THIS energy policy could kickstart plans to BANKRUPT YOU

The New York Times will continue to label whatever they wish as crazy theories, but that doesn’t change the FACTS. And those facts are even available on our own government’s website for YOU to read. In this clip, Glenn reads a new energy policy within the Inflation Reduction Act that could have devastating consequences for your home, your wallet, and your freedom. THIS is how they’ll begin to impoverish you, Glenn says, so that eventually you’ll own nothing: ‘You will be impoverished. They will hit you every possible way they can. Through higher prices. Through inflation. Through regulations.’


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I want to start here. What is happening in America? We are -- we are -- we really strapped by being isolated by the ocean. And we are strapped because our media blows beyond all recognition.

Okay. You're not getting anything from the mainstream media. Stop watching it.

Let me give you an example. I told you yesterday about a major bank in Australia, announcing the end of financing for new fossil-fueled-powered cars. I wanted to point out, that it was just a couple of weeks ago, that the New York Times ran a hit piece, saying, this exact thing was made up.

I'm going to give you a quote from the New York Times. This article mentioned me and Wall Builders. And also, the Heartland Foundation. The Heartland Foundation and Wall Builders has been instrumental in writing legislation and trying to get legislation passed. The New York Times wrote this, and I quote. The memo had been prepared, using research from the Heartland Institute, a think tank with a history of denying climate science.

And it misrepresented how banks and our other financial institutions were implementing their ESG strategies. It said, quote, if you're a small business owner with gasoline-powered cars. You're eventual going to be faced out of a bank's portfolio. Unless you switch to electric vehicles, of course.

The memo said, in a section about how banks would use ESG to busy to change, similarly, if you want to buy a house in the future, that runs on natural gas. You too, won't be able to get a mortgage until you put solar panels on the roof. The New York Times followed that with, no banks have proposed such measures. So they're trying to, again, call this a conspiracy theory. Let me give you again, that was the New York Times, two weeks ago. There is nothing, but disinformation. This may even be malinformation.

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on, all around the world. They admit it. You don't need any inside, you know, secret leaks. It's all out in the open. So they denied this just a couple of weeks ago. And mocked us as conspiracy theorists. And yesterday, starting in 2025. Bank Australia will no longer give you a loan, if you buy a car that runs on gasoline.

Bank of Australia chief impact officer, yes. The impact officer, Sasha Corville said in a statement, that by ceasing our car loans for new fossil fuel vehicles, we are sending a signal to the Australian market. Okay.

I want you to certainly, no matter what the New York Times or anybody tells you, you go to the World Economic Forum's own website. You go to You read the new bill from the government on the EPA section in the -- really? The inflation reduction bill. Yes.

This isn't about cars. This is literally about everything -- every product or service or social media platform. If they can you to buy an electric car through the banking system, they can you to do anything. Because the same strategy could be applied to any industry, any product, any business, or any opinion.
This is not the free market. And I will explain that, if I have to. I will speak slowly. For those who are just, cannot get it through their head.

This is the government. Well, let me give you this example. You can find this at

The U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. WAP. W-A-P. Differs in many ways, what is commonly referred to as weatherizing your home.

The latter involves low cost improvement, such as adding weather stripping to doors and windows to save energy. Okay?

When they say, weatherizing your home. The Department of Energy, would like you to know, that's different than their weatherization assistance program.

WAP, still quoting from, takes the whole house weatherization approach, that analyzes all of the building systems. The building envelope. The heating. The cooling systems. The electrical systems. The electric base load appliances. Through the completion of an energy audit. Another distinguishing feature of WAP is the attention to the overall health and safety of the clients being served, and the weatherization providers. Many dwellings receiving attention are old and in need of repair. Weatherization providers check -- check the exterior of the building, known as the envelope. And major energy systems, to ensure there are no occupant health or safety concerns, before installing any energy-efficient measures. So what we were saying is, you won't be able to buy a house, unless you have solar panels. Oh, no.

It's worse!

Again, from At its core, WAP is an energy efficiency program. The program is largely measured in terms of energy saved. WAP recognizes homes and buildings work as a system of interrelated parts, and follows the house of assistant methodology. To assess and treat the homes.

WAP. Listen to this very carefully. WAP understands, it's not effective to insulate an attic, if the roof leaks and will degrade the insulation's performance. Therefore, either the roof is repaired before insulation is installed. Or the home is deferred until repairs can be made.

When a home is deferred, it does not mean assistance will never be available. But that the work must be post posed until the issues can be resolved and the home is ready for weatherization.

So if you have a problem, that the government, the Department of Energy says, yeah, you've got to do this before you can do anything else. You're going to have to update possibly your electrical system. Possibly your appliances.

To help with moving homes off the deferral waiting list. Many WAP local providers, combine other federal state and local program funding to address the home, and building problems, so they can be weatherized.

There's all kinds of things. The government is going to do for every business and every home in the United States of America. To make sure it fits exact specifications, that some bureaucrat, not Congress. Some bureaucrat, came up with.

