Is AMERICA to blame for DESTROYING the Nord Stream Pipeline?
RADIO

Is AMERICA to blame for DESTROYING the Nord Stream Pipeline?

A recent Substack article, titled ‘How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline’ by Seymour Hersh, makes some serious allegations about an alleged U.S. ‘covert sea operation’ that’s been kept a secret. The Nord Stream Pipeline was sabotaged in September 2022 and those responsible for the attack remain a mystery. There’s no reason to believe America was truly behind the event, but if we were, as Sen. Mike Lee recently tweeted, it could result in war. In this clip, Glenn and his senior researcher, Jason Buttrill, discuss what may have happened to the pipeline nearly five months ago…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to bring in -- I want to bring in Jason Buttrill, who is with me. And is going to explain exactly what is going on, with this one report. From one source.

So I say that clearly at the beginning. There's problems with this reporting. Because it is one source.

And I wouldn't take that from the New York Times as gospel.

So let's remember, one source. But it's pretty damning. It has a ton of facts.

Tell me the story, Jason, on what happened. And where this report is coming from.

JASON: I struggle to even really describe how to tell the story. Because it sounds like -- you familiar with the term fan fiction?

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: That's what was off the internet, what would really happen if Anakin Skywalker didn't become Darth Vader. This is the story. That's what it sounds like.

GLENN: Right. Right.

JASON: But Mike Lee is exactly right. If this is true, this is an act of war.

And what they're alleging is that the CIA, the Biden administration came up with the plan, to eliminate the Nord Stream two pipeline. To blow it up. And we all remember -- I think I even came on this program. I think you asked me. Do you think this was us? I said, well, no.

We would never risk something like a direct attack on a Russian asset. Never risk it.

GLENN: Here's the thing: I think it was Germany or Sweden, released a report that showed, Russia didn't do it.

And how many countries have the ability to do something like this?

This was not an easy hit.

JASON: Not an easy hit. And not even an easy hit for Americans. It would take a long time.

It would take very specific assets, like SEAL team six.

GLENN: Correct.

JASON: But the article goes into that. They couldn't use a SEAL Team 6, or anyone in JSOC. Joint Special Operation Command. Because they didn't have to go through Congress. Now, this is a big part of the story, if true.

They use some obscure Navy divers that are not part of JSOC, so then the CIA could use them in a joint intelligence operation. Not a military operation, an intelligence operation.

That would allow them to keep this quiet from Congress.

Now, think about that. Like Mike Lee said, this would be an act of war, if they did it and we found out.

But we didn't inform Congress about it, if true. There are multiple layers to this, even right off the bat.

GLENN: Who is this written by?

JASON: This was written by a guy named Seymour Hersh.

He wrote for the New York Times.

GLENN: He was a guy who got the -- the Pulitzer, for exposing the melee in Vietnam.

And he has done many exposés, but they generally kind of lean against America, do they not?

JASON: Yeah, there was the one in -- well, I guess, the bigger one would be Osama bin Laden questioning how all of that went down. Even actually questioned Osama bin Laden's culpability in 9/11.

This is what you kind of see with journalists nowadays, especially we saw this in the Russiagate stuff.

It's almost like they got on this Woodward and Bernstein high, and they all want to top each other off of it.

So where do you go after topping something like Woodward and Bernstein. They are getting more and more fantastical, and always trying to one up.

GLENN: Well, but not necessarily. This story is why you need --

JASON: True.

GLENN: -- a credible press. Why you need journalistic standards and not activists.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Because we are dealing with the story now, that if it is true, the American people gone for this.

But it's the American people, if true, that will pay the price.

It will be our sons and daughters, fighting a war, with Russia, and probably half of the world, because of something our out of control Deep State did.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: And we wouldn't have been for it.

Now, how do we prove it? Who do you believe?

Do you believe the investigators with Congress?

Do you believe the investigators from the New York Times?

Who do you believe? There's one source on this. Which I would love to have. Because you were former military Intel. So I would love to have your thought on this.

Something this large. Because the story is pages and pages and pages. And has great detail on it.

It's all coming from one source. What are the odds, that something this secret, this complex had more than a few -- maybe five -- maybe five key holders that could unlock all of the information.

JASON: So let me just -- from my Intel perspective.

My real world experience is Afghanistan. I was one of the first ground troops, conventional, into Afghanistan after 9/11. So I was part of the planning phase. Just on my small level, my unit.

I didn't know that certain things are going on in Northern Afghanistan.

I knew a lot of the stuff in the South.
When we got on the ground, I didn't even know that there were Special Forces in certain areas, that had been there for a while. That was not my need to know.

Must need to know that. And that was right before a war. So just that perspective.

There's no way, in my mind, that a mid- or lower level, say that carefully, person would have operational knowledge in that detail. You would need cabinet-level or director-level access.

GLENN: Now it's interesting, because the way you're phrasing this and you're being very, very accurate on things. A cabinet-level or director-level might have this information.

Why would you bring up director-level information, on something this sensitive.

I mean, director-level. This was done by the CIA. Okay?

