RADIOFebruary 09, 2023

Is AMERICA to blame for DESTROYING the Nord Stream Pipeline?

A recent Substack article, titled ‘How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline’ by Seymour Hersh, makes some serious allegations about an alleged U.S. ‘covert sea operation’ that’s been kept a secret. The Nord Stream Pipeline was sabotaged in September 2022 and those responsible for the attack remain a mystery. There’s no reason to believe America was truly behind the event, but if we were, as Sen. Mike Lee recently tweeted, it could result in war. In this clip, Glenn and his senior researcher, Jason Buttrill, discuss what may have happened to the pipeline nearly five months ago…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to bring in -- I want to bring in Jason Buttrill, who is with me. And is going to explain exactly what is going on, with this one report. From one source.

So I say that clearly at the beginning. There's problems with this reporting. Because it is one source.

And I wouldn't take that from the New York Times as gospel.

So let's remember, one source. But it's pretty damning. It has a ton of facts.

Tell me the story, Jason, on what happened. And where this report is coming from.

JASON: I struggle to even really describe how to tell the story. Because it sounds like -- you familiar with the term fan fiction?

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: That's what was off the internet, what would really happen if Anakin Skywalker didn't become Darth Vader. This is the story. That's what it sounds like.

GLENN: Right. Right.

JASON: But Mike Lee is exactly right. If this is true, this is an act of war.

And what they're alleging is that the CIA, the Biden administration came up with the plan, to eliminate the Nord Stream two pipeline. To blow it up. And we all remember -- I think I even came on this program. I think you asked me. Do you think this was us? I said, well, no.

We would never risk something like a direct attack on a Russian asset. Never risk it.

GLENN: Here's the thing: I think it was Germany or Sweden, released a report that showed, Russia didn't do it.

And how many countries have the ability to do something like this?

This was not an easy hit.

JASON: Not an easy hit. And not even an easy hit for Americans. It would take a long time.

It would take very specific assets, like SEAL team six.

GLENN: Correct.

JASON: But the article goes into that. They couldn't use a SEAL Team 6, or anyone in JSOC. Joint Special Operation Command. Because they didn't have to go through Congress. Now, this is a big part of the story, if true.

They use some obscure Navy divers that are not part of JSOC, so then the CIA could use them in a joint intelligence operation. Not a military operation, an intelligence operation.

That would allow them to keep this quiet from Congress.

Now, think about that. Like Mike Lee said, this would be an act of war, if they did it and we found out.

But we didn't inform Congress about it, if true. There are multiple layers to this, even right off the bat.

GLENN: Who is this written by?

JASON: This was written by a guy named Seymour Hersh.

He wrote for the New York Times.

GLENN: He was a guy who got the -- the Pulitzer, for exposing the melee in Vietnam.

And he has done many exposés, but they generally kind of lean against America, do they not?

JASON: Yeah, there was the one in -- well, I guess, the bigger one would be Osama bin Laden questioning how all of that went down. Even actually questioned Osama bin Laden's culpability in 9/11.

This is what you kind of see with journalists nowadays, especially we saw this in the Russiagate stuff.

It's almost like they got on this Woodward and Bernstein high, and they all want to top each other off of it.

So where do you go after topping something like Woodward and Bernstein. They are getting more and more fantastical, and always trying to one up.

GLENN: Well, but not necessarily. This story is why you need --

JASON: True.

GLENN: -- a credible press. Why you need journalistic standards and not activists.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Because we are dealing with the story now, that if it is true, the American people gone for this.

But it's the American people, if true, that will pay the price.

It will be our sons and daughters, fighting a war, with Russia, and probably half of the world, because of something our out of control Deep State did.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: And we wouldn't have been for it.

Now, how do we prove it? Who do you believe?

Do you believe the investigators with Congress?

Do you believe the investigators from the New York Times?

Who do you believe? There's one source on this. Which I would love to have. Because you were former military Intel. So I would love to have your thought on this.

Something this large. Because the story is pages and pages and pages. And has great detail on it.

It's all coming from one source. What are the odds, that something this secret, this complex had more than a few -- maybe five -- maybe five key holders that could unlock all of the information.

JASON: So let me just -- from my Intel perspective.

My real world experience is Afghanistan. I was one of the first ground troops, conventional, into Afghanistan after 9/11. So I was part of the planning phase. Just on my small level, my unit.

I didn't know that certain things are going on in Northern Afghanistan.

I knew a lot of the stuff in the South.
When we got on the ground, I didn't even know that there were Special Forces in certain areas, that had been there for a while. That was not my need to know.

Must need to know that. And that was right before a war. So just that perspective.

