WE NEED ANSWERS: Why did Capitol Police MOVE Cameras Away from the Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Scene?
RADIO

WE NEED ANSWERS: Why did Capitol Police MOVE Cameras Away from the Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Scene?

Blaze Media has released exclusive footage that makes the Capitol Police’s actions after the discovery of a pipe bomb outside the DNC on Jan. 6, 2021, even more suspicious. Investigative journalist and Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker joins Glenn to review the footage, which reveals that the Capitol Police moved CCTV security cameras AWAY from the crime scene as it was unfolding. Baker also reviews other oddities he has discovered related to bomb-sniffing dogs and the water cannon used to destroy the bomb that make him wonder if this whole thing was a diversionary tactic meant to remove Capitol Police officers from the Capitol before the riot. “It just screams, ‘setup,’” Glenn says. So, how much more info will come out before the DoJ arrests Baker, as it has promised to?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Investigative idealist and Blaze media correspondent, Steve Baker joins us now.

Hi, Steve.

STEVE: Hey, good morning, Glenn.

GLENN: Weren't I supposed to be in jail now?

STEVE: Yeah. That's where I planned to spend the first quarter of this year.

GLENN: The last we spoke to you, the FBI had just notified, I think your attorney, that they were going to come pick you up for crimes unknown, yet.

They haven't told you what it's -- why they are going to arrest you.

But they said, they would be doing it in January, did they not?

STEVE: Yeah. Crimes against humanity. That's what I'm calling it now. But, yeah. It's one of those things yet again, where the DOJ has left me hanging the first time after their first threat.

They left me alone, for 20 months. Then they showed up again, with the grand jury subpoena. Then they left me alone for five months. And then they showed up again here, just before Christmas. And we backed them off, I think, with the media offensive that we did. A response.

And then they talked to my attorney, just before New Year's. And said that my self-surrender would be required, sometime in mid-January.

It would give me seven to ten days notice of that.

And then they went silent again. So we haven't heard from them. Here we are mid-February. And we know nothing.

GLENN: I mean, just so people understand, what the government is doing to people. This is happening all over with regular people. The DOJ is screwing with people's lives.

And, quite honestly, their sanity. Imagine you're being told by the FBI, with an unlimited amount of money, to convict, or to harass, or to build a case against you.

You have to think, oh, my gosh. At any time, I may be going to jail. I may have to be fighting this, and none of this is true.

And then they just leave. So that just -- that just hangs in your life, forever.

And then they call back, just as you're getting comfortable, I guess they forgot.

They call back. It's honestly, like a cancer center calling you and saying, hey, we have your results, and it looks like you have cancer. We'll let you know next week. And then you don't hear from them. And you can't get them on the phone.

Do I have cancer or not?

It's really cruel. Really cruel.

All right. So, Steve.

You have brought us footage now. This is never before seen. You released it earlier this week on Blaze TV media.

And it's footage of the January 6th pipe bomb. And the -- well, I would say the elimination of it.

But we don't, actually, see that. Set this clip up, will you?

STEVE: Yeah. The first clip that we have, that we released two days ago was the actual and most important cameras that were used in the investigation, saying -- we're talking about a camera that had been in a fixed position. We were able to go on the CCTV camera, a viewing room. And go as far back as December 28th, 2020.

And we see that that one camera number, called number 3173 had not moved for at least eight days prior to January 6th.

And then, the bomb was called in, by the Capitol police plainclothes officer.

Remember, we reported that about three weeks ago. And then when that officer made that report, and then we saw the very lackadaisical response by the Secret Service.

GLENN: Letting kids walk by the pipe bomb, within feet of the pipe bomb, and they didn't do anything.

STEVE: Yeah, Glenn, they were literally finishing their sandwiches before they got of the car to respond to a bomb with the vice president elect 15 feet away inside that building.

I mean, this is how absurd this situation is.

But nevertheless, on this camera, we see, suddenly, it is taken control of by the Capitol Police Command Center. They have an area where their big viewing room is and camera operators are, it's called The Pit. And when that was called in four minutes after the that plainclothes officer reported that, the camera starts zooming for the first time, and it starts scanning.

And it's panning around. And it's looking for the bomb. And then it pulls back. And it does this. And it moves around for about 20 or 30 minutes. Before finally somebody told that camera operator to move that camera off of the investigative scene. And it was pitched to a hard right, 90 degrees away from that.

And it remained there, until at least midnight of January 6th. Because I went and looked at all of those videos. All the way until the end of the day.

GLENN: So it is -- it is amazing to me.

Because the -- if I'm not mistaken, the -- well, let's watch the report.

Here it is.

VOICE: Capital CCTV camera, number 3173 was the most important camera covering the DNC pipe bomb story, event.

You've probably already seen Thomas Massie's release of the video in which it appears, that a capital police, plainclothes officer has discovered the bomb, and alerted the Secret Service and the metro police officers on the scene. You probably also seen, the bomb sniffing bomb.

