RADIOApril 26, 2024

Is Speaker Mike Johnson REALLY a Conservative?

To many, Rep. Mike Johnson came out of nowhere to become House Speaker. But back in 2018, the Daily Beast published an article titled "Meet the Double Agent Who Now Controls House Conservatives," which alleges that Johnson was a "mole" for the House Freedom Caucus to infiltrate the larger Republican congressional groups. Well, things look a little different now that Johnson is in power — he has seemingly abandoned his more conservative leanings to toe the line of the Republican leadership on things like the budget and Ukraine aid. So, is there any truth to the rumors that Johnson is a master of infiltration? Why has he seemed to cave under pressure? Blaze Media Senior Politics Editor Christopher Bedford joins Glenn to weigh in.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So two years ago, I had this guy on. Christopher Bedford. And he was -- he was writing for the Federalist at the time.

And he said he had written a piece, I think it was two years after the lockdowns. The West troubles aren't ending. They're just beginning.

And I thought, he had some real foresight. And, boy, was he right about that. Christopher Bedford now is a senior editor for politics. Washington correspondent for the Blaze media. He has written for the American mind, the Washington Examiner, National Review. The New York Post.

He was the editor-of-chief for the Daily Caller News Foundation. And we're thrilled to have him at TheBlaze.com.

So -- so help me out on this, Chris.

Because I -- for the life of me, I cannot get my head around speaker Johnson being a secret spy. Do you buy this?

CHRISTOPHER: Not completely. No. First of all, it's great to be on the pirate ship, especially stormy waters. I think it's a great crew to be sailing with.

GLENN: Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER: Here in DC. An article that caught my eye was the 2018 Daily Beast piece, after -- after Johnson became the head of the Republican study committee. Which was founded as a conservative committee that was taken over by Republican leadership under Boehner, and kind of became a hangout spot for Republicans. That's what kind of started the Freedom Caucus.

Now, you saw Johnson had been hanging out with the Freedom Caucus. He's been going to their meetings. He's not been paying dues, which is a big faux pas. It's hard to collect those dues. But they go to pay the few shared staff that the Freedom Caucus has. He's not been -- he's been going to those meetings. So when he became the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a lot of his colleagues, Republican, more liberal colleagues said, well, this guy is a double agent. He just sneaked on here. He's pretending not to be part of the Freedom Caucus, the conservative group. But really it's a conservative takeover. And I look at that, and I looked at how since he's become speaker. Someone I had a lot of hope for.

You had a lot of hope for.

I was excited. Wow, this is the first social conservative and Republican leadership in decades. Right?

That cares about this stuff. We might have a fighting chance here, and it's been very disappointing.

GLENN: That might be an understatement.

CHRISTOPHER: You know, the way he seems to negotiate. Whether it's government funding, impeachment, FISA, now Ukraine. Step one is a major decision comes along his way, and he goes back and forth. Step two, he's not sure what to do. He delays it as long as he possibly can. Then he kind of -- tweaks what was originally offered. He pretends it was a win. And he asks Democrats to bail him out.

That seems to be what's going on here. So when you look back at this Daily Beast piece.

When you look at the people who have known him, have known him to be a good man. Which, by all accounts, he is. In his personal life.

You have to what -- what could be driving him?

And it seems to be a classic case of Washington, DC. Extreme ambition.

And an ability to deceive himself, which is not too uncommon. You think a lot of the folks here in Washington are real hypocrites.

Or real bad men. Who claim to be the Lord's work. When, in fact, they're doing their own.

But a surprising amount of them have really convinced themselves, that they are on the good side.
They are on the really creepy quote, the right side of history.

That they are -- they are the good guys, who will come and save the day. And this is why the Lord put them there.

And it really feeds into an incredible ego. An incredible amount of ambition.

And also, just the sad reality. That a lot of these folks are pretty weak. As leaders and people. They are capable, like many of us are, of standing at the back of the crowd. And saying, I agree. This is bad.

Or being a backbencher who said, I am not sending any more money to that bloodbath. I'm going to -- I don't care what the defense industry puts on me.

But I will not let women be drafted. It's easy to say that, when you're not the leader.

But when you're in the center and you take all those arrows and all those meetings from the Intel community, and it's all on you. You have to answer to that.

Well, that's when you find out, who is really a leader, and who is just ambitious.

GLENN: You know, there is -- in your article for Blaze, you've talked to a lot of his colleagues.

And one of his senior staffers that worked with him in 2018 said, the speaker is someone who can forgive himself for lying, because he thinks it's for a higher purpose.

He has an exceptional capacity for self-justification.

That's not good.

CHRISTOPHER: No, it's not good. And it's something I found repeated over and over again, about Johnson. You know, when he ran for Speaker, it's kind of a dark horse, surprise candidate. A lot of his colleagues, Republican colleagues, and even ones who were more conservative were willing to say, you know, I know him personally. He's a man of God.