There's no way, in my mind, that a mid- or lower level, say that carefully, person would have operational knowledge in that detail. You would need cabinet-level or director-level access.

GLENN: Now it's interesting, because the way you're phrasing this and you're being very, very accurate on things. A cabinet-level or director-level might have this information.

Why would you bring up director-level information, on something this sensitive.

I mean, director-level. This was done by the CIA. Okay?

So at least in this report. Done by the CIA. So it would mean, what? Like the director of the CIA.

Why would he rat himself out?

JASON: I mean, that's a really good question. That's a really good question. Unless he was doing his duty, and did not believe in what they were doing.

GLENN: Is there any example of a director level spilling their guts on something like this?

JASON: Deep throat.

GLENN: Hmm. What was that? Oh, that's right. That was the director of the FBI, right?

JASON: Which he we found out years.

Was it decades?

GLENN: Oh, decades. Yeah, decades later. Decades later.

JASON: Decades later. But then we were like, there's no way.

How is he getting all this information? How the heck? That was a big part of it. Who was your source.

Never would have believed in my wildest dreams that it was a direct threat of the FBI. Never. That was this -- will we, decades later, say how the heck did this guy get his information? We find out it was the director of the CIA.

GLENN: If it's true.

JASON: If it's true.

GLENN: Now, where do we go from here?

Where do we go from here? Because no western ally, is going to verify this.

JASON: No.

GLENN: Even if it is true, and they hate the fact that it is true, they know, if we say, you know what, I think it was the United States, this is an act of war.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: And Russia has the -- the righteous stance in the world. To take us down.

Or attempt to take us down. Take us to war.

This is an act of war.

So what -- what -- what does this mean? How do we ever find out anything?

JASON: Russia has actually responded. And they've said that because of these new air quote facts, that the White House needs to respond to this or to answer. Of course, the White House, and the State Department have all been asked, and they all categorically deny it. The article was so specific, to answer your question. In certain ways, in the time frame they pulled this off.

For instance, the article goes into, there was a big Naval exercise, that they used as cover, to send in these divers.

GLENN: And that exercise did happen.

JASON: That exercise did happen. He even puts a link into their specific excuse about using divers to -- to show off the capabilities of their mind-clearing capabilities.

GLENN: But it's -- it's -- I mean, you know -- even Satan uses some truth, and then mixes it with falsehood. So that doesn't prove anything.

JASON: Right. So there's that, which maybe they can, use some kind of -- maybe they're surveilling the areas. Maybe they can look at something. I don't know.

Then they go into the mind they use, to get around the Russian detection capabilities. They go into that. Then they go into -- this is going to seem weird.

How they were going to detonate, like 72 hours or 48 hours after this exercise.

And then all of a sudden, they had this afterthought of, oh.

Maybe that seems kind of suspicious.

Maybe we shouldn't just have it on a timed detonation, a couple of days after the exercise.

GLENN: That doesn't.

JASON: That doesn't jibe with me.

So then they're like, let's send in this buoy, that has this high-tech ping, that will drop it from a plane, and then it will set off these charges. That also seems odd to me. That also seems something that the Russians can verify.

So I wouldn't be surprised right now, if there are Russian surveillance planes, flying over the area. Gathering Intel. Possibly, you know, attempting to go and look. Take a second look.

I don't -- I definitely don't think we've heard the last of this. I'm sure they'll try to verify it, if they can. But they're Russian, really. Even if they don't, they probably will say, yeah. They did it anyway. Right?

GLENN: I mean, I would. I would.

JASON: I would too.

GLENN: And, quite honestly, I'm not sure we didn't do it.

JASON: I'm not either. Which is wild, I would have never thought of this.

GLENN: Twenty years ago, I would have said, absolutely not. No way. No way. But if you hit me today, if 9/11 happened, and we heard, you know, Bush and Clinton. And we had exactly what happened with Sandy Berger. At the National Archives, where he's smuggling documents out, about Bush and Clinton, and anything related to Osama Bin Laden, prior to the bombing -- I -- I would deeply question our government.

We have come a long way, on finding out how bad, our government can be and has been in the past.

The problem with this is, you are going to pay the price.

If this happened, or if Russia decides to go with it. You, your son, your daughter. You will pay the price.

And that's what's so infuriating. Because if it is true, the American people should demand, that these people, whoever was involved. Whoever had this decision, is in prison. And punished. And, you know what, I would be fine. I don't care who it is.

Let me just say this. And it wasn't. Couldn't have been. Because he wasn't in office.

But to show you how passionate. Even if it was the former president. Go ahead. Send him over to Russia.

Let him face a trial over in Russia.

I'm sorry. But you do something like this. And you don't inform Congress, I mean, this is -- this is the tweet from Mike Lee last night.

