DNC Wants Radical 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist as Its Chair — Where Is the MSM?

The media has accused Glenn over and over of being a conspiracy theorist. There's just one problem with that. Conspiracies are based on speculation, not fact.

Take the Muslim Brotherhood, for example. Glenn has reported on the radical group's plan to take over America. This is a fact based on a document called The Project, found in Germany by the U.S. government after 9/11. It outlines how to infiltrate the United States government, businesses and turn Americans against Americans.

"When you say something like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America, that sounds crazy. But once you look into the sources and you see what it is, well then, it's a different story," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Now take Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the man that Democratic Party leadership want as their next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Rep. Ellison has been tied to the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and holds radical left-wing policy positions. He's also said very troubling things about 9/11.

"A conspiracy theory, to me, is what Keith Ellison said in 2007," Glenn said.

In 2007, Ellison compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, an arson attack used by the Nazi Party to further its agenda. The insinuation being that 9/11 was blamed on a specific group so the U.S. government could get citizens riled up and fearful, and pass laws like the Patriot Act.

"Keith Ellison is making the charge that Bush was the one who benefited from 9/11," Glenn said. "Yet, the mainstream media are pretending as if none of that is the least bit controversial."

And that is exactly why Republicans and conservatives don't trust the press.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Do people believe the Nazis started the Reichstag fire?

• Why was the Patriot Act written before 9/11?

• When did Donald Trump realize he might win the presidency?

• Why did Democrats lose so many elected positions at all levels?

• Should we have a plan to invade Iceland?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 41:04, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to talk to the media here for a second. The media has made me into a conspiracy theorist. And they will say, "Made you into one? You made yourself into one." By saying things like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America. Yes, it's called The Project. It was found by the US government in, I believe, Germany right after September 11th. It outlines how to infiltrate the United States government, how to infiltrate businesses, how to turn us against ourselves here in America. It's called The Project. You can look it up. It didn't come from me. It came from the United States government. That's who found it. You don't cover those things.

So when you say something like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America, that sounds crazy. But once you look into the sources and you see what it is, well, then, it's a different story.

Well, the latest was you're a conspiracy theorist because you've said that George Soros paid for protests.

PAT: I've read story after story on that.

GLENN: Story after story after story on that. That is out there.

Now, I don't remember which protests he paid for. But his organization does that. We know that in other countries absolutely positively, he's on the record saying he does that.

PAT: He's proud of it. Proud of it.

GLENN: He's proud of it. Okay. So it's not a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory, to me, is what Keith Ellison said in 2007.

Listen to the man that may be the head of the DNC and what he said about 9/11.

KEITH: Because remember 9/11, right? You never had all this discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11. You know, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.

9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history. It allows -- I mean, it's almost like -- you know, the Reichstag fire kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

VOICE: Yeah. Who benefited from 9/11?

KEITH: Well, I mean, like you and I both know.

VOICE: Yeah, Bush.

GLENN: Bush.

KEITH: But the thing is, after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communist for it. And it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.

GLENN: Okay. So Keith Ellison is making the charge that Bush was the one who benefited from 9/11.

PAT: So he could bring about religious discrimination?

GLENN: And the Patriot Act and everything else.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Now, you can say that the Patriot Act was there before there was a 9/11, but that doesn't mean that the Patriot Act -- that 9/11 happened to pass the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was written before 9/11. And it was going nowhere. Nobody wanted to do it. It was written in Virginia. Do you remember that? Stu, look that up. This is a really old fact from the deep reassesses and cobwebs of my mind. When we were arguing it, we looked back and it was written in Virginia by a couple of guys in Virginia. And they wanted pieces of the Patriot Act. And it didn't go anywhere.

I think Joe Biden was even part of that. So the argument is, is that he's making the argument that 9/11 was blamed on somebody so they could go religious discrimination and they could soup everybody up and make them afraid. Well, that's a conspiracy theory.

Show me the evidence of that. Now, if the press wants to have any credibility, you have called people on the right hateful conspiracy theorists.

Will you call out the person who is now going to be the head of the Democratic National Committee? Will you call him a conspiracy theorist?

No.

PAT: Not in a million years.