Now, how do you think that's going to affect your income?

Two thoughts. I want you to write them down. And I want you to think about them, every time you hear a story about the IRS, the Department of Energy, weatherization, solar panels, gasoline. Et cetera, et cetera.

You will own nothing. And you will like it. Here's thought number one. Actually, three thoughts. Here's thought number two. Thought number two is, well, somebody has to own it. So who am I renting from?

And the third thought, what happens to all of the stuff I already own? If I'm going to own nothing, by 2030, what happens to that?

I can give you the answer, to all of that. Statement number one is a statement. It's not a question. It's just a statement. You will be happy.

I can make it into -- will you really be happy?

Will you really like it? If you're renting everything that you have now, and you have no ownership in it?

Will you be happy? Two. Who will you be renting from?

The elites. You can get your food from Bill Gates and all the people that will buy up all of the farms. You will get everything from the government. Will you be happy?

And the third thing is, how do -- what happens to my stuff, in the next eight years? Stuff I already own.

You will be impoverished. They will hit you every possible way they can. Through higher prices. Through inflation. Through regulations that will cause you to buy this permit and do this to your house. And you will be required to buy this, otherwise you're not in compliance.

Remember what we said, what conservatives said about Obamacare. It's not a right. And for the first time, I have to buy something to be in compliance, with my citizenship?

I have to purchase something. So I can be a citizen in good standing. Well, yes. Yes.

You'll not only have to buy things, you'll have to stop buying things that you might like. You won't have an opinion, that can be expressed out loud. And you dare not express it online, or even in your house, because Amazon, Apple, Google, is everywhere in our house.

And who have they publicly, privately partnered with? The United States government. For anyone who is still reading the New York Times, or still looking at ESG of and the Great Reset, as a conspiracy theory, you either are dangerously stupid. Or you're part of it. Because it is wide out in the open. You can see it in every bill they pass now. You can see it in every person they hire, with an additional gun.

Tonight, I'm going to show you what they were really looking for at Trump's Mar-a-Lago. I'm going to show you the history of the FBI. I'm going to show you what they're doing with the FBI and the DHS. And the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy.

I'll show you what they're doing. They're building an army. You need to watch tonight's show at 9:00 p.m. I urge you to tell a friend. I urge you to even watch it as a group.

Join us, 9:00 p.m. TheBlaze TV. Go to If you're not a member, please, we need your support now more than ever before. And we want to make sure we can stay in touch with you. Use the promo code Glenn, and save 10 percent off your subscription now.

Did Fani Willis Admit TOO MUCH In Her Misconduct Testimony?

Did Fani Willis Admit TOO MUCH In Her Misconduct Testimony?

District Attorney Fani Willis testified in defense of herself on Thursday in a misconduct hearing … and it probably wasn’t a good decision. Willis took the stand to push back against an attempt to disqualify her from heading Georgia’s election interference case against former president Donald Trump. But she may have revealed TOO MUCH about her alleged affair and her practice of keeping large sums of cash at home. Glenn and Stu review the “incredible” testimony.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I don't know the last time I enjoyed a court case, as much as the one -- as much as the Fani Willis court case yesterday.

Fani Willis, in case you don't know, she's the woman that is going after Donald Trump.

In Atlanta. And she's fantastic. Just love this.

So apparently, she was having an affair, with one of her underlings. And I don't know if he was under let's just leave it at that. Having an affair. And paying all kinds of money. In fact, a lot more than anybody else on her staff. In that -- in that role.

But he was such an expert.

And they found out that, you know, those two were having an affair. And he was cheating on his wife.

And -- and it looks like, there's some ethics problems there.

So now she's in court, because her credibility is shot. And the Trump people have said, she really needs to be removed from this case. Because she's got, you know, ulterior motives. And there's another agenda going on, et cetera, et cetera.

So do you see it yesterday, Stu.

STU: Oh, yes.

Oh. I sure did, Glenn. I watched every second of it, I could ingest. It was incredible.

GLENN: Yeah. It was -- it was -- it was good.

The first thing that I saw, was he gets up on the stand. And he's testifying, that, well, he must lie to the court, during his divorce proceedings.

You know, he just got divorced, when was it?

Last year. No. This year, right?

STU: It was very recent, yeah.

GLENN: Very recent. Maybe it was early. Or late last year.

But he got -- he got a divorce. And all this came up in the divorce court.

That he was having an affair with Fani Willis.

Well, he denied that this court.

And when asked about it, he said, well, it's because his marriage had -- what is it?

STU: Irreconcilable differences?

GLENN: Yeah. And he couldn't -- so his marriage was over. So he considered his marriage over, when he was having an affair.

STU: See, I consider my marriage over, on Friday nights, and Saturday nights.

And then it repicks back up on Sunday.

GLENN: I like that.

STU: Is that a new thing?

You can name when your marriage is over. And it's not cheating.

GLENN: No. Our marriage was over at that point.

STU: I remember Bill Clinton being -- hey, yeah. When she's under the desk, the marriage is over.

And then we flip the switch back on for public appearances.

