RADIOMay 07, 2024

Is the Economy About to Return to 1970s-Era Stagflation?

After April’s dismal jobs report released, some experts started wondering whether America has entered a period of stagflation. But what does that mean? And should we trust the data? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down. Plus, she reviews “one of the most painful” videos she has ever watched, featuring Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein trying his hardest to explain why the Federal Reserve’s never-ending money printing is fine.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, the author of the book, you will own nothing. The former investment banker. Carol, yes -- or last Friday, I think it was. The jobs report came out. It was much lower than expected.

And I started seeing things like Bank of America saying, we're in stagflation now.

Are we? And if so, what is it?

And what does it mean?

CAROL: Well, let's talk about some of these data points, Glenn. And then we can go into stagflation. First, we've seen a couple of bad data points. And as we've talked about before. The data is garbage. So we're doing the best we can, what it is they're telling us, without any sense of the actual reality behind us.

We saw before the jobs report, that the first quarter GDP was down, about a percent lower than expectations. Down to 1.6 percent on an annualized basis.

Then we get the April jobs report. And that is also down. It's the slowest job gain. That we've seen in -- I think about six months.

Again, if you believe the data. And what that first is telling me, is that all of this money, that the government has spent to basically window dress the economy. To avoid the double-digit recession.

Remember, we did have a recession. Two quarters of negative growth back in '22. Then we popped out of it. Then we expected that it would employ it down. The government ran these massive deficits, about two times the historical average, on a debt to GDP basis.

That we would normally see. And they tried to prop up the economy. So it wouldn't show we were in a recession. At a very expensive cost, by the way. Normally, when you have an expanding economy, you would see a shrinking deficit. They have did you not opposite.

They ran a big deficit, to try to create this appearance. And with an interest rate. Financing that deficit. You know, at the largest point in 15 years.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: So we know we are not getting a good return now, on this window dressing. And it is not creating these amazing outcomes for the economy.

You know, on the GDP front. On the jobs front.

Which again, could turn around. It's one set of at that time points. Would shift.

Stagflation is something that I talk to you about. I have been talking about for years. As a very possible outcome here.

And it's very much what it sounds like. It's when the economy stagnates. When you have a low growth number. But at the same time, you have inflation.

So you have sort of the worst of all worlds. You're not making gains of productivity.

You're not making, you know, gains in wages and things like that.

The economy is just hanging out. But you get this long-term sticking inflation.

Which again, we said was very likely, because the government continued to spend at these massive levels.

And they were working against what the fed was trying to do, to break down inflation.

So they are actually at this point, a likely cause of long-term inflation.

Because we have to continue to finance these massive deficits.

And so that's the reality of this sticky situation.

When you hear somebody, like JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon saying, I'm worried that the economy is going to look more like the 1970s, than anything else, this is something that they experience. Experience at that period of time. And he is seeing those parallels. Although, we're in a much worse fiscal situation from a fiscal foundation standpoint, than we were strangely enough in the 1970s.

GLENN: Because of our deficit and debt.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: Yes.

So this means that jobs, everything just is the same. It doesn't get better. It could get worse. But it doesn't generally get better for the individual. And prices continue to go up. Right?

That's what --

CAROL: Correct. You're not seeing your growth in wages. You're not seeing massive growth in companies.

The economy just sort of putters along.

You know, you're not seeing the massive layoffs. Or things you might see. With a recession.

Things are just kind of going along.

But not really growing at all.

You're not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But at the same time, we're encountering that bond, going sticking inflation, that we know destroys purchasing power and is really born, particularly by the middle and working class.

GLENN: All right.

So Carol, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. Because I have a couple of other things.

But you said, at the beginning of your conversation. You said, if you believe the numbers.

I don't believe the numbers.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: But the only reason you change and fudge numbers is not to stop them from looking so good. But stop them from looking so bad.

And the reason why I don't believe them. Is it's just too many times, where they've been adjusted. And there's always adjustments, but not like it's been in the last year or so.

And there's just contradictory information. If you're somebody who is listening now, and, you know, you don't -- you don't necessarily have that. You don't think that, you know, the administration would go that far, and fake numbers.

What leads you to say, if you believe these numbers?

CAROL: Well, like you said, there have been a lot of anomalies in the numbers. And, you know, if you -- you can kind of go back even further. You know, we've changed the method of calculation, of these numbers. At the governmental level, many times since the 1980s. One of the things you have to remember, for something like let's say inflation.

Inflation feeds into things like cost of living adjustments. The amount they have to increase Social Security payments by. So there is an actual reason why it is, that they would want to suppress those numbers.

Another piece of data which I think is very important. Is that entities and individuals no longer want to participate in government surveys.

