Owner of a Lonely Heart: Pat Laments Foreigner Being Overlooked AGAIN for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Let's just get this out of the way. Pat Gray is a hardcore Foreigner fan. Foreigner is the best freaking band ever (well, Foreigner and Boston). So any list of inductees into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame that doesn't include Foreigner will fall short in his eyes.

"I'm sure they're all incredibly deserving --- and certainly more deserving than Foreigner who can't even be nominated because they only had about 30 Top 40 hits. They only had, I don't know, 15 or 20 top ten hits. They only sold about 80 million records worldwide. They've only been icons for about 40 years," Pat said.

Who made the final cut for 2017? In the performance category, Joan Baez, Electric Light Orchestra (ELO), Journey, Pearl Jam, Tupac Shakur and Yes will be inducted.

"Joan Baez? Joan Baez?! Did you see the people's vote on the website for a month or two leading up to the actual decision? Joan Baez was at the bottom of that list, so the people's vote means nothing," Pat said.

Evidently, a 1960s protest song goes a long way, baby.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• Does Pat like any of the performers on the 2017 list?

• Does Rolling Stone magazine have a crush on Yes?

• Why did George Washington University remove US History as a requirement for history majors?

• How did a wild and crazy guy like Steve Martin become a target of feminists?

• Should Brent Musburger retire?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: In for Glenn. He just threw his back out about an hour ago. Technology is awesome. But what are the drawbacks? What are we becoming? We'll talk about some of the latest innovations to be in every home as we have been today.

We've been talking about your New Year's resolutions. We also want to get into Black Lives Matter. Do they?

We don't hear much about the black lives being lost in Chicago, do we? And what a year, 2016 was for murders in Chicago. Just unbelievable.

Also, the Russians influencing the election. Nah, that didn't happen. Had nothing to do with Russians, according to Julian Assange. And we certainly believe him.

JEFFY: Oh.

PAT: Also, George Washington University has apparently removed US history from their curriculum. We'll start there, right now.

(music)

PAT: Yeah, Glenn just hurt his back pretty badly. Hopefully he'll be back on tomorrow, maybe I don't know, from a hospital bed or his own bed.

JEFFY: No kidding.

PAT: We'll see. 888-727-BECK. It's Pat Gray and Jeffy in. Stu is also sick today. So not a great start for those guys in 2017.

JEFFY: No doubt.

PAT: So -- the other thing that we were going to mention -- you just mentioned right before we came on. Apparently the Rock Hall of Fame --

JEFFY: Oh.

PAT: Has decided who is going into the Hall of Fame for this year.

JEFFY: Yes, they have. And we were pretty close -- we were pretty close when we talked about who they were going to pick.

PAT: Tell us the nominations. Do you have that in front of you?

JEFFY: I just have who they picked. But we can certainly get it.

PAT: Who is actually going in this year? I'm sure they're all incredibly deserving, and certainly more deserving than Foreigner who can't even be nominated because they only had about 30 Top 40 hits. They only had, I don't know, 15 or 20 top ten hits. They only sold about 80 million records worldwide.

They've only been icons for about 40 years. You wouldn't want them in the Rock Hall of Fame. But you do want --

JEFFY: But -- Joan Baez.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. Joan Baez? Joan Baez! Did you see the people -- they always do the people's vote on the website for a month or two leading up to the actual decision.

JEFFY: I did. Right.

PAT: And Joan Baez was at the bottom of that list, so the people's vote means nothing.

JEFFY: We talked about it either here or on Pat and Stu. We did both. We talked about who we thought they would pick. And, you know, obviously who was in the running.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And we were pretty close. We were pretty close --

PAT: So -- because I think we said Joan Baez would be one of them. Because all you have to do is sing a protest song in the 1960s and you're in.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah -- and coffeehouse queen of that.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

JEFFY: ELO. Electric Light Orchestra.

PAT: Okay. That's a good one.

JEFFY: That's worthy. That's worthy.

PAT: Absolutely belong. Should have been in a long time ago.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So ELO. Joan Baez.

JEFFY: Journey.

PAT: Journey, of course, had to get in. I mean, they deserve it.

JEFFY: Yeah. I know. Pearl Jam. We said there's no way they're not going to --

PAT: No way.

JEFFY: It's iconic.

PAT: The other thing besides protest songs is singing about how you were abused as a child.

JEFFY: It's an era. Yeah, it's an era. That's what they represent, right?

PAT: I hate my parents. I've never liked them. I got beaten when I was a kid. And you're in. You're in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So who else?

So Joan Baez, ELO, Journey, Pearl Jam.

JEFFY: And, of course, Tupac Shakur. Who else do you think of in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than Tupac Shakur? Now, Tupac was not at the bottom, but he was down there.

PAT: Yeah, he was very near the bottom, with Joan Baez.

JEFFY: He was down there. Yes.

PAT: Unbelievable.

JEFFY: You knew there was no way they weren't going to put Tupac in. No way.

PAT: And he's not rock. But they don't -- they don't go back that for some reason. The Rock Hall of Fame really has very little to do with rock 'n' roll because a lot of rap artists are in. R&B. You know, so -- it's frustrating. It's really frustrating.

JEFFY: And finally we have --

PAT: Oh, there's another one?

JEFFY: Finally we have -- yes, of course. Of course.

PAT: Because they're a Rolling Stone favorite, right? If the Rolling Stone magazine liked the band, there's a good chance they're going to get in.

Name -- other than Owner of a Lonely Heart and Roundabout, name a Yes song.

JEFFY: Are you talking to me?

PAT: Yeah, I'm talking to you.

JEFFY: I can't.

PAT: Yeah.

(laughter)

No one can.

JEFFY: I want to. I want to look it up bad and give you one, but I can't.

I didn't even -- I would have just said Roundabout. Owner of a Lonely Heart, yeah, I know it, but --

PAT: Which was bigger than Roundabout. I mean, that was their biggest hit.

JEFFY: Yeah, I know. But Roundabout was longer, so you played it to take a longer break.

PAT: Yes, you did. If you ever had to go to the bathroom and you worked at a classic rock station, you go Roundabout. Because it was about seven and a half, eight minutes.

JEFFY: I'll be your roundabout, 80,000 times, you were good. You were good. No problem.

PAT: Roundabout and Stairway to Heaven were the two.

888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

George Washington University in Washington, DC, has decided they're giving students more flexibility.

