‘WAKE UP’: This HUGE FBI robbery proves America is in DANGER

In 2021, the largest robbery in U.S. history occurred. It included a massive vault, the theft of 86 MILLION dollars in cash and assets, and several armed participants. You’ve probably never heard this story — at least, the way Glenn tells it — which is exactly what the FBI wants. But Glenn gives you all the details, using this incidence to show you that we’re now living in a different kind of America. Our freedoms and rights are in incredible danger, and now is the time we must take a stand and fearlessly speak out against the countless government crimes happening every day...


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This robbery happened in 2015. So this is a recent robbery. And we all know now, who did it. Who broke in, and stole 86 million dollars in cash and assets?

They came in with guns blazing, picked some of the locks of the safety-deposit box, broke open others. But they took everything in the vault. $86 million. Largest in U.S. history.

Have you heard about it? You haven't heard about it, Stu

STU: No. Really I only heard you tease about it from the last couple of days. That's the only time I've ever heard of it. And I followed --

GLENN: Okay. You actually do. You actually do.

It's just been framed differently.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: This is the break-in of the vault. Of Beverly Hills by the FBI. And that's why no one is going to jail for it.

But they should. Let me give you the full story here. FBI began investigating a U.S. private vaults store in Beverly Hills. And what they did, is they were watching people -- they were watching this vault. And somebody on the FBI, just noticed, that there were cars than coming in from Illinois. And going in, and putting things in a vault. But Illinois is a big drug -- big drug state.

So there's evidence number one. Cars were going in, and out. That had Illinois plates.

STU: Yeah. That's not good evidence.

GLENN: Not good evidence. Not good evidence.

STU: I assume there's more to come that's better than that.

GLENN: Not really. I'm just looking at --

STU: Cars with Illinois plates.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Cars are coming in with the Illinois plates.

Oh. And -- and there were many of the customers that were using rental cars to come.

And of these rental cars are, of course, associated with drug traffickers, because if they smell marijuana, well, they don't -- you know, you can say, I don't know. Well, I wasn't smoking marijuana. I never had marijuana in the car. It's this rental car. Now, remember, in California, marijuana is legal, okay?

So you had those two things going for the FBI. So they decided to go in. They went to get a warrant. They had six warrants. Five of which, were rather straightforward, and pertained only to the business, and the business owners.

However, according to a study now from the LA Times, the sixth warrant, signed by a U.S. magistrate judge, Steve Kim, in 2021 authorized the agents to seize business equipment from the store, including 1400 safety-deposit boxes, located in the store.

Even though, the agents did not know the identity of the box owners, or have probable cause, to suspect, that the owners of those boxes, were involved in any kind of drug trafficking or money laundering scheme. The government didn't know what was in those boxes. Didn't know who owned them.

What, if anything, these people had done. Because they didn't even know the people.

So 400 customers had their goods, taken from this safety-deposit box.

This is unprecedented. Never happened before. Eighty-seven million dollars. Now, according to court filings, the FBI insisted on the affidavit, that the warrants authorized the seizure of the nest of boxes themselves, but not the contents.

On the warrant itself, signed by the judge, this warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety-deposit boxes.

However, the FBI didn't care. And they opened up every single one of those boxes, and took the ill-gotten goods.

The FBI later said, it's not under -- we have no obligation to inform the judge how later actions such as criminal investigations against box holders or forfeiture of box contents would play out. So he specifically said, you have no right to open up any of those boxes.

They did. Because they probably had probable cause, but we don't know what the probable cause was.

We have no idea. Because they didn't file it. And when they had probable cause, it was license plates from Illinois. And they were using rental cars.

Seven hundred customers -- I'm sorry, I thought it was 400. It's 700 customers, affected by the FBI raid. Nine were referenced by the FBI in the affidavit.

Thus far, no one has gotten any of their stuff back. None of the customers have been charged with any crimes. Not a single customer out of the 700, not a single customer has been charged with a crime.

STU: But they can't get their stuff back.

GLENN: Right. FBI won't say if any of them have been a subject of a criminal investigation, prior to the raid.