So we have seen an absolute massive decline in the participation of the data that is being collected by the government.

Which means, when they don't have people in businesses, responding, there are more biases in the data, because it's a smaller subset of people who want to do it.

And it means they have to want to run it through their own adjustments. And seasonal adjustments. In the model.

And it's garbage in. Garbage out. You put bad data in, you'll get bad data out.

There are a lot of things. This isn't just the, hey. The numbers are adjusted massively. And we're seeing the numbers over and over again. Speaking to the bad data. There are some real structural issues as to why many of us think the data sort of isn't worth anything.

GLENN: By the way, we're talking to J.D. Vance in 15 minutes. Right now, we're with Carol Rother. I want to bring up something that is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. It's an interview where they're trying to make the case for modern monetary theory. Which is not modern. It's a very old theory. You can just print money, and no big deal. Nothing bad will happen.

And they talked to Joe Biden's economic adviser.

Now, I -- if you would, explain who Jared Bernstein is.

He is -- he is the chair of the council of economic advisers for Joe Biden.

But he's not just some schlub, right?

CAROL: Well, I mean, I will not opine on that. But what I will tell you, is that he's very powerful economically. This is Joe Biden's right-hand adviser who has been, by the way, since the Obama administration, he was Biden's adviser.

And this is the guy who analyzes and interprets economic developments.

He comes up with economic policies. He puts that forth to the president. He's been entrenched in think tanks. He's been a contributor to CBS. He writes op-eds. He was a chief economist, in economic adviser. You know, previously.

This guy is like from the left and far left standpoint. One of the people, who they hang their hat on, to be the economic adviser. And I don't know.

Are you going to play the clip.

It's one of the most painful things I've watched in my life.

GLENN: I want to get your comment on it. And I want to set up. This is a real player in the economy.

This is someone our government depends on.

Listen to him try to explain our deficit, and what's happening with our money. Listen.

VOICE: The US government can't go bankrupt, because we can print our own money.

VOICE: It obviously begs the question: Why exactly are we borrowing a currency that we print ourselves? I'm waiting for someone to stand up, and say, why do we borrow our own currency in the first place?

VOICE: Like you said, they print the dollar. So why does the government even borrow?

VOICE: Well, the -- so the -- I mean, again, some of this stuff gets -- some of the language that the -- some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money.

And it definitely lends that money, which is why the government definitely prints money. And then it lends that money, by -- by selling bonds. Is that what they do?

GLENN: No. No.

VOICE: They -- they -- yeah. They -- they sell bonds. Yeah. They sell bonds. Right. Since they sell bonds.

People buy the bonds. And lend them the money.

GLENN: No.

VOICE: So a lot of times. A lot of times. The language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing. But there is no question, that the government prints money. And then it uses that money to -- so, yeah.

I guess I'm just -- I can't really talk.

I don't get it. I don't know what they're talking about.

Because it's like, the government clearly prints money. It does it all the time.

And it clearly borrows. Otherwise, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

So I don't think there's anything confusing there.

GLENN: Oh, my God. This is -- would you feel --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: If that was your captain, and you got on to a plane, and he said, hey. We're going to be traveling at 40,000 -- 4,000 -- I can't -- how does this work again? Would you get on that plane?

CAROL: Okay. So I'm going to be generous here first, Glenn.

And then I'm going to be not so generous. The first generous thing I will say is that we've all been in the media for a very long time, you longer than me. And we've all had days, that are somewhat like this. Where we know something really well. And we just can't get it.

So I will -- it could be today for me.

There have been a few times. When I made absolutely no sense, on something I know very well.

So it does happen. That can said. Now that I've been generous.

This is sort of the chief architect of the US economy at this point. Going through a discussion about MMT. I call it magic money tree. I've heard that somewhere along the line. I thought that was great.

And their main thesis. Oh, you got the checkbook. You can just write checks. The question he asked. Which anyone who lives in Zimbabwe would probably know the answer to. Why can't the government just print as much money as it wants.

We all know it's highly inflationary. And we've been living through that for the past few years. That's the very short answer. Of course, there's nuance to this. Of course, there's wonkiness that we can go in and explain the Treasury and the Fed. Just very simple.

So it begs the question to me. Does he not know the answer? Or does he very much know the answer, but he doesn't feel like he could admit it.

And hasn't done the prep. Which, again, these are politicians. Politician mouthpieces. They could just talk around us. Which they do all the time.

I think the answer is that they are just entirely decoupled from reality. So they don't care.

They don't care what it is, Glenn. Money is something very discreet. Money has three definitions. It's a unit of account. It's a median of exchange. It's the value.

At the end of the day, putting it together, what is it? It's a proxy for productivity.

