RADIOApril 02, 2024

How to STOP the FBI’s Abuse of Power Against Parents

The FBI has faced growing criticism for treating law-abiding conservative Americans as threats. The agency has been accused of misusing taxpayer funding to go after parents who protested at school board meetings and Americans who protested — or even just prayed — at abortion clinics. But FBI whistleblower Steve Friend has a solution. He joins Glenn to lay out a new bill that is up for a vote in the Tennessee Senate. The bill would force the FBI to inform local sheriffs about any “national security investigation” cases that their deputies are helping out with. But the bill has faced some pushback from unexpected groups. Steve explains why he believes this is happening, which says a lot about the FBI’s grip on local governments, and also explains how you can support legislation like this across the country.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the FBI comes to town, and they're investigating, you know, let's say a parent for being a terrorist, because they spoke out at the school board meeting.

And the sheriff deputies and some of the police officers are asked by the FBI, joint terrorism task force to join.

And they do. And then they find out what the case is all about.

Well, the sheriff or the police chief doesn't have any right to know. Because they don't have a need to know, according to the FBI.

So you're -- your funds for the state, are going to this task force.

And you don't even know what they're doing.

Are they wasting money by going after somebody who, you know, was praying at an abortion clinic?

Steve Friend is -- is here now.

He's the center for renewing America fellow. He's the FBI whistle-blower. He objected to being part of the January 6th raids. Steve, welcome to the program.

STEVE: Great to be with you, Glenn. Thank you for having me this morning.

GLENN: You bet. So you're just trying to put up a line of defense of the people, using the last, really, constitutional string that you have. And that is the sheriff's office, right?

STEVE: Of course this is really just 101. A very simple bill, that is on the table here in Tennessee.

It's Senate bill 2804. House bill 2912. And it essentially just says, that the sheriff has to be read in, and approved of any of the terrorism investigations, that his deputies, who are on loan, from the FBI. Joint terrorism task force.

Any of the cases that they're working on. It will create sort of a bull work.

Because the FBI then has to bring it to the chief elected law enforcement official. Who the people voted for.

The people who don't vote for FBI, they vote for their sheriff. And not for nothing.

He should be aware if there's a legitimate terrorism threat in his county. That's his charge.

GLENN: Let me read this entire bill.

And it's quite a bill. Amend Senate bill number 2804. House bill 2912.

By deleting all language, after the enacting clause and substituting section one, Tennessee code annotated, title 38. Chapter eight. Part one. Is amended by adding the following new section.

Now, here's where the rubber meets the road. See if you can follow this.

In the event, a law enforcement agency within the state, nominates personnel to be deputized as a federal task force officer, on a joint terrorism task force.

The chief law enforcement officer, from the nominee's respective law enforcement agency, must approve each national security investigation, in which the nominee participates.

Then he gets into a very complicated Section 2. This act takes effect, July 1st, 2024. I mean, that's an easy to read bill.

And very, very clear.

What kind of opposition are you coming up against?

STEVE: Well, unfortunately, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the arm of the governor's office has opposed us on every avenue here with this.

GLENN: Of course.

BILL: And the communications we've received from them, is they don't feel that sheriffs are entitled to know about what they work with the FBI on.

So they're all in for the federalization of law enforcement, which is pretty aconstitutional from any conservative's standpoint.

GLENN: So what is their excuse for saying, it's the sheriff? The only elected enforcement in the whole group here. How come the sheriff doesn't have a right to know?

STEVE: It will impede their ability to work with the FBI. I think that the FBI is a pretty symbiotic relationship with a lot of these state-level agencies. That's the Tennessee bureau of investigations have expressed opposition as well, to us doing this.

And I think that they are in with the FBI. And the FBI gives them the goodies. And they get the credentials. They're all in for what's going on, at a higher level.

And the nature of -- as you move up the chain of command, within our government structures, you sort of feel like, the slipping in swine at the lowest level, even if it's the sheriff, is entitled to know what you are working on from on high.

Which is opposing anything that we expect of our law enforcement agencies, and that we want to keep the community safe. And we elect the sheriff to do that. We elect him to bring crime down. To confront terrorism.

If he's unable to do that. Because he doesn't have a need to know from the FBI's perspective. He's unable to fulfill that charge, and he can't do his job.

And we shouldn't be at a state level, hanging deputies or police officers, using those funds, and the taxpayers provided from the state. To go and do the bidding from the federal government.

And we don't have any oversight of it. We have disempowered local law enforcement. And if you want to make the argument, that we are all about supporting police. And we don't want to defund the police. This is empowering local police where it really matters.

GLENN: So is this mainly for -- to stop the people that are praying, you know, at the abortion clinic. Or the abuse of parents, who are called terrorists?

STEVE: That's really what the genesis of it is. The motivating factor here is the galvanized support, across the aisle as well.

That there were Democrats in the House that were intrigued by the argument that I was making. Because the FBI has clearly, broadly, overinterpreted his national security mandate.

We're seeing things, where they're starting to articulate and connect First Amendment protected activities to some of the things that they deem to be within their purview.

So you have the recent argument about Christian nationalism.

Well, the FBI has a caveat, that says, they don't investigate, First Amendment activity. Like the right to speak. Religious worship.

However, they're using these, quote, unquote, nonpartisan organizations.

Like the public religion institute, which generates a report and says that Christianity is refracted through a lens of white supremacy, and now the FBI is cooking with gas.

Because they can say, well, we do investigate racially motivated violent extremism. So we're going to go and investigate people who say, have a preference for the less mass, when they attend at their parish.

