RADIO

EX-MAYOR PETE: Buttigieg is a lot of things but MODERATE is not one

Will the real Pete Buttigieg please stand up? Ex-Mayor Pete is a lot of things but moderate is not one. He is a gay, churchgoing Episcopalian, pianist, poet who is "Internet-y smart" but even liberal magazines are criticizing him for not being leftist enough. He served in Afghanistan, but not really a "war hero" but advocates for mandatory military/public service. His strong performance thus far now has him in the crosshairs and the dirt is starting to come out. This should be fun!

RADIO

Can the CDC be SUED for helping Big Tech CENSOR US?

The CDC coordinated with Big Tech companies to censor social media users who ‘express[ed] skepticism or criticism of COVID-19 vaccines,’ the Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this week. ‘Internal communications,’ the Free Beacon reported, show that CDC officials would ‘flag specific posts’ by social media users as ‘example posts’ for Big Tech companies — like Google — to shut down. Private companies can do what they wish, Glenn says. But the CDC is part of our U.S. government. So, can it be SUED with a class action lawsuit? Michael Malice, Podcast host of ‘Your Welcome,’ says he doesn’t think so…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I wanted to bring something up. These are the headlines from today. Lawsuit alleges CDC colluding with big tech to censor speech.

Internal documents. Next story, internal documents reveal CDC work with big tech, to censor covid-19 speech. Next one, Twitter account suspended for covid-19 misinformation, have increased over 70 percent. They're not done yet. Twitter is now blocking links to some Substack pages because of covid, the CCP, and Hunter Biden. And Wikipedia suspends edits to its recession page, after woke users changed the definition of Biden's. That's the only one that is right. But I think there's a class-action suit, isn't there? I mean, anyone who has been banned or been silenced on the social media pages, that is government now, we know, we have the evidence, through documents. That is collusion. A public private partnership. So that is the First Amendment. Companies can do it. But when working with the federal government, they cannot.

MICHAEL: I agree. And we can kind of go back to Wilson again. I think it's unacceptable. And outrageous. Don't get me wrong. But in terms of the lawsuit. I'm sure, in their terms of service, they all can say, we can boot you off for any time, for any reason, whatsoever. So to try to demonstrate that you don't have a right to do this, I think it's going to be very hard to prove. I think Twitter can very easily claim, well, this was in consultation with the government. But we're the ones who made the decision. And I think you take the heavy-handedness. You know, they would like us to memory hold this, but the heavy-handedness, for which they censored people, including the New York Post, right before the election, Glenn. As you remember, they were reporting on Hunter's laptop, as 50 intelligence agents, who had no accountability for lying. Because they said, that they were -- oh. All the symbols. All the classic symbols of Russian information, which they still never said what they were. And they clearly were none. Because this was just a crackhead laptop. I think the idea that the law is going to hold these agents, giant corporations accountable. The law works in their favor. That's how our system has worked.

GLENN: I know. Well, but I don't -- my lawsuit is really not against these corporations, as much as it is against the government. Because the government is supposed to never get involved in that. And they have just found through public/private partnerships. A way around the Constitution. They just get into bed with these corporations. And then they highly suggest. You know, we can help you. Or not help you.

And they can highly suggest, and really pressure these companies to do this. Or these companies might even be inclined to do it themselves. But the government has no place in to being the arbiter of truth, and speech. No place.

MICHAEL: But, Glenn, the First Amendment also guarantees the right of citizens to peaceably assemble. And if you tried to do a lawsuit, that's saying, I want to go to my mother's funeral or visit her in the hospital. And I was blocked because of these quarantines. You would be laughed at to your face. So, yeah. It's supposed to work in a certain way. But in practice, I don't think these judges. Even fairly conservative judges, are going to give this the time of day, whatsoever.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. One other thing. Let me hit here, before we have to go. Germany is cutting off hot water and electricity. I mean, this is something Donald Trump said, just recently, Ronald Reagan said it years ago. Don't do it. Don't get in bed with Russia. They'll hold you hostage. And here they are. What do you think this means for -- for stability in the future of our -- of our world?