And you may have already also seen the arrival of then vice president elect, Kamala Harris' motorcade.

What you haven't seen, is, well, what somebody in the Capitol Police command center, didn't want us to see.

And that's the actual investigation of the bomb scene.

What we're going to show you now, is how they hid that from us.
(music)
What we were able to access, from the Capitol CCTV viewing room, is how long that camera, number 3173, had remained in that fixed position. We were able to go back as far as December 28th of 2020. Just eight days or so before the events of January 6th. And from that review, we can see that the camera's positioning was in that fixed position, days, weeks, months. But ultimately, it was only just these very few minutes after the bomb's discovery, that that camera began to move.
(music)
The camera then the ban to move, pan, zoom in, looking for the bomb itself.

The one thing that we know for sure, camera 3173. Was the most crucial of all the cameras. It had the closest and the clearest view of what law enforcement's response, what their investigation and ultimately, the destruction and detonation, or the attempted detonation of the bomb would be, by the bomb squad, robot.

But inexplicably, and I'm getting tired of using that word, every single time, we do one of these investigations.

But that seems to be the key word, when it's related to January 6th.

Is that at approximately 1:30 p.m. camera number, 173 was remotely directed away from the scene, at about a 90-degree angle.

And then remained in this newly fixed position, away from the investigation, for the rest of the day. Or at least until midnight, on January 6th.
(music)

Now, it might be assumed that this was an error, an accident. An oversight. Maybe somebody bumped the joystick, on camera number 3173.

Until we then review camera number 8020.

As we're seeing, the robot deployed, down the street. Headed towards the bomb.

Someone again, directs camera 8020, away from the investigation scene, and then fixes it, once again. And it seems like, at a hard right, 1900-degree angle. Away from the investigation. Once again.
(music)

GLENN: It's incredible. Absolutely incredible.

STU: Why would they turn those cameras away from the investigative scene. Who ordered those cameras to be turned away?

What were we not allowed to see?

All right. So, Steve, give us some updates on what else we have found.

I know I read today, that there were bomb-sniffing dogs in the area.

And there's -- they gave no indication.

And I know, because I've had a bomb-sniffing dog before.

They -- they are relentless. And they would have found it, had it had any explosives in it, don't you think?

PAT: I would think so. Especially as haphazard as this particular device was put together.

And this is -- this is even more important, Glenn.

This is really the latest and most developing part of that story. We did, in fact, acquire the images of the destruction of this bomb, by the bomb robot.

In fact, we now have it up.

It's up on YouTube right now. It's about to be distributed across TheBlaze platforms today.

It's now up. But this is the story behind that.

Is that as late as 9 o'clock on Wednesday night.

When I was supposed to have these videos in my Dropbox from Congress.

I received a call from a senior congressional aid, who said, sorry. We can't give you these scenes and these images.

Why? We are being told that the technology is classified. And it's sensitive. And what has -- was used to destroy the pipe bomb, at the DNC headquarters. To which I responded, Glenn. I said, BS.

Because I said, you can go look on the department of Homeland Security's website and read the destruction of the -- or read the information with images and video, of the exact type of water disrupter cannon that was used to blow apart that bomb. And it's available freely to the public. As a matter of fact, you can buy this system yourself online.

And the patent holder has given it away for free.

Anybody can use it.

And yet they were -- the powers that be were telling me, we could not have it. Actually, they were lying to the Congress members. And telling them, that they couldn't give it to me.

And then what ended up happening, and thank goodness, you had it on here, a week or so ago. Representative Barry Loudermilk intervened.

And we want to -- look, him and his staff have just been absolutely invaluable to our investigations and our research.

But they intervened.

And by 7 o'clock, yesterday morning, we had the video.

GLENN: And that's available right now, and it will be on Blaze TV.

STEVE: Right now.

GLENN: And all of our platforms.

The reason we can do these things, is because of you. If you are a subscriber, please, tell a friend.

If you're not a subscriber, please, join us at Blaze.

There's so many reasons, but investigative journalism, I know the plans of the company, and they are expanding. As Stu said. It's like they've backed up a dump truck of money, to be able to do these things, and grow in real critical news and investigative reporting. But we really need you to subscribe to help support that. And you can do that by going to BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

Use the promo code "free speech," and get $30 off your annual subscription.

So you get a monthly access to the premium articles.

And, you know, the opinions and things like what Steve is doing.

You want to do an annual. It's $3 a month.

Get Blaze TV plus. For $10 a month.

So join us, will you?

BlazeTV.com/Glenn. Free speech is the -- is the promo code.

So, Steve, where does this go from here?

This seems to me, to be a -- a diversion, because the -- they were both discovered about five minutes before the Capitol was stormed.

It was -- do you think this was to pull Capitol Police off of the Capitol?

And bring them here?

What do you think this was supposed to do.

STEVE: There were diversions. And they were meant to diminish the force. That was available, to protect the Capitol that day.

There's just no other way. There's no other reasonable explanation. Because the first bomb, the RNC bomb was founded about 10 or 15 minutes before that first barricade breach. The famous Ray Epps barricade breach line happened.

