“This Should Have Been Identified”: Security Expert Explains Failures at Trump Rally
RADIO

“This Should Have Been Identified”: Security Expert Explains Failures at Trump Rally

It's clear that many things went wrong with security on the day of Trump's near-assassination at his rally in Pennsylvania. "The Secret Service, in my view, is inept," Glenn says. Former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, who spent years planning and leading protective details for politicians, stars, and other high-profile people, joins to explains what he believes the biggest failures were. Why weren't law enforcement officers placed on the rooftop the attacker used? Should the Secret Service have shot first? Why has it taken so long for the government to release more information on the killer? And — scariest of all — did he work alone?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. We have Jason Buttrill with us. Who is my chief researcher.

And also, in charge of national security, and -- and -- and global wars and everything else, that we have to look at. He has extensive background in military intelligence. And that's why you know military intelligence was a joke, because Jason was involved in it.

But it was also -- you were never a lead of my detail, right? Of my protective detail?

JASON: I was never the lead, but I was the manager on your detail, and I led many other details in the past.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So the reason why I'm still alive today, is Jason was not in charge of the detail.

JASON: That's good. That's good.

GLENN: Yeah. But I will tell you, that we have had many dealings with Secret Service. And without getting into any of the details, but I would be running to testify on it, the Secret Service is in my view, inept. It's nothing against the agents or anything. I think the people who run it, they rely on money and technology, and they just don't think.

And we have seen things that could get people killed, quite honestly. We've experienced it, with the Secret Service ourselves.

And I've been warning about this, for a very, very long time.

Now, Jason, you have actually planned events like this with the Secret Service. You have been with major politicians, and done major events, not only with me, but with others. And worked side by side with the Secret Service. How could this have happened?

JASON: I'm glad you had me on today, Glenn. Because I saw a lot of speculation. I think it's important to understand how these things happened.

How did we get to where we got to on Saturday. And I just want to briefly run down.

I will reveal a few tricks of the trade here. I think it's good for crazy people and potential attackers to know this as well, to know how difficult it is.

It should be almost impossible to pull off what happened on Saturday.

But, as you know, Glenn. You've seen this work, an advance team is always sent out. This is copied from the Secret Service level all the way to the governor's protected details. All the way to public officials. Or, you know, personalities like yourself.

But an advance team would go out. Secret Service would go out, weeks in advance. They would go out and set up a multi-tiered security plan. So basically, like let's say you see a president on a rope line. And he's shaking hands.

And, you know, patting people on the back. That's political smoke and mirrors.

Those are not people that just randomly show up. Those are friends, family, highly trusted people that have been vetted. That talks a little bit of the sexiness out, but that's the same way as when Donald Trump is on a stage. The people right in front of him are supposed to be there.

They have been given access. They have a wristband or lanyard. They're wanded. They're checked. They're fully vetted, trusted people right in front of them. There's another tier beyond that.

They're usually high level donors. They're also very, very trusted. Vetted. They've been searched. Then once you get beyond that, there's not a thousand Secret Service agents out there. So they have to delegate to law enforcement officers. Local law enforcement officers, SWAT, just regular beat cops. They designated those areas.

Now, as all this is happening, they also identify further out threats. And they -- they identify sectors of fire. Positions of fire.

Potential sniper positions. Going all the way to like a thousand yards.

130-yard sniper position. Absolutely, which -- which is where this attacker was. Would have been identified.

And there would have been several designated. They would have said, this is alpha position. This is bravo position. Whatever.

They can go through them. So they can quickly address the situation. They would also, in this instruct the witness not to answer plan, have local law enforcement guarding those areas to make sure no one would gain access to those areas. And they would number contact with the Secret Service.

Now, there's multiple different questions here, that need to be asked. As you said in full transparency. Knowing this entire complex plan, A, did the Secret Service designate those sniper positions as they always do, and as they're supposed to?

Now, let's assume they did. The second question. Did law enforcement adequately man those positions?

It does not appear so, on the videos that we have seen.

I mean, we've got tailgaters, basically, screaming at law enforcement. The only thing missing was like a couple of beer cans hanging off their helmets. And they're chugging down beers. That's basically -- hey. Look over there. There's a guy climbing up there. How did no one respond? That breaks the entire plan. There should have been a law enforcement officer or officers watching it.

GLENN: Right. So there's also the fact that when you have a position like that.

First of all, that position, if it was left open.

They keep saying. Well, it wasn't part of the secure perimeter.

It was 130 yards away. You know, when you are on rooftops and sniper positions, you don't have to be on just the building right across the street. You can be watching all of the rooftops, all the way around, that have any kind of angle at that street. So not only should they have somebody there, or at least had a team around. And it looks like they had local police. And I don't know if local police failed.

But they also, when you have a position like that, and, for instance, there's woods in this same venue area.

You always put up something that blocks the view, so you would go up on that roof. And you would say, okay. There is the podium.

