TV

Chalkboard Lesson: Exposing the corruption of Joe Biden

How has corruption of this magnitude gone unchecked for so long? Watch this clip to see the final chalkboard and catch a glimpse into the life of the most corrupt vice president in history.

Blaze Media Journalist Describes 'HUMILIATING' Treatment by FBI During Arrest
RADIO

Blaze Media Journalist Describes 'HUMILIATING' Treatment by FBI During Arrest

The FBI has temporarily released Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker after arresting him for his reporting at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Now, Steve joins Glenn with the details of how the FBI treated him. Steve describes feeling "humiliated" and "overwhelmed" by the FBI's tactics, which included shackles around his wrists, legs, and waist. And he also tells Glenn that, although he was booked on misdemeanors, he was put in a cage with a meth dealer. Steve's attorney, James Lee Bright, also joins to make the case that this is NOT normal.. Out of the roughly 60 journalists who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Bright says that only 6 or 7 have been charged and "all of those have been right-of-center media."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Baker is with us.

He's the investigative journalist for TheBlaze. He's TheBlaze media correspondent. He's in today with his attorney. Because on Friday, he was arrested by the FBI.

If you happened to miss that podcast. It's kind of a don't miss. It's Friday's podcast.

James Lee Bright is his attorney, and he is with us, now. Welcome back.

JAMES: Hey, good to be back, Glenn.

GLENN: So I heard you say, the very first thing out, asked how you feel.

And you said, humiliated. Why?

JAMES: I thought I was mentally and emotionally prepared for this, because I've followed too many of these cases to not have been. I've seen too many of these guys, even misdemeanor defendants, even misdemeanor independent journalists. Marched before a magistrate in leg chains and the orange jumpsuit. So I thought I was ready for it, until they put the leg chains on.

And it -- I mean -- I've never even been fingerprinted for anything in my whole life.

And to actually, in the moment that it was happening, it was overwhelming.

And then on top of being chained, at your -- at your waist and your legs, then they put you in a cage with a meth dealer.

For -- and -- and, of course, Lee can speak to this better than I can. But the process of putting a non-violent misdemeanor defendant, who has been utterly and totally cooperative since the very first phone call, from the FBI, over two and a half years ago, it could have been just an order to appear. I could have walked in with Lee. Both of us with our jackets and ties on.

We could have sat in the gallery. They call us up. Stand for it. Just like they did for a felony defendant that day. But I am guarded by US marshals with leg chains on.

GLENN: So how many misdemeanors, Lee, have you -- have you done, where they're in -- leg chains?

How many times did you see this?

JAMES: In a case like this, almost never. I have clients right now, that are charged with felony drug cases, that we are negotiating with the DOJ for voluntary turn-ins. There's an active warrant with one, that I was speaking with this morning. And the DOJ is working with us, to do a voluntary turn-in to a magistrate. We'll do a same-day hearing. She'll process through pre-trial services. Will be out, no leg chains. Nothing. This is determined by the DOJ in Washington. They had us turn Steve in to the FBI at their headquarters, 7:00 a.m.

Walking through, processed him. Put him in leg chains, waist chain.

Handcuffs to his waist. And then took him directly to the marshals down at the Capitol Building here in Dallas.

GLENN: I mean, I don't remember anybody in leg chains and irons, for BLM, setting cities on fire.

JAMES: No. In fact, most of those were just catch-and-release, if they bothered to catch at all.

In fact, most of them had their cases dismissed. And then many of them had been awarded cash payouts from the government, because they were unfairly arrested, or prosecuted. Because obviously, we had to understand what their frustrations and, you know, what made them burn a building down.

GLENN: So I was really encouraged by -- by the op-ed that came out from Jonathan Turley. This weekend.

JAMES: Yeah.

GLENN: He makes the point that you, you know, might be an activist journalism. Or a journalist activist. You know, whatever this new thing is that they're doing.

BAKER: Right. Right.