It's an estimation of the labor that you have. Because it used to be. If you were a farmer. You had apples. Somebody who was a doctor at doctor services. You would have to figure out that exchange. Now this creates something that is seamless. So it stands for something.

GLENN: Stands -- time is money.

CAROL: It is. It is your output. So if you don't have an increase in economic activity. An increase in productivity. And you put more dollars in the system. What are you doing?

You're putting in more sort of proxies for productivity. They're chasing the same amount of goods and services. It means that those goods and services have been inflated and valued. Because each one of those proxies are worthless. If you go to Congress. And you ask them, to give you that definition of money. That I just gave you.

Anyone who knows anything about economics. I guarantee you 99 percent of the people couldn't tell you that. And the people on the left do not care. Because it doesn't serve their purpose.

They don't care that this is a proxy of what you have worked hard for.

They want to inflate that away for their own power purpose.

So it is very inconvenient for them to understand reality.

And that's why he can't explain this.

GLENN: I think he knows what it is. But can't explain.

Because he doesn't. He doesn't want to take a position on it.

Because I think they're all in bed with MMT. So he can't -- he doesn't want to say, I am in bed with MMT. Because it's insanity. But I think he also extent can know how to bridge that gap. There's a huge gap between reality and insanity.

CAROL: There is.

GLENN: And I think that's what it is. He just doesn't want to be seen crossing that bridge. Because there's no sane reason to do it.

CAROL: No. And the fact of the matter is, you had all these MMT people, selling this fantasy. And up until a few years ago, there were a lot of people who bought into the fantasy. Although, many of us said no. This is something that stands for reality.

You can't just make it up. Just because you have a checkbook. You can't write unlimited amounts of checks. It doesn't work that way. We have now lived through the worst inflationary period in 40-plus years. And these MMT people have not gotten enough shame. They should be walked through the street and we should go, shame, shame, shame.

Because it's their BS they've been selling into the government, into schools, that has allowed this to occur. And has allowed this decoupling from reality. Because they want to believe in unicorns that, you know, fart rainbows.

Did We Just Debunk a Piece of the JFK Puzzle?

When Glenn went to the Side X Side Ranch in Oklahoma to test the Warren Commission’s JFK assassination verdict, he didn’t expect it to turn out like this. Glenn speaks with the ranch’s founder and co-owner, Scott Robertson, about what they discovered: If Glenn could make the shots, then Lee Harvey Oswald probably could. But all 3 were grouped very close together. So, why was the “magic bullet” narrative so different?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We're spending more time on the JFK files and the show that I did last night. Jibs I think it tells you everything you need to know about what's happening today. And you won't understand that, until you really watch the show. It is -- I think this is a direct replay of what happened during the Kennedy times. And possibly what happened during Nixon's tenure.

And what's happening right now, to Donald Trump.

And it is so important that you understand this.

Because you will understand why people are protesting!

In the streets. Why this non-grassroots or as Nancy Pelosi would say, AstroTurf protests are coming up.

So -- so quickly, and so oddly, with something like USAID.

You'll figure that out, as you watch the special last night.

But at the end of the special, and it's only available on Blaze TV right now, is -- is when I went out, and fired an exact copy of -- what's his name?

Oswald's gun. Same gun. We don't know of another one like it.

Because it has the exact same modifications that Oswald made to his. And we shot the exact same bullets. The rounds.

These were about $40 a piece. Because they were antique. I mean, we literally went and got the same bullets from the same batch.

To see. What would happen.

We made a few shots with that.

And then the gun. The firing pin went bad. So I had to switch guns.

But it's the same kind of thing. And I think I had a harder shot than even Oswald did.

And you'll see what happened. But where we did this was at the, side by side ranch. This was in Oklahoma. And it's an unbelievable shooting ranch.

I mean, it's just -- I mean, I was up there. And I said to Scott, the owner. I said, I think. I think I would like to live here, quite honestly.

It is an unbelievable place, if you're into shooting or anything else. You should check this out. But Scott is the owner of it.

Now, let me just tell you who he is first.

Before we talk to him.

He began shooting at seven. Because his dad was a member of the Air Force competitive trap team. And he was a great trap shooter, inductee of the California State Trap Hall of Fame, blah, blah. He was also a professional coach and instructor. He was the first team captain for Team USA in 1985. Now, his son becomes a competitive shooter. This Scott. I'm introducing you to here in a second. He was a professional shooter for Beretta firearms for 28 years.

I've seen him through his exhibition events. And they are -- I mean, it's almost like Annie Oakley, where you throw a quarter up and he shoots it. I mean, he does that. He's in the Sporting Place Hall of Fame, won over 14 national championships. He's a current national record holder in the small gauge champion. Eight world championships. Named to all 54 American teams in trap. He's also the only competitive clay target athlete in the history of American sporting place.