So let's put up a big screen. Or a big sign, or something, that blocks that view from that position. They didn't do that either.

PAT: Yeah. To say, as an excuse, that it was outside the secured perimeter, is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe someone would say that. I've been at events where Secret Service was there. Where there was a river, hundreds of yards away. But they still had local law enforcement driving Zodiacs up and down the river, because they were worried about potential snipers coming from a boat. That was not inside the perimeter, but that was a potential firing position that they had identified.

Now, that's the key right here. They would have identified all these positions, especially 130 yards, with a clear line of sight to the president. That would have been identified. There would have been a team of law enforcement officers, or should have been, protecting that area. Now, did they leave that -- this is the second question. First question was, did Secret Service identify them? I'm assume they did.

Second question, did law enforcement adequately man those positions? Third, and this is probably the scariest part of the question, was there a law enforcement officer there?

Was there help given to the shooter? Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's a question. It needs to be asked. Because we heard people saying, there's the shooter, no one did anything about it.

So they -- look, this has to been done in full transparency. Can you imagine, Glenn? And the JFK assassination. All these weird things that happened. Right?

You have, let's just say, there were cell phones and camera phones. And they were like, again with their beers and helmets. And they're like, look at that. And they're film the grassy nothing like. Look, officer, there are guys at the grassy nothing like. They have fedoras on. They have sniper rifles.

And they're about to shoot. Like, can you imagine, if we had all of this evidence, what would the conspiracy theories be like then? This is what we have right now. We need to ask these questions. It's very, very rational to do so.

GLENN: So we're about to have Dallas Alexander on. Do you know who he is?

JASON: Oh, yeah. Very, very famous sniper here.

GLENN: Yeah. So he's a sniper, and he says, there's no way this happened without help. I don't want to go there. I don't want to believe that.

Because that takes us into an entirely different world.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you believe that as a realistic possibility?

JASON: Okay. Okay. I think it is a possibility. There are also the other random possibilities that it was just lackadaisical security, by the local law enforcement, in my opinion. I'm not jabbing law enforcement. But I don't think they make great security guards because they're primarily reactionary.

GLENN: Right.

JASON: The Secret Service aspect of security like that is not reactionary. It's preventing the attack before it happens. The law enforcement, as a security --

GLENN: It's why they -- it's why the shooter, which I don't believe was a Secret Service sniper, may have only shot after shots were fired.

JASON: That's what I mean.

GLENN: Where Secret Service. You're in Secret Service, you have permission. You see a guy with a gun, pointed at the president, shoot him before he shoots.
Where, law enforcement would need the permission to shoot, unless he shot first. Would they not?

JASON: Right. That's exactly right. Secret Service is a different mindset than other law enforcement. Basically, they don't manage a situation with a firearm. If you see a Secret Service with a firearm, it typically means someone is getting shot. Law enforcement is completely different.

But I will not rule out the fact that it could just be very lax security. Maybe they were big Trump fans. Maybe they weren't fans at all. Maybe it was the exact opposite.

And they weren't as vigilant as they could have been, and someone was able to sneak over there. That is possible.

But the most random things in assassinations happen. Who would have known that Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian activist, would have been posing as, or blending in with hotel staff, and would have been in the right place at the right time, and caught RFK going through that private areas. You've been through those areas yourself, in public events? It's chaotic. Who would have known? Things like that happen.

Who would have thought that a crazed Hinckley would have -- looking to gain the support of Jodi Foster. Had no political ideology at all, just was a crazy guy looking to impress a movie star, would have been able to get to Ronald Reagan. These things do happen.

GLENN: So I want to ask you about the things that are being said now about the shooter, that we really don't know who he is.

I don't believe that for a second. If so, what the hell is the CIA and NSA doing with all of the eavesdropping on all of our communications? I don't believe that at all.

And this ruse, this lie, that, well, we just don't know. We don't know anything about him. We don't. You know, it smells of the Nashville shooter. Now, it's still early. But if they don't come out with the full detail on this guy, they're going to lose all credibility.

The REAL Reason for Trump's "Unconditional Discharge" Sentence
RADIO

The REAL Reason for Trump's "Unconditional Discharge" Sentence

Judge Juan Merchan has sentenced Donald Trump to "unconditional discharge" in his New York hush money trial. This means Trump will remain a felon, but receive no punishments. Glenn rips apart the joke of a sentencing that perfectly sums up the joke of a trial that this was. Trump never should have been charged with ONE felony count, Glenn argues, never mind 34! This sentencing is just another piece of evidence that New York's real goal wasn't to give Trump a fair trial, but to keep him from winning the presidency - a goal that utterly failed. So, should Trump continue to push back and appeal this verdict?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. The sentence has been handed down by the judge in the Donald Trump felony.

Remember, 34 felonies!

And he was given unconditional discharge. Not to be confused with premature discharge. This means the judge -- this is usually combinative for somebody who, you know, has broken a minor, minor law.

