RADIO

THEORY: Did the Pentagon LIE About the New Jersey Drones?

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew recently claimed that the mysterious drones hovering over New Jersey are being launched from an Iranian “mothership” off the U.S. coast. Is there any truth to this or the Pentagon’s denial that the U.S. military is involved? Glenn speaks with New Jersey Assemblyman Brian Bergen, who recently attended a “mind boggling” meeting with the Department of Homeland Security. DHS, he says, claimed to have no information at all on the drones, except that they’re untrackable. Something doesn’t add up here, Glenn says. So, he runs his own theory by Assemblyman Bergen: what if the military is lying to us?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So yesterday, Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew told Fox news this about the drones in New Jersey.

VOICE: You know, I'm also on the transportation committee, on the aviation subcommittee, and I've gotten to know people.

And from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources, I'm going to tell you the real deal.

Iran launched a mothership. Probably about a month ago.

That contains these drones. That mothership is off -- I'm going to tell you the deal.

It's off east coast of the United States of America.

They've launched drones. It's everything that we can see or hear. And, again, these are from high sources. I don't say this lightly.

Now, you know, we know there was a probability. It could have been our own government. You know it wasn't our own government, because they would have let us know.

It could have been some really glorified hobbyist that we're doing something unbelievable. They don't have the technology. But let's pretend that's possible.

A third possibility was somebody, an adversarial country doing this.

Know that Iran made a deal with China, to purchase drones, motherships, and technology.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

Now, the Pentagon came out and said, that's not true.

There's a state senator, you might have seen this, on X. Last night.

Here's what Doug Steinhardt said, on these drones.

Cut 13.
(music)

VOICE: The best information that we have available to us, at this point, suggest that these drones are coming from offshore. That when we try to make contact with them. They become evasive and elusive. You know, from my perspective, if they're American assets. If they're American military. If they're American drones, and I think we owe the American people answers or explanations.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, Brian Bergen is another New Jersey assemblyman. He drove two hours for a private meeting with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security. And everybody else. This was going around last night.

And he left the meeting.

He said, it was the biggest bunch of bullcrap he's ever heard.

He's former military. He said, we don't know what it is. Of course we know what it is. And they gave us no information. He was really angry.

He's joining me here in about four minutes. So stand by.

I think I know what these are. I think -- but I'm not ruling out, the Iran thing.

I mean, that -- that -- I mean, a strike right now, would put the world at war.

I don't think so. The Pentagon said had to. But do you trust the pentagon?

The problem is here. We don't trust anybody.

Because they've all betrayed our trust.

That's why people voted on both sides, for Donald Trump.

Because we have to know the truth.

GLENN: I want to bring in Brian Bergen. I saw Brian on I think it was X yesterday.

He's a New Jersey assemblyman, that drove a couple of hours, for this meeting with, you know, the DHS and the FAA, and everybody that should know, what the heck is going on with these drones. And he walked out early. He was so flaming angry. And I wanted to get him on today. Brian, how are you?

BRIAN: I'm doing great, Glenn. Thanks for having me, man.

GLENN: You bet.

So why did you walk out yesterday? What happened?

BRIAN: Well, so we got called down there. We being all 120 members of the state legislature of New Jersey.

And the assembly and the Senate, got invited to come down to the special legislator-only briefing down in the state police headquarters. And the state police was there, and the Department of Homeland Security was there. And they were supposed to tell us what was going on.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. So they didn't even come to you?

BRIAN: No.

GLENN: They said to all the legislators. Instead of, how many guys were speaking? Ten?

BRIAN: Less.

GLENN: Less than ten. Okay. All right. That's good. All right.

BRIAN: Yeah. Yeah. So we all went there.

And the first thing they say, this is not a classified briefing.

In fact, we could have probably let the press in.

Then they went on and they said, that they know nothing. And they have no understanding what's going on.

They don't know where they're coming from. Where they're going to.

Or who is responsible for it.

And so I was just -- I was just pissed, that we're there to listen to such a Bush-league amateur hour presentation, that they could have given us via text message.

And what really got me upset, was the primary reason why I left early.

Was two things.