And, therefore, I trust him. But they didn't want to look at the records.

They didn't want to look at, well, what happens, if leadership puts a little bit of pressure on him. How does his vote change?

Will he actually -- his personal or religious beliefs. His commitments. How do those actually shine, as a statesman. Someone willing to take the arrows. And they don't. The votes don't back him up.

He looked at this, as what I've been told by his colleagues. He's been put in this position.

He's been chosen for this.

And if he needs to lie. If he needs to deceive. And he needs to twist arms to further it.

Then he's on the right side.

Again, I've heard him saying, since the right side of history. The other people are on the wrong side of history.

Ask that his actions can therefore be justified.

We see this all the time.

You see it in levels like this. With politics.

You see it, of course, a lot in 2016.

With a lot of the left saying, people support Donald Trump, are basically the Nazis.

Well, once you say that, you're on the side of God. And they're on the side of Hitler.

Then you can justify a lot of actions, that I think a moral person cannot otherwise justify.

GLENN: So what do you think is coming for him?

For the rest of us?

Are we just -- are we just stuck with a guy who is pathetic and weak now?

Because the Democrats would absolutely vote to keep him in.

CHRISTOPHER: You know, I'm curious about that. Everyone is on recess right now, and things have quieted down. But the question is: With everything that is coming down next, how will he be able to continue to govern here? Right now, he's essentially, even though he's a Speaker of the House, and supposedly the head of the Republican coalition, he's really governing, as a kind of Prime Minister. A center of left coalition. The union party. Which has already kind of governed DC. Now it's really being open about it.

Where he has half of Republicans on his side. And about two-thirds of Democrats on his side.

So how is he actually going to be able to pass anything with that coalition?

The Democrats will protect him. The Republicans, a lot of them will never come back to him. What's he actually going to be able to do in the next couple of weeks?

I kind of wonder if he's a lame duck speaker. Because he has these folks. But they accomplished their 95 billion. Then, again, there's also already -- there's already leaked rumors, that they're planning the next big handout to the Ukraine War.

That they're planning to come in September. And I suspect, that he'll still be Speaker through September.

But what will happen in November, is either Republicans will lose their slim majority, in which case he won't be Speaker, or they'll win it.

And then he will have to look around. And find out, amongst those liberal Republicans, who are his allies? Who is actually going to put him up for speaker?

And what are the alternatives?

Right now, he's kind of running against Noah.

He could be saying that, but it will be difficult.

GLENN: You being in Washington. Hanging out or around these people all the time. Watching them. Listening to them.

What do you think they think is coming, in November?

CHRISTOPHER: I think people are -- Republicans are cautiously optimistic, for a Donald Trump victory.

But, of course, there are huge amounts of shenanigans, that are already unfolding. There's worries about what will be the new COVID. What will be the new moral panic, that causes the voting can't be done squarely.

And in full view of the public. The Republican national committee, has been trying to mix up its plan for how to -- whether it will be early voting. Or where its lawyers are going to be.

We know it's going to be, I think chaos. Either Donald Trump actually wins and left-wing takes to the streets, like they did in 2016.

Burning cars. Or attacking people. Or Donald Trump loses. And either way, large parts of this country will not be satisfied with the election results. The attention that has existed in 2016 has not gotten any less.

GLENN: How do the Democrats feel? Confident? Worried?

CHRISTOPHER: No. No.

They were significantly more worried before Joe Biden's State of the Union. You saw that in the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, people openly wishing that they had a different candidate. Just like you saw in 2020, people wishing it was Cuomo instead of Joe Biden. And we'll see a lot actually this weekend with the White House Correspondents' Dinner, where everyone will be paying attention to Joe Biden's remarks. Are they clear? Are they concise? Is he funny, like he can be, when he's on? Like he was at some points in the State of the Union? But there is a real fear amongst Democrats, that Donald Trump is coming back. That the constant cycle of drama that they surrounded his entire four years with, hasn't stuck with the American people because so much of it was fake.

So much of it was impossible to remember, because they were fake scandals. Democrats in town are not confident, that they will get the White House. But they are feeling fairly confident about Congress.

GLENN: We're talking to Christopher Bedford. He's TheBlaze senior media political editor. And the Blaze media Washington correspondent.

When do they come back into session?

CHRISTOPHER: This week. Short vacation. And the Senate was even cut down a little shorter.

Because they had to stick around for the American people. Being sarcastic on that.
(laughter)

GLENN: Real quick. Any just on the Trump trial this week.

Biden said -- DOJ said actually, that Trump is the first president to face criminal prosecution, because predecessors, other presidents just didn't commit any crimes.

CHRISTOPHER: Yeah. I remember when Barack Obama left office. Washington Post said, it was a scandal-free administration. So I think there were some voter agents who could disagree with that. The Trump trial is going to be interesting.

It's New York. It's tough. The judge is obviously against them.

