RADIOMay 23, 2022

EXPOSED: New W.H.O. health treaty could END U.S. sovereignty

The World Health Organization wants to expand its global control, and President Biden is helping them along the way. On Sunday, the World Health Assembly (the governing body of The W.H.O.) will meet to discuss potential changes to its ‘pandemic treaty’ that could END U.S. sovereignty during health emergencies. Daniel Horowitz, writer for TheBlaze, joins Glenn to detail how this treaty could result in the W.H.O. telling Americans how to respond during crises WITHOUT the approval of our elected officials. Plus, it seems President Biden is completely onboard?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to bring in Daniel Horowitz. Because Daniel, you have -- you have done a lot of work on this. And you've -- you've started this years ago.

But you really have boiled this down to what's happening next week.

Daniel Horowitz. Writer for TheBlaze.

And Conservative Review. Daniel, tell me what's happening here.

DANIEL: Well, great to be back with you. And I'll say, it's worse than having our national sovereignty aggregated. It's really our bodily sovereignty, typically these international treaties would affect the sovereignty of our nation. This will affect our bodies. Because the wheel started to churn in the minds of those behind this entire covid regime. The great reset. Over the last year. While the people are really acquiescing to this pretty easily. But they were a little perturbed. That you had Sweden. Florida. You had some areas, doing their own recalling.

So their goal is to create a pandemic treaty, that will synchronize, and consolidate, the control you should these authorities. Where they can basically lock you down. They can force therapeutics on you. You know, you're a public health threat. This is what you need to do. We're going to declare your region, a public health emergency.

And we can do anything we want.

Now, they were working on that for a while. And I was always wondering where the Biden administration was. Because, you know, it was important.

They were awfully quiet. Well, it turns out, that they quietly submitted amendments to the 2005, international health regulation, in January.

No press conference. No press release on the whitehouse.gov website.

GLENN: We sent them. Our White House sent them.

DANIEL: Yes. They sent them. And you can see the strike-throughs. And basically, the upshot of it is it takes away the determination of the states. The Secretary General shall, instead of may do this.

Take -- took out all the consultations requirements with the states. So we didn't even know about this, until a few weeks ago.

And they're going to submit it, at this conference. And like you said, the reason they're doing this, is because Biden knows, he doesn't have 57 votes for a treaty. So like everything else they do, rather than a treaty, a law, really, everything they did throughout covid. You do it executively. So they'll have a de facto treaty, without calling it that. And that's the way they plan on getting this passed. And look, Biden already claims to have the support of Canada and most of Europe.

GLENN: So this is -- this puts the WHO in charge of really any kind of pandemic. Any kind of traumatic event, anywhere in the world.

They're calling the shots. Not our local or our national people. But the WHO. Correct?

DANIEL: Well, in pain English, China. And I think you can't discuss this WHO effort in a vacuum, without noticing, last week, the Biden administration held this, what he called the global covid summit.

And the summation of everything that was said on that Zoom get-together, was essentially, there is a worse pandemic coming in the fall and winter. Now, how they would know that, is kind of interesting.

But I think we should take them seriously, that they might know something that you and I don't.

And they seem to be indicating. That, you know what, maybe covid wasn't quite that bad. But this will be really bad.

Now, think about how a Wuhan gas lit the world to respond in the way they did. And now you have a whole new level of Shanghai, and then now they're saying, there's going to be an even worse pandemic, that perhaps should engender a need for even more severely lockdowns like we're seeing in Shanghai. That was a --

GLENN: Are they saying that's coming next winter?

DANIEL: This coming fall/winter. Yes.

GLENN: Because the treaty. The changes kick in, in November. You know, they don't kick in right away. You have to wait until next fall. Right around election time, when they kick in.

DANIEL: So the way -- the way I understand it, is that under the current rules, a party could rescind their support. A state actor could rescind their support for the state regulations, within 18 months. So the amendments would truncate that period, to six months. Which, as you know, is designed to basically correlate with the lame duck session of Congress.

GLENN: Wow.

DANIEL: Or maybe it will be after the election. But before the new Congress is sworn in.

GLENN: How bad -- on a scale of one to ten. Because everything is on fire right now. It seems like. And, you know, you can only pay attention to so much. Scale of one to ten. Ten being holy cow, Constitution is on fire. We're all going to die. Look, it's a mountain ahead of us. Pull up.

And one being eh. Where is this?

DANIEL: You know, Glenn, I would say, where we're headed is a 15. It's something we've never imagined.

And I'm not saying it's the WHO provisions in a vacuum. It's what they represent. And what they're trying to accomplish.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

DANIEL: A lot of people are under the false impression that it's over with. Covid is over with. The lockdowns are over with. We're never going back to that. If you understand the background behind this, which a lot of this we don't have all the information. But we have our decisions. They ain't done with it. They're not.

