What’s Happening in Brazil is EXACTLY What’s Coming to America

April 09, 2024

WRITER

Elon Musk is challenging a Brazilian judge who is trying to clamp down on free speech. The judge has demanded that X take down alleged “far right” accounts or face severe punishments in the country … sound familiar? In its attempt to "prevent" a right-wing “dictatorship,” Brazil’s leftist government has created a fascist dictatorship of its own. And allegedly, the United States played a big role. Glenn breaks down the story and warns that what’s happening in Brazil is exactly what’s coming to America: “If we don’t get out and vote, this is our future in America.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Pat, are you following what's going on in Brazil?

PAT: Not terribly closely.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So I haven't either.

And I just started paying attention to it, over the weekend.

Because of Michael Shellenberger.

He did a video that was just incredible.

And very disturbing.

He's talking about the -- you know, the same kind of corruption, that is happening in our government.

Down in Brazil. Where they are stifling the media. But it's much, much worse than that.

Let me give you a couple of things that we have found during our -- during our research.

Listen to this.

This is from the New York Times.

He's Brazil's defender of democracy.

Is he actually good for democracy?

Alexandre De Moraes. A Brazilian Supreme Court justice. Was crucial to Brazil's transfer of power.

But his aggressive tactics are prompting debate. Can one go too far to fight the far right?

Think of that question.

How unbelievable that question is. Of course. And why is it just the right?

When Brazil's highway police began holding up buses full of voters on Election Day, he ordered them to stop.

When right-wing voices spread the baseless claim that Brazil's election is stolen. He ordered them banned from social media. When thousands of right-wing protesters stormed Brazil's halls of power this month, he ordered the officials who had been responsible for securing the buildings, arrested.

Alexandre De Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice has taken up the mantle of Brazil's lead defender of democracy.

Using a broad interpretation of the court's powers, he has pushed to investigate, prosecute, and as well, silence those on social media. Anyone he deems a menace to Brazil's institutions.

As a result, in the face of antidemocratic attacks from Brazil's former far right president, Bolsonaro and his supporters, Mr. De Moraes cleared the way for the transfer of power.

Many on Brazil's left that made him the man who saved Brazil's young democracy, yet many others in Brazil say he's threatening it. He kind of has a -- hmm. Heavy hand. These are some of the things, according to the New York Times he has done. He has jailed people without trial, for posting threats on social media. He helped sentence a sitting Congressman to nearly nine years in prison for threatening the court.

He has ordered raids on businessmen, with little evidence of wrongdoing. He has suspended an elected governor from his job. He has unilaterally blocked dozens of accounts and thousands of posts on social media, with virtually no transparency and no room for appeal.

In the hunt for justice after the riot, he became further emboldened. His orders to ban prominent voices online, have proliferated. And now he has the man accused of fanning Brazil's extremist flames. Mr. Bolsonaro in his crosshairs.

Last week -- now, remember this is an old New York Times from about two years ago.

De Moraes, included Bolsonaro in a federal investigation of the riot, which she is overseeing, suggesting the former president inspired the violence.

Sound familiar? His moves fit into a broader trend of Brazil's Supreme Court, increasing its power and taking what critics have called a more repressive turn in the process.

So he is -- he is taking extra constitutional powers. Over the weekend, he said, if you don't give me your data, Facebook, Google, and X, on all of the people that are posting. If you don't give that to me, you're banned from being in Brazil.

A judge. So everybody did, except for Elon Musk. Elon Musk said, the guy is a fascist.

Michael Shellenberger is down saying, Brazil is becoming a fascistic dictatorship with this guy in charge.

Now, if you remember, the left was saying Bolsonaro was a dictator. And so now, to prevent the dictator, they have become dictators.

The exact scenario, that we were worried about here, in America. But nobody seems -- nobody really seems to care.

So there's a guy named Mike Benz, who I'll follow and watch from time to time, he had a really good look at this.

He was down, looking at censorship in Brazil. And he said, I found the United States, all over it.

He said, the United States department funded NGOs. And not just State Department funded NGOs. But National Endowment for Democracy is also down there. He said, you had USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, funding a bunch of domestic censorship groups in Brazil. And he says, it goes back to the beginning of Bolsonaro's reign as president down there in 2019. So the same thing that was happening here with Donald Trump, the United States through NGOs took your tax dollars and started fighting against Bolsonaro.

In June 2019, the Atlantic Council convened a meeting about what to do about the rise of disinformation in Brazil. That was pro-Bolsonaro in nature. What a surprise.

The Atlantic Council panel called election watch in June 2019. Bemoaned the fact that in Brazil, people were paying attention to their own friends, family, and clergy, than they were institutions. Global institutions such as the Atlantic Council, which is a CIA pass through. It has seven CIA directors on its board.

It's annually funded every year by the Pentagon for the State Department. And the National Endowment for Democracy. Which is also a CIA cutout.

In addition to that, a bunch of these university centers in Brazil and civil society groups, get National Endowment for Democracy funding.

So this is the CIA and the State Department, and USA ID, directly funding, in June 29, the censorship apparatus, in Brazil, against Bolsonaro.

In 2019, social media was already censored in Brazil, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were hit hard bit censors. The same way it did in the United States.

So the Bolsonaro supporters switched to WhatsApp and Telegram to spread their messaging, because they were basically kicked off of Facebook.

Does any of this sound familiar?

This is why one of the biggest audiences for Gab, one of the first free speech alternative platform attempts, was the Brazilian population in 18 and 2019, because they were hit with that first leg of the censorship board.

So what the Atlantic Council and a bunch of these other national endowment for democracy-funded CIA proxies did, is they then targeted WhatsApp and Telegram.

And then promoted these activities, these proxies within Brazil, to put pressure on the Brazilian government to take out WhatsApp and Telegram.

So WhatsApp and Telegram then censored populous supporters. Right-wing populous nationalists. Bolsonaro supporters.

This -- this -- this is the United States government.

He goes on to say, let me ask you something. When has an ally ever threatened major corporations?

American corporations, and said, you will give me this stuff. Or you will be chased out of the country.

Since when doesn't our State Department go down and say, excuse me. Really good friend of Brazil.

We've been there for you, forever. We're helping pay for stuff in your country.

You do not hurt American corporations. You don't tell them, what they can and can't do. When it's in violation of your own doctrines.

PAT: Except that sadly, our American government is behind it.

GLENN: Is behind it.

PAT: Yeah. They're pushing it.

GLENN: It's behind it.

PAT: Yep. Because they're doing the same thing here.

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: They can't -- they can't win on the battlefield of ideas. So they have to shut down the battlefield.

GLENN: Correct. And I want you to know, what's happening today in Brazil. The Supreme Court, which was messed with. The Supreme Court now has ultimate power, to do everything. There's no checks or balance there, on the Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court takes over and says, just, we're going to put people in jail without trial. You don't have a right to speak out. We can tell companies exactly what to do.

And in their hunt for dictators, they have become a dictatorship. That's really important for everyone in America, to understand.

Democracy dies in the darkness. Yet, shut everything down, and keep it real dark.

What's happening in Brazil, is what's coming here if we don't get out and vote.

This is our future, in America.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?