RADIOApril 10, 2024

Congress Will Allow the FBI to SPY on YOU, But Not THEM?!

Congress is voting on whether to re-authorize FISA Section 702, which would allow the FBI to secretly spy on Americans without warrants. Glenn speaks to 3 congressmen who are leading the charge to prevent this. First, Rep. Chip Roy accuses House Speaker Mike Johnson of standing in the way of an amendment to force the FBI to obtain warrants before spying on U.S. citizens. Then, Rep. Thomas Massie lays out the "biggest red flag" he's seen: “There’s 2 carve-outs in here for congressmen…Only if you’re a Senator or US Representative do they have to notify you” if they’re spying on you without a warrant. And lastly, Rep. Warren Davidson explains his his “Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale” amendment, which would put an end to this shady practice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: House Republicans are divided. I don't know how they're divided on this.

Read the Constitution. Where do you find in the Constitution warrants, Pat?

PAT: Well, you have the Fourth Amendment. For instance.

GLENN: Which is?

PAT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Supported by oath or ampliation.

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

That's the Fourth Amendment. What does that mean?

The reason why this was written in, is because the king used to issue general warrants. And that meant Pat Gray, there's something wrong with him. Go find it. And they could look into anything.

They could go into your house, go through all of your papers. Where a warrant, now, our kind of warrant has to be sworn out. By the police and somebody else, you know, somebody tips them off.

And they say, look, I know he robbed somebody, or he killed somebody. And he's keeping their necklace in their house.

It's in his safe, in his wall, and in his bedroom. They go to the judge, and the judge says, really?

And listens to all of it. And he's supposed to be skeptical and protect your right to privacy.

But if they have enough evidence to make the judge go, I think you're right. He did.

Then he issues that specific warrant. They can't just go into your business. And everything else.

And just look through stuff.

They have to know what they're looking for, and generally, where it is.

PAT: And if they find something else, that incriminates them on some other issue. You can't use it.

GLENN: You can't use it, okay?

That's the Fourth Amendment. This is where we get warrants. This is why you can't just stop people in the streets, and search them.

Okay?

This is why America doesn't say, papers please. You can't do that! Because of the Fourth Amendment. Now, we were all really drunk and stupid, when we passed the Patriot Act. And in the Patriot Act, it has Section 702.

And it's the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

And we ail talked about it, at the time. And we all trusted our government, at the time.

Strangely, except for actual liberals, which I don't think exist anymore.

And they were the ones that were saying, tonight. Don't do this.

This -- this will -- they will scoop Americans up into this.

PAT: And we said at the time, eh, that's fine. It's not going to happen. Because I was for it, at the very beginning.

A few weeks into it, I was like, oh, wait. It's going to be a problem.

I remember thinking, all they have to do is just change the meaning of terrorist. If they -- if they decide a group of Americans are terrorists, we're done.

And that's exactly what they've done now.

So what happens is, they -- they get a warrantless surveillance of foreigners.

We don't have to have a warrant on foreigners.

So they go to the FISA court, and they say, look, we're going to listen to these people.

And they don't need a warrant. And they go and they listen to those people.

The problem is: It's a giant chain.

That person, if that person is foreign, and he calls somebody here in America, then that person is tracked.

And everyone else that he talks to. And everyone else that they talk to.

And so on. And so on.

Do you remember the old -- you know, the shampoo commercial?

And so on. And so on. And it kept dividing itself, until the whole screen was just nothing, but faces.

That's exactly what is happening. And they are scooping up all kinds of information on you. That doesn't have anything to do, with terror overseas.

This has got to stop. You know, when they -- when they built, after 9/11, they built the visitor's center of Washington, DC.

What you don't know, is -- or may not know.

Is underneath the visitor's center, we don't even know how many floors, there are.

Underneath that.

It's all top secret.

Your -- some of your senators and some of your Congressmen can't even get into the floors. They're top secret, because they're FISA courts.

We know now, that the FISA courts are completely corrupt. We know that the FBI is changing the facts, when they go to the court.

They're changing -- they've actually changed, sworn testimony. And no one is punished for it.

We cannot allow section 702 to pass.

Now, there is a -- an amendment to the bill. That has been suggested.

But the bill is coming up, this week. The G.O.P. representative Laura Lee of Florida, is the one who has put the amendment in.

Titled reforming intelligence and securing America act. It would reauthorize section 702 of FISA for five years.

And aims to impose a series of reforms. I don't believe any of the reforms.

I don't believe those will ever happen. We have given the keys to everything about us.

To the government. And the government has turned hostile on many Americans.

So, what do we do? We have Chip on yet?

CHIP: We passed a rollout committee yesterday, that would include -- that had a rule that said we will have a vote on a warrant. The problem is that the Speaker of the House, has now come out against the warrant amendment. That's a problem. Because the Speaker has pit his finger on the scale to shift the conversation. And to say publicly, we don't need the warrant.

GLENN: What the hell is wrong with this guy?

CHIP: Well, that's for another conversation. For the purpose of today, when we go to the floor, in an hour and 40 minutes, we're bringing to the floor under a bill that has an amendment to add the Fourth Amendment protection, the warrant protection that we could still pass, but seems like we won't. Because the speaker has put his finger on the scales.

So now since the speaker has done that, we now have to decide, whether or not we stop the whole process by killing the rule.

And then force it to be only reauthorized under its current form.

Which, of course, still wouldn't give us the protection of the warrant.

GLENN: No.