But the prosecution has embarrassed themselves so far. The case is so weak. And you kind of forget that, in the hubbub of the news.

That it's reliant on a bunch of liars. The term of misdemeanor, that is outside the statute of limitations, into a felony. Because of another misdemeanor, that can barely be cited. And it took the prosecution two days to come up with that argument.

And at the same time, the Supreme Court seemed like it's going to crack down. And at least limit, what the president is able to do, with his authority.

Because that will help push some of the other trials back, until after the election if that happens.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because he's not out campaigning. He is not able to leave New York. He's kind of stuck. He wasn't able to weigh in the last of the hill fights. They haven't put him in a prison cell. They have somewhat put him in a room. That's something you will see. And you will probably see some jokes about it. That this big fancy dinner they're having this weekend. They will be laughing at us, about how they still managed to stop, probably the greatest campaigner in modern history, from being able to campaign.

GLENN: So do you think that hurts him? Because the people who will vote for him, will vote for him, anyway.

And the ones who are -- the ones who really, they vote for him. But they really don't like his tweets. And his personality, and everything else.

By keeping him off the road. And yet, still, in the public eye, you keep the folks on Joe Biden. And is there any case to be made, that's good? For Donald Trump.

CHRISTOPHER: So far, it actually hasn't hurt him. To your point. And the folks in the suburbs, who maybe voted for Trump in 2016, and voted for Biden in 2020. To your point, they will not be swayed by a rally. They will not be swayed by the kind of puff corn and rah-rah that goes on at those fun events. And -- but they are being swayed a little bit by the incredible unfairness.

The question is whether or not they will actually be able to get felony charges on him. Because that's the kind of thing that does spook those easily frightened voters.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. Thank you so much. Really, really appreciate it, Chris. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER: It's great to be back.

GLENN: You bet.

How GEORGE SOROS is Connected to the Pro-Palestine College Campus Protests

Surprise, surprise! Politico is shocked to find out that the pro-Palestinian protests taking over college campuses are financially backed by George Soros and the Tides Foundation! Glenn, however, isn't as surprised. But he and Stu also review something they haven't heard before: An anti-Israel protester praising North Korea for training Palestinian fighters. And then, there was the protester who wanted to liberate not just Palestine, but the Congo ... and Hawaii and Puerto Rico. So, that leads Glenn and Stu to debate whether there are any other states besides Hawaii that we should get rid of. He has a few in mind ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's say hello to my friendly chap, Stu. Hello, Stu.

STU: Hi, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I'm great.

STU: Are you? Things are looking up?

GLENN: Wow. So great.

STU: Great. That's so great to hear. I was worried that things in the world were a bit of a downer. Not at all?

GLENN: No. Not at all. I have something really good. You're going to love this.

This is from politico. Pro Palestinian protesters are backed by a surprising source.

You're going to be so surprised.

STU: Chuck E. Cheese. I would be surprised if Chuck E. Cheese were behind them.

GLENN: No. Not Chuck E. Cheese. No.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: George Soros and the Tides Foundation.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: No!

I am surprised by that. Not quite as surprised as Chuck E. Cheese.

You know, every morning, I get up because I can't take NPR and the New York Times daily anymore.

So I listen to daily wire. And the update for daily wire.

And one of their reporters said, and people who give to -- like the Tides Foundation should make sure to tell them, that they don't want their money going -- no. That's the whole point of the Tides Foundation.

STU: To launder money.

GLENN: You're not giving money to -- I hope it goes to Mother Teresa. It's not going there.

STU: I mean, you can give money to whoever you want.

So there's no real reason to have to wish and hope and pray it goes to a specific place. You can just give the money to that place. If you want to hide where you're giving the money to --

GLENN: Well, what do you mean by that, Stu?

STU: Well, that's the setup of the Tides Foundation, and they're not alone, of course. There are organizations that do similar things, where you give to this general organization.

GLENN: You mean, like Act Red?

STU: Is there a Win Red? There's some other roughly equivalent organization with the color.

GLENN: Well, good. Quite honestly, good.

STU: They don't do the same stuff, of course.

GLENN: They're not fomenting revolution on the streets?

STU: Well, I don't know. Not here at least.

It's one of those things. Where you can give to a centralized place, maybe not have your name on a destination list. It's a very convenient thing. If you're supporting things that you maybe don't want to publicly announce that you're supporting.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

So some of the people. Susan and Nick Princer. You know who Nick is, right?

Hey, Nick. No? He's the heir to the Hyatt Hotel empire. So makes me want to go stay at a Hyatt right away.

Let's see. Also, George Soros. I like this one. The Jewish voice for peace.

Which is, they describe themselves as anti-Zionists. I'm trying to figure this out now.

I mean, just -- somebody help me. Just do the math. Do the math.

You're a enjoy. And the history of the Jews, is to be chased out of wherever it is you live.