That happened at 12:52 p.m.

The bomb was founded about 10 minutes before that. Then the bomb -- or the breach happens at 12:52.

This group of people storm up to the west terrorists.

They begin to form another line up there.

And they already had to divert dozens of officers away from the Capitol. And already diminished police force anyway.

Because of the COVID protocols.

And because they did not want the -- as they said, they did not want the -- the optics of extra security there at the Capitol that day. And particularly, guys wearing the hard units. Or the National Guard.

The Robocop looking guys.

They didn't want any of the optics that take.

So what does it tell you, that the investigators, weren't really allowed to investigate.

They tracked one guy, to I think a home in Virginia.

And then they were told, go away, by the FBI. Just leave it alone.

There's nothing to see here.

What would the motivation be for a government, that is trying to track down every grandmother, who was anywhere near the Capitol? To not pay attention to this.

STEVE: Why would they issue a 500,000-dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of this bomber, and then take the extra step of hiding all the evidence from us.

I told them, when they did it. I said, make it 5 million. You're not planning on giving it away anyway.

GLENN: You know, it's -- it's just so clear, you know, that there may have been, you know, bad guys, you know, that were Trump supporters. Or not Trump supporters.

But there was this group of people. And all of the real leaders, the ones who like Ray Epps. Were causing people to go in, and encouraging them to go in.

You've got the guy on the tower. The scaffolding, that they can't find. They've got the two pipe bomb people. You can't find them.

It -- it just screams, setup.

PAT: Almost to a man, every single Capitol police officer, retired, who left the job. Who are still active with the force.

They all believe that they were set up that day.

The only ones who won't admit that, are the existing leadership.

But that's another story, and we're working on that as well.

GLENN: Hmm.

Steve, thank you so much.

I hope you stay out of jail.

You know, we're with you.

Steve baker. Investigative journalist.

Blaze media correspondent.

You can find his work at Blaze.com.

TheBlaze.com. Or on Blaze TV.

More footage, as he just said.

Exclusive. Now being released by Blaze media. More in a minute.

How GEORGE SOROS is Connected to the Pro-Palestine College Campus Protests
RADIO

How GEORGE SOROS is Connected to the Pro-Palestine College Campus Protests

Surprise, surprise! Politico is shocked to find out that the pro-Palestinian protests taking over college campuses are financially backed by George Soros and the Tides Foundation! Glenn, however, isn't as surprised. But he and Stu also review something they haven't heard before: An anti-Israel protester praising North Korea for training Palestinian fighters. And then, there was the protester who wanted to liberate not just Palestine, but the Congo ... and Hawaii and Puerto Rico. So, that leads Glenn and Stu to debate whether there are any other states besides Hawaii that we should get rid of. He has a few in mind ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's say hello to my friendly chap, Stu. Hello, Stu.

STU: Hi, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I'm great.

STU: Are you? Things are looking up?

GLENN: Wow. So great.

STU: Great. That's so great to hear. I was worried that things in the world were a bit of a downer. Not at all?

GLENN: No. Not at all. I have something really good. You're going to love this.

This is from politico. Pro Palestinian protesters are backed by a surprising source.

You're going to be so surprised.

STU: Chuck E. Cheese. I would be surprised if Chuck E. Cheese were behind them.

GLENN: No. Not Chuck E. Cheese. No.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: George Soros and the Tides Foundation.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: No!

I am surprised by that. Not quite as surprised as Chuck E. Cheese.

You know, every morning, I get up because I can't take NPR and the New York Times daily anymore.

So I listen to daily wire. And the update for daily wire.

And one of their reporters said, and people who give to -- like the Tides Foundation should make sure to tell them, that they don't want their money going -- no. That's the whole point of the Tides Foundation.

STU: To launder money.

GLENN: You're not giving money to -- I hope it goes to Mother Teresa. It's not going there.

STU: I mean, you can give money to whoever you want.

So there's no real reason to have to wish and hope and pray it goes to a specific place. You can just give the money to that place. If you want to hide where you're giving the money to --

GLENN: Well, what do you mean by that, Stu?

STU: Well, that's the setup of the Tides Foundation, and they're not alone, of course. There are organizations that do similar things, where you give to this general organization.

GLENN: You mean, like Act Red?

STU: Is there a Win Red? There's some other roughly equivalent organization with the color.

GLENN: Well, good. Quite honestly, good.

STU: They don't do the same stuff, of course.

GLENN: They're not fomenting revolution on the streets?

STU: Well, I don't know. Not here at least.

It's one of those things. Where you can give to a centralized place, maybe not have your name on a destination list. It's a very convenient thing. If you're supporting things that you maybe don't want to publicly announce that you're supporting.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

So some of the people. Susan and Nick Princer. You know who Nick is, right?

Hey, Nick. No? He's the heir to the Hyatt Hotel empire. So makes me want to go stay at a Hyatt right away.