CHIP: But our concern is, there are other amendments in this, that would expand FISA in the name of going after --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHIP: Right. And so, for example, there is well-intended legislation, to go after. To be able to collect data. Collect information. Relative to drug trafficking like fentanyl.

The problem is, in the definition, about precursors, and other stuff. It expands FISA. Expands the amount of information they were collecting. You could be about talking about an American citizen, buying, you know, whatever. Cold medicine.

That's the precursor for making meth.

So we're all alarmed, that it's expanding FISA, and we're trying to run all these pieces to ground.

Meanwhile, that's all stuff that's been added to it. You know, by the leadership.

So now, we're trying to figure out, what we do. With a rule here at noon.

We are conflicted because of the current regime, doesn't have the Fourth Amendment warrant, you know, a language in there.

Obviously, we still have protections in American citizens under the Constitution. But if you don't put this provision in place, it's not as strong in terms of what we're trying to do to protect American citizens.

THOMAS: The biggest red flag in this. And I spent 15 minutes last night. The rules committee, going back and forth to the chairman of the Intel committee. We finally got him to admit, this is inside his bill. A carve-out for congressmen. I don't know if Chip mentioned it.

GLENN: No. He didn't.

THOMAS: Okay. They are trying to tell you, they have 53 reforms in here that will take care of all the problems. Well, the congressman who are voting for this aren't convinced, because they get a carve-out. There's two carve-outs here for congressmen.

Number one, the FBI is surveilling you, using FISA. They're going into this database, and searching with your name and your congressman. And they're ostensibly doing it for your own good.

Because they're worried about foreign actors. They have to notify you.

Only if you're a congressman. Only if you're a senator or US representative.

Do they have to notify you. And I asked, why did they put that in there? They were afraid of political bias.

What about school boards? Aren't you afraid of political bias there? And oh, by the way, does this apply to candidates, or just incumbent congressmen? It only applies to incumbent congressmen. How special is that?

So my solution here is, get a warrant. And then you don't have to put out carve-outs for congressmen.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: And here's what's especially despicable about the carve-out. That's to get congressmen's votes. There's at least one Congressman we know -- Darin LaHood. He's said this publicly. He's on the Intel community, and he was being spied on by the Intel community.

He's responsible for their oversight. So he was worried enough about this. That he insisted, there would be some provision. Now, his concern is legitimate.

I'm not tingeing him, per se.

GLENN: No. I know.

THOMAS: For asking for this. It should be solved for everybody, not just congressmen.

GLENN: Thank you. So tell us what your amendment actually will do.

WARREN: Okay. So the amendment we have is called the Fourth Amendment is not for sale. So one of the most important ones in the bill is to get a warrant.

And let's go back in the fall. The base tax had getting a warrant, and the -- what is the Fourth Amendment not for sale do?

It prevents the federal government from buying data from data brokers that they would otherwise have to get a warrant for a subpoena to obtain. So it was in the data broker loophole. So it was in the base text. The Speaker essentially works with the Intel committee to gut the bill, of some of these important provisions.

And at least the warrant requirement is going to be able to be offered as an amendment. But he basically strips the Fourth Amendment is not for sale, from even getting a vote.

And part of the reason, I still remember, you know, a long time member of Congress, again, Walter Jones, asked him one time when a bill was popular in the House. Passed with like 420 some votes.

Only seven no votes. Would help solve a problem. Be popular with the public. Why in the world won't the Senate pick this up?

And he said, well, I hate to be cynical. But probably because it would pass. And why would they strip this out?

Well, because Dick Durbin, who is the Chairman of Judiciary in the Senate has a similar bill in the Senate, and Chuck Schumer is a cosponsor.

So this is an issue that does not break on party lines. When it was offered as a standalone bill in the Judiciary Committee last summer, it passed 36 to one through the committee. So how often did Jim Jordan and Jerry Nadler agree on something? Pretty rare.

But this is one that at least, this isn't a total party line issue like so many other things are.

GLENN: So they're stripping it out.

And he's actually going around the rules to make sure that it's -- that it never makes it to the floor, is it he not?

WARREN: Well, it doesn't make it as part of this debate. He has offered to give us a vote at a later time. But this is the problem.

If it's not attached to something that has passed like FISA. Well, of course, the administration wants to keep spying on Americans. They have already said that. So if there was a way to pass it through the House -- and even if there is a way to pass it through the Senate. The administration, you know, simply would veto it.

That's why it should be part of the FISA debate. That's why the judiciary committee had it as part of the base text of the bill, that essentially the Speaker reworked.

GLENN: So I'm hoping that most of the people that are hearing your voice right now, are the kind of people that maybe used to say. Well, I don't have anything to worry about.

Because I'm not doing anything illegal.

And realize now, the government has turned hostile towards American citizens.

And all of the information that is out there, it's very dangerous for individuals.

Tell me what -- why the average person should care. Why does this matter?

You know, to those people who are not breaking the law, et cetera, et cetera?

WARREN: Well, the barbecue to the founding of the country, and why was the revolution ticked off. One of the major causes according to John Adam was the general warrant stop the king. King George was basically saying, well, we're looking for bad people. So under the guise of looking for bad people, we will just come and rummage through your personal effects. And, you know, in the concept of privacy.

Well, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say, well, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

It says that as an American, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That without probable cause, and they can't search your stuff, and with probable cause, they have to get a warrant. Even for really bad people.

Even to go after pedophiles. You have to get a warrant. And that's the way. The foreign surveillance act, is designed to collect intelligence on foreigners. That part is broadly supported.

