RADIO

EVIDENCE That YouTube is "SILENCING" Glenn's Channel Ahead of the 2024 Election

Is YouTube throttling Glenn's channel ahead of the 2024 election? Glenn and his team have reason to believe so. Glenn reviews the latest data, which reveals a disturbing trend that, if it continues, would all but destroy Glenn's channel by the election. "We are being silenced," Glenn says, "and it's not just us. It is EVERYBODY who has a different opinion from this administration." But Glenn also reveals what you can do to push back.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, America. I want to talk to you a little bit about the coming election, and the kind of information you're going to be able to access. Things are changing. And they're changing rapidly. And you will never notice it, because that's the way things are done now.

But there is a massive campaign on, that I believe our government is absolutely involved in.

But not only the government, social media.

My social media page, just on YouTube. I don't know. 1.62000000 people, I don't remember what it is.

Followers. And to show you what's going on. Just, I think three months ago, I got 95 million impressions every month. 65 million views.

Something like that. That was three months ago. Now we have about 60 million impressions and 12 million views.

This month, we are trending to be half of that again. There is nothing that we've done differently. Now, unless America is just bored to snot with me. Which I completely accept.

That is a real possibility.

We are being silenced. And it's not just us.

It is everybody who has a different opinion from this administration.

And we are being silenced and squelched. By the time we get to the end of the summer. Which is where the campaigns are going to be heating up.

You're not. If you were a subscriber of mine on YouTube.

You're never going to see me. You will have to search me out, to find any of my clips.

This is, again, electioneering.

This is nothing more than part of a -- what I believe to be an effort, to steal an election.

And it is gravely disturbing.

This is the time I built TheBlaze for. Back in 2010.

I was sitting in the office. And I remember talking to Stu and Pat and saying, we have to get out of here. This place will burn itself to the ground.

And we all knew that. We all knew the media would burn itself to the ground.

Wouldn't you agree? We all looked at it, at the time.

But when I said, we have to go online.

That was stupid. That was stupid. Nobody was doing it, at the time. I mean, there were people, Adam Curry was doing things.

But there was nobody that was really a success at it, at that point.

And nobody was doing a live network. It was only Major League Baseball.

And I took all of the -- you know, I took all of my children's college funds. And everything else that I had made. And I dumped it into TheBlaze.

And I nearly lost it all. Because we were way, way ahead.

But luckily, we had some very dedicated people.

I meet them all the time.

I've been a member since the very first day of TheBlaze. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate that. We have grown a great deal.

But we don't have the social media pushout.

They are they're doing this to TheBlaze. They're doing this to The Daily Wire.

They're doing this to everybody. So you will see less and less from us, and our opinions.

And it's really a very dangerous thing. Because we are now entering a very dangerous time.

I'm going to be real honest we, too.

I see a time, that I'm not going to be able to talk to you about what's really going on.

If you don't know by then, I probably won't know.

But we're going to have to stay in contact, some way or another. So I have been working on several programs, that we are going to try. And tonight, is -- is a program, based on history.

It's a pilot. And I want you to watch it. And see if it is something, that you would -- you would watch. Again, it's a pilot. It will change a bit.

This one is tonight. All on history.

And we have this amazing. We probably have -- gosh, I don't even know. Eighty. 90 million dollars' worth of documents. And everything else. In a vault.

And we will start telling those stories, if this is something that you would like. And this is kind of a backup show. So we can stay in touch. And I'm not talking politics. I'm just telling you the truth of history.

And tonight is -- is the first one, it's based around one of the most stressful auctions of my life. There was one artifact, and there was just one. And it was so important. It changed the world.

And I talked to my wife about it. And she said, are you out of your mind?

And I said, well, but there's only one. And look how important it is. Change the world, et cetera.

So she gave me a budget. And she was like, there's no way I will win this thing.

It was a test model version. They made four. Sputniks. The last one they made, burned up in space.

But this was the Sputnik, we believe this was the one that was testing the tones, that went out.