So at least in this report. Done by the CIA. So it would mean, what? Like the director of the CIA.

Why would he rat himself out?

JASON: I mean, that's a really good question. That's a really good question. Unless he was doing his duty, and did not believe in what they were doing.

GLENN: Is there any example of a director level spilling their guts on something like this?

JASON: Deep throat.

GLENN: Hmm. What was that? Oh, that's right. That was the director of the FBI, right?

JASON: Which he we found out years.

Was it decades?

GLENN: Oh, decades. Yeah, decades later. Decades later.

JASON: Decades later. But then we were like, there's no way.

How is he getting all this information? How the heck? That was a big part of it. Who was your source.

Never would have believed in my wildest dreams that it was a direct threat of the FBI. Never. That was this -- will we, decades later, say how the heck did this guy get his information? We find out it was the director of the CIA.

GLENN: If it's true.

JASON: If it's true.

GLENN: Now, where do we go from here?

Where do we go from here? Because no western ally, is going to verify this.

JASON: No.

GLENN: Even if it is true, and they hate the fact that it is true, they know, if we say, you know what, I think it was the United States, this is an act of war.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: And Russia has the -- the righteous stance in the world. To take us down.

Or attempt to take us down. Take us to war.

This is an act of war.

So what -- what -- what does this mean? How do we ever find out anything?

JASON: Russia has actually responded. And they've said that because of these new air quote facts, that the White House needs to respond to this or to answer. Of course, the White House, and the State Department have all been asked, and they all categorically deny it. The article was so specific, to answer your question. In certain ways, in the time frame they pulled this off.

For instance, the article goes into, there was a big Naval exercise, that they used as cover, to send in these divers.

GLENN: And that exercise did happen.

JASON: That exercise did happen. He even puts a link into their specific excuse about using divers to -- to show off the capabilities of their mind-clearing capabilities.

GLENN: But it's -- it's -- I mean, you know -- even Satan uses some truth, and then mixes it with falsehood. So that doesn't prove anything.

JASON: Right. So there's that, which maybe they can, use some kind of -- maybe they're surveilling the areas. Maybe they can look at something. I don't know.

Then they go into the mind they use, to get around the Russian detection capabilities. They go into that. Then they go into -- this is going to seem weird.

How they were going to detonate, like 72 hours or 48 hours after this exercise.

And then all of a sudden, they had this afterthought of, oh.

Maybe that seems kind of suspicious.

Maybe we shouldn't just have it on a timed detonation, a couple of days after the exercise.

GLENN: That doesn't.

JASON: That doesn't jibe with me.

So then they're like, let's send in this buoy, that has this high-tech ping, that will drop it from a plane, and then it will set off these charges. That also seems odd to me. That also seems something that the Russians can verify.

So I wouldn't be surprised right now, if there are Russian surveillance planes, flying over the area. Gathering Intel. Possibly, you know, attempting to go and look. Take a second look.

I don't -- I definitely don't think we've heard the last of this. I'm sure they'll try to verify it, if they can. But they're Russian, really. Even if they don't, they probably will say, yeah. They did it anyway. Right?

GLENN: I mean, I would. I would.

JASON: I would too.

GLENN: And, quite honestly, I'm not sure we didn't do it.

JASON: I'm not either. Which is wild, I would have never thought of this.

GLENN: Twenty years ago, I would have said, absolutely not. No way. No way. But if you hit me today, if 9/11 happened, and we heard, you know, Bush and Clinton. And we had exactly what happened with Sandy Berger. At the National Archives, where he's smuggling documents out, about Bush and Clinton, and anything related to Osama Bin Laden, prior to the bombing -- I -- I would deeply question our government.

We have come a long way, on finding out how bad, our government can be and has been in the past.

The problem with this is, you are going to pay the price.

If this happened, or if Russia decides to go with it. You, your son, your daughter. You will pay the price.

And that's what's so infuriating. Because if it is true, the American people should demand, that these people, whoever was involved. Whoever had this decision, is in prison. And punished. And, you know what, I would be fine. I don't care who it is.

Let me just say this. And it wasn't. Couldn't have been. Because he wasn't in office.

But to show you how passionate. Even if it was the former president. Go ahead. Send him over to Russia.

Let him face a trial over in Russia.

I'm sorry. But you do something like this. And you don't inform Congress, I mean, this is -- this is the tweet from Mike Lee last night.

I'm troubled that I can't immediately rule this suggestion, that the US blew up the Nord Stream out.

He can't rule it out.

I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues. Among those I asked, none were ever briefed on this.

If it turns out to be true, we've got a huge problem.

Yeah. We do. Yeah, we do.

SABOTAGE: The Organized Resistance to Trump’s Second Term | Ep 399
TV

SABOTAGE: The Organized Resistance to Trump’s Second Term | Ep 399

Donald Trump may have won the battle for the presidency, but a fight against a resistance more powerful than the Democrat Party has begun. In this episode of Glenn TV, Glenn Beck reveals the deep-state blueprints and the players working to oppose the mandate voters handed Trump in November. It’s a shadow cabinet comprised of federal judges, state governments, the ACLU, the Tides Foundation, Soros, and Democracy Alliance. This new resistance even has origins linked to the U.K. While Trump’s impeachment over Ukraine tipped us off to a rogue state during his first term, Glenn explains how the Hunter Biden saga exposed just how deep the corruption really goes — and why the deep state will do anything to stop Trump.

