TERRIFYING: FISA warrant targeting Carter Page highlights an out of control FBI

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Remember the House Intelligence Committee's game of dueling partisan memos? The Republicans claimed that the FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page, Trump's former advisor, was obtained by using unverified information… the Steele Dossier. Democrats answered by rebuking the release of the Republican memo, claiming it endangered national security and by saying that the FISA application was based on several things, not just the Steele Dossier.

My reaction after seeing both memos was that there was no real way to know the truth until we got our hands on the original FISA application. That seemed like a pipe dream. But that all changed on Saturday after the Trump administration released the 400 plus page application with heavy redactions. For the first time in 40 years, we've been given access to the justification to authorize surveillance on an American citizen. One word describes it: Frightening.

RELATED: Classified FISA Memo Released — Here's What It Said

We're supposed to be living under a system of checks and balances. For example, if a high ranking member of the DoJ or FBI has it in for you, there's supposed to be a check or balance in place to protect you. That's where the court comes in. After reading the Carter Page FISA application, the only thing I can see is an out of control FBI and DoJ, and a sham of a court system green lighting whatever comes across their desk.

The Republican memo appears to be exactly correct. This warrant was based almost entirely on the Steele Dossier. Besides the dossier, there were two other instances referenced as part of the FBI's case. The first was a five year old dead case where two Russian intelligence agents looked into using Page as a source.

They quite literally called him an idiot and moved on. The FBI didn't see Page as a threat then, but suddenly this was being brought up in a FISA court years later. The second thing used was a Yahoo News article, but guess who sourced the information to Yahoo News? Christopher Steele using information from his unverified Dossier. Oh yeah, and Steele was working for and getting paid by the FBI at this point. Talking about running your evidence in one giant circle.

The wording of the entire application appears built to deceive.

The wording of the entire application appears built to deceive. The words "opposition research" are never used. "Candidate one," is very obviously Donald Trump, but you never see the words "candidate two" or anything else that identifies Hillary Clinton or the DNC as having anything at all to do with commissioning this information. Seems kind of important doesn't it? Keep in mind, this is in October. The election was just weeks away.

Omitting information and writing words that make the material seem softer has only one purpose. To deceive. The FBI and DoJ were trying to deceive the FISA court. There's just no other way to explain it. But I don't even know if it really made a difference. The court looks like they just rubber stamp these cases. We've heard the rumor that FISA warrants are overwhelmingly approved rather than denied. But this is just ridiculous.

How many other Americans are being spied on — right this minute — based off of a political motivation, or screw it, maybe even a grudge from some pissed off FBI or DoJ employee? FISA needs an audit. We should all be demanding it right now.

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?