It's been very effective. We want to stop threats to our country. But when it comes to citizens, there's a reason there's no Domestic Surveillance Act. It's because the Fourth Amendment says that we have an expectation of privacy.

And we have to defend that. It's probably the most infringed part of the Bill of Rights at this point.

GLENN: So what is the most effective thing people can do today?

WARREN: Call their member of Congress. Tell them to demand that their number of votes are for a warrant requirement. And ask them to say, we should be voting on the Fourth Amendment is not for sale.

The government should not be circumventing the warrant requirement, to buy data, that they would otherwise get a warrant. They don't want the warrant requirement in the first place. But in the event, that should pass, in a lot of ways, they're saying, well, it's not as consequential. Because we could just buy our ways around it.

Biden Should be ASHAMED of These Pardons & Clemency Grants

President Biden has pardoned or granted clemency to TONS of people, including some controversial prisoners. Glenn and Stu review some of the worst, including a woman who stole $54 million from her small town and the “kids-for-cash” judge, who sent kids to a for-profit juvenile detention center in exchange for $2 million. Glenn and Stu also discuss the latest update in the Duke lacrosse case, where the woman who originally accused 3 players admitted to making the whole thing up. But has she found God since then?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I have to -- I have to bring up the pardon thing. Because I -- I -- I don't -- what!

Apparently, Biden now has pardoned nine thousand people.

Like George Bush did 500.

And -- over eight years!

9,000 people. The only one close is Jimmy Carter, because he did 12,000 people, that had to go to Canada because they tried to avoid the Vietnam War.

So he just did a blanket pardon of 12,000 people.

This is 9,000 individuals.

STU: Yeah. Some of them work sort of in that blanket.

He did 1500 in one day. Which is the most that ever happened in that take.

There were more blanket. Here's a class of criminal.

In a certain situation.

But like, some of the specifics are really bizarre. Right?

This woman who built this town.

GLENN: Yeah. So there's a town, Dickson, Illinois, and it's a small town.

And this woman worked for the town, and she had opened up an account. And she was transferring money into her account.

And people are like, where is all the money going?

54 million dollars. Okay?

She -- I love the list of what she bought.

She bought like 400 horses.

And then like 80 acres of land.

Chuck have 400 horses on 80 acres of land.

STU: You can't. Why is that?

GLENN: Well, that's a lot of horses.

STU: As a person who grew up in New York.

Why is that a problem?

GLENN:

GLENN: That's not even grass!

STU: Not enough grass!

GLENN: You would to have year around, be feeding the horses.

STU: How much grass are these things eating? Calm down. Calm down.

Jeez. It's grass.

GLENN: Anyways, she bought, let's see, 400 horses, 48 trucks, luxury motor home. Classic cars. A boat. 80 acres of land.

Jewelry, personal credit cards. Business expenses. Furnishing for at least three homes.

Including a Florida vacation home.

STU: You would think, at some point, a small home. They would have caught this earlier.

GLENN: You have a new collection. And you work, what?

Where?

So, anyway, she goes on vacation, and the city is like, let's check her bank records. Her bank account. And so they get the warrant. They check her bank.

They arrest her.

She's 20 years.

She served four or five years of her time.

And she's like, I'm getting really old and sick.

And she's not that old.

And so the judge says, okay.

And this set the town on fire.

The judge said, okay.

Home arrest. Ankle bracelet. You cannot leave your home. Okay. If you're sick, and you're worried that your family will not see you and whatever, fine!

STU: Okay.

GLENN: That wasn't good enough for whoever is putting this one in front of Joe Biden?

He just said, you're not -- why?

STU: Yeah, why?

GLENN: Who suggested this one?

STU: Somebody.

It wasn't just a random -- like, he was just perusing the internet. Came across this story.

This person, who brought 400 horses for 80. 400 horses for 80 acres.

80 acres which, by the way, is too many horses on that many acres. I could be wrong, horse people. I could be wrong. Horse cows can't do it.

Horse people. They are horse people. They have the head and hands of horses. The rest of them are human. It's weird.

STU: Really? Oh, my God. I would say that's horrific, but that would be hateful. We shouldn't judge other people's cultures.

GLENN: They are just like people. They need people food, but they don't have fingers or thumbs.

STU: So they just eat grass.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I -- this isn't a random thing.

The way a lot of this works is somebody, who is tied to the administration.

GLENN: Okay. May I --

STU: Somebody who -- right.

Has a connection, or a person who has a connection to somebody else.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Gets message to somebody in the administration.

Hey. I like this person, I don't think they're that bad.

You should let them out.

GLENN: And that's -- that's not the way it -- let me just -- I'll tell you a story. I've never told on the air before.

There's a guy I know, who I think, it was caught up in something that he -- he didn't do.

Everything that I see, looks like he's been falsely accused. And it's just destroyed his life for many, many years.

And they -- they haven't sentenced him.

And he's like, waiting for the shoe to drop for like, at that time, two years.

That was four years ago.

And so his attorney called me, and he said, you know the president.

And I went through the case, and everything. And I thought, I think -- I think he's actually innocent.

So I called the president. Right after the new year. And I said, Mr. President, may I pitch you on a name?

We've already sent it to your vetters, so they're looking at it.

I just want to tell you -- got the shaft.

STU: You made a personal plea.

GLENN: I made a personal plea.

And we talked about it for a while.
And he said, okay. I would love to do that, but I have to look at the case.

I haven't heard of this case. I said, I understand. I want to put my name -- just put it on your radar. They looked at it. They disagreed. He wasn't pardoned.