And you can never really defend yourself, because you don't have a country. Okay?

There's no place to go, and every place that turns on you, takes away your guns and puts you in a camp and tries to kill you.

Okay?

Now, for the first time since, oh, I don't know. 2000 years. You get a country.

And the world gives that country to you. Because its main -- its main objective is, you are free to defend yourself. And nobody is telling you, you know, go back to where you came from.

Okay? Now, you're a Jew. And you're against that.

Help me out on the math, because I can't seem to complete the numbers.

STU: It's a difficult one. You can be critical of an Israeli leadership, right? And still want the Jews to be alive.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: So you can be that. But being anti-Zionist, it's hard to know, exactly how that works out for the Jews. Not well in the past. We know that.

GLENN: So Rockefeller is giving significant grants to Jewish voice for peace.

Which blamed the October 7th attacks on Israel, and the United States.

So I don't know if you know that. We're so bad. We're so bad. We're so bad, we're even stealing the bad things that other people do. And claiming that they're ours.

That's how bad we are.

All right. So we have that. Now, the students at NYU. Let me see if we have this particular cut. I do believe we do.

Yes. Cut 45, please. Students at NYU.

Here's what they're chanting.

STU: I can't wait for a new chant. I hope it's something new. I hope it's something we have.

GLENN: I don't think so.

STU: Oh, really? That's always exciting.

VOICE: Which idea do you think North Korea support, Palestine or Israel? Just guess.

VOICE: Palestine.

VOICE: It is Palestine.

It actually never recognized the state of Israel. They have always upheld the right of Palestinian people to self-determination and resistance.

And this is beyond moral and rhetorical support. They've actively armed and trained --

GLENN: Yeah. North Korea. North Korea.

VOICE: -- have trained troops by the DPRK.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: This is the second one of these I've seen. People just sitting there. And she's reading this, by the way. Not as much chant unfortunately.

GLENN: This is crazy!

Yeah, I know.

STU: But you have to come up with something a little more catchy than that. But she is -- that has to be a North Korean operative. Right?

GLENN: Or -- or a Columbia University student, that otherwise known as a complete and total dolt.

STU: Yes. I would agree with that. That's the second one I would see in these protests.

Not talking about the Palestinians. Particularly praising North Korea for the reference. Oppressive regimes in the world.

GLENN: It's time for non-drag queen story hour, okay?

Where the non-drag queen comes out and says, listen, kids. North Korea, they starve their own people.

Really bad. Concentration camps. You know, that kind of thing.

Throwing babies up in the air. Seeing, who can catch it with a sword. North Korea.

Well, I learned a lot from that non-drag queen story hour. How about you, Stu?

Sounds like North Korea. Bad place. How -- how -- how is this person with a straight face really saying, North Korea?

And you know whose side they are on? Yeah. Our side. North Korea is on our side. They're even training people. I mean, they're with us.

Who could stand against us?

Oh, I don't know. All the forces of good.
(laughter)
Amazing.

STU: Imagine advocating for -- I mean, that person is not even advocating for the Palestinian cause.

It's more of trying to win people who already support the Palestinian cause, over to the North Korean cause, which is fascinating. But imagine wanting to be on that side of any debate. This isn't even like the high-minded like olden days of Cuba or something.

GLENN: No. This is --

STU: This is north freaking Korea.

GLENN: We know what they do.

STU: This is one of the most oppressive regimes -- probably the most repressive regime on earth.

But I think China is -- China is at least, has people in their country.

GLENN: Who are not starving.

STU: Or who are wealthy. Right?

They do international business. North Korea does none of this. Everything in their country is controlled by this one family. And this is the mace that won't even give like basic surgeries out to their people. That doctors have to come across the border, to give them basic things like cataract surgeries. They all think they're blind for life. When these basic surgeries would cure them.

North Korea is the worst of the worst.

Now that's the argument they're making?

I like being on the opposite side of that.

GLENN: You know, it's kind of -- people who say, you're on the wrong side of history. What do they know?

Well, in this case, I think we could say, pretty certain. North Korea is never going to be looked at like, you know, those guys were really great. Back in the day, those guys were really great.

STU: Yeah. It would be surprising how this turns out.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Here's another one I think you will really enjoy. Why are you out protesting today?

VOICE: Because I want to see an empire fall!

VOICE: What empire?

VOICE: From the US to Israel, the empire that's propped up by capitalism.

STU: Oh, shocking.

VOICE: Free Palestine. Free Congo. Free Sudan. Free Haiti. Free Hawaii --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Free Hawaii. Free Puerto Rico.

STU: Yeah, I'm worried about the freedom of Hawaii right now. It's a huge issue. And Puerto Rico.

GLENN: I know. You know, honestly, if Hawaii knows want Hawaii back. I'm cool with that.

STU: It's pretty awesome. I kind of like it. It rounds out our country a little bit. It's like when you have a delicious meal and there's just a little bit of garnish on top. Kind of rounds it out. I feel like that's Hawaii for us.