JEFFY: Isn't that nice?

PAT: They're going to give them more flexibility. That means freeing them up from taking required courses like US history.

JEFFY: Why?

PAT: Even if they're history majors, they don't have to take US history.

JEFFY: Come on now. That's agonizing. We should -- any government money they get should be taken from them immediately.

PAT: You xenophobic bastard. What are you talking about?

JEFFY: Should be taken from them immediately. I don't care if you tell me we don't like the US history they're teaching. I don't care. There should be US history. That should be a mandatory thing. It should absolutely be required.

PAT: Especially -- especially if you're a history major.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: How do you not study US history?

According to The College Fix, the new requirements allow for students to take an optional course in previously required courses or a high score on a placement test to opt out of the requirement.

JEFFY: Oh, well, good.

PAT: But there's no more mandate to take US history.

JEFFY: They changed a couple other things too. I will say they eliminated the requirements for US North American and European history, which, you know, even if you're a history major is absolutely wrong, as well as foreign language requirement. Those -- that's not required now for a major. So you could get -- you could get your US history major without that history. Big deal. Who cares.

PAT: And the reason that they're saying they decided to do this is because they want to recruit new students to better reflect a globalizing world. Because, Jeffy, we're citizens of the globe now.

JEFFY: Are we?

PAT: We're not US citizens anymore. We're citizens of the globe.

Citizens of this planet. You know, and --

JEFFY: That's good.

PAT: So this is a beautiful thing. They can take world history instead, European history. We are just -- we're begging for trouble.

JEFFY: Every dime.

PAT: Begging for trouble.

JEFFY: If they take a dime of taxpayer's money, it should be taken from them right now. That's fine. You can do what you want. I don't care what they do.

PAT: Right. Right. But you get no taxpayer money.

JEFFY: Come on now. You're a United States university. United States of America university.

PAT: I'm just really worried about what's going on in our colleges. Because even at the so-called conservative-leaning schools, they're teaching our kids garbage. Garbage.

JEFFY: Not really. Not really.

PAT: I was talking to my son over the Christmas break about what he was learning from his professors in history. And he said they hate Israel, for one thing.

JEFFY: Of course.

PAT: And the slant on Israeli/Palestinian relations was all Palestinian-leaning.

JEFFY: Of course.

PAT: And he said they didn't come right out and say that Israel is in the wrong, but everything they taught led you to believe --

JEFFY: And why not?

PAT: -- that Israel was in the wrong.

JEFFY: We got the United Nations. Our country is, we don't want to vote. We know what's going to happen. We got John Kerry telling us that they're wrong and bad.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: Obama has been telling us they want -- well, they should go back to the 68 borders, and Israel is in the wrong. Why wouldn't you be that way?

PAT: And I told him, you know, do they even talk about the fact that the Palestinians had their shot at a homeland when the partition was made in 1948? When the UN gave birth to Israel, they also gave birth to a Palestinian state. And the Palestinians rejected it and instead went to war with their Arab brethren against Israel in 1948. What? What?

JEFFY: What?

PAT: That -- they never talked about it. They never talked about it! How is that possible?

And then they went to war again in 1956. And again in 1967. And again in 1973. And 1981. And so on and so forth through history.

And the Israelis had had enough by '67 and final kept the West Bank. Because the Palestinians have always been, "That's not enough." I mean, I don't know what enough is for them.

PAT: Well, enough is getting rid of Israel. It means getting rid of Israel.

JEFFY: And unless we do that, that's not enough.

PAT: That's right. And really, you have the UN going along with that. And now apparently you've got the Obama administration going along with the UN, in these resolutions.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: And Israel is pretty fed up with it. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them.

So what chance do our kids have when they're hearing all of this garbage in college and these are the people that we've set up as the authority figures. This is where you're going to go and learn all these great things to prepare you for life. And then they're hearing all of this stuff. And now they're not getting any US history on top of that, at places like George Washington University.

JEFFY: And that actually is the argument for not having to get the US history, right? You're hoping that maybe the history they get will be correct and not --

PAT: But it's not going to be.

JEFFY: No, it's not no.

PAT: It's going to be a worldview. It's going to be an anti-American view. And it's hard to overcome that slant. And so if your kids are attending universities, I'd -- I recommend talking to them about what they're learning from their professors so that you can at least provide them with the other side of it.

JEFFY: It may take a while.

PAT: And as I told Sean, I don't mind if they teach you both sides. I don't care about it at all. In fact, that's the way you should -- let them decide. Just teach them both sides of the issue. Don't slant it one ware way or the other.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: He said one of the things he liked best about one of his professors was, one day he would come in with one side of an argument, and he would argue the other side while the students came at him with questions.

JEFFY: Nice.

PAT: And then the next day, he would argue the other side of it and have them respond accordingly. And I thought, "Well, yeah. That's what you should be doing."

JEFFY: Absolutely.

PAT: Let them decide. But -- because otherwise, it's indoctrination.

JEFFY: Well...

PAT: And sadly, that's what's happening.

JEFFY: Yeah, absolutely.

PAT: 888-727-BECK. It's Pat and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program.

(OUT AT 10:20AM)

PAT: Pat and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. He hurt his back. Threw it out again. And so hopefully he'll be back tomorrow.

888-727-BECK. Some people under fire for comments that they've made. Steve Martin -- this weird controversy.

JEFFY: Unbelievable.

PAT: Is one of the dumbest I've ever seen in my life.

JEFFY: And he deleted it.

PAT: Well, of course. Yeah, especially if these lefties in Hollywood -- they don't understand the insanity of the left because they're part of it. So the least little criticism they get, okay. I'm sorry. He actually said -- and I can't remember the exact tweet. But he tweeted out after Carrie Fisher died that she was beautiful, and she was also smart and talented. Something to that effect, right? Because he mentioned her intelligence matching her beauty. Something to that effect.

Well, the feminists went crazy. How dare you mention a person's appearance after they've died!

What?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

PAT: When did that become a thing, that I can't do that. Are you kidding me? So if Brad Pitt dies, no woman better ever mention --

JEFFY: Not one word.

PAT: -- that he was good-looking, or we will hit the roof.

(laughter)

That is asinine. Do you have the tweet? It was innocuous. It wasn't offensive in any way. And yet, because he got so much flak, he deleted it. What was the original tweet?

JEFFY: From @SteveMartin. Think she was -- oh, let's see. These are the ones that are against him.