MICHAEL: It's not just getting in bed with Russia. Germany has in their very last election gone from having a two major party system, to having a three-major party system, the greens have achieved parity with the social democrats, which have historically since World War II, been the center left party in Germany. And now that the greens are in power, this is the kind of thing that happens. When you want to have, you know, not be dependent on things like gas and whatever. You're going to have problems producing electricity. You'll have problems producing energy. And they're cutting the water supply. They're having gas reductions. Public buildings won't have heating until April to September. This is in the city of Hanover. Banning air-conditioners, heaters, and radiators for people in their homes.

GLENN: I know.

MICHAEL: And, you know, this is what the German people voted for. So even if -- when things are resolved with Putin. And hopefully as quickly as possible. This is going to continue to be a problem. And that green new deal, which is not going away, which is just on pause. People should be very concerned what that will look like here.

GLENN: You know, I was just watching this guy who is -- he's got the hydrogen house. He used to work for NASA. He makes hydrogen from solar power. And I've been a big believer in hydrogen for a long time. It doesn't cause a water shortage. You have to make hydrogen from water. You actually get more water, from hydrogen, than you put into it, believe it or not. And it's 100 percent clean energy. And you can make it with solar energy. It is the answer. And I thought, you know, people could solve this problem, if we were allowed to really, truly invent and do the things that we believe in. There would be a lot of mistakes, but, you know, I was thinking. You know what, maybe I should call this guy, and see if I could build a hydrogen, you know, plant myself. Because he's made it for his house. And you can power everything. And I thought, well, no. Because, you know, the government is eventually going to say, that I'm committing some crime because of it. Because they'll deem that hydrogen is whatever the problem is. And that's our real problem. Government is the problem.

MICHAEL: Well, you're talking to an anarchist. So I could not agree with you more.

GLENN: I know. I know.

MICHAEL: Again, if carbon dioxide, they're trying to regulate that as a pollutant, which is something that every plant produces. At a certain point, their use of language, simply a mechanism to have power. They don't use language to inform. They use it to manipulate. So I agree with you completely. Like, there's no way, that if you're trying to create an energy plant of any kind, you're not going to be subject to nightmarish regulation, and possibly (inaudible).

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly right. And it's -- I mean, it's the same story, over and over and over again. And something has got to change. And I have a feeling with great pain, will come great change. And hopefully, it will be positive change, if we keep our heads. Michael, thank you so much for being on with us. It's Michael Malice. He's the author of the anarchist handbook. And the host of, you're welcome. Do you have something else to say, Michael? Or are you just disrupting because you're an anarchist?

MICHAEL: I was going to say thank you. So have a great weekend, everyone.

GLENN: All right. Have a good time. Thanks, Michael.

Shorts

Important monkeypox UPDATE from the woke left

GLENN: The word monkey is not a racist word. It can be used in racist ways. But it has another meaning. It -- it defines an animal, called a monkey.

Change the language. They are changing absolutely everything we know. Everything -- everything old is completely new. That's how you change the world. You destroy the meaning of everything.

RADIO

SCANDAL: Glenn EXPOSES Choco Taco ice cream AND the lottery

Klondike shocked the world earlier this week with the announcement that its famous ‘Choco Taco’ ice cream treat would be discontinued. But there seemed to be more to the story, so Glenn dug into the details and found the end of Choco Tacos may be thanks to one of our favorite far-left corporations: Unilever. He explains it all in this clip, PLUS he and the guys explain why the Mega Millions lottery (or, really, all lotteries) are a SCAM as well...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to tell you, I'll give you an update on the Choco Taco scandal. Klondike has now decided to drop Chaco Tacos, and they won't make them anymore. I think this is due to their racism against those people that come across the border, or who like tacos. But they're not going to make them. And yesterday, I was pretty upset. Stu was too.

STU: I am still very upset, about this development.

GLENN: I luckily -- I luckily have a crack investigative team. In this case, well, it was me. But I get to the hard hitting facts here. I want you to know, Chaco Taco, not made by Klondike. Choco Taco is a Unilever. Unilever product. Okay?