And I think if you put yourself in their shoes, they were pretty successful. I mean, they walked in without firing a shot. They did not have much opposition. You even had a lot of the red states. And they fell for a lot of this. To this day, the FDA announced they're approving a third shot. But not just approving. But marketing, distributing a third shot for five to 11-year-olds. Mainly the red states that stood up and said, we're not doing this. I think Florida recommends against it. But I don't see too many Republicans speaking out.

So I don't think we have undone this. We have not immunized ourselves, through state Constitutional amendments, and other efforts, from this happening ever again.

So in the -- the reason why I say the 15th, in a text. It's like, oh, they're going to tax us. They're going to regulate us. They're going to take away our national sovereignty.

This, they quite literally view us as lab rats, in their new global design.

GLENN: Yes.

DANIEL: And I think there's no limit on what they plan on doing.

GLENN: It's so frightening. Because they all love, the chief adviser to Klaus Schwab. You all know Harari. And if anybody knows who he is. He is a favorite futurist of everybody on the left. They love this guy.

And he has said, you know, globalist elites will use crisis to bring about global government. But he says it in a good way. He says, look, it's going to be a crisis. And, you know, we can program people. And, you know, he is -- he is terrifying. Terrifying. On the things that he believes. That would be put into our bodies.

And it's not just the WHO. You know, you have the -- what is the other -- the other one that is -- the bio diversity.

The -- yeah. The global treaty auto bio diversity. That is also taking all kinds of -- of powers, from states.

Global bio diversity framework, is what they -- is what they're talking about.

And this one is going to be -- you know, they're going to have a new convention, on this. And this one will all be about land use. It will have huge implications on food production. Farming. Property rights. All of it. All of it.

And I believe it will cause, what Mao saw, in, you know, the 1960s. Late 1950s. You know, just massive starvation.

This is really bad. Because they're putting these things into these global treaties. And who is going to enforce them? Do you think our military will enforce things like this?

Or will -- dare to send troops here.

DANIEL: You know, Glenn, the sky is the limit. And until a couple years ago, I would have laughed this off. I would have laughed off the comments of Klaus Schwab.

Yeah. There are some crazies out there. But they don't have any power. But I think after the past two years, we need to take this very seriously. Because they did succeed. I can't remember the name of the survivor of the Cambodia. The killing -- did an interview on that. At the time, a couple days ago. And he noted, that the way communism took root, is the same guide to these arsonists and the firefighter. And that's what they think to do, they think these catalyzing event with the pandemic. I mean, it clearly was not natural. Who and exactly what did it, we're still finding out. But it wasn't until. It wasn't a one in 100 natural event. So, in other words, there's nothing stopping a new pandemic from coming. And then you have all the supply chain shortages. The sudden issues with the baby formula. Land use issues, as you mentioned. Bill Gates and the Chinese buying up American land. All of this is tightening the noose around us, on the vital things we need to survive. Then you throw into the mix, the maniacal war on treating covid. Which you would think, if you're a big covid hawk, you have to treat that thing.

No. They were against that. And to this day, they were against treating it. That all paints a very concerning picture. And I think, you know, I -- I speak to a lot of Republicans and state legislators, they tell me a lot of their leadership wants to move on from this. But I think you need them to preemptively pass resolutions, that these things are unenforceful. We're not going to do it. We're going to pass state constitutional amendments codifying, you know, rights to life, liberty, and property in a time of public health emergency.

GLENN: You know, the crazy thing is, Daniel, is that you can't get states to really understand ESG, which the banks are now going to states, and saying, your state will fall under ESG rules for loans from us. And they still don't really understand the threat.

When you start talking about, you know, one global government from the WHO.

Everybody is going to laugh that off.

And I honestly believe, that's part of the deal. I mean, they have made conspiracy theory, into, you know, hey. Did you hear that Coke is on sale at the store?

Oh, he's a conspiracy theorist. I mean, he everything is a conspiracy theory right now. Everything.

DANIEL: Exactly. But, you know what, I'm going to take them at their word this time. I didn't pay attention last decades. Retrospectively, we've been going back, and seeing, oh, my gosh, they've been wording with certitude. There's going to be a pandemic under the Trump administration.

It's interesting, how they knew that. Well, this time, how can I take them seriously?

Bill Gates just came out with their new book, on how to defeat the next pandemic. So when you have the arsonists. And the firefighters, we definitely need to pay attention.

We need to get out ahead.

And you mentioned the banks. And I think one of the biggest threats that we need to understand, is that a lot of conservatives have this Reagan era nostalgia about the private sector. Well, the private sector was a bulwark against tyranny, when it was distinguished. And separate from the government.

GLENN: Exactly right.

DANIEL: But now that it's actually become one entity, it's worse than pure traditional communism. Because I can't vote out the heads of Pfizer, and the heads of the bank.

GLENN: Yep.

DANIEL: And you can't campaign against them and go to a legislative hearings and expose them. They're all behind the -- the wall.

