RADIOFebruary 14, 2024

A DIRE WARNING for independent content creators

We have hit another Big Tech censorship mile marker. Glenn exposes the latest attempts by Facebook, Apple, AND YouTube to soft-censor conservative media during an election year. He warns that independent content creators who believe that they can rely on Big Tech platforms will soon find out the harsh truth: If they don’t fall in line with the narratives of the global elites, they will face the consequences. For political content creators on Facebook, that day has come, as it has made shadowbanning its company policy. And for those on YouTube, Glenn exposes how a shadowy “non-profit” connected to the White House may be pressuring the company to crack down on unapproved narratives.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to start with something you need to know about. You know, I feel like somebody who is just telling you the mile-markers as we go. We are hitting another mile-marker here that you really need to pay attention to. Because it is all about information.

We have been witnessing a very disturbing trend in social media lately.

The giants of social media are attempting to control the narrative and dictate what information you have access to, by punishing people like me, or perhaps people like you, for wrong think.

Now, this is a blatant assault on your freedom and my freedom of speech.

And what do you know, they've decided to do this, during an election year. I mean, what a coincidence.

So I have three updates for you. And the first one is actually a kind of win.

I shared last week, when my team discovered, that Apple had raided everything in my Apple podcast library, as explicit content.

That's over 2,000 episodes of my radio program. Which I am FCC regulated. So I can't have anything explicit on.

And also the Glenn Beck podcast.

Now, the key here is, why did Apple change the rating from clean, to explicit?

Well, my team uploads the -- the episodes to the Apple podcast platform. And they have to rate it either clean or explicit.

The vast majority of my episodes fall under the clean category. But our standards are a little higher than everyone else. Every so often, a guest on my podcast will use colorful language. They'll drop the F bomb. Occasionally. It's happened twice.

And my team, making sure that we understand our audience, have flagged that episodes as explicit. That shouldn't affect every episode. It should affect that episode. So we reached out to Apple for comment, and Apple got back to us right away, and claims this is due to four episodes, that we in the 2,000, have labeled explicit.

Now, Apple claimed, that we didn't say they were explicit. I know we did.

Apple wanted me to delete those episodes to get the label removed from all the rest of the 2000 episodes. Uh-huh.

So censorship, well, I don't know. There's people that use content settings to avoid podcasts that are entirely based around explicit content like pornography. What Apple did was group my shows with those kinds of shows to hide all of my shows from you.

We pushed back. Yesterday, we got a notification, that Apple will remove the explicit label, within a couple of business days. We've got a lot going on here. So it was a big misunderstanding, as it always is. And time and time again. And I just love the fact that they -- they will take a couple of days and correct this right away.

Now, this is called soft censorship.

And these attempts happen all the time.

Let me give you another example. Earlier this week, I got a notification, that Facebook is making shadow banning company policy.

Now, shadow banning, in case you don't know, is when a social media company allows you to post all the content that you want. But then it limits the reach that the content can hit.

So it's -- well, I call it the digital ghetto. You know, they're just rounding everybody up, that disagrees with the government. And they put them in this digital ghetto. There's a wall around it.

Well, they can speak all they want. But nobody will hear them. Unless you too, if into the get zero.

Now, this time, at least Facebook was kind enough to tell us about it.

They posted an article last week, called, our approach to political content. Now, Facebook admitted that they will shadow ban all political content.

But that's for you.

That has nothing to do with like the WEF saying, we've got to silence people. We have to make sure that people aren't misinformed with things that disagree with our policy, and our direction.

Now, Facebook argued that, quote, the people have told us, they just want to see less million content.

So we've spent the last few years, refining our approach on Facebook, to reduce the amount of political content. Including from politician accounts.

In feeds, reels, watch groups. You should join. And pages, you may like.

Okay. That's interesting. Because my team started noticing, oh, a 95 percent drop in our penetration on Facebook, about a year ago.

Which is weird. Which is weird.

But it will be better for our sanity, I guess.

