Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Extreme broadcast, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. |
GLENN: Julian Assange has been arrested for sex by surprise.
PAT: I hate when that happens. I hate that sex by surprise, I do.
GLENN: I was going to say that kind of sounds good to me. Why is that illegal?
Sex by surprise? Surprise! We're having sex!
PAT: Oh, that's always a surprise. So...
GLENN: (Laughing). How true it is. How true it is.
PAT: Always a surprise.
GLENN: Yeah. So ‑‑ we're such jerks. All right. So sex by surprise, apparently
what this means is ‑‑ I mean, if this isn't the ultimate nanny state, if you
aren't prepared, you don't have a condom with you, I guess you couldn't claim
that you were having sex by surprise and you really wanted to have sex with a
condom and they weren't prepared. Or, I guess. It's very unclear at this moment.
It sounds a little shady, especially when you see the women involved, and we'll
get into that because we're still verifying a couple of things that I just don't
want to go to the air with until we have a little bit more to back this up.
PAT: It seems like it was, in fact, consensual, right? It was consensual but he
didn't use a condom, right, the second time. Apparently he had sex with her a
couple of nights before, the very night before?
GLENN: He's a classy guy.
PAT: Yeah. And then the next night he had sex with her again but this time they
just didn't use protection.
STU: Yeah.
PAT: So I guess that's sex by surprise, rape or whatever?
STU: I guess. It's just comical to me because this is like the tax evasion of
every one of these guys. It always come down to something like this. It's these
guys taking down world governments and huge empires and yet they are always
taken down by the fact that they wanted to hook up with two chicks on two
different nights. That's what it always comes down to, doesn't it?
GLENN: The CIA, the CIA, in one of their most famous cases of what's called
honeypot, which is this: You get ‑‑ the Chinese are big in honeypot, which is
you get somebody hot and go up against a guy and they will give you anything and
then you have blackmail, and it's honeypot. The CIA ‑‑
PAT: If that's a picture you have of her right now, she's fairly attractive.
She's too attractive for him, that's for sure. He's a pasty, skanky guy.
STU: He's a really ‑‑
PAT: Spooky looking.
STU: He's the villain in a bad Diehard sequel.
PAT: He is.
STU: Isn't he?
PAT: He's like the hacker.
PAT: And then she's actually, you know, pretty. So ‑‑
STU: This is how this happens.
PAT: What are the odds that that was set up in some way?
GLENN: Here's ‑‑ I mean, the CIA did ‑‑ you ready for this? This is Operation
Midnight Climax. That is one of their more famous honeypot cases: Operation
Midnight Climax.
STU: Sounds classy.
GLENN: It sounds very classy. Well, it was classy. Midnight Climax involved
various San Francisco safehouses, whorehouses in which prostitutes on the CIA
payroll lured unsuspecting johns back to the whorehouse where they were then
dosed with LSD, CIA officials stood behind one‑way glass to observe the effects
of the drugs. The CIA was ostensibly researching mind control, they were
refining the art of sexual blackmail for political purposes as well. The
practice of using sexual blackmail is widely acknowledged in the world of
espionage as an asset, and it is called honeypot.
PAT: You don't suppose that was going on here, do you? (Sniffing).
GLENN: Hmmm?
PAT: I mean, in this Julian Assange case, that wouldn't be happening, right?
GLENN: Can I have ‑‑ Joe ‑‑ or Stu, would you go to Sky News. It was where the
Drudge Report was reporting this earlier today. So maybe it's from ‑‑ you can
find a link from the Drudge Report.
STU: Okay. Yeah, we can look there.
GLENN: And look at the story from Sky News and look at the comments underneath.
STU: Okay. On the Assange?
GLENN: The comments underneath are telling. This guy is winning.
PAT: Assange?
GLENN: Mmm‑hmmm.
STU: I mean, there's a bunch of stories on this unfortunately. I can go back to
Drudge and try to track it.
GLENN: See if you can track it. But if you look at them, they are all ‑‑ why is
Rupert Murdoch not reporting this fact? Why is this not being reported by Sky
News? All of you in the media are doing this: Oh, it's a government coverup
because you're not covering this. Well, I mean, I read them this morning and
they were all that. Now, this is right after the story broke. So I don't know if
it's still that way. But the comments, the guy is winning.
STU: Because he wants chaos.
GLENN: He wants chaos.
STU: He wants everyone to doubt everything.
GLENN: Yeah, he wants you to doubt the news, he wants you to doubt ‑‑ look, what
is ‑‑ you know they call me ‑‑ you know, George Soros called me Lonesome Roads,
right? That was made by Elia Kazan. He was one of the guys blacklisted, et
cetera, et cetera. What is the point of that movie made in the dark days of
communism? What was the point of that movie? Don't trust the people you think
you can trust. They are turning us against each other. They are turning us
against America, against the system, against everything. First they turned us
against each other, Republicans versus Democrats. And I've told you before, I
was part of that. I bought into that lie until, what, 2004? And then I got it.
And then I realized, look what's happening here. They're just changing places
and changing arguments. There's something wrong here. And they have turned us
against each other.