His tweet: When I was a young man, Carrie Fisher was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. She turned out to be witty and bright as well.

PAT: Witty and bright as well.

JEFFY: How horrific. Steve Martin.

PAT: You'd think he committed genocide on women or something.

JEFFY: I think she aspired to something higher than just being pretty. How do you want to be remembered?

These are some of the ones -- the people that were so mad at him. Unbelievable.

PAT: Can -- can her looks not be one of the things you remember?

JEFFY: No.

PAT: Okay. I guess not.

JEFFY: No!

PAT: Is it really an insult -- if Carrie Fisher were alive today, would she say that's an insult?

JEFFY: Absolutely not.

PAT: How dare you say I was beautiful! How dare you!

JEFFY: And witty. I am not. I am not witty.

PAT: I am the dullest person going. I am so dull, you couldn't get butter with me! That's how dull I am!

(laughter)

Also under fire right now -- and maybe rightly so, and I've defended him in the past, Brent Musburger shouldn't broadcast anymore.

JEFFY: Oh, no. What did he do? I don't know this.

PAT: He broadcast the Sugar Bowl last night with Oklahoma. Auburn.

JEFFY: Of course. Yeah, they still have Brent hang around for one more. He's one of the sportscaster icons.

PAT: I mean, he's a good sportscaster whose time has maybe passed him by.

JEFFY: Well, that was a while ago. But they still -- they still throw him the bone for a day or two. He's been around for long enough. He's got the name recognition.

PAT: Yes, he does.

But last night, he was talking about Joe Mixon, who in public punched a woman in the face. And the video was released recently, and, you know, it's horrific. It was a couple years ago when it happened. And he got suspended for all of the 2014 season.

So then he came back, and Musburger originally said it was troubling, very troubling to see. We've talked to the coaches, and they all swear this young man is doing fine. Like I said, Oklahoma thought he might even transfer, but he sat out the suspension, reinstated.

And, folks, he's just one of the best. And let's hope, given a second chance by Bob Stoops and Oklahoma, let's hope that this young man makes the most of his chance and goes on to have a career in the National Football League.

Now, as soon as he said that, I thought, "Oh, you don't know what you just said."

JEFFY: Brent.

PAT: That is not going to go over well.

JEFFY: No, it is not.

PAT: And it didn't. And so they're getting all kinds of tweet. And they're getting all kinds of social media backlash. And people are going crazy about it.

JEFFY: I bet. I bet.

PAT: And so later in the game, he came out again and said, "Apparently some people were upset when I wished this young man well at the next level. Let me make something perfectly clear: What he did with that young lady was brutal, uncalled for. He's apologized. He was tearful." So --

JEFFY: I know. But let's -- in Brent's -- go ahead. Finish what he said to say.

PAT: -- he got a second chance. He got a second chance from Bob Stoops. I happen to pull for people with second chances. Okay? Let me make it absolutely clear that I hope he has a wonderful career and he teaches people with that brutal, violent video, okay?

No, that's not okay!

JEFFY: In today's world -- in today's world --

PAT: You can't say that.

JEFFY: -- in today's world, you can't even live. You can't live. You can't walk down the street.

PAT: Nope.

JEFFY: You can't go out of your house if you're guilty of hitting a woman.

PAT: Well, that's true.

JEFFY: If you're a sports -- any kind of sports, any kind of athlete.

PAT: Yep. Uh-huh.

JEFFY: And there's video of it.

PAT: Well, I will say this, you certainly can't be celebrated, right?

JEFFY: No. No. You cannot. No.

PAT: Musburger should have left it alone. If I were them --

JEFFY: Great run by -- how dare you. He hit his woman. You can't --

PAT: I wouldn't have even brought up the whole incident. It's in the past. You should just leave it alone. You don't wish him well when you're talking about in the same breath, he beat some woman in the face.

JEFFY: He knows better than that. He used to -- you're right though. It may be time. It may be time.

PAT: It just may be time, Brent.

JEFFY: Brent, call it in.

(OUT AT 10:32AM)

PAT: Pat and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. Threw his back out earlier. Hopefully he'll be back with us tomorrow. 888-727-BECK.

We were talking about Brent Musburger's problems last night. And this kind of follows up from, was it last year or the year before? It was a couple years ago now, right? Where he was talking about A.J. McCarron's girlfriend during the Sugar Bowl. Was it the Sugar Bowl? I don't know. One of the bowl games.

JEFFY: It was one of the --

PAT: Some Alabama game. Yeah, it was an Alabama game.

JEFFY: It might have been the SECC championship.

PAT: Possibly. But here's what he said then, which was somewhat interesting.

BRENT: Auburn. I want to admit that. But Miss Alabama -- and that's A.J. McCarron's girlfriend. Okay?

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

BRENT: And right there on the right is Dee Dee Bonner. That's A.J.'s mother. Wow, I'm telling you, you quarterbacks, you get all the good-looking women.

JEFFY: Yeah, he sees the mom.

BRENT: What a beautiful woman. Wow.

VOICE: A.J. is doing some things right --

BRENT: So if you're a youngster in Alabama, start getting a football out and throwing it around the backyard.

(laughter)

JEFFY: You want to be a quarterback.

PAT: He got all kinds of flak for that.

JEFFY: He sure did.

PAT: I didn't think it was that bad.

JEFFY: Boy, social media, Twitter went crazy.

PAT: It went nuts. Because he's talking about, again, a beautiful woman. And I guess that's --

JEFFY: You're not allowed.

PAT: That's verboten. That's forbidden. You can't talk about --

JEFFY: You can't talk about the girl. You can't talk about the mother. You can't talk about the -- nothing.

PAT: And people made a big deal. That's a 72-year-old man talking about a 21-year-old girl.

He's not asking her for a date. He didn't try to sleep with her.

JEFFY: He's saying A.J. made a great choice.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And, wow, there's her mother.

PAT: And she's attractive too.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Terrible? No.

JEFFY: And then he's got Herbstreit next to him, who was a quarterback, by the way, when he said, "Wow, you quarterbacks..."

PAT: Yes. True, right.

And last night was a little different deal. It was a lot different.

Last night, he deserved some criticism. And it wasn't just the Joe Mixon thing. Sort of, you know, celebrating him and hoping he has a great career after he punched a woman in the face.

And I guess, should that -- should that end his career for all time? There's a lot of people who think so.