THEORY: Did the Pentagon LIE About the New Jersey Drones?
RADIO

THEORY: Did the Pentagon LIE About the New Jersey Drones?

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew recently claimed that the mysterious drones hovering over New Jersey are being launched from an Iranian “mothership” off the U.S. coast. Is there any truth to this or the Pentagon’s denial that the U.S. military is involved? Glenn speaks with New Jersey Assemblyman Brian Bergen, who recently attended a “mind boggling” meeting with the Department of Homeland Security. DHS, he says, claimed to have no information at all on the drones, except that they’re untrackable. Something doesn’t add up here, Glenn says. So, he runs his own theory by Assemblyman Bergen: what if the military is lying to us?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So yesterday, Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew told Fox news this about the drones in New Jersey.

VOICE: You know, I'm also on the transportation committee, on the aviation subcommittee, and I've gotten to know people.

And from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources, I'm going to tell you the real deal.

Iran launched a mothership. Probably about a month ago.

That contains these drones. That mothership is off -- I'm going to tell you the deal.

It's off east coast of the United States of America.

They've launched drones. It's everything that we can see or hear. And, again, these are from high sources. I don't say this lightly.

Now, you know, we know there was a probability. It could have been our own government. You know it wasn't our own government, because they would have let us know.

It could have been some really glorified hobbyist that we're doing something unbelievable. They don't have the technology. But let's pretend that's possible.

A third possibility was somebody, an adversarial country doing this.

Know that Iran made a deal with China, to purchase drones, motherships, and technology.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

Now, the Pentagon came out and said, that's not true.

There's a state senator, you might have seen this, on X. Last night.

Here's what Doug Steinhardt said, on these drones.

Cut 13.
(music)

VOICE: The best information that we have available to us, at this point, suggest that these drones are coming from offshore. That when we try to make contact with them. They become evasive and elusive. You know, from my perspective, if they're American assets. If they're American military. If they're American drones, and I think we owe the American people answers or explanations.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, Brian Bergen is another New Jersey assemblyman. He drove two hours for a private meeting with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security. And everybody else. This was going around last night.

And he left the meeting.

He said, it was the biggest bunch of bullcrap he's ever heard.

He's former military. He said, we don't know what it is. Of course we know what it is. And they gave us no information. He was really angry.

He's joining me here in about four minutes. So stand by.

I think I know what these are. I think -- but I'm not ruling out, the Iran thing.

I mean, that -- that -- I mean, a strike right now, would put the world at war.

I don't think so. The Pentagon said had to. But do you trust the pentagon?

The problem is here. We don't trust anybody.

Because they've all betrayed our trust.

That's why people voted on both sides, for Donald Trump.

Because we have to know the truth.

GLENN: I want to bring in Brian Bergen. I saw Brian on I think it was X yesterday.

He's a New Jersey assemblyman, that drove a couple of hours, for this meeting with, you know, the DHS and the FAA, and everybody that should know, what the heck is going on with these drones. And he walked out early. He was so flaming angry. And I wanted to get him on today. Brian, how are you?

BRIAN: I'm doing great, Glenn. Thanks for having me, man.

GLENN: You bet.

So why did you walk out yesterday? What happened?

BRIAN: Well, so we got called down there. We being all 120 members of the state legislature of New Jersey.

And the assembly and the Senate, got invited to come down to the special legislator-only briefing down in the state police headquarters. And the state police was there, and the Department of Homeland Security was there. And they were supposed to tell us what was going on.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. So they didn't even come to you?

BRIAN: No.

GLENN: They said to all the legislators. Instead of, how many guys were speaking? Ten?

BRIAN: Less.

GLENN: Less than ten. Okay. All right. That's good. All right.

BRIAN: Yeah. Yeah. So we all went there.

And the first thing they say, this is not a classified briefing.

In fact, we could have probably let the press in.

Then they went on and they said, that they know nothing. And they have no understanding what's going on.

They don't know where they're coming from. Where they're going to.

Or who is responsible for it.

And so I was just -- I was just pissed, that we're there to listen to such a Bush-league amateur hour presentation, that they could have given us via text message.

And what really got me upset, was the primary reason why I left early.

Was two things.

The colonel or the state police said he had a helicopter of his, hovering directly above one of these drones, which is called a six-foot drone.

But he felt unsafe for his pilots. And had them land. Ten minutes later, he says, hey. It would be really nice to know, where these things are going or coming from.

I'm like, why did you follow him? When you had it in your sites.

I mean, I have no idea why --

GLENN: Now, I just -- I want the audience to know, you were -- you were an Apache helicopter pilot in Iraq. You have a bronze star, combat action badge. Several honors.

