Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

TSA Agent: We’re not safe

March 11, 2013
Wilson

Writer

An expose on the TSA confirms what we already knew instinctively: we are not safe. When the supervisors are most concerned about whether or not their screeners are chewing gum (a big no no apparently) you know we’ve got issues. Not only that but felons are getting jobs at the TSA. Brilliant. 

More on this story at TheBlaze.

Transcript of the segment from radio is below:

GLENN: All right. Let me go to the story up on TheBlaze. A former Newark TSA agent tells us the obvious: We're not safe. If you've ever flown in or out of Newark, New Jersey, you know that. This is not going to come as a shock to you. But if you've never been to Newark, hey, congratulations on that. That's a very good thing. But if you've never been to Newark, I swear to you I have been where the person, they check your driver's license and this even they don't even look up to match your face on the license. They don't do it. They never look up.

PAT: You'll put the bag through the machine and nobody even looks at the monitor. Nobody's even looking at it.

GLENN: Okay, so ‑‑

PAT: They are talking to each other.

GLENN: This is an expose, the employees, this is from a former TSA employee. There are those employees who could never keep a job in the private sector who are working at the TSA in Newark. I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, and these are the people that Janet Napolitano says ‑‑ she constantly says these are the first class, first line of defense in the war on terror. If that's true, you're dead if you fly out of Newark, New Jersey. I mean, I almost ‑‑ but I just wanted to get through. I almost had a ‑‑ I almost had a scene because I'm standing at this, you know, check‑in line and I had flown in and out of Newark over and over again and where they check your ID, right behind them is a plate glass window and it looks to the skyline of New York where the World Trade Centers would have been. And so you're ‑‑ and this woman didn't even look at my face. And I about snapped. I about snapped. And the guy standing next to me said, don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do it. Because he could feel it coming. And what I wanted to say was, "Turn around for me. Don't even look at my face. Just turn around and see that place right in the skyline where the buildings should have been? Could you at least look at someone's face as they're going through? What is the point of looking at their driver's license if you're not matching it with the person who just handed it to you?" But they're $15 an hour employees. And in Newark, New Jersey, who's living on $15 an hour?

PAT: Guy tells the story about one screener who didn't come to work for four weeks. Just didn't show up for four weeks. When he finally reappeared, he asked for another week off. The answer was no, you just took four weeks off. So what did he do? He took another week off and still didn't get fire.

GLENN: Well, they can't replace them.

PAT: They can't replace them.

GLENN: Who's going to work there? Do you know how low your self‑esteem would be if you had any ‑‑ you know what one of the big things with the TSA guys, according to this, according with the supervisors, according to a former TSA employee in Newark, one of the big things that drives the employers nuts is gum‑chewing. And so they go and they check the employee: Are you chewing gum? And they had one guy ‑‑ this TSA employee said, "I witnessed the boss coming over and saying, "Open up your mouth. Open it up." It's a mint, jack. It's a mint. "Open it up. I want to see it." And made him open up and show him that it was a mint and not gum. I mean, that's what you are worried about: Gum‑chewing? It's a pretty nasty, pretty nasty look at the bottom of the barrel.

STU: Yeah, Marsha Blackburn, the congresswoman, released a TSA report of the 50 most dangerous officers. I mean, there's ‑‑ we're talking offenses like rape, you know ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, this is the one from last week where they were ‑‑

STU: I think this is.

GLENN: Yeah, last week where they're talking about how they are employing now former criminals.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Felons. Felons. Not misdemeanors. Felons are getting a job at the TSA. That's exactly what I want to do. I want to put felons, I want to give them a badge and have them ‑‑ I mean, because they can ‑‑ they are beyond reproach. There's no way, there's no way, you know, a bunch of ex‑felons are going to, you know, take money making $15 an hour, take money and let somebody on the plane with something nefarious. No way.

STU: And this is the problem. There's a lot of good TSA employees and they do a lot of good things but you have people ‑‑ when you have the government or union running these things, you get people who are convicted of child pornography and keep their jobs. Private businesses don't allow that.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: They get rid of you when you do crap like that. When you steal from passengers, they get rid of you. When you're through the government, it's such a process to do that, it becomes completely inefficient and you have lists like the 50 most dangerous officers.

GLENN: Well, you know what? The cities that don't have ‑‑ do we have a list, Jeffy? Can you stop looking at your cancer screening? Do you have breast cancer?

STU: No.

GLENN: Seriously maybe you have breast cancer.

JEFFY: No, I felt for lumps this morning. I'm good.

GLENN: Did you? Good. Could you look, could you look at the cities that have said we don't want TSA?

STU: San Francisco's one of them.

GLENN: San Francisco is one of them.

STU: You know, you'd think of all places San Francisco would love the government intervention but even they have opted out of it. You can opt out.

GLENN: No, no, people who like government intervention are generally those, those people that want government intervention elsewhere but not for them.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They will accept everybody else, but we're smart enough to live on our own. Did you hear, if you are ‑‑ if you're a federal worker or if you have any kind of, you know, retirement plan, if you're a teacher or a cop or anything else, what's the one city you want to live in? Because they're giving I think double the amount to the, actually putting it into the kitty. Everybody else, nobody's getting ‑‑ they are not putting anything into your kitty now anymore. You're not getting your healthcare. You're not getting your retirement benefits, gang. I got news for ya. It doesn't work. The system doesn't work. It won't happen. Because there are too many people on retirement and not enough people coming up. They need like 12‑to‑1 and we're already down to, like, 8‑to‑1 and another five years it will be down to 4‑to‑1. You just can't afford all the retirement. And so what they've been trying to do is, "Hey, put all this money in for investment because then it will grow." But nobody's putting the money in for investment anymore except for one city. And it makes sense: Washington, D.C. If you work in Washington D.C., you have the best chance of getting your retirement. Now, why is that? Well, you want the people in Washington D.C., you want the Feds to be fat and happy. That's why they make more money, almost double. When you include the benefits, almost double the amount of money that you make is made by a federal worker. Almost double. And it is ‑‑ it's shockingly horrifying that these are our public servants. But if you're trying to get somebody who is loyal to the money and will work through anything and will fight the hardest to make sure there's no cuts, you want the federal workers to be the ones. Keep growing that base fatter and fatter and fatter and make sure the ones who impose all the laws, the ones who really are the ones who enforce it, make sure it's enforced, make sure they have their retirement covered. Everybody else, you're on your own.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.