GLENN: And if they don't, it, again, will just play into more resentment and more dissent and more -- Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton. He beat the press. He was running against the press. That's what he said.

Now, you guys haven't even addressed why Hillary Clinton lost. I haven't seen one autopsy on Hillary Clinton and why she was the worst candidate of all time. The Republicans have known this for a long time. She was the most beatable candidate you could have run.

PAT: Which is what we said from the beginning. That was the one thing during this election cycle we were right, was how bad Hillary --

GLENN: Yes. Yeah, anyone -- I said my shoe could beat Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Yes. Yeah.

GLENN: She was the most beatable candidate. I haven't heard that from the media. They're not doing the autopsy there. All they're doing is they're talked about Donald Trump and what a horrible disarray his cabinet picks are. First of all, he's ahead of every other president in his cabinet picks.

It, of course, is messy. Can you imagine how many picks you have to make in, what? Sixty days? Yes, it's a mess. I'm sure it is. He didn't expect to be president -- and I have this on good authority -- until I think it was 4:30 in the afternoon.

They thought they were going to lose. And at 4:30, somebody came to him and said, "You know what, things are actually in play." He didn't believe it, until North Carolina came in and Florida. And when North Carolina and Florida came in and they were waiting so long on Connecticut and Pennsylvania, he looked at one of his aides and said, "We might win."

They weren't -- they were putting the -- the -- the pathway down for Trump TV, not the presidency. And he's still ahead of every other president, appointing their cabinet members now. And what is the press doing? All they're saying is what a disarray it's in.

What are you talking about? What are you talking about?

Why don't you talk at all about the disarray the Democrats are in? What are the Democrats going to do? The Democrats have lost so many people in local, state, and federal locations, they've lost so much power because the popularity was Barack Obama, not his policies. They also -- even people who voted for Hillary Clinton, 34 percent of those who voted for Hillary Clinton don't believe the press. They think the press was in the bag for Hillary Clinton. And they don't like it. Seventy-four percent of the American people don't trust the press.

PAT: The only thing left Democrats have is Richard Gephardt. That's all they've got left.

STU: Wow. That's what America has left.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: For 2020, we look forward to Richard Gephardt. And what is he going to be? Eighty-nine? 106?

JEFFY: That's not important.

PAT: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. That's what we have left.

STU: By the way, yeah, there's a -- so Biden wrote something after his -- after the Oklahoma City bombing that had several of the pieces that would later go into the Patriot Act. It was a 1995 bill. CNET referred to it as its cousin. The Patriot Act's cousin. So it was similar.

GLENN: And this was the one that was written in Virginia with a group of governors or something like that?

STU: I don't -- I was looking for the Biden part. I don't have that. Whatever.

GLENN: Okay. So there was -- and I'm not saying it was the same one.

STU: Right. And that makes sense, right?

GLENN: But there was the framework of the Patriot Act, ready to go.

STU: Right. You have --

GLENN: That doesn't -- that doesn't mean that they were like, let's blow something up so we can get this through.

STU: Right. Which is where a lot of people take that.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It means that they had a terrorist attack. They thought of a way to address it. They didn't necessarily get that through. But when another terrorist attack had, they had the framework.

GLENN: Yeah. And they said, "Let's try this now."

STU: Yeah, "Let's try it now. It would work."

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That's not a nefarious conspiracy.

GLENN: FDR did not trust the Japanese. He did not trust the Japanese.

He sent people out to find out if we needed to do internment camps before December 7th. Do we need to do internment camps for the Japanese? Find out.

The general came back and said, "Nope. They're good Americans. We don't need to do it."

He didn't have the political capital to do it. September -- I mean, December 7th, 1941, that gave him the political capital to be able to say, "We're going to do this because of that," even though he had that idea before December 7th.

Was it a conspiracy that December 7th -- yeah, there are those people who say, "See, he caused it. He knew it was going to happen." No, he didn't

PAT: Well, he may have known it was going to happen, but I don't know that he -- he let it happen --

GLENN: Yeah. He knew a strike --

PAT: -- for internment camps --

GLENN: He knew a strike was coming.

PAT: Yeah, he did.

GLENN: He didn't know and say, "Everybody look over here."

