RADIOAugust 30, 2024

Inflation, fracking, & stolen valor: The BIGGEST Harris/Walz CNN interview LIES

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for what was possibly the cringiest interview to ever air…at least for Americans who keep up with the news. But Glenn warns that for those who ONLY watched that interview, it may have been effective. So, Glenn and Stu do CNN’s job for them and debunk all the lies told during this interview: Did Harris really flip-flop on fracking? Did Walz really just mess up his “grammar” when made false claims about his military service? Did Kamala Harris just admit she lied to the American people about the Inflation Reduction Act? Plus, Glenn explains the industry secret behind why CNN’s interview seemed “hard-hitting” at first before it turned into a campaign ad.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, Kamala Harris was on with Dana Bash. And it was interesting. Because I -- I watched it, trying to think of two things.

One, a family member of mine, who is -- doesn't agree with me on what's going on in the country at all. Doesn't see it. You, but doesn't really watch the news, read the news, listen to the news. You know, just is like in their happy little world.

And so I watched it as that family member. And then I watched it as somebody who is really up on things. Okay?

I think if you were really up on things, this -- this interview last night, was so agonizing.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Because it was -- it was -- I've never heard anything like it. I really haven't -- let me play a couple of cuts here. Here's -- here's Kamala. Cut three.

On why she hasn't fixed the economy while she's in office.

KAMALA: My proposal includes what would be a tax credit of $25,000, for first time home buyers. So they can just have enough to put a downtown on a home, which is part of the American dream and their aspiration.

But do it in a way that allows them to actually get on a path to achieving that goal and that dream.

VOICE: So you have been vice president for three and a half years. The steps that you are talking about now, why haven't you done them already?

STU: Yeah!

KAMALA: Well, first of all, we have to recover as an economy, and we have done that. I am very proud of the work that we have done, that has brought inflation down to less than 3 percent.

The work that we have done to cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors. Donald Trump said he was going to do a number of things, including allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, never happened. We did it.

So now, as I travel in the state of Georgia and around our country, the number of seniors that have benefited.

GLENN: Okay. Notice what she's done here. Notice what she's done. She has completely side-stepped. She's a good learner. She completely side-stepped. Why didn't you do anything?

Well, because Donald Trump. We had to fix everything. The economy was in shambles. And, you know, let me tell you about prescription drugs. He says, we negotiated. But we did it.

We didn't do anything.

And him, him, him. And now I can go out, and see people who have insulin. And we don't have any problems.

Wait. What does that have to do with the economy again?

Okay. So she was slippery on absolutely everything.

STU: Oh. I have one more thing on that before we go, Glenn. You took actions to get the nation rate down to 3 percent, from what?

From what? It wasn't -- it wasn't 3 percent, when Donald Trump was in office. It only is down to 3 percent from your terrible regime.

When you had it at 9 percent, sure. It's down from whatever it was. Seven or 9 percent then.

But three percent is almost double what it was when you took over. It's down to double!

That's your argument.

GLENN: And, by the way, the prices never came down. So you're just taking the high prices from the 9 percent, and you're adding three and a half percent, every year, on top of those high prices.

So that's why. That doesn't work with people. Well, inflation is down. No. It's not. No, it's not.

I still can't afford food. That's why. The next thing is, about fracking.

Listen to this one.

STU: Oh, God.

KAMALA: No. And I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking. As vice president, I did not ban Freddie Mac.

As president, I will not ban fracking.

In 2019, I believe, in a town hall, you said, you were asked. Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking for your first day in office. And there's no question, I'm in favor of banning fracking. So, yes. It changed in that campaign.

In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I've not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I have kept my word, and I will keep my word.

VOICE: What made you change that position at the time?

STU: Yeah.

KAMALA: Well, let's be clear, my values have not. I believe it is very important that we take seriously, what we must do. To --

GLENN: Now, listen to this. Word salad.

KAMALA: In terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.

STU: We can do. What?

KAMALA: What we've done to invest by my calculation, over -- probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years, investing in a clean energy economy.

What we've already done, creating over 300,000 new clean energy jobs. That tells me, from my experience, as vice president. We can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana. Dana. Excuse me. I cast the tie-breaking vote.

STU: Yeah, you did.

KAMALA: That actually increased leases for fracking.