I remember a time, when Facebook begged me to I didn't even their platform.

So what changed?

Well, an election year, where they're scared out of their mind.

And they have to silence anyone, that is telling you, a different opinion, than the overlords.

I would like to know what Facebook considers to be political content. Is advertising, LGBTQ issues to kids considered political?

I'll bet not. How about content on the benefits of abortion?

Is that April?

Does Joe Biden get a pass since he's the president?

Despite the fact that he's running for reelection. Or is it just the right-wing candidates and issues, that are from the right-wing that are considered political?

Don't worry. Facebook isn't banning all political content.

Instead, it's just hiding it by default.

If you want to see the political content. Then you can customize your feed preference, and turn. Back on.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

You can also add people like me, to your favorites list, so you can add content to your feed.

Sounds great and easy, doesn't it?

Now, my team stumbled across a new form of shadow banning, and it could be tied directly to the global censorship regime that I exposed just a few weeks ago.

Just a few weeks ago, on the TV program.
I had exposed the shadowy nonprofit targeting Glenn Beck and other conservative media.

And I laid out how a small British nonprofit, with only one employee, has become one of the White House's go-to censorship experts.

I'm going to tell you what we found just happening, and how it ties to what I said was coming two weeks ago.

And how all of this affects you.

Because it is going to affect what you perceive.

Because it's just taking things away. It's not necessarily adding. It's just kind of falling off. And you don't see it anymore.

This is a way to control the way people think.

Okay. So in the episode I did a couple of weeks ago, I introduced you to the center of countering digital hate.

When I say they are the ones behind the infamous dozen report that the White House peddled back in 2021.

That report targeted so-called COVID disinformation. All the things that we now know are true.

Well, they now have a new report out, about climate disinformation. But not the kind that you may be thinking of. Now, when I say they, I really mean him.

Because there's only one employee, at this nonprofit. Earlier this year, British outlet called the independent, highlighted this new report. Apparently, it's the center for countering digital hate. And they are furious that social media companies, are allowing a new form of climate change denial to spread to their platforms.

It's no longer good enough for companies like YouTube to censor people who believe in climate change. Or believe it is fake.

They've been doing that. But that's not enough. That's the old kind of denial. The center for digital hate defines the new denial as anything that claims global heating is beneficial or harmless. That global elite's climate solution may not work.

Or that so-called climate science or the climate movement can't be trusted.

Now, I'm not sure how questioning the global elites is a form of digital hate. But apparently now it is.

Because that guy at the CCDH has spoken. And the White House will partner with him.

So now, people like me, who have never denied the climate is changing.

In fact, I say, the climate has always been changing. We're considered spreaders of hateful disinformation because we think, things like reimagining farming, might kill millions of people.

You know, like it has every time, it has ever been attempted in the past.

Now, the CCDH, made sure to specifically call me or Blaze TV out as spreaders of this new denial.

Now, this isn't just pointing the finger. This is a threat. Because the CCDH then demanded that YouTube demonetize any content that spreads new denial.

But, remember, this is one of the White House's go-to experts on disinformation.

It's a good thing the White House doesn't have a track record of telling social media companies who to censor. Right?

Oh, wait. We have just learned the Twitter files, that's exactly what they have been doing for years. So let's take a step back here.

Because it's more important for you to understand, what the CCDH's demand actually means.

Stu, do I still have your attention? Because this is really complex. But I just want to make sure that people understand it.

Can you -- I don't know. Do something that would bring in, the people that don't have a real big attention span.

STU: Taylor Swift. She's in the luxury box, watching the radio today. Look at her.

GLENN: Thank you.

So here it is. They want YouTube to limit the monetization of any content that goes against the global elite's narrative. And if I in general, are against the global elite's narrative, then you wouldn't want any of my content monetized.

The truth is, it's not really cheap or easy to produce content and maintain a team to keep all of the trainings running on time.

A subscription model is the best way for us to function.

And that's something that we pioneered here at the Blaze.

I knew working at CNN, and then at Fox. We could not rely on other companies. We couldn't rely on advertisers.