But that's the way it happens.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay? Some lawyer gets information, to the White House.

And that lawyer knows somebody who knows somebody in the White House.

And they call and say, 9,000 pardons?

9,000. First of all, President Trump -- President Biden has no idea. There's no way you can go through 9,000.

How many lawyers at the White House, do they have, going over these cases, for 9,000 reversals?

STU: Right. They're just saying, likely, allegedly. Just saying yes to everybody who is asking --

GLENN: Why would you let this person go?

STU: It seems like a terrible one.

Someone who bilked the public for millions and millions and millions of dollars.

GLENN: Fifty-four millions dollars. That's a lot of money for say small town.

They had to cut services.

Okay. What about the one with the judge. Listen to this one.

STU: This is a story of a judge, long story short, basically was accused. And convicted of going through, taking people, and intentionally sentencing young people, juveniles, and young people.

From getting -- if I'm remembering all the details of this story correctly.

To prisons, in conjunction to someone who was running the prison.

And, of course, the --

GLENN: The prison makes money.

STU: It's a for-profit prison.

GLENN: The prison makes money, if they get more prisoners.

STU: Right. So they were sentencing people for prison time.

To line their pockets. And associate's pockets.

GLENN: That person, honestly. That's one of the worst crimes.

To me, that's up there with murder.

STU: I will say, I have seen some legitimate anger from the left on that in particular.

GLENN: That should be. That should be.

That's an assault on not just our laws.

That's not money.

That is putting -- that's taking somebody's liberty. And really, you live with that for the rest of your life. Your life!

For money?

The judge is doing that?

That person should never get out of prison. At least early!

I think that is one of the worst crimes I've heard.

STU: It's -- it's a really rough run.

You're talking about the lives of young people. Who might be able to turn their lives around. And who knows?

GLENN: Look at the story that came out, when was this?
Friday or Thursday of last week.

The girl who said, oh, by the way, the Duke lacrosse team. I did make that up.

Now. She didn't say it that way.

That's the way I heard it.

And I was outraged.

This person is should number jail. Well, she's already in jail. She murdered somebody. She's already in jail.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But it looks like she's had a deep spiritual change in her.

Now, that doesn't mean, I'm going to say, you know what, let's forget the prison thing on the murder!

No.

STU: No.

GLENN: But she looks like she had a deep Jesus moment.

And she was clearing this up!

I think that is absolutely incredible, because the three boys that were charged, and everyone in the Duke lacrosse team, was smeared. But imagine being one of those three that were named.

Trying to get a job.

STU: Yeah. Oh, my gosh.

Yeah. Horrible.

I had -- you mentioned, Glenn. I have a friend of a friend. Who is on the Duke lacrosse team. Was on that Duke lacrosse team.

Not one of the kids who was actually -- not even at the party. Not even at the party.

Were they not accused of doing anything wrong at the party.

But weren't at the party.

And the second they would get -- they would turn in a resume with someone. With duke and lacrosse on it. In that time period. They would just not get call backs from prospective employers.

Because of this.

And some of them would tell them. I can't hire somebody from the duke freaking lacrosse team.

Which is -- it's somewhat understandable, from an employer's perspective.

You would really have to be sure. Now, in that case, they should have been sure, because he wasn't even at the party.

Still, this was an awful slander beyond slander.

Of course, they wound up winning challenges.

GLENN: Yeah. But remember -- remember the name Nifong.

STU: Yeah. He was -- he stuck to it, even after.

GLENN: Oh, he was like, these guys are criminals, blah, blah, blah.

He just going and going and going. Said that it was, you know, racist. The entire team was racist. The school was racist.

I mean, somebody should pay a price for this.

You destroyed lives.

STU: If you remember the story, it was a stripper who went to a party.

And claims she was raped. Right?

GLENN: Right. But there was no DNA evidence. She was drunk and on drugs.

She left the party early.

Everyone she said was actually there, wasn't there.

STU: Many of them weren't.

Yeah. There's all sorts of problems. The case fell apart. There was a big scandal. She never came out and said, by the way, I was totally lying about that.

In the interim, she murdered her boyfriend with the kitchen knife.

GLENN: That happens. That happens to all of us.

STU: Went to prison. And has had what she claims is a -- is a transformation. I want to play this video for you. It's about a minute and a half long.

Glenn, do you buy this?

Does it seem real to you?

VOICE: The Bible says that you shouldn't do harm to your neighbor that lives trustingly beside you, and they were my brothers. And they trusted me that I wouldn't betray their trust.

And I testified falsely against them, by saying that they raped me, when they didn't.

And that was wrong.

And I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people, who believed in me.

And made up a story, that wasn't true. Because I wanted validation from people. And not from God.
And that was wrong. When God already loved me for who I was, regardless.

I didn't need to seek validation from him. Because I already have validation from him. I just didn't know it.

And I hurt my brothers.

And I hope that they can forgive me, and I want them to know that I love them.

And they didn't deserve it. And I hope that they can forgive me.

And the -- I hope that they can heal and trust God.

And know that God loves them. And the -- God is loving them, through me. Letting them know, that they're valuable, and that they didn't deserve that.

GLENN: Hmm.

STU: I think it's pretty interesting.

Now, it should be noted. She's got nothing to gain as far as getting out of prison. She murdered someone.

So she's not like on the verge of getting out. And this will help her.

This is --

GLENN: Well, it will help her eventually.

STU: It could.

GLENN: It could. Just admitting, you know, that you did it, and it was wrong. Is a big deal.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: She's not reacting the way I would have.