And that's when they -- you know, they're like, okay. Yes. You did cross the street. And jaywalk

But there's no punishment here. Just don't jaywalk again. So it's usually used for very light sentences.

As I read it, Stu.

Is that right?

STU: Yeah. That's what I've been reading as well. Typically, given for minor offenses, where the judge deems formal punishment unnecessary. However, the conviction is so recorded, and it may appear on your criminal record, depending on your jurisdiction. So they --

GLENN: So, in other words --

STU: They'll say he's a convicted felon. They can still say all those things.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. But he doesn't need to serve any time, because he's president of the United States, and he failed on our real goal, which is keep him out of the office of the presidency.

We don't want to get him into any more trouble. So we'll just say, okay.

Well, he's a felon. But it doesn't really matter that much.

It's unbelievable.

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe this judge has tried new Grudge-i-tol. Grudge-i-tol works fast within 24 hours. You'll feel like a whole new person.

Capable of eye rolls. Sassy comebacks, and even declining invitations you don't want to attend. Grudge-i-tol. Not for everyone. Side effects maybe include excessive passive-aggressiveness, overuse of the phrase "not my problem."

And a sudden urge to start every sentence with, well, let me start you right there.

Some patients reported being too good at holding grudges, and refusing to forgive minor transgressions, like spilling salsa on the carpet. Ask your therapist if Grudge-i-tol is right for you!

Remember, it's your boundaries. It's your rules. Grudge-i-tol. Maybe he had some of that.

STU: Maybe he did. Maybe he did.

It seems like he's been throwing those things back like crazy.

He did go through a long dissertation on the extraordinary powers, granted to the president of the United States when it comes to immunity.

And -- and so he's -- he was basically saying, I would have loved to have punished him with more. But there's not much more I can do. So this is what I'm going to do.

GLENN: Yeah. There's not much more legally I can do. Because really, the whole court case was a farce of legality.

STU: Well, that's the truth. That's the truth. That's not what he was saying though.

He was trying to make the opposite case. That we got him on 34 felonies. I can't do anything.

So this is all --

GLENN: I can't do anything. I can't do anything.

What a weasel.

This -- this -- how much did this trial cost the state of New York?

STU: Oh, my God.

GLENN: How much did they spend?

STU: Millions of dollars.

GLENN: Millions of dollars.

How much time did the state of New York, the officials spend. Instead of tracking down killers and everything else.

On running this case against Donald Trump. Which was -- which was a complete farce, from the beginning.

The statute of limitations didn't even apply.

Nobody has ever been tried for this!

Okay? The 34 felonies are just because they kept counting the same felony over and over again. Yeah. Well, he did that on Tuesday, too.

Well, he did it on Wednesday and Thursday.

STU: Even worse than that, Glenn.
It was each count of this. Each payment, right?

The payments are going to Michael Cohen. Essentially what they're saying is a crime.

Again, it's idiotic. But each --

GLENN: It's a monthly payment.

STU: Right. A monthly payment.

So really what we're talking about a monthly payment. There's one instance of this, if you really want to go into it.

They decided to expand it on 12 monthly payments. And on top of that, they said the payment. The -- the invoice was a separate crime.

For each payment. And then I think, the recording of it in the ledger was a third crime for each of these.

So it came to 34, because a couple of details on a couple of the months. The bottom line, that's how they came up with 34 felonies.

They just wanted that number to be high. And they wanted that number to be high enough, so that you in Pennsylvania. Or you in Nevada, would not vote for Donald Trump.

This, of course, backfired, enormously.

And, you know, you're left with unconditional discharge.

GLENN: Which is so funny.

Is so funny.

I mean, that's just -- it's the perfect ending for this. Perfect ending.

STU: It is!

GLENN: Except, it shouldn't be the ending.

Donald Trump should pursue this. And have his record wiped.

So he should pursue this. So he doesn't have 34 felonies.

I mean, I won't sit that with that on my record.

I want to expose the bums for what they did.

So I think he should pursue this. And maybe then, give the judge some of that discharge.

And see how that works out for him.

STU: I do think for the country though, the best-case scenario would be that none of this ever happened.

But now that it has happened. Now that they have convicted him. I know Trump was fighting the sentencing.

Didn't want it to occur.

Now that we all know that it was absolutely nothing.

I'm glad that it was over. It would be hanging over -- they would still be bringing it up. As soon as, they get out of office. They will sentence him. And who knows. Maybe they will sentence him to something more seriously.

This is over.

If he wants to challenge it. I think that's great.

I think if he just wants to get it expunged from the record.

I hate to say expunged when we're talking about.

GLENN: I've had to use that sponge. Those are the sponges, I have one on my sink right now.

STU: New Pfizer. Yeah.

GLENN: Expunged.
(laughter)

STU: I think there is a real argument for him to pursue this -- just for his legacy. And just because it's -- it was wrong from the beginning.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But at least there's not a possibility.

GLENN: You have to fix the country. Yeah. I mean, here's the thing. I was having dinner with some of my friends. And we were talking about the Epstein case. The January 6th case. Don't mention discharge here.