We had to rely on you.

Now, we take advertisers, because it's wildly expensive to do what we do.

But in the end, we'll continue to do it, as long as you are a subscriber.

That's why I ask you, all the time. Please, subscribe to TheBlaze.

Because I know what is coming.

In fact, it's already here.

We only answer to you.

So this -- I'm going to show you some of this. So you understand what it is.

But anyone who is -- is relying on making their money, from social media, is going to be over soon.

So they want you to limit the monetization of anybody that is going against the globally elite's narratives.

It is important for a people to be able to reach new viewers through platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Otherwise, we're only speaking to the choir.

How do you offset the cost for content, when you're putting it out for free?

Well, YouTube shares the revenue, that they take to run ads in our content.

The better the video does. The more ad are sold. The more money both YouTube and let's say somebody like me, makes.

That's how it works.

But late last week, one of my producers was looking through the YouTube analytics on a podcast with the rancher Shad Sullivan. The episode is called millions will starve.

Rancher sounds the alarm on the global food Jeopardy.

It was performing extraordinarily well. In just, I think a day, it had 320,000 views.

It had amassed, a watch time of over 88,000 hours.

Okay. That, if we cared about the money, should have made tons of money for TheBlaze, or for the Glenn Beck Program.

The -- the podcast had 14 YouTube ad breaks.

So they were selling advertisers. But we weren't making any money.

So we don't know what happened to the money, there.

We were searching for a potential problem.

We found a few things. First of all, YouTube had limited ads on this video. Which can take it to, you know, every thousand people, or I don't even know the numbers.

But it -- you get a certain amount for every -- everybody who is watching all of this. And then you split it.

But if you are banned in any way, then that number goes down.

Well, YouTube had limited ads on this video.

They claimed that it had firearms-related content. That wasn't friendly to some advertisers. We double-checked. We -- we didn't talk at all, about firearms. Nothing would have triggered this restriction.

Oh. But there is a catch to this.

And we did. And we made something more powerful than mainstream media.

Now, they want mainstream media and control of the internet, and they've been doing this, with the government, as we knew from the Twitter files.

They've been doing it in league with the government. Shadow banning people.

Well, we're about to go into shadow banning hell.

I called it a digital ghetto. I got in trouble for that.

Because they say, you just hate Jewish people. By saying, no. There's such a thing as a ghetto. The Germans did it. Now you can do it digitally and shut people up, and put them behind a digital wall, that you don't want to be heard.

Well, there's a few things that are going on.

First of all, the shadow banning has now become official policy of Facebook.

And they're a private company, they can decide to do this.

But they're saying, no politics anymore.

I'll be interested to see if that applies to ABC News. I'll be interested to see if they are shadow banning everybody consistently.

If so, then we're all in the same boat.

I think it's a mistake. But we're all in the same boat. Now, there's something else that I told you about two weeks ago.

It's called the CCDH. It's the Center for Digital Hate. In America, it started over in England. And then this guy moved it over to are America. So they have an office here. And it is now the go-to NGO for the White House, on what digital hate is. And how to stop it.

It has quite an -- an incredible roster of people behind it.

It has one employee.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like they could get a lot done with one employee. But, boy, are they doing it.

Okay. So I told you, that we are doing an episode, a couple of weeks ago.

About the -- what's happening to our farmers, and our -- and our meat. We told you, that this is a real problem.

What is -- what is being done in our -- in our ranching and food industry, is going to make a lot of people very, very hungry.

It was called, let's see, I can't remember. Where is the name.

But they were talking about a couple of weeks ago. This group, talking to the White House, about banning people that deny problems with global warming. Also, anybody who is denying the elite solutions. Et cetera, et cetera.

So we have never denied climate change. But they are targeting the spreaders of, quote, hateful disinformation. And that -- we are labeled that, because we believe reimagining farming is a very bad deal.

This is what they call the new denial.

Now, they're not just pointing the finger. They're making a threat. The CCDH demanded that YouTube demonetize any content that spreads new denial.