The colonel or the state police said he had a helicopter of his, hovering directly above one of these drones, which is called a six-foot drone.

But he felt unsafe for his pilots. And had them land. Ten minutes later, he says, hey. It would be really nice to know, where these things are going or coming from.

I'm like, why did you follow him? When you had it in your sites.

I mean, I have no idea why --

GLENN: Now, I just -- I want the audience to know, you were -- you were an Apache helicopter pilot in Iraq. You have a bronze star, combat action badge. Several honors.

You graduated at West Point. You're not a nobody on what happens in the sky.

BRIAN: Right. Right. That's exactly right.

First of all, what he said, people were hovering above it. I said, well, that's stupid.

Who hovers above a target? You know, you want to get a standoff distance and follow it. You know, so you can use your assistance to track it.

Yes. I'm speaking from some level of experience here.

But more importantly, it was just common sense.

You have this thing in your sites. That you know is potentially a threat.

Because we don't know where it's coming. Where it's going. And who is controlling it.

And it's 6 feet big in the sky.

And you just let it go.

I mean, it was mind-boggling to me.

The second thing that they said, that really sent me through the moon.

Was the Department of Homeland Security. Has some device. That they will give to the state police, that will help them identify drones in the sky.

And it's supposed to be pretty cool technology.

It filters out birds and stuff like that.

It's supposed to be really good.

Anyway, one of my colleagues said, well, when are you going to get it?

And the colonel of the state police said, it should be here in a couple of days.

And I was like, in my head, should be here in a couple of days? What the hell are you doing?

Somebody go get in a van. Drive it to freaking New Jersey, right now. You know, Glenn. This is the level of stupidity, that we're dealing with here.

And that's why I was so frustrated. And continue to be frustrated.

GLENN: Okay. So let me run a couple of things by you.

First, a Congressman came out yesterday. And said, I have it on good authority, that it's Iran.

And I have to ship off -- if that were true, would we not have followed these things back to the ship?

Why aren't we -- if they're going back over the water, and they're not ours, why wouldn't we be blowing them up, over the water?

BRIAN: Well, so that's a great question, and it was Congressman Van Drew who said that. And I think very highly of Congressman Van Drew. And he's not someone who normally says something outlandish like that. But in this case -- I rag on our state government all the time. And in this case, Homeland Security.

But our US Navy is a force to be reckoned with. Now, I'm a West Point grad.

We beat the hell out of the Navy this weekend.

But I have to give them some respect.

Because they would not allow an Iranian ship of any kind to get close to us.

So I find that to be pretty unusual, that that happened.

GLENN: Correct.

So the next thing is, if we couldn't track these things.

I've been in the new jersey and New York area.

There's a lot of airplanes in the sky.

If you can't track these. And you don't know where they are, you would ground all of the planes. Because you don't know if they're hostile to planes.

You don't know if someone of them just gets into the flight path of another.

There are planes everywhere in the sky.

So, again, that leads me to believe, you can track these. And you know where they're coming from.



BRIAN: Yeah. I don't know all the technology available to them.

What I do know. We're the United States of America. I live in a state. New Jersey, which has a 56 billion-dollar budget.

The fact we don't have the resources to figure this out. Is ludicrous.

You're right. There's a lot of -- the concerns are piling up now.

That you mentioned. What if they go dark, as the governor said. You know, that's a danger to other aircraft that operate in visual flight rules at night.

You know, there's a lot of potential issues here. You know, some lawmakers are calling for a -- a shutdown of drone activity in the sky. But, you know, we don't even know who these people are. What they're doing. They certainly won't live listen if we shut down activity.

GLENN: Right. What if we take all the guns from the good guys?

BRIAN: Right.

But what we do need to do is common sense. It just needs to be an all hands on deck approach.

The state police, the National Guard, which can be mobilized by the governor.

The Department of Homeland Security. And they need to follow one of these suckers to wherever it goes, and let's figure who is responsible.

GLENN: So here's what baffles me, Brian. You get one guy with a laser pointer in his backyard, and he points it at an airplane and a pilot, and the FAA tackles that guy, they -- they grapple down from helicopters and make sure that never happens again. How do we -- if this is some private citizen or citizens doing it. How would we not know that?