In the alleged -- alleged in the affidavit, only is the fact that those who are irrational, or who have criminal motives, would rent a box, from this -- this safety-deposit box company, rather than a bank. So in the affidavit, that's another thing they told the judge. It's irrational. Why would you keep your money there, instead of at a bank?


STU: It's not your decision to make whether it's rational or not. It's my money, I get to put it wherever I want. It's my stuff, I get to put it wherever I want.

GLENN: Now, the vault company, apparently pled guilty to the drug and money laundering charges. But nothing else has come from the investigation.

The company is out of business. The owners were never charged. The owners were never charged.

Hmm. And now people are suing to get their money back. But a lot of customers aren't willing, to put up all of the money, for -- you know, because not everybody had a lot of money in there. You know, somebody had the ashes of their loved one in a safety-deposit box. Nope. Not getting it back.

And the reason why people aren't willing to do it, is because it's taking a lot -- you're fighting the federal government.

So it's taking a lot of money, to fight the federal government. So people are losing tens of thousands of dollars, at this early stage, just to -- just to make sure that they're cleared. Not getting their stuff back. Just cleared.


STU: It's incredible. How does this stuff happen? How can --

GLENN: This is going to happen more and more. Do you know that in 2008, banks changed the rules, the government changed the rules. That in the case of any kind of emergency, the bank does not allow you to go in to get your safety-deposit box, and open it. It must be opened in the presence of a DHS official.

Did you know that?

STU: It must be.

GLENN: It must be. In case of an emergency, if the government says, it's an emergency and we have -- you know, any stupid reason, to see what's in everybody's safety-deposit box. The banks cannot allow you to take the contents of your box, without a DHS official in the room with you, going through the box.

STU: So, I mean, I guess the theory behind that, would be, what?

Like you have illicit materials, so you'll get caught by the DHS official?

GLENN: Yeah. Let's say there are terrorists. And you have a -- I don't know, a pipe bomb.

Or -- or, you know, plans for a pipe bomb. Be able to catch you.

I personally think, it's to seize your cash. Anybody who has cash --

STU: You have too much cash.

GLENN: To seize it.

STU: You're automatically guilty, as we've seen with this sort of -- the government --

GLENN: You don't even have to say you're guilty.

STU: No crimes.

GLENN: This one, they say, no crimes. No crimes. And yet, they're keeping the $86 million.

STU: This is on the civil asset forfeiture framework. And it's something we've talked about for a long time. It's incomprehensible that this stuff goes on in the United States of America.

If you were to tell me, this happened, you know, in Russia. You would expect it.

GLENN: You would expect it. Correct.

STU: The fact that the United States government is claiming -- and just taking stuff from citizens all across the country, with no crime. Many times, even being charged. Let alone -- I mean, to me, conviction is the point. Where you have an argument.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: When you prove your case, you can take the stuff. Not before that. And they had, they're doing it before they can even charge anyone.

GLENN: Listen to this. The lawsuit also claims that some of the box holders who came forward, to reclaim their seized property were then subject to another investigation.

If you went to the FBI and said, I want my stuff back. The FBI examined their baskets. Their DMV records. Their tax returns.

STU: My gosh.

GLENN: And any criminal history checks. Approximately 20 to 30 box holders decided, you know what, I don't want anything to do with this. FBI agent, Linda Zellhart said that many have speculated that those holders, who have walked away, wanted to avoid either becoming an FBI target, or tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

So, in other words, if you just say, you know what, my wife's ashes are just not worth it. Well, maybe you're hiding something.

STU: Oh, my God. So you're guilty, if you walk away. And you're guilty, if you ask.

GLENN: If you ask.

STU: Oh, well, that's it.

GLENN: This is, America, gang.

STU: Is it?

GLENN: Yeah. It is. Today. It is today.

STU: It doesn't seem like it.

GLENN: Yeah. It doesn't. Because it's not a constitutional America.

But this is the America we now live in, and it is important that you wake up and stand up. We have to begin to stand together. Get your preacher off his fat ass.

If he is not already delivering sermons about the blessings of God, because we're stopping abortion. And then warning, what's going to be happening in those other -- if he's too afraid to say anything, about abortion and alert you to the blessings and the dangers, find another church. Talk to him. And say, why not?