You graduated at West Point. You're not a nobody on what happens in the sky.

BRIAN: Right. Right. That's exactly right.

First of all, what he said, people were hovering above it. I said, well, that's stupid.

Who hovers above a target? You know, you want to get a standoff distance and follow it. You know, so you can use your assistance to track it.

Yes. I'm speaking from some level of experience here.

But more importantly, it was just common sense.

You have this thing in your sites. That you know is potentially a threat.

Because we don't know where it's coming. Where it's going. And who is controlling it.

And it's 6 feet big in the sky.

And you just let it go.

I mean, it was mind-boggling to me.

The second thing that they said, that really sent me through the moon.

Was the Department of Homeland Security. Has some device. That they will give to the state police, that will help them identify drones in the sky.

And it's supposed to be pretty cool technology.

It filters out birds and stuff like that.

It's supposed to be really good.

Anyway, one of my colleagues said, well, when are you going to get it?

And the colonel of the state police said, it should be here in a couple of days.

And I was like, in my head, should be here in a couple of days? What the hell are you doing?

Somebody go get in a van. Drive it to freaking New Jersey, right now. You know, Glenn. This is the level of stupidity, that we're dealing with here.

And that's why I was so frustrated. And continue to be frustrated.

GLENN: Okay. So let me run a couple of things by you.

First, a Congressman came out yesterday. And said, I have it on good authority, that it's Iran.

And I have to ship off -- if that were true, would we not have followed these things back to the ship?

Why aren't we -- if they're going back over the water, and they're not ours, why wouldn't we be blowing them up, over the water?

BRIAN: Well, so that's a great question, and it was Congressman Van Drew who said that. And I think very highly of Congressman Van Drew. And he's not someone who normally says something outlandish like that. But in this case -- I rag on our state government all the time. And in this case, Homeland Security.

But our US Navy is a force to be reckoned with. Now, I'm a West Point grad.

We beat the hell out of the Navy this weekend.

But I have to give them some respect.

Because they would not allow an Iranian ship of any kind to get close to us.

So I find that to be pretty unusual, that that happened.

GLENN: Correct.

So the next thing is, if we couldn't track these things.

I've been in the new jersey and New York area.

There's a lot of airplanes in the sky.

If you can't track these. And you don't know where they are, you would ground all of the planes. Because you don't know if they're hostile to planes.

You don't know if someone of them just gets into the flight path of another.

There are planes everywhere in the sky.

So, again, that leads me to believe, you can track these. And you know where they're coming from.



BRIAN: Yeah. I don't know all the technology available to them.

What I do know. We're the United States of America. I live in a state. New Jersey, which has a 56 billion-dollar budget.

The fact we don't have the resources to figure this out. Is ludicrous.

You're right. There's a lot of -- the concerns are piling up now.

That you mentioned. What if they go dark, as the governor said. You know, that's a danger to other aircraft that operate in visual flight rules at night.

You know, there's a lot of potential issues here. You know, some lawmakers are calling for a -- a shutdown of drone activity in the sky. But, you know, we don't even know who these people are. What they're doing. They certainly won't live listen if we shut down activity.

GLENN: Right. What if we take all the guns from the good guys?

BRIAN: Right.

But what we do need to do is common sense. It just needs to be an all hands on deck approach.

The state police, the National Guard, which can be mobilized by the governor.

The Department of Homeland Security. And they need to follow one of these suckers to wherever it goes, and let's figure who is responsible.

GLENN: So here's what baffles me, Brian. You get one guy with a laser pointer in his backyard, and he points it at an airplane and a pilot, and the FAA tackles that guy, they -- they grapple down from helicopters and make sure that never happens again. How do we -- if this is some private citizen or citizens doing it. How would we not know that?

BRIAN: You're 100 percent right. And that's why, in an interview I had yesterday, I said, it's a lack of effort.

It has to be a lack of effort.

You know, the FBI is an amazing organization. That takes down people, all the time, before they do all kinds of crazy stuff.

They have a litany of successes that they can point to, of stopping things before they happen. Because of the counter terrorism effort. And the intelligence efforts. Why the hell they can't find anybody responsible for this. Or pick up any chatter is crazy.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you my theory.

And please, if you think it's nonsense. Shoot it full of holes.

My uncle used to be in military intelligence, back in the '60s and '70s. And he did all of the nuclear stuff. And when the stealth B1 bomber came out. The wing. He said, old technology. And I said, what?

And had he's -- because remember, it was first spotted. And they were like, what is that?

It's a UFO. And he's like, that's been available for a while.

They'll announce it to the country.

And they'll fly it around. And people will speculate.

Oh, yeah. We have a B1 bomber.

It's new.

I think a good chance is, we are sending someone a message. Or we're doing something with the -- I mean, Russia just launched, you know, a hypersonic missile.

It doesn't make sense that our government doesn't know what this is. And can't stop it. And doesn't see it as a danger.

What makes sense, is they're lying to us.

They know what this is.

And it's not extra terrestrial. And it's not any of that crap.

What do you think?