BRIAN: You're 100 percent right. And that's why, in an interview I had yesterday, I said, it's a lack of effort.

It has to be a lack of effort.

You know, the FBI is an amazing organization. That takes down people, all the time, before they do all kinds of crazy stuff.

They have a litany of successes that they can point to, of stopping things before they happen. Because of the counter terrorism effort. And the intelligence efforts. Why the hell they can't find anybody responsible for this. Or pick up any chatter is crazy.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you my theory.

And please, if you think it's nonsense. Shoot it full of holes.

My uncle used to be in military intelligence, back in the '60s and '70s. And he did all of the nuclear stuff. And when the stealth B1 bomber came out. The wing. He said, old technology. And I said, what?

And had he's -- because remember, it was first spotted. And they were like, what is that?

It's a UFO. And he's like, that's been available for a while.

They'll announce it to the country.

And they'll fly it around. And people will speculate.

Oh, yeah. We have a B1 bomber.

It's new.

I think a good chance is, we are sending someone a message. Or we're doing something with the -- I mean, Russia just launched, you know, a hypersonic missile.

It doesn't make sense that our government doesn't know what this is. And can't stop it. And doesn't see it as a danger.

What makes sense, is they're lying to us.

They know what this is.

And it's not extra terrestrial. And it's not any of that crap.

What do you think?

BRIAN: Well, so I don't disagree with the premise here. One of the things I will say is unique to this area, and where all this is happening.

We have a military inflation called Picatinny Arsenal.

And it's very important, to Picatinny Arsenal, that there's good community relations. Because, you know, we want to maintain that here.

And it's a huge resource for the army where it's at. Any uncertainty about what's going on military-wise around here, is bad. Bad for them. And bad for the future of Picatinny.

So they have an incentive to overcommunicate when things are happening. And they often do that, when they're giving testing. They overcommunicate. So in this area here. It's probably unlikely, that there will be anything that government would want to do, that would cause, you know, public concern.

GLENN: So then what is your -- what are you left with, that makes sense to you, the most?

BRIAN: You know, to be honest. I'm not left with much.

Before this briefing, I would have told you, it's FedEx. Or UPS. Or Amazon testing out delivery capabilities of aircrafts.

You know, and they want to do it at night. So as not to freak people out. But then by this point, it's blown up so much.

You would think somebody would say something.

They would say, oh, yeah. It's us. Chill out.

So I really -- I really don't know.

I am legitimately concerned. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not one that jumps to conclusions.

But the -- the fact that nobody knows. And the people that are supposed to know, they give us no confidence.

GLENN: And you believe they don't know. You believe they don't know.

BRIAN: Yeah, I do. Could the CIA know? Maybe I was briefed by them.

But I believe the State Police, and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon do not know. I really do. And that's scary.

It's equally scary if I'm wrong. And they do know, and they're doing this to us.

GLENN: That's the world we live in today.

You know, it's always like, it could be this. Which would mean that Jesus is coming. But it could mean this. Which means Jesus is copping.

BRIAN: Yeah. That's right Glenn. In this situation, this is the part that frustrates me. They can figure it out.

A couple of Apache helicopters. We'll follow these freaking things.

And we will figure it out for you. Someone can get this done. They're just choosing not to do it.

GLENN: I know somebody with an Apache. A private individual with an Apache helicopter.

BRIAN: Well, let's get it over here.

A little rusty probably. But I think I can probably figure it out.

GLENN: They're probably listening right now. If you want to check in, we'll maybe line that up. Thank you so much, appreciate it.

God bless you, Brian. You bet.

RADIO

The Glenn Beck Program Honors Charlie Kirk

Join Glenn as he goes live to honor the memory of Charlie Kirk. A time of prayer, grieving, and remembrance for a husband, father, and patriot.

RADIO

Glenn joins Megyn Kelly live to discuss Charlie Kirk shooting

Covering the breaking news of Charlie Kirk at shot at Turning Point USA event.

RADIO

Please pray for my friend Charlie.

Please pray for Charlie Kirk.

Please pray for our Republic.