STU: Well, but Klondike is owned by Unilever. So, yes. It's actually still made by Klondike.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. If you want to -- if you want to play these word games. I'm sorry. Inflation is -- starts with two quarters of -- of decline of our GDP. That's -- that's what it is, Stu. You want to change the language, go ahead. Anyway, evil Unilever, you're never going to want to Choco Taco again. Let me give you some headlines from Bloomberg. Unilever CEO sees Biden victory as a positive for climate change. And plans to detail the carbon footprint of all of its products, including Choco Tacos. Next headline. Meet the next George Soros. Unilever's Paul Pullman uses corporate weight to push progressive causes and globalism. Next headline, food and consumer goods, giant Unilever suspends all imports and exports of products to Russia, including Chaco Taco. Next headline, top ten contributors to the Clinton campaign. The CEO and the guy who started Unilever. That's right. That's right.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He is also an advocate for the two-state solution. Next headline, UN climate conference sponsor Unilever is among the world's biggest plastic polluters. That's right. I think part of Chaco Taco is made of plastic.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: And Unilever continues to work in Iran, while targeting Facebook for divisiveness. Those -- that's all funded -- all of that hate funded by you, desiring and buying a Choco Taco. I say, I'm glad they're dead.

STU: Glenn, if -- if Unilever directly and intentionally released the monkey pox virus, I would still buy Choco Tacos.

GLENN: Yes. I'm not saying boycott them.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I'm not saying that. Okay? I'm just saying, they're dead to me. But I can't live without Chaco Taco. All right. The next one. I would like to talk to you and Pat about the U.S. Mega Millions. Nobody won. And now the jackpot is just over one billion dollars. And I -- I just would like to talk about the scam element of the Lotto. And that is, I think it says everything we need to know about the American people. No one takes the billion dollars. They always take the cash payout.

STU: Uh-huh. Which is a scam in and of itself. That they advertise it as a billion dollars. And then there's a whole the different number for what people actually get.

PAT: It's a lot lower.

STU: This one is under 6.25. So 40 percent.

PAT: 40 percent.

GLENN: So you're leaving $400 million on the table. I think this says that the American people are saying two things. Yeah. I don't think the state is going to be able to be around that long. Thirty years. No way. They'll never -- I'll only get less than half of it. So I might as well take less than half now. And just enjoy myself.

The other thing it says, is possibly, and Stu brought this up. Inflation, our belief in inflation.

STU: Yeah. Maybe the belief that this inflation, not all that transitory. Because, you know, they're thinking themselves, like, oh. That payment we're giving these people at 30 years. It's going to be worth nothing. It will be like $12 we're paying them, at the end of this time. It will say $6 million. But that 6 million-dollar payment will be worth 15 cents to the average American today. People are like, I know what happens here. I know you're printing money constantly. So why wouldn't I take the money now, and at least get some interest and investment on it? I really think that's the calculation a lot of people are making.

GLENN: But, you know, you are thinking -- with all -- because is there a lotto winner that has not destroyed themselves?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Somebody who has won the Lotto, and is like, I'm going to buy up a really fancy trailer now. And they just blow all their money on hookers and trailers, I think. And a nice car. I'm going to get -- I'm going to get a Ford Explorer.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And so they blow it on really fancy cars like that. And before you know it, they're broke. Is there no one who doesn't have the common sense that says, I don't think I can manage that money, so I'll take it a year at a time. So I never -- for 30 years, I never have to worry about money. There's nobody that says that?

STU: I think some do. I don't think it's everybody takes the cash payment. But the overwhelming majority of people do. And I think a financial adviser would say, well, you can take all this money. You can throw it in investments. You can make five, 10 percent a year. And it will be worth more than this long-time payout.

GLENN: Will it be worth 40 percent more?

STU: These are people who are trying to get you to manage their money. Your money. So like, they're like, yeah. Of course, we'll get 10 percent. Every year, it will be worth a lot more. I will be skeptical of that. I would also be terrified of having that much money, at one given time. I honestly wouldn't know -- I wouldn't know what to do with it. Honestly it would take research for me to even figure out what I should actually do with that much money. I mean, the only -- the only -- you're only protected from $250,000 per account, right? In the bank. So you'll -- you'll have to do all sorts of stuff, to -- to protect that money. You would think, you're right, Glenn. Like, getting a check. I think it starts with -- I was just reading this. The first check comes at a million dollars. And then it escalates each year. I think maybe it starts at 1.5 million, and escalates each year. And by the end, it is over 6 million. Like in the end, 30 years.

