Glenn and Jason find out more about Simon Sinek's roots.
©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
RADIO
July 17, 2024
The ONLY Thing the Left Gets Right About "Project 2025"
Democrats have a new boogeyman: The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025". They claim that former president Donald Trump has endorsed the program and will use it to turn America into a dystopian fascist dictatorship. But what's actually in Project 2025? The Heritage Foundation's president, Kevin Roberts, joins Glenn to debunk the myths and lies. In fact, he says that the Left has only gotten ONE thing right about Project 2025.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: One of, I believe, the real, true patriots in America.
Is Kevin Roberts. He's the Heritage Foundation president. We have gotten to know each other quite well over the last year or so. And I have tremendous respect for him, his courage, and what he's also doing at the Heritage Foundation. I had a -- a family reunion this weekend, this last weekend. And we had about 30 people -- 35 people here. And, you know, not everybody votes the same way that I do. In fact, some of my family kind of rolls their eyes at some of the things I say. And that's fine.
And we're still family, and we love each other. And we had a great conversation about what was going on, especially after the assassination attempt.
And what came up over and over again, was project 2025. They're making it into a fascistic state, they are going to -- they are going to give the presidency so much more power. And I laughed, and I said, that's not Project 2025. That's -- in fact, that's the opposite of what they're trying to do.
This is something the Heritage Foundation has done every election year for many years, but never to this degree.
And Kevin Roberts is here to tell us about it. Hello, Kevin, how are you?
KEVIN: Glenn, my friend. Great patriot, it's a pleasure to be with you.
GLENN: Thank you. So, Kevin, talk to people who are hearing from the media, that this is nothing, but a way to carve out special exemptions for the president for fascism.
KEVIN: The best way to start. And we'll go into detail. Is to say, it is total projection by the left. I mean, you, perhaps more than anyone in our modern age. Has shown us, that whatever the left has accused our side of. Is actually something they themselves are guilty of.
So project 2025, is actually a corrective to the very thing, the left is accusing us of doing. That is, they are the ones particularly since LBJ's presidency in the 60s take it. Who have accrued all this power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in DC.
We feel that in every respect. Every industry. Every business. And even in most of us in sort of our everyday lives.
But ultimately, what project 2025 will do is address the problem of the administrative state in DC, being weaponized against the everyday American. It's the biggest threat, as you know, the administrative state, Glenn, to a republic, where citizens vote for a new president, and a new direction. And yet, nothing changes.
In fact, what we will see, is any aspects of project 2025, are implemented. Is finishing of the scope of Washington, DC, and an increase in freedoms. And the presidency and the legislative branch and the judicial branch. All being returned to proper order.
In other words, it really is the -- I think the single best set of policy ideas, about how we go back to the original founding vision as our Founders had it of this constitutional republic.
GLENN: You know, I said to some of my relatives. Look, you and I agree on one thing. I think.
And they did. And that is, no citizen should ever be afraid that the president of the United States, is going to get them.
That this election would put somebody in office, where he could take away freedoms of people he didn't like, or didn't agree with.
That's -- I'm absolutely against that. Because I know it always come to bite whoever did it in the butt. Because they'll eventually get to you. And that's not our system. This ensures that the president, no matter which side they're on, doesn't have that power to get his enemies, or to just rule his way without the consent of Congress and the people.
KEVIN: That's right. And if that kind of abuse and weaponization against the American people, using the administrative state we've seen against the right, the political right, by President Biden, were for some reason to be done by a conservative administration.
We at Project 2025 and to Heritage, to your point, Glenn, would be just as apoplectic. Every one of us, from the far left to the far right, wherever someone is on that political spectrum needs to wake up in this country, and believe that of all entities, the federal government is going to be objective and neutral and fair and just, and equal, in how it treats all of our citizens. And so the real problem that we're trying to address, isn't just the accrual of power since the '60s, in particular.
It is, without getting engaged in hyperbole. Which you know I detest. Addressing the weaponization of the federal government, against individual citizens.
I will give you a quick story. That's a personal reference.
But it's emblematic of how people feel.
I'm as you know, a traditional Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean that people have to agree with that. But that's my religious liberty, and my family's to practice that. We have, over the last few years, those of us in that category. Not just been fearful of, but we know the following has happened.
We know this from the director of the FBI. And the attorney general of Biden's administration. They have targeted faithful, traditional Catholics because we like the Latin mass, as somehow being domestic terrorists.
It's that kind of nonsense, that project 2025 would bring to an end, if the next administration so desires to implement.
GLENN: So has Trump signed on for any of this?
KEVIN: Look, it's informal. The president of course has distanced himself from this, which is I think a smart political move, given how successful the left's mischaracterization of this has been.