Now, that doesn't mean you don't point out things that are wrong, but it ‑‑ but
things are not what they appear to be. We are watching a very well coordinated
play, and I don't know if it's government‑controlled, I don't know if it is
Soros‑controlled, I don't know if it's all coincidental. But do you know who
this woman is, one of these women? She is ‑‑ she's quite an amazing woman
herself. She is... she's a woman who is... a leftist, a feminist, somebody over
in Sweden on the gender equity council or something like that, and she has put
together a website to where you want to punish somebody, you want to punish your
ex, punish them through the legal system through a court case on sexual assault.
STU: Awesome.
GLENN: Yeah. So she's the one that he hooks up with?
PAT: What an amazing coincidence.
GLENN: What an amazing coincidence.
PAT: That's amazing. Huh.
GLENN: Now remember ‑‑
PAT: She's weird.
GLENN: I know. She's from the left and she says, use the legal system to
discredit and to harm. So she's from the left. Now, I don't know ‑‑ I would
assume that she agrees with Julian Assange. Now, doesn't this legal maneuvering,
doesn't this ‑‑ with her, doesn't this actually help his case? It may hurt him.
I'm not saying he's necessarily in on it, and I'm not saying ‑‑ I don't know. I
don't know if there's a conspiracy or if she really was raped. I have no idea.
And I don't think we ever will.
STU: She's not even really claiming that.
PAT: No, she's not even claiming that there was nonconsensual sex, right?
STU: She's saying she wanted a condom and didn't get one essentially is her
claim? Is that the sex by surprise claim?
PAT: I don't ‑‑
STU: That the celebratory surprise party of sex?
GLENN: This is a 300,000‑pound bail, a 300,000‑pound bail. That's ‑‑
PAT: Which is over half a million dollars probably.
GLENN: Yeah.
PAT: That's a lot. That's a lot.
GLENN: I mean, hello.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Depends on how much the dollar's worth today.
PAT: Yeah, might be quarter of a billion.
GLENN: So isn't that interesting? Isn't that really fascinating? That here's a
woman from the left who, this is her expertise. Now, maybe she's ‑‑ maybe she
was raped.
STU: It definitely seems very shady, though. Her case ‑‑
PAT: Very shady.
STU: ‑‑ is not strong. In that typically a case like this you feel wouldn't
warrant ‑‑ you know, call for arrest, let alone an international manhunt. I
mean, the bottom line is he might have turned himself in because he thinks he
will be safest in jail. That might be the answer to this whole thing. I don't
know. But I mean, it doesn't seem like there's ‑‑ reading their story doesn't
seem like there's a whole lot to it.
GLENN: This guy is ‑‑ this guy's dead. This guy's dead.
PAT: Although he's so high profile now, if he turns up dead, you are going to
know it was the CIA or the Russians, you know.
GLENN: Which only helps.
STU: Yeah, helps him and his cause.
GLENN: It only helps him.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: There is no way out of this trap, gang. Because if he releases it, it's
all bad. If he doesn't release it, why hasn't he released it? If he's harmed,
they did it. If he goes to jail ‑‑ he could have legitimately raped this woman.
If he goes to jail, half the world doesn't believe him.
Look, here's the point on this. Assange is forcing you now into the place that I
asked you to consider was coming where you had your back up against the wall and
you had to make a decision: What is it you believe? What is it you believe? I
have to tell you I'm torn on this story. What he's releasing are all of the
things that we knew our government was doing but they all denied. He's releasing
the lies of our government, and they should be released. However, he is
releasing them with the intent of collapsing the entire system, and no matter
what he does now, it will have that effect. How do we do international business?
How do we do that? How does anybody do international business? How do you trust
anything the government said? Once you lose trust, it's over. This is something
that I'm not just pulling out of my butt. This is something that we talked about
for a very long time off air. We talked about it beginning with Van Jones. I was
really afraid. We actually had many conversations off the air before we released
the information on Van Jones and we talked about if we release this information
‑‑ this is when we were young and naive ‑‑ and we prove the point that this guy
is a violent communist revolutionary and the Obama administration knew it and
he's in the administration, what will the American people do? And our best‑case
scenario would be that they will lose faith in the government, they lose faith
and that would send people into the wrong direction. It would send people into a
possible scenario where they were pissed off and, you know, grabbed the
pitchforks and the torches. We were extraordinarily careful. We were
extraordinarily wary. That's why everything ‑‑ that's why they never pick us
apart. They can't tell us that we're wrong on stuff. We might get a little
detail wrong here or a little detail wrong there, but we're not wrong on things.
Why? Because we know our responsibility. We know what all of these things mean.
We have thought it through. We're not just living in the day. We're looking two,
three years ahead.
If these things are true, how do we tell people this, how do we get people ‑‑
nobody wants to hear this stuff. Nobody wants to think of these things. And what
does it mean when they do? I can tell you what this means with Julian Assange
two years down the road. If you make it two years, it means a lack of trust
globally. And when somebody says it's not trustworthy, well, it's of no longer
any use because it can't do business. If you can't do business, if you don't
trust the people, well, then you have Wall Street, and you saw what happened to
Wall Street, except this time there's nobody to bail out the globe. And that's
what this guy wants. And so you are now forced to ask yourself, what is it you
really believe in. What does your country mean? Don't just salute the flag
because it's the flag. You could burn the flag as far as I'm concerned. What
does the flag stand for? That's worth defending. That's worth fighting for. But
you have to know it in your core.