I'm troubled that I can't immediately rule this suggestion, that the US blew up the Nord Stream out.

He can't rule it out.

I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues. Among those I asked, none were ever briefed on this.

If it turns out to be true, we've got a huge problem.

Yeah. We do. Yeah, we do.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb EXPOSES the Shocking Rise of the Surveillance State

Big Tech and the government are using AI not just to watch us... but to predict us. Glenn Beck and Whitney Webb expose how predictive analytics and Digital ID systems are turning surveillance into pre‑crime, threatening the very notion of freedom. Are we about to live in a world where an algorithm decides your guilt before you act?

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Glenn Beck predicts THIS is why Democrats won’t end the government shutdown

Glenn and Stu discuss the ongoing government shutdown, noting the unusual lack of media coverage about people affected by it, which they attribute to Democrats being responsible this time rather than Republicans. They argue that mainstream media bias protects Democrats from political pressure, making the shutdown likely to last longer. The conversation shifts to broader economic concerns, including rising gold prices as a sign of global instability and speculation that major financial changes may be coming.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: And, of course, the government shutdown, still continues to throw people out on the streets.

STU: It does.

GLENN: Well, I haven't seen any coverage on that.

STU: You know, I haven't seen any either. It's weird. How many of these have we been through, Glenn, over the years? An uncountable amount.

GLENN: And before they even start, they're at the food banks going, there's not enough food in the food bank. These people will be starving within, you know, two days.

STU: Yeah, if you happen to have a fetish for single moms, great way to find them: Watch the shutdown coverage. They'll always find new single moms in your area.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That are about to have their economies crushed because of his oncoming government shutdown, every single time, except this one. This one, I haven't met anyone yet.

GLENN: So true. So true.

I have. I listened to the New York Times last week.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: And they were talking about how much they love the military.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: And how --

STU: That's believable.

GLENN: And how they're concerned they are for all these military moms who are now struggling to make ends meet, even though the president paid the military and the -- the Republicans continue to keep presenting a bill that says, pay the military.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We can argue about everything else. You've got to keep national defense going, pay the military. And they won't do it.

STU: Democrats keep rejecting that one.
GLENN: Yes, over and over again.

STU: And that kind of leads me to my thesis here, Glenn, tell me if you think there's anything to it, which is the reason we haven't met any of the sob stories that we always meet during government shutdowns, is because this one, the, quote, unquote, Democrats are responsible for it. Normally, they blame the Republicans for it. This time, it's almost impossible to come up with a coherent argument to make that happen.

GLENN: Correct. So may I express this a different way?

STU: Sure.

GLENN: The mainstream media is just a propaganda organ for the Democratic Party.

STU: Oh, yes. Maybe that's it. Maybe that is it. Because I'm fascinated by that. I've always found that to be kind of silly. Right?

You can always find individual people who are going through a tough time, based on any policy, right know

GLENN: You close it for three days. It's not been -- isn't this the longest shutdown in history, I think?

STU: Not yet. No. But it is -- let's see if I --

GLENN: Since when. Since when. I've not seen one go this long.

STU: There's one in Trump's administration, that's gone 35 days I think. Which was the record. The longest record was 35 days. Kalshi has a market on this, to see. Which is interesting. Fifty-five percent chance it goes over 35 days.

GLENN: Oh, I think he could go through Christmas.

STU: Well, it's hard to -- you think Christmas?

GLENN: I mean, the Democrats are -- as long as the Democrats will not negotiate, I mean, the Republicans keep saying, okay. Look, we'll fund it. And let's just go, but we're not adding new stuff. And we're not cutting laws that were just passed. You know what I mean?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So we'll just fund this, and let's just continue to work it out. They won't even do that. It's like -- Friday, I think was the 12th vote they had held. And Democrats were just like, nope!

STU: And they were promising votes on their stupid health care requests.

Like they're trying to give things.

GLENN: Yeah. We'll give you the vote on health care.

STU: What will stop this, right?

The only thing that stops these things are perceived political consequences.

And so right now, what you have is a situation where in theory -- like, in theory, they can -- maybe the American people decide, it's the Republican's fault, it's Trump's fault. But Trump is not typically, like, a guy who folds to that type of pressure.

At times, he will give to his own side.
Like, you know, he said stuff like, well, take the guns first.

Then we will have the trials.

And then the Second Amendment people were like, no. It's not the right order there.

And to his credit, he listened to his constituents.

Sort of changed on that.

We've seen situations like that. Very rarely though, do you see, hey, the media is complaining a lot about Donald Trump. He will change what he is saying.

If anything, it makes him double or triple down.

GLENN: I think they wanted to have the No Kings.

