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.

WARNING: The Threat of Sharia Law in American Cities is Now a Reality

Texas is becoming the front line of a growing ideological struggle. While courts block the Ten Commandments from classrooms, public schools are opening Islamic prayer rooms as CAIR and other Islamist political groups gain influence across the state. Glenn Beck and Chip Roy warn that this isn’t about private worship, but rather a coordinated movement to weaken the nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations, undermine constitutional law, and smuggle Sharia-aligned norms into American institutions. As judges enable these shifts and political factions fracture, a broader conflict is emerging that most Americans refuse to acknowledge. Texas may be the battleground that determines whether the West wakes up in time.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We're talking to Chip Roy about the Islamification of Texas and the United States. What's going to be done. A -- a -- a -- a new attitude from Governor Greg Abbott yesterday. And a new proclamation that came out and said, enough is enough.

On CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. We're going to deem them terrorist organizations. We were just talking about what's happening with the Ten Commandments. And before we -- before we switch here, one more thing on this -- this Muslim thing. In schools.

You know, we can't have the Ten Commandments, Chip.

However, at liberty High School in the Frisco ISD in Texas, they now have prayer rooms for Islamic prayers.

How is it we can't have the Ten Commandments in Texas, but Frisco ISD public school, Liberty High School, can have prayer rooms, and nobody says anything?

CHIP: Well, first of all, this is the double standard of the left. But let's take a step back. What you just said out loud. Frisco, Texas. Frisco. My daughter was born in Frisco.

GLENN: Yeah.

CHIP: Has now got Islamic prayer rooms, okay? That should concern you.

GLENN: It does.

CHIP: And by you, I mean the listeners out there. Like, Texas listeners.

And, yes, the Ten Commandments case. It's judicial activism. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to have the Ten Commandments displayed in public form.

Again, the Ten Commandments sits on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. And the case like I said, Ted Cruz litigated as solicitor general. Working for then attorney general Greg Abbott. Governor Rick Perry, and we won that case.

And I think we will be able to win that case, when it goes up, and it's no doubt, it's being challenged in the fifth circuit.

Then likely the Supreme Court would look at it.

With past presidents and say, we have the Ten Commandments.

Look, we have to decide who we are as a people.

And we got to start acting like it. Because this nation has been blessed because we are a Judeo Christian people who formed a country. That is a -- liberal, in the classical sense. You know, republic liberal democracy.

And we allow the full range of views to be discussed. And for people to believe whatever they believe.

And you and I will die on the hill to protect that. To protect the government over the mind of man. But we are also are a group of people that's bound together by a common sense of ideals, in our history, in our founding. And when you break that down, you will no longer have a country. And that's what we've got to -- you know, when those men --

GLENN: Go ahead. Well, you were saying a minute ago. You know, that should concern you, that there are prayer rooms in Frisco, Texas. It doesn't concern me that there are prayer rooms.

What concerns me, this is a coordinated effort to bring Sharia law into our country.

I don't care if you're Muslim. And you respect the Judeo Christian laws that we have. That's what our country are built on.

That's what our laws are based on.

And you say, this is a really great system. Because it allows me and everybody else to worship God of our own understanding.

When you're part of a movement to subvert that law. And to fundamentally transform the United States into something that it is not.

That's when I have a problem! And that's when we should stand up, but that's one of the things that CAIR does. CAIR makes anything that we have said, Islamophobia. And so they shout you down, and make you afraid and try to paint you as a hater.

I don't hate. I don't hate Muslims.

I don't. I do despise Sharia Law, and I despise anyone who comes here, and wants to supplant the United States Constitution, and replace it with Sharia law. That's -- that's a no-go zone.

No. Sorry. Not going to do it.

JASON: And the history of Sharia law. And the history of those inherent to it, which would suggest that that is the goal.

GLENN: Yes.

CHIP: And that's what we've seen borne out in countries across the world. So we should recognize that in carrying out our policies and these activist judges, and they are going to cede the ground. Okay?

In the name of the First Amendment, they are going to cede the ground with a supposedly secular society.

And, you know, essentially, genuflecting to -- the Bill of Rights, while walking away from God.

They're going to cede the ground for a world in which we are going to invite those who wish to destroy America, to have a front row seat right here to do it, and we've got to stop those judges.
And we've got to act. And so, you know, the House of Representatives should act on such an obvious case like Boasberg.

We should -- and I know that my religious liberty friends will do that on the Ten Commandments.