RADIO

Exclusive new poll reveals why Gen Z wants to BURN the system down

A shocking number of young Americans support BOTH President Trump and democratic socialism, a new poll has found, and they're willing to make major changes to the American system to get what they feel they deserve. Justin Haskins, who conducted the poll with Rasmussen, joins Glenn Beck to break down the unexpected findings…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He's the president of our republic. StoppingSocialism.com. He's editor-in-chief. And also the coauthor of several books, with me. Welcome to the program, Justin.

How are you?

JUSTIN: I'm doing well, Glenn. How are you?

STU: Well, I was well, until you contacted me on vacation, and sent me this disturbing poll.

I am in bed at night.

And I'm reading this. I'm like, oh, dear.

What? My wife is like, I told you to not check this email. I'm like, I didn't know Justin was going to write to me.

Justin, tell me, first of all, before we get into it, how secure is the sample size on this poll?

JUSTIN: It's a very good sample size. 1200 people nationally.

Only 18 to 39-year-olds. And we did that deliberately, so that we could get a sample size large enough so we could pull out valid responses, just from younger people.

So the whole purpose of this poll was to find out what younger people, 18 to 39 think, voters only. And people who say that they're likely to vote. So we're not talking about just people out in the public. We're not talking about registered voters.

We're talking about people who are registered to vote. And say they're likely to vote.

GLENN: So let's go over some of the things that you have already released to the press.

And that is, in the survey, 18 to 39-year-olds, likely voters.

The Trump approval rating is a lot higher than you thought it would be. Right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. Forty-eight percent positive approval rating of Donald Trump, which for young people, is very high.

So that's -- that's the good news.

That's the only good news we're going to talk about.

GLENN: We might have to come back to that first question several times.

Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally good, evil, or morally mixed country?

JUSTIN: Yep. This one is not too bad.

It's not great. But fundamentally good was 28 percent.

Which is low. But mixed was 50 percent.

And fundamentally evil was 17 percent.

And I think mixed at 50 percent is not an unreasonable, crazy response.

I -- I can see why all sorts of people might choose that.

So I don't think there's anything terrible here. It depends on what you mean by mixed. Fundamentally good at 28 percent. It's a little low. Fundamentally evil at 17 percent, it's a little disturbing. But it's not -- it's not insane. The insane stuff comes a little bit later.

GLENN: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Major industries talk about the crazy stuff coming later, here it is.

Major industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized and give more control and equity to the people.

JUSTIN: Yeah. This was -- this was -- this one floored me. If I look at strongly agree. Somewhat agree for that statement you just read. It's over 70 percent of young people, including -- including the vast majority of Republicans. Young Republicans. And people who identify as conservatives.

It was pretty similar, in fact, how young people responded compared to liberals and independents.

And Democrats.

They all pretty much agreed that, yes. The government. The federal government should be nationalizing whole industries to make things more equitable for people.

GLENN: As the guy who is the chief -- editor-in-chief of stopping socialism. What's the problem with nationalizing energy, and health care?

JUSTIN: Well --

GLENN: What happens, typically.

JUSTIN: Well, usually, there's blood in the streets, when you do too much of that.

You know, socialism, communism have been spectacularly horrible, throughout the course of human history. Across every society, culture, religion.

It doesn't matter when or what kind of technological advancements you have. The more you collect vies a society. The more authoritarian that society gets. The less you have individual freedom. And the worst the economy usually is for regular people. So it's been a catastrophe across-the-board. Everyone listening to this audience, probably knows that.

And so the idea that you would have three-quarters of young voters. So remember, these people will be the primary voters in ten to 20 years.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: Saying, yeah. We should be nationalizing whole industries. Whole industries, is so disturbing.

And I don't think that conservatives are -- understand how deeply rooted some of these ideas are with younger people.

GLENN: No. No.

And I will tell you, I think some conservatives are walking a very dangerous line. And, you know, coming up with a little mix of everything.

And -- and I think we have to be very careful on -- on what is being said. And who are WHO our friends and allies are.

By the way, that number again is 39 percent strongly agree.

37 percent somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree, 12 percent. Strongly disagree, 5 percent.