So, you know, all these red states where sometimes they have these Republicans. Well, we're reluctant to fighting this budding fascism. Because I don't like telling the private sector what to do.

When they're only doing it at the behest of the federal government. You have not -- as a state, to interpose on behalf of the liberty of the people.

GLENN: I want to give you something from the UN biodiversity Framework Council. It's being sold as the next Paris Climate Agreement. Except, it will focus on biodiversity, land use, not climate change. It will have huge implications on food production, farming, property rights. Also carries with it the potential to cause mass starvation and a loss of human life on a scale we have not seen.

Nations and large businesses recently met in Geneva to continue to work on the global biodiversity framework. The hope it will be approved and signed by countries later this year in China. And according to the World Economic Forum, the meeting in Geneva was the first time at the United Nations Convention on biological diversity, meaning that leading businesses turned out in force. According to the World Economic Forum, Unilever, gee. They don't make anything, do they?

Citi. Natura & Company. H&M Group. Walmart. IKEA. Nestle. Also, the International Chamber of Commerce. The World Business Council, on sustainable development. There are more than 1100 companies, with revenues of more than $5 trillion, that have signed on to this.

This is extraordinarily dangerous. You -- you -- Daniel is right. Everything has to happen at the state level. Everything.

Please, please, if you are a state official. Wherever you're hearing my voice. Please do not take my word for it.

Read about it, yourself.

This is a coordinated thing. All being driven to the end of capitalism. The end of sovereignty. Individual sovereignty. Your sovereignty of your body. The American dream is over! Unless these things are fought.

And taken seriously. You can start with my book, The Great Reset. It's available wherever books are found. What was the name of your book? Came out a few years ago, Daniel. That talked about this.

DANIEL: Stolen Sovereignty.

GLENN: Yeah. Stolen Sovereignty. Get that by Daniel Horowitz. Daniel, thank you so much. Obviously, you'll be paying attention next week to the WHO. Just keep us informed of what's going on, will you?

DANIEL: Absolutely. Will be vigilant. And thank you for having me. God bless.

GLENN: God bless.

Explained: Why the Fed lowering interest rates might be a BAD sign...

The Federal Reserve just lowered the interest rate by half a point, the first time it has been lowered since 2020, and only the 2nd time it has been lowered by half a point since 2020 and 2007. Is this an accommodative move, or just another restrictive move to try to avoid disaster for as long as possible? Recovering investment banker Carol Roth joins to break down what this lowering means, the possible good and bad signs for why this is happening now, how it'll affect you and your bank account, and what we must continue to look out for.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Carol Roth.

I'm hoping you can make sense. And maybe some good news out of what happened yesterday.

Because I can't find a way to it. Because of the history of cutting the interest rate this much.

My first thought is, this is election interference by the fed.

My second thought was, when did they last do this?

And it didn't -- neither of those things lead to good things.

So what's really going on here, Carol?

CAROL: Well, I just want you to know, Glenn. I'm unburdened by what has been. Now the market, in terms of interest rates. Because we are in a rate cutting environment. And I think the important thing to remember is that when we talk about, you know, rate hikes. Rate hikes.

Anything the fed is doing. We have to keep it in context. And the backdrop is that we came out of 15 years of what's called zero interest rate policy.

Where the interest rates were at or near zero.

Unprecedented. As well as the fed putting $9 trillion, plus on its balance sheet.

So this is an unprecedented -- does not have analogue, that we can directly compare to.

Not to say, it's not important to go back, and look at what happened historically. But it doesn't mean exactly the same thing.

And cutting 50 basis points. And half a percent today. Is different than we are cutting it. When interest rates are at 2 percent.

I just want to put that out. Also, somebody, who as we said, on this program many times. That I think the Fed has been way behind the curve. I think they went up too high. And that they were too slow, to cut to begin with. So we'll put that from a backdrop standpoint.

So how does the market interpret, and how should individuals interpret a cut?

Well, there's potentially the bad. And potentially the food. We'll walk through both of those real quickly.

The potential bad is the signal.

When you are saying that the economy is doing amazing. And is just -- you know, it's ripping along.

And then to do a very large cut. They could have done half of that. They could have done 25 basis points. But to come out after not doing anything. And say, oh, we have to move 60 points.

Can send a signal, to say things aren't going so well.

If you looked at the market, yesterday, they were not taking news.

GLENN: It went up, and then when he cut it, it went way down.

CAROL: And once they gave back all the gains yesterday. But today, they have had a day to digest it.

And the market thinks that this is a good thing. Now, the market is not the economy.

GLENN: Yes.

CAROL: But again, after 15 years of zero interest rate policy, you know, it does make sense for us to get back to say to what is considered a neutral rate.

GLENN: Is this a -- is this an inflationary move though?

CAROL: So that's the question. So if you think about what the neutral rate is. Which is theoretical. We don't know the number. But basically, it's the dividing line between policy that is restrictive and policy that is accommodative.

