New intel on the San Bernardino killers

Filling in on The Glenn Beck Program today, Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe outlined new details that have emerged about the San Bernardino terrorists, including their ties to a local mosque and the real plan they were hoping to execute in California.

The FBI has questioned Roshan Zamir Abbassi, the cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Farook worshipped, and his claims that he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. However, the evidence casts doubt on this story.

Phone records show a flurry of communication with Farook, including at least 38 text messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

"Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks?" questioned Skip. "I mean, if that's the case . . . I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than four messages tops."

Doc was more generous, thinking six messages would do the trick.

"You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right?" Doc posed. "Okay, just to confirm one more time how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool, too? Okay. That's like six messages."

More troubling, though, was a plan revealed by Farook's former neighbor who has since been arrested for purchasing weapons used in the deadly San Bernardino attack.

"Their plan---at least one of their plans---was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway . . . that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway," Doc explained. "Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway."

The plan also included Farook walking among the cars and shooting people. The neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway as a sniper to take out law enforcement, security or emergency crews.

This type of plan is shocking and very different from a 9/11 style attack. It's personal and up close, and should be a wake up call for every American.

Listen to the exchange below beginning around 48:28:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: By the way, new information on the San Bernardino terrorists. Apparently, the spokesman/cleric for the San Bernardino mosque where Farook, the husband would worship, do you remember when he was supposedly married there and there was some question about that. And he worshiped there. And right after this happened, the mosque was like, "Whoa whoa, we don't know if he was married here." And then they distanced themselves. "We don't know. He could have come here. But we're not part of that." And I get that.

Hey, if you're Muslim in America and you're not causing any problems, you're an American, you just want to live your life and be left alone, yeah, this stuff is pretty annoying when everybody wants to prented or cast you in the light that you're a terrorist as well. So I understand if a mosque is going, hey, that's not us. We don't want any trouble.

I get that. The problem is, the feds have uncovered some things that seem like the mosque knew him pretty well. It seems like -- you know what, I'm going to let you be the judge. I'm going to present you some information and you tell me if, you know, maybe you think they kind of knew each other.

SKIP: All right.

DOC: Because the spokesman said he barely knew Farook. In fact, when he was talking to reporters, he didn't know them better than a lot of the reporters in the room.

So the feds say that the mosque is just 5 miles from the attack site. So it's pretty close and he used to go there.

SKIP: That in itself is probably not too much.

DOC: They have a record of them being married there.

SKIP: Okay.

DOC: That's a little bit more.

SKIP: But I'm sure there's a lot of weddings there.

DOC: You don't necessarily know everybody. Farook was supposedly there all the time. He had been going to pray there at least three to four times a week for two years.

SKIP: Okay. Now you're starting to get a little more familiarity with him.

DOC: Hey, that's that guy that's always here praying. But there's probably a lot of other people praying. Still though, you're adding this up, it's looking kind of rough for them. But still --

SKIP: No like smoking gun yet though.

DOC: This cleric exchanged at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June.

SKIP: Okay. See, that right there, that piece right there, that's going to be damning.

DOC: Skip, it's only 38 messages in two weeks.

SKIP: No, see, any person I've exchanged 30-some-odd messages with over --

DOC: That's not even 20 messages a week. I mean, what is that? Three messages a day if you average it out.

SKIP: Yeah, that's going to be at least a little more familiarity.

DOC: You're telling me that with anybody you've exchanged 38 messages over a two-week span -- text messages with, you know them pretty well?

SKIP: A little more familiarity, I'm going to go ahead and say. I know them pretty well.

DOC: By the way, during this span, this was during the same time period that the attack happened in Chattanooga. The terrorist attack. What's the matter?

SKIP: Those types of attacks. You'll probably be uber aware of correspondence and people you're corresponding with. Particularly in a mosque situation. Because they deal with these types of fears of profiling or being associated with -- yeah, you'll probably have a little extra guard.

DOC: You're thinking that looks bad for him. So during a two-week period in June that was during the time of the attack, the terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was a Muslim extremist, this spokesperson from the mosque exchanged at least 38 text messages with Farook.

SKIP: Now, what were the texts? OMG. LOL. You see this? WTF. Or what?