If he hems and haws, find another church. Find another church.

If these rights are given to us by God, that's not just a phrase. In the Declaration of Independence. Who else gives rights? Who else?

If you can't say God, then it's got to come from the government. And I don't get anything from the government, especially for free.

I get no rights from the government. If -- if they're not on the front lines, of standing up, and protecting God-given rights, you're in the wrong church.

Go find one. And start standing up for these things. You are about to have a digital currency, that has all of the earmarks of the mark of the beast.

All of the earmarks. Read revelation. Read what cryptocurrency can do, if it's run by the central bank. And read about what it is, in China.

It might as well be the mark of the beast.

You are about to lose everything. Financially, why?

Because of corruption. Is that what God wants. Does God want you to just stand around, and just allow corruption to happen?

Does God -- does God have a positional on mutilation of our children's bodies?

Do you think God has a position on whether it's cool or not, to teach kids, all about sex in second grade?

Do you think God has a position on any of this? Do you think if Jesus came back today, and you were there saying, no. You know what, whatever. About the trans shows. And the stripper shows with the kids.

Do you think God has an opinion on that?

If you don't, I don't know who you worship. He has strong opinions, especially on what happens to his children. And that includes you, me, Democrats. Socialists. Marxists. Kids. Old people.

He has been a definite love for all of us. But he also has an opinion on right or wrong. And if your preacher ain't talking about it, get away from that church, and find one.

Because God's people have got to start standing up, or we lose freedom. The world's freedom will be on our heads.

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling

Supreme Court Unanimously SHAMES Leftists With Its Trump 14th Amendment Ruling

For months, the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress have tried to convince the American people that Colorado SHOULD be allowed to kick former president Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. And they insisted that if the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, it would be the fault of the "right wing" justices. However, the Supreme Court has now ruled unanimously that Colorado can't use Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump. This was a big failure for the media, Glenn and Stu argue. But did the Court still leave a way for Democrats to remove Trump from office?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The big news today, is that the Supreme Court said, no.

Colorado, you can't do that.

The states can't take a national candidate, off the ballots.

Because of the 14th amendment.

Because the state has nothing -- the 14th amendment is something that the Congress would have to do.

STU: Yeah. That's basically what they're saying.

And it's -- it's fascinating on the legal front. It's a little more complicated than the happy headlines. Which I am happy about.

Legitimately, happy about.

GLENN: Nine-zero.

STU: Nine-zero. Unanimous ruling. Including Sotomayor. Which I'm shocked.

Sotomayor, is essentially AOC.


GLENN: She's a clown of the court. She really has no --

STU: She really is ridiculous.

And she's trying to make herself out to this sort of Ruth Bader Ginsburg figure. Now Ruth Bader Gisnburg was a hardcore liberal, but a serious liberal at some level.

Where I don't believe Sotomayor is. But this was so obvious, they could not do this. Even Sotomayor was on board for this. And also Ketanji Brown Jackson.

All three liberals. They do have a qualified yes on this.

And they say, basically, we agreed that Colorado couldn't do that. That's the issue in front of the court.

We believe the majority has gone too far. Basically the only way this can be implemented is by legislation of Congress.

They kind of leave it open. As to what federal powers can be utilized there. But it is kind of -- it's interesting to note, they did write a dissent here.

And say, hey. Wait a minute. We're not going as far as the majority is.

If you want to go down. Do you want to go down the full house of cards situation here for just a second.

GLENN: Yes. Oh, yeah.

STU: Which is kind of -- it's hilarious in a way. They're basically saying, Congress will basically pass a law saying, that he engaged in insurrection. And therefore, should be thrown off the ballots. As we know --

GLENN: And you can't do that right now. Because the House belongs to the Republicans.

STU: The Republicans.

Now, the Republicans have a very small majority here.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: A couple of House seats somehow changed.

God forbid. And this -- this situation changes. So that's one thing to think about.

Another thing to think about.

And again, we're going the full house of cards situation here.

This is not going to happen. I'm telling you, it's not going to happen.