GLENN: See, I just don't. So it will keep up with inflation?

STU: I mean, that's what they're saying, right? Do you believe that? I certainly don't.

GLENN: I just don't believe a 30-year payout from any government entity, is ever going to be paid out. To your advantage.

STU: Yeah. If you have a pension, do you believe, that you're going to be getting all that money? I mean, I think a lot of people don't, that are in that position.

GLENN: So do you pay -- do you pay -- when they take out the 600 -- is it -- no. $400 million, out of this billion. You still have to pay taxes, on the 600 million. So you're probably only getting 300 --

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Only getting. But you -- that's really only 300 million.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That's --

GLENN: I mean, how do you make ends meet on that?

PAT: You don't. You can't.

STU: This is the problem. This is how they get away with it. And the -- the initial payout for the full option is $602.5 million. And everyone says, well, I mean, I know. They said they were going to give me a billion. But I'm only going to get 600 million. What am I going to do, complain about 600 million? And then you pay taxes, much of it going back to the same source, you supposedly won the money from.

PAT: Then you're down to about 350. Three hundred fifty million.

STU: 350 million. And then you say, well, I'm still getting $350 million, and that's true. However, they've scammed you out of 70 percent of the money that they supposedly were giving you.

PAT: Yeah. It's a scam.

GLENN: Can you imagine having any other product being able to get away with that kind of scam? Where 70 percent of what you -- they said, they were going to give to you, is gone.

STU: They would be dragging the false advertising cord. Like, think of some shady supplement, that makes big claims about healing your diseases. Or whatever. Even when they don't directly say it. It will be like, well, take this. And it will help X, Y, and Z. And it will solve all these big health problems. They get dragged all the time.

GLENN: So like the coronavirus vaccine then? That's what we're talking about.

STU: Of course, Glenn. That was exactly the point I was making. Thank you for bringing it up.

GLENN: You're welcome.

STU: But like, this happens all the time. People have been stopped from -- from producing products for the rest of their lives. Because they go on to shady cable channels, and run advertisements for --

GLENN: You don't have to be -- you don't have to be shady, Stu. You've got -- you've got 60-second ads. Where they are forced to say, you might die from this erection.

STU: Right. I mean, that's true.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

STU: All of this, and they don't have to say anything. It's a billion dollars. It's pretty exciting. Then very small print underneath, it says, actually, it's only 600 million. And then you pay taxes. And you're down to 300 million. Plus, of course, every time -- if you just let that money sit in the bank. And it gets your .1 percent interest, you might be getting. When that money comes in, you'll have to pay taxes on that too. And then when you spend the money, you'll have to get taxed on -- when you buy that yacht, you'll have to get another sales tax, on top of it.

GLENN: Here's one of the changes, I want to -- because I don't want a great reset. I want a great reboot. So we just turn the machine off. And turn the machine on again. Okay? And all the bugs. And we reset to the original programming. Here's something that drives me out of my mind. My -- my house tax, and my property tax, I never really owned my property. Ever.

STU: No.

GLENN: Ever. I mean, I could pay my property off. But I don't really own it. And if I don't pay my income tax, I lose my house. This is -- that's a total --

PAT: It's a scam. It's a scam.

GLENN: That's bigger than the lotto.

PAT: And then -- and then on top of that, when you die, now they'll stick you with another tax. Because you died, we'll take half of everything you accumulated when you were alive. It's so immoral and wrong. I -- I don't know how we've allowed them to get away with it.

GLENN: No. And it all -- all it does is keep the people who have vast sums of money. It keeps them in power and wealth. Because they're never going to -- there's no retro. You're grandfathered in. If your grandfather was Nelson Rockefeller, don't worry about it. You have money for the rest of your life. And your children and children's children lives. But we have to stop these people, from being able to gather money and do this. You know, do exactly what we've done for generations now

