Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
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

Senator Ben Sasse explains what happened with the Iran compromise

April 16, 2015
Wilson

Writer

The Senate saw a rare compromise this week when Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a bill to give Congress 52 days to weigh in and review the bill. Glenn couldn't tell if this meant the Senate simply surrendered their power, or if it is a step in the right direction. Senator Ben Sasse joined the radio program Thursday to discuss the compromise and what continued negotiations with Iran could mean for the United States.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment

GLENN: So we have Ben Sasse on with us. We wanted to get somebody on that we really trusted and we wanted to talk a little about this -- this rare comprise on Iran. And Iran is changing all of the -- changing all of the parameters of this deal that we supposedly had. And the -- the Senate made a rare comprise. And we wanted to see if this works in our favor or not. As I read last night, it seems like the Senate once again surrendered their power. And Stu said the exact opposite. So we thought we would get Ben Sasse's read. Hello, Ben, how are you?

BEN: Glenn, good to be with you. Can I pretend I'm a politician and split the difference?

GLENN: No.

PAT: First of all, Ben, we should ask because you've been there two months now. Have you turned yet? Like "The Walking Dead". Have you turned? Are you a Senate walker now?

BEN: No. I'm still not a politician.

GLENN: Good. Glad to hear it.

BEN: Yeah. Thanks for having me on.

PAT: So you would say this is in the middle then, or do you like it?

BEN: Let's talk about it like this. The macro on having a nuclear Iran is a horrible idea. And for 36 years, both Republicans and Democrats in this country all agreed to that. And the Obama administration has pivoted from the historic goal of preventing a nuclear Iran to trying to manage the arrival of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. So it's dreadful what's happening at the big picture level.

This specific bill that was passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously, is a small, small deal. But it's a small step in the right direction. But it's not big enough to change the course of how big the problems are. But this Senate comprise is more good than bad, but it's small.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Because it just gives us a chance to essentially veto this deal.

GLENN: Okay. But I thought the Senate has that right. You have the right.

BEN: No. Well, if it were being submitted by the Obama administration as if we had three separate, but equal branches of government that check and balance one another in a constitutional system -- they've got a pen, and they've got a phone, and executive unilateralism means to the Obama administration that they can just make up anything that they want. So they're trying to strike this deal with Iran, going completely around the Congress and going straight to the UN.

And so a treaty would have to be submitted to us. They've never framed this as a treaty, even though it's far more important than many things that go by treaty. For example, the last 23 civilian nuclear power agreements around the world -- I think the number is 23 -- have been submitted to the Senate for approval, under treaty-like structures.

In this case, they were just going to ignore the Congress. So Corker has been trying to do -- Bob Corker, the senator from Tennessee is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee -- he's been trying to get a piece of legislation passed called the Congressional Review Act, which at least gives us the ability to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with what the Obama administration is trying to cook as a truly bad deal.

But here's why it is still a step in the right direction, though it's tiny. It will at least allow us to get access to knowledge for the American people of what's in the deal. The Obama administration has been trying to cut a deal with Tehran, where they and Tehran have rival talking points out in the world. And the people of the United States don't even know what's in it. The people of America have a right to know what's in this deal. It's going to be bad. But we need to know what's in there. The way you get some transparency into it is by the Congress knowing.

GLENN: So here's how I read this, Ben, why are we negotiating with the president in the first place? Why aren't you guys just going and saying, you can't do this? You can't do this without us?

BEN: Well, because the administration largely owns the media and they go out and tell a story that the United States has struck a deal. They want to use this as the occasion to wave all sanctions. How is that possible? That's possible because there was a flaw in some legislation that was passed many years ago in the way that the sanctions are being imposed on Iran.

Let's be clear about who Iran is. They're the world's largest state sponsor of terror. They're funding Shia militias among at least five of their neighbors, trying to destabilize regimes. They're horrible actors. But there is one thing worse than Iran right now. And that is the short-term threat of Sunni jihadist terrorists that are building non-state organizations like ISIS or ISIL. So it's essentially al-Qaeda rebranded.

So in the middle of the frenzy of ISIL capturing most of eastern Syria and lots of northwestern Iraq, many people in the Middle East are looking for some form of stability. When the Shia militias come in, they're sometimes a less bad option than the non-state actors. The Iranians are under huge sanctions. That's a good thing. They have about $130 billion of offshore revenues right now, and almost 90 percent of those funds are frozen. But the Russians, in particular, would like to end those sanction regimes because their economy is failing. And they would like to sell armaments to Iran. So in the midst of this, instead of leading, the Obama administration -- instead of leading and ratcheting up of sanctions, the Obama administration is trying to lead the capitulation to Tehranian HEP demands.