Remember, they kept saying, "We will get to the No Kings. We will get to the No Kings," talking about the government shutdown on the No Kings thing.

That wasn't the point of the No Kings thing.

STU: Right. It wasn't being covered at all.

GLENN: The Democrats got no gain out of that.

STU: No. And that's the other side of this.

Which is, typically the way this might work, is Democrats start this over a policy concern. Like Republicans have done this.

They started a shutdown over a policy concern.

And at some point, when it doesn't seem like the policy concern will be resolved.

They start feeling pressure, that they are the ones holding the government closed. They start feeling the government pressure.

And they fold. That's usually what Republicans wind up doing in these situations.

The issue here is, number one. They're not getting any pressure from the media.

That's not being built at all.

There's no pressure from the Democrats to fold on this issue.

The only pressure that exists from the Democrats is to hold the line.

Because what they're getting is pressure from their left flank, saying, hey. You guys better not give in to Donald Trump.

So the length of this shutdown, seeming could be a very long, long period.

Because really, the only crack you're seeing right now are -- I will say, some on the right. Who are saying, actually, we should give a bunch of subsidies for Obamacare.

There are some on the right doing that. That is, I think, the only crack we've seen on either side so far.

GLENN: I would really like to see in this time, somebody in the Republican side, making the case about Obamacare and freeing up the medical system.

STU: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Why -- why do they not have another plan?

This is the time. This is the time.

No, I shouldn't say that. Every day, since 2009, has been the time to have this plan.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And they -- they just -- they never do it. They never do it.

STU: Bits and pieces of stuff. That's not what their desire is.

GLENN: I talked to Dr. Oz. I know --

STU: This is a very strange sentence. But go ahead.

GLENN: I know. I talked to Dr. Oz. And I know at HHS, they are working on plans to dismantle a lot of this stuff and put the free market back in charge. But they're doing it at the state level. I've got to have him back on. Because, I mean, nobody paid attention to this. I had an interview with him. Just, everybody paid attention to the other thing he was talking about -- oh, the -- the -- the jab. Why would we would -- you know, why we would partner with, what was it? Moderna, or who it was recently, for the drugs -- or, Pfizer for the, you know, drug discount. Everybody paid attention to that. In that same interview, he was talking about going to the states and tying their money, their government funding for Medicaid, and Medicare, tying that directly to ending this hostage situation, with, you know, no insurance over state lines. Once they allow the whole -- the whole country and insurance companies to offer plans over the whole country, the dynamics change entirely. The -- financial incentives. The payouts. Everything changes. And that's supposed to be happening in the next 30, 40 days. And we would see it in the next year. I would love to see them start to come up with new plans. Why do you have this face? Looking at me.

STU: No, I'm -- I'm listening to you.

But also, looking at just something I'm noticing, on -- on these markets for how long the shutdown will last.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So it has been -- like I'm looking at over 40 days, for example.

It has been a slow and steady rise. Like, at the beginning, it was a 10 percent chance it would go over 40 days. Slow and steady rise, all the way up to a 55 percent, 57 percent chance as of five hours ago. The last five hours, it's dropped from 57 to 38. Now, famously people -- there's a lot of people on these markets. A lot of people who know a lot about these things in these markets. We saw a -- a -- we have seen many things happen.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Like, who is going to play -- who is going to play -- who will win the Nobel Prize was one of them.

Person who was not barely listed at 1 percent suddenly in the last few hours, kind of shot up.

Somebody who knows something. Was in there, buying, buying, buying.

All of a sudden, multiple of these markets, more than 35 days has also dropped from 70 percent, as of five hours ago.

GLENN: I've not seen anything in the news, at all, so that's inside information.

STU: It could be. It could be. It could just be somebody guessing. That's a big bet to guess.

These markets have decent liquidity.

Kind of -- kind of interesting, Glenn. I don't know.

It could be absolutely nothing. This market has had over $13 million bet on it.

You know, how long these things go. To move them, sometimes could be a lot of money. Yes.

GLENN: That's a lot of money.

The other thing. What is gold? Is it still at 4325 today? It was this morning. I mean, that is --

STU: 4363.

GLENN: 4363.

STU: I mean, you want to talk about a chart that is consistent. I mean, it's consistent up movement from the beginning of 2024, till today, but really rocketship up in the last three months.

GLENN: This is the world saying, things are changing.

That's the -- that's the -- the thing you have to take from that, is the world is saying, the financial center will not hold, as far as the -- the way we have set up the entire world with America being the -- you know, the big mover and shaker.

You know, when -- when Biden went in and said, we will take all these assets from Russia. He violated that system.

We're no longer going to let them use the SWIFT movement. All of that began this unraveling. Something is happening. This is big money saying, something big is coming. And I want to be prepared for it.