GLENN: I wouldn't rule anything out.

A dog-faced alien, could come down and take over the White House, on January 7th.

And I would be like, well, didn't see it coming.

But uh-huh. Makes sense.

STU: Yeah. You know, you know, I guess, you could say, the whole house of cards thing, had a lot of -- the show had a lot of crazy turns.

GLENN: Yeah. Which all looks tame at this point.

STU: Yes. He made his wife president, spoiler alert.

Also Kevin Spacey was married to her. Also spoiler alert. Wouldn't have happened in real life.

There's been developments in that case, that may make you understand that.

But going beyond the house of cards thing. In theory, let's just say Donald Trump wins.

The presidential election. And the Democrats hold the Senate, and turn over the House.

That new Congress takes seat on January 3rd.

You'll note, a couple days before, January 6th.

So you'll have a new -- in theory, democratic Congress, democratic president, that could theoretically come up with it. And it seems like --

GLENN: All they have to do is, he was an agent.

An agent of insurrection. And therefore, cannot be president of the United States.

STU: Now, there's reason to believe, in the ruling, that the Supreme Court would not allow this to happen.

But still, it's theoretically possible, that they could vote and say, yes. He's an insurrection. We will pull you off the ballot.

And then you would have a couple of days to get this over.

The way I would think I would understand it. Whoever Trump chooses as VP, essentially, would take over.

It would be, they would put Biden in for longer.

Or some democratic would be named.

Look, if the American people elect Donald Trump and they just pulled him off.

No. You have to go with your VP now. There would be a little bit of uproar over that.

Again, not going to happen. But still, it is a fascinating.

GLENN: What makes you say. I mean, I don't think it will happen either.

I don't think it will happen.

But you say it with such certainty.

What makes you say it with -- you know what is crazy is, we used to say, you know, these things aren't going to happen?

And we would -- we would fairly -- we would believe it. Because crazy things haven't happened.

You can't use that same kind of conviction anymore.

STU: I say it the same way I said it, to start this show.

That Donald Trump was be the not going to lose in court today.

I knew he wasn't going to lose in court today. There was no way he was going to lose in court today.

However, there was definitely a way he could have lost in court today, and we would all be screwed.

In reality, I can't imagine anything like this happening. Just to give you the outline, possibility, of whether you should get all your preparation supplies and head to the mountains, right now. Like, if that were to happen, God only knows.

GLENN: If that would have happened today, I would have gotten all my stuff, and head to the mountains now. I would have.

STU: Seriously, you would have. You would have been at the ranch.

Can you address one other part of it too. Separate from all the legal back and forth.

Which we will I'm sure, cover over the next couple of days. In more depth.

Can we just stop and pause for a second?

And focus on how seriously the media as a whole, took this ridiculous ruling from Colorado. And the idiotic Lawrence Tribe-esque experts who told us it was the right thing.

They said over and over again, oh, actually, this -- this can happen. And it's absolutely right.

And we saw expert after expert. Trotted out on television.

To tell us, no. Really, this is the right way to go.

This is really what's going to happen. And the Supreme Court very well might overturn this. And then nine-zero.

GLENN: And then I may say, convinced people who, if they would just use their common sense.

When it first came out. You would say, they can't do that. They can't do that happen

STU: We know that.

Because he's not been charged with insurrection or anything else. He can't do that. These people came on television, and convinced half the country, that that was reasonable, and really, not just possible. But could be likely.

STU: And the only thing that would stop it is this right-wing Supreme Court. That, of course, would go with --

GLENN: Nine-zero.

STU: But then it was 9-0. And you had even Sotomayor on board for it. So an embarrassing failure for the media yet again.

It's important to note these things. Even though I sound like a broken record on it.

They convinced half the people in the country, that, oh, yeah. Well, this is obviously the right thing. Nobody believed it was the right thing.

There was never any hope for it legally in the courts. It was always a dead end.

It was a hail Mary of Hail Marys of Hail Marys of Hail Marys. And they decided to try it.

Because they're throwing every piece of spaghetti against the wall, to see if it would stick. They never had a chance. It was always absurd. The people who put it through in the California Supreme Court.