GLENN: Because you have an opinion. And Stu and I were talking about it earlier this morning. Yes, you have an opinion. I have an opinion.

But that doesn't mean that you are finding the story you want to find.

You could still have an opinion on things. But as long as you're honest enough to say, I'm going in. And I don't know what's going to happen.

I have an idea of what could happen. But I'm going to tell the truth, no matter which side it falls on.

Is that who you are?

JAMES: Well, see, that's the thing that obviously not only the charging documents themselves. Because the charging documents are what they call the statement of fact. They are specifically put together for the purpose of constructing a narrative for prosecution.

GLENN: Okay.

JAMES: Out of context comments.

More importantly, and this is the key, Glenn.

And look, I'll tell you what. I'll let -- let me let an NBC. The court reporter. The guy who does every one of the cases, J6 cases for NBC.

He's there every day. His name is Ryan Riley.

And he tweeted out yesterday. He said, if it wasn't for Steve's language on January 6th, before he entered the Capitol. And then after that evening, this case almost certainly wouldn't have been brought.

GLENN: Okay. So let's -- wow, that's interesting here in America.

Let me go through the actual charges. And let's take them one by one. Can we do that. Here are the charges.

JAMES: You want me to read them?

GLENN: Yes, please.

JAMES: Okay. So these are the charges listed in the criminal complaint.

That's not the formal filing of the charge. That would either be an information, of misdemeanors, or indictment on felonies.

But this is the criminal complaint, that issued the arrest warrant, with the supporting affidavit and statement of facts contained.

And Steve is right. It is written. With the intent to create a language narrative. There's no question. So of the four charges that Steve has been charged with, 18 USC 752 A1. That's knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds, without lawful authority.

That's the one that carries up to a one year in jail penalty, minimum of six months.

18 USC 1752 A2. Disorderly, and disruptive conduct in a restrictive building or ground.

40 USC 5104e2d. Disorderly conduct, in a Capitol Building.

And then 40 USC 5104E2G. Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

GLENN: Okay. So the -- I don't know.

I'm sure you know this now. I don't know when you found out.

But the Speaker of the House released 5,000 hours, of videotape.

Much of it is centering around you.

And showing that you weren't parading or picketing or being disorderly at all.

JAMES: Ever. Not at all.

GLENN: So, how they make that charge?

JAMES: That's going to be fascinating to see.

BAKER: You know, this is -- this is -- and, again, I don't want to get into being the legal expert or even trying. I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night. But the point being, they always -- because I followed so many of these trials. They always overcharge. That's not just J6. And that's to scare you into a quick plea deal. They get their -- you know, their notch in their belt. And their points towards whatever their next career advancement goals are. And that's essentially what's happening here.

Technically, yes. I went in the building. Okay. So if that is a crime, then it is a crime.

But --

GLENN: Hang on. If that's a crime. Then the crime has to be punished equally.

So the New York Times, the Washington Post.

Every single journalist would have to be charged with that crime, right?

JAMES: I think Steve and I were talking earlier. And I think we estimated that roughly 60 journalists went into the rotunda. Went into the Capitol building that day. Six to seven have been charged now. Out of 60, rough.

All of those have been right of center media. All of them.

GLENN: So you -- you are being made -- let me see if I can find it.

From NBC. You're made into a total clown, by NBC.

BAKER: The same guy whose tweet I just read.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. And he -- he says that, you are just a -- you're in a cover band. You weren't a journalist, at the time.

I don't know who defines journalists now.

BAKER: He refused to call me a journalist. Instead, he said, now I'm a writer for TheBlaze website.

That was his only way of getting around having to acquiesce to what I was doing that day.

GLENN: Correct.

JAMES: I apologize. I got to know Ryan a little bit, when we were in trial, back in the fall of '22 for three months for the Oath Keeper's trial. I always found him to be a really reasonable fellow. I liked some of his work. But I agree, the article that he wrote, regarding Steve.