GLENN: Are you saying -- this is kind of like a DEI thing, we have to keep it in, to keep our diversity?

STU: No, I think it improves the recipe a little bit of our country. You know, you get this great island. You get to go on vacations there.

GLENN: Right. Right.

But we did kind of just, hey. Nice island you have here. It's ours. And I have no problem giving it back.

I really don't.

STU: You just --

GLENN: No. I have no problem.

STU: What about the military bases we have there. They'll rent them to us? Well, that's a unique proposal. You want to go to the 49 states. What about Alaska?

GLENN: No. Alaska stays.

STU: You want Alaska over Hawaii, why?

GLENN: Absolutely. Because some day we can drill for all the oil and rare earth minerals.

STU: You're saying that Hawaii just gives us tourism, not enough to fight for it.

GLENN: I mean, yeah. Colonialism, not willing to fight for it. You know, Hawaii, not willing to fight for it. Really not. Really not.

STU: Hmm. But you won Alaska. It's a lot of land. It's a lot of land.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a lot of land. We won't give that one up. That's kind of like Texas to me. Texas. Alaska. Nope!

STU: Really?

We need to turn something else into a state. You can't go 49. You have to go to a round number.

GLENN: How about we go to 48. Why are you going up. Let's go down.

STU: Well, I want a round number.

I have to knock out four or five. At least 4 to get me to 45. Or 40.

I mean, we can do that. We can knock out --

GLENN: Why not 48?

STU: Because it's not a round number. Am I not saying these words out loud? I keep hearing them in my head. Am I saying a round number out loud? I want a round number of states. Okay? That's what I want.

GLENN: That's a stupid rule.

That's a stupid, stupid rule.

I can cut ten. I can cut ten easy.

STU: You can cut ten easy.

GLENN: New York. New York.

STU: Okay. This is going to help. Every time we list states that we don't want in the union. This works out well.

GLENN: New York. Massachusetts. Oregon. Washington. California.

New Mexico, really doesn't do anything for us.

It's just kind of there.

STU: Really, breaking bad. That was a great series.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't really filmed there.

STU: I thought it was. I think it was, but you can film stuff there.

GLENN: Then I balance it out with radiation. You know, the whole dump.

You know, with every place. Every community needs a dump.

And so maybe we keep New Mexico.

Just based on, we need a dump. Okay?

STU: That's quite an analysis of the beautiful terrain.

GLENN: Well, it is beautiful. It's the nicest looking dump I've ever seen.

STU: Okay. All right. Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm not saying we dump our garbage there.

I'm saying we dump our nuclear waste there. Not the -- the same as garbage.

That's expensive waste. That's like waste from rich people.

STU: So you can get me to 40. You don't want to go to 50. No interest to 50.

Wasn't there a split to Idaho. Part of Idaho wanting to pull out. Or Oregon wanting to pull out.

GLENN: Yeah. Oregon.

No. That was just going to become part of Idaho. Half of Oregon was like, you people are crazy.

And they were like, I would rather be the potato people.

STU: What about east Oregon, get you a new state. Get you to 50.

You get two more senators from a conservative state there, doing it that way.

GLENN: No. Because then they'll demand Puerto Rico. No, we freed Puerto Rico. Right? Of course we have.

And --

STU: I didn't know that.

GLENN: And I think we've also evacuated the dump called Washington, DC. That's where we keep our dump. That's where we're like. Hey, all our garbage goes to the District of Columbia. And our prisoners.

STU: That would be interesting. And the prisoners. This is a good idea.

Because too big.

First of all, Washington it can't. Very liberal.

Two proposals, they're very interested in.

Number one is freeing customers, right?

They always want prisoners free. They always say the prisoner industrial complex.

So free them. But they all go to DC.

Right. You're allowed to walk around in DC.

Except for the hardened prisoners. We just lock the front doors, and the front doors and the back doors and the side doors. The hard criminals have to stay there.

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. But everybody else has to walk around.

STU: And then the trash, you know, they're always worried about the environment.

I mean, what better motivator to help clean up all the trash problem. Then all the trash goes directly to Washington, DC.

GLENN: Amen, brother.

Are You BETTER or WORSE Off Than You Were 5 Years Ago?

5 years ago in 2019, Donald Trump was president, the economy was booming, and the threat of World War 3 was much lower. Jump ahead to 2024 and inflation is rising at an insane pace, two wars are shaking the world, China is on the rise, our children's schools are no longer safe, and President Biden is still trying to convince you that you're better off. So, Glenn asks, are you? Is ANYTHING better off than it was 5 years ago? Maybe it's time to make a change ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Are you better off than you were, five years ago?

Is our country better than it was five years ago? Are we -- we more stable than we were, five years ago, ten years ago, 12 years ago?

Is the world closer to world peace, or closer to world war? Than it was five years ago.