STU: No, I'm not. I promise I won't go there. But I just want to highlight, I was having dinner with some friends, we were talking about the Epstein case, is such a Glenn Beck thing to say.

GLENN: What?

STU: And then we went into how big is the room in your bunker that you're protecting yourself from the nuclear apocalypse.

And this is --

GLENN: No. We were talking about the January -- we were talking about the January 6th case. We were talking about the P. Diddy case. The Epstein case.

And -- and the question was: That I posed. Was are any of -- is the truth ever coming out on this know.

Is Donald Trump going to release this?

Because of the danger that I think anyone who is involved in exposing that. Is going to be in.

I mean, this is -- this is Jason born level stuff.

To where, you've got all of these names. Of the most powerful people on earth.

Epstein did not kill himself.

You have all the names of the most powerful people on earth, that can make things happen!

And you're going to put that case together? And then try it. Or put that case together.

And then try to find the journalists that are going to release all of this?

I mean, that's a dangerous job.

And I wondered, because it's going to affect both the Republicans and the Democrats, are we ever going to find out about these things?

And I think, what would make Donald Trump Abraham Lincoln, would be to take it on!

And release all of the raw facts of all of it.

And let the chips fall where they may.

That's the -- you have to lance a boil, if -- and that was a good phrase to use at dinner last night. You have to lance a boil, that is on our country. And that is, all of this infection of lies and deceit and corruption, we have to get that out of our system. And the only way to do it, is to just walk through that fire.


STU: He is -- he is Lincoln-esque, in that his political opponents keep trying to kill him. So we have that going on.

GLENN: Yes. Never in a play though.

STU: No. No. I don't think he's a big Broadway guy. For as New York friendly as Donald Trump is. Big Manhattan guy. Don't see him on Broadway a lot.

Do you think he will do this?

Look, it's something he promised. Right?

He ran, during the campaign. I would say, it was his most prominent promise.

But he has run on releasing all this stuff, and being that transparent president we were promised back in the days of Barack Obama and never received!

He wants to get all of this stuff out there. He says he has. He was going to. Now, I know he said that about Kennedy, in the first term. And then some stuff comes up.

So that's why I wonder, at this point, whether that sort of thing will be what we see here.

Because you're right!

There's a lot of people that he knows were involved in this. Not all his enemies, either.

GLENN: And I don't think it's -- see, that's the thing. I think if Donald Trump is really, truly wants to be the transformative president.

Part of transforming our nation is resetting it. Resetting it on truth!

And so you have to expose all of those lies. So it can't be. And I'm not sure Donald Trump is the one who will say, hey, I will protect you, because you're a friend of mine.

I think he's the type that would look at this as, how much trouble will this cost? Will it be worth it? Because that will just cause turmoil like crazy all over the world.

Will it be worth it, in the end?

I believe it is, because truth has to be restored.

And we have to know who the bad guys are. I mean, if -- if -- if this, you know, P. Diddy stuff is happening in Hollywood, we went after with the Me Too movement. We went after people, and, you know, we got Harvey Weinstein out. Now, why didn't we get P. Diddy out? Why didn't we get other people out?

Weinstein was just the one that everyone targeted. And they did get some. A couple.

But we haven't cleaned that out. Why were we willing to take on that?

Why were people brave enough to step up and say, this is what's going on with Weinstein because we were all disgusted by it.

But why won't they continue to do that?

And I think it's because I think there are too many very, very powerful people. Weinstein in the end, they made it seem like, he was really the only one.

And then there was a couple of others. But it wasn't widespread. But I think this stuff is widespread.

STU: Yeah. To be fair, to our justice system, a little bit.

Which takes a decent amount of beating. Deservedly so. You know, Jeffrey Epstein died in prison.

How you think he died or not. He died in prison.

P. Diddy is in prison.

Right? Some of this stuff is happening. We should be able to get some of these answers. We have -- we have received a lot of the answers on Epstein. This was covered widely by the media. As much as we bash the media. If they did actually uncover this, after the justice system failed us the first time. He went, quote, unquote, quote to prison. Where he would just basically hang out in a building that he was paying for.

That all went down. And we did eventually find out.

I just think, it takes a long time. Number one.

And number two, it never really feels like we get the full story. Like, I think we do know a lot about what Jeffrey Epstein did.

We know a lot of his quirks.

GLENN: We do.

STU: We have a lot of these accusations against P. Diddy. But we don't know all the people involved in the periphery. And that's what people want.

GLENN: Correct. They want to know -- look, if this was happening to the average person.

If this was just a ring of people who weren't famous or powerful, every single one of those. Their names would be known. Their pictures would be known.

And they would number jail.

And that's what America needs. And must have. On all of these cases.

We've got to fumigate and start from Catholic Church.

You've got to -- if you want to reset it. You cannot let the infection be anywhere in the body politic.