STU: And this is more to than just being able to review this deal, Ben. This is also -- if I'm understanding it correctly. You give them a month to look at the deal and review it. They also have a chance to block Obama from removing the sanctions, which is fundamental to the deal, and Iran won't agree to it without that. So in effect, you have with this bill veto on the Iranian deal, don't you?

BEN: So a couple of things. Glenn's point. You and I have been on the same side of this. Now I hate to go against you because you're my partner in this. So we don't want Glenn to ever be right.

STU: Of course.

BEN: Here's what's being turned on its head. Under the constitutional arrangement, the president is supposed to negotiate the best deal you can for treaties. Then you submit it to the Senate. It it needs a two-thirds vote. Under this new world, you would essentially have a resolution of approval or disapproval. And given the Senate rules, it would take about 60 votes to say, no, we think this is terrible.

But well before we get to that point, because we can get lost here in process in a hurry, we would at least be able to, as representatives of the people, be able to get access to knowledge of what's in this deal.

The Obama administration has been claiming this is verifiable. As if the IAEA has typically been right in the past, when they've tried to dig in and find out things like the drift to a nuclear North Korea. We had a 36-year consensus in this country that we should never have a nuclear Iran. And the president continually posits this false choice between, we have to accept whatever the worst deal is that the Iranians will let us have, or we have to go to a immediate war. That's nonsense. When you talk to Nebraskans, they know it's nonsense. And your listeners know it's nonsense. There's a third choice, which you negotiate from a position of strength, where the Iranians know we mean business and we don't intend to allow a nuclear Iran. And our allies in the region don't want a nuclear Iran. And lo and behold, we'd be having a totally different discussion than the way we negotiate from this posture of weakness.

PAT: Isn't it possible, though, Ben that this whole process is moot anyway because the Iranians are changing the deal radically. Kerry was asked, what happened if they change the deal after you announced that the framework has been agreed upon, and he just said, well, that's not going to happen. And it already has. It's already happened. And so, in fact, they've cut the time in half from ten years to five.

STU: They want 4,000 extra centrifuges.

BEN: Right.

PAT: So the deal should be off anyway. Shouldn't it?

BEN: It should. So let's just name two or three of those variables you named. There are about six or seven things that are going wrong in the Kerry/Obama negotiation with the Iranians. But let's take your centrifuges point. The right number of centrifuges for Iran to have is zero. There should be no uranium enrichment in the world's largest state sponsor of terror. Your listeners should be asking themselves, these people have been funding Shia militias across the Middle East and North Africa that have intentionally tried to target US troops. Why would we believe that when they have access to nuclear material that they wouldn't ultimately also share it with terror organizations? So the right number of centrifuges is zero. We know they have around 19,000. The Obama administration said at the beginning that they were going to negotiate to get them down to about 1,000. They've now pivoted to something more like 6,000. The right number should be zero.

You can make the same argument about the way any time anyplace inspections should work. The Iranians want to set up a regime of cat and mouse, like what was the case with Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the Kerry response to this is, well, we would have a snapback, that if they ever didn't keep their commitments under this agreement, all of the sanctions will snap back into place.

Well, a couple of problems with that. First is, they have $130 billion offshore right now. And if they get sanctions relief, they'll get access to most of that $130 billion. They've been spending a lot of their money to fund terrorist operations, beyond their borders. What do you think they'll spend the new $130 billion on? And number two, if these sanction regimes were ever going to snap back into place, you'd need groups like the Russians and the French and the Chinese to all cooperate with that. And it would be a bureaucratic, litigated process. You would know we're in a bad place in a negotiation right now when the French are trying to hold out for harder requirements in the US.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: Senator, we appreciate your time. We know you're on a busy schedule. I would like to ask you to look into this Judicial Watch report about ISIS being on our border. There's conflicting reports on it. I happen to believe the Judicial Watch people that we have some serious issues going on our border with ISIS on both sides of our border. If you could, when you find out details, report back to us. We'd like to know if it's real or not.

BEN: Thanks, I spend a lot time in a classified setting. We're trying to learn about some of these issues. I would love to report back to you. So thanks for having me on.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Ben Sasse from Nebraska. Back in just a second.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.