BRIAN: Well, so I don't disagree with the premise here. One of the things I will say is unique to this area, and where all this is happening.

We have a military inflation called Picatinny Arsenal.

And it's very important, to Picatinny Arsenal, that there's good community relations. Because, you know, we want to maintain that here.

And it's a huge resource for the army where it's at. Any uncertainty about what's going on military-wise around here, is bad. Bad for them. And bad for the future of Picatinny.

So they have an incentive to overcommunicate when things are happening. And they often do that, when they're giving testing. They overcommunicate. So in this area here. It's probably unlikely, that there will be anything that government would want to do, that would cause, you know, public concern.

GLENN: So then what is your -- what are you left with, that makes sense to you, the most?

BRIAN: You know, to be honest. I'm not left with much.

Before this briefing, I would have told you, it's FedEx. Or UPS. Or Amazon testing out delivery capabilities of aircrafts.

You know, and they want to do it at night. So as not to freak people out. But then by this point, it's blown up so much.

You would think somebody would say something.

They would say, oh, yeah. It's us. Chill out.

So I really -- I really don't know.

I am legitimately concerned. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not one that jumps to conclusions.

But the -- the fact that nobody knows. And the people that are supposed to know, they give us no confidence.

GLENN: And you believe they don't know. You believe they don't know.

BRIAN: Yeah, I do. Could the CIA know? Maybe I was briefed by them.

But I believe the State Police, and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon do not know. I really do. And that's scary.

It's equally scary if I'm wrong. And they do know, and they're doing this to us.

GLENN: That's the world we live in today.

You know, it's always like, it could be this. Which would mean that Jesus is coming. But it could mean this. Which means Jesus is copping.

BRIAN: Yeah. That's right Glenn. In this situation, this is the part that frustrates me. They can figure it out.

A couple of Apache helicopters. We'll follow these freaking things.

And we will figure it out for you. Someone can get this done. They're just choosing not to do it.

GLENN: I know somebody with an Apache. A private individual with an Apache helicopter.

BRIAN: Well, let's get it over here.

A little rusty probably. But I think I can probably figure it out.

GLENN: They're probably listening right now. If you want to check in, we'll maybe line that up. Thank you so much, appreciate it.

God bless you, Brian. You bet.

Glenn GOES BALLISTIC Over the Media's Love Affair with CEO Murderer
RADIO

Glenn GOES BALLISTIC Over the Media's Love Affair with CEO Murderer

The legacy media should be ashamed of how it’s covering the United Healthcare CEO’s suspected killer, Glenn says. CNN recently removed its own on-screen banner to show off the murderer’s abs. And left-wing activists, including sitting Senator Elizabeth Warren, are excusing his actions because they don’t like the healthcare industry. “This is the absence of all truth,” Glenn says. Glenn and Stu review some other ridiculous media takes, like the suggestion that back pain caused the killer to go crazy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, I'm going to do my best.

To not take all of the nice stuff, that I just said in the last half-hour, and flush it down the toilet.

Because I'm a little irritated.

I'm a little irritated at the love we are showing for this killer.

The United Health Care killer. First of all, CNN -- and I am not making this up.

One of the anchors on CNN said, do we have it. Play this. Play this.

Watch this, if you happen to be watching.

And I'll describe it after. Go ahead.

VOICE: Yeah, the clips we were watching at the top of the segment, are driven by the fact that this is an attractive --

VOICE: We have to drop the banner to show why.

VOICE: And it's deeply troubling.

STU: And they actually do it.

GLENN: Okay. They actually do it!

This -- this banner, at the bottom of the screen, that's on all the time, they're saying that this guy is getting -- wait.

Charlie Manson could have been, you know, I don't know. The guy who can't believe it's butter. And nobody would have said, yeah, I know.

But look at him.

STU: Fabio?

GLENN: Boy, have you seen him? He's let himself go.

STU: Has he really?

GLENN: Anyway. I'm one to talk.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But we never say that.

I don't care how good-looking you are!

STU: Hmm. I don't think we never say it. Like, for example, I saw the -- did you see -- was it a Mexican assassin?

A drug cartel assassin. Did you see her the other day?

Sara saw it. She was attractive, and that was the only thing people were talking about.

So that does happen. I think it does happen from time to time.

That being said, it's not supposed to happen on CNN.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Right.

And are people saying, you know what, maybe her hits were okay?

STU: No. No.

But I will say, looking at the picture, I totally assumed, there will be a movie made about her, in the future.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

STU: That will seem to maybe glorify the stuff she did. Which was terrible.

GLENN: We are glorifying what this guy -- listen to this one. Listen to this one.

I'm not going to give his name.

STU: Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for that.

You're the only person I've seen do that. Everybody else --

GLENN: This guy has been made into a hero.

STU: It's worse than the typical mass shooter. Typically the media, while they have all their gun points. Aren't trying to make him into a hero. They're trying to make him into a hero.

Giving his name over and over again isn't a good idea.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I haven't heard anyone saying anything about pulling guns off the streets either. Have you heard?