And it's disturbing. You should keep your eye on gold. That is a disturbing sign of instability. I can't at this point go any further than that. And I hope that it slows down or stops or reverses itself.

We do not want 5,000 that are gold. You know, and there -- I mean, Goldman Sachs came out I think last week, 6,000. Was it six or 7,000-dollar gold? In the next year!

The real agenda of the 'No Kings' movement revealed

The “No Kings” movement has a major issue that can lead to America’s destruction: The protesters on the ground don’t realize what the movement actually wants. Glenn reviews the big questions that every American must ask before protesting and the secret to finding the truth…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Let me just -- I wish I would have thought on this on Friday, before the No Kings. Because but we're not done with these stupid things. Before anybody raises a sign. Before you chant a stupid slogan. Before you pledge allegiance toward a movement, or a political party.

I want you to stop. And I want you to ask yourself, one simple question. Why am I here?

We live in a time where outrage is easy, and thinking is really hard. We live in a time when it feels good to belong, and very dangerous to question. We live in a time where emotion is mistaken for morality. And that is exactly how free people become unfree, okay?

Not because tyranny kicks down the door one night, but because we handed the keys in the name of change. When we're not thinking!

So before you do anything, before you march, before you protest, before you make a sign, before you argue with somebody, pause. And think to yourself, "Why am I drawn to this?"

When you're watching things on X, "Why am I drawn to this? Is it anger? Is it fear? Is it guilt, or is it principle?"

When I want to stand up for something, I don't want to do it in anger, I don't want to do it in fear, I don't want to do it in guilt. I want to do it in principle. And having a principle means you have a deeply held belief, that this cause reflects truth and justice.

Now, be careful. Be really careful. Because you may have been convinced that you're right, because of what you're against. But what is right and what you're against are not the same thing. For instance, right now, with conservatives, I guess it's becoming more and more popular to be against Israel. Okay. That's fine. You don't have to agree with Israel. I don't ask you to agree with Israel. I don't want to fight their fights. I don't agree with their policies on everything. They're not the United States of America. They're their own country. So I disagree with them, just like I disagree with Britain, sometimes.

Okay? I don't really care. But being against Israel does not mean the same as being for Hamas. You've joined something the different. That means, you have allowed your passions and your feelings to rule over you. That's why it -- that's why everybody wants to make something -- you know, a,that's why our Declaration of Independence and does our country has lasted 250 years. It's the only revolutionary document that's ever lasted. And only one. Only one in world history, that ended with the same people that started the revolution.

The only one!

Why?

Because it didn't start with anger. It started with principles. We hold these things to be self-evident. We don't want to be against something.

Being against Trump, you can be against Trump!

But that doesn't mean you're for Antifa. Being for justice doesn't mean you're anti-ICE. Unless your passions have overcome your logic.

So the first thing you have to do. Why am I here?

And if I strip away the crowd. The pressure. The popularity. Would I be standing here? If no one ever knew that I joined. If there were no such things as likes. No cameras. No praise. In fact, if everyone I knew and admired were against this, would I still believe it, and do it?

If the answer is no to that, then you're not following conviction. You're following a crowd.

You have to be convicted, that even if I stand alone, I'm willing to do it.

So what does this movement stand for?

Am I willing to stand all by myself? Do you know? How many interviews this weekend did you hear, "I don't know?"

And they always say the same thing, "I don't want to talk to you." Why?

Because they can't answer the question. They don't have any idea what this is about! Other than the bumper sticker or the press release, do you know what the real agenda is? What is the goal?

Who is behind it?

What methods are they willing to use to get there? Do the ends justify the means?

Now, this is really important. Because people are starting to believe, yeah. I can kill people.

That's what -- honestly, Virginia, you may not look at it this way. But this is the way I look at it at the Virginian elections. Virginia, have you decided that the ends justify the means. Then it doesn't matter if people say, I can kill their children to change their political point of view. The ends justify the means.

Okay? If the ends justify the means, you have to ask yourself this question: What principles or freedoms have to be or are okay to sacrifice for that end?

Because once you start sacrificing those things like saying it's okay to kill children for political purposes, you become Hamas in the end.

History has a real warning for us. Every single authoritarian movement. Left or right, it doesn't matter. All of them promised liberation. Every single one.

They promised equity, justice, safety.

And they delivered control, science, and fear. If the message of a movement -- if the -- if the methods of the movement betray its message, if it has to sensor or coerce, if liberties have to be violated, then it's not liberation. It's manipulation.

If they have to manipulate people and cut corners, coerce, sensor, or betray liberties to get there, they will not stop doing it.

Next question you have to ask: Does this movement make people more free or more dependent?