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And in a way --

GLENN: And neither did --

STU: -- this can be a positive, right? You wouldn't necessarily want a tragedy to happen and then just say, "All right. Let's start thinking of new ideas right now in the midst of this and pass them." You would want it to be a little bit more thought out than that. You would hope that --

GLENN: It is their job. It is their job.

STU: Right. It's their job. It's the same thing with the Iraq War. They're like, "Well, they drew up plans for the Iraq War before 9/11." It's like, well, yeah, they should have a plan to invade everywhere, just in case the idea comes up and they need to put it into effect.

GLENN: It's their job.

PAT: Especially countries that are shooting at our aircraft.

GLENN: Should we have a plan to invade Canada? No. If I find out there's a plan to invade Canada for no reason, well, no. But the minute Canada becomes hostile to us, is there a plan to say, "What do we do in case the border becomes a place of unrest?"

PAT: There better be.

GLENN: Okay. There better be something there. Because that's a possibility.

PAT: What about just taking care of the curling problem? What about just --

STU: You got to stop --

GLENN: You got to stop curling.

PAT: Stop the curling problem.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a stone and ice. Get over it. And it's a broom. Stop it.

PAT: And sweeping the ice. Stop it.

STU: But with the military budget we have, I would argue that there should be, I don't know, a few people sitting around thinking about, "What if we have to invade Iceland?" We should have that plan somewhere in a drawer just in case we have to do it. Why -- we have the resources for that.

PAT: That might be our biggest problem that nobody talks about.

GLENN: I will tell you, there's not a plan to invade Iceland. But I can tell you, there's an expert on Iceland whose job is to only think about Iceland, that he would be the first one we would call if something happened. And he would be like, "You know what, that's crazy. I've been thinking about this. I've been thinking about this." Because that's all you do, you're just focused on Iceland.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: That's what should happen. This is not what Keith Ellison is saying.

STU: No. He seems to be thinking that -- it's weird. Because he doesn't -- he's smart enough to know that he's in front of a bunch of people. So he doesn't actually --

GLENN: Plat it again.

PAT: However, he walked up to that line many times. It wasn't just this time.

GLENN: Play that again.

KEITH: Because remember 9/11. Right? You never had all these discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11. I mean, you know, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.

9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history. It allows -- I mean, it's almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire -- kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

VOICE: Yeah. Benefited --

GLENN: So 9/11 is the Reichstag fire. Well, if you know anything about the Reichstag fire -- and he's about to explain that -- that was a total setup. The Reichstag fire, we believe, was started by the Nazis.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Of course. Yeah, that's what he's obviously insinuating.

GLENN: That's what he's insinuating.

STU: I mean, he would probably argue, what I was trying to say is they took advantage of it like the Nazis took advantage of that. Not necessarily that they caused it.

GLENN: Right. Do we think -- so what you're saying is -- you want to talk about a conspiracy theory, what you're saying is replace Bush with Obama. That a tragedy happened and Barack Obama said, "I can finally get control of everybody's email. I can finally get control of everybody's phone calls. I can get rid of warrants, where I don't want to. I can stop dropping drones on people. I'll have control of everything. I'll be able to take the NSA." That -- you think the press would accept someone saying that about Barack Obama?

STU: No.

GLENN: You would be the biggest conspiracy theorist on the planet. And this isn't just a commentator. This is the guy they want to run the DNC.

STU: Yes.

PAT: He's a US congressman.

STU: Uh-huh. And to be fair to Keith Ellison, to give him a little bit of a break here, the man is saying things that were mainstream Democrat positions at that time.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You go back to polling through that era, you'll find 40, 50 percent of Democrats believed just that. And sometimes the majority of Democrats believed those things, that Bush did 9/11, and he was responsible for it. Or at the very least overlooked it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Katrina, took advantage of it. Didn't care. He hates black people.

There were a million of these conspiracies that were mainstream Democratic positions for the typical voter. And while he might be a little bit out of step with what they want in the press at that time, he was not out of step with the people who were voting for him.

GLENN: Now, the -- the press wonders why Republicans and conservatives don't trust them and feel the way we feel. Because of that. And this is why I said, we have a third time at bat. First time happened with George Bush. And the Democrats went off the rails. And we stopped listening to them. And then, Barack Obama got in. And we went off the rails. And they stopped listening to us.