STU: No. Especially, and it was a ghost gun. It's like Joe Biden's favorite topic.

GLENN: I know. I guess all you have to be is good-looking.

STU: You know why? And on the left. On the left. Are you an anti-capitalist? Then fine. Good job with the 3D printer.

GLENN: So this guy went. He killed somebody in cold blood, and everyone is excusing him.
Everyone on the left and everybody in the media, excusing him.

Well, look at his abs. I mean, really.

What does that have to -- you know what, you know what that ties into? His back problems.

STU: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Don't even begin to talk to me about back problems, you wuss.

My gosh. I've got back problems. You're 20. And you have those abs.

They aren't that bad, attitude.

STU: If you can do that many situps, I'm sorry. Your back problems can't be that bad.

GLENN: Shut up. Shut up.

And if you're in your 20s, and you had back surgery, you're a moron, unless you absolutely had no other choice, but then you're still a moron, if you thought it was going to work! Back surgery hardly ever works.

Honestly, how many people do you know, that had back surgery. And they went, you know.

I mean, I feel like I'm 20 again.

I don't know anybody that says that!

I know back doctors, surgeons, who are like, don't come to me yet.

Don't come.

Until you -- this is a quote from my surgeon. Until you beg me to cut you open. And I have begged him. And he's like, not quite yet.

I mean, how do you -- oh. Your back hurts. Oh, boo-boos.

STU: I think there was at least rumors, or indications from his online writings that he had spinal fusion surgery.

GLENN: Well, fine! Lots of people.

STU: It's serious.

GLENN: Yeah, but lots of people have had it.

STU: No, that doesn't justify murder. But I really don't understand if you have spinal --

GLENN: How self-absorbed are you?

We were just talking off the air. Went to a Christmas party. Went to the studio's Christmas party. And I was there for what? Like three or four hours. Okay. Standing on hard concrete floors.

I stand about 45 minutes. And I -- that -- that is like -- that's a miracle, if I'm standing 45 minutes. And not in in agonizing pain, in my lower back and legs.

I stood there for four hours. Did you know I was in pain, Sara?

Did you know I was in pain, Stu? Okay. You know why?

Because I know Pat, who is in worse pain than I am. And he never says anything.

What the -- you are so self-absorbed, that you think your problems, what happened to me. What they did to me. What they didn't do for me.

I'm going to speak for humanity. And shoot a dad who has kids. Are you -- and then you glorify this guy?

This is the absence of all truth. This is the deception I talked about 15 minutes ago.

STU: Yeah. And, you know, it feels like it's a new moment in a way.

Like it feels like that.

But what exactly separates this from the way we handled George Floyd? What exactly -- like, when you're burning town cities, and everyone is saying, well, yeah.

But they -- but racism.

This is the exact same thing.

With the exception of 81 percent of the American public, don't approve of racism, like they do their own health care.

Health care -- health care is actually generally pretty well-received in this country.

GLENN: Well, better received before Obamacare.

STU: Yeah.

Obamacare is the worst approval rating of all of the insurance.

That is true.

But generally speaking, we don't hate our health care as much as everyone is portraying it right now --

GLENN: You want to go to health care. Go to Canada. Could I change it?

You know what this is?

What was the doctor?

What was the guy who shot the abortion doctor, that Bill O'Reilly was blamed for?

STU: Yes. I don't know his name thankfully.

Because he's a murderer.

GLENN: Right. What was the doctor's name.

STU: It was Tiller. George Tiller.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

And remember that? All we talked about, was how Bill O'Reilly, who did nothing. Was responsible for the shooting, of a guy who was killing babies every day.

Okay? And no one -- no one was on TV saying, you know, he was killed.

STU: Violence is never the answer. But!

Let me give you my rant on why abortion is bad. And this is a good opportunity for us to discuss the -- no, it's not.

No. A murder is not a good opportunity.

It's important, of course, to discuss health care and abortion. There's nothing to do.

There's no new justification to discuss them because there's a murder. You're totally right.

I would love to hear what Bill O'Reilly is --

GLENN: Let's call him. Have them call.

STU: We should.

GLENN: If I have time today, otherwise tomorrow.

STU: Yeah. Because he was blamed for that murder.

Blamed for it.

He did not commit it.

He was blamed for it.

GLENN: You know what, I'm so mad about murder. I'm going to murder someone.

STU: Huh. By the way, Glenn. You know, bits and pieces of his manifesto have leaked out.

They are quote after quote after quote of what left-leaning people say about our health care system.

GLENN: No, Stu. It was both left and right.

STU: Oh, yes. I'm sure.

Well, he didn't like wokeness. Did he kill anybody over wokeness?

I'm sorry. Did I miss that part of the story?

Was he too afraid that United Health Care was too woke, was that his criticism?

I missed that. His criticism was every left-wing criticism of health care.

Anything you want to say about, well, we spent this much. And we're only in 40-second place in life expectancy.

All that stuff, that you've been hearing forever.

From Michael Moore documentaries, was this -- this guy's manifesto.