Freedom is not just the absence of chains.

Okay?

This was the big thing -- this was the big went -- that Booker T. Washington was all about.

You can be free, but not know how to be free unless you're educated. Unless you're willing to stand on your own. Here's a slave that pulled himself out.

Divide all of the odds. Became one of the greatest black Americans in American history.

And he was talking about being more independent. Not dependent. That's what freedom is.

It's not the absence of chains. It is the presence of responsibility.

So if you think that freedom means, I don't have responsibility, I don't have to do anything, you will be under the chains of somebody else.

Because that means somebody else has to do those things. Has to feed you. And so they will require you to do things, because they're feeding you.

Ask, does this movement actually promote policies that trust have I seen to make decisions for themselves? Or do the people leading this, believe they know better than everyone else?

Will it hand more people power, to bureaucrats, and experts, and elites.

Does it always defend free speech? Especially for those who disagree. Or does it silence them in the name of progress?

Does it expand choice, or does it force compliance?

The only choice -- only choice you could say is the one that the right says, and I believe is not a choice. To kill another human being.

I don't believe that's a choice, if you're a doctor. And you want to give somebody medication, to end their life. I don't believe it's a choice for you, you can kill yourself if you want.

But I'm not going to help you do it.

And I don't think it's a choice to kill a baby.

It's not! It's not a choice. That's the only choice, that -- that they always point to. My body, my choice.

Well, but if it's your body, how come you're forcing everyone to take a vaccine, that not everybody wants?

That has to be consistent. If it's not consistent, then you are living a lie. You are picking and choosing the choices you want.

You don't actually believe in choice.

If it makes people less capable, of living without the state.

It's not freedom.

It's dependency dressed up as compassion.

If I want others to be free, what does that require of me?

We love talking about freedom in this country. We love it. As if it's something that politicians can hand out.

You know, vote for me. More freedom. What?

It's not!

Freedom is not sustained by our laws. Freedom is sustained by our character. This is what this means. It means, you have to defend the right of people that you despise. Not just those who you like and agree with. You must stand for the rights of people you despise!

You must stand for the rights of people to say horrible things, that you despise! Otherwise, you don't actually believe in freedom and freedom of speech!

See, freedom requires you to do the hard work. And the hard work that nobody is doing.

Understanding issues deeply. Reading the original sources. Not the headlines. Not the clippings.

Not the tweets!

Anybody who gets their news off of Twitter and Facebook, you are less educated and less informed than the people who read nothing at all!

You have to do the hard work. And you have to do the hard work of mastering yourself. Your impulse. Your ignorance. Your anger. So you don't become the thing you're fighting against.

Has anybody noticed, that when you're watching these carouse. The biggest thing is hypocrisy.

You're like, are you kidding me?

You're saying these things. Do you not know that you are the thing that you're fighting against?

And freedom requires courage. To stand alone. It requires virtue. It requires humility. And it requires the truth. But how do I know what's true?

GLENN: So this is the hardest part of all, I think. And that is, how do I find what is true? How do I know what is true?

Truth doesn't come prepackaged as a slogan.
Truth is not usually found in a trending hashtag. Truth requires years and years and years of work. Most importantly, it requires humility.

If you're searching for truth, you must be willing to change your belief or your behavior when you find it. If not, you're not actually searching for truth.

Okay? Ask yourself. Am I willing to challenge my own belief?

Am I willing to end up at a place where I don't believe any of that stuff. I thought I believed it.

But I don't. It's shocking to me.

But I don't. If you're not willing to go there. Then you're not seeking truth.

You know, are you seeking voices you disagree with.

Or just people that are echoing what you believe.

Who benefits if I believe this?

Who benefits?

Who profits? Who gains power?

Truth has nothing to fear from questions. All kinds of -- you don't ever have to fear. Truth doesn't care.

Okay? Lies have a lot to fear.

So here's a test you should run, before you commit to picking up or making any sign.

This is something you should commit to, before you go to Thanksgiving.

If your side achieved everything they wanted, every law, every reform, every revolution. Would ordinary people become more self-governing and more responsible and more free, or more managed, more dependent, and more controlled?

If the answer is the latter, do not join them, no matter how righteous they may sound. Do not join them. No matter how noble their intentions, do not join them.

Because tyranny wrapped in good intentions still is tyranny. We're standing on a knife's edge as a nation. I mean, have you seen the price of gold today? What is it? Forty-three --

STU: Over 4300, yeah.

GLENN: $4,300. Does that mean anything to you?

If it doesn't, you should check it out. It does. It does.

It's going to mean something to you, in the end. It means the rest of the world is saying, "I'm not sure about this whole system, that it's going to last." That should change everything that you think.