And they're going to be litigating that. And I will be quite confident the state will litigate that to defend the state law and defend the schools.

Then you go to the -- you know, redistricting opinion. Right? It's really extraordinary. I don't know if you read the scathing rebuke of the two judges. The -- particularly, the one judge, Judge Brown by Jerry Smith, right? Who was dissenting judge in the three-judge panel. So for those of you who don't understand, when you have a case on the redistricting issues. Right? It goes to a three-judge panel. And this three-judge panel, it was a two-to-one opinion, and it was a Democrat appointee. Appointed judge.

It was a Trump-appointed judge. Judge Brown. And then Judge Jerry Smith, who has been on the bench for a long time. Very respected, conservative --

GLENN: Thirty-seven years.

CHIP: Yes, and Jerry was basically cut out. They didn't do their normal deliberation. He wrote a scathing letter yesterday.

In addition to them filing a dissent. Because he was blocked out of the process.

It was an extraordinary essentially power grab by the two judges.

Just to run this thing through. I don't think the Supreme Court will take kindly to that.

I think that the stay application that will be filed with the United States Supreme Court. I think that by tomorrow. They filed the stay last night with the strict.

In the district court.

But I think they will go to the Supreme Court, with the stay, probably tomorrow.

That attorney general Paxton and Abbott to strategize for the timing.

But I think that's right.

And, you know, I think the you court. Judge Roberts, his faults on many opinions, has been pretty good on race. You'll remember, the Supreme Court opinion that -- that struck down the abhorrent, you know, language in section five that was unconstitutional, Voting Rights Act. And they cleaned that up.

And in that opinion, Robert said, that divvying us up by race was a distorted business. That was his quote. And I think Roberts will be on the right side of this. I hope so.

Because this is very clearly political exercise by the legislature.

The judges tried to indicate that it was racial gerrymandering. No! It's the opposite.

Texas is trying to undo racial gerrymandering, which we believe is unconstitutional on its face. You've got California out there, who is taking five of the nine Republican seats away.
So it's currently, what?

I think, what? 45 to nine?

And it's now going to be something like 50 to four? My numbers may be off one or two. It's crazy.

And then in Texas, we were kind of trying to rebalance it a little bit.

Add four or five new states. A lot of growth in Texas. And now, they will say, that that's somehow not profitable. Because we somehow are doing racial gerrymandering.

We're undoing I think racial gerrymandering with a politically motivated goal of having more Republican seats in a very Republican state. So I hope the Supreme Court sees this for what it is.

And issues a statement. You know, we'll have to see what they do.

GLENN: Let me take to you Washington again. This Comey thing is driving me out of my mind.

Because once again, here's somebody, that looks like they will not pay a price for anything.

James Comey. A judge has said that the government has screwed this -- this up. In gathering information.

And filing.

And so now it looks like the Comey case will not move forward. Any thoughts on this?

CHIP: Well, look, I have not had a chance to dive into this as deeply. I know that the district Judge Nachmanoff, or whatever the judge's name was. Pressed, you know -- this -- this opinion forward.

And, you know -- or I'm sorry. Not pressed the opinion. Pressed prosecutors. A hearing.

And I don't know what the exact result is going to be.

The Biden appointee. And, you know, we're -- we're going it to see what the result is.

Obviously, Comey, we believe lied to I think the Senate judiciary committee, among others. Under oath.

And that is, in fact, an indictable offense.

And so, you know, I'll go look and see what they're claiming in terms of whether the grand jury got to see the final indictment.

Or whatever these issues are.

Obviously, the former prosecutor is important. You have to follow the procedures.

GLENN: You have to.

CHIP: Do it right. But also can't lose the forest for the trees. I think Comey very clearly lied. And so, we're going to -- hopefully, this will proceed. That's about all I've got on that one.

GLENN: All right. Chip, thank you very much. If anyone wants to get involved in your campaign for Texas attorney general, how do they do it?
CHIP: ChipRoy.com. C-H-I-P-R-O-Y.com. You can follow me at Chip Roy TX on X/Twitter.

And, Glenn, always appreciate what you're doing out there. Thanks for being on the tip of the spear. And the forefront of talking about this important issue. About defending Western civilization.

And all the issues. I'm deeply appreciative.

GLENN: I tell you, Chip. I -- I've been saying recently -- I've been saying it for a while, since I wrote the chalkboard on what was going to happen, back on Fox days. And I said, all these people will gather. And then they'll sort it out.

Once they think they have it, they will start eating each other.

