Riots and violence break out across Middle East, White House blames 14 minute YouTube video

As you probably know by now, there have been multiple attacks on U.S. embassies, along with an increase in anti-American protests and anti-American violence throughout the Middle East. Despite the overwhelming evidence that points otherwise, such as these attacks beginning on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the White House is pushing the narrative that this is all about one movie. Here is what they had to say:

"We need to understand this is a fairly volatile situation and it's not in response to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video. A film. We have judged to be reprehensible that in no way that has any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive."

This morning on radio, Glenn, who predicted riots spreading across the Middle East over a year ago, made note of the ridiculousness of this concept coming from this administration. The idea that a "film" would spark riots and violence, which included the killing of a U.S. Ambassador, as opposed to our policies or the announcement of budget cuts coming that include embassy protection.

Pat pointed out that the "film" is actually a 14 minutes YouTube video.

Stu, who did actually watched the film, described it as hilarious - not because it's making fun of Islam, but because of how terrible it is.

"The script said George for the character that is Mohammed and so the actors went through and did this part as if it was George.  And then the guy went in afterwards and just put it Mohammed," Stu explained before imitating how horrible the film is.  

"It's as if a child put this together," he added.

Regardless of how good, bad, or stupid the video actually is, it's still not as excuse for riots, violence, murders, or any of the chaos the White House is blaming on it. Even if that is what the extremists were blaming their acts for, the White House of all entities shouldn't dumb down the fundament reason for attacks like this: extreme intolerance and hatred for the West.

"If your religion or your god is afraid of this movie, he's just not god enough for me," Glenn said. "He is just not god enough for me."

It's not a video that is the problem, but even if it were, it's the reaction to the video that is the problem.

Beyond that, Glenn also pointed out that these attacks started on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, yet the administration is blaming a video. He noted that the White House is using the ridiculous 14 minutes on YouTube to serve as a giant distraction from a handful of unprecedented events that took place over the last few days.

"Because of that video hitting last week we didn't get a chance to celebrate and remember the good things and bad things of September 11th.  Because of that video we're not asking, "hey did the government sell arms or give arms to the rebels in Libya? What happened to those arms?"  Because of this darn video, I was at the gas station this weekend, and it cost me over $100 to fill the tank. And all I can think of is, not for first time in history gas is over $4 a gallon nationwide, but about that damn video," Glenn said sarcastically.

Beyond that, it was announced on Friday that the Fed has decided to move forward with more quantitative easing. But not just the old fashion quantitating easing that was cause bad inflation, this time its unlimited - nonstop money printing which is the "Weimar moment."

"Luckily I turned it over to Fox, and they were talking about that damn video, and asking "is it responsible? Is it not responsible?" Glenn added.

But there's more. America was also downgraded again as a nation last week, but no one is talking about that, thanks to the laser focus on this video. Bank of America came out and said that gold could be $3300/ounce and oil will be $199 barrel by 2013.

This administration is using a video as an excuse, a scapegoat, and a shield against their own bad policies.

"Tens of people saw the video. Tens of people saw the video," Glenn noted. "Thank goodness the government has gone in after the maker of this horrible YouTube video."

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?