Should be ashamed of themselves. They knew it wasn't real. They knew it wasn't true, and they did it anyway.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, we're sitting knee high in spaghetti right now. And that will continue. And it will get faster and faster. And it will get worse.

They are just trying anything and everything to win. Ethics.

The ends justify the means. So look at -- we made -- in the end, drown in a pile of spaghetti. Because this is their approach. And I'm telling you, the law fair that is coming our way, is going to be insane.

How Canada Could PAY People to Throw Their Neighbors IN PRISON

How Canada Could PAY People to Throw Their Neighbors IN PRISON

Canada is now considering whether to pass a new bill that would turn it into the most authoritarian state in the western world. The “Online Harms Act” is billed as a social media law meant to protect Canadians from harmful content. But it includes some extremely draconian changes to “hate speech” laws that would allow anyone to anonymously charge someone with a hate speech crime — and if they’re successful, they could pocket $20k. Rebel News founder Ezra Levant joins Glenn to explain how this could turn into a massively corrupt industry that would make the Democrats’ persecution of Donald Trump look like child’s play. Plus, he explains how this bill, if passed, would destroy not just free speech, but the free press: “Soon there will be only two kinds of journalists in Canada: government journalists and BANNED journalists.”


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Ezra, welcome.

EZRA: Thanks very much. It's good to be here. But I've got bad news, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. What?

EZRA: Canada just introduced the most Draconian anti-free speech censorship bill in our history and in the history of any democratic country. I've never seen anything like it.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on, Ezra. Ezra Levant.

EZRA: I can't wait. I can't wait.

GLENN: I know. Ezra Levant is the host of the Ezra Levant Show.

He started Rebel News, which is like TheBlaze. Has the same kind of mission as TheBlaze.

Ezra, we just had one of our reporters jailed, picked up by the FBI.

EZRA: Oh, my God.

GLENN: He is the one that is leading the investigation on January 6th.

He was arrested, this morning, about an hour ago.

And we're in real -- we're in real trouble.

As a nation, we're in real, real trouble.

And you guys are following, actually, you are leading, I think.

Because you guys have just introduced a bill yesterday.

That is bone-chilling.

EZRA: Well, what you just reported to me about the rest of your reporters is terrifying. And I know you will absolutely must -- you cannot allow the arrest of journalists, for criticizing your regime to be normalized. That is absolute priority one.

GLENN: As you know, Ezra, that is -- the mainstream media will not cover this. They will not cover it. And it's reprehensible.

EZRA: You know what, if he was on the other side of the political aisle, winning a Pulitzer, there would be national press conferences for him. You would see Amnesty International talking about it. You might even see the United Nations talking about it.

But if he's conservative-oriented, or a critic of the regime, it will be crickets.

Let me tell you what's going on in Canada. Because as I always say, what happens in Canada today, may happen to the US five years from now.

It's like we're a bad time machine to see your future.

This week Justin Trudeau introduced a new bill called Bill C63. It's got a lot of things in it, that are atrocious. He's created a new hate crime bill, life in prison. New hate crime law. There's nothing that gets you life in prison in Canada, not even murder. But hate speech now does.

He's created a pre-crime for hate. If you have, quote, fear of hate, fear of hate. That's the title of the section of the law, you can get a judge to issue a kind of restraining order against your enemy, before he does anything. Before he says anything. And that restraining order can include post-arrests. Giving you up any lawful firearms.

Limiting who he can talk to. Directly or indirectly.

Limiting the places he can go. And requiring him to take urine and blood tests. Just because you are, quote, afraid, he might in the future, say some hate speech.

He doesn't have to have done anything in the past.

This is a pre-crime, like in that science fiction movie, Minority Report. That's in this bill. Let me tell you other things in this bill.

Donald Trump and his tremendous travails with the US legal system. They're covered a lot by the Canadian media, and Justin Trudeau is obsessed with Donald Trump. So he's been watching what Democrats have done.

And he's learned from it. Trump has been prosecuted from high profile prosecutors. Trudeau has one-upped that.

Trudeau has now said that anyone in Canada, even noncitizens can file hate speech complaints against anyone.