And they're starting to see that with the left now eating the Democrats. So Democrats are over. Now it's just going to be Marxists. But it will come down to the Marxists and the anarchists and the Islamists. And as I said then, in the end, it will just be the Islamists, against the Western world.

Because I would bet on people who believe something, much more than the Marxists.

These people have religious zeal. And they will -- they will eat the Marxists. And then it will just be western world against the -- the Islamists. And I think, chip, we are in World War III.

We have just not declared it yet. And people haven't woken up to it yet.

We are in the beginning stages. You will see history in 100 years from now. Will write, this is the 1930s, if you will.

This is the beginning of a world war, and nobody has caught up with it, yet.

Would you agree with that?

CHIP: Yeah. Glenn, I agree with you. You have, and you were a long time ago -- others have caught up to it. And, frankly, caught up to where you were. And, look, it is one of the core reasons I'm running for attorney general.

Look, I can keep doing what I'm doing up here. God blessed me the ability to fight and make changes up here.

We've done some good things.

Look, we have to preserve in the state of Texas. And the battle is exactly what you said. You can't win a war. If you don't even acknowledge that it's happening.

That's the problem. People are asleep at it. Again, like I said, it's what I last talked about. Because of the reality that you just said.

And that vast network, we have got to follow the money and destroy that network. It's an integrated, related network. You know it. I know it. I can promise you, smart people in Washington are looking at this.

I can tell you, I'm building teams in Texas, to look at this right now. And connecting those teams in Texas and in Washington. And other AG's offices, which is what I'll do on day one of AG. Frankly, once I'm blessed with the nomination, I will be working on it all next year. We will build the team, and we will fight to dismantle it.

Glenn Finally Gets a REAL Job: Cracker Barrel Biscuit Maker | Glenn TV | Ep 471

If this whole media thing doesn’t work out, Glenn can always fall back on his biscuit-making skills! Take a break from the apocalypse and enjoy some Cracker Barrel carbs made by everyone’s favorite son of a baker!

Exposed: How Minnesota taxpayers are FUNDING Al Qaeda in Somalia

New reporting from Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe provides evidence that Minnesota taxpayer dollars are being funneled by Somali immigrants to Al Shabaab, the East African branches of Al Qaeda. Glenn Beck reviews how these scams have worked and what we can do to stop them.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me take you to Minnesota now.

I don't want to talk to you about politics. Our elections.

Culture wars. But something far, far more dangerous.

And more fundamental. Because the city journal has uncovered not a fraud scandal. This isn't waste. It's not inefficiency. This is a pipeline directly from your wallet. And this -- what I'm about to tell you, is all based on Ryan Thorpe. And Christopher Rufo's reporting.

That is some of the best reporting, I have seen. And this -- this is -- this is crazy!

The largest single funder. The largest single funder of that pipeline today, from your wallet to a foreign terror group, according to multiple federal sources, is the taxpayer of the state of Minnesota. Let me repeat that. Because it's not a punch line. This is not hyperbole. This is not a claim thrown around on social media. According to federal counterterrorism sources, quoted by the City Journal, quote, the largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer. What is Al-Shabaab? In case you don't remember.

It is the east African branch of al-Qaeda. This is the same group that bombs hotels. They slaughter Christians. They massacre schoolchildren. They publicly behead those who defy their authority.

And that, the major funder is you, in Minnesota!

And this is what happens when you mix a naive wide open, no questions asked welfare machine, with a political class, terrified of being called a racist.

And then a police class that's actually in on it, as well.

And then you throw in a media terrified of reporting anything that challenges progressive dogma.

And then a community where Klan networks and overseas loyalties operate underneath the radar of government. Because governments are unwilling to look there!

That is the perfect storm.

That's Minnesota.

And it is drowning inside of that storm.

Now, it started with a program called HSS.

The Housing Stabilization Services. It was launched in 2020 to help people on the margins. The addicts. The elderly. The mentally ill.

Noble idea.

But it was designed with everything a criminal enterprise dreams of! Low barriers to entry. Minimal requirements for reimbursement.

Billions in Medicaid dollars, with almost zero verification!

Now, before the program even started, bureaucrats estimated it might cost $2.6 million a year.

In four years, it went from 2.6 to 21 million.

Then the next year, in court 22 million. The next year 74 million.

To over $100 million every year.

2.6, to over 100!

This year alone, 77 HHS providers have been terminated for credible allegations of fraud. Seventy-seven.

I don't know if you saw this. The acting attorney. US attorney said, quote, the vast majority of this program was fraudulent.