STU: A lot of tie breaking votes that she didn't answer for.

GLENN: Yeah, a lot of them.

STU: That's an infuriating clip. Infuriating in 150 ways.

GLENN: Also, you cannot be part of the Green New Deal, and not ban fracking. What is she saying?

STU: I would love to know exactly. She did it on the debate stage in 2020. You might remember, of course, she didn't even make it to 2020, in her campaign. Failed before Iowa.

She is talking about the vice presidential -- where she's saying that.

But like, she says she will not change that going forward.

Well, could she have promised that in 2019, too? How the hell will we know, going forward?

She's changed almost everything going forward.

GLENN: So her answer to everything, last night, on the changes. Was very, very clear.

Yes. But my values haven't changed.

Okay. So what are her values? We know what her values are. The earth is number one priority.

Okay. Do whatever we have to do. She was for the green new deal. She even boasted about the green new deal, becoming the Inflation Reduction Act.

And all the things they got through, the Inflation Reduction Act. So they admitted to lying to you, about the Inflation Reduction Act.

It had nothing to do with inflation. It had everything to do with the green new deal.

So lying to you there, and -- and her values. Her values. My values haven't changed.

Well, I've seen your values. I don't like your values. You -- you cannot change -- you cannot remain with the same values, and change your positions 180 degrees.

Why? Unless one of your values is, winning an election. Doing whatever you have to do, to win an election.

STU: That's your only value. That's your only value, Glenn.

GLENN: Yes.

Oh, no. She has some values. Yeah. She has some values.

STU: By the way, Glenn, I will say, give a little credit to Dana Bash. Who actually did ask my question. That was right after -- did you laugh at that?

GLENN: I did.

STU: Because she said, was there some policy or scientific data that you saw, that said, oh, okay. I get it now. We shouldn't ban fracking.

And she basically just didn't answer it. You know, typical nonsense. But there's good -- it was good. I will say, Dana Bash, first third of that interview, not bad.

And then just a giant plane crash after that.

GLENN: All right. So I don't know if I've told this story before. Probably have.

But when I was at Fox, Bill O'Reilly called me into his office. And he said, what are you doing, man?

They are going to kill you. They are going to kill you. And he was talking about the press and the left.

And I said, I don't care. And he said, no. You need to care. You need to care.

He said, or it will be very short-lived. And I said, I'm only planning on being here for two years, Bill. And he said, what is wrong with you? I said, oh, I don't want to do this.

But I'll listen.

So he said, look, I have the audience and I have the corporations, kind of a little afraid of me. When I put their picture up on the no-spin zone. And he said, so here's what we're going to do.

When you say something controversial and everybody is at your throat, he said, you are going to come on to my show. And I will ask you a tough question. And I might even follow it up, with another tough question.

But you need to understand, this is a friendly room, and from here on out, you can say, asked and answered.

What this whole thing was yesterday, was Dana asking tough questions. But knowing, she's walking into a friendly room.

When you are a candidate, or somebody who is going to be in the hot seat, you know, this is why Kamala won't do anything on Fox.

You know if you're walking into a friendly room, they'll push you, but not continue to push you.

Okay?

Dana would have never let that question go. With J.D. Vance or Donald Trump, that would have been the entire, what? Eighteen minutes. Would have been the whole thing.

But it wasn't. It was just two pushes. And then I'm off it. And then we're going to do a happy, you know, campaign commercial for you, in the last, you know, five minutes.

So what this was, because you'll notice that Kamala also said, that she doesn't want to deal in the past.

We're about turning the page.

And just -- and just looking towards the future.

We're not going to dwell on the past.

So when somebody asks her about her flip-flop.

I've already asked -- I've already answered that question.

My values have not changed. Let's move on. We have to focus on the future.

They only have to buy a few weeks.

That's it. Was it next week or the week after?

Pennsylvania starts to vote.

If -- if she isn't exposed soon, it will be too late for places like Pennsylvania.

But I'm just, again, not convinced that people believe her about fracking. And people believe her about the economy.

I mean, they might like her, but, again, if you are aware of politics and you know, these aren't good people. These aren't good people. And you can tell that about Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Politicians aren't good people. We should never trust them.