RADIO

CLOSE CALL? Why the FBI stopped China's park project in DC

In 2017, the Chinese government offered to spend $100 MILLION dollars to build a park in Washington, D.C. The ‘ornate Chinese garden’ was planned to be at the National Arboretum, CNN reports, and the project ’thrilled local officials.’ But there’s something about China offering such a nice gesture that should IMMEDIATELY raise alarms. Thankfully, US counterintelligence officials took a deeper look. In this clip, Glenn details the spooky details they found that suggest China was up to something much more sinister than sharing Chinese culture with America' capital city...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So this is -- this is great. Now, the Chinese, the FBI has just figured out, there might be some things going on with the Chinese. And it's like, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What do you mean? Ancient Chinese secret? There is something going on here with -- with a Chinese project, the Chinese offered to build, in Washington, DC. They said, it's going to bring all kinds of tourists to. And they wanted to build, I -- up -- a beautiful, ornate Chinese garden at the National Arboretum in Washington, DC. And it would have temples and pavilions and the 70-foot wide pagoda. And it was thrilling. All the local officials were like, that is so exciting. And then the FBI started looking into it. And they found a couple of red flags. The pagoda, they noticed, would be strategically based on one of the highest points in Washington, DC. Just 2 miles from the U.S. Capitol. And they said, that's kind of the perfect spot for -- you know, for gathering intelligence in -- in communications. To grab everybody's intelligence communication. And so they thought, that -- that might not be bad. And then the other thing that the Chinese were like, what? What? What's the problem? They wanted to build the pagoda with materials shipped to the US, in diplomatic pouches. So when you put something in a diplomatic pouch. It can't be searched in customs. Now, what could they possibly bring in -- I bet it was fish. Have you been to a country, where -- where you eat a lot of fish? And did you bring any fish on this trip? I bet it was fish. I bet it was fish, Stu. They killed the project. And canceled the -- the -- the garden. Which is, you know, very, very -- very nice. But, you know, the -- the Chinese are purchasing land all over the country. Which, you know, I don't think that's -- FBI uncovered Chinese-made Huawei equipment. Atop cell towers near a U.S. military base, in the rural Midwest. They said, that's kind of a problem, when they checked with strategic command. Because apparently, it could just block our -- our nuclear communication. And that might also be -- may be -- may be a problem. Former officials described the probe's finding as a watershed moment. The investigation was so secret, that some policy makers in the White House. Stu, you're doing a -- you're doing a secret dive into China. You don't want anyone to know. Because, you know, the cat gets out the bag. China can do anything. It's senior officials at the White House, didn't even know. Do you think that Joe and Hunter Biden might have been on that list of, hey. Just don't tell them. We tell everybody else in the White House, don't tell them what we're doing with China.

STU: The president is on a need to know basis?

GLENN: Yeah. Need to know. Need to know. And he definitely does not need to know. In 2020, Congress approved $1.9 billion to remove Chinese-made Huawei cellular technology. Two years later, yeah. They just can't find the money to do it. Gosh darn it. You know, none of the equipment is removed, and it's still there. And they're just waiting for reimbursement money. And they could get it country done. The FCC applications to remove 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made communications equipment. They can't do. Because they can't -- they -- they can't raise the money. They're $3 billion short at the FCC. And there's like, what? Where did I put that $3 billion.

By the way, we send more money over to Ukraine, this weekend. So I know that's really good. China has also issued a stark private warning to the Biden administration, about a possible trip to Taiwan in August by Nancy Pelosi. They have cited six people familiar with the Chinese warnings, that say, they are significantly stronger than the threats that Beijing has made in the past, when it was unhappy. The private rhetoric suggests a possible military response, according to the Financial Times. The White House security council, and State Department, declined to comment on the report. China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for a comment on Sunday. So I'm trying to think, besides insider trading, why is it so important for Nancy Pelosi to go to Taiwan? Just wondering.

STU: Food?

GLENN: Okay. Sure. If you're president -- you know, I don't want to back off of Taiwan, but, I mean, unless it's critical, that we're over there in Taiwan -- and I don't think it is with Nancy Pelosi. I mean, if it was somebody good, that we were sending over there. But Nancy doesn't even what an she's talking about. Here's what we do. You don't have to be as sophisticated as Mission Impossible. You don't. You just put her on a main. Drop her in, you know, a tropical location. Have somebody that looks different, just not white. Speaks another language. It doesn't have to be Taiwanese or Chinese. And just tell her she went to Taiwan.

STU: You don't think she would pick that one up? I mean, it seems like her and her husband were so drunk, they wouldn't necessarily recognize the difference.