JEFFY: Yeah, in today's world, there's a lot of people who think you should stop existing.

PAT: Yeah. And I don't think that Brent get that at this stage. What is he? Seventy-five now?

JEFFY: Probably, yeah.

PAT: But the other thing he was doing -- I don't know how many times he called these large football players rascals.

(laughter)

That rascal. That's a big rascal.

JEFFY: That's a big one.

PAT: And the other thing he kept sayings was youngin's. These youngin's and rascals.

JEFFY: Of course.

PAT: Okay. You're not in 1956 anymore, Brent. So, again, it just might be time.

JEFFY: No. It might be time, Brent. Just to -- we love you. Okay? And every once in a while --

PAT: And I do. I think he's great.

JEFFY: Every once in a while, come back around. Maybe do a press conference at the Bowl games every once in a while. The Sugar Bowl maybe gives you a special award. You're the Sugar Bowl guy.

PAT: You're the honorary color man for the Sugar Bowl.

JEFFY: You're the guy, from here on out.

PAT: We allow you to say three things during the Sugar Bowl.

JEFFY: We allow you to say, "And the Sugar Bowl winner this year is..."

PAT: So it just might be time.

JEFFY: We'll get you a ticket. You're up in the booth, and you're good.

PAT: And I will say, it definitely is time for the Obamas.

Now, this happened a couple of weeks ago, but we were on vacation when she said it. And I couldn't believe the insensitivity of it at the time.

But it reminded me how glad I am to see these two go. When Michelle Obama sat down with Oprah and because -- and they're talking about the Trump presidency and how the left is going crazy.

And here's what Michelle Obama said.

MICHELLE: We're feeling what not having hope feels like, you know. Hope is necessary. It's a necessary concept. And Barack didn't just talk about hope because he thought it was just a nice slogan to get votes.

JEFFY: Yes, he did.

MICHELLE: I mean, he and I and so many believe that what else do you have if you don't have hope?

VOICE: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

MICHELLE: What do you give your kids if you can't give them hope?

PAT: I'm sorry. Was she saying that about the right, who almost lost all hope when her husband was elected, when her Marxist husband was elected in 2008? No.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: They didn't care at all what the right was feeling. They didn't -- they didn't give -- they didn't care at all about anybody but themselves. And now all of a sudden, now they see that their reaction is much the same as ours. And they have no recognition of that. None!

They are the most unaware people. These liberals and progressives apparently can't see beyond their own noses. It's just amazing.

And it's -- it's one of the reasons I'll be very happy to say goodbye to them on January 20th, regardless of who is entering the White House. Just so they're going out the other door.

JEFFY: Yeah, they're gone.

PAT: Just so they're gone.

JEFFY: And he makes a big point now of continuing to say that he's still going to be involved.

PAT: I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere.

JEFFY: Still going to be in Washington.

PAT: Yeah, he told some little girl that.

JEFFY: Going to school.

PAT: I was only paying half attention to the news cycle when we were on vacation, but he was telling some little kid, "I'm not going anywhere." Because the kid was saying how he's going to miss him and all of that. And I thought, "I don't know if I can handle it if you don't go anywhere. You need to go somewhere and just leave us alone now okay? You've done enough."

JEFFY: There's no way he does that either.

PAT: It's fascinating to watch this though because, again, they are so unaware. Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning economist and liberal New York Times columnist said that he's lost faith in the future of the United States. Now, when we were saying this in 2008 and 2012, that we were concerned about the future --

JEFFY: What!

PAT: Who do you want to take the country back from? A black man? Well, who do you want to take the country back from? A white guy? A capitalist? A -- what do you say?

In a series of tweets following Trump's expected triumph in the electoral college, Krugman seemed to be despondent with the state of the US: So it's official, and it's vile. The loser of the popular vote installed by Russian intervention, a rogue FBI, an epic media malfunction, he tweeted. We should never accept this as okay. It may be a new normal. But that's a new normal in which the America we knew and loved is gone.

It's just agonizing.

JEFFY: It sure is.

PAT: It is agonizing. Are people noticing that the Trump economic team is shaping up as a gathering of Gold bugs?

JEFFY: Wait.

PAT: What is it -- I'm not sure what that means. Goldman Sachs people I guess he's talking about?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: People who are successful economically, I guess he's talking about.

JEFFY: I hate those people.

PAT: You got to hate them.

JEFFY: I hate those people that are successful.

PAT: Krugman gave the highest praise to Larry Kudlow, who is expected to be named the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. In this crew, Kudlow, who thinks it's always the 1970s, but doesn't seem to hyperinflation under his bed is the most reasonable.

Okay. Well, I mean, it -- it's fascinating to watch their machinations now. It's fascinating to watch their panic, their fear, the fact that they're all buying shelters now. They're installing these -- these self-sufficient shelters that in some cases are costing seven, ten, $15 million. Now, when we said, "Hey, you might want to store some extra food," it was crazy. It was nuts.

JEFFY: What are you talking about? Preaching the end of times?

PAT: When we were saying, "Hey, maybe it's good to have 10 percent of gold in your portfolio." I'm not talking about buying all the gold in the universe, I'm just saying maybe 10 percent of what you own.

JEFFY: Oh, how crazy are you?

PAT: You're so crazy, you're just making money. And now they're taking these incredibly drastic measures. It's perfectly fine. It's perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with it.

JEFFY: It's okay. Not crazy at all.

PAT: Now when they say the end of the world is coming because of Donald Trump, it's perfectly fine. There's no problem.

Just -- I'm not asking them not to say it. I'm just ask them to notice that you thought all of that was crazy in 2008 when we were concerned.

JEFFY: It would be nice. There's no way.

PAT: And maybe you could learn the lesson from us that, "Okay. We thought that he would -- and he did fundamentally transform America. But we thought it might be to the point to where we would even have no place in it.

I'm not sure what we thought would happen. Economic collapse. Who knows.

And he did do a lot of damage. But we survived it. And here we are.

So it would be nice if they could learn that lesson, that we thought it was going to be catastrophic when he was elected. And he's been elected to two terms. And we survived it.

We'll survive this guy, no matter what. We'll survive him.

And that's -- you know, I think that's what's given me so much hope, is that realization. After the election, I thought, "Well, you know, we've survived a lot. We survived a Marxist president."

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Who I don't think even has much admiration for this country.