LA Mayor's Ties to VIOLENT RADICALS Exposed After California Fires
RADIO

LA Mayor's Ties to VIOLENT RADICALS Exposed After California Fires

Many liberal Californians, including Hollywood elites, are turning on Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass after she stayed in Ghana instead of immediately heading home once wildfires destroyed the Palisades. But should the people of Los Angeles be surprised? Glenn reviews Mayor Bass’ radical history, as laid out in a short documentary by Errol Weber. She visited Cuba multiple times during the reign of Fidel Castro as part of the Venceremos Brigade, a Marxist training program that taught insurgency and guerilla warfare. She praised Castro, even when he died. And her government has defunded firefighters to fund NGOs. Once again, Glenn says, who you vote for matters.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to take you back to November 7th 1983. Ronald Reagan is in office.

Do you know the date, November 7th, 1983?

It a night that echoes in the halls of American history.

It is the date that a radical group, known as M19, bombed the north wing of the United States capital.

They bombed it. It went off.

You don't know that date, November 7th, 1983.

I mean, isn't that the day that democracy almost died?

It was worse than the -- worst than the Civil War. Oh, no.

Sorry, that was January 6th, which all of us know, January 6th.

Why not November 7th, 1983. Now, the group that did it, M19, claimed they were fighting imperialism.

What they were really fighting for, was the threat to the foundations of democracy. These were radicals. Now, why am I bringing this up today?

Because if you're going to understand today, and the future, you have to understand the past.

And one name is out right now, that people are talking about, that you need to understand, who this individual is.

This individual is currently the mayor of Los Angeles.

Her name is Karen Bass. Now, this is the same mayor that was over in Ghana. And when she got back with the fires, she was asked, you know, do you have any comment?

You were over in Ghana. Is this dereliction of duty? What were you doing?

Do you have any message to the people of Los Angeles? Listen to this exchange.

VOICE: Do you owe citizens an apology for being absent when their homes were burning? Do you regret cutting the fire department budget by millions of dollars, Madam Mayor?

Have you nothing to say today?

GLENN: She's standing in the airport.

VOICE: You have nothing to say to the citizens today?

Elon Musk says you're utterly incompetent. Are you considering your position?

Madam Mayor, have you absolutely nothing to say to the citizens today who are dealing with this disaster? No apology for them?

Do you think you should have been visiting Ghana when this was unfolding, back home?

GLENN: Now, he's standing, you know that part, you know, where it bends, to go right into the -- right into the airplane.

You know, right as you're going into the ramp.

And then bends into the airplane.

She's standing right at that bend.

She was actually looking through the window, the glass, at security because she gets special treatment.

She gets to not go through the airport. She can just go down those stairs, and a car will pick her up and whisk her away. So she's standing there, looking at security, like open the door.

When are you going to open the door? Finally, she just looks through and shakes her head. And gets instruction. Just go the other way. So she leaves.

Now, what does she -- what does she have to say?

Well, not a lot. Not a lot.

But let's understand who she is, and why she doesn't have a lot to say. Karen Bass built her career, as a community activist. Oh, there's a code word we now understand what it means. The activism is a polite term now for her history. She's an activist.

Well, okay. Her history is tied to radicalism. Marxism.

And a dangerous ideology, that bled from the fringes, into the mainstream here recently.

Let's start with the facts on her. Back in the 1970s, Karen Bass was not just a casual traveler to Cuba.

Were there any?

When she went to Cuba, many, many times, she was a devoted participate in what's called the Venceremos Brigade.

What is that? I've never heard of it.

Well, it's a Marxist training program, directly tied to Fidel Castro's regime. Between 1969 and today, this group has sent hundreds of young Americans to Cuba.

Not for a vacation. Not for cultural exchange. But for radicalization.

You don't join the Venceremos Brigade because you want to learn -- what's the emoji with the salsa dancer? That's not what that is about. It's not about good Cuban coffee.

You join because you're a confirmed Marxist Leninist. A Los Angeles police investigator testified before Congress about this group. He said, members were trained in guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and bomb making. These are not idealists. They're insurgents in training. Karen Bass, she was not just a participant. She was a leader.

She visited Cuba repeatedly, she said, every six months.

We can verify eight times. She praised Fidel Castro, the dictator of Cuba, who was imprisoning dissenters, left a legacy of poverty and fear.

In fact, this is not just her youth. She's still there. When Castro died, she was one of them who called his death a great loss to the people of Cuba. Really?

A loss to the same people who risked their lives fleeing his regime, trying to get out of Cuba?

This is Karen Bass. She's the Los Angeles mayor, one of the largest cities in the United States of America.

So let's fast forward to the president. 4 million people. A city on fire. Literally, and figuratively.

Wildfires, raging across the city. Firefighters begging for resources. Like water!

Mayor Bass had other priorities. Instead of supporting her own fire department, she cut their funding. Where is the money going?

To NGOs. Nongovernment institutions.