GLENN: Yeah. She is a little -- I mean, just a little hammered seeming, during the day.

STU: She seems hammered. He's been charged with it. Right? You know, he's got the DUI on -- on -- on his docket.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: So I think just the combination of the two, her appearance, his -- his actual seemingly DUI, dangerous, almost killing somebody accident. Those two combined, they'll probably believe almost anything.

GLENN: Right. Right. All right. All right. I say we do it. Send them over. By the way, there's a great -- great essay done by John Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead from the Rutherford Institute on technology. And they say, we are now crossing the line of no return. We are -- we are at this line. We are on the cusp of a cultural, technological, and societal revolution. The likes of which we have never seen before. While the political left and right continue to make abortion the face of the debate, over the right to privacy in America, the government and its corporate partners aided by rapidly advancing technology are reshaping the world, into one which there is no privacy at all. Nothing that was once private, is protected. We have not even gun to register the fallout from this tsunami, baring down on us in the form of artificial intelligence surveillance. And yet, it is already reorienting our world, into one in which freedom is almost unrecognizable. AI surveillance harnesses the power of artificial intelligence, and widespread surveillance technology, to do what the police state lacks the manpower and resources to do effectively, or efficiently. To be everywhere. To watch everyone. Everything. Monitor. Identify. Catalog. Cross-check. Cross-reference. And clued. Everything that was once private, is now up for grabs, for the right buyer. Governments and corporations alike, have heedlessly adopted AI surveillance technology without any care or concern for their long-term impact on the rights of citizenry. As a special report from the Carnegie endowment for international peace warns, a growing number of states are deploying advanced AI surveillance tools, to monitor, track, and surveil citizens, to accomplish a range of policy objectives. Some lawful, others violating human rights. Most fall into the murky middle ground. Indeed, with every new AI surveillance technology, that is adopted and deployed. Without any regard for policy. Fourth Amendment rights, and due process. Want rights of citizenry, are being marginalized, undermined. And eviscerated. Digital authoritarianism. As a center for strategic and international studies cautions, involves the use of information technology, to surveil, repress, manipulate the populace. Endangering human rights and civil liberties. And co-opting and corrupting the foundational principles of a Democratic and open society. Including freedom of movement. The right to speak freely, and express political dissent. And the right to personal privacy on and offline. Now, in this article, I'll go into it more tomorrow. But it is fascinating to me. They say, there are nine steps, nine elements of the Chinese model of digital authoritarianism. So see how many we have done. Dissidents suffer from persistent cyber attacks. And phishing. I know we've had that. Social media websites and messaging apps are blocked. That's happened. Posts that criticize government officials are removed. Haven't had it with officials. But had it on policy. Mobile and internet access revoked as punish not for activism. Haven't had that yet. Paid commentators drown out government criticism. Oh, I think that's happened. New laws tighten regulations on online media. Not yet.

Citizen's behavior monitored via AI and surveillance tools. Absolutely. Individuals regularly arrested for posts critical of the government. No. And, nine, online activists are made to disappear.

STU: Oh. You know --

GLENN: Not yet.

STU: Glenn, it's interesting, a lot of those that you said, have not occurred, have occurred. But just not through the government. Right? We have seen people get kicked off for comments they've made about others. And lose their access to their business. To their banking system, and all of this. For -- for whatever their business does, or comments that they have made. Just, that hasn't come from the government. It's sort of the approach that you outline in the Great Reset, where it comes from not the great government, but an arrangement over it, or not, between the government, or people who just share the ideology of -- of those in power. And then execute those punishments outside of law. It's -- it's just something. And they're able to do it. It just has not been American tradition. We've always given people even access to, you know, simple things like banking regardless of your political opinion. That has changed. And it hasn't come through the government, through the law. Where I think it will be clearly unconstitutional. It's come instead, from these companies doing it on their own. But the effect is the same on the people who are impacted.
(music)

GLENN: Yeah. And it's hard to know where the government ends, and where these private companies begin. You know, when the White House is saying, we're in touch with social media. And telling them which sites or which voices need to be turned down, is the government -- is -- is Twitter and Facebook, is that all a tool of the government? Is the government a tool of Facebook and Google? I don't know. I don't know where one ends and one begins.