JEFFY: Not a chance. No way.

PAT: And somehow we got through it all. We survived his socialist program, his Obamacare. We survived the government taking over 17 percent of the economy. Now, it's made things worse. There's no doubt about that. And a lot worse. And even for people who don't have Obamacare, it's made health care extraordinarily expensive and has ruined our coverage.

We used to have the best coverage I've ever had. It has declined so much over the last few years, since Obamacare. It's almost unrecognizable now.

JEFFY: It's quite a bit different.

PAT: It's a lot different.

JEFFY: I mean, I got --

PAT: I mean, Glenn was really proud of the fact that he offered the best insurance available, and he did.

JEFFY: And he should be.

PAT: And he should be.

JEFFY: Yeah, absolutely.

PAT: Yes. But now, you can't even get that insurance anymore. You can't even get it. They won't even put the parameters into the computer because they don't have those parameters anymore.

JEFFY: It was -- as long as we're down this road. It was frustrating in our gatherings with changing of insurance that we kept here. Well, this is the best it is. This is the best --

PAT: This is really great.

JEFFY: Nobody else has got --

PAT: It was so frustrating that I had to point out to them: Yeah, well, it's not to us. Because we used to have much better. Yeah, well, that doesn't exist anymore. So...

Okay. Well, thank you, Obamacare. Appreciate it.

JEFFY: Right. And that's why Nancy Pelosi is proud to tell the Republicans, "Look, if you break Obamacare, they own it. They break it, they own it."

PAT: It's already broken.

JEFFY: No kidding. Nancy.

PAT: I've got news for Nancy Pelosi: It's been broken since day one.

JEFFY: Day one.

PAT: 888-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program coming up.

(OUT AT 10:50AM)

PAT: Welcome. Pat and Jeffy. 888-727-BECK. Hopefully will be back -- feeling better tomorrow.

JEFFY: Well, if he doesn't move.

PAT: Yeah, if he doesn't move.

JEFFY: If he listens to us.

PAT: Because, again, he was sitting in a chair, doing just fine. And then moved. You can't do that.

JEFFY: How many times we say, "Sit down, don't move."

PAT: Threw out his back. Don't move. And maybe he's learned an important lesson here today.

JEFFY: I hope so. I hope so.

PAT: I sure hope so.

We were talking about the Rock Hall of Fame a little bit earlier. Who were the -- are there five or six -- there's five or six artists that have got into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame --

JEFFY: Strong.

PAT: Like Joan Baez. Who doesn't love Joan Baez?

JEFFY: I may have taken the full list down. But Tupac.

PAT: Tupac Shakur.

JEFFY: Journey.

PAT: Journey, who deserves it. ELO deserves it. And Yes.

JEFFY: Yeah.

Oh, Pearl Jam.

PAT: Oh, and Pearl Jam.

JEFFY: Pearl Jam.

PAT: So that's the other one.

Chris, in California, you're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Hey. Absolutely.

So I think that we should probably go with Phoebe Snow. Because Phoebe Snow has got that '70s sound. We were all about '70s here, right?

JEFFY: I love Phoebe.

PAT: Poetry man? Right?

JEFFY: Come on now. Yeah.

CALLER: No, no, I was thinking more of Midnight in the Oasis.

PAT: Oh, that's Maria Muldaur.

CALLER: Oh. Maria.

JEFFY: I've got an album of Phoebe doing some covers, and she may have done that song on that album.

PAT: She might have. But nobody does it like the original done by Maria Muldaur.

JEFFY: I know. I know.

CALLER: Well, there you go.

PAT: Midnight at the Oasis.

JEFFY: Come on. Who doesn't love that song? Who doesn't love Midnight at the Oasis?

PAT: Oh, I think everybody does. I know I do.

JEFFY: Thank you. He's got a point with Phoebe Snow. I mean, Poetry Man is --

PAT: And as long as we're at it, why not put Minnie Riperton into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the one who did loving you is easy because you're beautiful.

JEFFY: I mean, there should actually be like a wing to the Rock Hall and Fame, to the one-hit greatness of songs.

PAT: Well, there's definitely a wing for rap artists. There's a wing for R&B. There's a wing for people who are just influential.

JEFFY: Yeah, to their core.

PAT: That you've never heard of. But people were influenced by them, whether they were a producer or they were a writer or they were a band that nobody's ever heard of. But bands heard of them.

JEFFY: But the iconic band came from here.

PAT: Yes. And liked them, so they're in. So why not, a one-hit wonder wing? It's -- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a sham. It's a travashamockery. And I think we all know it.

JEFFY: So what happens? Do you change your tune if they -- if they put Foreigner in?

PAT: Well, it will help. I don't know if it will cure the disease. But it eases the pain a little.

JEFFY: It will ease the pain a little. That's just a throw-in.

PAT: But look how long it took to put Journey in. Come on. That's a no-brainer. I'm not a big Journey fan anymore because they're so overplayed. I just got sick of them. But it's Journey.

JEFFY: I'm not either, but it's Journey. It's Journey. Come on.

PAT: They sold 100 million plus.

JEFFY: It's not about that.

PAT: Chicago went in I think last year. They sold 125 million.

JEFFY: At least.

PAT: They're iconic. How do you leave those bands out? ELO just got in this year.

JEFFY: Well, so did Tupac. So that's good. That's good. Tupac is in.

PAT: Yes. And, I mean, he was shot nine times. So he should have been in a long time ago. A long time ago.

JEFFY: Right!

Featured Image: Promotional studio portrait of American rock group Foreigner, 1977. (L-R): Lou Gramm, Ian McDonald, Al Greenwood, Mick Jones, Dennis Elliot. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement? 

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?

AI Singularity? ChatGPT rates Glenn's 2025 predictions

KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV / Contributor | Getty Images

On this week's Glenn TV special, Glenn divulged his top predictions for 2025. While some of his predictions spelled hope for current geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine, others took a more harrowing turn, from AI reaching singularity to a major banking crisis and a "Summer of Rage 2.0."

But what does ChatGPT think? Glenn's head researcher asked ChatGPT about the likelihood of each of Glenn's predictions, and the results spell trouble for 2025.

Which of Glenn's predictions did ChatGPT say will come true? Find out below:

1. The internet will be destroyed and reborn through AI.

Summary: AI will restructure the internet, centralize control with tech giants, and raise concerns over censorship.