And if we were consistent at all, all we would be doing is looking around for left-wing people to blame this murder on. Now, I don't think that's the right way to approach things.

I think people with the guns should be the ones to get the blame for the murders. That's what I think.

And I don't think you should be --

GLENN: I'm very tempted. I'm very tempted.

If I were just a political person, that just wanted to have our side win.

I would be very, very tempted.

STU: Yeah. And I can understand the temptation.

I feel like it's not the right thing to do. Because it's not true.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Beyond that. I get it.

And here is -- they went after. I mean, they absolutely tried to destroy Bill O'Reilly over that.

They tried to destroy him. They tried to rip him off the air. They tried to destroy his life and his career. As if he was the one -- they also, here's another person they've done this to.

Glenn freaking Beck. Go back to the times when -- I don't remember the exact story.

But it was related to the Tides Foundation.

A guy who -- who went out and tried to do some terrible crime.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

STU: And there was no evidence, he even watched your show, but because you brought up the Tides Foundation a bunch of times.

And he at one point, tried to criticize the Tides Foundation, they tried to ruin your life over that.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I had forgotten about that one, I was thinking about the Gabby Giffords shooting.

STU: Yes, there we go again.

GLENN: And then I remembered the guy who hung himself, the IRS agent who said -- who I was blamed for wanting him to be hung. First, it was Glenn Beck had him strung up.

Then it was, suicide.

Well, Glenn Beck made him want to hang himself. I mean, this is so ridiculous.

So ridiculous.

STU: Yeah. I mean, Glenn. Today, Elizabeth Warren. A US senator, came out and said, violence is never the answer, but you can only push people so far. A US senator said that!

GLENN: You know, with everything that's going on, with communism and North Korea.

The only ones that were eaten, were North Koreans by Jeffrey Dahmer. I mean, yes, he ate people. But all the heads in his refrigerator were North Koreans. So I kind of understand, you know.

I don't condone cannibalism.

But you can see why he had a deal against North Koreans.

That's how insane this argument is!

STU: Yeah. It's not. It's not a well-reasoned argument, as you point out.

And I don't care how many situps, the guy did.

I don't care that he had nice abs, that he really enjoyed. I don't care that you thought his smile was nice in the video that identified him.

You are a legitimately horrible human being, if you're cheering this guy on. You are a terrible human being.

You know, my -- I have a relative, Glenn.

GLENN: May I change that? In the spirit of Christmas.

STU: I wanted to say five other things. And, yes.

GLENN: You are so lost in darkness.

STU: Okay. Fine. Fine. Fine --

GLENN: I'm trying.

Stu, I try to be a better person. And you drag me down every day.

Lord, it is his fault.

STU: Strike him down!

GLENN: There's a lot of smote coming. At some point.

STU: I have a relative who works for a company, that is associated with -- with United Health Care.

And to the point, that like she's had Zoom calls with Brian Thompson. You know, group calls.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And she's like, I -- he's like the nicest guy in the world.

Everybody in the company loved this guy.

He spent all this time.

GLENN: Of course, they're all -- they're all sheaving the average person. In the back.

STU: I don't think that's true. You know, people -- he was known in the company, as one of the good guys, who was trying to reform the problems in this -- in the industry.

He was a guy who was constantly encouraging low level employees to be able to have new opportunities, and make their lives better.

This was a good man!

A good man!

A good man, who came up. Whose dad, by the way, worked in a grain elevator.

He came up from nothing!

And was a massive success, and was -- was loved by the people around him. And these mother -- people. Are -- are cheering on his cold-blooded murder in the streets of Manhattan.

GLENN: Let me tell you the part that really makes me want to sound like you. If just a minute.

Glad you're here.

You know, the -- the thing that really makes me angry, is -- sorry.

I have to use "Les Miserables" as an example. God, I'm such a weirdo.

That's why I have no friends.

STU: Better than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

That's usually where you go in this moment.

GLENN: So you know the revolution is started by all of these, you know, socialists. They're all rich kids. They're all rich, privileged kids that start the revolution. This is who this guy is.

He has absolutely nothing to whine about. Nothing to whine about.

His family seems to be a really gracious family. I don't know.

But it's these rich, spoiled white kids, that just think they know better than everyone else. They grow up to be rich little white liberals, and they are so screwed up, and nobody even seems to mention that. Here's 1 percent!

Should Taylor Lorenz & BLM Leader Be SILENCED For Celebrating VIOLENCE?
RADIO

Should Taylor Lorenz & BLM Leader Be SILENCED For Celebrating VIOLENCE?

The only speech that needs protecting is the speech we hate to hear. That’s why Glenn must defend the right for people like Taylor Lorenz and BLM chapter leader Hawk Newsome to say awful things, even if it kills him to do so. Speaking to Piers Morgan, Lorenz said she was “joyful” that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered. And speaking to the press, Newsome called for “black vigilantes” to rise up after the acquittal of Daniel Penny. So, is this speech, which glorifies violence, protected under the First Amendment? Glenn explains the “fire in a crowded theater” Supreme Court case that provides the answer.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I will play some stuff.