It's time to get it right this time. It's time to get it right. But you must call each play equally. If you don't, it's going to get much worse.

Featured Image: Keith Ellison (D-MN) holds a news conference about what he calls 'the rhetorice attacking Muslims and the Islamophobia' in the 2016 presidential election at the National Press Club May 24, 2016 in Washington, DC. Highlighting remarks by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Ellison and fellow Muslim Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) said the issue of Islamophobia is not isolated to just one candidate or one election. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Glenn created "The Senate Fails to Condemn INFANTICIDE" in response to the Senate not passing Nebraska Senator Ben Sasses' bill banning infanticide early this year. In an effort to help support pro-life charities, Glenn first posted this for sale on eBay before being banned multiple times before we finally had enough and put it up for sale on bidpal.net.

At the time of this post, the bid was up to $4,700 — but we can do better than that. Please help us raise money for a good cause, you don't even have to display it anywhere in your home, you can just keep it in storage or something! If you want this priceless piece created by one of the most influential people in the world of art, place your bids here.

Can you remember the economic crisis of 2008 and how you felt when the news broke that Lehman Brothers had collapsed? I have found an economic threat that everyone needs to be aware of, so you can prepare yourself in case we see another 2008 type collapse. I am going to present the evidence to you and I urge you to verify everything and to form your own opinion.

What is that threat?

It is a bank called Deutsche Bank. They are by far the most dominant bank in Germany which is the world's fourth-largest economy. In 2018 they had €2.08 Trillion worth of assets and the second-placed bank (DZ Bank) had €506 Billion worth of assets. To show you how dominant this bank is, they have more assets than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sized banks combined.
When we review a business there are three key parts to analysis:

  • Market sentiment
  • Business numbers
  • Technical Analysis

Market Sentiment

Deutsche Bank has a long history of potential scandals including going all the way back to World War 2 and dealing in Nazi gold. Below are five recent stories which have increased the negative sentiment around Deutsche Bank.

  1. In 2007, they purchased a portfolio of loans worth $7.8 billion and purchased insurance from Warren Buffets Company. It was discovered they did not set aside enough capital to cover any potential losses. Over the course of the ten years, they lost $1.6 billion, and when they sold the loan they did not update their financial statements to include the big loss
  2. The Panama Papers are an ongoing investigation looking for many things including offshore tax havens. These investigations have resulted in several heads of state resigning including in Iceland and Pakistan. Last November, 170 police raided 6 different offices in Frankfurt looking for evidence of money laundering.
  3. Estonia is a small country in Eastern Europe. It has a population of 1.3 million people and a GDP of €26 billion. In January, it was discovered Deutsche Bank got involved with a Danish bank called Danke Bank and processed over $230 billion worth of cross country payments (including from Soviet Russia) through one bank in Estonia.
  4. There have been rumors of issues with Deutsche for a while now and one of the solutions put forth was a merger with a bank called CommerzBank. The leaders of both companies met and they even got support from politicians. In April, news broke that the merger talks had failed because over worries the risks and costs would be too great.
  5. Last week in France, Investment banking boss Garth Ritchie and others were arrested in France over illicit tax transactions.

Business Numbers

Deutsche Bank is already struggling as they are losing staff, losing market share, and bonuses are expected to be down at least 10% and further rounds of cost-cutting to come. Now imagine the impact if business costs start going up.

The banking industry works in a very simple way. They raise funds through large bonds at low-interest rates and then sell those funds to business and individuals thru products like loans and credit cards at a higher interest rate which results in a potential profit.

Earlier this year, Deutsche Bank tried raising money through several bonds. They paid 180bp (basis points) on a two-year bond and 230bp on a seven-year bond. Let me put this in context for you. There is a small bank in Spain called Caixabank which paid 225bp on a five-year bond and one of the larger banks in Spain, BBVA paid 130bp on a five-year bond.

  • How and why is a small bank in Spain getting a better deal on bonds than a huge bank in Germany?
  • Why is a large bank in Spain getting a bond 100bp cheaper than a German bank?
  • What does the market know that we do not?