ChatGPT Probability: 90%

Further Explanation:

Glenn began with a harrowing fact: the internet, as we know it, is slowly dying. We don’t truly have access to "the internet" in its entirety, but rather, we have a small sliver curated by those who control the indexes and brokers of the web. The slow decline of the internet is evident in the increasing irrelevance of many existing pages and documents, with countless dead links and broken websites. This issue demonstrates the growing problem of content disappearing, changing, or becoming irrelevant without updates to reflect these changes.

To address this growing problem, experts suggest that a massive "reboot" of the internet is necessary. Rather than continuing to patch up these issues each year, they argue that a thorough cleaning of the digital space is required, which is where AI comes into play. Google has already proposed using AI to scour the web and determine which content is still relevant, storing only active links. Glenn worries that we will embrace AI out of convenience to fix the problems facing the internet but ignore the widening door to the potential dangers that such convenience brings.

2. AI and ChatGPT innovations will be integrated into everyday life.

Summary: AI will dominate search engines, become personal assistants, and spark regulatory battles over ethics.

ChatGPT Probability: 70%

Further Explanation:

Glenn predicted that AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly serve as gatekeepers, determining what information is accessible and valid. While this centralization will enhance user convenience, it raises serious ethical concerns about bias, manipulation, and censorship. These innovations mark the beginning of an expansion in the concept of "being human," with AI digital assistants becoming integrated into everyday life in ways that could significantly change how we interact with technology. However, these advancements will prompt regulatory battles, as governments push for stricter AI oversight, especially in light of concerns over privacy and "misinformation."

3. AI will attain singularity.

Summary: AI progress will remain uneven, with no imminent singularity expected despite rapid advancements.

ChatGPT Probability: 20%

Further Explanation:

The prediction that AI will reach "the singularity" in 2025 means that it will surpass human intelligence, leading to rapid, exponential growth. Glenn pointed to AI’s rapid progress, such as ChatGPT’s growth from 0% to 5% in four years, and an expected jump to 87% by the end of the year. However, the debate about benchmarks for achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) remains muddled, as there is no clear definition of what constitutes "the singularity." Glenn believes one key indicator will be the unemployment rate in key industries, which could become a major indicator of AGI's impact by 2026.

While AI is advancing quickly in specific areas, like natural language processing, vision, and robotics, ChatGPT cautions that achieving AGI, and thereby the singularity, is still far off and that continuous, unbroken exponential growth in AI innovation is also unlikely. Therefore, ChatGPT concludes, that while significant advancements in AI are expected, the idea of an unimpeded, straight-line trajectory toward the singularity within the next year is unrealistic.

4. There will be a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.

Summary: A temporary ceasefire will freeze borders but will leave future conflict inevitable.

ChatGPT Probability: 80%

Further Explanation:

Both Ukraine and Russia are exhausted, depleting their manpower and munitions. With Donald Trump’s return to the political scene, Glenn predicts that his involvement could lead to negotiations and a temporary ceasefire. While the borders may remain as they are for the time being, the unresolved tensions would likely leave the door open for renewed conflict in the future. This temporary resolution would provide both sides with the breathing room they need, but it could set the stage for continued instability down the line.

5. There will be a second 'Summer of Rage.'

Summary: Anti-Trump protests will escalate into violent riots, targeting infrastructure and triggering martial law in areas.

ChatGPT Probability: 75%

Further Explanation:

Anticipating a summer of intense protests, Glenn predicts that groups like Antifa, BLM, and Occupy Wall Street, likely collaborating with formal unions and socialist organizations, will escalate their opposition to Trump’s policies. As protests grow, Trump will be vilified, and the right will be labeled fascist, with predictable media images depicting the separation of families and the chaos unfolding in major cities.

This prediction envisions a scenario similar to the Summer of Rage in the 1960s, with violent riots and widespread destruction in over 100 major cities. College campuses will be sites of massive protests, police stations may be directly targeted, and critical agencies like ICE, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security headquarters could be assaulted. As tensions escalate, National Guard troops may be deployed, and parts of Washington, D.C., could experience a "martial law" atmosphere. While the prediction sees the protests turning violent and disruptive, the real question is how suburban "soccer moms" will react when these riots hit closer to home.

6. The largest anti-Western 'caliphate' will emerge.

Summary: Middle Eastern factions may consolidate to control energy routes, destabilizing global markets.

ChatGPT Probability: 60%

Further Explanation:

Following Biden's controversial tenure and failures in handling the Middle East, a new anti-Western Caliphate will emerge, as various terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Houthis, and the Taliban unite under several leaders rather than one. These groups will receive support from Russia, North Korea, and China, creating a formidable alliance. Their objective will be to control approximately 30% of the world’s energy supply by seizing key oil routes through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Red Sea. This would give them dominion over critical global trade routes, including the Suez Canal. As alliances among these groups form, the longstanding Sunni-Shia conflict will be momentarily set aside in favor of unity against common enemies, with the U.S. and its allies as primary targets.

Europe will be too fractured to intervene, leaving the U.S. and Israel to confront this rising threat alone. The involvement of Russia and China will further complicate the situation, as both nations seek to undermine U.S. influence in Ukraine and Taiwan while securing access to energy markets in the Middle East. This prediction suggests that Biden’s foreign policy decisions will leave a lasting legacy of instability in the region. The necessity for the U.S. to increase domestic energy production, through policies like increased drilling, will become a national security issue in the face of this emerging threat.

7. China will invade a neighboring country.

Summary: China could target weaker nations under the guise of peacekeeping to assert dominance.

ChatGPT Probability: 55%

Further Explanation:

After years of military posturing, China’s aggressive rhetoric and actions have begun to lose their credibility, with the world perceiving its military buildup as a paper tiger. As the U.S. faces increasing isolation, and global conflicts in Europe and the Middle East divert attention, China will seize the opportunity to strike. However, it will target a country that is unlikely to mount a significant defense or provoke a strong reaction. This eliminates major regional powers like Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines from the list of potential targets.

Countries such as Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Laos, and Vietnam may become focal points for Chinese aggression. Vietnam and Bangladesh are particularly compelling targets, as they are emerging alternatives for U.S. and Western companies shifting manufacturing away from China. A Chinese invasion of these nations could impact U.S. interests by compelling tactical responses, such as deploying ships for air superiority and missile defense.