Ultimately, though. To your question, great ideas, and great people rise to the top.
And so without it all being presumptuous, which you know I am not, and Project 2025 is sort of designed to sort of be in the background. Those great ideas and those great people, I think are going to be apart of this conversation, once the Trump fans and administration takes office.
So I would, for people trying to make sense of President Trump's comments, his campaign's comments and the project, understand, that we are in the political season right now.
And soon, we will move into the transition, and policy making season.
And I just have great confidence in the policies and people who are a part of it. And think that we will have a great era of good, common sense policy reform. That ultimately, is sort of neither conservative nor liberal. It's just right. And it's just common sense.
GLENN: I will tell you, that I read the website. And we're doing a show on it, tomorrow night.
To go through, what it is. And what it's not.
And if people will read it. I mean, I think the -- I think the media is doing a great service in a way. If people go to the website, and -- and really look up, what project 2025 is. And reads it. I think most Americans will agree with a lot of it. You know, you're -- you're talking about dismantling the -- the -- not the DOJ. But the -- the DHS.
You're returning the component parts to other agencies. You're talking about eliminating harmful regulations that have stifled innovation and small businesses.
More oil and gas leases. Less climate extremism.
No more overregulation of dish washers and gas stoves and everything else, that they said they definitely weren't doing.
I think, Kevin, the idea here is the administrative state has been made into something that can do all the things that they know they can't get past into laws. And that's what's got to stop. These people -- these elites are running these organizations, and they decide what's best. And it never comes to us.
And if we want to change, then we'll change. You can't force us to do that, especially as an unelected official.
KEVIN: That's the key issue. That Congress, of course, is complicit in this by not being forceful enough over the last decades.
GLENN: Big time.
KEVIN: And what it's done, frankly under both Democrat and Republican administrations is create this yo-yo effect of the Democrats and the Republicans issuing these executive orders.
I'm still hopeful enough about this country, Glenn, to believe that maybe a vast majority of us across the political spectrum.
Understand, that's not how we ought to make law. And so what we're trying to do with the proposals that we have in Project 2025, in addition to what you've said, is call for an end to DEI and CRT.
This is something that is vastly supported. Unfortunately, we probably see in addition to all of the aspects of the failure, on Saturday's near assassination.
The effects of that. That that was a higher goal.
DEI for the Secret Service director. Than real competence.
This is the point. Americans understand what is going on. Which is that a small group of people, have concentrated power. They are not elected.
They might be good people. We don't have to get into the personal side of this. But they are people who do not want those of us who are regular, normal people, to go about our lives. It's imperative that people understand, that the very reason the left has spent more money demonizing project 2025, than we've spent putting it together, tells you, it is a threat to their power.
And that ought to excite us, about the possibilities ahead.
GLENN: You know, you talk about in project 2025, something that I haven't heard for a long time.
And that's a flatter and fairer tax code with a 15 percent bracket and a 30 percent bracket. They, of course, will say, this is tax cuts for the rich, et cetera.
But it has shown, math does not lie. It has been shown over and over and over again. No matter what you do with the tax code. The government brings in about 18 percent, total.
And if you bring the tax code and bring it up to 95, people find loopholes. Don't pay their taxes, et cetera, et cetera.
And they still get about 17 to 18 percent, going into the Treasury. So why not do a flat tax, where everybody pays, you know, what's appropriate.
And you don't have all of these loopholes. That would be fantastic!
Chance that that happens?
KEVIN: I think there's a chance. In fact, in some recent interview. The last a couple of weeks.
President Trump has even hinted at that.
Obviously, we will have to deal as I country with tax policy. Because the Trump taxes are up for renewal.
And I think there's an opportunity, depending on the president, the Vice President of course will want to do. We will be of service to that.
Is to insert into that, a flatter system. I mean, I'm old enough to remember, when as a country, ten or so years ago. We were on the cusp of implementing that kind of thing.
This is an excellent example of something that is in Project 2025. That is wildly supported by a majority of people. And it leads me to the following connected point, Glenn. You touched on this, just a minute ago.
Project 2025 covers, literally, every policy issue known to man. It is a menu of policy options. I have not met one fellow conservative whether that's my wife or one of my siblings. Or my dad. All staunch conservatives who agree with 100 percent of what's in there.
The point is not to seek unanimity. The point is to provide a menu of options that represent the popular will, that if President Trump and vice president Vance so choose, there's actually a substantive plan behind that political impulse.
And that actually, I would like to think, for people who are more objective in the political center, or the political left.