Stock Price

Deutsche is also missing revenue projections which further hurt the business ability to survive and prosper. As you can imagine all of this news has a deep and lasting impact on its stock price which is in deep trouble. Before I share the stock price, I need to put this into the context of the market and the industry compared to the big economic crash of 2008. Below you will see a chart of some banking stocks from around the world with their peak price prior to the 2008 crash, the low of the 2008 recession and the price today:

As you can see from the above chart the banks in America have recovered from the 2008 recession by anywhere up 375% and JP Morgan has not only recovered its price in full but is constantly setting new high's. Ireland went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the EU/IMF following the 2008 crash and even our national bank has more than doubled its price since 2008. The worst performing bank I could find was Societe Generale which has issues but is still hovering around its 2008 low price levels.

Now let's put that into the context of Deutsche Bank. Not only has the stock not rebounded but it is over 65% below its 2008 low at $6.75.

Technical Analysis

When you are dealing with the stock market, you also have people who study pricing through technical analysis. Experts look at things like FIB sequences, trend lines, and support levels. Support levels are a key metric for a stock failing because are looking to find where it will find support and potentially bounce higher.

We are very close to a key support level ($6.40) and if the price goes below this level, there is no saying exactly how low the price could go. At least one company expects Deutsche to fall below this support level, as several weeks ago UBS downgraded the stock to a sell order. This news was compounded last Friday when rating agency Fitch, downgraded their credit rating to BBB or two levels above JUNK status.

Other Information

I know you are likely reading this and thinking "this bank must have smart people in charge and surely they have a plan, right?" I am sure there is a plan and while they have kept their cards close to their chest, they have spoken in the past about the areas they foresee having growth for the company – they include business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Do they strike you as countries which are stable and will offer steady and reliable growth? Do you have to think really hard to imagine how this could go potentially very wrong?

Questions

I believe there is at least a solid case Deutsche is in a LOT of trouble. So what are possible scenarios for the future? I will lay out the key questions below but I must stress that it's impossible to say for sure what exactly will happen. One of the key numbers to remember here is they have roughly €50 billion worth of derivatives.

  • How likely is it that the bank can turn things around and survive?
  • How likely is it the bank continues to run into trouble, its stock price fails and eventually fails?
  • If you think it is likely it will fail, the question becomes what will the fallout be? Who will be affected?
  • Will they be bailed out?
  • If so, by whom? The German government, ECB, IMF, the Federal Reserve?
  • What will the German government think? Some members recently spoke out saying they would block public money for the proposed merger? Will they block funds if it failed?
  • Will other banks be exposed and affected? Will they have to take losses?
  • Will those losses be spread around or will one or more bank be mainly affect?
  • Will this affect the sentiment of the banking sector and cause a panic?
  • If there are issues and it starts affecting the stock prices, what will be the impact on other industries?

Last Question

The last question revolves solely around the banks and the regulators? How secure are the other banks? We all hear about how banks are now put through "stress tests" but how much trust do you put in those results? How much trust do you have in the regulators?

I know this may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist to some but it's an honest question. The Fed is on public record saying they want to keep this economy strong as long as possible. If a bank did not perform strongly in a stress test or even barely failed one, do you think they would report it?

Can you imagine the pressure that body would come under to stay silent? Can you imagine the rhetoric they would face with questions like, "Are you really going to fail one bank? Do you know how many people will lose their jobs if you do that?" Am I saying this is happening? No, but can you really rule it out 100% as a possibility?

I urge you to ponder on these questions, do your own research and find YOUR answers.

Update: The most freaquently asked question I have received from this column / show is how much time do we have to prepare. This is an impossible question to answer, as it could fail tomorrow, next week or might be next year. However I want to provide you a potential date for your diary – July 24th. That is when Deutsche will release their next earnings report and if it comes in below expectations, it could cause a further drop in price casting more doubt over the future viability of the bank.

Please support Jonathon's weekly podcast which is exclusive to the Blaze Media and available for FREE. He offers a unique perspective by promoting America's Founding Principles and brings every issue back to a set of core principles which are always based around the laws of nature. You can find links to his show by clicking here or by searching for Freedoms Disciple on your favorite audio platform.

Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.