GLENN: I've never heard that excuse before.

STU: I like that. I like that.

GLENN: Okay. So he did that.

And then apparently, he was reimbursed for all the vacancies and everything else. Play cut three, please.

VOICE: You said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel, though. Correct?

VOICE: Yes, ma'am.

VOICE: Okay. So this roughly shared travel, you're saying she reimbursed you.

VOICE: She did.

VOICE: And where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you?

VOICE: It was cash. She didn't -- she didn't give me checks.

STU: I think this is so obvious.

VOICE: She gave you cash for her share of all --

VOICE: Mr. Schaffer, you'll step out, if you do that again.

STU: Someone laughed.

VOICE: And so all of the vacations that she took, she paid you cash for?

VOICE: Yes, ma'am.

VOICE: And you purchased all these vacancies on your business credit card, correct?

VOICE: Yes, ma'am.

VOICE: And you included those deductions on your taxes, correct?

VOICE: No, ma'am.

STU: There's so much here. We're deep in it at this point. But just to think about what they're saying here.

Because if you back up a little bit, the reason why this is an issue. And why this was brought up by one of the codefendants, as well as Donald Trump and Giuliani and all the other guys. A smaller reason that nobody ever talked about.

The reason it was brought up. If they're having an affair, he's making hundreds of thousands of dollars from this trial. Fani.

Fani Willis is motivated to continue this trial for as long as possible, because her boyfriend is getting all this cash. So instead of having a pursuit of justice.

You have a pursuit of your own financial benefit. Because the longer this goes on. The more assignments this guy gets, the more money he gets.

And then they go on vacations together, which he's paying for. This is the accusation.

If that's the case, maybe the motivation here is to not get us to justice here for the people of Georgia.

But maybe to make sure she gets to Belize and Aruba and Miami, and all the other vacations they discussed during this.

So that's the reason why this is important, partially.

The other part is that they said, the relationship didn't start to 2022. And if it started before that, they lied to the court.

That's a whole other problem.

GLENN: There's plenty of problems here.

There's plenty of problems.

STU: Their excuse for this.

That we're supposed to believe.

They actually are telling us, we should believe this excuse.

Is that Wade buys expensive vacations to Aruba and a bunch of different places. He puts it on his business credit card. And then they go on the vacancies. They spend all this money. Napa Valley.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on these vacations. And then she shows up, and just hands him $4,000 in cash, which in turn, he never deposits into his bank account.

We are supposed to believe that there's no record of any of this happening. Because, of course, it's all happening. There's no cash. There's no Venmo. No cash app. No checks. Nothing.

It's all cash. They happen he takes the cash. And never deposits any of it into his bank account.

GLENN: He said, he may have given some of it to his children.

STU: Of course. Yeah.

GLENN: May have done that.

STU: Now, of course, it's important to understand how human beings act. And this series of events, has never occurred between two human beings in American history.

There's never been a case ever in history, where a man bought something on his business card for $8,000, and then when he showed up for the vacation, his girlfriend paid him back $4,000 in cash, which he never deposited. This has never occurred in the history of human interaction.

GLENN: Well, are you done can?

STU: No! I can keep going for hours on this. It's fascinating.

GLENN: I mean, you have no idea.

You have no idea what it means to be a black woman.

STU: Apparently not. Apparently not.

GLENN: You have no idea what it means to be a black woman.

STU: This was her excuse, by the way, Glenn. What you're saying here, is not a joke.

This is really what she said.

GLENN: No. This is not a joke, Stu.

I've got it from the Washington Post. She explained, the two split the cost. With Willis paying him back in cash, thousands of dollars in cash.

At the time, many businesses only accepted electronic payments, and many people never carried cash.

Why Willis was handing over wads of untraceable dollars.

He began many sentences with, well, here's the thing. And by the time, he reached to the end of the sentence, there was no thing there.

Now, remember, this is the Washington Post.

But then, then Wade sat in the witness chair, his gray plaid three-piece suit, with his white French cuff shirt. Gold cufflinks. And powder blue pocket square.

He grimaced and smiled, and repeatedly referenced his wife's affair as his cause for filing for divorce in 2021, even though no one had asked him why he split with his wife.

But rather, when he started his relationship with Willis. But the two have said the romance began, after he became a special prosecutor. Afterwards.

He had a hard time with the time line of his relationship. He drank lots of water. Dabbed his face. And sniffed even more vigorously.

Then they talk about how they started, you know, giving all of the -- giving all of the money.

Willis lectured the gathered attorneys. On the philosophy of behind keeping cash on hand.

Her father taught her that cash was king.

And a woman should always be financially self-reliant.

And so, yes, she had stashes of cash, that she had accumulated over time.

And she used it to reimburse wade.

She dipped into it, before a trip, so she could pay taxi drivers, or barter with vendors.

Her description of her father's advice was a compressed version of a very complicated history and modern day habit.

She didn't go into the discomfort that some black people have with financial institutions. Or the way in which banks have made it more difficult for black people to do business with them.