Twenty-five years running, to average over 90 percent consistently. The guy is really good.

But what has he done with his life?

I don't know. Not much. Here's Scott Robinson.

Scott, welcome to the program.

SCOTT: Thanks, Glenn. Thanks for having me. First of all, you're too good of a shot to have sat in that tractor, that I was shooting at to re-create the -- the Oswald shot. I don't know why you did that. We were asking, you want to get some more, a longer chain?

Because I don't know.

And you didn't. But thank you for pulling the tractor, and pulling that car. Tell me about the shot. Go ahead. Geo

SCOTT: Well, Glenn, we have to give your audience, a little context. Right?

You don't have me on because I'm a good shooter. You have me on because I'm the only one crazy enough to get into the tractor.
(laughter)

GLENN: Yes.

SCOTT: You know, the reason I'm here really, is because I do have a gun club. Excuse me, a mile from Blaze Studio's.

And I'm the guy that you call when you have one of those hair brained ideas. If you remember, a couple years ago. Remember you came with the gun chain saw, multi purpose, whatever that zombie thing was.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah, it was great.

SCOTT: So, you know -- and then last week, my -- my -- who happens to be my best friend. Said, hey, Glenn's guy called, and they wanted to recreate the JFK deal.

And I went, oh, crap.

Glenn, you're that friend, that when people call, you're like how much time and money?
(laughter)

STU: Sorry.

I'm sorry, Scott.

SCOTT: You know, Jason calls. And we have three days to re-create the deal.

And come up with an elevated platform.

They want a moving target. You know, it has to have -- but you're left-handed. And the right-handed gun.

Oh, my gosh. So when Jason gets up there earlier. He says, well, how long is your chain?

I said, I don't know. Well, we could put some together.

So I put the 20-foot bat wing up on the tractor. And then a 20-foot chain. And he goes, I don't know that that's long enough. So we had another chain. And with the angle, I couldn't hardly get it long.

GLENN: I know. That lost shot.

I mean, if I were a bad shot, the last shot, I mean, was not good for you. Let's put it that way.

SCOTT: Well, I just want you to know, when you turn to the staff. And you guys say, hey, what do you think about this know.

When they pause, that's pretty much them saying to their boss. Boss, this is a really dumb idea.
(laughter)
Okay.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

SCOTT: I want you to think about this.

GLENN: But as it turns out. Right.

SCOTT: Glenn, that sounds great. That's them saying, this is a really bad idea.

GLENN: Right. But as it turned out, it wasn't. Was it? Was it?

SCOTT: Well, I want you to know. I want you to know. I am proud of you. Because you always said, do your own homework. And from the last time I saw you shoot, a couple years ago at the range. You had been doing your homework.

And I am sincerely impressed.

GLENN: Wow.

SCOTT: This was -- you know, those shots that we did, first of all, you did prove that the shot could be made.

I mean, I didn't think it could be made before you did it.

And so I think, you know -- we proved that the shot could be made.

I don't know -- I'm still not convinced that's how it went down. But that's my own --

GLENN: Right. But we did rule this out.

Because I have heard my whole life, oh, it's a very difficult shot. Probably -- I mean, very few people could make that shot.

I made that shot.

And I think the shot I made was more difficult.

We had the wind against us.

And we also -- it wasn't a paved street the car was on. That truck was bumping. Going up and down all the time. That was a difficult shot. And I don't consider myself a decent shooter with rifles and scopes.

SCOTT: Well, I will tell you, I am impressed, because I -- first of all, I'm in this tractor. And I'm thinking.

I'm not sure this is a good idea.

Now, you have to understand, I do lots of sketchy shots.

I do all kinds of crazy stuff.

GLENN: Right. Right.

SCOTT: So if I'm a little nervous.

That's pretty -- that's pretty sketchy.

GLENN: Yeah.

SCOTT: So you're up on this tower, with six or eight people.

You know, I've been instructed with this big lift. And it's wobbly.

And then the radio, and JASE is like, well, the radio is hot.

And I'm looking to what seems to be down the barrel.

With you up there. Okay. I'm really hoping that Glenn has been practicing. But, anyway, I'm pulling this truck, at 11 miles an hour.

And it's in one of my fields.

So it's bouncing up and down.

Those balloons had to be bouncing probably ten to 12 inches. And I'm thinking, we're going to have to do this, ten times today. Right?

This is going to take ten takes.

And then I look back, and I see the first balloon explode.

And then I say, good for you. You've got one.

We can always go to B roll.

Then you hit the next balloon.

Then the truck is bouncing like crazy.

Because there's a lag between the second shot and the third shot.

Then I see the third balloon explode.

And I'm like, I'm not believing this.