DOC: They have not released. I don't know if the feds have the information yet. Theoretically, they would be able to see what the texts were. I have not seen them yet.

SKIP: Of course they would.

DOC: But the cleric claims they were merely discussing food donations for the mosque.

SKIP: Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks? I mean, if that's the case you truly are just trying to get information on, hey, where can I drop off the canned goods? I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than --

DOC: Tuesday at 4:00 here at the mosque. Right?

SKIP: I'll give you four messages tops on that.

DOC: You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right, that's what you said? Okay. Just to confirm one more time -- how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool too? Okay. That's like six messages.

SKIP: Hey, listen, I know you said canned goods, but can I bring some of those pouched goods? Pouched tuna. I know they're not canned though. Is that okay?

DOC: Something like that. Okay. That's like eight messages. What about the other 30?

Now, here's the thing, they're not claiming these messages were part of the terrorist attack at this moment. In other words, they're not pointing the finger at the cleric going, a-ha! You were in on the terrorist attack. They aren't doing that yet.

SKIP: I think they're just trying to prove that they did in fact have more of a relationship than he's trying to --

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So 38 messages, even if it's about food donations, you had a relationship with this person. I mean, if you were the cleric and this guy is like -- I'm getting another message from him about the food donations. This is like 14. Hey, Farook is texting me again, Skip. Just look at this. I would be going to Skip. Look at this. How many times do I have to tell him it's canned goods? This is the eighteenth message. Look at this. I would be bitching to you. Right?

SKIP: Yeah. But then again, you would remember that and hold that as well. I mean, yeah, we exchanged blah, blah. You wouldn't have to come out and say, yeah, we were best friends.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: I would be like, yeah, I knew the guy. He was a nut.

DOC: He wouldn't leave me the hell alone. I told him about the canned goods.

SKIP: If anything, that could work in your favor. Yeah, I know him. He was a jackass.

DOC: There's a little more information. This cleric said he didn't know Farook's wife at all. He said he barely knew Farook. Didn't know his wife at all.

There's a long-time member of the mosque.

SKIP: I'm sorry, what's that name again?

DOC: (foreign language). I don't know if that's a man or a woman. Claimed that they prayed shoulder to shoulder with Farook and his wife. And went to the couple's wedding last year at the mosque.

So that would indicate that this cleric knew Farook's wife. Didn't know her at all.

SKIP: At least some familiarity.

DOC: Right? So then you have to ask yourself: Why are you denying this?

I understand that you know people -- I understand being a little paranoid if you think everyone is looking at you even if you're not a terrorist and you happen to be Muslim. I understand that you're -- okay. They all think I'm a terrorist here. So I don't want to do anything. So let me just say I didn't know the guy.

But aren't you smart enough to realize that looks even worse for you instead of being honest and saying, listen. It's one thing to downplay it. But if you exchanged messages like that, there's no downplaying it. People are going to know.

SKIP: No, it just makes you look guilty.

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So let's say the cleric in this mosque had some sort of a relationship with Farook, but not much of one. He could have said, yeah, he worshiped here. I knew him a little bit. They had their wedding here. You know, we had exchanged messages. He tried to come up with some food donations. Whatever. I didn't know him well. I mean, there are many people that come to this mosque that I have a similar relationship with. You know, we didn't see each other outside of the mosque or anything like that. Then I would go, okay. That makes sense. But when you start going, nope. I didn't know his wife at all.

SKIP: Who? Farook.

DOC: Oh, the guy with the canned goods. Right? I mean, at some point it just makes you look guilty.

SKIP: It makes you look guilty, yeah.

DOC: That's not going to be good for him there. You have to wonder, was anybody else a part of this? You know just before we were off for break, so prior to last week, the neighbor -- they finally arrested the neighbor, the one who bought the two long guns and then gave them to Farook, who was planning a terrorist attack with him in 2011 and '12.

SKIP: I would have a hard time believing that. I mean, because of that, because of this neighbor, they were planning HEP an attack on a highway. I mean, that clearly proves to me, I think, that Farook spoke about this stuff with some regularity. So I would have to think, I would be surprised to find out that nobody else in that mosque, that not a single other person knew that they had something planned.