But, you know, I blubber all the time.

If I had done that. It would have been more emotional. But she may -- you know, it may not be the way she reacts.

STU: I will say, she initiated this happening. Right?

She called a reporter to come to do this.

GLENN: To talk about that.

STU: To talk about this. So, you know, she had it planned for a while. It wasn't off the top of her head.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah. That makes a difference.

I want to believe her.

I want to believe her.

God only knows, but I want to believe her.

Did Google Just PROVE Other Universes Exist?!

Google recently claimed that its new Willow quantum computing chip just proved the existence of "parallel universes." How is this possible and is it different from multiverse theory? Glenn and Stu discuss this incredible alleged discovery, as well as how the Willow chip was apparently able to solve a problem in 5 minutes that would have taken modern supercomputers 10 septillion years to solve. But at the same time, there's another incredible story that might be related: Bible sales have increased 22% year over year, especially print versions!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, America.

Let me -- let me just refresh your memory, where we were on Monday. Where we were on Monday, with Willow. Which is a new computer chip from Google, that they just -- they just tested.

With the new quantum computer.

Two years ago, we talked about quantum computing, because it -- it could process 54, what are called cubits.

That was astonishing at the time.

And I read article after article, once you get over 100, it's going to be like -- you won't believe what this can do.

And we're at the very beginning.

Two years, we were at 54.

We're at 155 cubits.

Cubit is a way to open up.

I don't even know how to explain it.

The universe.

And test a theory, and -- and search for all answers.

At the same time.

So right now, we have to think linearly.

We have to think, okay.

Two plus two is one.

No!

Two plus two is two? No. Two plus two is three. No! Two plus two is four.

Yes!

Okay. So it's ones and zeros. It's either a yes or a no. It doesn't have to be. But that -- we don't have to go into that. Yes or no.

And it tests all of them vertically instead of linearly. Got it?

So they can -- it can come up with answers, like nobody's business. And it -- it works with quantum physics. Which, quantum physics -- everything breaks down with quantum physics.

Einstein said, God doesn't play dice.

Well, if quantum physics is true, perhaps he does. A little bit.

Because the -- what they're finding now, especially since Monday!

Is one thing. First, they can solve the most complex problem, that we have ever tried to solve.

I don't even know what it is.

I would like to ask that question.

But it took this new quantum computer five minutes, to solve a problem.

That would have taken our best supercomputer, 10 septillion years, to solve it.

Go through the -- it's million, billion, trillion.

STU: Trillion. Quadrillion.

Quintillion.

Septillion.

GLENN: Okay. That's a lot.

In fact, they describe it as vastly more than the age of the entire universe.

STU: Quite an understatement there.

GLENN: Yeah. How old is the universe, they think?

STU: The accepted one is 13.8 billion years.

GLENN: Okay. 13.8 billion years.

This is 10 septillion years.

Would have taken to solve this problem. With our supercomputer.

I would like to ask the question: What was the question?

And what is the answer?

And how do you know it's right?

All right.

So now, that happened on Monday.

They announced that on Monday. Now, the guy who is the head of willow.

The guy who is in charge. He's the founder and leader of the Google AI team.

He's a physicist. He said, the result. The high speed result, I'm quoting, lends freedom to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes.

So -- I mean, you have to almost go to marvel to understand.

It's -- it's as if -- as if, when they put a question in, all the Spider-Man movies are stacked up on top of each other.

You know what I mean? Not the Spider-Man. You know, Spider-Man one, two, and three, with the same actor.

He's in one universe.

All the other ones with different actors. They're all happening at the same time.

Okay?

That's what it means for parallel universe.

And he says, it shows, that that's where the quantum computing is happening.

It's going -- it's actually opening up, and going into other universes.

It's fascinating. Do you want to hear why they think that, Stu?

GLENN: Sure.

GLENN: It's very nerdy, but it's really cool.

All right. So you know what a neutron and an electron does. Right? What does an electron do?

It circles. And it circles the neutron.

And the neutron, it -- reason why the electron circles it.

It acts as a force to keep the neutron in place.

Without the electron, it goes -- it just like explodes, and goes away.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So you have to have the electron.

Going around it, to keep the neutron, in place.

The reason why they first came up with quantum physics, is the electron, when you observe it.

It disappears.

No. When you -- when you observe it, it's there.

When you don't observe it, it's there. And then not there.

There and not there.

There and not there.

And so it keeps going.

It just disappears.

STU: How do you know that?

GLENN: The energy.

The energy -- it's one of the other, if you observe or not.

I can't remember which.

It's been years.

The energy goes full, nothing.

Full nothing. Full, nothing.

And those nothing areas, the -- neutron should dissipate. Okay

What they thought, this is the theory. Is that it's actually flipping into several different universes, as it's going around to hold that neutron in place, in all these different universes.

Okay.

Crazy.

STU: This is really what they think.

Incredible.

GLENN: This is really what they think.

That's the theory!

So he's now saying, yep. This is had it proves that that theory, is where we're doing the computations.

In all these different universes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, the problem is: Over the weekend, there was a massive nerd fight.

And another guy, who is an astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel. He says, that's ridiculous!

And the Google guy should know.

And he says, that has nothing to do with it.

Blah, blah, blah.

So there's a third fight on the -- can he said, parallel universe -- parallel universe, and multi-verse are very different.

Now, I don't even think Marvel can explain the difference.

I have no idea.

But that's the level of the nerd fight we're in.