Give people a little bit of comfort. That actually what we're trying to do here is have a governing agenda, following the lead of the people who make these decisions. And I think as time goes on, to sum up here, the more we understand that's actually what this project is about. The more we're not only telling the truth. But we're actually kneecapping what has been a last ditch desperation attempt by the left, which can't run on the record.
GLENN: Can you do me a favor? I have about 60 seconds. I just want to run through some true and false. Because these are the things that are being said it. I just want to know if it's true or false. In Project 2025, there is a call to end no fault divorce. True or false?
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Complete ban on abortions without exceptions, true or false?
KEVIN: Extraordinarily false.
GLENN: Ban contraceptions, true or false?
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Higher taxes for the working class?
KEVIN: False. The exact opposite.
GLENN: Additional tax breaks for corporations and the 1 percent?
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Elimination of unions and worker protections? My gosh, look at what they're saying.
KEVIN: I know. So false.
GLENN: Cut Social Security.
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Raise the retirement age.
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: End the Affordable Care Act.
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Raise prescription drug prices.
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Eliminate the Department of Education.
KEVIN: True, my friend. That's the one thing they get right.
GLENN: Love that. Use public taxpayer money for private religious schools, true or false?
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Teach Christian religious beliefs in public schools.
KEVIN: False. We understand it's a pluralistic country. We love those schools. But that's up for people to decide.
GLENN: End civil rights. And DEI protections in government.
KEVIN: Well, we definitely want to end DEI nonsense. But obviously the great thing about project 2025, we're restoring civil rights, if anything.
GLENN: Ban books and curriculum about slavery?
KEVIN: False.
GLENN: Ending climate projections. Or protections.
KEVIN: Well, the ones that aren't based on science, will come to an end. But we certainly understand the value of science, and protecting the environment.
GLENN: I have to tell you, this is why we're doing a whole show on it.
What they're saying about this is incredible.
What it is, it's not. You can find it at heritage.org.
Or go to project 2025. I believe that's project 2025.org.
Kevin, great to talk to you. We'll talk to you again.
KEVIN: Thanks, Glenn. Take care.
RADIO
July 16, 2024
“This Should Have Been Identified”: Security Expert Explains Failures at Trump Rally
It's clear that many things went wrong with security on the day of Trump's near-assassination at his rally in Pennsylvania. "The Secret Service, in my view, is inept," Glenn says. Former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, who spent years planning and leading protective details for politicians, stars, and other high-profile people, joins to explains what he believes the biggest failures were. Why weren't law enforcement officers placed on the rooftop the attacker used? Should the Secret Service have shot first? Why has it taken so long for the government to release more information on the killer? And — scariest of all — did he work alone?
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: All right. We have Jason Buttrill with us. Who is my chief researcher.
And also, in charge of national security, and -- and -- and global wars and everything else, that we have to look at. He has extensive background in military intelligence. And that's why you know military intelligence was a joke, because Jason was involved in it.
But it was also -- you were never a lead of my detail, right? Of my protective detail?
JASON: I was never the lead, but I was the manager on your detail, and I led many other details in the past.
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.
So the reason why I'm still alive today, is Jason was not in charge of the detail.
JASON: That's good. That's good.
GLENN: Yeah. But I will tell you, that we have had many dealings with Secret Service. And without getting into any of the details, but I would be running to testify on it, the Secret Service is in my view, inept. It's nothing against the agents or anything. I think the people who run it, they rely on money and technology, and they just don't think.
And we have seen things that could get people killed, quite honestly. We've experienced it, with the Secret Service ourselves.
And I've been warning about this, for a very, very long time.
Now, Jason, you have actually planned events like this with the Secret Service. You have been with major politicians, and done major events, not only with me, but with others. And worked side by side with the Secret Service. How could this have happened?
JASON: I'm glad you had me on today, Glenn. Because I saw a lot of speculation. I think it's important to understand how these things happened.
How did we get to where we got to on Saturday. And I just want to briefly run down.
I will reveal a few tricks of the trade here. I think it's good for crazy people and potential attackers to know this as well, to know how difficult it is.
It should be almost impossible to pull off what happened on Saturday.
But, as you know, Glenn. You've seen this work, an advance team is always sent out. This is copied from the Secret Service level all the way to the governor's protected details. All the way to public officials. Or, you know, personalities like yourself.
But an advance team would go out. Secret Service would go out, weeks in advance. They would go out and set up a multi-tiered security plan. So basically, like let's say you see a president on a rope line. And he's shaking hands.
And, you know, patting people on the back. That's political smoke and mirrors.
Those are not people that just randomly show up. Those are friends, family, highly trusted people that have been vetted. That talks a little bit of the sexiness out, but that's the same way as when Donald Trump is on a stage. The people right in front of him are supposed to be there.