Not over billing. Not paperwork. No mistakes.

Fictitious companies. Empty story fronts. Ghost clients. Stacks of faked claims. Six of the eight defendants indicated that they were members of the Minnesota Somali community, but this is the first ripple.

There was another scheme. The 250-million dollar mega scheme. That came from Feeding Our Future.

Feeding Our Future is a nonprofit that went from $3 million to $200 million in federal food aid dollars, in two years!

Three million to a straight line up to 200 million! To help feed the hungry in Minnesota, in two years. Wow! Fake meal accounts.

Fake attendants. Fake invoices. Dozens of defendants. Primarily, members of Minnesota's Somali community. Some of them bought luxury homes, fancy cars, properties in Kenya and Turkey. And when the state raised any kind of concern, the group sued, claiming racism. And everybody was like, racism.
I don't know what I call that.

The investigators were chastised. The politicians stayed quiet. The media -- by the way, that's government you could have had as vice president right now. Everyone knew the rule. Don't question. You can't criticize, okay? If you want to survive politically, no!

So the cost $250 million stolen, right there, hung on the backs of taxpayers, who believed they were feeding hungry kids.

Now add on to that. So we've got two scandals. Now add on to that, the autism scam.

Days after those indictments, another scheme exploded. Autism services. A Somali woman already tied to feeding our future was charged with leading a 14 million-dollar Medicare fraud ring.

That was invented diagnosis. They bought parents with kickbacks. They created a network of fake autism centers, autism spending. In Minnesota, jumped from 3 million, to 399 million in just a couple of years.

Providers ballooned from 41 providers to 328.

One in 16 Somalia 4-year-olds were suddenly diagnosed. One in every 16 suddenly had autism. That's triple the state average. And nobody was -- nobody is looking into that? What's happening in the Somali community? This wasn't CAIR. This wasn't treatment. This was a racket. And it wasn't isolated.

Let me tell you what the US attorney Joseph Thompson said. He said, these schemes form a web, that has stolen billions of dollars.

So why did nobody ask where that money went.

Where did the money go. Oh. You're not going to like the answer.

Somalia depends on remittances from abroad. $1.7 billion sent to Somalia last year alone. That is more money than the country's entire government budget!

Imagine somebody sending us $6 trillion.

That's what happened in Somalia. Investigators told Chris Rufo and the city journal that welfare recipients in Minnesota, were sending the money overseas.

Called Hawalla money transfer networks. They were moving tens of millions of dollars all the time.

And Al-Shabaab, the terrorist organization, takes a cut of every dollar entering the Somali clan channels. One terrorism task force investigator said, every cent, sent back to Somalia, benefits Al-Shabaab in some way. It's not speculation. It's not theory. It's not conjecture. This is the conclusion of multiple federal investigators, who have spent years tracking the money flow.

They said Minnesota Somali community runs a sophisticated money pipeline, directly from the pockets of US taxpayers, directly to Somalia!

Welfare dollars. Fraudulently obtained. Transferred to Somalia. Al-Shabaab benefits every single time, and here's the part that should terrify everybody. They warn that if one terrorist attack could be traced back to these funds.

The entire country will discover overnight.

That we were financing the very groups sworn to destroy us.

Gang, you're going to find this in Epstein. You're going to find this -- we already did with USA ID. You're going to find this everywhere. The greatest heist of human history, the largest robbery of wealth has been happening right under our noses and we didn't even know the bank turned off the alarms!

All of our wealth being transferred out. Why didn't Minnesota stop this. Why didn't the journalists investigate this?

Why didn't the officials sound the alarm?

Well, here's the reason. If you don't win the Somali community. You don't win Minneapolis. If you don't win Minneapolis, you don't win the state. That's it!

You're going to say anything about it.

Of course not.

Of course, you won't say a damn thing about it.

Ilhan Omar staff. Advocated for the later groups later charged with fraud.

State officials were looking the other way. Democratic leadership, refused audits. Oversight. Even any kind of scrutiny. Because the political cost of calling out fraud, if it occurred inside that Somali community, was considered higher than the cost of losing billions of your dollars. So they let it grow.

They let it metastasize. They let it intertwine with criminal and terrorist networks overseas.

You're just an Islamophobe. It's not about ethnicity. This is about a system that refuses to protect its own citizens. Enough is enough!

Is every Somali Minnesotan responsible? No, that's absurd!