I mean, I'm impressed.

It's not an easy shot.

But even more, the way that we had to do it with the moving vehicle. And up and down.

GLENN: Right.

So I think we both can say, if I could do that, Oswald, the only thing he had that I didn't have, was the pressure of killing the president.

All the nerves. But I'm also left-handed. Right-handed gun.

You know, we had other things going on. That balanced things out.

So I really believe he could have made the shot.

Now, tell what we found at the end, that bothered you, that you brought up.

SCOTT: Well, what was interesting was the grouping in the -- so the bullet went back -- went through the balloon. Which represented, you know, the target.

GLENN: The head.

SCOTT: It went through the windshield. Or excuse me, the back glass.

Then all three bullets lodged in a very small group in the front windshield.

So first thing I thought was interesting, is how offset it was. It wasn't on the right side of the car. It was on the left side of the car.

So that was just interesting with the angle.

Because we pretty much had the exact angles that -- that it would have been in downtown Dallas.

The other thing that I found interesting, was that even though, the truck was moving.

And there was a distance.

We had the balloons lined up in such a way. Stagnated in the car. And what was interesting, was that all of the bullets landed in the front windshield in a small enough group, that really asked more questions, than we answered. Right? Like, why was the guy in the -- why was the driver not hit?

Why was the passenger not hit more than one time?

Right. So a lot of these things were weird.

And so it really --

STU: The way it came out with us. The driver should have been killed. The driver absolutely should have been at least hit.

But could have been killed.

The way we did it. It was too high up. Because it wasn't six stories up.

We were about two. And so it would have gone up into his back. Instead of what we had.

It would have gone right through his head.

But I went through the Warren commission.

And it said that the first bullet landed in the street someplace.

It was such a bad shot. It didn't even enter the car. Just landed in the street. And the kid was hit by a piece of the curb. That broke off and hit him.

And the -- the head shot, they say, that the head shot, the bullet completely disintegrated and broke up.

So they've never found any pieces of that bullet. Is that even possible?

SCOTT: Well, no. One of these days, you should research the Bill Cooper video. That's the one that makes more logical sense to me.

But, you know, that's way whole 'nother conspiracy, if you -- if you watched that video, it does make more sense, that he was actually shot with a CIA air pistol. And, you know, there was also a bullet, that's why they had to change the brain out in Dallas.

So, you know, I tend to kind come up with more in that deal. But the real question, when you start looking at the ballistics of it, is when you shot that shot, the first shot being a miss.

I don't really buy that. Because how does a guy make two shots in a head, at twice the distance of the first shot. And the first shot is not -- because that first shot, you have to admit, that was probably the easiest shot.

Right?

GLENN: Oh, it's easy. Yeah. I was more concerned about the other one. It was at a steeper angle. It was difficult.

SCOTT: 100 percent. So if Oswald is good enough to hit the president, one in the neck and one in the head. You're telling me, that he's going to completely miss the car, when in your scope, all you would see is car? It doesn't make any sense, right? So it's kind of hard to believe that the first shot was a miss.

I don't -- you know, and then when we start looking at the angles and the ballistics of what we did, I have to ask more questions, because it just doesn't make any sense. It -- you don't have a miss and then you have two good shots like that.

And then the angle of it. How was the passenger hit, and not the driver?

It's just a lot of questions there.

GLENN: So, Scott, I've only got less than a minute here. I just wanted to say -- and you might say, I -- I'm not sure that's a really good idea. But I would like to re-create the Butler shooting. Because that just seems like the easiest shot of all time, compared to -- compared to Oswald. That seems simple. Really simple.

SCOTT: Well, not only simple. The other shooting, yes, I would like to do that with you, because I think we will find in Butler. That we could take anybody off the street, and they would make that shot, 99 percent out of hundred.

GLENN: Yep. Yep. Yep. Scott, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

SCOTT: You bet, Glenn.

GLENN: He's the owner of Elm Fork Shooting Sports, and also Side-by-Side Ranch, founder and co-owner. And I just can't thank you enough, Scott.

We'll talk to you again. All right.

GOP pushes to defund NPR over leftist bias

NPR CEO Katherine Maher faced a brutal showdown before the House DOGE Subcommittee, as lawmakers demanded answers on why NPR deserves taxpayer funding. Grilled alongside PBS CEO Paula Kerger, Maher took heat for her radical past tweets on white privilege, oppression, and reparations—alleged proof of NPR’s leftist bias. As Republicans gear up to defund NPR, Glenn breaks down why Maher is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and argues that NPR’s taxpayer funding should end now. Plus, Glenn reveals the one question Congress missed that could’ve sealed her fate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Jordan is laying out the sweeping agenda for judicial reform. Which I don't think could happen to a better group of people. We'll talk about that here in a second. But I also want to talk about the NPR CEO that was -- that was called up to the House, to -- to testify, on a few things yesterday. Stu, you want to take us through this?