They have been given access. They have a wristband or lanyard. They're wanded. They're checked. They're fully vetted, trusted people right in front of them. There's another tier beyond that.
They're usually high level donors. They're also very, very trusted. Vetted. They've been searched. Then once you get beyond that, there's not a thousand Secret Service agents out there. So they have to delegate to law enforcement officers. Local law enforcement officers, SWAT, just regular beat cops. They designated those areas.
Now, as all this is happening, they also identify further out threats. And they -- they identify sectors of fire. Positions of fire.
Potential sniper positions. Going all the way to like a thousand yards.
130-yard sniper position. Absolutely, which -- which is where this attacker was. Would have been identified.
And there would have been several designated. They would have said, this is alpha position. This is bravo position. Whatever.
They can go through them. So they can quickly address the situation. They would also, in this instruct the witness not to answer plan, have local law enforcement guarding those areas to make sure no one would gain access to those areas. And they would number contact with the Secret Service.
Now, there's multiple different questions here, that need to be asked. As you said in full transparency. Knowing this entire complex plan, A, did the Secret Service designate those sniper positions as they always do, and as they're supposed to?
Now, let's assume they did. The second question. Did law enforcement adequately man those positions?
It does not appear so, on the videos that we have seen.
I mean, we've got tailgaters, basically, screaming at law enforcement. The only thing missing was like a couple of beer cans hanging off their helmets. And they're chugging down beers. That's basically -- hey. Look over there. There's a guy climbing up there. How did no one respond? That breaks the entire plan. There should have been a law enforcement officer or officers watching it.
GLENN: Right. So there's also the fact that when you have a position like that.
First of all, that position, if it was left open.
They keep saying. Well, it wasn't part of the secure perimeter.
It was 130 yards away. You know, when you are on rooftops and sniper positions, you don't have to be on just the building right across the street. You can be watching all of the rooftops, all the way around, that have any kind of angle at that street. So not only should they have somebody there, or at least had a team around. And it looks like they had local police. And I don't know if local police failed.
But they also, when you have a position like that, and, for instance, there's woods in this same venue area.
You always put up something that blocks the view, so you would go up on that roof. And you would say, okay. There is the podium.
So let's put up a big screen. Or a big sign, or something, that blocks that view from that position. They didn't do that either.
PAT: Yeah. To say, as an excuse, that it was outside the secured perimeter, is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe someone would say that. I've been at events where Secret Service was there. Where there was a river, hundreds of yards away. But they still had local law enforcement driving Zodiacs up and down the river, because they were worried about potential snipers coming from a boat. That was not inside the perimeter, but that was a potential firing position that they had identified.
Now, that's the key right here. They would have identified all these positions, especially 130 yards, with a clear line of sight to the president. That would have been identified. There would have been a team of law enforcement officers, or should have been, protecting that area. Now, did they leave that -- this is the second question. First question was, did Secret Service identify them? I'm assume they did.
Second question, did law enforcement adequately man those positions? Third, and this is probably the scariest part of the question, was there a law enforcement officer there?
Was there help given to the shooter? Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's a question. It needs to be asked. Because we heard people saying, there's the shooter, no one did anything about it.
So they -- look, this has to been done in full transparency. Can you imagine, Glenn? And the JFK assassination. All these weird things that happened. Right?
You have, let's just say, there were cell phones and camera phones. And they were like, again with their beers and helmets. And they're like, look at that. And they're film the grassy nothing like. Look, officer, there are guys at the grassy nothing like. They have fedoras on. They have sniper rifles.
And they're about to shoot. Like, can you imagine, if we had all of this evidence, what would the conspiracy theories be like then? This is what we have right now. We need to ask these questions. It's very, very rational to do so.
GLENN: So we're about to have Dallas Alexander on. Do you know who he is?
JASON: Oh, yeah. Very, very famous sniper here.
GLENN: Yeah. So he's a sniper, and he says, there's no way this happened without help. I don't want to go there. I don't want to believe that.
Because that takes us into an entirely different world.
JASON: Yeah.
GLENN: Do you believe that as a realistic possibility?
JASON: Okay. Okay. I think it is a possibility. There are also the other random possibilities that it was just lackadaisical security, by the local law enforcement, in my opinion. I'm not jabbing law enforcement. But I don't think they make great security guards because they're primarily reactionary.
GLENN: Right.
JASON: The Secret Service aspect of security like that is not reactionary. It's preventing the attack before it happens. The law enforcement, as a security --
GLENN: It's why they -- it's why the shooter, which I don't believe was a Secret Service sniper, may have only shot after shots were fired.