One of the White House experts remember, on disinformation, is this little -- this one guy, in Washington. So by limiting the amount of monetization, that content can make, it goes against the global elite's narrative. They say they're all for free speech, except for hate. But that hate is now anything that disagrees with them.

It is not cheap to produce content. And I'm telling you, right now, we developed this model of subscriptions for our content.

It is why you have noticed, maybe, TheBlaze has just doubled and quadrupled down, on all of our stories and everything else.

I have two huge breaking news from Blaze investigations today.

These things take weeks to do. They take lawyers and everything else lots of research and man-hours, go into these things.

We're doubling down on that, because we need you to understand, A, we do our homework. We know what we're talking about. We are trustworthy.

B, we need you to subscribe. And we will give you the information, you need.

So this -- this rancher, millions will starve. Rancher sounds the alarm. On global food agencies. It has tons and tons of views.

And they said, it was -- it was shadow banned and demonetized, because it was said by YouTube, that it had firearms-related content.

We went back. We looked at the texts. There was nothing. However, there was a read in there, for Byrna, which makes non-lethal firearm alternatives.

That's nothing that violates YouTube ad policy.

Byrna is, in fact, a verified advertiser on YouTube.

So we reached out to YouTube, to get the limited ads rating removed.

We're waiting for a response on this.

However, what happened to the revenue, that they sold?

Because we didn't make any of it. Now, this is the way. And this is why we are bringing this to you. And to all content creators.

If you rely on YouTube, Google, Facebook.

Any of those things.

That revenue is soon going to be gone.

According to the independent, the CCDH.

The Center for Digital Hate, uses an AI tool to discover YouTube has allegedly made up to $13.4 million in revenue, on videos that espouse new types of climate crisis denial. Remember, that's just a video that disagrees with the elites.

In the response, CCDH demanded that YouTube and other social media platforms update their policies to remove the financial incentive for content, that falls under this umbrella of new denial.

If you limit the ability to monetize, you also limit the content's ability to reach a broader audience, and you also limit the new content, because people can't afford to do it.

So does my podcast, with Rancher Shad Sullivan fall under this umbrella?

Yeah. Because in that episode, Shad told us very clearly, what the global elites are doing. They're waging a war on beef, in the name of saving the climate. And their solutions will cause millions to starve.

Now, how many millions of viewers could we have received, and reached, had YouTube not attempted to put a ceiling on all of our views?

So I guess guilty as charged. I'm a super spreader of the new denial, I guess.

And I imagine, anyone who told Stalin or Mao, that they're reimagining of farming would kill millions, was also branded a denier. Or how about anybody who spoke out about Sri Lanka's reimagining. Remember that?

The World Economic Forum held that up as the model for the future. Until 2022. When their model led to a massive food crisis that is still going on.

Are all the Irish farmers who have been warning, that they will have to slaughter their cows, to meet climate goals, disinformation spreaders?

What about the people who point out, while elites want to limit your beef consumption, Mark Zuckerberg is feeding his cows macadamia nuts and beer, so not only can the elites have their beef, you have a cricket patty. Or maybe lab-grown meat.

But they get beef that has been raised on beer and macadamia nuts.

Shadow banning. This is the new shadow banning. And its outcome is the same. Wrong think.

It's punished. This isn't the free market. They will pile these ideas on, one after another. I am telling you, TheBlaze is fine right now, because we built an entirely different model.

This is the time that I built TheBlaze for. We started in 2011. When Netflix and even Amazon wasn't streaming video. We were the first to stream a network.

And it was insane to do it. And I almost went broke doing it.

But it was the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to put all of our eggs in one basket. And that is you.

But you are going to have to start searching. I've told you this in the last year. All of a sudden, you're just -- unless you're looking for it. You won't notice that you're getting less and less from people like me.

So you have to seek us out.

We would really appreciate, we hope that you understand, we're on a mission. We're not here to make money.

We're on a mission.