That will be understood. NGOs. Nongovernmental institutions or organizations. That will come to know.

That's code for leftist activists, most times.

And she gave the fire fighting money, to homeless NGO, who are fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants.

Oh. Now, they're packaging that as she gave money to fight homelessness.

Okay.

Well, homelessness is a crisis. But let's not kid ourselves.

Los Angeles has poured billions of dollars into solving this problem.

And it ends up in tent cities. Open air markets. Streets lined with garbage and human waste. Chaos spreading. And wait. What does she do? She defunds the people who are fighting fires.

That's not. You don't take money away from the firefighters in an area of the country, that's known for fire fighting.

They don't even have enough firefighters. Okay. First responders, the people that run into buildings, and instead, she's in a different building in a different hemisphere.

She's in Ghana, attending the swearing in ceremonies of the -- I guess the president of Ghana, who I don't know anything about. Stu, I asked to look it up, maybe give us an update here in a second.

So her city was burning. And Mayor Bass was thousands of miles away, rubbing elbows at a presidential inauguration in Ghana.

Is that leadership, or is that dereliction of duty?

I mean, you can go. But was she on taxpayer funds going into Ghana? Why was she there?

Anyway, let's go back to the radical history for a moment. Because it didn't end with the Venceremos Brigade. M-19, the same group that bombed the Capitol in 1983, had direct ties to Cuba and the brigade.

Remember, she's a leader, in this.

Now, Susan Rosenberg, she was one of the women that Travolta Cuba. And returned as a domestic terrorist. Shared the same ideological roots as Karen Bass.

And I'm not saying Karen Bass planted the bomb or anything.

But let's be clear. She was part of exactly the same radical network. She called Fidel Castro, charismatic. She praised the dictator who was brutalizing his people. She aligned herself with a movement that believed in revolutionary violence, including the bombing of the Capitol.

Now, she of some reformed. She hasn't come out and said, oh, my gosh, have I learned my lesson?

That was really bad. I was a stupid kid. No. No.

She's held on to those things. And, in fact, she was considered a front runner for vice president under Joe Biden.

Her record was so toxic, so troubling, that even the democratic party said, can we do that?

When your Marxist roots are too bad, too heavy, for the Democrats, the progressives in Washington, DC, today!

That says something. So here we are, 40 years, since the Capitol bombing. Something that people just don't remember, because, well, the media didn't make it into a big deal.

And the ideology that fueled that bombing is alive and well. And sitting in the mayors office in Los Angeles.

Karen Bass is just using new words. She's fighting for justice, or equity. She's fighting for the people. But what has her leadership actually brought?

Homeless encampments. Not housing.

Tent cities. Fires burning out of control.

Fire departments stretched to its limits. Millions are funneled to political pet projects.

And all the while the city is spiraling deeper and deeper into chaos.

November 7th, 1983. I want you to remember that date because the seeds of radicalism planted then are still bearing fruit today!

And Karen Bass? Well, she's not just a relic of that radical past.

Had he in many ways, is a torch bearer.

By the way, I got tipped off by this, by a short documentary, I saw. On Karen Bass, from Errol Webber.

Errol Webber is a very smart guy.

We did a great, great job on this.

We tried to contact him, to get him to tell this story on the air today. We didn't get a call back. He lives in Los Angeles.

And we hope and pray that we just missed each other, and it's not because he is in jeopardy or his family is in jeopardy, or his home and neighborhood is in jeopardy because of these same fires.

Glenn's 10 Most INSANE 2025 Predictions: AI Takeover, China War & Diddy Downfall | Glenn TV | Ep 403
TV

Glenn's 10 Most INSANE 2025 Predictions: AI Takeover, China War & Diddy Downfall | Glenn TV | Ep 403

On this episode of Glenn TV, Glenn Beck reveals his boldest predictions for 2025: from the death and rebirth of the internet and rapid acceleration of AI, to a ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia War, to a second anti-Trump “summer of rage." Plus, Glenn explains why he predicts China will invade another nation, the stock market will collapse, how the Diddy and Epstein allies could finally be revealed, and why Trump may have the opportunity to make massive changes to the Supreme Court. Plus, why we need to keep a watchful eye on the largest anti-Western caliphate to form in the Middle East and why North Korea may finally move against its neighbor to the south. Jason Buttrill, Glenn’s head researcher and writer, joins to reveal how ChatGPT rates the probability of each of Glenn’s predictions. Plus, some bonus predictions on the odds of Greenland becoming a U.S. territory and future ownership of the Panama Canal.

The BIGGEST LESSON From the California Wildfires
RADIO

The BIGGEST LESSON From the California Wildfires

The California wildfires that have ripped through the Palisades and other parts of the Los Angeles area have been unbelievably devastating. Many have lost their homes, including famous celebrities. But was this tragedy avoidable? While Glenn doesn’t want to make this about politics, he says we must note that “California has been playing with fire, literally, for a long time.” The state has neglected its forests for decades thanks to bureaucracy, politics, and “eggheads” from the cities. Glenn also explains how the region’s water infrastructure has also been neglected, which has led to fire hydrants running dry. Finally, Glenn addresses what is likely the biggest lesson for California: “How you vote matters.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All righty. So -- so let's talk about what's happening in California. And my heart is truly heavy for those people, who have families in California. The people in California, that have lost their homes or are still faring that they might lose their home.