JASON: That's what I mean.
GLENN: Where Secret Service. You're in Secret Service, you have permission. You see a guy with a gun, pointed at the president, shoot him before he shoots.
Where, law enforcement would need the permission to shoot, unless he shot first. Would they not?
JASON: Right. That's exactly right. Secret Service is a different mindset than other law enforcement. Basically, they don't manage a situation with a firearm. If you see a Secret Service with a firearm, it typically means someone is getting shot. Law enforcement is completely different.
But I will not rule out the fact that it could just be very lax security. Maybe they were big Trump fans. Maybe they weren't fans at all. Maybe it was the exact opposite.
And they weren't as vigilant as they could have been, and someone was able to sneak over there. That is possible.
But the most random things in assassinations happen. Who would have known that Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian activist, would have been posing as, or blending in with hotel staff, and would have been in the right place at the right time, and caught RFK going through that private areas. You've been through those areas yourself, in public events? It's chaotic. Who would have known? Things like that happen.
Who would have thought that a crazed Hinckley would have -- looking to gain the support of Jodi Foster. Had no political ideology at all, just was a crazy guy looking to impress a movie star, would have been able to get to Ronald Reagan. These things do happen.
GLENN: So I want to ask you about the things that are being said now about the shooter, that we really don't know who he is.
I don't believe that for a second. If so, what the hell is the CIA and NSA doing with all of the eavesdropping on all of our communications? I don't believe that at all.
And this ruse, this lie, that, well, we just don't know. We don't know anything about him. We don't. You know, it smells of the Nashville shooter. Now, it's still early. But if they don't come out with the full detail on this guy, they're going to lose all credibility.
RADIO
July 16, 2024
"A Different Fight": What Glenn Hopes Trump Will Say in His RNC 2024 Speech
Former President Donald Trump said that he has completely changed his RNC 2024 speech after surviving an assassination attempt. His new speech will allegedly focus on unity instead of political jabs. So, Glenn lays out what he hopes Trump will say in his speech: "What we need in the United Sates is not division, hatred, violence, or lawlessness. It is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another...We need to fight, but not with violence. We need to stand up and show what America really means. To stand up against the fear and intimidation."
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: I want to make something really, really clear. The only one to blame for this assassination is the shooter. He's the one who tried to shoot the president, with the facts that we know right now.
I -- I am bringing up the president and the left's rhetoric, for a couple of reasons.
Did it play a role? Absolutely. Are they responsible for it? Well, I want to get into that in just a second.
But the rhetoric has been non-stop, that this guy is Hitler, that has to be eliminated. He's a Hitlerian, he's a fifth Reich. He's going to round people up just like Hitler did. That plays a role in unstable heads. Okay?
But you can't -- you can't be responsible for all unstable people that are out there. Because there are a lot of unstable people.
But you can watch your language. Here's what I think really happened with this kid. And I'm just guessing.
This kid is being pumped full of all kinds of bad ideas, in school. He is being pumped full of all kinds of bad ideas in the media, and social media. He is also seeing that you're really kind of a hero, if you, you know, are part of BLM.
And you burn a city down.
If you're on the right side, there is -- there is no trial for you.
There's no problem.
In fact, the vice president will bail you out!
So he's seeing the lack of enforcement, on one side. Which makes it appear, that that side is right.
And the oldest question in -- known to man in the 20th century is, if you could go back, and kill Baby Hitler, would you?
Implying that you're a hero, if you would.
The only one that's responsible, is the shooter. But there are other things that influence the minds of unstable people.
And I want to bring their rhetoric into play because, why are they going after Donald Trump, for January 6th.
Because he said, go to the capital, peacefully. Let your voice be heard.
They're saying he incited this.
Those aren't inciting word.
Inciting words are much more like, it's time we put a bull's-eye on Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is Hitler, who has to be eliminated.
Now, I don't think that Joe Biden meant the bull's-eye thing, just like Sarah Palin didn't mean the crosshairs.
But if you're going to be consistent, if you're going to be morally consistent, if you're actually outraged by crosshairs, then you should be outraged by a bull's-eye.
And if you think somebody's rhetoric can actually cause people to go to the Capitol and tear it apart, well, then you should be concerned about the rhetoric of this guy is Hitler, that has to be eliminated
And if you want to be morally consistent, because you're trying that guy, shouldn't you be trying this president as well?
Is anybody on the -- on the left, beginning to see the problems, with the cases that they have brought?
So here's what I hope the president would say. First of all, I don't think I've seen a bigger act of courage in my lifetime, from a president. To stand up and insist that he can look at the crowd.