Let's see. Also, George Soros. I like this one. The Jewish voice for peace.

Which is, they describe themselves as anti-Zionists. I'm trying to figure this out now.

I mean, just -- somebody help me. Just do the math. Do the math.

You're a enjoy. And the history of the Jews, is to be chased out of wherever it is you live.

And you can never really defend yourself, because you don't have a country. Okay?

There's no place to go, and every place that turns on you, takes away your guns and puts you in a camp and tries to kill you.

Okay?

Now, for the first time since, oh, I don't know. 2000 years. You get a country.

And the world gives that country to you. Because its main -- its main objective is, you are free to defend yourself. And nobody is telling you, you know, go back to where you came from.

Okay? Now, you're a Jew. And you're against that.

Help me out on the math, because I can't seem to complete the numbers.

STU: It's a difficult one. You can be critical of an Israeli leadership, right? And still want the Jews to be alive.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: So you can be that. But being anti-Zionist, it's hard to know, exactly how that works out for the Jews. Not well in the past. We know that.

GLENN: So Rockefeller is giving significant grants to Jewish voice for peace.

Which blamed the October 7th attacks on Israel, and the United States.

So I don't know if you know that. We're so bad. We're so bad. We're so bad, we're even stealing the bad things that other people do. And claiming that they're ours.

That's how bad we are.

All right. So we have that. Now, the students at NYU. Let me see if we have this particular cut. I do believe we do.

Yes. Cut 45, please. Students at NYU.

Here's what they're chanting.

STU: I can't wait for a new chant. I hope it's something new. I hope it's something we have.

GLENN: I don't think so.

STU: Oh, really? That's always exciting.

VOICE: Which idea do you think North Korea support, Palestine or Israel? Just guess.

VOICE: Palestine.

VOICE: It is Palestine.

It actually never recognized the state of Israel. They have always upheld the right of Palestinian people to self-determination and resistance.

And this is beyond moral and rhetorical support. They've actively armed and trained --

GLENN: Yeah. North Korea. North Korea.

VOICE: -- have trained troops by the DPRK.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: This is the second one of these I've seen. People just sitting there. And she's reading this, by the way. Not as much chant unfortunately.

GLENN: This is crazy!

Yeah, I know.

STU: But you have to come up with something a little more catchy than that. But she is -- that has to be a North Korean operative. Right?

GLENN: Or -- or a Columbia University student, that otherwise known as a complete and total dolt.

STU: Yes. I would agree with that. That's the second one I would see in these protests.

Not talking about the Palestinians. Particularly praising North Korea for the reference. Oppressive regimes in the world.

GLENN: It's time for non-drag queen story hour, okay?

Where the non-drag queen comes out and says, listen, kids. North Korea, they starve their own people.

Really bad. Concentration camps. You know, that kind of thing.

Throwing babies up in the air. Seeing, who can catch it with a sword. North Korea.

Well, I learned a lot from that non-drag queen story hour. How about you, Stu?

Sounds like North Korea. Bad place. How -- how -- how is this person with a straight face really saying, North Korea?

And you know whose side they are on? Yeah. Our side. North Korea is on our side. They're even training people. I mean, they're with us.

Who could stand against us?

Oh, I don't know. All the forces of good.
(laughter)
Amazing.

STU: Imagine advocating for -- I mean, that person is not even advocating for the Palestinian cause.

It's more of trying to win people who already support the Palestinian cause, over to the North Korean cause, which is fascinating. But imagine wanting to be on that side of any debate. This isn't even like the high-minded like olden days of Cuba or something.

GLENN: No. This is --

STU: This is north freaking Korea.

GLENN: We know what they do.

STU: This is one of the most oppressive regimes -- probably the most repressive regime on earth.

But I think China is -- China is at least, has people in their country.

GLENN: Who are not starving.

STU: Or who are wealthy. Right?

They do international business. North Korea does none of this. Everything in their country is controlled by this one family. And this is the mace that won't even give like basic surgeries out to their people. That doctors have to come across the border, to give them basic things like cataract surgeries. They all think they're blind for life. When these basic surgeries would cure them.

North Korea is the worst of the worst.

Now that's the argument they're making?

I like being on the opposite side of that.

GLENN: You know, it's kind of -- people who say, you're on the wrong side of history. What do they know?

Well, in this case, I think we could say, pretty certain. North Korea is never going to be looked at like, you know, those guys were really great. Back in the day, those guys were really great.

STU: Yeah. It would be surprising how this turns out.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Here's another one I think you will really enjoy. Why are you out protesting today?

VOICE: Because I want to see an empire fall!

VOICE: What empire?

VOICE: From the US to Israel, the empire that's propped up by capitalism.

STU: Oh, shocking.

VOICE: Free Palestine. Free Congo. Free Sudan. Free Haiti. Free Hawaii --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Free Hawaii. Free Puerto Rico.

STU: Yeah, I'm worried about the freedom of Hawaii right now. It's a huge issue. And Puerto Rico.