GLENN: Was a hatchet job.

JAMES: It was. It was petty. It was completely unnecessary. I thought it was really poor reporting. And it was done, not unlike the complaint. Not unlike what we're talking when we see the language. It was done to establish a narrative, solely to disparage Steve.

GLENN: So how do you -- first of all, how do you combat the journalist thing?

With him going in, that's a six-month sentence. And he has said, well, yes.

Technically, I did. I did violate that. So how do you defend that?

JAMES: Number one, I'm not the only attorney on this case. We have about five of us, that are volunteering on this.

And we are volunteering because we got to know Steve during trials in DC. Great reporting.

Always loved spending time with him. He was one of the few conservatives in the press pool there.

One of the other attorneys --

GLENN: No. He's a musician. A musician and Libertarian writer.

Who was a frequent presence at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC, during the Oath Keeper's seditious conspiracy trial. What were you doing, just hanging out there all the time?

BAKER: Well, the worst thing that I was doing, about half of my reporting was on the press pool.

They didn't like that. Because I always sat in the back of the room, so I could watch them and see what was on -- what they were doing. See what they were doing. See which games they were playing during the important testimonies.

To see who was prewriting their stories. And then just hanging out in the hallway, talking. Because that's what they do.

And they're really good at it. They can pre-write two or three stories in a day. And as soon as the rulings, or the motions are filed, fill in the blanks, and boom, submit, submit, submit.

And then get out. And then more importantly, I was able to show on certain very significant testimonies, how the comparison of how the various journalists withheld information.

Because see, we all know, it is -- it is -- it's not that they lie, it's the lie of omission.

It's when you're only covering the governments case-in-chief.

And their witnesses. And then all of a sudden, they get out, and go for coffee break during the cross-examination. How can you tell the truth about what happened on that trial?

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling
RADIO

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling

For months, the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress have tried to convince the American people that Colorado SHOULD be allowed to kick former president Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. And they insisted that if the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, it would be the fault of the "right wing" justices. However, the Supreme Court has now ruled unanimously that Colorado can't use Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump. This was a big failure for the media, Glenn and Stu argue. But did the Court still leave a way for Democrats to remove Trump from office?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The big news today, is that the Supreme Court said, no.

Colorado, you can't do that.

The states can't take a national candidate, off the ballots.

Because of the 14th amendment.

Because the state has nothing -- the 14th amendment is something that the Congress would have to do.

STU: Yeah. That's basically what they're saying.

And it's -- it's fascinating on the legal front. It's a little more complicated than the happy headlines. Which I am happy about.

Legitimately, happy about.

GLENN: Nine-zero.

STU: Nine-zero. Unanimous ruling. Including Sotomayor. Which I'm shocked.

Sotomayor, is essentially AOC.

Right?

GLENN: She's a clown of the court. She really has no --

STU: She really is ridiculous.

And she's trying to make herself out to this sort of Ruth Bader Ginsburg figure. Now Ruth Bader Gisnburg was a hardcore liberal, but a serious liberal at some level.

Where I don't believe Sotomayor is. But this was so obvious, they could not do this. Even Sotomayor was on board for this. And also Ketanji Brown Jackson.

All three liberals. They do have a qualified yes on this.

And they say, basically, we agreed that Colorado couldn't do that. That's the issue in front of the court.

We believe the majority has gone too far. Basically the only way this can be implemented is by legislation of Congress.

They kind of leave it open. As to what federal powers can be utilized there. But it is kind of -- it's interesting to note, they did write a dissent here.

And say, hey. Wait a minute. We're not going as far as the majority is.

If you want to go down. Do you want to go down the full house of cards situation here for just a second.

GLENN: Yes. Oh, yeah.

STU: Which is kind of -- it's hilarious in a way. They're basically saying, Congress will basically pass a law saying, that he engaged in insurrection. And therefore, should be thrown off the ballots. As we know --

GLENN: And you can't do that right now. Because the House belongs to the Republicans.