We're on a mission to tell you the truth. Keep you informed. And show you the mile-markers. We just went through a very frightening mile-marker, this week, on shadow banning.

If you don't know the mile-marker, you're not going to know where you are. And where you are, is heading deeper and deeper into a place where your navigation system is being fiddled with.

I urge you, if you are not a member of TheBlaze, please support us.

Join us, at BlazeTV.com.

Use the -- the promo code free speech.

And you can get $30 off, of your subscription. That includes everything Blaze media is doing now.

Not only in video content, and opinion content.

But also, there are two big stories, that I want to get to.

The -- TheBlaze has just investigated how many people actually died of COVID-19. In the Michigan long-term care facilities. That's a breaking story.

Also, Capitol Police, we've just found. And we are showing you now, footage that has never been seen before.

Capitol Police diverted all of the CCTV cameras away from the DNC pipe bomb investigation. Except one.

And we will show you that video, that has been like pulling teeth to get it. In just a few. Stand by.

SCANDAL: How Obama BETRAYED Heroic Vets in the Shocking 'Raven 23' Case

Glenn Beck is joined by investigative journalist Gina Keating to expose the shocking story of how the Obama administration weaponized the Deep State against America’s own hero veterans. From show trials to political pressure, veterans who risked everything for their country were sacrificed to appease foreign governments and deflect public scrutiny. Cases like the 'Raven 23' incident reveal how the Pentagon and DOJ allegedly used absurd charges to make it appear they were acting, while thousands of soldiers became pawns in a political game...

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Gina Keating HERE

Should Ukraine give up land to Putin to end the war?

As President Trump continues to navigate through his peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine, it's beginning to look like both sides are going to have to give something up in order to bring peace. But is that fair? Glenn gives a history lesson of the only other time in recent history where a country was forced to give up what it had won: Israel in 1967. So, what's the path forward? Peace demands sacrifice. Survival outweighs pride. Both countries claim injustice. The question is: Are you willing to trade more land for more lives? Are you willing to give back, or give up enough to stop the killing?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I was -- I was thinking about this, and doing some research on, when has any country been asked to give land up, that it won in a war?

And you can say that it was, you know, their fault. And everything else. But you want to make sure that you're very careful on punishment for those -- those transgressions. Remember, the aggressor, really bad aggressor, in World War I was Germany. And the world decided to punish Germany. And Germans didn't like it. And that led right directly to World War II. I think without the Versailles treaty being done the way it was done, we would have -- we wouldn't have World War II.

We may not have ever seen Hitler rise to power.

It would be a good thing. But you would also set a standard and say, hey. Bad guys. You don't win when you do these things.

So this is a really tough balance. But there is only one country in particular, in the history of the world, that has -- that has faced this burden, where the whole world is turning up, and saying, you have to get this back.

Back in 1967, it was Israel.

They were surrounded.

Encircled. And threatened with destruction, by every single neighbor.

Every country in the region, decided together, they were going to attack on multiple fronts.

Now, their intention was to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But Israel not only survived, it turned the tide. In six days, it gained territory so dramatically, that the map of the Middle East had to be withdrawn, dramatically.

They occupied huge swaths of territory. In Jordan, and in Egypt.

All over the Middle East. All of a sudden, they had all this territory.

And then something extraordinary happened.

They said, and you don't see this in Russia. Listen carefully to this.

You don't see this very often.

They said, we don't want all this territory.

We want to be left alone. And we really just want a few buffer zones.

We don't need all of this land in Jordan.

We don't need all of this land in Egypt. We just want to make sure that this can't happen to us again.

Well, that's what Russia is saying. Now, whether that's true with Vladimir Putin or not. That's true, for you to decide.

What they're saying, they want just a buffer zone, away from NATO.

And what Ukraine is saying, we want to be part of NATO. Because we don't trust Russia. Nor should they.

So we -- we want to have -- we want NATO partnership.

Basically, what they want is, if Russia attacks us, then all of NATO, Europe, and America, need to go in and fight that war. With them.