Make an opening for me, so I can see the crowd, and to raise his fist and say, fight!
Now, I know a lot of people on the left, they want to say, well, see, he's going for violence.
No. Fight for what you believe in. Stop being mealy mouthed about it. Stand up. Stand up.
Fight at the ballot box. Stand up, and stop just being plowed under by lies. Fight.
You're darn right. You're darn right.
I thought it was an amazing moment. However, I was really happy to read, what he said, he's going to Milwaukee yet another amazing -- think about what it feels like to be shot at.
And almost killed. How long would it take before you could go out in public again?
He went last night, to Milwaukee. Which is significant. We'll tell you why here in a little while. He goes to Milwaukee. And he's on the ground, and he says, he's changing the theme of the convention that's happening this week.
He's changing it to unity. To peace. I would hope the president will come out and say something along the lines of, we're standing here today, because America is resilient.
A few days ago, somebody tried to kill me.
But by God's grace, that bullet only grazed me. But it is a stark reminder, of the divisions and the anger that we see today.
And we're at a critical moment. And when you have a bullet whiz by your head, there's two ways to go. One is vengeance, and the other is unity.
And our nation is divided. Trust is low.
In our neighborhoods, and the media, everywhere. But let me echo the word of RFK.
When Martin Luther King was shot. What we need in the United States is not division. What we need in the United States is not hatred. What we need in the United States is not violence, or lawlessness.
But it is love and wisdom. And compassion toward one another.
America is the land of the underdog. Of the little guy. And we've always been that way. But when I say fight, what I mean is the little guy needs to rise up. Make sure your voice is heard, to be not afraid.
We need to fight. But not with violence. We fight with our words.
We fight on the street, with our words and our actions.
And we need to stand up and show, what America really needs.
To stand up against the fear and intimidation. Remember, America was built on the idea that all men and women are created equal.
With unalienable rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
They're not just word.
They are the foundation of this country. Beginning today, let's show the rest of the world, what it means, to be American.
If you believe that America is an exceptional place, then it's the people, that make it that way. Every voice matters. Every citizen matters.
Stand up for the principles in our Bill of Rights. Defend the truth, with integrity and courage. Forgive others. Without compromising our values.
I would hope the president would say, join me now, in a different fight.
Not with guns. But with ideas. Not with hatred. But with understanding.
To begin to write a new chapter in our history.
Let's rise above our differences, and find our e pluribus unum, our common ground again.
Because I do believe all Americans should not be afraid of their commander-in-chief.
If you are afraid of the president, either on the right, or the left, that is showing you and screaming at you, the power in the Oval Office, is too great.
And our -- our republic is out of balance. And that's what project 2025 is all about. That's what I'm going to try to do.
That's what the Supreme Court is going tolerance.
They are not empowering the seat of the presidency.
I am a president that is going to try to reduce the power of the presidency.
We're the United States of America. And we're strong. We're brave. We're compassionate.
But it's time to rise to the challenge, and fight with the spirit that has always guided us.
Let's be the light in dark times.
Let's stand together. Shoulder to shoulder.
We're not a nation divided by fear.
We need to be a nation united by hope.
This is our time.
To prove the American dream is alive and well.
That's what I hope the president says. We already know the difference between the policies. We know fort first time in my lifetime, we have two presidents, two administrations we can A-B compare. It's not like, well, will he do this?
We know what he did last time. We know what Joe Biden has done this time. The winning message will be the message that most Americans want to hear. This has got to stop. And it's not going to stop by me forcing half the country to shut up. It's not going to stop by them forcing the other half to shut up.
It's going to happen because a leader stands up. And says, enough is enough.
And can convince the American people, can reverse all the damages that the elites in our colleges and universities and media has done over the last 20 years, to convince us that we're a bad people, that we're a racist people. We've done some bad things, but usually the worst things we do, are led by our own government.
And I've never believed the government was America. I've always believed the citizens were.
There are a couple of things, that could come our way, that we should be aware of. But the most important thing is that you reach out, to those who think the differently, and you show them, we're not the neo-Nazi fascists, that they have been groomed to believe. It is important today, that we all reach out to somebody that doesn't agree to us, that is a friend.
And just say, how are you doing today? Yeah, I know.
Our guy was shot. But I want you to know, I don't hold you responsible for that.
I'm sure you were just as offended as I was. If they weren't, move on.
But most likely, any decent American was horrified, by what they saw over the weekend.