And what we're trying to do is have the Fed have no influence in either direction. I believe that we are still in that restrictive area.

So bringing it down, from -- two, four, and three-quarters, to 5 percent. Again, is not the same as bringing it down to 2 percent.

And so I don't think that will cause inflation. We have to remember too, again, going back to where I started. Companies and individuals have 15 years.

To take out debt. And basically no cost.

This is sitting on company's balance sheets.

They took every piece that they could.

And consumers right now, don't have a lot of runway.

So the idea of, you know, a rate cut, unleashing massive demand, when we've gone to, you know, three-quarters to 5 percent.

I don't see this as something that is going to unleash massive demand.

GLENN: Okay. Here's. Here's. I would just like your opinion on this.

As a businessman. I know, I wouldn't be spending a dime right now, on hiring. Building. Anything.

Not a dime, until I see what happens at the election. And depending on the election, if we go with Harris, and we become much more restrictive, and harder, and more global, and everything else.

I'm -- I mean, I'm just battening down the hatches. If Trump gets in.

I would be willing to they have. Because all right. Good. We have somebody who understands business.

We can hire some more people, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't see anybody making those moves rationally, no matter what the interest rate is.

At this point. Do you?

JASON: I think that's a logical way to digest it. I think in terms of one of your first statements. Is this term, political.

The Biden Harris administration, will be pushing out and saying, look, we have inflation under control.

The Fed said so, otherwise we wouldn't have lowered it or lowered it by so much.

So I think that is the push that they are going out and trying to convince people. Now, they've been trying to convince people of things that makes absolutely no sense, for the last three and a half years. So if I'm a businessperson.

Do I go ahead ask make the investments?

But are there some people that might? It is a push. I think the challenges. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That if you get worried. That there is a recession.

And you create these restrictive behaviors. That becomes self-fulfilling. And that's one of the things that we end up worrying about.

GLENN: Correct.

So let me ask you about one more thing.

He mentioned the problem with unemployment. Unemployment is going up.

Because you just added 70 to 20 million people to the country.

Is -- I mean, people are saying, anecdotally that -- and we are I guess, seeing it in numbers, that the jobs that are being filled. Are being filled with illegals.

And not American citizens. How long can that go on, before it's just, you know, an absolute wreck?

JASON: So the way that I've interpreted the economy. Is I see it as K shaped.

If you think about the letter K. You have one at that one part of the K that goes up. And the other part that goes down.

And you have the people who are at the lower end of the K. Who have been struggling. And the people who are at that higher part in the K. The asset holders.

The people with the white color jobs in the homes, who have been doing well. And you have to remember, what we've been seeing, is that it really is that higher part of the K, that has been pulling the economy along.

So not only do we have those illegals who are coming in. And creating drains on everything.

Right?

They're creating drains on employment. On the national debt.

On housing. On everything.

But we're also starting to see, these cracks in the white color labor market.

When you hear Amazon saying, oh, we want everybody back in the office.

It means that companies now have the power to demand that. When they didn't have the power. And buried in that statement was. Oh, we're trying to get rid of some managers.

We're seeing more and more layoffs on the tech side.

So if we see that crack, from the white-collar piece. I think, at least in the short-term. That will have the biggest impact on shifting what's going to happen here.

And I think that's what the fed is signaling they're trying to get ahead of.

Whether or not they can do that remains to be seen. Because usually they're always late. But it's true. We have the drag on both sides. We have that drag that's happening on the white color piece.

And then we have this massive illegal immigration that is putting strains on the system.

And, you know, that is going to you, you know, completely shift things.

And I will say, Glenn. We hear all these people talking about technology. And AI.

And how it's going to replace jobs. You know, if you think it's going to replace jobs.

Jobs it will replace are unskilled workers. Right?

The person who is making your burrito with Chipotlé and the like. You can possibly make an argument that we do not need any more legal immigration in this country, with the exception of some very high merit-based people at all.

In addition to this, you know, travesty that is happening with the illegal immigration. So this is going to be, you know, hopefully, we can get President Trump in there. But this needs to be attacked in a serious fashion. Because it will have massive implications on the economy. On top of the biggest issue. And it feeds right into it.

Which is the debt and deficit spending that continues to grow that debt. The fact that that's unwieldy. So all of these things are puzzle pieces. But we can't let the noise about a fed rate cut. Or what's happening. Distract us from that big issue. We need to grow the economy. And we need to reduce spending.

So we can get debt to GDP back to a normalized level. And be able to save our country.

GLENN: Carol, thank you. I appreciate it. Carol Roth. The author of You Will Own Nothing. Former investment banker and a contributor to Blaze.

And also, to this program. I just love her. She explains things the way, you know, people like me, talk. Who -- just regular people. Carol, thank you so much.

It's CarolRoth.com/news.

CarolRoth.com/news.