You know, this is a -- if you've never seen a forest fire, you can't really describe it.

It's almost like a tornado.

Unless you've been in a tornado, or seen the damage after his, you really don't know what you're talking about with the tornado.

It's unlike anything I've ever seen.

Same thing with a forest fire.

We had a small forest fire here, up in the -- up in the mountains, of Idaho last summer.

It was just about, oh, I don't know, 2 miles down the street for me.

Luckily, the winds weren't there.

But if the winds had kicked up, it probably would have burned my house down. I mean, it is -- you cannot describe a forest fire. It is -- when it's out of control, you have no chance. Just get out of there.

And my heartbreaks for people, who are going through this, right now. And breaks for the people of California.

I -- let me address that person right now, if you happen to be in California. Know that you're not alone.

You may feel like the flames have stolen everything from you.

But -- and, boy, I was thinking about this, well, this summer, when I came back from that forest fire. And thought, all of this could be gone.

The things that you have in your house, they are just things. But there are certain things. Memories, pictures. Things that you have collected over the years, with your family. That can't be replaced.

And I know what that must feel like.

But two things: One, you're alive. You have your family.

And help is on the way. My charity, Mercury One is along with the Red Cross and everybody else.

Is working tirelessly to bring relief and comfort and assistance to those who are affected right now.

We are -- we are doing what our government is asking us to do. We don't want to get in the way of forest. Or firefighters.

They have enough trouble.

But I -- I -- I want to talk to you first, with compassion. About why this keeps happening.

And what California needs to do about it.

This is not my state. This is their state. But if you're asking for our help, you know -- one of the hardest things I've ever had to do is -- I had a friend I went to church with.

And he called me. One time. And he said, Glenn, I really need -- I don't remember what it was. Say a thousand dollars.

Because I have to get home. Some family stuff.

And I -- I was about to say, yes.

But in my -- in my faith, we -- it's the largest welfare program, I think in the world.

And we take care of, you know, not just our own. But anybody who lives in the district of that particular church.

The bishop is responsible for them.

And we have to take care of our neighbors.

And so with that, it's very orderly.

You know, when you have a problem with or if there is a problem with is the neighbor or something. You go to the church. Hey, my neighbor. Who is not a member of the church. Is really in trouble.

Can you help? And they usually will. But with that, there are certain things you have to do.

You just don't get free money. You know, you have to change can't life.

You'll take classes on how to, you know, manage money. Or whatever the thing is. So I said, to this person, I was just about to say yes. And I said, hey, have you talked to the bishop yet?

And he said, no. No. I haven't.

Now, that's unusual, in my faith, if you have a big problem. Especially with money, you normally would go to the bishop.

And I said with be okay. Let me call you back. And I called the bishop.

And I said, hey. So-and-so just called me. And I can do this.

Is there anything I'm missing here.

And he said, Glenn, I'm so glad you called me.

He said, yes. This particular individual is struggling, and we've been helping for a while.

But he won't connect with the problem. And correct the problems.

And he said, he's doing this from time to time. He'll call people. And they'll just give him money. And that hurts it.

So I ask you to do the thing. This is probably the hardest thing you've ever done. I know you have the money to help. Please don't. Because it will help set him back, and not help him feel the full ramifications. So I had to call my friend back and say, I can't right now. And I felt awful. I felt absolutely awful about it.

But if we don't talk and face the problem, you're never going to solve it. Now, this, again is not my problem.

California, you're not my problem.

Okay? I mean, I want to help. And as a citizen of America, you're another citizen.

You're my neighbor. I want to help. I want to help people all over the world. But first, you have to help yourself.

You know, natural disasters, most times are out of our control.

The extent of the destruction, in California, you know, could be mitigated. If we made smarter choices about how, you know, Californians manage their land. And their resources.

Examine their votes. California has been playing with fire, literally for a long time.

Their forests are full of underbrush. Dead trees. Dry vegetation. Which is kindling for those flames.

The material builds up on the forest floor. It's a perfect condition. For fire -- if you're going to start a fire, go to California. Because that's a perfect condition.

I'm not saying that literally, by the way. But it doesn't have to be this way.

You know, you go to places like Sweden or Finland or Austria. Countries that have large, vulnerable forests.

They understand the importance of forest management.

Can they prioritize the clearing out of underbrush. And the clearing out of trees.

And because they're a little socialist in nature, they do it in a sustainable way. They partner with local industries, that will take that material, from the forest floor.

And they use it as bio mass energy for other products.

So it doesn't just reduce the fire risk.

It creates jobs. And a healthier ecosystem.