And if they're successful, they get $20,000 from the target. And the target has to pay a fine for up to $50.

So let me just say this more clearly.

If there's anyone on social media. This is just a social media law on interviews. If there's anyone who has a YouTube video.

A tweet. A Facebook comment.

That you think creates hate. You can go to the Canadian human rights tribunal. And complain about it.

You don't have to hide a lawyer. You don't have to spend any money. The government will have the hearing. And if your complaint is upheld. You get 20 grand from the victim. So instead of having maybe --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Who gets the 30? The remaining 30?

EZRA: If 20 goes to the complainants and an additional 50 goes to the government, so you're on the hook for 70 grand a pop.

So let's take someone like Jordan Peterson. Every day he's saying something controversial on YouTube and Twitter. Oh, and, by the way, this applies to all your historical work online. So as long as it's still online, and you control it, they can go back through your history. Five years, ten years. And why wouldn't they complain about literally every tweet you make? Literally every YouTube video?

There's no cost. There's no downside. And even if only 5 percent of your complaints get through to the target. You're smacking them with 20 grand for yourself. And the 50 grand fine. This will create a huge industry.

So Trudeau saw what they were doing to Trump. And said, I can do one better. I'm not going to have a few sniper shots. I'm going to have a shotgun blast. I will have hundreds of complaints swarming my enemies. And I don't even have to do it. I will mobilize a woke army. But there's one more thing.

And people can't believe it when I tell it to them. But it's right there in the law, in black and white.

You can make a complaint in secret, and the target of your complaints never gets to know your identity.

You can give evidence in secret. The complaint can be made in secret.

So you can have a company, a political party, a busybody, who is literally filing 100 a day, and you'll never know it. And let me just be clear with one thing. You don't have to be a victim. You don't have to have any standing. You don't have to be mentioned at all. You can just do this as a hobby. As an obsession. As a job. As a political vengeance. Maybe a disgruntled ex-employee. This is all in bill C63. And you take it all together. This is the most Draconian free speech bill, anywhere in the world. Other than, I suppose Iran and China, who just do this stuff naturally.

GLENN: And kill you.

EZRA: Yeah.

GLENN: So what does that mean to people like you, Ezra? Because you're going to be attacked. Rebel News is going to be attacked. You're out.

EZRA: Let me just. Let me go to first principles for one second. Let me tell you what they're doing at the basic, principle level here.

What is a hate crime? What's hate, Glenn? It's a human emotion. If you never feel any hate in your life, you don't have a fully formed personality.

The challenge in life, is to take these bad emotions, and transform them into positive work. Into reforming the world. Fixing the problem. Hate comes from an underlying grievance. To pass a law to say, we're going to ban hatred. This is impossible. If we pass the love you act, we would number heaven.

To criminalize an emotion, it's just insane.

And that is, actually, what the law governs.

And I know. Because I was charged from a precursor of this law, about 15 years ago, when I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

I was charged with publishing something, quote, likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt, end quote.

So it's a pre-crime. It's a future crime, and it's not to do any actual damage.

It's just to hurt feelings, and that's the thing, is it's so subjective. We're all guilty in advance.

GLENN: So he --

EZRA: But as the Soviet's secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria said, show me the man, and I'll find you the crime.

We're all guilty of having hate in our hearts. So it's just whoever they choose to prosecute who will get dinged.

GLENN: So tell me this won't pass, in parliament.

EZRA: Well, the reason it was introduced this week, is because last week, Justin Trudeau signed a new coalition agreement, with a hard left-wing Socialist Party.

Justin Trudeau does not have a majority of seats in the House. So we signed a coalition deal with an even worse party.

And I fear this will be passed into law. And I fear it -- you know, it will take some time. They are setting up three new censorship agencies.

Not one. But three. There will be three new censorship bureaucracies.

And I think it will take them a number of months to get it going.

GLENN: Months.

EZRA: I think this will probably be operational in 2025. And then it will be the final battle, Glenn.

Because, you know, this will bankrupt any critic of the regime, and then there's those pre-crime restraining orders.

Then there's the actual criminal prosecution, they've created a standalone hate crime law for life in prison. Not even murder gets you that in Canada.