8. The U.S. stock market will collapse and ensue a banking crisis.

Summary: Rising rates and layoffs may trigger a stock market downturn and small business disruptions.

ChatGPT Probability: 50%

Further Explanation:

In a bid to boost the economy for the 2024 election cycle and secure a Democratic victory, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, along with key figures from major banks, kept interest rates and policies favorable to financial institutions. This led to a temporary surge in stock prices just before the election. However, the anticipated economic boost failed to materialize due to broader political dynamics. Now, Powell is advocating for tighter policies, raising interest rates to cool an economy that he claims has become overheated, setting the stage for a stock market crash and a federal government funding crisis.

Glenn predicted that this manufactured crisis will have far-reaching consequences, starting with major disruptions on Wall Street and spilling into Main Street, resulting in layoffs, bankruptcies, and widespread economic instability. The Fed's role in shaping these events will dominate political discussions, and the economic fallout will force President Trump to take ownership of the crisis. Small businesses are advised to fortify their supply chains and secure favorable long-term contracts to mitigate the risks of rising prices and potential disruptions as the financial situation worsens in 2025.

9. North Korea will provoke South Korea.

Summary: Small-scale attacks by North Korea will distract from larger conflicts involving China and Russia.

ChatGPT Probability: 40%

Further Explanation:

In a potential move orchestrated by China to divert global attention from its own ambitions, North Korea may provoke South Korea with a calculated attack. This could involve a limited strike, such as firing ballistic missiles at a South Korean naval vessel, claiming it had intruded into North Korean waters, or attacking a military base along the border under the pretext of border violations or espionage. The primary goal of North Korea’s actions would be to test the waters and assess the West's reactions, particularly the U.S.'s willingness to intervene.

10. Those connected to Sean 'Diddy' Combs and Jeffery Epstein will be revealed. 

Summary: Investigations into scandals face resistance from powerful players, making progress unlikely.

ChatGPT Probability: 15%

Further Explanation:

Glenn predicts that the lists of individuals connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and hip-hop mogul Diddy will be released. The release of these lists would likely trigger a significant public outcry, as it could implicate high-profile figures in serious scandals. However, the investigation and disclosure of such lists would require substantial evidence and resources and may face significant resistance from powerful industry players.

While media pressure and public opinion could push for transparency, the political and legal complexities surrounding such a release might hinder progress in the investigations. Given the challenges involved, ChatGPT says this prediction holds a relatively low probability, but it remains a topic of speculation and intrigue in the ongoing fallout from the Epstein case.

11. Trump will appoint 2 Supreme Court justices.

Summary: Retirements could allow Trump to reshape the court further right, but it's unlikely within the year.

ChatGPT Probability: 25%

Further Explanation:

Gless predicts that the aging U.S. Supreme Court may see retirements or unexpected vacancies, potentially allowing President Donald Trump to appoint two more justices. If such vacancies occur, it would shift the balance of the court further to the right. However, ChatGPT says this prediction is less likely due to the unpredictable nature of retirements and the political challenges associated with confirming Supreme Court appointments, particularly if the Senate is divided or controlled by a party opposing Trump.

12. The U.S. will establish a special relationship with Greenland.

Summary: Strengthened ties with Greenland are possible but forcing a special relationship is improbable.

ChatGPT Probability: 35%

Further Explanation:

Donald Trump has previously shown interest in Greenland, particularly in 2019 when he proposed the idea of purchasing the island, sparking significant controversy. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, holds strategic geopolitical and resource-based importance, making it a key area of interest for the U.S., especially in light of its proximity to Russia. However, ChatGPT says attempting to force a "special relationship" with Greenland would be difficult, as both Greenland's government and Denmark would likely resist such overtures, considering the complexities of sovereignty and international relations. Despite the strategic importance, this prediction holds a moderate probability due to political and diplomatic constraints.

13. The U.S. will take control of the Panama Canal. 

Summary: Re-negotiating Panama Canal control is highly unlikely due to political and diplomatic realities.

ChatGPT Probability: 10%

Further Explanation:

The Panama Canal, which was transferred to Panama’s control in 1999 following the Panama Canal Treaty, has remained under Panama's sovereignty ever since. Glenn, however, says he believes Trump's efforts to renegotiate control over the canal will succeed. However, ChatGPT says that given the historical context and the sensitivity of national sovereignty, the likelihood of Trump successfully regaining control of the canal is quite low.

To learn more, can watch the entire GlennTV special here:

The BIZZARE connection between the Vegas Cybertruck bomber and mystery drones

CHANDAN KHANNA / Contributor, Paula Bronstein / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, in recent times Americans have become far too accustomed to tragic mass shootings and attacks.

But the Cybertruck bombing that occurred outside of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas earlier this month is different. Not only did the method and outcome of the attack differ from the begrudging norm, but the manifesto left behind tells a captivating and horrifying-if-true story that potentially sheds light on the most frustrating mystery of 2024. On his radio show, Glenn highlighted some of the strange and harrowing claims made by the bomber, and he was not convinced that they were just the ramblings of a madman.

What happened during the bombing? What did the bomber hope to achieve? And what does his manifesto potentially reveal about our government and the secrets they keep from us?

The bombing

Las Vegas Review-Journal / Contributor | Getty Images

On January 1st, 2025, a rented Tesla Cybertruck full of gas tanks, fireworks, and other explosives pulled up to the front door of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. Just before 8:40 a.m., the truck exploded before bursting into flame, injuring seven nearby people, all of whom are in stable condition. Aside from the minor injuries and minimal damage to the hotel, the explosion was absorbed and redirected by the truck, with the only death being that of the bomber, who allegedly shot himself before triggering the explosion.

The bomber has been identified as a former Army Special Forces Master Sergeant with a promising military career. He had given no sign of his intentions to his family and friends before the attack, and according to the Pentagon, he showed no red flags. While there may not have been any obvious signs, Glenn speculated that the bomber may have been suffering from PTSD and/or a traumatic brain injury, which is backed by the Army's admission that the bomber had received counseling through its Preservation of the Force and Family program.

The manifesto

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

Two different documents that were allegedly authored by the bomber have been discovered. The first was found on the bomber's phone and is composed of a list of grievances against the United States, a call to Americans to rally behind Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and an outline for a militia takeover of D.C.

The bomber also asserted that his attack was not an act of terrorism, but a "wake-up call" designed to attract attention, which he explained was the purpose behind the fireworks present in the explosion. He also claimed the attack was designed to "cleanse [his] mind" of the "brothers" he lost and the lives he took during his time in the Army, which further corroborates the theory that he was suffering from PTSD.