Former RFK Jr. running mate: ‘Democrats feel entitled’ to destroy democracy

One of the biggest talking points from the Democratic Party is that they're the party that respects democracy while portraying the GOP as the party standing in the way. But according to RFK Jr.'s former running mate, Nicole Shanahan, the exact opposite is true. In fact, according to Nicole, it's the LEFTS treatment of her and RFK Jr. during his 2024 presidential campaign that made Nicole reevaluate everything after seeing the attacks and attempts to destroy their campaign coming from one side of the aisle.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan is joining us. How are you, Nicole?

NICOLE: I'm doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me back on. I'm good.

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm very good. You know, a few months ago, when RFK was running, and you joined.

I thought, well, there goes the conservative vote.

And anybody, you know, anybody who is watching it, because you are Oakland, California.

You are much more liberal. Or progressive.

And now, I'm reevaluating everything, again.

Because there are people that are on the left. Not left.

Well, that are -- well, lean left. That are -- have different points of view, but still love the country.

And we don't see those people very often. In -- in the -- in the news.

You know, and those people, we can get along with, all day long.

If you love the Bill of Rights, I'm with you.

I'm with you.

NICOLE: Yeah. There's a huge population out there right now. And they don't know where to go. A lot of them were attracted to our campaign. And our campaign was really a place to go, if you were kind of socially progressive or liberal. But intellectually educated. And saw what was happening with the Democratic Party, and just none of it reconciled. I mean, if you look at the Democratic Party, over the last eight years. You can't reconcile their relationship with the economy.

It doesn't make any sense. So if your businessperson went to -- and top educational institution, came out. Got a job.

Spent, you know, 20 years, of your career. In front of spreadsheets.

And you're seeing what's going on, under democratic leadership. Even on the state of California, it does not reconcile.

And so a lot of these folks, and lawyers too. Have nowhere to go right now.

And it's been really interesting for me, just in my personal experience. I'm an attorney. I came out of Oakland.

And I worked hard. And, you know, I did -- I did rely on government safety net.

To catch me. I was on government assistance. At times, as a child.

But it was -- it was never a place to stay. The goal was always to work your way out of that. And those were the foundations of the ethics that I grew up on.

GLENN: Right. Those are the ethics that I grew up on too.

You know, I learned about welfare from my father. He owned a bakery.

And a woman came in. And I was little.

And she used a welfare stamp.

To pay. And I had never seen one before.

And I said, Dad, that's not real money.

And he gave me the look of death. This little old lady, who was buying stuff. And he pulled me back, after she left. And said, don't ever say that. Ever. Ever again.

That woman is struggling. That's what we do.

That's what a government safety net is for.
For people who need it like her. Don't ever embarrass her again.

And I'm like, sorry.

Then later, I don't know, about six or eight months later, my dad happened to come up front.

And it was a guy who had food stamps. And he paid. And my father was pretty nasty to the guy.

I mean, he was very cold. And I asked him. I'm like, well, that guy gave you the same kind of money.

And he said, that man, I know. That man can work. He decides to live off the rest of us.

That's where it goes wrong. I think all of us kind of grew up with that. I mean, most of us.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah. Well, except for young people today. And I think that's where the left is cannibalizing the best of itself.

And I think cannibalizing because it's actually working against its own interests for compassion and social growth.

And -- and, you know, trying to figure out how to help people.

Get through difficult times. I think that how it's cannibalizing itself really exists. And the identity politics.

I know you talk a lot about that. But I experienced it as a philanthropist. Trying to go back to Oakland.

And trying to really work on the issues that matter. And identifying them, with just a straight logical process.

I looked at the issues, around homelessness.

Around drug abuse. Around the education gap. And I realized so much of it has to do with nutrition and health.

And so I went about, trying to fix that, and I will tell you, all of the NGOs, I was approached by. And worked with.

None were interested in real food.

A lot of them were interested in activism, and funneling millions of dollars into these regrant programs.

That don't actually help people.

And make them reliant on these nonprofit dollars.

And so the mechanics of social mobility.

And you can look at it, strictly through the lens of economics. You can look at it through social dynamics. And you come out, realizing that you have to invest in -- in schools, in education, clean water say huge one. But also food.

Kids underperform when they don't eat well. And the fact that they're not addressing this on the left. That there's no NGOs. That are sincerely working on this.

Made me realize, that that entire framework. The culture of that -- that thinking about poor versus wealthy. Or black versus white.

It's all wrong. It's just the wrong way of looking at it.

And then realizing, how many people are profiting off of that. Model of the world. That framework of the world.

It's very predatory. It's predatory.

GLENN: It's grotesque.

NICOLE: Yeah. It's grotesque. It's predatory. It actually feeds into the cycle of racism. And it doesn't work. And things have actually gotten worse, as these NGOs have just gotten away with this kind of bad behavior.

GLENN: So, Nicole. What, what moved you to say, I think I've got to go stand with Donald Trump?

I mean, what?