Got to be said.

And I want you to know. What I'm going to say to you here, is only -- I'm only saying it, because it is absolutely true.

And it only counts, when it takes everything in you, to say it.

It's easy to say, well, we have the right.
It's easy to say that. It only counts, when you hate saying it!

And I hate saying this.

With that, let me play a couple of clips of audio.

Let's first play, Taylor Lorenz, as she was talking with Piers Morgan, about the killer of the United Health Care, CEO.

STU: Why would you be in such a celebratory mood about the execution of another human being?

Aren't you supposed to be on the caring, sharing left?

Where, you know, you believe in the sanctity of life?

VOICE: I do believe in the sanctity of life. That's why I felt along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately.

VOICE: Joy? Seriously? Joy at a man's execution?

VOICE: Maybe not joy, but certainly, you know -- certainly not empathy.

VOICE: We're watching the footage.

How can this make you joyful? This guy is a husband. He's a father. And he's being gunned down in the middle of Manhattan.

VOICE: What about the tens of thousands of Americans that are being murdered?

So are the tens of thousands of Americans -- innocent Americans who died because greedy health insurance executives like this one push policies of denying care to the most vulnerable people.

GLENN: Nonsense.

VOICE: Hang on.

VOICE: Okay. Probably not joyful.

VOICE: You said you were feeling joyful.

VOICE: Yeah, I take that back. Joyful is the wrong word here.

VOICE: You think? You think joyful is the wrong word? I'd say it is.

VOICE: As I clarify, sure. Sure. Sure. But celebratory because, again, it feels like justice in the system, when somebody responsible --

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

STU: No. Please, let her keep talking. That was awesome.

GLENN: I can't take it anymore.

STU: Are you sure, joy isn't the right word? It's amazing.

GLENN: Now, let's go to Daniel Penny. Daniel Penny is found innocent.

I think anyone looks at what he did.

What he tried to do.

The spirit he tried to do it in. He was not trying to kill anyone.

He was trying to protect people.

BLM of New York, which is only sold, I think -- the only thing they do is sell hats. You know, that say, F the mayor.

You know, whatever. They came out. And this is what they -- this is what the head of BLM New York said, after the Daniel Penny trial.

VOICE: We need some black vigilantes. People want to jump up and choke us!

And kill us, for being loud. How about we do the same?

When they attempt to oppress us. I'm tired.

VOICE: Right.

GLENN: Boy, am I tired.

STU: Don't get tired. It's important to make sure you're well-rested.

GLENN: Yeah, get your rest. You might get a little cranky. You might do and say some crazy things.

Okay. So let me talk about those two statements quickly.

If I said this and said, it's time for some vigilantes.

Not even white or black. Just, it's time to get some vigilantes.

They would do everything they could, to get me off the air.

Everything. And I wouldn't say that.

Because I don't believe in that.

I believe in the Constitution. But here's a guy who can say that, and no one says a word except amen.

No one on the left. No one in the media. Well, he's got reasons to say that, you know.

Okay. But I would be blackballed. I -- my life would be over, if I said that.

Taylor Lorenz, she's out of her mind nuts. Okay? Out of her minds, nuts!

How many times do we have to hear this woman, say crazy things like, I don't feel joyful?
Just celebratory. Because somebody was gunned down in the streets.

Because she thinks health care is murdering people in America. Okay. Here's -- here's what I -- I -- oh, my gosh.

Stu, you have aspirin on you or anything?

Because if I have a stroke while saying this. Please, just put some aspirin on my tongue, so I might survive a little bit on this.

All of these people have a right to say that. Here is -- you can't cry fire in a crowded firehouse.

I don't know. They were just in a courtroom saying, we should kill people!

Like him.

I don't know.

Here is the actual court ruling. This is from 1969.

Court said, there's a two-pronged test to evaluate speech.

One, speech can be prohibited, if it is, quoting, directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

Now, you can say, we have a vigilante. Why don't we kill people?

That is inciting. It is! Inciting people to go and take lawless action.

But it isn't imminent lawless action. If somebody then picked up guns and started mowing down black people or white people. Or people that have bad acne or perfect faces or whatever it is.

Then that speech, he would be responsible for it.

But the court says, it is such a -- such a fine line here.

That it -- you have to go so far before your speech is banned.

It has to be one, directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.

And two, likely to incite or produce such action.

Two standards!

Both of them have to be met.

I am only spitting this out, because I hate what these people have said.

I despise what these people say.

I believe with everything -- every -- every piece and every cell of my body, what they're saying is evil.

But because I'm an American constitutionalist. I defend their right to say it!

And it only matters to say these things, when it kills you to say it. And it's killing me to say it!

For all those on the left, that claim, that they are the banners of justice. They believe in the Bill of Rights. They believe in freedom of speech.

But it has limits.

Yes! Those are those two limits.

That's as far I have seen people go in a week. Maybe in my lifetime!

And I'm not calling for them to be silenced.

And if you'll notice, nor is most people on the right.

No one is saying, get them. Because we hold certain truths to be self-evident.