She didn't mention more older people believe in keeping ready cash, that a significant percentage of black and Hispanic Americans use cash for their predominant payment method. She didn't have to.

She simply talked about what her father had told her to do, as a matter of independence and power. I don't need any man to foot my bills, Willis said.


STU: You got. By the way, she kept bringing up the dad.

Like, my dad would be disappointed that I only had $40,000 at my house. Just okay. By the way, the dad, a former Black Panther. In case you were interested, why he was so motivated to have cash.

He was a former Black Panther. A little note, as the -- the possible --

GLENN: Listen to the way you're framing this.

STU: Yeah. I am framing it, as someone with a very extreme group. The history of that.

GLENN: Well, let me play the counter point here.

And point out what the New York Times said.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Willis sat in the witness chair for hours.

Or more precisely, she reclined in the chair.

Woman explaining how men defined relationships. And how they would end them.

She did so, while wearing a fuchsia dress. And a single strand of beads around her neck. Her hair was styled in the soft shoulder length curls, and her eye makeup was precise and intentional.

Shush. This is journalism. She was a singular, bright shot, surrounded by a black-robed judge. And lawyers, mostly in somber suits.

Only Willis and her main inquisitor merchant, who wore a cobalt blue dress under a white blazer, stood out in the room of sobriety.

Willis walked into court, as a woman on the ropes. Some would say, the hearing was a mess of her own making. Others, might believe the whole mess is a extraction for more important matters.

But either way, Willis fought back with gob-smacking fury.

Defiant in power pink. And --

STU: Incredible. By the way, I think that's the same story that ends this way.

The hearing resumes on Friday. Ms. Willis is expected to take the stand for more grilling.

The defense lawyers will likely crowd again on to one side of the packed courtroom. They are, in aggregate, a sea of boxy wool suits and white male faces.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: What the hell kind of coverage?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: An aggregate sea of white faces.

What the hell is this?

It's like, they just hired Ibram Kendi to cover the trial. What is going on?

It's embarrassing.

GLENN: Well, here's one thing: We will get back to the actual testimony, because it's funny.

Let me just give you something that I found useful to understand what happened yesterday.

Megyn Kelly said yesterday on X. Watching the Fani Willis, Nathan Wade hearing, they are toast. Capitalized "toast."

One, her former close friend testified that the romantic relationship began well prior to when Fani hired her.

By years, which means they lied to the court.

Two, Wade claimed Fani reimbursed him for all the expensive trips, but no record of that. Because it was all in cash. O-M-G.

He definitely got caught lying on his earlier court submissions in divorce court.

And attempted to say the reason he falsely swore he had no receipts.

Was because he had only credit card statements.

Well, I mean, hello, she writes. I have secondhand embarrassment.

Credit card statement. That is a receipt, you dope.

He testified, he had no records of it.

And then yesterday, it was. You don't have credit card statements?

Well, yeah. I have that.

But that's not a receipt.

Or I'm sorry. I didn't know we were talking to a third grader.

STU: Of course. Obviously, I guarantee he submitted credit card statements for purchases. Expense reports at his office.

I guarantee he's done that. As every other person who has ever given an expense report has done.

It's just so bad.

And, Glenn, like you mentioned. The friend who said, this started in 2019.

Which would be basically the whole thing is blown up. If they lied about the starting part of this affair.

That was the second witness who came in, and called by -- by the defense.

To -- to testify to this fact.

The first one that came in, was one of his attorneys.

And he got out of it, with attorney-client privilege.

So they had a second person, who was going to say it. But was able to get out of it on a technicality. They obviously wouldn't call him, if with he was going to say it.

They now have multiple witnesses. Only one on the record. Saying it would happen in 2019.

So it is like, this is a catastrophe for them.

And everything that you're getting from the coverage is, number one, she's a strong black woman. And number two, she was wearing fuchsia.

GLENN: Yes. But it was beautiful. It was just beautiful. And she stood out in the room, as a bright, bright light.

Why We Should THINK TWICE About the Mysterious ‘National Security Threat’

Why We Should THINK TWICE About the Mysterious ‘National Security Threat’

There’s apparently a major national security threat that’s being hidden from the American people … but it sounds a lot like, “Russia, Russia, Russia!” Glenn reviews what we currently know about the threat, which is possibly a Russian plan to put nuclear weapons in space. But should we be concerned? Glenn and Stu point out the odd timing of the warning, which comes as Congress is debating another FISA renewal.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, there is a giant warning that came out yesterday.

Excuse me. A giant warning about a national security threat.

It's Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia.

Now, the security threat is a weapon in space. Now, I've heard this story before. It's a space-based weapons system. And Russia apparently has it. And it's a national security threat.

It's a destabilizing foreign capability. And President Joe Biden should declassify all the information about it. Now, sources familiar with the situation, says that Russia wants to you put a nuclear weapon into space. Not to drop a nuclear weapon on to earth. But rather, possibly use it against satellites. It's very concerning. Very sensitive. It's a big deal. Wow.