STU: The Republicans.

Now, the Republicans have a very small majority here.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: A couple of House seats somehow changed.

God forbid. And this -- this situation changes. So that's one thing to think about.

Another thing to think about.

And again, we're going the full house of cards situation here.

This is not going to happen. I'm telling you, it's not going to happen.

GLENN: I wouldn't rule anything out.

A dog-faced alien, could come down and take over the White House, on January 7th.

And I would be like, well, didn't see it coming.

But uh-huh. Makes sense.

STU: Yeah. You know, you know, I guess, you could say, the whole house of cards thing, had a lot of -- the show had a lot of crazy turns.

GLENN: Yeah. Which all looks tame at this point.

STU: Yes. He made his wife president, spoiler alert.

Also Kevin Spacey was married to her. Also spoiler alert. Wouldn't have happened in real life.

There's been developments in that case, that may make you understand that.

But going beyond the house of cards thing. In theory, let's just say Donald Trump wins.

The presidential election. And the Democrats hold the Senate, and turn over the House.

That new Congress takes seat on January 3rd.

You'll note, a couple days before, January 6th.

So you'll have a new -- in theory, democratic Congress, democratic president, that could theoretically come up with it. And it seems like --

GLENN: All they have to do is, he was an agent.

An agent of insurrection. And therefore, cannot be president of the United States.

STU: Now, there's reason to believe, in the ruling, that the Supreme Court would not allow this to happen.

But still, it's theoretically possible, that they could vote and say, yes. He's an insurrection. We will pull you off the ballot.

And then you would have a couple of days to get this over.

The way I would think I would understand it. Whoever Trump chooses as VP, essentially, would take over.

It would be, they would put Biden in for longer.

Or some democratic would be named.

Look, if the American people elect Donald Trump and they just pulled him off.

No. You have to go with your VP now. There would be a little bit of uproar over that.

Again, not going to happen. But still, it is a fascinating.

GLENN: What makes you say. I mean, I don't think it will happen either.

I don't think it will happen.

But you say it with such certainty.

What makes you say it with -- you know what is crazy is, we used to say, you know, these things aren't going to happen?

And we would -- we would fairly -- we would believe it. Because crazy things haven't happened.

You can't use that same kind of conviction anymore.

STU: I say it the same way I said it, to start this show.

That Donald Trump was be the not going to lose in court today.

I knew he wasn't going to lose in court today. There was no way he was going to lose in court today.

However, there was definitely a way he could have lost in court today, and we would all be screwed.

In reality, I can't imagine anything like this happening. Just to give you the outline, possibility, of whether you should get all your preparation supplies and head to the mountains, right now. Like, if that were to happen, God only knows.

GLENN: If that would have happened today, I would have gotten all my stuff, and head to the mountains now. I would have.

STU: Seriously, you would have. You would have been at the ranch.

Can you address one other part of it too. Separate from all the legal back and forth.

Which we will I'm sure, cover over the next couple of days. In more depth.

Can we just stop and pause for a second?

And focus on how seriously the media as a whole, took this ridiculous ruling from Colorado. And the idiotic Lawrence Tribe-esque experts who told us it was the right thing.

They said over and over again, oh, actually, this -- this can happen. And it's absolutely right.

And we saw expert after expert. Trotted out on television.

To tell us, no. Really, this is the right way to go.

This is really what's going to happen. And the Supreme Court very well might overturn this. And then nine-zero.

GLENN: And then I may say, convinced people who, if they would just use their common sense.

When it first came out. You would say, they can't do that. They can't do that happen

STU: We know that.

Because he's not been charged with insurrection or anything else. He can't do that. These people came on television, and convinced half the country, that that was reasonable, and really, not just possible. But could be likely.

STU: And the only thing that would stop it is this right-wing Supreme Court. That, of course, would go with --

GLENN: Nine-zero.

STU: But then it was 9-0. And you had even Sotomayor on board for it. So an embarrassing failure for the media yet again.