However, here's what -- what's really cool is, at 54 cubits, okay?

So about half of what we have now, and don't ask me how this happened. I have no idea.

They opened some -- you know, a molecule. And they could measure it here.

And when it was turned on, or whatever.

I have no idea.

I'm sorry for everybody who is really past an eighth grade education.

I apologize here.

Your head will hurt.

They opened it somehow or thorough.

And they were observing it through Silicon Valley or wherever this is.

They opened the same one.

It appeared in London.

And they verified, that the changes they made in Silicon Valley. Were happening with the -- it's the same molecule.

And it was happening at the same time, someplace else. Isn't that nuts?

STU: What! Yes.

GLENN: They thought, at that time, at 54 cubits, they thought, that is going to lead us to the discovery of how to travel without airplanes and everything else.

STU: Instantaneous travel.

GLENN: Instantaneous travel. That would be incredible.

STU: Uh-huh. Yes!

GLENN: Okay.

So all of these things are coming up. Now, listen to this.

What they say is: This is such big news, because we're going to be able to solve some of the biggest problems.

Okay. I want to know what the first question. Are you interested in what the first question was?

That took that. Okay. I don't know what it is.

I'm sure it's just mathematical. But I don't know what it is. I would like to know. And do you think that these are our biggest problems?

When you have the most powerful, they're saying, it will tell us how to make batteries better.

Really? That's what we're going for.

We're going for, how batteries can be made better?

They said, also, it could -- it could further humanity by curing some diseases.

Some diseases?

STU: It could be big. It could be maybe --

GLENN: Yeah. I think that might be an understatement. You're opening all this up. Yep, we'll be able to drive for 400 miles. Maybe as much as 700 miles an hour.

Come on. Come on.

There's got to be something bigger than that.

So, anyway, as all of this is happening. And makes no sense. To anybody, I think, all of the scientists are even bluffing.

They don't know what they're talking about.

It makes no sense. Let me give you this story!

New sales data from BookScan shows that Bible sales have increased 22 percent through October of this year! Compared to the same period last year.

I don't know if you know this, Bible sales have been going down for maybe about 100 years. Went up 22 percent this year!

In the first ten months of the year, American -- Americans purchased 13.7 million Bibles. Which, Bibles now are on track to suppress -- to surpass last year's 14.2 million!

Here's why it matters.

Over the same period of time, print book sales, increased less than 1 percent.

So people are -- you can get it online.

People are actually going out and buying paper Bibles, for their house and their family.

At unheard of rates. When everywhere else, the Bible is going down.

Why is that happening?

Try to relate it to the first story, I just gave you.

Nothing makes sense!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Nothing makes sense in our world. You're like, I -- what?

STU: People are looking for foundational --

GLENN: They're looking for foundational truths.

The world is changing so rapidly. And nothing makes sense. This is really good news.

Seeing that, that's the first sign of -- of an awakening.

Where people get so disillusioned with things, they realize their lives, the country, war, science, everything is out of control!

There are no experts to listen to.

That you're like, okay. Maybe I should start listening to myself, and is there something bigger than me? That makes sense.

This is an extraordinarily good sign!

As the world makes less and less sense, the only way to solve this is a return to universal principles.

And -- and it will still -- I -- do you know that the Big Bang theory was developed by scientists? Developed by scientists, and they used it, at first, the religious people, used it at first, to say the Big Bang theory, proves God exists.

And so science at that time, accepted it for a little while.

Then they were, no, no, no. It doesn't prove -- it just started. And it started as, well, that's the way God created it.

So God lit a match. Happened to the Big Bang. That explains your expanded universe and everything else.

Now scientists use that, because they cut the original part of the theory out, that God lit the match.

And it leaves you with the question, I've asked a million times.

Right. Big Bang.

But what lit the match?

What was just before it?

Where did all of that come from?

Who started the fire?

That was part of the original Big Bang theory! God. And they conveniently axed that part, to now disprove God.

We don't know what the answers are. And with quantum computing, the world will look.

And science will look very different, very fast. But there are certain truths, that used to be self-evident.

That are eternal. And we're looking for them, in record numbers!

Is This PROOF Jill Biden Voted Against Kamala Harris?

Glenn’s seen enough to be convinced that Jill Biden not only despises Kamala Harris, but voted against her. First, there was the red dress the First Lady wore to the voting booth. Then, there was the moment at the Kennedy Center, where the Bidens and Harrises appeared to not even look at each other. And finally, there was Jill Biden’s recent apparent jab while speaking to the press. Glenn reviews the clip, where the First Lady used the word “joy” in a similar way to the Harris campaign, and he points out the moment that he was convinced Jill did it on purpose.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So on the -- on the day of the election, what was Jill Biden wearing when she came out smiling after the vote?

STU: Red. Famously red.

GLENN: Okay. And I thought, okay. Maybe.

I mean, she has a blue vote dress, that she's worn before. I don't know if you ever saw that. She wore it like in a convention or something.
And it says "vote" on it.

STU: That sounds terrible.

GLENN: It was pretty terrible. But if you want to send a message of voting and voting blue. That's what you would wear.

STU: Also, but you wouldn't have to send a message with every outfit.

GLENN: Amen to that. So I'm like, okay. Maybe. I think you're read too much into it.

Then they don't talk to each other anymore.

This week, all of a sudden, they're at the Kennedy center, sitting next to each other. Okay?

The Bidens and the Harrises sitting next to each other, Bidens -- they don't -- she is sitting right next to Kamala.