STU: Yeah. I would like to talk about this as well.

It was an interesting hearing. First of all, good fundamental hearing of what was happening.

Was, hey. Maybe we shouldn't be paying a bunch of money for left-wing propaganda at NPR and PBS. Does and I think there's absolutely no reason for that to be occurring. I don't know what country we are. I understand the UK as the BBC. They have Pravda going on. I don't know why we need one of those. I'm totally with this, and I don't think this should happen. However, even if it was actually doing a good job, I would think it's a bad idea. They are not however, doing a good job, and they are led by -- NPR is led by Katherine Maher. She is -- well, she is, is a leftist.

She has some really extreme views. We've covered some of them before. Never really had their answer for them. Part of what happened is that process. And one of the big complaints about NPR in particular, was they were probably -- you tell me if I'm wrong on this, Glenn. The worst offender when it came to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. They said, on day one: We will not cover conspiracy theories. That's not worth the time for us to cover for the American people.

STU: Really bad. They just -- absolutely dismissed it. With no evidence. Because obviously the story was true.

They absolutely dismissed the story, right before the election, assuming it was some sort of right-wing conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah. Almost on day one.

STU: It did not turn out to be a right-wing Soros. It did turn out to be a conspiracy between Hunter Biden and then a bunch of hookers. But that's a different situation.

This is Katherine Maher, trying to answer about -- for some of the poor showings of journalism that they -- they have produced over the past couple years. Listen.

VOICE: Can we expect that you will bring the same lack of reverence for truth to your management at NPR?

VOICE: Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively, and sooner. Our current editorial leadership.

VOICE: Wuhan.

VOICE: We recognize that we were reporting at the time. But we acknowledge that the new CIA evidence is worthy of coverage, and have covered it.

VOICE: What have you done to clean up the bias before you? You mentioned, I wasn't there for that. What are you doing to clean up and make sure that we have --

VOICE: Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.

As I mentioned, I came in, in May. Mr. Berliner published his story two weeks into my tenure, regarding stories that had happened prior. I wish that I had had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Berliner. I would have loved to have him engaged, and come back to us in suggestions as to what we could do editorially in order to address what he perceived as bias.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So may I just -- I want to point out who she is here, for just a second.

Chris Rufo has pointed out, hmm.

What's -- well, her -- let's shall we say, interesting work history.

Before NPR she was employed by the US State Department. And the national democratic alliance. Or Democratic Institute.

The NDI is one of the main branches of the National Endowment for Democracy, and when was she there?

During the Arab Spring. What were they doing?

Promoting the Arab Spring. Remember, it was the NED and US government strategy during the Arab Spring, they were training youth movements on how influence public opinion through mass media, and ultimately, organize in the streets.

And then topple the regime. Okay.

Chris Rufo has said that -- I should rephrase it. He all, but called her a CIA agent. Okay?

Also, she was with Wikimedia, which is Wikipedia. And when she got there, you know, they changed -- they changed a little bit.

And started controlling information. And then she is now the head of -- of NPR? And we're supposed to be comfortable with this? She's part of this whole Deep State revolutionary thing, that is exactly what we told you is, I think what the JFK files are showing us. They're showing us the pattern.

This is what happened in the '60s. This is what's happening right now.

It's the same story.

And she's right at the head of it.

STU: Yeah. And if you -- sometimes it's difficult, Glenn. When you look at someone's resume. To be able to determine who the person is.

Right? You might work at an organization that could disagree with you.

There's a lot of people who worked at X.

With it&Twitter. That we now know were really upset what Twitter was doing at that time.

We consider them kind of a left-wing social media network. And at the time, there were people inside, who were really upset about that.

We learned about those things later. This particular case, though. Not a good example of that, though. At all.

GLENN: Yeah. Let me just point out too, currently she is currently on the board of signal.

STU: Okay. Yeah. That's an often newsworthy edition to the story.

GLENN: Interesting thing to point out.

STU: And, again, you could even say. Someone who is a left-leaning person.

Who is controlled of NPR.

They've been controlled forever. You could be a left-leaning person. And okay. That could be something that could work. Obviously, everyone has an opinion. Everyone has some opinion on news stories.

This particular person, however, Katherine Maher has a fascinating history, and what she has done is not just work in these places. And not just have influence in these stories that keep coming up over and over again.

But explicitly state her crazy positions over and over and over and over again on Twitter, on X.

So she -- she had to know this stuff was coming. But she was asked by Brandon Gill. He's a Congressman from Texas about some of her previous tweets. And it is just absolute gold.