That had to have shocked you, when you thought that.

What moved you there?

NICOLE: Well, you know, I -- there were so many things that have led to it.

But I will say that, when I left the democratic party, there were threats, kind of lobbed my direction.

But they were -- they kind of seemed like silly threats.

Like, oh, you'll never make it.

We'll -- they will do everything they can to ruin your reputation.

The machine is going to be pointed at you.

And I don't think you realize what we have in this machine. And I was like, oh.

Yeah. I can overcome that.

That's all silliness.

And -- and then, you know, and the then the media.

So first they unleash the media on you.

And I'm like, you know, maybe these things can be disproven.

Lost a lot of respect for the media. But I already had lost quite a bit of respect for them, prior.

And you can kind of get over all that name-calling. And once people have a chance to know, they realize that the media really had so much of you wrong. But then -- you know, then came the attack on our campaign directly.

And it all came from the left. None of it came from the right.

And even though, Republicans have actually out earned or out raised the Democrats. Republicans don't spend the money attacked their opponents, the way the Democrats do.

And this is the really underhanded stuff. That really makes you question election integrity.

In ways that I had actually never questioned election integrity.

I didn't believe that, you know, there was election interference in 2020.

I didn't believe the narrative coming from the right. At the election, was stolen.

And so --

GLENN: Do you now?

NICOLE: I do now. I do now.

GLENN: You do now? What brought you there?

NICOLE: You know, lived experience. They say the two things that really get people to change their minds are grief and God.

And I have to say, there are some really heart breaking moments during this campaign. We gave it everything.

And we followed the black letter law.

Very precisely.

GLENN: Yeah.

NICOLE: And we did -- the amount of heart and soul, and tears. And running around.

I mean, people were just constantly sweaty on our campaign. Because everyone wore six different hats.

And, you know, they would be crossing the country, four times every few days. I mean, it was -- it was so much work. And we did. We succeeded.

What many people thought was impossible.

Which was even just getting on and off the ballots. All 50 ballots. And we did.

The day that we did. That same, just within a few hours. You found out that New York. And they had been suing us.

We had won, seven cases. Seven of these ballot cases, where the Democratic Party came in, or they're running PACs, and sued us.

Attempted to sue us, to get us removed from the ballots. Which I can't believe is even legal. That a political opponent can sue you, can take you off the ballot.

But it's apparently common practice for the Democrats.

GLENN: It's crazy.

NICOLE: And Republicans still do this.

Republicans just don't, because they respect third parties. They respect democracy. They respect the things that make democracy a democracy.

So, anyway, we won all seven. We were seven-zero. We were feeling good. We just did this big press event.

Then New York came along. And the case in New York really opened my eyes, because this was a judge that was not acting on behalf of the American public.

This was a judge acting on behalf of the democratic party.

And there was -- there was just no room, for a legal argument. They seemed to have already been made by the time they arrived.

They treated Bobby with a petty criminal.
I later testified. My experience testifying. So it just got awful. Like I had done something wrong, by trying to run as a third party in this country.

And I think through this process and then realizing the extent of how much they're willing to denigrate the democratic process. In this country.

To win, and how entitled they feel, doing so.

And, you know, Bobby and I are -- our personalities are very much aligned with that California liberal mentality.

And to -- to be treated by friends, colleagues. People that know you. Like this.

Made me realize that that, something was very, very wrong.

And so -- I will say Trump. But, sorry, I don't want to cut you off. Go on.

GLENN: Nicole, you were -- you were in the middle of talking. And you were -- you know, when you said, there's two things that change you, God and grief. And you started going down that road. You know, about the grief you felt.

I remember early on, when I realized, oh, my gosh.

This system is not what I thought it was. I actually felt like I was in mourning trial.

It felt like part of me. My belief died.

And it was really hard to get through.

But if you get through it. It makes you stronger.

NICOLE: Absolutely.

And I will say, that the people that I'm trying to reach out to, today.

Are those that have a lot at stake.

These are moms. Who have their life of their children at stake right now.

Who have seen the system failing them, and their kids.

Trying to dissect a way, parental rights from their children.

And they dislike Donald Trump, because they view Donald Trump as a misogynist. And these are the conversations that I will be investing in, over the next several weeks. In the lead-up to the election. It's really digging into people's perceptions of Donald Trump, as this, you know, really kind of unsavory character.

And I have personally been doing my own fact-checked.

I will be releasing some of that soon.

We have -- I did a series with this really wonderful young 25-year-old journalist, Blake Warren, called TDS Therapy Hour.

Where I read letters that I've received from people. With grave concerns about our alignment with Donald Trump. And we impact all of those concerns very patiently, one after another.

GLENN: Great.

So great.

NICOLE: And I think that's how we do it, again. I know you were a Never Trumper. But I think once you realize how manipulated and programmed we are, by the mainstream media, to see Donald Trump, as this horrific personality. And once you start unpacking truth. You can begin to see truly what they've been up against.