It's important to note these things. Even though I sound like a broken record on it.

They convinced half the people in the country, that, oh, yeah. Well, this is obviously the right thing. Nobody believed it was the right thing.

There was never any hope for it legally in the courts. It was always a dead end.

It was a hail Mary of Hail Marys of Hail Marys of Hail Marys. And they decided to try it.

Because they're throwing every piece of spaghetti against the wall, to see if it would stick. They never had a chance. It was always absurd. The people who put it through in the California Supreme Court.

Should be ashamed of themselves. They knew it wasn't real. They knew it wasn't true, and they did it anyway.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, we're sitting knee high in spaghetti right now. And that will continue. And it will get faster and faster. And it will get worse.

They are just trying anything and everything to win. Ethics.

The ends justify the means. So look at -- we made -- in the end, drown in a pile of spaghetti. Because this is their approach. And I'm telling you, the law fair that is coming our way, is going to be insane.

How Canada Could PAY People to Throw Their Neighbors IN PRISON
RADIO

How Canada Could PAY People to Throw Their Neighbors IN PRISON

Canada is now considering whether to pass a new bill that would turn it into the most authoritarian state in the western world. The “Online Harms Act” is billed as a social media law meant to protect Canadians from harmful content. But it includes some extremely draconian changes to “hate speech” laws that would allow anyone to anonymously charge someone with a hate speech crime — and if they’re successful, they could pocket $20k. Rebel News founder Ezra Levant joins Glenn to explain how this could turn into a massively corrupt industry that would make the Democrats’ persecution of Donald Trump look like child’s play. Plus, he explains how this bill, if passed, would destroy not just free speech, but the free press: “Soon there will be only two kinds of journalists in Canada: government journalists and BANNED journalists.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Ezra, welcome.

EZRA: Thanks very much. It's good to be here. But I've got bad news, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. What?

EZRA: Canada just introduced the most Draconian anti-free speech censorship bill in our history and in the history of any democratic country. I've never seen anything like it.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on, Ezra. Ezra Levant.

EZRA: I can't wait. I can't wait.

GLENN: I know. Ezra Levant is the host of the Ezra Levant Show.

He started Rebel News, which is like TheBlaze. Has the same kind of mission as TheBlaze.

Ezra, we just had one of our reporters jailed, picked up by the FBI.

EZRA: Oh, my God.

GLENN: He is the one that is leading the investigation on January 6th.

He was arrested, this morning, about an hour ago.

And we're in real -- we're in real trouble.

As a nation, we're in real, real trouble.

And you guys are following, actually, you are leading, I think.

Because you guys have just introduced a bill yesterday.

That is bone-chilling.


EZRA: Well, what you just reported to me about the rest of your reporters is terrifying. And I know you will absolutely must -- you cannot allow the arrest of journalists, for criticizing your regime to be normalized. That is absolute priority one.

GLENN: As you know, Ezra, that is -- the mainstream media will not cover this. They will not cover it. And it's reprehensible.

EZRA: You know what, if he was on the other side of the political aisle, winning a Pulitzer, there would be national press conferences for him. You would see Amnesty International talking about it. You might even see the United Nations talking about it.

But if he's conservative-oriented, or a critic of the regime, it will be crickets.

Let me tell you what's going on in Canada. Because as I always say, what happens in Canada today, may happen to the US five years from now.

It's like we're a bad time machine to see your future.

This week Justin Trudeau introduced a new bill called Bill C63. It's got a lot of things in it, that are atrocious. He's created a new hate crime bill, life in prison. New hate crime law. There's nothing that gets you life in prison in Canada, not even murder. But hate speech now does.

He's created a pre-crime for hate. If you have, quote, fear of hate, fear of hate. That's the title of the section of the law, you can get a judge to issue a kind of restraining order against your enemy, before he does anything. Before he says anything. And that restraining order can include post-arrests. Giving you up any lawful firearms.