Okay. So, Stu. Who made this -- who broke this news? What's his name? What's his name?

STU: Mike Turner. Mike Turner. Was it?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Mike Turner, he's the chairman of the House committee. He would know.

He's also a Russia hawk.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Somebody that, you know, is for all the war and the spending. Against Russia.

So -- but let's not hold that against him. No.

STU: Well, you know, does -- he's -- I mean, my first instinct, hearing this, yesterday, was not that Russia is a good actor. Or that they are not threatening us with terrible weapons of all sorts.

But --

GLENN: They're an enemy.

STU: But the timing of this breaking news, seems a little suspicious, considering, that we are in the middle of this push for funding.

That would push back against Russia.

And it seems like when you're trying to get $60 billion through, this is a very convenient time to release this information.

Again, I'm not downplaying the threat of Russia.

I think it is real.

But that still -- it's hard to -- like, when it first came out. An immediate, imminent threat. Everyone is panicking.

As the leaks come out. Okay. They want to put nuclear weapons in space. But they're not in space currently.

It's not like, look up, here comes a missile. They haven't deployed any of this.

And also, even if they did deploy. It would be a threat against our satellites. It would be incredibly serious. But also not what was pitched at, as initially with the urgent release, and everyone panicking.

I don't know. It seems like the timing of it, is a tad suspicious, no?

GLENN: A little bit. Well, and you think that's because of --

STU: They want it pushed through $60 billion of funding. Of course, to do that, you need to recognize how big of a threat Russia is.

GLENN: All right. So let me give you another completely unrelated story.

Because that was my first thought. And I do think that plays a role.

But listen to this. The House of Representatives, have delayed a vote on reforming the controversial surveillance tool, shortly after lawmakers warned of a national security threat.

The chairman of the House of Representatives' permanent select committee on Wednesday, published a at the same time, requesting Joe Biden declassify information, regarding an unspecified security national threat.

We're all going to die. Congress had been considering a compromise bill to reform Section 702 of the FISA Act, but now the process has been postponed.

Quote, in order to allow Congress more time to reach a consensus on how best to reform FISA in Section 702, while maintaining the integrity of our critical national security programs. The House will consider the reform, and reauthorization bill. At a later date.

The committee has made available to all members of Congress, information concerning a very serious national security threat.


Now, here's -- here is let's see.

I think this is Christopher Wray. I don't have the name of the person who said this. Boy, stories are written so horribly now. I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with the fact, that FISA is up for review.

Any time you start talking about FISA reform, you know, the Intel community has its way of bringing out the Bogeyman. Oh, that's -- Eli Crane of Arizona.

Huh. Now, that seems kind of important. Because how are things going on the FISA bill?

How are people feeling today, about the FISA bill?

Supposed to come up next week. And congressmen were ready to unleash the dogs from hell. On the FISA bill.

But now, because we have a national security threat. I mean, we've got to continue to spy on Americans.

You know, if we really want to know what's going on in space, with Russia.

Well, you've got to give -- you've got to give me leeway to spy on Americans.

Uh-huh. Now, is it possible that they're doing this?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Is it possible they're way ahead of us?

Of course. Did you hear about the new bombers?

These are great. The new B-52H Stratofortress, came out recently, and, well, it looks exactly like the one in the 1960s.

But, you know, it was -- it was redone. Well, that's not good enough.

We're going to redo the stratobomber. Now we have B-52Js coming out. So we have planes that are about 80 years old. That we are refurbishing, so we can fly them.

So you know, they're going to have something new, called instrument panel.

I don't even know how to describe it.

Instrument panels thousand. Without all the buttons, and the old gauges.

It's going to be like, you're looking at a glass panel. And they're all behind this glass panel.

The 1960, Stratofortress.

So the B-52s, will have that newfangled technology.

I think they call it like a computer screen or something. It's very technical.

So that's -- that's what we're doing.

At the same time, the Biden administration has put $1 million into studies, aimed at denying there are only two genders.

We're more concerned about the two-gender thing, than we are about our own security. We're more concerned about equity and inclusion, than our national security.

God only knows what's happening in the Pentagon now.

God only knows what is happening on our border today.

But you know what is really important. At you hear what happened in Louisville, Texas?

Can we just play this real quick, so you can see it, Stu.

This it is. This it is. That's a male teacher, showing up in a pink dress, pink high heels. And a pink hat. And he's -- he was ready to -- ready to teach. So in drag.

STU: How did that work out?

GLENN: Well, it's Texas. So I'm hoping not too well.

But then again, it's Texas 2024. So who knows. But let's make sure we study this, even more.

We really need to just pay attention to those things

We need to be on the cutting edge, of transitions.

Of gender mutilation surgery.

We have to be on the cutting edge of getting rid of our police.

And reimagining police work, entirely.

We've got to be on the cutting edge of this new idea, that there are no borders.

You know, I don't -- I don't understand how the big issue with Democrats is Joe Biden's mental capability. It's not his mental capability, that has destroyed the country. He's not running this.

He's doing an executive order about once a week now.