But ignoring the fact that organized fraud rings have emerged inside a specific community, that doesn't have loyalty! Many times, to the United States of America, when nobody would look into it.
The FBI, investigative journalists.

That's not tolerance. It's negligence. It's cowardice.

And it's allowed billions of dollars meant for the poor of our nation. Your hard-earned money. To become an international money laundering system that helps finance the second largest al-Qaeda franchise on planet earth.

This is what happens when ideology replaces oversight. When equity replaces accountability.

When fear of being labeled a racist overrides the responsibility to protect -- to protect taxpayers or safeguard national security!

Minnesota didn't just mismanage welfare programs. It didn't just lose money.

It didn't just fall asleep.

It built through fear and politics and continual. The perfect getaway through which billions of our dollars could pour from American safety net programs, into overseas networks that feed, support, and expand the reach of violent jihadist organizations.

Wow.

I think it was the US attorney that said, it should take your breath away.

It does. It does.

Now, here's the -- here's the thing. I started talking to you today, about the Bubba Effect. You're seeing the Bubba Effect happening now in Dearborn. You have a guy who is wrapping a Koran in bacon, and all kinds of trouble is happening because of it. And I don't know any common sense individual on either side of the aisle, that thinks that's a good idea.

Okay?

But a lot of people including me, at times, is like, look what he's saying though. It's not about the bacon. It's about the Koran. Look at what's he's saying. This is out of control.

And nobody is saying it. At least he's saying it. No, no, no. That's the Bubba Effect.

No! He's wrong in what he's doing. He's not necessarily wrong in what it is highlighting.
But we can't be part of the Bubba Effect.

Let's just highlight the real stuff!

But people get so frustrated, it takes bacon and a Koran to make people pay attention again.

This is not a Minnesota story.

This is not even a story about Somalia. This is a story about USAID. This is a story about Epstein.

All of our money. And this is a story about silence. And fear. And institutional corruption and surrender.

And unless we confront it honestly. Unflinchingly. Immediately. With truth!

We're all going to be poor.

We will all end up being Somalia. Because in the end, every last time that we have, will be taken.

And shipped some place else, and used against us for our own demise.

Witnessing a SpaceX Launch & Predicting Elon Musk's Legacy in 50 Years

Glenn Beck recently witnessed a SpaceX rocket launch from hours away, and the raw power of it sent him into a passionate breakdown about the wonder of space travel, the brilliance of Elon Musk, and the insanity of a culture that’s turning on its greatest innovators. From the days of the Space Shuttle to Musk’s Starship and self-driving Tesla vehicles, Glenn argues that Elon isn’t just a tech founder, but rather a once-in-history mind, a modern Edison who revived an American spirit we had forgotten.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, here in Florida, Tania said SpaceX is going to launch another missile. About 15 minutes. Let's go outside and see if we can see it. And we live right on the coast. And all of a sudden, you know, we're watching it, ten, nine, eight, seven, six. And about 45 seconds after the launch. We're like, oh, but we can't see it. Then all of a sudden, over the top of the trees, we just see this flame coming up. And it was absolutely. I posted it on the Instagram last night. On my Instagram page. It was absolutely one of the most amazing things I've seen.

From a distance. I've seen it once before. I've seen the last space shuttle lift off in the middle of the night. And I really close. I was across the water. I was just right across from -- what is it?

Cape Kennedy.

And I could not believe, it was a wonder of the world. 3 o'clock in the morning. All of a sudden, it was just day light.

And now, I'm -- oh, I don't even know.

Three hours away. Two, three hours away?

And it's one of the most incredible things I've ever seen.

It just starts coming up. And then, you know, you see the rocket. The boosters detach.

The -- the first stage rockets go out. They turn blue. Then they go out.

And then you see them. And it just picks up so much speed. And just racing through the sky.

It is incredible. It's incredible.

If you've never seen a rocket launch, I can't wait to see his -- what is the -- that was a falcon.

What's the big, big heavy one that he's working on.

Nobody knows.

VOICE: Falcon Heavy, isn't it?

VOICE: Is it the Falcon Heavy?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

I think -- somebody look this up.

Starship. That's it.

I think it's based on the original Soviet design. The Soviets, the reason why we beat the Soviets up in space, is they had this great design of like 24 rockets.

Where we had like four, big, huge ones for lift.

They had like 24, 25 rockets, at the bottom of it.

But they couldn't synchronize them.

You know, this was when computing was really, really bad.

They couldn't synchronize them.

So they couldn't keep it level.