Are we closer to a nuclear war, today, than we were five years ago?

You have to remember, this nuclear war thing, it was just a couple of years ago, they started kicking this around. And we all went, wait. I thought this was over.

Don't get used to that. That is not normal anymore.

Are we more respected in the world today, than we were five years ago?

Do bad guy countries fear us more or less than five years ago? Is our military more or less prepared for any major war, than it was five years ago?
By the way, couple that with your answer, is the world closer to world peace or world war? Does that concern you? Are our streets safer, than they were five years ago?

Are police, are they more respected?

Remember, five years ago was the throes of BLM.

It was four or five years ago, that everybody was on the street. And they were marching to reimagine the police. And to put counselors on the street, instead of police officers.

Are we -- are our cities struggling to hire more counselors, or more police officers, than they were five years ago?

Are police officers more likely or less likely to jump in and help? When there's a problem.

Your 911 service, is it faster than it was five years ago, or is it slower? The response time, than it was five years ago.

Is our relationship between the police officers and blacks, Hispanics, anybody. Is it better, because that's what they were claiming, they needed counselors. And they needed people to train the cops.

So is our police officer. Our police force. Their relationship.

Is it better or worse, or the same?

Than it was five years ago. And even if it's the same, why?

Didn't we go through all of that, to fix that problem?

Is it even close to being fixed.

If someone commits a crime in America, against you, or against anybody that you know, are they more or less likely to go to jail?

Our justice system. Do you have more trust in it, or less trust?

If you don't trust the justice system and you don't trust the police and you don't trust the government, when you have a problem, who do you go to?

Who is actually holding up the torch. I mean, it used to be that you could go to the media. And the media would expose the bad guys. And the government would come in and take care of it. Or if the bad guys were the government, then the people would take care of business.

Do you have more faith in the government, than you did five years ago?

Do you have more faith in the media, than you did five years ago?

You know, we had to bail out the banks in 2008. Why?

Why?

Because they had become too big to fail. Remember? Too big to fail.

We have to stop this.

Did they fix that problem?

Are our big banks bigger or smaller than they were in 2008? Who was hurt by all of the fixes to make banks smaller? So they would never be too big to fail? The banks that were hurt, were they the big banks, or were they the small banks? Do you have trust in the security of your bank? Is that trust getting better or worse, than it was five years ago?

Do you have trust that our Treasury and our Federal Reserve have your best interest at heart. And is that getting better or worse?

Is inflation better or worse than it was five years ago? Is your confidence in the people that are in charge, is your confidence in -- in them, knowing how to fix it.

Being able to even assess what's going on. Is your confidence in them, getting better or worse.

Do you think they are adding to the problem, or fixing the problem?

Do you know our new hopeful target for inflation is now 3 percent?

So that means, we're hoping to hit 3 percent additional inflation every single year.

Not reversing, prices don't go down.

But they only go up from here, 3 percent per year. That's our hope!

Over the last three years, official inflation was around 12 percent. It's probably closer to 20.

But their plan is to increase the inflation that we have right now, by another 15 percent, by the time the next president's term ends.

Is that in the right direction? Or not?

Is your gas price, better or worse than it was five years ago?

How about the price of insurance?

Is that better or worse? Is it easier or harder for you to find a house?

Find a house!

Easier or more difficult than it was five years ago?

Your mortgage rate, is it lower or higher than it was five years ago?

Price of milk.

Our schools, do you feel our children are more safe, or less safe, in their schools, than you did five years ago?

Remember, it was about three years ago, we started finding CRT.

All of this DEI. All of this stuff, has happened under this president.

Do you have more confidence in your school, or less confidence in your school?

Do you have more confidence in your school's librarian, or less confidence?

Are our children better educated, or worse, than five years ago?

Are our children more stable mentally than they were before all this gobbledegook started? Do you believe that we have a handle on terrorism? Is our country more safe from terrorists, or less safe than it was five years ago?

How do you feel about your job?

I can't think of a category, that has gotten better. Can you?

Every category that I look at, it doesn't speak of health, in any way, shape, or form.

Are we happier than we were five years ago?

Are we more comfortable? Are we more content? Not in any category. Not in a single category.

At least that I can find. Is Afghanistan better off? Is Israel better off? Is Ukraine better off?

There is a reckoning that is coming. There is a reckoning that is come.

By the way, I just keep thinking more, how about electricity rates? Do you feel like we will have power, when needed?

Is that confidence better or worse?

Our border, better or worse?

Your freedom, the fundamentals of our Bill of Rights, do you have more confidence or less confidence, that the people in Washington, I don't care what party they're from, are actually going to enforce the Bill of Rights?

This is called a reckoning. When a country goes this far off, there is a reckoning that comes.

It's like you tell your kids, you know, they're getting bad grades in school. You're going to flunk. You're going to flunk. Work harder. Work harder. How can we help you?