GLENN: So, Nicole. I know you're out of time.

I know you have to run as well. I would love to have you back. I think you're absolutely fascinating.

And you are a very important voice to speak to women, who do have that feeling.

And are absolutely convinced to their core, and I would love to have you back.

Nicole, thank you so much.

NICOLE: Thank you. Have a good one.

GLENN: Backtothepeople.net. Backtothepeople.net. Nicole Shanahan.

Targeted attack?! Hezbollah leaders dead after mass pager explosion

Thousands of Hezbollah leaders throughout Lebanon carrying pagers were left injured, and some dead, after the pagers simultaneously exploded. While Israel has not taken responsibility for the attack, it appears that this was a coordinated attack and not just happenstance. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Conricus joined me to lay out how this attack may have been planned out, why the attack occurred now, and if Hezbollah will retaliate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus is with us now. He is a former Israeli defense forces spokesperson. Welcome to the program. Welcome back, sir. How are you?

JOHN: I am well, thank you for having me again.

GLENN: Good. I think the world was a little amazed at what happened yesterday. Just how -- how it was done, and the thinking that went behind it.

Can you talk about how Hezbollah got these pagers?

JOHN: Yeah. It's definitely the stuff of movies.

And I'm sure that movies will be made about it. And that this will inspire novels and thrillers in the future.

But if we connect ourselves back to the horrible reality that Israel is facing. Where about 70,000 Israeli civilians have been pushed out of their homes.

And Israel is under relentless rocket and drone fire from Lebanon.

They happen yesterday's operation. And what I'm saying here isn't an official Israeli claim of responsibility.

But I think it's safe to assume, that Israel is behind it. Well, basically Israel -- appears to have been able to do. Is to intercept. And if you would, contaminate the supply line of Hezbollah.

And to insert explosives into these beepers. The pagers.

That were disseminated by Hezbollah, to key personnel. And then once wanted to, to cause these devices to explode.

Now, it's unclear, the technical details are unclear. Whether it was causing the battery to overheat, and that caused an explosion. Or if there were inserted explosives inside the beepers. But what I think we can agree on, was that it was quite -- it had quite a massive effect on Hezbollah. They report about 5,000 of their members, that were targeted, some of them killed.

Eight, I believe, is the updated number.

And some of them significantly wounded. Many of them lost their eyesight. Others lost part of their body.

Now, what I think is interesting to look at now.

Where does this take us? Where does it take Hezbollah?

If Israel is indeed behind it, why did Israel choose to do it now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Before we get to that, let me just ask you. Before we move off the pagers. How did you know?

Or -- I mean, I'm just speaking. At fiction here. Generally speaking, how would they know it was Hezbollah that had those pagers. That's an awful lot of pagers.

How do you know that those were going to Hezbollah? Do you have any idea? Speculation?

JOHN: Yeah. I will try to explain that. Hezbollah, they're a secretive organization. They're a terrorist organization. And they are aware of Israeli efforts to listen to their communications.
And to follow their activities by tracking cellular devices. Cell phones.

And as such, they have prohibited, most of their officers and ground personnel and terrorists, et cetera.

From actually having cell phones. And definitely not bringing them into secret locations. So these beepers.

They were basically an attempt by Hezbollah to circumvent Israeli listening. And eavesdropping.

I think Israel, somehow, found out about that Hezbollah was actually purchasing new beepers. And they were doing it in a large number.

And according to the reports that I've read so far, Israel was able to intercept where they were being manufactured from.

And they were able to, at some level, contaminate them. Either by implanting explosives or by having the ability to control them remotely.

I think it's more likely that they were -- yeah. That they were likely.

That they had explosives inserted into them.

From the videos, I have seen. If you haven't watched the videos. They're quite amazing.

It's really explosions that you see. And it's not a flash or a fire of the battery that is, you know, burning. But it's more, looks like explosives. And it is quite remarkable. I don't think that any other Intel organization has been able to do such a thing. To get into the supply lines of its enemy.

And to do -- and one thing I think that is important to mention. Is how targeted this operation is. Very little, if any, so-called collateral damage. Because the people who had these beepers. Were Hezbollah.

They were militants and terrorists who had this machine for a reason. And they had it for a reason.

Because they were persons of value, from a Hezbollah point of view. And they needed to get information. And messages quickly.

It's kind of like the best way of striking only the ones that you want to strike. And only striking the bad guys.

That's what Israel did. And it is in short, quite amazing.

GLENN: Yeah. I will tell you, that my first reaction was, that's why I always say on the air. We don't need to fight Israel's war for them. They'll do it. Just let them fight.

I thought this was ingenious. And, of course, Israel is saying, they could have harmed innocent people. Blah, blah, blah. How much more targeted does a war need to be? Other than right to the individuals?

All right. So why did they do it yesterday?

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. By the way, I have to comment on what you said.

I think that's exactly what Israelis want. Let us fight. And help us win.