GLENN: So if this passes, you've become a Stasi state. A -- an -- East Germany.

EZRA: Yeah. The secret informants. The secret prosecution. The secret witnesses.

The subjective political nature of the crime. The three different agencies. It's, oh. And they have special rules for Facebook, YouTube, Instagram.

They say, if they get a complaint. A hate complaint, they must take it down within 24 hours. Or be subject to enormous fines.

And so there's no way you can adjudicate if something is right or wrong, or fair or not. In 24 hours.

And the fines are so enormous, basically, a complaint will automatically get things taken down. Again, I will tell you something now. And you probably won't believe me. But I swear it's in the text of the law.

There are fines in there, that can tag global media companies, 8 percent of their global revenue. So Justin Trudeau, sitting up here in Canada, says to Facebook. If you break my law, I will fine you 8 percent of your entire worldwide revenue. That's a 10 billion that are fine.

Now, I think Facebook, YouTube, Google, et cetera. I think they will probably push back on this. Or maybe they will just leave Canada. And Trudeau will be fine with that.

Facebook has already left Canadian news. Because Trudeau said to them, you have to pay $100 million to our list of approved journalists, for the pleasure of linking to them. And Facebook said, that makes no sense.

We're getting out of the Canadian news business. You cannot post a Canadian news story on Facebook. It blocks it. Trudeau is fine with that because that hurts the independent guys like us.

You can't read Rebel News on Facebook. We're blocked, as are every other Canadian news source. We are becoming like China, in that there is this great firewall of Canada going up.

Trudeau would be happy, shutting down any independent sources of news. Soon, there will be only two kinds of journalists left in Canada: government journalists and banned journalists. Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.


Dr. Phil's WARNING for Parents & His Advice for Trump's Legal Team | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 211

Dr. Phil's WARNING for Parents & His Advice for Trump's Legal Team | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 211

We were promised a unified society, in which social media brought us together, our justice system was reliable, and parents could trust schools and universities with their kids. So maybe it’s time that we ask, “How’s that working for you?” In this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn sits down with renowned psychologist, TV host, and author Dr. Phil to take a deep dive into the mental health of America. Drawing from lessons in his latest book, “We’ve Got Issues: How You Can Stand Strong for America’s Soul and Sanity,” Dr. Phil offers our country a “path back to United America.” But there are many perils along the way. Dr. Phil issues a stark warning to parents about the forces targeting our children in an ever-evolving digital landscape. He and Glenn explore the detrimental effects of social media and unravel the dark underbelly of manipulative Big Tech algorithms. Further, he challenges society’s perception of higher education, arguing that our colleges and universities have become breeding grounds for fear and conformity. Plus, he offers shocking advice for Donald Trump's legal team as the former president and 2024 presidential candidate faces multiple cases across the country. Dr. Phil also shares why he decided to move his entire operation to Texas after 25 years in Hollywood, California, and start a new company, Merit Street Media.

Why Biden's Regime Wants to Brand YOU a 'Christian Nationalist' | Glenn TV | Ep 337

Why Biden's Regime Wants to Brand YOU a 'Christian Nationalist' | Glenn TV | Ep 337

Blaze Media journalist Steve Baker has been arrested by the FBI. His “crime”? Reporting from the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and exposing the Biden regime’s corrupt campaign to brand political dissenters as “insurrectionists” and “extremists.” But there’s a new “threat” that the regime is targeting. It has partnered with the media, Big Tech, and private corporations to create the narrative that Christian conservatives are just a step away from domestic terrorists. And it all begins with their newest label: “Christian nationalist.” Politico has already deployed it to falsely claim that former Trump official Russ Vought and the Heritage Foundation are trying to usher in a theocracy with “Project 2025.” But what does “Christian nationalism” really mean? Should Christians embrace the term, or is this all a trap? Glenn breaks it all down, including why he believes this is an attempt to crack down on your God-given rights. Glenn also speaks with FBI whistleblower Steve Friend, who has some strong words for the FBI agents in charge of Steve Baker’s arrest and a warning about how weaponized the agency has already become against Christians.