GLENN: I know. You know, honestly, if Hawaii knows want Hawaii back. I'm cool with that.

STU: It's pretty awesome. I kind of like it. It rounds out our country a little bit. It's like when you have a delicious meal and there's just a little bit of garnish on top. Kind of rounds it out. I feel like that's Hawaii for us.

GLENN: Are you saying -- this is kind of like a DEI thing, we have to keep it in, to keep our diversity?

STU: No, I think it improves the recipe a little bit of our country. You know, you get this great island. You get to go on vacations there.

GLENN: Right. Right.

But we did kind of just, hey. Nice island you have here. It's ours. And I have no problem giving it back.

I really don't.

STU: You just --

GLENN: No. I have no problem.

STU: What about the military bases we have there. They'll rent them to us? Well, that's a unique proposal. You want to go to the 49 states. What about Alaska?

GLENN: No. Alaska stays.

STU: You want Alaska over Hawaii, why?

GLENN: Absolutely. Because some day we can drill for all the oil and rare earth minerals.

STU: You're saying that Hawaii just gives us tourism, not enough to fight for it.

GLENN: I mean, yeah. Colonialism, not willing to fight for it. You know, Hawaii, not willing to fight for it. Really not. Really not.

STU: Hmm. But you won Alaska. It's a lot of land. It's a lot of land.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a lot of land. We won't give that one up. That's kind of like Texas to me. Texas. Alaska. Nope!

STU: Really?

We need to turn something else into a state. You can't go 49. You have to go to a round number.

GLENN: How about we go to 48. Why are you going up. Let's go down.

STU: Well, I want a round number.

I have to knock out four or five. At least 4 to get me to 45. Or 40.

I mean, we can do that. We can knock out --

GLENN: Why not 48?

STU: Because it's not a round number. Am I not saying these words out loud? I keep hearing them in my head. Am I saying a round number out loud? I want a round number of states. Okay? That's what I want.

GLENN: That's a stupid rule.

That's a stupid, stupid rule.

I can cut ten. I can cut ten easy.

STU: You can cut ten easy.

GLENN: New York. New York.

STU: Okay. This is going to help. Every time we list states that we don't want in the union. This works out well.

GLENN: New York. Massachusetts. Oregon. Washington. California.

New Mexico, really doesn't do anything for us.

It's just kind of there.

STU: Really, breaking bad. That was a great series.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't really filmed there.

STU: I thought it was. I think it was, but you can film stuff there.

GLENN: Then I balance it out with radiation. You know, the whole dump.

You know, with every place. Every community needs a dump.

And so maybe we keep New Mexico.

Just based on, we need a dump. Okay?

STU: That's quite an analysis of the beautiful terrain.

GLENN: Well, it is beautiful. It's the nicest looking dump I've ever seen.

STU: Okay. All right. Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm not saying we dump our garbage there.

I'm saying we dump our nuclear waste there. Not the -- the same as garbage.

That's expensive waste. That's like waste from rich people.

STU: So you can get me to 40. You don't want to go to 50. No interest to 50.

Wasn't there a split to Idaho. Part of Idaho wanting to pull out. Or Oregon wanting to pull out.

GLENN: Yeah. Oregon.

No. That was just going to become part of Idaho. Half of Oregon was like, you people are crazy.

And they were like, I would rather be the potato people.

STU: What about east Oregon, get you a new state. Get you to 50.

You get two more senators from a conservative state there, doing it that way.

GLENN: No. Because then they'll demand Puerto Rico. No, we freed Puerto Rico. Right? Of course we have.

And --

STU: I didn't know that.

GLENN: And I think we've also evacuated the dump called Washington, DC. That's where we keep our dump. That's where we're like. Hey, all our garbage goes to the District of Columbia. And our prisoners.

STU: That would be interesting. And the prisoners. This is a good idea.

Because too big.

First of all, Washington it can't. Very liberal.

Two proposals, they're very interested in.

Number one is freeing customers, right?

They always want prisoners free. They always say the prisoner industrial complex.

So free them. But they all go to DC.

Right. You're allowed to walk around in DC.

Except for the hardened prisoners. We just lock the front doors, and the front doors and the back doors and the side doors. The hard criminals have to stay there.

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. But everybody else has to walk around.

STU: And then the trash, you know, they're always worried about the environment.

I mean, what better motivator to help clean up all the trash problem. Then all the trash goes directly to Washington, DC.

GLENN: Amen, brother.

Are You BETTER or WORSE Off Than You Were 5 Years Ago?
RADIO

Are You BETTER or WORSE Off Than You Were 5 Years Ago?

5 years ago in 2019, Donald Trump was president, the economy was booming, and the threat of World War 3 was much lower. Jump ahead to 2024 and inflation is rising at an insane pace, two wars are shaking the world, China is on the rise, our children's schools are no longer safe, and President Biden is still trying to convince you that you're better off. So, Glenn asks, are you? Is ANYTHING better off than it was 5 years ago? Maybe it's time to make a change ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Are you better off than you were, five years ago?