That's what they really want.

Well, Donald Trump his -- his allies came out, this weekend. And said, they are very close to an Article V kind of agreement.

Article V comes from the NATO charter.

Which means, it was for Europe, against Russia.

Anybody who attacks a NATO country, it's an attack on all of us.

And we all band together.

Now, does that happen?

Well, kind of it did, after 911.

Not everyone was involved.

But it wasn't -- it wasn't, you know, like it was intended to be. But that's fine.

That's what -- that's what Ukraine wants.

What Russia says they want, whether it's true orbit or not, I don't know.

But what they say they want is a buffer zone.

If Russia can give up, and look instead at the Israeli example of voluntary, they gave most of it back. The Sinai. Gaza. And parts of the West Bank.

They -- they wanted to keep as part of a buffer zone.

But they were in there. Because it was a buffer zone, to them. Okay?

But land four times its own size.

Paid for in blood. On an attack that they didn't do. Others did to them.

They gave all of that, back. In pursuit of peace.

And they said, look, we don't -- we're not here for more land. We just want our land. And to be left alone. And to have the right to exist.

Now, you've done this to us, several times.

So we want, just exactly what Russia could say. We've been attacked by the West, over and over again. They come through this door of either Poland, or now they're worried about Ukraine.

So we want a buffer zone.

Well, the world didn't give them that buffer zone. It's the disputed territories.
The occupied territories. But that's why Israel wanted it. And then they gave everything else, back. A nation smaller than New Jersey, carved out, just this little buffer zone, so they have a -- a way to protect themselves, in case this would ever happen again. Now, compare this with Russia and Ukraine.

Crimea was taken in 2014. In -- they invaded Ukraine outright in 2022.

And they hold huge swaths of land, under the occupation. So what's the path forward?

Well, either continued bloodshed. And I just -- I think it's important that we put this into perspective: 20,000 Russians, according to the US, 20,000 Russians died last month!

How long did the Vietnam War go on? That was a total of about 55,000 Americans. In one month, you're almost half of the entire Vietnam War.

There's a lot of bloodshed, and a lot of bloodshed, that is happening on the other side, as well.

How many have the Russians killed, month after month after month?

So to stop this, is there something we can look to from 1967?

You know, a recognition of the reality on the ground. And then some hard choices on both sides. But anchor it all in peace.

Marco Rubio said this weekend, and he's right.

Peace demands sacrifice. And Israel proved that, by returning Sinai to Egypt. In exchange for recognition. And an end to the hostilities.

It wasn't perfect. It didn't solve every agreement. But it worked. And Egypt and Israel, haven't gone to war in half a century.

Again, it's messy.

It's ugly. But we haven't had a war between Egypt and Israel, in half a century. Survival outweighs pride.

And here's the challenge for Russia, and Ukraine. Both claim history, in that.

Deep, deep history in that area.

Both claim injustice. And Ukraine, I think you have a much more solid claim on injustice against the Russians, than they do the other way.

But question is, not whose parchment, who owns this land, who has the oldest deed here. The question is: Are you willing to trade more land for more lives?

Are you willing to give back, or give up enough to stop the killing?

And that's not just on the Ukraine side. That is also on the Russian side. No other country has done what Israel does. Nobody.

No -- there's no example like this.

No other modern country has been attacked by multiple neighbors, survived, expanded, and then voluntarily gave all of that land back. And then, it's still being judged for not getting all of it back!

And the closest comparison is probably from 1971. India took some land from Pakistan. In a war. And then they gave it back.

After World War II, we didn't occupy. We gave the land back.

But neither one of those examples have the double standards that Israel has to live through.

But if Russia and Ukraine are serious about ending the war, they might want to look to Sinai.

They might want to look back. Because that's the model. Not endless battles. Not shifting borders by force.

But the humility, to give back what you can. And the wisdom to keep only that in which you have to have for your own security.

And then Russia has to do that. And Ukraine has to be willing to swallow that they have lost some of these things.

