Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Did Teixeira act ALONE? Here are the TOP 2 theories behind the leaked Pentagon documents EXPLAINED.

April 21, 2023
Digital Vision | Getty Images
Katarina Bradford

Last week, 21-year-old Jack Teixeira was arrested at his mother’s home in North Dighton, Massachusetts after he leaked dozens of "top secret" intelligence documents through a Discord channel with 20 to 30 members. The documents contained sensitive intelligence pertaining the war in Ukraine, the U.S.'s involvement in training Ukrainian troops, and other intelligence about U.S. allies, such as Israel, South Korea, and others.

Since Teixeira's arrest, Glenn has been asking the glaring question that the media refuses to address: did Teixeira act alone? Glenn brought multiple defense experts on his show this week to get to the bottom of how a 21-year-old National Guardsman could have possibly accessed these documents with his clearance.

Glenn's guests included former head of intelligence Kash Patel, Glenn's head researcher and former defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, and The Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald. Each of Glenn's three guests demonstrated that the current media narrative has glaring holes and many more questions not only need to be answered, they need to be asked by our media in the first place.

With all of the news circulating around this story, it is often difficult to discern the core points you need to know to analyze the story for yourself. Below you will find the top theories behind the leaked Pentagon documents explained so YOU can come to your own conclusion. But first, some background.

Was Teixeira's security clearance sufficient to get him access to the documents?

In short, no.

Teixeira did hold "top secret" security clearance. However, this is not unique. In fact, millions of people within the defense and intelligence community possess "top secret" clearance. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out on Glenn's radio show today (4/20/2023), our government abuses its ability to deem relatively anything "top secret." For example, when Greenwald was investigating the Snowden documents, he recounted how even parking tickets and other "banal information" was labeled "classified" or "top secret." Labeling even seemingly insignificant documents "top secret" makes it a felony to publicly share that information, protecting the government from the probing eyes of the press.

Since millions of people within the defense and intelligence communities are given "top secret" clearance to access basic information, the defense created "top secret +" clearance for truly sensitive information. Glenn's head researcher and former defense intelligence analyst, Jason Buttrill, explained that the two types of "top secret +" clearance are "Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)" clearance and "Special Access Program (SAP)" clearance.

Buttril explained that Teixeira would not only need either SCI or SAP access, but he would also need a "need to know" permission to access that information specifically. Teixeira had none of these clearances, so it is relatively impossible that he would have been able to access these specific documents on his own.

How would someone get access to the leaked documents?

The New York Times simply reported that Teixeira used JWICS to access the classified documents. However, this is a blatantly generalized assessment of what is actually required to access the caliber of documents that were leaked. As Buttrill told Glenn, JWICS is the security network for defense agencies like Verizon, which is a network for millions of cell phone users. Most defense employees have access to JWICS, but as Kash Patel told Glenn, less than 0.5 percent of these people have access to the types of documents Teixeira accessed. In short, we need more information than what the New York Times is currently investigating.

So how would one of these 0.5 percenters get their hands on the leaked classified information? First, Buttrill said, they would need either an SCI or SAP clearance. Second, they would not only need knowledge that these documents actually existed, but they would know where they were located within the JWICS system. Both facts are kept secret except for those who are given a "need to know" clearance to the documents.

Patel told Glenn the following helpful illustration. Imagine if JWICS were a huge mansion with numerous rooms and chambers. Even if millions of people had the front door key, only a select few could access certain rooms. Even fewer would know the location of the family jewels and possess the key to unlock the safe. Teixeira possessed the key to open the front door, but he would not have known the location of the documents within the JWICS system nor have the SCI and SAP clearance to access them. So how did Teixeira access them?

How did Teixeira get the documents? Theory 1

Given the fact that Teixeira did not have the clearance to access the leaked documents, there are two leading theories to explain what happened.

The first theory is the "screw-up" theory. As Buttrill said on Glenn's show, someone with SCI or SAP clearance could have theoretically left his/her computer open with the documents visible, giving Teixeira the opportunity to view and print the documents. However, as Buttrill pointed out, there are several issues with this theory.

The first glaring issue is that there would have been a record of someone printing those particular documents from the person's computer. Buttrill said there is a record for every print job, particularly regarding documents with that level of security. The authorities would have easily been able to locate Teixeira and the owner of the computer. However, this does not seem to be the case: authorities said they located Teixeira from particular details in his posted online images, not through any print record.

Moreover, the second glaring issue is that, if this theory were true, the person who left highly classified documents open on their computer without their supervision is liable for prosecution. The fact that someone else hasn't been arrested either means the "screw up" theory isn't true, or that the true responsible party is being covered up by their respective agency.

If this theory is true, then the lesser of two evils would follow: namely, that our intelligence system is broken and is vulnerable to leaks. Patel said he hopes this is the case, but believes the second theory is much more plausible.

How did Teixeira get the documents? Theory 2

The second and more plausible theory is the "co-conspirator" theory, alleging that someone with SCI or SAP clearance aided Teixeira in getting access to the leaked documents. If the "screw-up" theory were true, there would be direct documentation linking Teixeira to the computer via the printer or some record of data exchange. As Patel suggested:

Somebody, either a DoD or someone in the intelligence community, either wanted this information out, or [Teixeira] found someone who wanted the information out, like he did and helped him with that process, and access.

This means that either Teixeira found someone within the DoD to give him the documents, or someone within the DoD wanted the documents leaked and used Teixeira as a scapegoat. If the latter is the case, then Teixeira is a pawn in the DoD's strategic plan.

What was the motive behind the leak?

There are several different theories speculating the motive behind the leak. Patel said:

Somebody either wanted this information out ... or our classification system is so broken and so destroyed that a rookie can walk in and harness our nuclear secrets.

Patel further said the main goal of the leak was to show the information in Ukraine, while the other intelligence leaks were aimed at throwing people "off the tracks" of the true motive. This further corroborates the theory, Patel said someone else with more knowledge about the Ukrainian conflict was involved.

Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand, said the "screw-up" theory is still possible alongside the co-conspirator theory, stating:

You would be surprised with how sloppy the U.S. government is, even with classified information.

However, Greenwald criticized the media's lack of transparency and curiosity over the investigation, accusing "media corporations of serving the U.S. security state above all else." Greenwald, Patel, and Buttrill all agreed there is much more to the story than meets the eye. The media needs to stop doing the bidding of the intelligence community and begin doing their job: investigating the truth.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.