Is our country better than it was five years ago? Are we -- we more stable than we were, five years ago, ten years ago, 12 years ago?

Is the world closer to world peace, or closer to world war? Than it was five years ago.

Are we closer to a nuclear war, today, than we were five years ago?

You have to remember, this nuclear war thing, it was just a couple of years ago, they started kicking this around. And we all went, wait. I thought this was over.

Don't get used to that. That is not normal anymore.

Are we more respected in the world today, than we were five years ago?

Do bad guy countries fear us more or less than five years ago? Is our military more or less prepared for any major war, than it was five years ago?
By the way, couple that with your answer, is the world closer to world peace or world war? Does that concern you? Are our streets safer, than they were five years ago?

Are police, are they more respected?

Remember, five years ago was the throes of BLM.

It was four or five years ago, that everybody was on the street. And they were marching to reimagine the police. And to put counselors on the street, instead of police officers.

Are we -- are our cities struggling to hire more counselors, or more police officers, than they were five years ago?

Are police officers more likely or less likely to jump in and help? When there's a problem.

Your 911 service, is it faster than it was five years ago, or is it slower? The response time, than it was five years ago.

Is our relationship between the police officers and blacks, Hispanics, anybody. Is it better, because that's what they were claiming, they needed counselors. And they needed people to train the cops.

So is our police officer. Our police force. Their relationship.

Is it better or worse, or the same?

Than it was five years ago. And even if it's the same, why?

Didn't we go through all of that, to fix that problem?

Is it even close to being fixed.

If someone commits a crime in America, against you, or against anybody that you know, are they more or less likely to go to jail?

Our justice system. Do you have more trust in it, or less trust?

If you don't trust the justice system and you don't trust the police and you don't trust the government, when you have a problem, who do you go to?

Who is actually holding up the torch. I mean, it used to be that you could go to the media. And the media would expose the bad guys. And the government would come in and take care of it. Or if the bad guys were the government, then the people would take care of business.

Do you have more faith in the government, than you did five years ago?

Do you have more faith in the media, than you did five years ago?

You know, we had to bail out the banks in 2008. Why?

Why?

Because they had become too big to fail. Remember? Too big to fail.

We have to stop this.

Did they fix that problem?

Are our big banks bigger or smaller than they were in 2008? Who was hurt by all of the fixes to make banks smaller? So they would never be too big to fail? The banks that were hurt, were they the big banks, or were they the small banks? Do you have trust in the security of your bank? Is that trust getting better or worse, than it was five years ago?

Do you have trust that our Treasury and our Federal Reserve have your best interest at heart. And is that getting better or worse?

Is inflation better or worse than it was five years ago? Is your confidence in the people that are in charge, is your confidence in -- in them, knowing how to fix it.

Being able to even assess what's going on. Is your confidence in them, getting better or worse.

Do you think they are adding to the problem, or fixing the problem?

Do you know our new hopeful target for inflation is now 3 percent?

So that means, we're hoping to hit 3 percent additional inflation every single year.

Not reversing, prices don't go down.

But they only go up from here, 3 percent per year. That's our hope!

Over the last three years, official inflation was around 12 percent. It's probably closer to 20.

But their plan is to increase the inflation that we have right now, by another 15 percent, by the time the next president's term ends.

Is that in the right direction? Or not?

Is your gas price, better or worse than it was five years ago?

How about the price of insurance?

Is that better or worse? Is it easier or harder for you to find a house?

Find a house!

Easier or more difficult than it was five years ago?

Your mortgage rate, is it lower or higher than it was five years ago?

Price of milk.

Our schools, do you feel our children are more safe, or less safe, in their schools, than you did five years ago?

Remember, it was about three years ago, we started finding CRT.

All of this DEI. All of this stuff, has happened under this president.

Do you have more confidence in your school, or less confidence in your school?

Do you have more confidence in your school's librarian, or less confidence?

Are our children better educated, or worse, than five years ago?

Are our children more stable mentally than they were before all this gobbledegook started? Do you believe that we have a handle on terrorism? Is our country more safe from terrorists, or less safe than it was five years ago?

How do you feel about your job?

I can't think of a category, that has gotten better. Can you?

Every category that I look at, it doesn't speak of health, in any way, shape, or form.

Are we happier than we were five years ago?

Are we more comfortable? Are we more content? Not in any category. Not in a single category.

At least that I can find. Is Afghanistan better off? Is Israel better off? Is Ukraine better off?

There is a reckoning that is coming. There is a reckoning that is come.

By the way, I just keep thinking more, how about electricity rates? Do you feel like we will have power, when needed?

Is that confidence better or worse?

Our border, better or worse?

Your freedom, the fundamentals of our Bill of Rights, do you have more confidence or less confidence, that the people in Washington, I don't care what party they're from, are actually going to enforce the Bill of Rights?

This is called a reckoning. When a country goes this far off, there is a reckoning that comes.