Who is writing that?

Because I don't see him going. I've got to -- sporadic.

Writing complex executive orders. Coming up with them.

No. Who is running our country?

We're being destroyed. Bit by bit.

STU: Just -- and, you know, not to put too fine a point on it here.

Are you supposed to wear pink in February. I mean, is that even appropriate.

Is that the right tone?

GLENN: As long as he wasn't wearing white shoes.

STU: Okay. Okay.

GLENN: If he's wearing white shoes, it would be a huge fashion faux pas. Ladies can wear pink. And look at that picture. Yes. Who looks at that and says, that's anything but a woman?

STU: It's funny, because one of the things that keeps happening, the news -- you mentioned the news does not write articles that make sense anymore. I can't even understand what's going on.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: The Houston megachurch situation that happened while I was out.

I was reading a New York Times story about it. And had no idea, about whether an actual man or an actual woman performed the shooting.

Because they kept saying woman, but then they said the male pronoun thing in Paragraph 12.

They eventually got to that after the Palestine thing in paragraph nine.

But like, I couldn't tell if they were saying, it was, actually, a woman. Or if it was a male, who identified as a woman. But they had to call them a woman.

And I went through this entire thing. And you know how I figured it out, Glenn? You know how I figured it out? If it was a woman or not.

I looked at the picture of the person. And immediately knew.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Knew immediately. It was a woman. Knew immediately what the situation was.

Because as a rational person with eyes. You can tell almost all the time.

So I don't know. It seems like one of those things, if the media was actually honest with us. We wouldn't know what's going on in these situations. But they're not. They're not.

WE NEED ANSWERS: Why did Capitol Police MOVE Cameras Away from the Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Scene?

WE NEED ANSWERS: Why did Capitol Police MOVE Cameras Away from the Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Scene?

Blaze Media has released exclusive footage that makes the Capitol Police’s actions after the discovery of a pipe bomb outside the DNC on Jan. 6, 2021, even more suspicious. Investigative journalist and Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker joins Glenn to review the footage, which reveals that the Capitol Police moved CCTV security cameras AWAY from the crime scene as it was unfolding. Baker also reviews other oddities he has discovered related to bomb-sniffing dogs and the water cannon used to destroy the bomb that make him wonder if this whole thing was a diversionary tactic meant to remove Capitol Police officers from the Capitol before the riot. “It just screams, ‘setup,’” Glenn says. So, how much more info will come out before the DoJ arrests Baker, as it has promised to?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Investigative idealist and Blaze media correspondent, Steve Baker joins us now.

Hi, Steve.

STEVE: Hey, good morning, Glenn.

GLENN: Weren't I supposed to be in jail now?

STEVE: Yeah. That's where I planned to spend the first quarter of this year.

GLENN: The last we spoke to you, the FBI had just notified, I think your attorney, that they were going to come pick you up for crimes unknown, yet.

They haven't told you what it's -- why they are going to arrest you.

But they said, they would be doing it in January, did they not?

STEVE: Yeah. Crimes against humanity. That's what I'm calling it now. But, yeah. It's one of those things yet again, where the DOJ has left me hanging the first time after their first threat.

They left me alone, for 20 months. Then they showed up again, with the grand jury subpoena. Then they left me alone for five months. And then they showed up again here, just before Christmas. And we backed them off, I think, with the media offensive that we did. A response.

And then they talked to my attorney, just before New Year's. And said that my self-surrender would be required, sometime in mid-January.

It would give me seven to ten days notice of that.

And then they went silent again. So we haven't heard from them. Here we are mid-February. And we know nothing.

GLENN: I mean, just so people understand, what the government is doing to people. This is happening all over with regular people. The DOJ is screwing with people's lives.

And, quite honestly, their sanity. Imagine you're being told by the FBI, with an unlimited amount of money, to convict, or to harass, or to build a case against you.

You have to think, oh, my gosh. At any time, I may be going to jail. I may have to be fighting this, and none of this is true.

And then they just leave. So that just -- that just hangs in your life, forever.

And then they call back, just as you're getting comfortable, I guess they forgot.

They call back. It's honestly, like a cancer center calling you and saying, hey, we have your results, and it looks like you have cancer. We'll let you know next week. And then you don't hear from them. And you can't get them on the phone.

Do I have cancer or not?

It's really cruel. Really cruel.

All right. So, Steve.

You have brought us footage now. This is never before seen. You released it earlier this week on Blaze TV media.

And it's footage of the January 6th pipe bomb. And the -- well, I would say the elimination of it.

But we don't, actually, see that. Set this clip up, will you?

STEVE: Yeah. The first clip that we have, that we released two days ago was the actual and most important cameras that were used in the investigation, saying -- we're talking about a camera that had been in a fixed position. We were able to go on the CCTV camera, a viewing room. And go as far back as December 28th, 2020.

And we see that that one camera number, called number 3173 had not moved for at least eight days prior to January 6th.

And then, the bomb was called in, by the Capitol police plainclothes officer.