It should change the way you say, "Well, okay. I used to like this program. But I'm not sure we could afford this program anymore."

You know, I used to vote for this person, but that person will not stop the spending. I want my kids to be able to have freedom. I -- I may not like everything about America. But I think America is the best system out there. I don't want it -- you know, I -- what is it?

Singapore, or something. One of the really -- I think it was Afghanistan. Saw some numbers this weekend. Afghanistan has arrested lining 2000 people for, you know, speech problems.

In the last year. 2000 people have gone to jail. For something they posted or something they said.

Twelve thousand people have gone to jail in Great Britain this year for the same thing. Twelve thousand people have gone to jail for free speech.
One of them is a kid who said, "I love bacon!"

We're on this knife's edge. And the difference between liberty and bondage is going to come down to whether ordinary people start asking better questions. Before you march, before you say anything, are you thinking? Before you join, have you learned? Have you spent the time to ask any questions? Before you speak, do you understand what you're actually saying?

Before you follow, make sure you're walking towards freedom, not away with it. And check the people you're following.

Is this a group of people, that 25 years ago, you would have been comfortable with?

And I mean that saying, you know, I don't think any of us were fine with walking with communists.

I don't think we were fine walking with anarchists.

None of us were.

So they're not walking towards freedom. They're walking away from freedom.

Why are you walking with them?

History is really clear. Nations don't lose their liberty all at once. They lose it one unasked question at a time.

Is THIS why Trump sent CIA and B-52 bombers to Venezuela?!

President Trump is cracking down even harder on Venezuelan cartels. He has bombed boats carrying drugs, flown B-52 bombers off Venezuela's coast, and just recently authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela. So, why so much focus on Venezuela? Glenn and Stu discuss their theories, including Maduro's mysterious island with connections to Iran and Hezbollah...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: How do you feel about this kind of flying under the radar. We have B2 bombers flying over Venezuela. We're blowing boats out of the water.

STU: You know, how under the radar is it when we're blowing up boats in the international waters?

GLENN: Well, it's not under the radar. It's like, nobody is really talking about it.

STU: It doesn't seem like the highest priority, I will say.

And usually, when we're in the middle of what seems to be a conflict. By the way, the only way we would be able to do this, legally. Is by basically saying, we are in some sort of conflict with them. Right?

Like, we have to -- Andy McCarthy had a long write up about this, a read about a couple weeks ago. When it comes down to justifying a strike like this. We have to be able to sort of say, we're in some sort of conflict. You don't just do that typically. Now, the question, of course, the --

GLENN: The War on Drugs.

STU: Right. He broke it down. It might be worth explaining this at some point.

GLENN: War on terror. Yeah, yeah.

STU: But he's concerned about what's the process to get to the decision. Not, of course, whether we want drug dealers here. Nobody wants that. But there is a legal process that has to happen. And at his seem like it also has to escalate beyond just the cartel situation. Remember too, Trump's first term.

GLENN: Tried to get Maduro out.

STU: Very clearly. The Peace Prize winner, right? Someone from Venezuela, who dedicated to Donald Trump, knowing that Trump has fought really hard for the people of Venezuela, whether you agree with what he's doing or not. He does really care about the situation.

GLENN: He also knows something.

And, you know, I'm -- I'm -- I'm not surprised, the press isn't talking about Margarita Island, but I think that's one of the main reasons why he's --

STU: You're talking about Margaritaville?

GLENN: No Margarita Island. It's just off the coast of Venezuela. It's run by Maduro.

STU: Jimmy Buffett.

GLENN: No. Jimmy Buffett has nothing to do with it. Not involved at all. The Iranians have a lot to do with it. It's a Hezbollah-Hamas training island. And Maduro has been sending Venezuelans and gangs to that island, just off that coast, to train for terrorist activities.

They train there, and then they fly over to Iran, to finish their training. They come back to Venezuela, and then they're unleashed, wherever Maduro wants them unleashed.

So there is actually a terrorist camp that is part of this. And we have been talking about it, you know, on my show. Television. I don't even know.

Five years. Six years. We found this out. And kind of been wondering, why are we not going after this?

Why -- why are we not at least talking about this terror island?

You're looking it up right now, aren't you?

STU: Yeah. Looking at it, just how, first of all, very close to the coast. But you look at the islands that are around it are massive vacation destinations, like Aruba.

GLENN: That's not.

STU: What is that?

GLENN: Margaret Island is not a vacation destination.

STU: No, that's what I'm saying. It's fascinating. Like, you book a trip to Barbados, and you're, what? A couple hundred miles away from a terrorist island.

GLENN: A terrorist island. Yeah. Did you even know that?