VOICE: Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?

VOICE: I believe that I tweeted that. And as I've said earlier, I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade.

VOICE: It has evolved. Why did you tweet that?

VOICE: I don't recall the exact context, sir. So I wouldn't be able to say.

VOICE: Okay. Do you believe that America believes in black plunder and white democracy?

VOICE: I don't believe that, sir.

VOICE: You tweeted that in reference to a book you were reading at the time, apparently, the Case for Reparations.

VOICE: I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.

VOICE: You tweeted about it. You said, you took a day off to fully read the case for reparations, on January of 2020.

VOICE: Apologies, I don't recall that I did. No doubt, that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall that.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

STU: So good.

GLENN: So the question there is: Is she -- was she just lying about, you know, reading that?

And if she was lying about reading that then, was she just doing that, because she's part of a circle that you've got to read this book. And solve this. And blah, blah, blah.

And so she just didn't do her own homework. She made up she was taking the full day off, to really understand the case in the book. She was just being a shill to promote this point of view.

STU: That's the best case scenario, right?

The fact that she's just lying an opposer, right? Is the best-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario would be she actually believes the United States is nothing but black plunder. So -- and that's I think actually the truth.

But fascinating, number one, she should absolutely be prepared for that. She should know that tweet is coming. How do you go into a Congressional hearing, and not know that they are going to bring up that tweet?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Let's be fair to her. Almost everything she said has been crazy, batcrap nuts.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So, I mean, can I narrow it down to which ones he's going to bring up.

STU: Yeah. And there is an element to this.

If I went back, Glenn.

Examine we did a fake congressional hearing. Where I was a Congressman. And we were giving testimony.

And I said, hey. Glenn. Do you remember tweeting this?

I'm sure I can find a tweet that you don't remember tweeting. I'm sure I can find even a topic. Maybe even a show.

Hey, Glenn. You said you were watching this show. Do you remember that?

I don't think so. Actually, you tweeted that in 2018. 100 percent, could happen. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: However, what you wouldn't find in there, is, you know, something that completely disagreed with your entire philosophy of life.

Right?

STU: Right. If you went back and said, Stu, I'm looking back at your tweets, why did you tweet in 2019, that you loved the Dallas Cowboys? That wouldn't happen.

Right? I would certainly know that I tweeted something like that. Because it's actually more evil than claiming the entire country is a bunch of white supremacists.

GLENN: And I agree with you. And let me add one more thing, on the -- on the statement that my views have evolved.

The wrong question was asked by the senator.

Really?

How? Why?

What changed your mind.

Because you've been tweeting this forever.

And you're still against Trump and everything that he's doing. I haven't seen any change of anything.

What's changed your mind, that makes you now say, that America is not just based on white supremacy?

STU: It's the most interesting part of the story. The transition story is the story.

Right? To walk me through the moment that good God, why was I saying all those terrible things?

GLENN: Correct. That's the question these guys have to ask. Wow. You know what, we all change. Tell me about that moment, when I realized, you were on the wrong track.

STU: By the way, I think, Brandon Gill did a very good job in this hearing. But it is a fundamental problem of these hearings, that most of these guys. And I'm not saying him, but most of these guys are up there, to just say their thing. And not actually listen to the answers.

GLENN: No. He's not. He's not.

STU: He is listening. He does want to know.

But time is limited, and everything else.

I would have loved to know the answer to that Congress. Because whoever the next Congressman up should -- should have followed up with that.

But --

GLENN: Can we play the rest of it?

STU: There's more. Yeah, it's worth it.

VOICE: Yeah, no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall.

VOICE: Okay. Do you believe that white people inherently feel superior to other races?

VOICE: I do not.

VOICE: You don't? You tweeted something to that effect. You said, I grew up feeling superior. Ha, how white of me. Why did you tweet that?

VOICE: I think I was probably reflecting on what it was -- to grow up in an environment where I had lots of advantages.

VOICE: It sounds like you're saying white people feel superior.

VOICE: I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I was just reflecting on my own experience.

VOICE: Do you think that white people should pay reparations?

VOICE: I've never that said, sir.

VOICE: Yes, you did. You said it January 2020. You tweeted, yes, the North. Yes, all of this. Yes, America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations. Yes on this day.

VOICE: I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.

VOICE: What kind of reparations was it a reference to?

VOICE: I just think it was a reference to the idea that we all owe much to the people who came before us.

VOICE: That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted.
(laughter)
Okay.

STU: I mean, that's obviously just nonsensical thing to -- justification for what she actually said.

GLENN: So funny. So funny. Yeah. And that's why she should not be at NPR. And NPR should not be there.

If that company is being run by this woman. And people -- and NPR is not saying, okay. Come on. The whole thing needs to be abolished.