It's like you tell your kids, you know, they're getting bad grades in school. You're going to flunk. You're going to flunk. Work harder. Work harder. How can we help you?

Let's go. We have to get to a tutor. Whatever it is. And your kid does not do it. It's like, there's going to come a time where it's too late for you, and you're going to flunk. There's going to come a time where it's too late for you, and you're not going to make it into college.

That's a reckoning. And it's just a natural response to really bad, screwed up ideas. And until you change your ways, the reckoning just gets worse and worse and worse.

When it comes, it's devastating. One of my favorite lines, favorite sayings is, nothing will change if nothing changes. We're shuffling the deck, and we're moving the chairs around the table. We're just moving the chairs around the table.

We're -- we're moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. If nothing changes, nothing will change.

And it's getting worse and worse and worse.

What Aleksandr Dugin REALLY Believes About America
RADIO

What Aleksandr Dugin REALLY Believes About America

In light of Tucker Carlson’s recently released interview with Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, Glenn dives deep into Dugin’s true beliefs about America and his terrifying “solutions” to society’s problems. Dugin may sound like an ally to American conservatives, but his comments on war, apocalypse, and fascism reveal his true intents. Rockford University Philosophy Professor Stephen Hicks joins Glenn to lay out the “massive trap” that Dugin has set for the West and the future of “fascism without compromise” that he wants for the world.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Yesterday, a -- an interview that Tucker Carlson did while he was in Russia, was released. It was about 20 minutes. And I applaud everyone for having a conversation. Tucker has said many times. It's important to see and understand how our adversaries view us.

Well, that -- that wasn't clear in this. He just diagnosed a problem as Aleksandr Dugin always does.

And enough to open a door to people. Have people say, oh. Well, I think I might agree with that.

It is really important, what Tucker has begun. We have to now continue that conversation. So people on our side, will not fall victim to this guy.

They talk about how people want his books to be banned. I don't. I want you to read this in his own words. There will be stuff at the beginning of the book, you will go, yeah. Yeah. He knows me.

By the time you're at the end of the book. This is a horror show.

Literally a horror show. But you should read him.

Jefferson, when we went into our first foreign war, which was against the Muslim pirates, insisted that everybody read the Koran. If you really want to understand the absurdity of it all, he said, you need to read this in their own words. Now, let's get down to it.

GLENN: So let me play just a little bit of what he said, to Tucker yesterday. We'll start there. Here's a clip from the Tucker Carlson interview with Aleksandr Dugin.

VOICE: There was all liberals.

And, for instance (inaudible), correctly, that there are no more ideologies, except for liberalism. And liberalism, that was liberation, of this individual from any kind of collective identity.

There are only two collective identities, to liberate from. Gender identity, because it's disconnected by identity.

You are man and woman, collectively.

So you could be -- so liberation of gender. And that has led to transgenders. To LGBT. And new form of sexual individuals. So sex is all -- something optional.

And that was not just the deviation of liberalism. That was necessary elements of implementation and victor of this liberal ideology.

And the last step that is not yet totally -- totally, made his liberation from human identity. Humanity optional. And when -- now we are choosing for you, in the West, you are choosing the sex you want, as you want. And the last step in this process of liberalism. Implementation of liberalism. Will mean precisely, the human optional. So you can choose your individual identity to be human. Not to be human.

And that -- transhumanism. Post humanism. Singularity. Artificial intelligence. Klaus Schwab. They openly declare that it is the inevitable future of humanity. So we have arrived to the historical terminal station. That we finally -- five centuries. A goal, we have embarked on this train. And we are now arriving at the last station.

GLENN: So what he's saying here is, that liberalism, meaning the classic liberalism where you're an individual. It's not collective. Et cetera, et cetera. He says, the inevitable end is progressivism. And then some dystopian future. But I don't think that's right.

I would love to hear from you.

Liberalism doesn't lead to progressivism. Marxism leads to progressivism.

STEPHEN: Yeah. The first half of the Dugin clip is correct. The second half is a massive equivocation. I think he should know better. I think he's doing some tactical rhetoric against the West, talking about the transgenderism. So let's take those two in part.

So the first part is all of the Soviet Union. I think Dugin is exactly right. What plays out in the 20th century, left only some sort of liberalism standing in the field.

Twenty-first century was a huge ideological battle. I think Dugin's analysis is correct. It's kind of the analysis I've argued and many other people have argued as well.

The 20th Century was about some sort of liberalism, versus some sort of fascism or national socialism, versus some sort of Marxist communism.

We fought world wars. We fought cold wars. Fought many French warfare, ideological wars as well.
What happened was fascism was defeated.

National socialism was defeated. And by 1991, Marxist communism was defeated. So what seemed to be, almost inevitable. I don't want to use the inevitably language. But was that some sort of liberal democracy, capitalism, individualism. Barbarity, was triumphant.

So I think that part is exactly right. Now where I think Dugin goes wrong, is in what happens next.

My view was what happened, liberalism took a breathing. We've been fighting wars. Ideological. And actual wars for over a century.