DOC: Interesting thing about this friend, the former neighbor who has been arrested now. He claimed that they had this terrorist plan. The plan they were working on is shocking. And this is the thing that should really frighten all Americans. I'm not somebody that is given into hysterics. I think we have to live our lives or the terrorists win. But it should be shocking when you hear what they were planning.

Their plan, at least one of their plans, was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway. Now, I don't know if it was a particular stretch that they had already planned out for. But they were looking for at least a stretch of highway that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway. Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway. And, again, you wouldn't be able to get off once traffic started backing up.

At that point, Farook was going to walk among the cars and start shooting people in their cars or if they fled. The crazy neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway and began -- begin sniping law enforcement or security or safety or emergency crews as they tried to help people.

This was their plan. Now, why that should be shocking, of course, that's a terrorist attack, so it should be shocking in itself. But when you look and realize that these are the new terrorists many America. Many people, I think including even the president and maybe even George W. Bush before he left office, and many people that are advising them, still believe that terrorism in America is going to come in the form of a plane flying into a building or something similar.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the only fear you had of somebody taking an aircraft or blowing up or terrorism on an aircraft was it being hijacked because nobody would kill themselves. Or planting a bomb on a plane, but they wouldn't get on because no one would kill themselves. That was our thinking.

They would check and as long as everybody got on that planted luggage on the plane, you were good. And then we were like, oh, okay. Now I see that people will actually kill themselves too. Got it. Okay. We were behind.

SKIP: Totally changed the game.

DOC: Changed the game. Well, now we've got a new plan here. Look at the multiple terrorist attacks in France. Look at the Boston bombing. Look at San Bernardino. What do these attacks have in common? They plan a terrorist attack, using explosives, guns, whatever they can find, they don't stick around to be shot or killed. Even if they're willing to die for their cause and will likely die for their cause. They want to cause as much havoc and terror as possible. As much death and destruction. So what do they do? They flee causing more death and destruction. This is the new plan, and we have to wise up. They're willing to die for their cause, but it looks more like this than planes into buildings.

Featured Image: Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamia of America mosque in Muscoy, a suburb of San Bernardino.

TOP THREE craziest leftist reactions to Trump's McDonald's visit

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Trump visited a McDonald's in Bucks County, Pennsylvania to serve up some french fries to hungry supporters.

MAGA fans from across the country came to celebrate and support Trump, quickly swamping the small town with a tide of Trump merch. With a roaring crowd outside, Trump cooked up some crispy fries and served them to a small selection of supporters through the drive-thru window, creating a light-hearted, fun momenta pleasant break from the turbulent election cycle.

Naturally, the Left quickly swooped in to rain on Trump's parade. From unsubstantiated fact-checks to overused insults, here are the craziest reactions to Trump's McDonald's trip:

Fact check on Donald Trump's claims about Kamala Harris

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

While working his brief 15-minute shift, Donald Trump quipped that he's now worked at McDonald's longer than Kamala Harris, referencing the Vice President's unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's one summer during college. McDonald's further substantiated Trump's claim by indicating that there are no existing records of Harris's employment, though they admit that records from the pre-digital age may not have survived to the present day.

Despite the lack of evidence, left-wing media outlets, such as the Washington Post, were quick to defend the Vice President. Their argument essentially put Trump's word against Harris's, suggesting that Trump was deliberately lying to defame the Vice President, while simultaneously treating Harris as a more credible source.

Pointing out the obvious fact that this was a political stunt

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

In what is likely the least informative journalistic piece of the century, MSNBC made the "shocking discovery" that Donald Trump didn't actually work at McDonald's and that the entire event was for his campaign. It's unclear what detail gave this away to the "ever-vigilant" reporters at MSNBC. Maybe it was the fact that McDonald's was closed for the event, or the lack of employees within the restaurant, or possibly it was the crowd of cheering fans outside. Thank you captain obvious, the event was a carefully coordinated and secure political event. The former President who has had several assassination attempts on his life did notwork in an unsecured restaurant, dealing with countless unknown people.

Truly "top-notch" reporting by MSNBC.

Calling Trump supporters "weird"... Again.