The second document was emailed to retired Army intelligence officer Sam Shoemate, who revealed its contents on The Shawn Ryan Show podcast. The bomber claimed the government was hunting him due to his knowledge of top-secret information relating to classified technologies. The bomber also alleged knowledge of war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the United States that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians.

The bomber's email gave several names and other information that he suggested could be used to verify his claims, but as of now, it is unclear how much, if any, of his story has been verified.

The connection

YELIM LEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Where do the mystery drones that have been plaguing the skies above New Jersey enter the story?

The bomber claimed the drones are operated by the Chinese and are a part of the same program that launched the spy balloon in 2023. He claimed these drones use a "gravitic" propulsion system, and are the most serious threat to national security due to their ability to transport an "unlimited payload" with unparalleled speed and stealth. He went on to claim that the drones originated from a Chinese submarine parked off the East Coast.

While these claims appear far-fetched, Glenn pointed out that if he is right about this, we are in grave danger. China or other foreign powers could have weapons of mass destruction parked over every major city, every military installation, or even the White House, and we would be powerless to stop them. We know our government lies to us regularly. Would anybody be surprised if they were hiding world-altering tech from us? Trump's reelection has given us another opportunity to demand answers and learn the truth.

Glenn: The Left's January 6th narrative doesn't hold four years later

Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Four years ago yesterday, the events of January 6th, 2021 unfolded—an event that the Left repeatedly said was the darkest day in our country's history. Yet, as time passes, the narrative surrounding that day has started to unravel, revealing uncomfortable truths that demand both explanation and accountability.

For millions of Americans, January 6th marked a dividing line, a day that deepened the fractures within our society. Emotions ran high, and trust in the institutions that were sworn to protect us was shattered, a portion of which will only be restored by dramatic action. This trust continues to erode as new details emerge, revealing gaping holes in the Left's narrative about January 6th.

The lies that surrounded the events of that day were not mere "misinformation"—they were bombshells that forced us to confront a much darker reality about our government’s actions. And these revelations must become the message we take from January 6th: the true nature of our current government, its accountability, and the lengths to which it will go to protect its version of events—even when it is a lie.

Let’s begin with the pipe bombs. On January 6th, Americans were told that two pipe bombs had been found near the RNC and DNC headquarters and that they could have caused catastrophic harm. The pipe bomb was placed at the DNC headquarters the night before January 6th. Interestingly, the security sweep of the building the next morning did not find it. Then Kamala Harris was transported in the height of January 6th. Conveniently, all the records detailing the event were “accidentally” deleted by the Secret Service.

Surveillance footage was ignored, cameras were turned just hours before the bombs were planted, and we were told that critical cell phone data was somehow “corrupted.” But it wasn't. The only thing that was corrupted was our own government and FBI. According to the cell phone companies, the FBI simply never asked for the information. Leads were never pursued. Four years later, the identity of the bomber remains a mystery.

Why would federal agencies neglect this critical investigation into an event that allegedly was going to destroy the republic or kill the future vice president? Was the lack of action intentional, perhaps a convenient distraction to justify escalating security measures and cast a broader shadow over what they hoped would unfold that day? These are not wild conspiracy theories; these are questions every citizen must ask. Because now we know that our government lied to us.

We must also address the FBI’s role on that fateful day. We’ve learned that 26 FBI informants were present on the ground during the events at the Capitol. Let that sink in. What were they doing there? Were they infiltrating the crowd? Were they acting as provocateurs? The presence of these informants raises serious questions about how much of the chaos that day was organic and how much of it was orchestrated. If the FBI had informants on the ground, why wasn’t the situation under control before it escalated?

Four years ago, I called for the protesters to stop. I said that this isn't who we are, and these people should go to jail. I still stand by the belief that if you hurt anyone, broke any windows, or damaged property, you should be held accountable and serve a just punishment. But today, I’m deeply concerned that many of those who were not violent or engaged in damage are still languishing in jail, some facing sentences of up to 20 years. What’s more disturbing is the growing evidence that the chaos that unfolded was not an accident—it was part of a broader agenda.

Amid the chaos, the finger was pointed squarely at one man: Donald Trump. But new information paints a vastly different picture. Just days before January 6th, President Trump authorized the deployment of the National Guard, citing concerns over potential unrest. Yet, his request was ignored—rejected outright by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police. Why? Who in the chain of command made the decision to disregard the president’s directive? Had the National Guard been allowed to deploy, it’s possible much of the mayhem that followed could have been prevented. But instead, that opportunity was squandered, and the media narrative was shaped to fit a political agenda—one that painted Trump as the instigator, when in fact, he sought to prevent the violence that ultimately occurred.

And then, there’s the tragic death of Ashley Babbitt. A decorated Air Force veteran, Babbitt was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a broken window. Her death was quickly ruled justified, and the officer involved was shielded from scrutiny. But now, we learn that the officer violated multiple procedural rules and could face criminal charges. Why was her death dismissed so quickly by both the media and the government? In an era where police actions are scrutinized heavily, why was this officer not held accountable?

As we look back, it's clear that January 6th was chiefly about the perversion of justice by the very institutions that were supposed to protect us. Big-tech corporations and global entities like telecoms and airlines offered up location data on innocent Americans who were simply in Washington, D.C., on January 6th. No warrants. No due process. They handed over personal data without question, and the FBI used it without hesitation.

What the FBI did with that data, how Americans there on that day didn't stand a chance in D.C. courts, how our politicians and federal law enforcement knew what was going on yet did nothing to prevent it, the calling off of the National Guard—what does this tell you about our country? Our government, our justice system, and our institutions were complicit in undermining the very principles they were created to uphold.

They are trying to create a system that thrives on division and chaos, a system that uses fear as a tool to control the American people. If the federal agencies can lie, manipulate, and withhold the truth about January 6th, what else are they capable of? What are they willing to do to maintain their grip on power?

Four years later, on the anniversary of January 6th, we must demand the truth—not the sanitized, politically convenient version. We deserve the full, unvarnished truth. We must hold accountable those in power who orchestrated, covered up, or ignored the events of that day. We must never allow the lies and the unanswered questions of January 6th to fade into the political ether. We must ensure that the truth is told and that those who lied to us are held accountable.