Remember, we reported that about three weeks ago. And then when that officer made that report, and then we saw the very lackadaisical response by the Secret Service.

GLENN: Letting kids walk by the pipe bomb, within feet of the pipe bomb, and they didn't do anything.

STEVE: Yeah, Glenn, they were literally finishing their sandwiches before they got of the car to respond to a bomb with the vice president elect 15 feet away inside that building.

I mean, this is how absurd this situation is.

But nevertheless, on this camera, we see, suddenly, it is taken control of by the Capitol Police Command Center. They have an area where their big viewing room is and camera operators are, it's called The Pit. And when that was called in four minutes after the that plainclothes officer reported that, the camera starts zooming for the first time, and it starts scanning.

And it's panning around. And it's looking for the bomb. And then it pulls back. And it does this. And it moves around for about 20 or 30 minutes. Before finally somebody told that camera operator to move that camera off of the investigative scene. And it was pitched to a hard right, 90 degrees away from that.

And it remained there, until at least midnight of January 6th. Because I went and looked at all of those videos. All the way until the end of the day.

GLENN: So it is -- it is amazing to me.

Because the -- if I'm not mistaken, the -- well, let's watch the report.

Here it is.

VOICE: Capital CCTV camera, number 3173 was the most important camera covering the DNC pipe bomb story, event.

You've probably already seen Thomas Massie's release of the video in which it appears, that a capital police, plainclothes officer has discovered the bomb, and alerted the Secret Service and the metro police officers on the scene. You probably also seen, the bomb sniffing bomb.

And you may have already also seen the arrival of then vice president elect, Kamala Harris' motorcade.

What you haven't seen, is, well, what somebody in the Capitol Police command center, didn't want us to see.

And that's the actual investigation of the bomb scene.

What we're going to show you now, is how they hid that from us.
What we were able to access, from the Capitol CCTV viewing room, is how long that camera, number 3173, had remained in that fixed position. We were able to go back as far as December 28th of 2020. Just eight days or so before the events of January 6th. And from that review, we can see that the camera's positioning was in that fixed position, days, weeks, months. But ultimately, it was only just these very few minutes after the bomb's discovery, that that camera began to move.
The camera then the ban to move, pan, zoom in, looking for the bomb itself.

The one thing that we know for sure, camera 3173. Was the most crucial of all the cameras. It had the closest and the clearest view of what law enforcement's response, what their investigation and ultimately, the destruction and detonation, or the attempted detonation of the bomb would be, by the bomb squad, robot.

But inexplicably, and I'm getting tired of using that word, every single time, we do one of these investigations.

But that seems to be the key word, when it's related to January 6th.

Is that at approximately 1:30 p.m. camera number, 173 was remotely directed away from the scene, at about a 90-degree angle.

And then remained in this newly fixed position, away from the investigation, for the rest of the day. Or at least until midnight, on January 6th.

Now, it might be assumed that this was an error, an accident. An oversight. Maybe somebody bumped the joystick, on camera number 3173.

Until we then review camera number 8020.

As we're seeing, the robot deployed, down the street. Headed towards the bomb.

Someone again, directs camera 8020, away from the investigation scene, and then fixes it, once again. And it seems like, at a hard right, 1900-degree angle. Away from the investigation. Once again.

GLENN: It's incredible. Absolutely incredible.

STU: Why would they turn those cameras away from the investigative scene. Who ordered those cameras to be turned away?

What were we not allowed to see?

All right. So, Steve, give us some updates on what else we have found.

I know I read today, that there were bomb-sniffing dogs in the area.

And there's -- they gave no indication.

And I know, because I've had a bomb-sniffing dog before.

They -- they are relentless. And they would have found it, had it had any explosives in it, don't you think?

PAT: I would think so. Especially as haphazard as this particular device was put together.

And this is -- this is even more important, Glenn.

This is really the latest and most developing part of that story. We did, in fact, acquire the images of the destruction of this bomb, by the bomb robot.

In fact, we now have it up.

It's up on YouTube right now. It's about to be distributed across TheBlaze platforms today.

It's now up. But this is the story behind that.

Is that as late as 9 o'clock on Wednesday night.

When I was supposed to have these videos in my Dropbox from Congress.

I received a call from a senior congressional aid, who said, sorry. We can't give you these scenes and these images.

Why? We are being told that the technology is classified. And it's sensitive. And what has -- was used to destroy the pipe bomb, at the DNC headquarters. To which I responded, Glenn. I said, BS.

Because I said, you can go look on the department of Homeland Security's website and read the destruction of the -- or read the information with images and video, of the exact type of water disrupter cannon that was used to blow apart that bomb. And it's available freely to the public. As a matter of fact, you can buy this system yourself online.

And the patent holder has given it away for free.

Anybody can use it.

And yet they were -- the powers that be were telling me, we could not have it. Actually, they were lying to the Congress members. And telling them, that they couldn't give it to me.

And then what ended up happening, and thank goodness, you had it on here, a week or so ago. Representative Barry Loudermilk intervened.

And we want to -- look, him and his staff have just been absolutely invaluable to our investigations and our research.

