Anonymous Declares War

Update: Glenn also discussed the story on GBTV, you can watch the segment below:

Original Story below:

If Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization came out and openly called for war against the United States of America, do you think the media would pay attention?

That’s the question Glenn asked this morning after listening to the latest video released by Anonymous, the international group who allegedly hacked the CIA, Syrian government email accounts, Consumer.gov, and a U.S. security company whose tear gas had been used against the Egyptian demonstrators, just to name a few.

“We're not talking about a group that doesn't have any power,” Glenn said. “We're talking about a group that does have power, and has demonstrated it.”

Here’s the latest message from Anonymous:

Here is the transcript of the Anonymous message:

We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to occupy a city or protest in front of a local building. This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting was useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives. To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it.

Our time for democracy is here.

Our time for real change is here.

This is America's time, to have its own revolution.

Therefore, Anonymous has decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. Our allegiance is to the American people, because they are us, and we are them.

Operation V, engaged.

We are Anonymous.

We are Americans.

We never Forgive.

We never Forget.

To the United States government, it's too late to expect us.

 

This was released on February 26th, two days ago, yet no one in the media or our government is talking about this—not to the American people, anyway.

“Don’t dismiss these people,” Glenn warned. “Remember, these people have attacked the websites of the CIA. I believe they’ve attacked the NSA. They have attacked Stratfor, and dumped all of the documents.” Glenn continued, “I don’t know who they are, but they are not fools. They are well financed. They are well thought out. And, they are very capable.”

Glenn, who obviously runs an internet business and is very brave in the topics he covers on GBTV, does not dismiss Anonymous. Glenn does not think that everyone in Anonymous has the same intentions. Much like we saw in many of the uprisings in the Arab Spring, he believes there is a split in this organization.

“I believe there are probably those people that are inside Anonymous that are good and decent …and right,” Glenn says, giving the example of the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the legislation that labeled America a battlefield where the government would have the ability to scoop American citizens up and hold them without trial. “These things are wrong,” Glenn said. Adding, “These things are a grave danger to the freedom of mankind and to this country; grave, grave danger. And this technology—we’re not dealing with the revolution of 1776, we’re not even dealing with 1938—the technology that this government has …they can scoop groups of people up in a heartbeat. There is no hiding from this government.”

So, like Glenn said, there are things that Anonymous says that we can agree with, and we should build off of those things, but destruction of the government is not the answer. We are a country of laws, not of men—there has to be some government.

While Glenn may agree with Anonymous on many topics, but method is where there is a clear divide. Glenn compared it to the difference between Thomas Paine and George Washington.

“Both Patriots—one was right, one was wrong—but both Patriots,” Glenn said.

Just like there are probably people inside Anonymous that are good, there are likely those on the far left. “I also believe there are people inside Anonymous that are gravely misguided and are on the wrong side of not just the tactic, but also wish to destroy, because they are on the far left,” Glenn said. Adding, “I would not be surprised if some of this financing and some of this power unbeknownst to many of the people in Anonymous is coming from the left, and coming from George Soros.”

Pat brought up that this is similar to what happened in the 1960’s, when the far left approached John Lenon and The Beatles wanting to know where they stood. Their response was the song, “Revolution:”

“If you're talking about Chairman Mao you're not going to make it with anyone anyhow. If you're talking about overthrowing the constitution, we need to change your head.”

“This is the same kind of thing. There are certain things that need to be change. There are definitely problems with the Obama Administration,” Pat said.

Glenn agreed, saying, “The last twelve years it has been almost useless voting. You look, and you’re seeing the same things from both sides, just a different speed, but you’re seeing the same thing. So they’re right on that one.”

The problems are clear if you are not for a massive government. The challenges really lie within the solutions to the problems. Destruction is easy. There is no challenge in tearing something down. These systems are going to collapse on their own weight. The banks, the big government systems, the debt and the corruption will destroy them without anyone pushing them over the edge. One of the problems with collapse and destruction without solutions is that you won’t know what you are collapsing into. There has to be a foundation to build off of, and a force for good. Otherwise, who do you root for?

Glenn compared this to the time he spent on the streets of Greece a couple of weekends ago. “One of the things I learned about on the ground in Greece is that they can no longer tell the difference. They don't know who to root for. There's no good standing up. There is no good. They don't know. There are the people that are using the fire bombs out on the streets, and then there are the people that are in the banks. And I asked one of the guys, ‘so which is worse?’ The answer was ‘I don't know. They're both criminals.’ But, in their heart they stand with the people on the street even though they disagree with their tactics they stand with the people on the street, because they say that the government is corrupt, and the banks are corrupt. You don't change it this way. You’ve got to go in and change it.” Glenn explained.

Glenn went on the explain that we all share the fears that anonymous has, and some of the fears the Occupy Wall Street people have, and that Libertarians have. “But, please read history. Please look at what’s happening over in the Middle East,” Glenn said.

Anonymous is going after many of the people that are going to collapse under their own corruption, but where are the attacks on the people who are getting rich off of the collapse, and helping to cause the collapse? “Where are the attacks on people like Soros? Where is the information on the people who are setting up what you will collapse, what hands it will fall into? Are you part of that?” Glenn asked.

That is the big question. Is Anonymous part of that? Have they looked down the road far enough to see whose hands they are going to fall into? Instead of destroying what is already in the process of self-destruction, wouldn’t it be better to strengthen the American people? Glenn pointed out that it is important to point out the corruption, but then what?

Anonymous has been a voice of anger and revenge, ending their videos with “We will not forgive. We will not forget,” but like Glenn said, “you say you are against bloodshed.”

“We must forgive. We must never forget,” Glenn explains. “We must—we’re commanded to forgive. We’re not commanded to forget.”

Glenn made a call out to the media to step up and realize what they are helping to build in their silence. “I beg the people in the media to wake up. I beg the people in the media to give your children and your grandchildren a reason to be proud of you. The times are growing darker and the time is growing short. I am begging the people in the media to wake up and see what you're against. To see what you are helping build in the government through your silence,” Glenn said.

“I believe this government only needs one more election. They only need the press one more time. Look at how they are beating you across the head now. Do you think that's going to get better?” Glenn asked.

Unless Americans take a stand with peace and love in their hearts we won’t be able to win the battle for man’s freedom. But, that’s the key.

“Pray for peace,” Glenn said. “Fill your heart with love, and do not be indifferent on things. Ask yourself ‘does it matter?’ The answer should always be 'yes.' When to stand? Now, now is the time to stand.”

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?