RADIO
July 15, 2024
“That Doesn’t Add Up”: Top Sniper Exposes the Biggest Holes in the Trump Shooting Narrative
Dallas Alexander was part of the special operations unit that broke the world record for the longest confirmed sniper kill. He has also worked VIP protection at the highest levels. Now, he tells Glenn why he believes Trump's failed assassin didn't act alone: "someone on the 'inside' had to have helped with this." Dallas also explains how difficult this shot would be to make and why he has a hard time believing the rooftop used by the killer wasn’t marked by the Secret Service: “[Even] children who play Call of Duty or go to paintball would know that that roof is the most important position to secure, period.”
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.
As we say, hello, now to Dallas Alexander. He is a retired Canadian Special Forces sniper. He actually holds the record for the longest kill, and that is at 2.1 miles, which is remarkable. Just the amount of math involved in that, just hurts my head.
Dallas, welcome to the program.
DALLAS: Hey, thanks for having me.
GLENN: You bet. So you have said some pretty controversial things, and I -- I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth. Because you do have experience in this.
You don't believe that this was just incompetence, on the Secret Service's side?
DALLAS: Yeah. That's right.
GLENN: Can you make the case?
DALLAS: Yeah. I think -- like you said, I have some experience. I -- I did that job for a long time. Close protection, and -- and protecting VIPs and stuff. Up to -- up to and including our Prime Minister in Canada, who is part of our job.
And I think at looking at the situation yesterday or the day before, rather, that the -- any -- any amount of tactical professional. I mean, I've seen videos. And there was I don't know how many on the ground, from police and Secret Service. And there was just -- there were too many people there, to not have the most obvious position covered. Like, I said this before, children who play Call of Duty or go to paintball, would know that that roof is the most important position. And that building is one of the most important buildings to secure, period.
Like, just not picking that up, is impossible.
GLENN: It seems impossible to me. But, you know, sometimes the impossible happens just through sheer incompetence.
So what are you -- in your world where you are -- you're just war gaming this, I think it's important for people to know, there's no evidence of anything yet, except questions and what the question Dallas just brought up, is 100 percent valid and needs to be answered to satisfactory. We have to know why they weren't watching that, if they weren't.
So what do you think would have happened?
DALLAS: Well, I think that -- and this is what I said on a video yesterday.
Is that -- and this isn't me pointing a finger at anyone in particular, or a party or an agency. But someone within like the inside, quote, unquote, had to have helped with this.
Like, you can't walk through layers of security like that, and then climb up a ladder, to the most obvious shooting position, and take a shot at, you know, the former president.
And maybe shoot your president. Like somewhere along that chain. You know, I think there's talk coming up, that he had a van. And there were explosives. Like, details are going to be crazy for a little while.
GLENN: Right.
DALLAS: But just from that, to having the shots happen, there had to have been someone who helped with that.
GLENN: Well, Dallas, they did say that this was not part of the -- not part of the secure location. This was an adjacent property.
So he didn't have to go through security to get the rifle there. But, again, you would have been -- if you're a Secret Service, you would have been at least -- if you're not covering that building, with bodies, and somebody up on there, you would at least be covering it with eyesight, would you not?
DALLAS: Yeah. Absolutely. And especially with a covered approach like that, being the building sloping away from the other sniper team or whatever, that could see it. It would be covered.
I saw that. Just it flashed on the screen. At a restaurant, I was in. And immediately, I'm like, the two most obvious things. That building and then the water tower in the background. And you don't need any special training for that.
And yet there were a bunch of people there with special training, and presumably leading up to days before.
JASON: Hey, Dallas, I'm Jason Buttrill, I'm Glenn's head writer and chief researcher. Can you explain from the sniper's perspective, especially in a situation like this, in close protection details, upon visual acquisition of an enemy sniper, does the countersniper have permission to immediately take action and fire, or do they have to go through like a long process of verifying and then getting permission and all of that?
DALLAS: Yes. So that very much depends on the department, what the ROEs are.
And I can't speak to the Secret Service when they're working with the police force. I have no idea. I know, in the jobs that I have done, if there's a sniper position, and I'm a countersniper. Sniper overwatch. Yeah. You're shooting. You're not waiting for someone to give you permission to shoot.
JASON: Can I ask, as a sniper overwatch, do you also -- are you focused on a specific pause, or are you kind of scanning the entire horizon?
DALLAS: Yeah. It sort of depends on the mission and how many other sniper teams there are.
So if you have a bunch of teams, you'll have areas of responsibility. If you are, you know, tasked with watching one specific doorway or something, then that's where you stay. It's mission dependent.
GLENN: Right. So, Dallas, let me ask you. There was a five-mile-an-hour wind.
This is, you know -- it looks like, by the grace of God, Donald Trump turned his head. A, how easy of a shot was this, for a 20-something. And how close did we come to losing a president?