Limiting who he can talk to. Directly or indirectly.

Limiting the places he can go. And requiring him to take urine and blood tests. Just because you are, quote, afraid, he might in the future, say some hate speech.

He doesn't have to have done anything in the past.

This is a pre-crime, like in that science fiction movie, Minority Report. That's in this bill. Let me tell you other things in this bill.

Donald Trump and his tremendous travails with the US legal system. They're covered a lot by the Canadian media, and Justin Trudeau is obsessed with Donald Trump. So he's been watching what Democrats have done.

And he's learned from it. Trump has been prosecuted from high profile prosecutors. Trudeau has one-upped that.

Trudeau has now said that anyone in Canada, even noncitizens can file hate speech complaints against anyone.

And if they're successful, they get $20,000 from the target. And the target has to pay a fine for up to $50.

So let me just say this more clearly.

If there's anyone on social media. This is just a social media law on interviews. If there's anyone who has a YouTube video.

A tweet. A Facebook comment.

That you think creates hate. You can go to the Canadian human rights tribunal. And complain about it.

You don't have to hide a lawyer. You don't have to spend any money. The government will have the hearing. And if your complaint is upheld. You get 20 grand from the victim. So instead of having maybe --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Who gets the 30? The remaining 30?

EZRA: If 20 goes to the complainants and an additional 50 goes to the government, so you're on the hook for 70 grand a pop.

So let's take someone like Jordan Peterson. Every day he's saying something controversial on YouTube and Twitter. Oh, and, by the way, this applies to all your historical work online. So as long as it's still online, and you control it, they can go back through your history. Five years, ten years. And why wouldn't they complain about literally every tweet you make? Literally every YouTube video?

There's no cost. There's no downside. And even if only 5 percent of your complaints get through to the target. You're smacking them with 20 grand for yourself. And the 50 grand fine. This will create a huge industry.

So Trudeau saw what they were doing to Trump. And said, I can do one better. I'm not going to have a few sniper shots. I'm going to have a shotgun blast. I will have hundreds of complaints swarming my enemies. And I don't even have to do it. I will mobilize a woke army. But there's one more thing.

And people can't believe it when I tell it to them. But it's right there in the law, in black and white.

You can make a complaint in secret, and the target of your complaints never gets to know your identity.

You can give evidence in secret. The complaint can be made in secret.

So you can have a company, a political party, a busybody, who is literally filing 100 a day, and you'll never know it. And let me just be clear with one thing. You don't have to be a victim. You don't have to have any standing. You don't have to be mentioned at all. You can just do this as a hobby. As an obsession. As a job. As a political vengeance. Maybe a disgruntled ex-employee. This is all in bill C63. And you take it all together. This is the most Draconian free speech bill, anywhere in the world. Other than, I suppose Iran and China, who just do this stuff naturally.

GLENN: And kill you.

EZRA: Yeah.

GLENN: So what does that mean to people like you, Ezra? Because you're going to be attacked. Rebel News is going to be attacked. You're out.

EZRA: Let me just. Let me go to first principles for one second. Let me tell you what they're doing at the basic, principle level here.

What is a hate crime? What's hate, Glenn? It's a human emotion. If you never feel any hate in your life, you don't have a fully formed personality.

The challenge in life, is to take these bad emotions, and transform them into positive work. Into reforming the world. Fixing the problem. Hate comes from an underlying grievance. To pass a law to say, we're going to ban hatred. This is impossible. If we pass the love you act, we would number heaven.

To criminalize an emotion, it's just insane.

And that is, actually, what the law governs.

And I know. Because I was charged from a precursor of this law, about 15 years ago, when I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

I was charged with publishing something, quote, likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt, end quote.

So it's a pre-crime. It's a future crime, and it's not to do any actual damage.

It's just to hurt feelings, and that's the thing, is it's so subjective. We're all guilty in advance.