That is disastrous. Now, try this one on. These are the ones that have been -- we have new ones.

These are just a few of the ones that were released late last week. The next presidential election is in 2028. Would you like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election?

JUSTIN: Yep, 53 percent said yes.

Fifty-three percent of all voters said yes. And the most shocking thing, was that 35 percent of those who we poll, who said they voted for Donald Trump, in 2024, said that that they want to see a socialist win in 2028. And so about a third of Republicans, 35 percent of Trump voters, 43 percent of people who call themselves conservatives, so even on the right, among younger people. There is a large group that want a socialist president, in 2028.

GLENN: And the reason -- the reason is, it -- it tied into the next few questions. Okay.

So here's question five. Among the following options, which best describes your biggest reason, you would like to see a democratic socialist candidate. Thirty-one percent said housing costs are too high. Twelve percent, taxes are too low for corporations. Eleven percent, taxes are too low for wealthy have I seen.

Eight percent want single payer health care systems. Seventeen say the economy unfairly benefits older, wealthier Americans.

Fifteen percent say the economy unfairly benefits larger corporations. 5 percent, some other reason.

And 2 percent, unsure. Now, let's get into the new polls that were breaking today.

Question six.

How would you describe your current financial situation?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Only 24 percent said that they're doing well. Thirty-four -- 38 percent said getting by. Struggling 29 percent. Seven percent said in crisis. So if you add up just getting by, struggling, and in crisis, that's 74 percent said that they're just barely getting by, at best.

And I think that explains a lot of the other negative responses we've seen so far.

GLENN: That's not good.

JUSTIN: In this poll. And the ones that are going to come pretty soon here.

GLENN: Seven. Which best describes your personal life situation?

You are thriving, you're doing well with a few ups and downs. You feel stuck and uncertain. You feel lonely, disconnected, or emotionally drained. You're in a crisis and feel most negative about your personal life.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. About a third said that they feel stuck or uncertain. Lonely. Or that they're in a crisis.

That's a third of young people. Say that.

I mean, that's -- that's not great. Only 19 percent said thriving.

46 percent said, they have ups and downs. Which I think is not. Too shocking.

But the idea that there's a third of American voters out there, who feel like, they can't buy a home. And they feel like they are lonely. And that they're in crisis. And that life is not just going well at all for them.

Again, I think that's -- that's driving a lot of the support for socialism. When you have 53 percent of these people saying, yeah. I want a socialist president in 2028.

GLENN: So socialism is not the answer. It is the symptom. It is the symptom of what people are feeling right now.

And they -- they don't know any other -- they don't -- nobody is presenting them with anything other than, you know, Republican/Democrat bullcrap. And socialists are coming at it from a completely nigh angle. Or so the youth think it's the oldest and most failed system of all time.

But they're seeing this as a solution that is different than what the party -- the Republican/Democrats are offering. Even though the Democrats are offering the socialism thing.

Number eight, do you think the American economy is unfair to young people?

Sixty-two percent say yes.

JUSTIN: Yeah, and 27 percent said no.
And I think that this really gets at the heart of what the issue is here.

When you look at the reasons. When you look at the detailed things of the poll.

What -- to try to find out if there's an association between some kind of demographic or response question about people's lives and their support for socialism, to see if there's a correlation there between something that is happening. And whether someone is a socialist or not.

One of the top correlations, connections, is, if people think the economy is unfair.

And if they're having trouble buying a home. Or they don't think they can buy a home. Or that's one of their reasons for supporting socialism.

So, in other words, there's this fairness issue. And it's not even about inequality.

It's not about, well, they have too much -- well, if they feel like the -- to use a Trump term. Rigged.

And throughout the data. That's what we see over and over and over again. Is lots of people say, the economy is rigged. For older people. For wealthier people, for corporations. It's rigged. And if they say, yeah. I think it's rigged, you know, then they're more likely to say, yeah. I want a socialist.

And I also think the same group has a relatively high approval rating of Donald Trump.

It's because the reason that a lot of young people like Trump in the poll, is that he's not part of the establishment.

And I think -- I don't think they -- I think a lot of young people who voted for Trump and who liked Trump, they didn't do it, because they liked free market, pro-liberty policies. And that's not a good thing.