Let's go. We have to get to a tutor. Whatever it is. And your kid does not do it. It's like, there's going to come a time where it's too late for you, and you're going to flunk. There's going to come a time where it's too late for you, and you're not going to make it into college.

That's a reckoning. And it's just a natural response to really bad, screwed up ideas. And until you change your ways, the reckoning just gets worse and worse and worse.

When it comes, it's devastating. One of my favorite lines, favorite sayings is, nothing will change if nothing changes. We're shuffling the deck, and we're moving the chairs around the table. We're just moving the chairs around the table.

We're -- we're moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. If nothing changes, nothing will change.

And it's getting worse and worse and worse.

What Aleksandr Dugin REALLY Believes About America

In light of Tucker Carlson’s recently released interview with Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, Glenn dives deep into Dugin’s true beliefs about America and his terrifying “solutions” to society’s problems. Dugin may sound like an ally to American conservatives, but his comments on war, apocalypse, and fascism reveal his true intents. Rockford University Philosophy Professor Stephen Hicks joins Glenn to lay out the “massive trap” that Dugin has set for the West and the future of “fascism without compromise” that he wants for the world.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Yesterday, a -- an interview that Tucker Carlson did while he was in Russia, was released. It was about 20 minutes. And I applaud everyone for having a conversation. Tucker has said many times. It's important to see and understand how our adversaries view us.

Well, that -- that wasn't clear in this. He just diagnosed a problem as Aleksandr Dugin always does.

And enough to open a door to people. Have people say, oh. Well, I think I might agree with that.

It is really important, what Tucker has begun. We have to now continue that conversation. So people on our side, will not fall victim to this guy.

They talk about how people want his books to be banned. I don't. I want you to read this in his own words. There will be stuff at the beginning of the book, you will go, yeah. Yeah. He knows me.

By the time you're at the end of the book. This is a horror show.

Literally a horror show. But you should read him.

Jefferson, when we went into our first foreign war, which was against the Muslim pirates, insisted that everybody read the Koran. If you really want to understand the absurdity of it all, he said, you need to read this in their own words. Now, let's get down to it.

GLENN: So let me play just a little bit of what he said, to Tucker yesterday. We'll start there. Here's a clip from the Tucker Carlson interview with Aleksandr Dugin.

VOICE: There was all liberals.

And, for instance (inaudible), correctly, that there are no more ideologies, except for liberalism. And liberalism, that was liberation, of this individual from any kind of collective identity.

There are only two collective identities, to liberate from. Gender identity, because it's disconnected by identity.

You are man and woman, collectively.

So you could be -- so liberation of gender. And that has led to transgenders. To LGBT. And new form of sexual individuals. So sex is all -- something optional.

And that was not just the deviation of liberalism. That was necessary elements of implementation and victor of this liberal ideology.

And the last step that is not yet totally -- totally, made his liberation from human identity. Humanity optional. And when -- now we are choosing for you, in the West, you are choosing the sex you want, as you want. And the last step in this process of liberalism. Implementation of liberalism. Will mean precisely, the human optional. So you can choose your individual identity to be human. Not to be human.

And that -- transhumanism. Post humanism. Singularity. Artificial intelligence. Klaus Schwab. They openly declare that it is the inevitable future of humanity. So we have arrived to the historical terminal station. That we finally -- five centuries. A goal, we have embarked on this train. And we are now arriving at the last station.

GLENN: So what he's saying here is, that liberalism, meaning the classic liberalism where you're an individual. It's not collective. Et cetera, et cetera. He says, the inevitable end is progressivism. And then some dystopian future. But I don't think that's right.

I would love to hear from you.

Liberalism doesn't lead to progressivism. Marxism leads to progressivism.

STEPHEN: Yeah. The first half of the Dugin clip is correct. The second half is a massive equivocation. I think he should know better. I think he's doing some tactical rhetoric against the West, talking about the transgenderism. So let's take those two in part.

So the first part is all of the Soviet Union. I think Dugin is exactly right. What plays out in the 20th century, left only some sort of liberalism standing in the field.

Twenty-first century was a huge ideological battle. I think Dugin's analysis is correct. It's kind of the analysis I've argued and many other people have argued as well.

The 20th Century was about some sort of liberalism, versus some sort of fascism or national socialism, versus some sort of Marxist communism.

We fought world wars. We fought cold wars. Fought many French warfare, ideological wars as well.
What happened was fascism was defeated.

National socialism was defeated. And by 1991, Marxist communism was defeated. So what seemed to be, almost inevitable. I don't want to use the inevitably language. But was that some sort of liberal democracy, capitalism, individualism. Barbarity, was triumphant.

So I think that part is exactly right. Now where I think Dugin goes wrong, is in what happens next.

My view was what happened, liberalism took a breathing. We've been fighting wars. Ideological. And actual wars for over a century.