And you know anything about her policies. You know how radical she really is. And even more so, you know, Tim, the greatest father in the world. Who just drags his kid on stage and says, knock it off.

That was beautiful. He's even more radical. And I don't even know if that's possible. But that's what it appears to be.

But if you don't know that, and you're a low-information voter, and you are not paying attention, but you want to just see who she is. Last night was a home run for you.

Last night was a home run.

And it gives her cover now, to not do another interview.

At least for a long while. Well, I did one.

I'll try to schedule one by the end of September, or sometime in October. When it's too late.

It's fascinating to watch politics. I mean, wish I was watching it in somebody else's country and not mine. Back in just a minute.

Byrna launcher is our sponsor. Unless you live out in the sticks, it's not the pest idea to practice training with your guns out in the backyard. Kind of thing that has a tendency with you having a conversation with the cops, and your neighbors screaming at you.

That's not usually so fun. But you know what you can use, to practice there, is a Byrna launcher. Right?

A Byrna launcher, it feels just like a gun in your hand. It feels exactly, you know, like, you know, any pistol, that you're pulling out.

And you're able to practice. And it's completely silent.

It's less lethal. And that's the way to go. Byrna is the best alternative to deadly force. When you need deadly force, man, I'm telling you. Get a gun.

But if you're in a situation where you can't shoot, or you think, I don't know if I've got this right.

You can shoot a Byrna launcher. And it will hit tear gas. And that will keep that person, you know, on the ground for about 40 minutes.

It's got a 60-foot range.

It's perfect for nonlegal high noon. Or nonlethal high noon.

You can get the launcher. They also have the rifles now, in stock.

Byrna.com. B-Y-R-N-A.com/Glenn. Get 10 percent off your purchase now. It's B-Y-R-N-A.com/Glenn. Check the latest news out, and make sure you get the Byrna launcher. From Byrna.com/Glenn. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
All right. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

I've got to hit Tim Walz on -- one of the worst answers.

I mean, they were bad answers all the way along, if you wanted actual facts.

But listen to this.

This is when he was asked about, you know, I carried a gun in war.

Listen to this.

VOICE: They're just starting to get to know you.

I want to ask you a question about how you've described your service in the national guard.

You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone.

A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?

Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud. I've done 24 years of wearing uniform in this country. Equally proud of my service in the public school classroom, whether it's Congress or the governor.

My record speaks for itself. But I think people are coming to get to know me.

I speak like they do. I speak candidly. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. I speak especially passionately about our children being shot at schools. And around guns. So I think people know me. They know where I am. They know where my heart is.

STU: They don't.

GLENN: Listen.

VOICE: My record for over 40 years, speaks for itself.

VOICE: The idea that you said you were in war. Did you misspeak as the campaign has said?

VOICE: Yeah, I said we were talking about a shooting. The ideas of carrying these weapons of war. And my wife, can tell you my grammar is not always correct. But, again, if it's not this, it's an attack on my children --

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

STU: Slimy.

GLENN: So his grammar isn't that good. I believe he taught English to the Chinese in China. So a grammar thing, probably shouldn't be that big of a problem for you, Tim.

I'm just -- I'm just points that out. I'm just pointing that out.

It was good enough to teach the Chinese in China. Probably good enough to say, I don't know how you make that grammatical re.

Just like the gun, I carried in war.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like a grammar problem.

That seems like a lying problem.

STU: Yeah. Glenn, it's interesting.

Because both you and I. The people might point out the fact that we sort of speak English.

But who knows? It's not always all that close to correct.

But neither of us have ever had a moment, where we've said, we may have been at war, at some point, shooting at the enemy.

That's never slipped out of our mouth.

With all the grammatical mistakes we've made, with over 20 plus years doing the show together.

Neither of us have ever claimed to be Rambo, that just never occurred. I don't wonder why.

GLENN: Well, I mean, I don't know about you. But I'm the Jack the Ripper of the English language. I kill it in an alleyway, almost every hour.

Okay?

But like Stu said, I've never said, you know, like when I was on the moon.

Or when I was in war. Now, I've talked about World War II a lot.

You know, but I've never said, you know, when I killed Hitler.

No. No. Never said that. Never said that.

STU: Not once. It's kind of hard to butcher the language, that much. To where that comes mangled out of your mouth.

Might be a mental problem.

Might be.

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.