We let our guard down. We have relaxed. We have kind of thought everybody is going to get on board.

Some sort of liberal, democratic, capitalist. Modern future is slowly going to prevail over the next generation.

What actually happened though, was that the fascists. The national socialists.

The authoritarians. The communists. The Marxists.

The various sorts, did not simply go away, and give up the fight.

Instead, they started to repackage themselves. Inside, the now triumph unto west, there are countermovements that tried to reassert themselves. We started to say, by the time we got to 2010, 2015. Or so.

That those countermovement inside the West are reasserting themselves. And everybody is starting to become aware of them. And the particularly nasty forms of transgenderism.

Now, I think is a legitimate version of transgenderism. That reasonable, sensitive people will take wear of. Weaponized transgenderism. Of a particularly vibrant form, that we're sometimes dealing with.

That is a different phenomena. So the second part then, is what Dugin wants to do is to say.

And this is the part that you were picking up on. That are -- the relativism. The angry activism. The willingness to let everything burn inside the West. That we're now confronting with.

The virulent forms of Islamism. That we are now confronting. And some of the total package of anti-western. Antiliberalism.

Where did those come from?

Now, I agree. Those are pathological.

They are very destructive. What Dugin is offering. Is a thesis that says. That those antiliberalisms. Are themselves an youth growth of liberalism.

And that I think is simply false.

GLENN: So he -- when he says, you know, an end to modernity. And liberalism.

He's actually -- I mean, one of the first things I've found about Dugin. That opened my eyes.

Was his statement that -- that fascism, with Mussolini. Mussolini was a very brave person. As was Hitler.

But it didn't work. But they understood that international communism was not good. So they went for national communism, or socialism. Which became fascist. And he said, where the two of them went wrong. Was they offered too many compromises.

He said, the future -- yeah. The future is fascism without compromise.

STEPHEN: Exactly.

GLENN: This is terrifying.

STEPHEN: This is 1990's Dugin in the first decade after the fail of the Soviet Union. And he's a strange character at this point. He's already adopted various forms of Naziism. In the 1980s. At this point, he's not a young man. He's in his late '20s. Early '30s.

So he's a mature thinker. He hates liberalism already. He hates modernity. He hates the West in its entirety. At the same time, he's dissatisfied with a lot of what's going on in the Soviet Union.

Its version of Communism and Marxism. When the Soviet Union falls, so he's cofounder of a national Bolshevik Party. And the Bolsheviks, of course, was Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and so on. So it's a reworking of a kind of Communist Marxism.

But the nationalism is important there for him. And he then -- and, a few years, settles on saying, what we need to do is just rework fascism.

So he's widely and explicitly admiring of Mussolini, and some of the German fascists of the 1920s and early 1930s. And he publishes an article in 1997, called fascism. Borderless and red. The red part means blood. And it means a little bit of incorporation of Marxism.

That will mean bloody, violent revolution that we need, and the border part is also there. That we need to expand Russia's border.

We need to be expansionists.

What we need is a kind of national socialism. And he takes the socialism seriously.

Economic control.

But it's not going to be a socialism, that we take on, so to speak. It's a Russian people, who moved into some abstract, socialist template. We need to take the Russian people. Its particular ethnic identity, including its religion. Its cultures. It's traditions. See it as having a world historical destiny.

It's going to lead the world to a new, bright future that is not going to be kind of trapped in the old Marxist way. And as you were suggesting, it will learn from the failures of the earlier versions of fascism and national socialism.

And what that is going to involve with. A willingness to be muscular. A willingness to be violent. A willingness to take ethnicity and nationalism seriously. And not to compromise one job with capitalism, with any form of Western liberalism.

Yes. That's Dugin. By the time we get to the late 1990s.

Did the Deep State Kill a Journalist? An ‘Octopus Murders’ Review | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 219
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Did the Deep State Kill a Journalist? An ‘Octopus Murders’ Review | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 219

A journalist went where the FBI couldn’t and may have dug his own grave asking the wrong questions to a nefarious network, including CIA operatives, the mafia, Hollywood’s elite, Native Americans, and psychopathic killers. This was Danny Casolaro's biggest story that never happened because he was found dead in a motel room in West Virginia. Was it suicide or murder? Glenn Beck excavates never-before-heard testimony from the filmmakers of the Netflix original docuseries “American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders,” including evidence and a paper trail of a stolen election. Christian Hansen and Zachary Treitz detail the most dangerous character they came across. It’s not Bill Hamilton, Inslaw, Robert Booth Nichols, or Michael Riconosciuto. They also explain how the PROMIS software and the Inslaw scandal have ties to the Angry Birds backdoor malware installed by the NSA as well as that outrageous Zapruder film hoax of the JFK assassination. Confused yet? The interconnected web of disinformation consumed Hansen so much that director Treitz was concerned about his emotional and physical health during filming. The ending, reminiscent of "The Sopranos," left the filmmakers on the hunt for the key that could unlock the entire conspiracy. But the story doesn’t end there ...