LOGAN CYRUS / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with something to paint Trump's fast food fiesta in a negative light. Instead of attacking Trump, they went after his supporters who lined the street to cheer on their favorite presidential nominee. They went so far as to describe the event as a violent riot full of unhinged and uneducated fanatics. The New York Times even quoted a pro-Harris protester who showed up to the event and suggested that "Jan. 6 was maybe a trial run ... and now they’re a lot more organized — and a lot angrier.” The insults didn't stop there. They dredged up the archaic and cringeworthy Tim Walz original calling the Trump supporters "weird." This "zinger" doesn't have the punch the New York Times wanted it to have, and came across as a sad attempt to bring Trump down in one of his high points in his campaign.

RIGGED: Kamala Harris attempts to sway Fox interview in her favor, STILL falls short

Paul Morigi / Contributor | Getty Images

The election is mere weeks away and Kamala Harris just had her first adversarial interview since she began campaigning.

Last week, Harris sat down with Fox News journalist Bret Baier for an interview plagued with difficulties from the beginning. As Glenn recently pointed out, it seemed like Harris had done her best to ensure the interview was intentionally rigged against Baier. Despite being in front of Baier's diverse audience, she did not seem too interested in taking the opportunity to sell herself to a new demographic. Instead, Glenn hypothesized she was just after a quick soundbite to pander to her faltering core supporters.

However, the interview blew up in Kamala's face, and the American people took notice. Here's a rundown of Kamala's first Fox interview:

Rigged Interview

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Harris and her team did everything possible to throw Bret Baier off his game and derail the interview in her favor. It started when Harris's team informed Fox that the interview, which was originally supposed to be an hour, would be cut in half. This left Baier scrambling to reformat his interview to better fit the new time requirement. Then Harris arrived at the interview ten minutes late, further shorting the interview.

The purpose behind Harris's tardiness became apparent during the interview. Every time Baier asked a question, Harris would launch into a lengthy word salad. Baier was forced to interject just so he was able to ask more than a couple of questions. Harris even pushed back, calling out Baier's interruptions, which of course, just wasted more time. Clearly, Harris or her staff realized that she could not sustain a hostile interview for any extended period, which is why Harris tried to filibuster away as much of the interview as possible.

When the brief interview was nearing the end of its allotted time, Harris's staff began signaling to Baier to end the interview. Despite the change in plans and late arrival, her staff was determined to end the interview as quickly as possible.

Harris's Agenda

CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA / Contributor | Getty Images

From the beginning of the interview, Harris was hostile. She was immediately adversarial and would spin every question into a criticism of Trump, no matter how pointed Baier's question was. Several times Harris had emotional outbursts, spewing classic anti-Trump rhetoric, regardless of its relevance to the question asked. Glenn pointed out that this was the reason Harris took this interview. Recently, many of her core supporters have been faltering as her sudden burst of televised appearances has revealed her paper-thin platform. She took this interview to get a good clip of her passionately bashing Trump on Fox News. This would bolster her core demographic, which she desperately needs.

Harris's Fumbles

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite her best efforts to sway the interview in her favor, Baier still managed to pin Harris several times. Harris kept dodging tough questions Baier threw her way with the same tactic: she would promise to "follow the law" then deflect the question back on Trump. One of the more memorable instances of Harris's evasion strategy was when she was questioned if she supported prison inmates having access to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. Harris insisted she would "follow the law" and then explained that Trump had followed the same law while he was in office. This response was, in essence, a non-answer. Harris was ignoring the obvious fact that as President, she would influence what the law would be and how it is enforced.

Harris's other major blunder occurred after Baier asked her how her presidency would differ from Biden's and how she would "turn the page" on our current situation. In classic Harris fashion, she immediately deflects on Trump, framing our current situation as somehow a byproduct of Trump simply existing within the political sphere. This convoluted web she spun was so twisted that Harris herself lost track of what she was saying gave up, telling Baier, "You know what I'm talking about." Baier admitted he was just as lost as she was, and she simply went back to attacking Trump.

POLL: Are your kids eating POISON?!

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

More Americans than ever are sick, life expectancy is falling, and our children are in rough shape... What happened!?!