Here in America, some states do it right.

I mean, Florida has fires. But not like California.

Why?

Because they do controlled burns.

Forest thinning.

Routine practicing. You know what, honestly, God does this.

Lightning.

Before we would put forest fires out, or could.

Lightning would strike.

That would burn the forest down. And it replenishes the soil and everything else.

We don't want to do that. Because our houses are surrounded by trees and forest and everything else. So we either have to do a controlled burn, or we have to go in and take all of that stuff, that lightning would have taken out, to replenish everything.

But California's won't do that.

Why? The answer lies in bureaucracy. And priorities.

And -- and really, honestly, egghead.

You know, these people from the cities, that want to manage our forests have no idea, it's common sense.

The environmental regulations. The lawsuits that block or delay, any kind of forest management.

Ideology has gotten in the way of the practical. The lifesaving solutions.

And this has to change, California. It has to.

You see devastation every year. And, you know, honestly, I -- I really don't like insurance companies.

But insurance companies, what they do, it's -- honestly, it's legal gambling.

They are gambling, that you are going to pay them more money, than they have to pay out. As a collective.

Somebody's house might burn down. You might have something catastrophic. Cancer or something that costs a buttload of money. But they're betting, that all of the people in their community, they're sharing the risk.

And not everybody is going to get cancer at the same time.

That way, they can make money. It's legalized gambling.

Honestly, it is. Well, that's the way insurance works. And I don't like insurance companies.

Because many times, they're scamming people, or hurting people. However, let's not blame the insurance companies for getting out. If I'm a company and I have to make a bet, I'm pulling out of California. It's landslides. It's fires. It's floods. It's every year, whole swaths of the state are -- are -- are burning down to the ground!

What kind of bet is that? How do you keep a country -- now, what they'll say is they'll do what they did, when you couldn't get flood insurance, on the coastlines.

We used to say, well, then don't live there. Or if you live there, accept the risk yourself.

Okay.

Instead, we didn't think that was fair. So we came up with government funding.

If you couldn't get flood insurance. No longer was it, don't live in a flood zone!

Build your house somewhere else.

I don't know if you've seen the country, but there's lots of open space.

Don't build in a flood zone.

Instead, we wanted to help everybody, live their dreams. On now, we pay as a federal government, for insurance, for the coastlines.

Why? Okay.

The other issue is water. And let me tell you what the problem is in California.

Now, we know what the immediate problem is: They don't -- firefighters don't have water coming through the fire hydrants. Why is that?

GLENN: We all know that -- I mean, when we look for life on another planet. We look for water.

Because water is essential to life. At least the life we understand.

And that is a major issue, in California, and has been for -- forever.

However, California, take responsibility for the fires to some degree.

You haven't built a new major reservoir, since 1979.

That was four decades ago.

Now, I don't know if you know this. But 40 years ago, the population of your state. Was not the population that it was now.

So the reservoirs, that you had, 40 years ago, is way out of step, with your population, and your needs today!

Your water storage capacity is exactly the same as it was, almost half a century ago!

And on top of that, and this is something Trump has addressed recently. Billions with a B. Billions of gallons of rainwater, flow straight to the ocean every year. Because you haven't built the infrastructure, to capture and store the rainwater.

Now, imagine what could be different, if you had reservoir and aqueducts and desalination plants, to store and provide water for all of the dry seasons!

Water is life. California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure, while prioritizing projects that make no meaningful impact on people's lives. This is not a failure just of government. It is a failure of vision.

When the -- when the -- the -- when a leader is not around. When the people lack leadership, there is no vision. And without vision, people perish.

That's what's happening.

Now, on leadership, I'm sorry to make this about politics. But you have to learn the lesson. It has to be said.

How you vote matters. Look at Los Angeles. The progressive mayor cut the fire department's budget. To fund other programs, to give money and housing, they say for the homeless. But it's also a legal program since she gave it to NGOs.

Now, these NGOs, they're not fighting fires in the -- in comparison of the cost of lives, homes, and communities that have been lost in these fires. Those NGOs. There's no comparison, dollar for that are. You have to have leadership that prioritizes the safety and the well-being of the citizens, over their political jeopardize.

And that's not happening in Los Angeles. Okay?

It wasn't happening in Lahaina either. Same goes for the environmental policies. Progressive leaders block sensible forest management practices. Because they're more concerned about pleasing activists, than protecting lives. They're more concerned about the dead trees in the forest, than they are about the live animals who live in that forest!

It's not compassionate. It's dangerous.

Now, Mercury One, we help everybody. I don't care where you come from. I don't care who you voted for.

We are there to you. But we're also in North Carolina, and other areas, reeling from the hurricanes.

We're also still in Lahaina. And no one is talking about those guys. And they will be out of a home for years!

They're not the celebrity influencers who can afford to stay in a luxury hotel.

God and the universe for those in California, require us to do everything we can to help our neighbor.

But help ourselves, before we expect others.