But we don't need anybody doing our fighting for us.

I think that's a super important point.

Especially for people who support freedom and democracy.

And, you know, want to do good for America.

I don't think Israel is asking them to do its fighting for it.

But we'll leave that aside. In terms of time.

This is where it gets interesting. And here are question marks. Because up until now.

We're almost 22 hours after the event.

Israel hasn't made a move.

And it makes sense, that, you know, for Israel to unleash, to do such an operation, it makes sense for this to be part of a bigger strategy. Designed at achieving something with Hezbollah.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: So the questions was, was there something that Israel did because it sensed that the capacity was going to be exposed.

And it was either use it or it will get uncovered. Or it will be for nothing. That's all for nothing.

That's one option. Second option, that it is part of the negotiations. And it's part of the messaging campaign.

And basically, another effort to apply pressure on Hezbollah, which doesn't cause a war.

Because Israel has been under attack from Hezbollah now for 11 and a half months. And Israel, I think is still trying to do everything possible to get its people back home, without having to do a war in order for that to happen.

And this could be. What Israel did would perhaps be more of a blunt way of telling Hezbollah, listen. We have penetrated your organization from an Intel point of view. There's more to come.

It's in your interest. To agree to a deal.

And I think it's no coincidence. It could be no coincidence.

That envoy Volstead is in the Middle East now. Trying to bring that apart, to the parties.

Are those the two reasons. Otherwise, the third option.

This would be something that would be a preamble for an Israeli strike.

If that were the case. And Israel wanted to do more. Then, of course, the strike would be two hours after the --

GLENN: Yes. Or doing it, even.

JOHN: Exactly. Exactly.

GLENN: How is Hezbollah going to react to this? Do you think?

JOHN: Yeah. So Hezbollah, they have a few options. It will be interesting to listen to their leader. Hassan Asan (phonetic) is going to be speaking, 5:00 p.m. local. Middle Eastern time.

And we'll see, how -- what he says.

I would assume, that it would be a fire and brimstone kind of speech.

But they will get back at the evil Zionists.

And he has a lot to answer to now.

Because it's very humiliating.

And it's a significant blow.

Not that it will bring Hezbollah to its knees. But it's probably demoralizing, and there are important people who have serious injuries.

So they'll have to respond. My assessment is, that they will push back. And that they will not use this as an opportunity to de-escalate.

And to say, okay. We're in a bad spot.

Let's recalibrate. And think what we should do.

I think they will escalate from here. And that we will here very fierce rhetoric from Hezbollah.

I think that there's -- there's a slight, slight chance that the Iranians tell them, stand down. And don't escalate.

I think that what we will see from Masalah and from Hezbollah will be a response with rockets. And that they will -- enhance -- enhance the range of rockets that they are firing into Israel.

And it's quite likely, that we'll see other Iranian proxies, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian militias in Iraq -- enhance their attacks on Israel as well. Perhaps not quite at the level of all-out war.

But to do more, in order to try to get even. Last, point seven, as I say, that this event happened yesterday.

But a few hours before that, it was exposed that Hezbollah had planned and was actually quite close to planting an IED at Claymore. An anti-personal device in Israel. And the target was a former senior Israeli defense official. I think it was supposed to be assassinated. And that was something that the Israeli security forces. Our equivalent of the FBI. Were able to expose just hours before that.

And the things are connected.

GLENN: You shouldn't compare yourself to the FBI.

Especially now. It would have been on their radar. But they wouldn't have found it. Or done anything to stop it.

Let me -- let me take you here. I was reading today. And I think I saw it again yesterday.

That the people of -- of -- of Gaza. Are now starting to turn to Hamas. Do you believe that?

Is that propaganda? Or do you think that is war fatigue?

JOHN: That is war fatigue. There's a the brain of truth to it.

Sadly, I think there still isn't in Gaza, an alternate system, an alternate government that can come in.

And oust Hamas from power. And it's a sad situation for Palestinians. Because they have been under the oppression of Hamas. 2 million people have been oppressed. And ruled under this tyrannic organization for 17, 18 years. They have been brainwashed. But at the end of the day, they're suffering now.

And many of them are coming to the understanding, that the cause of their suffering is not Israel.

It's Hamas' rule and Hamas' tactics. And Hamas' strategies. So there are uprisings. Currently, they're being dealt with, very bluntly by Hamas.

They're killing anybody that voices any criticism, towards, towards Hamas.

And I think that the most important thing that I find missing is structure, and a political organization. That could move in.

And push Hamas out of power. And also, very importantly, as long as Hamas controls the distribution of food and human aid in Gaza.

And as long as there is an UNA organization. The UN Relief and Works Agency.

As long as they're there, Hamas will be there, and Palestinians will continue to suffer.

GLENN: Wow.

Thank you so much, Jonathan, for being on and explaining this. Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus. He is the former Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson, with an update on the Middle East.