And recruit people to inform on them, so that we can open assessments on them, as an anti-government extremist.

GLENN: And this hopefully, you know, the sheriffs are open to, you know, investigations on actual terrorism.

No matter who it's from. No matter which side it's from. But actual terrorism.

And this would protect the people. It would not allow the sheriff, however, to alert the people, or stand alongside the people, if they're being investigated for praying in church.

It just means, nobody -- nobody will be using the local or county or state money. To help on that. Right?

DAVID: Yes. And I think as a sheriff who is elected by the people. The FBI says, we want your deputies. Task force here. To work on investigating an imam at a school board, and the sheriff opposes that. He will pull his people out. And I would imagine he would be rather loud about that. And let his people know, that the FBI -- even if it violates the security clearance, because that's an inappropriate investigation. I would hope that a constitutional sheriff, would focus on that, rather than a mere clearances, as many whistle-blowers have lost theirs for transient reasons within our federal government.

GLENN: Well, as our government has lost control of -- of the police force, you know, the federal police force. The only elected law enforcement official is your sheriff.

And if, when you're going in to vote for a sheriff, you better ask him. Who do you work for?

And what does that mean?

What happens if the FBI comes in, and they are doing an investigation on -- on parents at the school board.

Where do you stand on that?

You have to have serious conversations with your sheriff, if you have a sheriff up for election.

They are critical to this.

Now, in Tennessee, you're trying to pass this.

What -- when does it go up? And how can we help?

BILL: Oh, thank you for this. So the Senate, judiciary committee, is actually taking this under consideration today at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.
They will be looking at it. And then the House, it's looking for it.

That's NFL 28O4. House Bill 2912, and the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee is taking this up tomorrow.

So if folks in Tennessee or in the country, want to reach out, up to the members of those respective committees, to express support for this, that would be a huge help.

I mean, this audience. My friend Garrett O'Boyle, felt that the weight of this audience, Glenn, that we were here, talking about -- he had more sales in two days, than he did in the entire history of his store.

So I know the Glenn Beck audience is down to support this sort of initiative.

GLENN: Yeah. And they -- they also just got a very important initiative passed in -- in Tennessee.

I think here recently. This audience is really, truly amazing.

Okay. So if you are in Tennessee, you want to call the Tennessee Senate. It's in committee tomorrow.

What committee -- what committee is it?

VOICE: The Senate is today. The Senate judiciary committee is having it at 2 o'clock Eastern. And tomorrow, the House has it in front of subcommittee under the criminal justice.

GLENN: Okay. Subcommittee of criminal justice. That's tomorrow. That's the House. You can call them today.

And the Senate Judiciary Committee, is meeting at 2:00 p.m. today, so you want to call them.
And again, you're looking in the House at the bill number 2912. 2912.

And the Senate bill 2804. If you can't remember the name of the bill, what would they just call it, something simple, so people would know.

VOICE: It's basically being called an FBI bill, by the layperson there.

Everyone knows who we are talking about. Again, this is empowering the local sheriff. This is nothing to do. It's not going to limit your ability to keep the community safe. It just says that the chief law enforcement officer, who is elected by the people, should know what is going on. And that should not impede any righteous investigation. And will actually bring the FBI back into focus. What they should be focusing on. Rather than imams at school boards. Or people who like to go to mass.

GLENN: Steve, you are a very brave man. Thank you so much.

God bless you.

STEVE: Thank you, man. God bless your audience.

GLENN: Trying to get it out of the Judiciary Committee today, and the House Subcommittee on criminal activity tomorrow, in Tennessee.

Call them and say, the -- the sheriff and the FBI bill. You want to go in for a full vote, pass this in committee. That's in Tennessee. Today.

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado on Overcoming Grief in Dark Times | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 266

Disclaimer: This episode was filmed prior to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But Glenn believes Max's message is needed now more than ever.
The political world is divided, constantly at war with itself. In many ways, our own lives are not much different. Why do we constantly focus on the negative? Why are we in pain? Where is God amid our anxiety and fear? Why can’t we ever seem to change? Pastor Max Lucado has found the solution: Stop thinking like that! It may seem easier said than done, but Max joins Glenn Beck to unpack the three tools he describes in his new book, “Tame Your Thoughts,” that make it easy for us to reset the way we think back to God’s factory settings. In this much-needed conversation, Max and Glenn tackle everything from feeling doubt as a parent to facing unfair hardships to ... UFOs?! Plus, Max shares what he recently got tattooed on his arm.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Demonic Forces to Blame for Charlie Kirk, Minnesota & Charlotte Killings?

This week has seen some of the most heinous actions in recent memory. Glenn has been discussing the growth of evil in our society, and with the assassination of civil rights leader Charlie Kirk, the recent transgender shooter who took the lives of two children at a Catholic school, and the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska, how can we make sense of all this evil? On today's Friday Exclusive, Glenn speaks with BlazeTV host of "Strange Encounters" Rick Burgess to discuss the demon-possessed transgender shooter and the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. Rick breaks down the reality of demon possession and how individuals wind up possessed. Rick and Glenn also discuss the dangers of the grotesque things we see online and in movies, TV shows, and video games on a daily basis. Rick warns that when we allow our minds to be altered by substances like drugs or alcohol, it opens a door for the enemy to take control. A supernatural war is waging in our society, and it’s a Christian’s job to fight this war. Glenn and Rick remind Christians of what their first citizenship is.