GLENN: So he --

EZRA: But as the Soviet's secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria said, show me the man, and I'll find you the crime.

We're all guilty of having hate in our hearts. So it's just whoever they choose to prosecute who will get dinged.

GLENN: So tell me this won't pass, in parliament.

EZRA: Well, the reason it was introduced this week, is because last week, Justin Trudeau signed a new coalition agreement, with a hard left-wing Socialist Party.

Justin Trudeau does not have a majority of seats in the House. So we signed a coalition deal with an even worse party.

And I fear this will be passed into law. And I fear it -- you know, it will take some time. They are setting up three new censorship agencies.

Not one. But three. There will be three new censorship bureaucracies.

And I think it will take them a number of months to get it going.

GLENN: Months.

EZRA: I think this will probably be operational in 2025. And then it will be the final battle, Glenn.

Because, you know, this will bankrupt any critic of the regime, and then there's those pre-crime restraining orders.

Then there's the actual criminal prosecution, they've created a standalone hate crime law for life in prison. Not even murder gets you that in Canada.

GLENN: So if this passes, you've become a Stasi state. A -- an -- East Germany.

EZRA: Yeah. The secret informants. The secret prosecution. The secret witnesses.

The subjective political nature of the crime. The three different agencies. It's, oh. And they have special rules for Facebook, YouTube, Instagram.

They say, if they get a complaint. A hate complaint, they must take it down within 24 hours. Or be subject to enormous fines.

And so there's no way you can adjudicate if something is right or wrong, or fair or not. In 24 hours.

And the fines are so enormous, basically, a complaint will automatically get things taken down. Again, I will tell you something now. And you probably won't believe me. But I swear it's in the text of the law.

There are fines in there, that can tag global media companies, 8 percent of their global revenue. So Justin Trudeau, sitting up here in Canada, says to Facebook. If you break my law, I will fine you 8 percent of your entire worldwide revenue. That's a 10 billion that are fine.

Now, I think Facebook, YouTube, Google, et cetera. I think they will probably push back on this. Or maybe they will just leave Canada. And Trudeau will be fine with that.

Facebook has already left Canadian news. Because Trudeau said to them, you have to pay $100 million to our list of approved journalists, for the pleasure of linking to them. And Facebook said, that makes no sense.

We're getting out of the Canadian news business. You cannot post a Canadian news story on Facebook. It blocks it. Trudeau is fine with that because that hurts the independent guys like us.

You can't read Rebel News on Facebook. We're blocked, as are every other Canadian news source. We are becoming like China, in that there is this great firewall of Canada going up.

Trudeau would be happy, shutting down any independent sources of news. Soon, there will be only two kinds of journalists left in Canada: government journalists and banned journalists. Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

Ezra

Dr. Phil's WARNING for Parents & His Advice for Trump's Legal Team | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 211
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Dr. Phil's WARNING for Parents & His Advice for Trump's Legal Team | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 211

We were promised a unified society, in which social media brought us together, our justice system was reliable, and parents could trust schools and universities with their kids. So maybe it’s time that we ask, “How’s that working for you?” In this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn sits down with renowned psychologist, TV host, and author Dr. Phil to take a deep dive into the mental health of America. Drawing from lessons in his latest book, “We’ve Got Issues: How You Can Stand Strong for America’s Soul and Sanity,” Dr. Phil offers our country a “path back to United America.” But there are many perils along the way. Dr. Phil issues a stark warning to parents about the forces targeting our children in an ever-evolving digital landscape. He and Glenn explore the detrimental effects of social media and unravel the dark underbelly of manipulative Big Tech algorithms. Further, he challenges society’s perception of higher education, arguing that our colleges and universities have become breeding grounds for fear and conformity. Plus, he offers shocking advice for Donald Trump's legal team as the former president and 2024 presidential candidate faces multiple cases across the country. Dr. Phil also shares why he decided to move his entire operation to Texas after 25 years in Hollywood, California, and start a new company, Merit Street Media.