They don't -- Kamala never turns -- I mean, sorry.

Biden never turns and even says, hello.

Doesn't look her way, the entire time. Now, how do you do that?

That takes effort. That takes control.

Okay. So there's no love lost there. Now, here's where I'm going to prove to you, they despise her. And she voted against Kamala.

This is what happened at the White House, yesterday.

She was on prompter. She was talking about Christmas.

And then she uses the word joy, in her speech.

And then she says this: Listen.

VOICE: So I hope that you all feel that sense of, you know, peace and light and that just for a moment, when you leave here today, that you feel, I don't know, a little -- a sense of joy. Because I think we all need like this -- you know, we all need to feel joy now.

During this -- this time of the season. During -- just during this time.

So, anyway, okay. Now, I'll start.

You're all reading into that.

GLENN: Okay. If you're watching Blaze TV, you may have spotted what I just spot. Spotted.

But play the last ten seconds of that back, if you can. And if you can't, just play the whole thing.

VOICE: You know, we all need to feel joy now during this -- this time of the season.

GLENN: Okay. A word. If you're aware. You don't use at this point, but okay. She's using it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Go ahead. Keep playing it.

VOICE: Because I think we all need like this -- you know, we all need to feel joy now during this -- this time of the season. During -- just during this time.

GLENN: Stop! Just during this time.

Not just the time of the season, just during this time.

So now he's narrowing it down to there are problems, okay?

And we should feel joy.

Well, that was the campaign slogan, there are problems.

But we have joy, and we're going to solve them.

Now, here's -- here's where it cuts the throat.

Listen to the audience, and then if you're watching Blaze TV, watch her eyes.

Watch her movements.

You -- it's very easy to lie. But your body will always give -- unless you're a great actor or actress. Your body will give away the lie.

Your body will not act the same way as your mouth and even your eyes. Her eyes and her body betray her here.

Watch.

VOICE: During -- just during this time. So, anyway, okay. Now, I'll start.

You're all reading into that.

GLENN: She did not look at the crowd. If that's happening naturally, that would have easily been, if she didn't even think of that connection, you would have immediately looked at the crowd. Your eyes would have darted back and forth.

Like, what am I missing? And you might have even said, I'm sorry. What did I say?

Okay. Her eyes didn't dart.

She didn't -- she wasn't startled by it. She just leaned down to the microphone, and said, okay. You're reading too much into that.

I'm sorry. No. Nope. That was intentional.

That was she despises Kamala Harris. Despises her.

Disagree with that?

STU: I mean, I could see it. I don't know that I'm convinced as you are. I mean, joy say word associated with the holiday season. You can easily toss that out there.

GLENN: That's why it's fine, in this season.

STU: But she just seems to be stuttering looking around trying to get to the end there. I don't know. I think it's possible. But it's interesting.

And I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris. You may know that.

GLENN: Really? You didn't vote for her?

STU: No. No.

At veepthoughts.com, you can watch all of her greatest hits. But like, is she the one to get mad at for the Bidens? What did she do here?

GLENN: I think she feels. I think the Bidens feel that she was knifing them.

Remember --

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: I know. I think it's the Obamas.

STU: And Pelosi.

GLENN: And Pelosi. Which I don't think they've talked to Pelosi since, have they?

STU: No. I think that one is real.

I think this one is real too.

I just don't know it makes all that much sense. Kamala Harris.

GLENN: Since when have the Bidens made sense?

STU: That's true. That's true.

He's famously just stutters his way through nonsensical jabbering.

But I just feel like, you know, I will say this, for Kamala Harris.

From the Joe Biden perspective.

She -- she -- her opportunity to become president of the United States, was to say, he did a bad job.

If she would have said that, she would have had a chance, at winning that election. If she would have said, look, I talked to Joe behind the scenes.

I tried to get him to move on the border. He had a different vision.

And what happened it didn't work. So I fought, fought, and fought. And finally we got those rules changed.

I know it's nonsense and BS. She could have taken an attack to make him.

GLENN: I know. And she never did.

STU: She never did. In fact, she went on The View, and said she couldn't think of anything that she would have changed in the entire administration.

GLENN: Because that's also true. She couldn't think of anything.

STU: It is true! But that's -- what does that have to do with anything?

GLENN: You're forgetting, on that particular one, you're forgetting how stupid she is.

STU: Okay. That could be. Again, whatever the reason is, she didn't go after the 25th Amendment. She didn't leak to the media, that he was having these moments behind the scenes, throughout three and a half years of the presidency.

I don't think there's a good case, that the problem with Kamala Harris from the left's perspective is that she wasn't too disloyal to Joe Biden.

GLENN: All right. All right.

Let me share one of -- I want to share something that I've been thinking about lately, on somebody I have to call. And make amends to.

Let me share a story, I don't think you even know. Okay? A bad story about me.

STU: Oh, gosh.

Open up the book. Do we have to add another chapter?

GLENN: You will never guess where this is happening, hiding my alcoholism in Baltimore.

Yeah, strange.

All right. So this company, that I was working for, was playing around with our contracts and stuff.

And they -- they wanted to hire me. But I was partnered with Pat. And we were best friends.

And we were killing it.

But they just didn't want to pay Pat.

And I said, I'll renew my contract. If you renew Pat's contract. So we can continue on.

They said, fine.

So they did. As soon as we signed the contract, they just invoked the clause to pay him off.

And got rid of him. And replaced him with someone else.

Without me knowing anything about it. Okay?

STU: I remember the outline of the story. Which is typical radio, by the way.