DALLAS: Yeah. That's something, I've been thinking about for the last couple of days. It's crazy.
Because if it would have been just an inch or two the other way, I would -- I just would hate to think about what would happen. You know, in this country and the whole world. It would have been very crazy. But the shot, you know -- I was asking somebody about this yesterday. I haven't gotten confirmation on what the optics on the rifle are, which makes a big difference.
It's not generally a very hard shot. I mean, it's 150 yards roughly. It doesn't take much in training whatsoever, to be able to hit a head-sized target at 150 yards.
Wind definitely would play a factor. I think the caliber is .556. Even that, I'm not 100 percent sure.
It's not a -- it's not a difficult shot. But it's also not unmissable, you know. If he only has an EOTECH sight or something like that. You don't have a lot of gun training. It's not something that you will for sure hit.
Which is why maybe he said, I think it was five or eight rounds.
GLENN: Have you ever -- have you ever shot and had them dead in your sights, and they moved at the very last minute like this? How often does that happen?
DALLAS: Oh, from that range, that's pretty wild, I think. I was very surprised.
I think someone telling me yesterday, that they heard it was an EOTECH sight made a little more sense to me. Because if they had a scoped rifle, you know, with a magnification ten power or whatever, it would have been very -- a different shot. A lot easier to make. So...
GLENN: Dallas, thanks for your -- your weighing in on this.
I really hope that you're wrong. What are the questions that we should be demanding from our Secret Service?
DALLAS: Oh. Jeez. The breakdown, is crazy.
Like, there's so many layers to this. And it would be -- I don't even know who -- who started the planning. How long ago it was. But to miss something that obvious, again, there's just -- I don't think there's an explanation. I think you just need a deep dive investigation. I don't think competence -- and I worked in the government for a long time. So I know incompetence, and there's a ton of it.
I just don't think that -- that is what explains this problem away. I think something happened, and I think there needs to be, you know, a gigantic deep dive investigation. Because it's very, very shady.
GLENN: So you don't think that even incompetence would cover this? Because it's so obvious.
DALLAS: Yeah. I think -- you could take a 10-year-old out there and say, okay. Where do you want to plan security? What should we look at? And it will be a kid who played Call of Duty and tell you, this rooftop, right here is the most dangerous point. It's overlooking where the president is going to be speaking. Where the former president is going to be speaking. It's just it's cliché. It's so obvious.
That and the water tower.
GLENN: But it couldn't just be one person. If that was happening, it would have -- it would have to involve a team, wouldn't it?
Because you -- somebody else on the team would go, Bill, what the hell are you talking about? We've got to cover the roof.
DALLAS: That's what I mean. I'm saying, in all these videos, whether it's Secret Service agents or local police or whatever, is these are all tactical professionals. And even if their level of competence is low, it still doesn't matter.
That's such an obvious, basic thing. You could take a Navy cook or whatever, and he's going to go, oh, yeah, tactically speaking, we have to look at that thing.
So out of all the people on the ground. Out of all the people involved. It doesn't make any sense. That that one position. And the most important position arguably was not being watched.
And like a ladder. Somebody putting a ladder and climbing up. It doesn't make any sense.
GLENN: Well, apparently the ladder was attached to the building. So nobody had to bring a ladder.
Let me -- let me ask you.
The thing that bothers me is that all of the people on the ground were pointing and shouting shooter, shooter, shooter.
Is it possible that nobody heard that? That it didn't get up, to, you know -- to the guys. If you're a police officer or you're in Secret Service, wouldn't you radio that in, immediately?
DALLAS: Yeah. You would hope. This is the part of it, that I think could be -- you could point to incompetence.
I have seen communication breakdown when things get crazy. Radios not work.
Like I'm guessing all the agencies there. Whoever local police. And Secret Service.
They're probably not using the same radio and gear.
Probably someone passing down the message. In chaotic times, I've seen communication be poorly executed, to like a surprising level.
So that -- that part I could almost -- I could almost wrap my head around it being blamed on incompetence.
But I just think everything leading up to there being a guy with a gun on a roof, within essentially zeroing range of a rifle, to the president.
To me, that doesn't add up whatsoever.
GLENN: And they would have reported everything that was said, would they not?
DALLAS: I don't know what the SOPs (phonetic) are, actually, for Secret Service, and police.
The missions I've gone on, unless it's going to like a tactical center or something. Like on the ground, we were not recording our radio conversations.
GLENN: Hmm. Okay. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. No. I know. I know. I know. I know.
Thank you for pointing this out, and having us questions that really need to be answered. Dallas Alexander. Appreciate it. God bless. Stay safe.
DALLAS: Thanks for having me.