It now hangs from the roof, a copy of it, hangs from the roof of my office. The other one is in the vault.

But I couldn't believe that we won. And I was on cloud nine, knowing that our museum now had something that nobody else had, except the air and space museum in Moscow, and the air and space museum in Washington, DC.

And it is what caused the space race, it was the first satellite. It was the first thing that went up. All of our telecommunications now come from that.

Then, in fact, let me play this a little bit of a clip of tonight's show. Do you have that clip, where --

I collected so many artifacts over the years that we're now able to open an entire museum. So when I heard that that was coming up for sale. One of the Soviet Union Sputnik satellites that is responsible for everything in space, it was coming to auction.

I had to win it.

VOICE: 40,000. Forty. 150. 160,000. Three. We'll go a little higher. Can you get into three? 300 now. 320? Thee hundred 20 thousands? Anybody else beyond that? 300,000.

You are -- my friends. $300,000.
(applauding)

GLENN: I won, Sputnik was ours.

But then I got a call into a meeting with historians at our museum. They didn't want to tell me any specifics about the meeting beforehand, which is never a good sign.

This thing is such an amazing -- what was -- what was Epstein's assistant's name?

STU: Ghislaine Maxwell?

GLENN: Okay. Do you remember the movie Tetris?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: The big guy from England in that is Maxwell. Okay. Her dad. But her brother is also in that movie, and he was the -- you know, the loser that was trying to go, you know, get Tetris for his father.

Well, he's actually involved in this story. And I don't know if this made the final cut. He plays a very small role. But he was involved. We weren't sure if this was even real.

And we couldn't -- we couldn't tell. We had a tip-off. Because we looked at the other Sputniks. And they were slightly different.

And the difference was -- was something that you would never. If you're going to fake one. You would never fake it like that.

Because it became obvious.

But there were some things that just kept falling apart, on us.

Did I buy a fake Sputnik?

Tonight, you'll find out, is it a fake Sputnik, or not?

And you'll learn all about Sputnik and the space race, we take you back to what this really meant.

It's great for the whole family.

It happens tonight.

This is a -- this is a -- just a pilot that we did.

I don't even know. About a year or so ago. And we've been holding it. We want to take you through the entire museum.

And teach you history, through the objects in the museum.

So watch it tonight with your family. Let us know what you think. And you can watch my special tonight on BlazeTV.com. It's 9:00 p.m. Eastern.

If you haven't subscribed yet to TheBlaze TV, and you try to watch my show on YouTube, we've noticed -- we don't know if it's the algorithm or what. But nobody is now watching at 9:30. So we're testing something else.

We will post it there tomorrow, at an earlier time, 6:00 p.m. Eastern. To see if it's being silenced. Or you're just not watching anymore. We don't know what's going on with our YouTube channel.

We suspect. But we don't know.

So tomorrow, at 6:00 p.m. on YouTube. But tonight, the premiere on Blaze TV.com.

STU: Now, for from a work flow perspective, was there any consideration given to the idea of maybe meeting with the historians before you spend $300,000 on the item?

GLENN: We did.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: And we do that.

We check everything out.

But there was one thing that we just -- we must notice.

And it was -- I mean, this journey is crazy. We -- we have the -- one of the head guys of NASA. We have probably the biggest space artifact guy. I think we flew him in from California or Washington.

He came in. They disagreed at first. I mean, wait until you see the ending.

I mean, it's -- it's an amazing ride.

PAT: Did you save your receipts? That's what I wanted -- I mean, did you take it back up to the counter, and say, yeah. This Sputnik, it didn't work out for me. You want to have your receipt in hand. So I hope you did.

STU: Or at least the credit card I bought it on.

GLENN: Hey, Amex, somebody put a Sputnik on my card.

PAT: It wasn't me. Why would I buy a Sputnik. It doesn't even fly anymore.

STU: So is this something that you're thinking about long-term, doing more of these types of things. Because we have so much great stuff over at the museum. At least, my understanding is we know all the rest of the stuff is real. But, I mean, it seems like you do a lot of this stuff.

