. Is it that?

GLENN: Well, I know we brought some dust back. So we know it's a dusty gas. Oh, I couldn't do it.

PAT: Wow. That is --

GLENN: Speaking of representatives in Houston. Let me give you this. This is from the black lawyer's podcast. Which I listened to all the time.

This is Texas Democrat representative jasmine Crockett.

PAT: She is really good too.

GLENN: Is she?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: She is suggesting now that black Americans shouldn't necessarily have to pay any taxes. Here she is.

VOICE: Just this past week, I don't remember, which celebrity. But it was actually a celebrity.

And I said, I don't know that it's necessarily a bad idea. I would have to think through it a lot. One of the things that they propose is black folk not have to pay taxes for a certain amount of time, because then again, that puts money back into your pocket.

But at the same time, it may not be as objectionable to some people about actually giving out dollars. But obviously, you start dealing with the tax brackets, and things like that. And that's one of the reasons that we argue, that reparations made sense.

PAT: Uh-huh. That's powerful. Isn't that a powerful point?

GLENN: I so want to ask her about the moon.

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

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

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