So it would take off. And spiral out of control and blow up.

That's the reason why we beat them into space.

I saw the bottom end of one of these rockets in a video. And I think -- I think it's the original Soviet design. I'm not sure. Because now we have the ability to synchronize everything. But I can't wait to see that thing. Because it's bigger than a Saturn rocket. Bigger the ones that we send to the moon.

JASON: At some point, I don't know if the wonder of space travel left.

JASON: We get bored with things.

JASON: It's so weird. But Elon Musk just brought it back. I mean, we're doing just amazing stuff.

GLENN: It's like everything.

We did it. We mastered it. We put people on the moon. Everybody was crazed about it. I remember sitting in class and seeing the astronauts, you know, on the moon. We would go in. They would bring in an old TV.

And they would sit the TV. Before these things were even on the little -- you know, wheel, you know, AV kind of things.

It was just a big old TV.

And we all went into the regular -- you know, the gym, and we watched it on a regular TV.

And them walking around, on the moon. And that must have been in the early '70s.

And then after that, everybody was like, yeah. So we've been to the moon. Now, nobody believes we've gone to the moon ever.

Now we're going back up. And, I mean, it's amazing. It's amazing to watch. Because you just think, I just watched it last night. I'm like, my gosh. Look at the power of that thing.

I could -- how far are we away?

Three hours?

Two hours?

You could hear it. You could hear it. It got to a certain place. Where my wife said, you can see it on the tape on Instagram. My wife at one point said, can you hear that?

You could! You could hear the crackle of it. It is -- I mean, it's incredible. Just incredible.

I really want to go see a liftoff in person, again. Just amazing.

STU: Yeah. We should. To be clear, we should excommunicate him out of our society. Because you wore a red hat a few times. That, I think is a smart -- it's a smart move.

GLENN: I know. What a dummy.

STU: Yeah. He's an idiot. And obviously, we don't need him helping our country, right now.

Why?

Because he voted for lower taxes or something.

We -- that's a good way to run our society.

GLENN: Hate that guy. Hate that guy.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: What a dope.

We have just -- we have just become morons.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We really -- really have.

History will look back and go, at what point, they just became morons. You know.

STU: Do you find it interesting, Glenn. He was at this turn with the Saudi Arabian, you know, delegation, I guess.

Trump did a turn and invited a bunch of VIPs to it.

I thought a good sign from the perspective of the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk, that he was invited in, was there.

Right?

Remember, they had a total falling out. It was over the Epstein files. If you --

GLENN: No. They made nice at Charlie Kirk's funeral.

STU: Yeah. So that's what you think earlier repaired. Somewhat repaired at this point?

GLENN: Yeah. Somewhat repaired. And, you know, if you're trying to showcase the best of America. Who better to have at the table than Elon Musk?

I mean, he is the Tesla or the Edison of our day. There's nobody -- is there anybody in the world that everybody, with an exception of those who are just so politically, you know -- I don't know.

Pilled. That they just can't stand anybody that votes differently than them.

I mean, be even when he was -- we thought he was a real big lefty.

I still wanted to meet the guy.

I still wanted to be, man, I would give my right arm to sit and listen to that guy in the same room.

You know what I mean?

It would be great.

This is a guy who will be remembered for hundreds of years.

After Jesus comes.

Well, we may not have history books at that point.

But he's going to be remembered for hundreds of years, as one of the greatest human beings ever. When they were still human beings.

So, I mean, who doesn't want to meet that guy?

How is it that we have half of our -- we have half of our country now just hating on that guy?

It's genius. Would you be happier if he was Chinese.

STU: Thank God, he's here.

GLENN: Thank God.

STU: And wants to be here.

And wants to be in this environment.

I think that, you know, you look at everything.

And it's going to be a great biopic.

The movie on Elon Musk's life. Is going to be absolutely incredible. Because he is a somewhat complicated figure at times.

There's a lot to discuss on the Elon Musk front.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: Just think of the fact that this guy has put, I don't know.

You know, hundreds of thousands. Millions of cars on the road right now.

That are, you know, capable and are driving themselves.

Think of -- that's like -- an incredible accomplishment!

This is a guy who is putting cars that are -- you know, have full self-driving. You can sit in there.

The thing will drive itself from point A to point B. Without you touching really anything.

And that is -- think about the fact that that's just being said. That even people are allowed. You know, that governments are just like. Yeah. We trust this guy. To let all these cars drive themselves.

It's an amazing accomplishment. That's just one of many.

It's really an amazing life.