GLENN: Yeah. We actually. We're going through. Because of Sputnik, we're going through absolutely everything. And we found a couple of things that were questionable. We haven't found any fakes. We found some things that the story is not quite right on.

We've got three people, that's all they do. And they're going through the entire museum.

And the documentation now on all of our artifacts is amazing.

And we're learning so many -- just incredible stories. That include people that you would just never think. You know, I've said this before. I honestly don't think we would have won World War II, if it wasn't for Ian Fleming, the guy who wrote James Bond. We have three specific artifacts from him. That tell a story, that is -- that nobody knows.

And he's -- it's just incredible. Some people might know Operation Mincemeat. But they don't know how he affected the war all the way along. He played a quiet role, and nobody knew it, at the time. But we have a lot of stuff that we're excited to show you. So this is a show that we will -- we will take you through all of the -- I mean, if you watch it and you like it. We'll take it through all the museum. And teach history through the artifacts, that -- that are or are not real

RADIO

Glenn Beck: Flag burning vs. freedom of speech

President Trump wants to make burning the American flag punishable by jailtime. But while Glenn Beck also hates to see the flag burned, he makes the case that we can’t make the flag an idol. Maybe there’s a balance with Trump’s focus on stopping incitements of violence, but Glenn urges caution.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task.

RADIO

Trump's Intel investment: Smart business move or unconstitutional partnership?

President Trump has announced a deal to buy a10% stake of computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.

And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.

It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.

So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.

Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.

I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.

Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.

But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?

Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?

Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.

But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.

Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.

Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?

How about your grocery stores?

That's Mamdani, isn't it?

And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.

What happens after we own a piece of that?

So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.

It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.

We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.

It was General Motors.

And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.

But they were not going to be involved.

But they were

The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.

And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.

You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.

Come on!

Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.

It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?

You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.

He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.

Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.

He wants taxpayers to share the upside.

He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?

It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?

I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.

Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?

I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?

STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.

And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.

But, you know, he has to live under that law.

And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.

With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?

These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.

GLENN: With interest. With interest.

STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?

Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.

These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.

GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.

STU: I would agree with that analysis.

GLENN: Very much against them.

STU: Very much against them.

The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.

Now, they will say, voting rights.

They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --

GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.

Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.

STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.

Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.

Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.

That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.

GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.

STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.

Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.

We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.

It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.

GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.

I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.

STU: Well, this is the concern, right?

Who is cheering this on?

Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.

This was his proposal.

He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.

Maybe this was a good one.

You can make that argument.

GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?

STU: Socialist please. Socialist.

GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.

STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.

I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.

It's not just him.

You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?

And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?

And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.

I get it on both sides.

That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.

GLENN: It will be.

Once you start this. Once you start this.

And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.

Although, we're spending more money.

And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.

Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!

STU: He would be the guy.

GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Rob Schneider's Optimistic Vision for America

Comedy legend Rob Schneider and Glenn Beck discuss the current state of affairs in the United States and how political divisions have driven a wedge between the American people. Schneider discusses how his faith in God and perspective on life events shapes his views and why it leads him to still believe in the future of this country being better than many others are willing to envision.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Actor/Comedian Rob Schneider HERE

RADIO

Urgent Question: What’s Behind Media’s Sudden Truth-Telling?

Glenn Beck highlights two shocking stories that the mainstream media would have never touched before. CNN is now exposing the Clintons’ disturbing ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein network, while the Washington Post is revealing newly released documents proving that Ronald Reagan was secretly undermined by the CIA and other agencies when he tried to dismantle America’s nuclear arsenal. These revelations don’t just challenge the narratives we were fed for decades... they confirm the existence of the very “DEEP STATE” the media once mocked. Why are outlets like CNN and WaPo suddenly admitting the truth, and what does this mean for the future of American politics?

Watch the 1st Hour of This Episode of the Glenn Beck Radio Program HERE