In his newest TV special, Glenn delves into the toxic garbage that the FDA allows to be put into our food and the devastating effects it has on our bodies. The stats are staggering: nearly one-third of all Americans have at least one chronic disease, almost40 percent of school-aged kids have a chronic disease, and U.S. life expectancy is at a 20-year low and is still plummeting. Not to mention the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and Autism diagnoses in our children.

Why does the FDA allow our food to be poisoned? Glenn unveils that the FDA is owned by the monopolistic food manufacturers that put the products in the food and by Big Pharma which sells the cure. In fact, 46 percent of the FDA's budget is paid for by food manufacturers, and a whopping 6,500 FDA jobs are funded by Big Pharma. On top of that, it's up to the food manufacturers to run tests, gather data about the safety of their food, and present it to the FDA. Seems like a conflict of interest, don't you think?

Glenn wants to know what you think. Do you/your kids eat foods with toxic ingredients such as artificial food dyes? Do you trust the FDA to keep your food safe? Can the system be fixed? Let us know in the poll below:

Do you/your kids eat foods with toxic ingredients such as artificial food dyes?

Do you trust the FDA to keep your food safe?

Could Trump/RFK Jr. fix/replace the FDA?

Can Trump win THESE critical swing states?

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The election is less than three weeks away! And if you are in a state with early voting, it may be even sooner than that!

Like most elections, the 2024 election victor will be determined largely by whichever candidate can win the most swing states, i.e. states that are nearly split 50/50 Democrat and Republican. If Trump is to win the election, he has to win a majority of the seven swing states, which are: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In order to keep you informed on how Trump is polling in these seven states, how he did against Biden in 2020 and what issues are important to the voters of each of the states, we compiled the relevant information for your convenance below:

Arizona

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Arizona to Biden by just over 10,000 votes, or 0.4 percent of the state.

The border state is up in the air again for 2024 and unsurprisingly immigration and border security is the top issue for voters. After border security, long-term water supplies and education rank at the top of Arizona voter's concerns, with inflation and cost of living coming in at number four.

Polls currently place President Trump ahead of Kamala with 48.4 percent of the votes compared to her 46.8 percent.

Georgia

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020, Trump lost Georgia to Biden by just over 10,000 votes, or 0.3 percent of the state.

Georgia voters are most concerned with abortion access (for or against), followed by environment, climate change, and the economy.

Polls currently place President Trump ahead of Kamala with 48.7 percent of the votes compared to her 47 percent.

Michigan

Scott Olson / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Michigan to Biden by approximately 150,000 votes, or 2.8 percent of the state.

In Michigan, like many Americans, voters are most concerned by the economy. The economy is trailed by renewable energy and abortion as top issues for Michigan voters this election.

Polls currently place Kamala Harris ahead of Trump with 47.7 percent of the votes compared to his 46.9 percent.

Nevada

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Nevada to Biden by approximately 30,000 votes, or 2.4 percent of the state.

In Nevada, the top issue is for voters is the economy, which is followed by affordable housing. Following affordable housing, immigration ranks high among concerns of Nevada voters along with democracy and crime.

Polls currently place Kamala Harris ahead of Trump with 47.8 percent of the votes compared to his 47 percent.

North Carolina

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump won North Carolina against Biden by over 70,000 votes, or 1.4 percent of the state.

Like in many other state, the economy is the leading issue among voters. The economy and inflation is followed by abortion rights and illegal immigration in top concerns for North Caroling voters.

Polls currently place Donald Trump leading Kamala with 48 percent of the votes compared to her 47.6 percent.

Pennsylvania

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Pennsylvania to Biden by approximately 80,000 votes, or 1.2 percent of the state.

The people of Pennsylvania are the most concerned with jobs, wages and the economy. Behind the economy, Pennsylvanians are most concerned with the future of democracy, immigration, and gun policy.

Polls currently place Kamala leading Trump with 48.1 percent of the votes compared to his 47.4 percent.

Wisconsin

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Wisconsin to Biden by approximately 40,000 votes, or 0.7 percent of the state.

The primary concern of voters in Wisconsin is the current high cost of living. Behind the cost of living, healthcare and education are high among the concerns of Wisconsinites, with the economy as a whole coming in fourth.

Polls currently place Kamala leading Trump with 48.1 percent of the votes compared to his 47.5 percent.