But it's in trade for their security. And if Donald Trump can get Russia to accept an Article V-like security agreement, that in and of itself is miraculous.

And we could actually all go home and say, well, avoid a nuclear war on that.

Because remember where we were. Remember. In 2022, Joe Biden was saying, this is nuclear war.

If these things happen, this will be nuclear war!

Remember how freaked out we all were. Likes, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

Nobody has been talking about nuclear war in 50 years.

What do you mean nuclear war? We could avoid that.

I don't know who you voted for, nor too I care.

Is I -- I would hope that we are all praying for cooler heads to prevail.

Because this one now comes down to, how many more innocent lives, that are not involved in this, who are being drafted, on both sides.

Being forced to fight this war. On both sides! How many more people are we going to kill, or allow being killed. Because of -- because of what?
Because of pride.

I don't want to see Putin rewarded for anything that he did.

Nothing!

But war is war.

You know, you don't -- you know, if you're willing to continue to fight.

But Ukraine will not be able to win this war against Ukraine.

I mean, against Russia.

Would you agree with that, Jason. Jason Buttrill is with us.

Would you agree? Unless we all get involved and it's world war.

JASON: That's the thing. Depending on how many people get pushed into this.

There's some crazy developments in this war.

Technologically advancements.

Ukraine. Drone warfare has escalated you out their roof on this.

GLENN: Crazy.

JASON: Some of the videos coming from.

The crazy thing, Ukraine is actually leading, I think in just ingenuity.

As far as drone warfare.

You can watch volunteers on X right now.

That shows some of these first person drones, chasing down Russian soldiers, across the battlefield.

And it's going back and forth.

STU: It's terrifying.

JASON: To answer your question more specifically, no, it's basically a war of attrition in numbers. The Russians have war. And the only way that Ukraine can effectively over time win, is if we get involved. Other NATO countries get involved. That's where things spin out of control.

GLENN: And here's another thing: While we're talking about new technology, let me go back to the B-2 bomber flying over Donald Trump and Putin.

And everybody in the media was like, he's on the red carpet. And he saluted him with a flyover.

No. No. No. That was intimidation. That was clearly intimidation.

What was the message?

Why -- why did he say, fly the B-2 bomber?

Back in 1940, Jack Northrop dreams up the flying wing. And it's -- it's radical. It has no tail.

It was the YB-49. It was really futuristic. Now, the Germans were working on the flying wing as well.

But nobody could get it to stabilize. And, you know, the testing, they killed it by 1950. Because they just couldn't get it stabilized. Now, fast forward to the 1980s. Under Ronald Reagan, doing the same thing, remember. This bomber came back in the 1980s. What else was happening in the 1980s?

It was Ronald Reagan meeting with the leader of -- of Russia. And Gorbachev.

And Ronald Reagan was playing the heavy. It's an evil empire. We're going to end it.

And everybody is like, he will get us into nuclear war. He's like, would you calm down? I have a strategy here. Back in the 1980s, when that was going on, all of a sudden, Northrop Grumman, the aerospace company, they came up with the B-2.

Now, it was first flown for people to see in 1989, but we have it before then.

Okay. Those things were always out before -- it's a UFO, it's like this flying wing, flying. Well, why was this such a big deal?

No one has been able to make a flying wing, except us.

Okay? It's precision. It can drop those bombs in Iran. And it can hit a bomb. 50,000 feet, it can drop a bomb, and it will drop a bomb, and hit the top of a Pepsi can.

That's remarkable precision. Okay?

And it's unseen, with radar. It's untouchable.

But here's the thing.

It was a message to Putin. We freedom it up in the '40s. We perfected it in the '80s, and still, in 2025, nothing comes close.

This is -- this is who we are.

Putin's radars didn't even blink. But I can tell you, he felt the shadow of that wing.

This is why that flyover was such a big deal. It was absolute proof, America is in the leadership role again.

We don't just lead. We dominate, from the vision, to the victory!

Sleep tight, world.
The B-2 is watching. And America is leading again!