We let our guard down. We have relaxed. We have kind of thought everybody is going to get on board.

Some sort of liberal, democratic, capitalist. Modern future is slowly going to prevail over the next generation.

What actually happened though, was that the fascists. The national socialists.

The authoritarians. The communists. The Marxists.

The various sorts, did not simply go away, and give up the fight.

Instead, they started to repackage themselves. Inside, the now triumph unto west, there are countermovements that tried to reassert themselves. We started to say, by the time we got to 2010, 2015. Or so.

That those countermovement inside the West are reasserting themselves. And everybody is starting to become aware of them. And the particularly nasty forms of transgenderism.

Now, I think is a legitimate version of transgenderism. That reasonable, sensitive people will take wear of. Weaponized transgenderism. Of a particularly vibrant form, that we're sometimes dealing with.

That is a different phenomena. So the second part then, is what Dugin wants to do is to say.

And this is the part that you were picking up on. That are -- the relativism. The angry activism. The willingness to let everything burn inside the West. That we're now confronting with.

The virulent forms of Islamism. That we are now confronting. And some of the total package of anti-western. Antiliberalism.

Where did those come from?

Now, I agree. Those are pathological.

They are very destructive. What Dugin is offering. Is a thesis that says. That those antiliberalisms. Are themselves an youth growth of liberalism.

And that I think is simply false.

GLENN: So he -- when he says, you know, an end to modernity. And liberalism.

He's actually -- I mean, one of the first things I've found about Dugin. That opened my eyes.

Was his statement that -- that fascism, with Mussolini. Mussolini was a very brave person. As was Hitler.

But it didn't work. But they understood that international communism was not good. So they went for national communism, or socialism. Which became fascist. And he said, where the two of them went wrong. Was they offered too many compromises.

He said, the future -- yeah. The future is fascism without compromise.

STEPHEN: Exactly.

GLENN: This is terrifying.

STEPHEN: This is 1990's Dugin in the first decade after the fail of the Soviet Union. And he's a strange character at this point. He's already adopted various forms of Naziism. In the 1980s. At this point, he's not a young man. He's in his late '20s. Early '30s.

So he's a mature thinker. He hates liberalism already. He hates modernity. He hates the West in its entirety. At the same time, he's dissatisfied with a lot of what's going on in the Soviet Union.

Its version of Communism and Marxism. When the Soviet Union falls, so he's cofounder of a national Bolshevik Party. And the Bolsheviks, of course, was Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and so on. So it's a reworking of a kind of Communist Marxism.

But the nationalism is important there for him. And he then -- and, a few years, settles on saying, what we need to do is just rework fascism.

So he's widely and explicitly admiring of Mussolini, and some of the German fascists of the 1920s and early 1930s. And he publishes an article in 1997, called fascism. Borderless and red. The red part means blood. And it means a little bit of incorporation of Marxism.

That will mean bloody, violent revolution that we need, and the border part is also there. That we need to expand Russia's border.

We need to be expansionists.

What we need is a kind of national socialism. And he takes the socialism seriously.

Economic control.

But it's not going to be a socialism, that we take on, so to speak. It's a Russian people, who moved into some abstract, socialist template. We need to take the Russian people. Its particular ethnic identity, including its religion. Its cultures. It's traditions. See it as having a world historical destiny.

It's going to lead the world to a new, bright future that is not going to be kind of trapped in the old Marxist way. And as you were suggesting, it will learn from the failures of the earlier versions of fascism and national socialism.

And what that is going to involve with. A willingness to be muscular. A willingness to be violent. A willingness to take ethnicity and nationalism seriously. And not to compromise one job with capitalism, with any form of Western liberalism.

Yes. That's Dugin. By the time we get to the late 1990s.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Did the Deep State Kill a Journalist? An ‘Octopus Murders’ Review | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 219

A journalist went where the FBI couldn’t and may have dug his own grave asking the wrong questions to a nefarious network, including CIA operatives, the mafia, Hollywood’s elite, Native Americans, and psychopathic killers. This was Danny Casolaro's biggest story that never happened because he was found dead in a motel room in West Virginia. Was it suicide or murder? Glenn Beck excavates never-before-heard testimony from the filmmakers of the Netflix original docuseries “American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders,” including evidence and a paper trail of a stolen election. Christian Hansen and Zachary Treitz detail the most dangerous character they came across. It’s not Bill Hamilton, Inslaw, Robert Booth Nichols, or Michael Riconosciuto. They also explain how the PROMIS software and the Inslaw scandal have ties to the Angry Birds backdoor malware installed by the NSA as well as that outrageous Zapruder film hoax of the JFK assassination. Confused yet? The interconnected web of disinformation consumed Hansen so much that director Treitz was concerned about his emotional and physical health during filming. The ending, reminiscent of "The Sopranos," left the filmmakers on the hunt for the key that could unlock the entire conspiracy. But the story doesn’t end there ...