STU: I didn't.

GLENN: That's Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: -- in bed with Maduro.

And I'm convinced that this is one of the main things that he's going for. I mean, yes. He is -- I mean, this is Tren de Aragua. Or whatever the hell that thing is. That -- that's part of this.

The unleashing of the prisons. That's also part of this. I mean, this is Maduro trying to unleash along with the Iranians, unleash chaos on our streets.

And I don't know why we don't talk about it. Because I think that's a better case, that's a cigar boat that has drugs in it.

You know.

STU: Yeah. I mean, that seems like it. How -- what's your feeling on the drug boat thing?

Have you spent a lot of time thinking this one out?

And isn't it interesting --

GLENN: I know as an American, I should. I haven't.

STU: It's kind of -- well, it's sort of --

GLENN: That's what I mean flying under the radar.

STU: It's sort of commentary of what you're just saying. It has flown under the radar for a lot of people. Mainly because I think we all recognize there's a real problem with obviously, not just illegal immigration. We always summarize it as illegal immigration. These are people oftentimes that are criminals, drug dealers. Gang members that are coming across the border and committing --

GLENN: Terrorists. Terrorists.

STU: Yeah. It's not just the mom who is trying to get a job here, that's better for her children. That's a separate economic issue associated with that.

But when you talk about drugs coming in. First of all, this is something Trump has been very clear about. Does not want this going on.

And I think we all -- the ends are there. For sure.

The means, I guess are the question. And, you know, what's interesting about this is, you feel like, it's all about a message being sent.

Right?

There's no reason why in theory, we could be the not just stopped these vessels. You know what I mean?

We could pull. We could get the Coast Guard over there. We could get the Navy.

There's all sorts of different things we could do to stop these boats. We're blowing it up, and telling everybody about it, for a reason. And I think quite clearly, this has caused a maritime decrease in traffic, if you will.

From Venezuela. To here.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: This is seemingly working quite well.

The question is, process-wise, is it aligning with what we should be doing?

GLENN: Here's my guess.

Because you know how much Trump hates war. He hates war.

He'll use military force.

But he likes to use quick force. And getting things done.

And he likes overwhelming torso.

STU: And public.

GLENN: Yeah. He likes -- he's sending a message. Not just to Venezuela. He's sending it to the whole world.

And after this last week, where he has walked around like the victor of the world. And all of the other nations coming to him. And bowing knee. And going, okay.

Yeah. Thank you. We're good. We're good.

He is sending a message to three countries, I think.

He's sending a message to Iran. Which is tied right directly to Russia.

And also Venezuela. Which is also tied to China! And Iran.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And I think -- I think he's -- I think he wants this week, especially to be a week that Maduro goes, "You know, things might be changing. I don't know if this is the right" -- and I think he's just using very strong images and power.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: He's using it the right way, to say, back off, buddy. Don't do it right now.

And also, I don't like this. Sending the CIA in.

I just don't trust the CIA in anything anymore.

STU: That's a new development, as of the last 24 hours, that we found out about it. Can you explain that? What are we doing there?

GLENN: Don't really know. Don't really know. Trying to go after the drug lords is what we're saying, but this is also what we kind of do with regime change, you know.

STU: And we've attempted literal regime change with this country. And we've not --

GLENN: Correct. He's a bad guy.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He is part of -- he is a drug lord. Maduro was this bus driver. He's now the head of the drug crime syndicate called the sun or something like that. So he's actually a drug lord himself now. So he's not the sweet little bus driver he used to be.

STU: Moving on up.

GLENN: Moving on up. And making friends with all of the wrong people. At least on our hemisphere.

STU: I will say this. If you were a Venezuelan citizen, would you take a boat outside of your territorial waters for --

GLENN: I wouldn't put a boat in my bathtub.

STU: Yeah. They -- they -- they really need to come up with a new way to get their drugstores here.

I think that's probably been a big focus of these networks now.

Because it's difficult to do by land.

GLENN: This is -- this is kind of what I expected him to do in Mexico.

And that's -- that might be another thing.

If he's -- if he's going after the drug lords. If you start to see these trucking lords just show up dead. He's sending that message to Mexico. You know, I'll do it. I'll do it.

You're not safe wherever you are. And it might have been easier for him to do it in Venezuela. Or so he thinks. Than in Mexico.

And so he's sending that message. Because the drug lords in Mexico are sending big messages to him.

STU: Yeah. I mean, they're putting bounties on ICE members.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Up to $50,000. Yeah. You kill a certain rank of ICE or politician. And they'll give you 50 grand.

I mean, this is the wild west. When it comes to these -- these drug runners and these cartels. It's become the Wild West. And I think that -- I think that play plays a role.