Why won’t the media talk about Saudi national?

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing the media flushed its credibility down the toilet when it valued breaking information first over reporting the facts. Remember CNN’s John King proclaiming a ‘dark skinned’ man had been arrested? Or the misinformation about the number of people killed and injured?

The federal government, meanwhile, took political correctness to a whole new level – initially refraining from calling the attack ‘terrorism’ and refusing to acknowledge the Tsarnaev brothers’ Muslim ties.

The incompetence has spilled over into week two of the investigation. Since TheBlaze broke the story of the Saudi national, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was initially considered a ‘person of interest’ in the Marathon bombing investigation before later being downgraded to merely a ‘witness,’ the media has been silent, while the government has been in denial.

As TheBlaze reported, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano finally admitted (kind of) the Saudi was in fact placed on a watch list, but her statement was inconsistent at best:

NAPOLITANO: He was not on a watch list. What happened is — this student was, really when you back it out, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was never a subject. He was never even really a person of interest. Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list, and then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.

“We have like 10 sources on this,” Glenn said on radio this morning of TheBlaze’s investigation.

“It is amazing,” Pat added. “All of the media sources who just blindly believe what Janet Napolitano has said, when what Janet Napolitano has said has changed almost every day.”

“Journalists, you shouldn’t trust the Bush Administration, and you shouldn’t trust this guy’s administration. You shouldn’t trust them,” Glenn said. “That doesn’t mean you don’t go after them all the time. It means that you approach everything with a healthy does of skepticism.”

The art of investigative reporting has clearly been lost, if mainstream news outlets are now willing to take the government at its word on cases as sensitive as this.

“They just keep saying, ‘Well, I called the government and they said they just totally screwed up and put a random Saudi on the watch list. Oops,’” Stu joked.

And if the government really is just putting random Saudi Arabians on terror watch lists because they are Saudi Arabian and, therefore, a threat, the government is admitting racism!

“We’re supposed to be like, ‘Oh, they’re just racist. Put all the Saudis on the watch list. It’s all right. There’s nothing there. They just put random Saudis on the terror list whenever they interview them,’” Stu said.

“We pointed that out before. Nobody on the right is even taking this approach. Humiliate them for their racism. They don’t want to be called racist, so go for it,” Glenn explained. “If that’s their answer, if you believe what they are saying, then that’s racist.”

Glenn went on to explain that he knows many respected journalists at the major networks who put together reports on this story, only to be told that their stories would not be published or brought to air.

“What kills me is that they are now trying to make this into a conspiracy theory,” Glenn said. “People are like, ‘He has no facts.’ No, I have the documentation. I have the sources. We have as much as Woodward and Bernstein had. We have the sources.”

“Its pretty amazing how much they’ll dismiss,” Pat responded.

“In the end you’ll destroy yourselves. I just hope you don’t destroy our country at the same time,” Glenn said of the media. “We are in it for America. Now is there a single person out there that is also in it for America? ‘Well, we called the DHS already. The Department of Homeland Security said there is nothing to worry about.’ Oh, okay, whoo. You guys should get a nap in. That sounds like a tough day of investigative reporting.”

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?