But they intervened.

And by 7 o'clock, yesterday morning, we had the video.

GLENN: And that's available right now, and it will be on Blaze TV.

STEVE: Right now.

GLENN: And all of our platforms.

The reason we can do these things, is because of you. If you are a subscriber, please, tell a friend.

If you're not a subscriber, please, join us at Blaze.

There's so many reasons, but investigative journalism, I know the plans of the company, and they are expanding. As Stu said. It's like they've backed up a dump truck of money, to be able to do these things, and grow in real critical news and investigative reporting. But we really need you to subscribe to help support that. And you can do that by going to

Use the promo code "free speech," and get $30 off your annual subscription.

So you get a monthly access to the premium articles.

And, you know, the opinions and things like what Steve is doing.

You want to do an annual. It's $3 a month.

Get Blaze TV plus. For $10 a month.

So join us, will you? Free speech is the -- is the promo code.

So, Steve, where does this go from here?

This seems to me, to be a -- a diversion, because the -- they were both discovered about five minutes before the Capitol was stormed.

It was -- do you think this was to pull Capitol Police off of the Capitol?

And bring them here?

What do you think this was supposed to do.

STEVE: There were diversions. And they were meant to diminish the force. That was available, to protect the Capitol that day.

There's just no other way. There's no other reasonable explanation. Because the first bomb, the RNC bomb was founded about 10 or 15 minutes before that first barricade breach. The famous Ray Epps barricade breach line happened.

That happened at 12:52 p.m.

The bomb was founded about 10 minutes before that. Then the bomb -- or the breach happens at 12:52.

This group of people storm up to the west terrorists.

They begin to form another line up there.

And they already had to divert dozens of officers away from the Capitol. And already diminished police force anyway.

Because of the COVID protocols.

And because they did not want the -- as they said, they did not want the -- the optics of extra security there at the Capitol that day. And particularly, guys wearing the hard units. Or the National Guard.

The Robocop looking guys.

They didn't want any of the optics that take.

So what does it tell you, that the investigators, weren't really allowed to investigate.

They tracked one guy, to I think a home in Virginia.

And then they were told, go away, by the FBI. Just leave it alone.

There's nothing to see here.

What would the motivation be for a government, that is trying to track down every grandmother, who was anywhere near the Capitol? To not pay attention to this.

STEVE: Why would they issue a 500,000-dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of this bomber, and then take the extra step of hiding all the evidence from us.

I told them, when they did it. I said, make it 5 million. You're not planning on giving it away anyway.

GLENN: You know, it's -- it's just so clear, you know, that there may have been, you know, bad guys, you know, that were Trump supporters. Or not Trump supporters.

But there was this group of people. And all of the real leaders, the ones who like Ray Epps. Were causing people to go in, and encouraging them to go in.

You've got the guy on the tower. The scaffolding, that they can't find. They've got the two pipe bomb people. You can't find them.

It -- it just screams, setup.

PAT: Almost to a man, every single Capitol police officer, retired, who left the job. Who are still active with the force.

They all believe that they were set up that day.

The only ones who won't admit that, are the existing leadership.

But that's another story, and we're working on that as well.


Steve, thank you so much.

I hope you stay out of jail.

You know, we're with you.

Steve baker. Investigative journalist.

Blaze media correspondent.

You can find his work at Or on Blaze TV.

More footage, as he just said.

Exclusive. Now being released by Blaze media. More in a minute.

13 Times BIDEN Proved He’s the Dictator, NOT Trump | Glenn TV | Ep 334

13 Times BIDEN Proved He’s the Dictator, NOT Trump | Glenn TV | Ep 334

The noise from the Left has been nonstop for years about Trump being a dictator. An actual headline in the Washington Post read, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.” But who is the ACTUAL dictator in the 2024 race for the White House? Glenn makes the irrefutable case: fascism is already here under Biden. You may not recognize it because it’s been quietly growing thanks to a sneaky administrative state modeled after Woodrow Wilson's that does not (yet) resemble the brute force of a Hitler or Mussolini dictatorship. “You Will Own Nothing” author and Main Street advocate Carol Roth argues it’s not hyperbolic to call the Biden administration fascist. From COVID mandates, intentionally stoking inflation, killing the gig economy, and weaponizing the U.S dollar to freezing our energy output, Roth says the executive branch is trying to dictate every aspect of our lives down to what stove we use. But she also says we will continue to live under this administrative dictatorship unless the American people start to march on Washington to shame and threaten political power. Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, who represents Indiana’s Fifth Congressional District, was born and raised in Ukraine under the old Soviet Union regime. She tells Glenn about the red flags she’s seeing that remind her of the authoritarianism that crushed her family, “What’s happening in D.C. is Karl Marx 101.” Instead of protecting citizens' rights, we’re taking them away in very clever ways through federal agencies like the EPA and DOJ. “You buy a Bible and a gun in the U.S., you’re labeled a domestic terrorist,” Spartz warns. “The same thing happened in the Soviet Union.”