But I don't think that's why they did it. I think a lot of them voted for Trump and supported him, because he's not the establishment. And that's what they don't like. They want to blow the establishment up.

JUSTIN: So my -- Justin, my sample size is my two young adults. My two children.

And they're like, talking to me, and saying, Dad. I will never be able to own a home, looking at the prices, looking at interest rates. They're like, I can't even afford to pay rent at an apartment. And they don't know what to do.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JASON: And so they're looking at -- on, like, TikTok. And they're like, who is this Mamdani guy? This sounds interesting. They bring this to me. They grew up listening to me indoctrinating them their entire lives. They're looking at other voices like on TikTok. Are we just not being loud enough?

GLENN: No. We're not -- we're not connecting with them. We're not -- I feel like they don't feel they're being heard.

And we are speaking to them in red, white and be blue.

And that means nothing. The Statue of Liberty means nothing to them. Ellis Island means nothing to them. The flag means nothing to them.

It's all partisan politics.

They're all symbols of really, the two parties.

You know, and an America, they don't relate to at all.

I think that's -- that's our biggest problem, and not being able to break through. To your point, question nine. How confident are you that you will own a home at some point, in the next ten years?

29 percent say, they already own a home. Which I found interesting. That's -- I think a pretty high number for somebody who is 18 to 34 years old.

JUSTIN: Thirty-nine.

GLENN: Thirty-nine.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

GLENN: There's a lot of 18 to 30. That I didn't own home when I was, you know, 30. Just got a home when I was 30. But go ahead. Go ahead with the rest of that poll.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So then 21 percent said discouraged, but somewhat hopeful. 12 percent said, not confident. 10 percent said, you are convinced you will never own a home. 3 percent not sure.

So if you add up the negative responses, it's around 43 percent that gave that response.

GLENN: Right. But, again, 29 percent, you already own a home. And 25 percent you are confident you will own a home, is still good. It just -- these -- these other numbers, have, you know, discouraged, but hopefully you will own a home. Who is discouraging that? And how is that being discouraged?

You know, only 12 -- let's see 12. Twenty-two. 25 percent are not sure they will ever own a home. That's too high of a number.

But I -- I don't think that's completely dismal. Now, a completely dismal answer, to the question, would you support a law that would confiscate America's excess wealth?

Including things like second homes. Luxury cars, and private boats, in order to help young people buy a home for the first time?

Are you for or against that? We'll give you that number here in just a second.

GLENN: There are some disturbing results, that get very disturbing, going from here on.

We've got two of these today, and then more tomorrow.

We'll spend more time with you tomorrow, Justin.

But would you support a law that would confiscate American's excess wealth, including things like second home, luxury cars, and private boats in order to help young people buy a home for the first time? Get the results.

JUSTIN: Yeah, 25 percent strongly support that, 30 percent somewhat support it, 55 percent in total for support. Only 38 percent strongly or somewhat oppose, with just 20 percent saying strongly oppose. So the vast majority now is -- is supporting this Communistic policy to confiscate people's wealth in order to help people. Younger people buy homes, which is in line with that question, we talked about earlier. Where it said, you know, three-quarters of these respondents wanted to nationalize whole industries to make things fairer. So it's all about -- it's all about this sense of unfairness that exists.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: And they feel like. Young people feel like the system is rigged. They feel like neither party is on their side, and they want to blow the whole thing up, by just taking wealth away from people, nationalizing whole industries, and redistributing it all.

And guess what, that's basically the democratic socialist platform. So it's not a surprise that that's -- that's becoming increasingly more popular with these young people.

And I don't think that free market, pro-liberty people are dealing with -- with this.

GLENN: No.

JUSTIN: In a real way.

In fact, I think a lot of us have believed recently that the wind is at our backs, and we're actually winning more and more young people over.
And that isn't what's happening according to the poll results.

GLENN: It explains why the Democrats have not moved their position off of the socialism stuff.

Doesn't it?

We keep saying, why? It's not working with anybody.

It is working. It is working with people under 39.

18 to 39-year-olds are hearing this message, and are embracing this message.