GLENN: Typical radio. Just knife you in the back. Lock me in for five years.

And the guy who I've wanted to partner with forever, gone.

STU: Yeah. Gone.

GLENN: Okay? For no reason whatsoever.

And so I'm working with my attorneys. And they're like, Glenn. There's not much you can do.

And I'm like, oh, yeah, there is.

Oh, there's lots I can do.

And so this guy named Larry Wax. Came in.

And it was his big shot. To be on, you know, Baltimore radio.

And he was very excited.

And he would --

STU: You were not excited.

GLENN: No. No.

And I did not participate in, you know, helping plan the show.

He would plan the whole show. Okay. Because he knew.

Hmm, I'll just follow you.

STU: So you were so angry.

You were protesting essentially.

GLENN: Yeah. I'll follow you. Which you know me, I've never done that.

My name was first on the show.

Larry, you go ahead and tell me what we're going to do.

And he would say, okay.

Right before the break. We'll end here. But I'll say this. And you'll say this.

And then we'll get into this conversation about this, see where it goes. But we're ending here.

Okay. He would open up the mic.

And he would say, so what did you do last night.

And I was supposed to say, oh, I watched Netflix.

And I said, I didn't do anything. I went to bed early. And he would just look at me, like what the hell --

STU: What a jerk.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I destroyed everything. And I eventually, I apologized to him. I said, Larry, this is not. I'm sorry.

Because he looked at me with these big sad eyes. And he's like, Glenn, you're killing me, man.

And I'm like, I know. But they signed me to a five-year contract, and I'm not going to be here for five years.

I'm not doing it.

STU: So you're trying to get yourself fired.

GLENN: I'm trying to get myself fired. Because I didn't have an option out.

And I just looked at him -- towards the end, I really felt bad.

And I was like, I'm sorry, Larry.

I know I'm destroying your one shot.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I mean, it was horrible.

And I feel -- he's been coming to mind so much. I don't even know where he is. I don't know what happened afterwards.

And I feel really bad -- feel like I should call him and say, hey, Larry, please tell me you're not like in the sanitation industry now. Please tell me that you had some success afterwards.

STU: In the industry.

GLENN: That I didn't --

STU: So wait. You never -- lost are contact with the guy. Never kind of talked this out?

GLENN: You would be surprised. We didn't have a good relationship.
(laughter)

STU: Oh. So you were bringing that up on the Kamala Harris context.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We think that she was maybe --

GLENN: It doesn't matter if it was her.

She was the tool used to take her -- no matter how nice she was to have.

Larry was very kind to me, and gracious on the air. Okay? I was not having any of it. I was never mean to him, but I would never play along.

STU: You were not helpful.

GLENN: Not helpful at all.

All right. That's what I think is happening with Kamala.

First of all, she has a record of knifing her boss in the back.

STU: Totally. In fact, that is her specialty.

One talent she has. Although some former mayors of Los Angeles have ideas about her talents, but generally speaking, the one talent she has is behind the scenes -- for power.

GLENN: Right. Right. But I have absolutely no evidence of that, other than her history.

I don't know. She seemed to be very kind and everything else. And very gracious about it. But she was at least the tool -- she was his -- Larry Wax. Sorry, Larry, if you're listening.

I really mean that. It's been bothering me. I'm going to try to find you.

I'm sorry.

But that's what it is. That's what it is.

STU: Because I think you could make the argument that Biden was doing that to her, the entire term.

Like, she was always positive about her.

But then would -- the entire administration was leaking negative things about Kamala for three and a half years.

GLENN: I don't know though, that was necessarily him.

I think it -- I mean, all the stories were everyone hates her.

Everyone around her. Everyone in her office, hates her!

Okay?

So I don't know if that was necessarily Joe Biden going, let's come up with some bad things.

I just think everybody hated her, like she's a nightmare.

Now, he did set her up on things like, you're the border czar.

STU: Yeah. I mean, he sunk her.

Again, she's terrible.

And never really had a chance at success.

In her political career.

But I will say, you know, he didn't help.

GLENN: Now, you might be asking yourself. Why are you guys debating this?

Because in about six months, no one will remember her name.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So if we're going to talk about it, we have to talk about it right now.

STU: And we already are there with Tim Walz, which I love. We've already forgotten him, unless you happen to live in Minnesota.

GLENN: Yeah. And you're remembering it going, what the hell did I do?

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

"Shazam!" Star Gets Real About Suicide, God & Being a Dad | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 238

There are only three people in Hollywood Glenn wants to interview — Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, and Zachary Levi. In this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn sits down with Zachary Levi, author of “Radical Love,” an actor known for his leading roles in “Chuck,” “Tangled,” and “Shazam!” Glenn and Zachary discuss his “coming out politically” and do a deep dive into Zachary’s fall into a “dopamine spiral,” his battle with suicide, and how “insanity” runs in Glenn’s family “like a pack of wild animals.” The pair “thank God” Trump won the election but worry about the “snark” and “sarcasm” within the conservative movement and hope we all maintain the humility to say, “I was wrong.” Zachary says the legacy media has played a “nefarious” role in dividing Americans. Glenn explains the “octopus of the administrative state,” and they both agree that we are not prepared for AI’s infiltration of every single industry. After discussing the deep state, smartphones, BlackRock, Syria, Ukraine, vaccines, Elon Musk, and even the afterlife, Glenn asks the question on everyone’s mind: What does Zachary, who has just announced he’s going to be a father, mean when he says he’s going to “lock it down” with his girlfriend?