They're obviously not telling the truth.

I don't have a problem with you, if you're a lefty, and you're just telling the truth.

And you're like, no.

I do believe that. I have more respect foy, saying that. Than I do her.

And making up all kinds of stuff.

Because the temperature of the room has changed. Have the balls to stand up for what you actually believe and want to do. That's not -- that is a revolutionary. That is in -- that is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And we keep seeing the wolf. But it's because the sheepskin just keeps slipping a little bit. Wow. Sheep. Grandma, you have mighty big teeth.

Yeah. NPR should be abolished. Should start with just firing her.

Who ACTUALLY Killed JFK? Glenn Reveals Assassination BOMBSHELLS | Glenn TV | Ep 423

Glenn resurrects the iconic Oval Office set used in Oliver Stone’s “JFK” film and dives into the massive JFK files release from the Trump administration. Conspiracy theories swirled for years that rogue CIA elements or Lyndon B. Johnson were behind the murder of Kennedy. Glenn’s team, aided by AI, sifted through the thousands of newly declassified documents to test the theories, and what they found was troubling: CIA wiretapping, media infiltration, ties to Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle and ammo. But what of LBJ’s alleged role? Legendary political strategist Roger Stone tells Glenn about his private conversations with President Nixon that led him to write “The Man Who Killed Kennedy.” Afterward, Glenn speaks to Shane Stevens, the grandson of Billie Sol Estes — a Texas businessman with alleged ties to LBJ. In January, he gave a digital copy of a secret family audiotape to "The Alex Jones Show." The conversations alleged that then-Vice President Johnson hired Mac Wallace to kill JFK. But was the tape real, or an elaborate AI hoax? Glenn’s team asks a JFK expert to verify its authenticity and for the first time ever, Shane plays the chilling confession live in-studio. Glenn argues that the JFK assassination isn’t just history — it’s a warning. From Benghazi to 9/11, COVID origins to Trump’s Russia probe, the same patterns of secrecy and deception persist. If the CIA or deep state got away with a coup in 1963, what’s stopping them now?

BLAZETV+ BONUS CONTENT

Get it all now, only at https://blazetv.com/glenn

Glenn and Roger Stone react to a buried Nixon tape in which he and CIA Director Richard Helms discuss “who shot John?"
Shane Stevens tells Glenn why he kept family confession tapes that allege LBJ’s plot to kill JFK hidden for so long.
Glenn recreates Lee Harvey Oswald’s JFK assassination shots with the exact rifle, scope, and rare CIA-requisitioned ammo at a Texas shooting range. Then, he tests the exact angle and speed with a moving target at an Oklahoma ranch. Was he able to hit the targets with the same timing between the three infamous shots? The results raise serious doubts about the “magic bullet theory” and the official lone-gunman narrative from the Warren Commission.

Google Founder's Ex-Wife Speaks Out About Evils of “Tech Mafia”

The “groundwork” that Big Tech elites have set is being used to “enable” the policies of the Great Reset, warns Nicole Shanahan, who was once married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin. She recently sat down with BlazeTV’s Allie Beth Stuckey to share the inside secrets of the “Tech Mafia” that she once observed. Now, Allie joins Glenn Beck to discuss some of the most shocking moments from her podcast, including the near-death moment that brought Shanahan to Christianity.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to take in Allie Beth Stucky here, and bring her on the program.
There's a great story out about something she -- she has. She just released it. It was on TheBlaze.com.

And I had not seen the interview yet. I have seen pieces of the interview.

And it looks -- I mean, this is amazing.

Allie Beth is maybe one of the best interviews you've done can. Let me play a little clip of it first.

VOICE: So the tech-wide Mafia, I believe, were kind of being conscripted. And their money especially was being conscripted.

And to set the groundwork for The Great Reset. Specifically through -- specifically through a network of non-NGO advisers.

Relationship with Hollywood.

Relationship at Davos.

And their own companies.

GLENN: Hmm.

VOICE: So if you look at like who is on these boards, who hangs out with each other.

How these -- how the culture of -- of tech wealth works, like Silicon Valley tech worth. And that small group of people, responsible for a huge amount of money, and a huge amount of NGO activity across the United States. It's a really small group of people. And it's a really small group of people making these decisions.

And then. And then completely blind to everything else that's going on. And how their ground work is being used to then enable these other policies.

These great reset policies.

GLENN: It is amazing to go from five years ago, everybody saying, that's crazy!

That's not happening.

To the former wife of the -- the head of Google, coming out and saying, yeah. This was all orchestrated. We didn't even know what we were into. As wives.

As the Silicon Valley Mafia wives, as she calls them. Allie Beth, welcome to the program. How are you?

ALLIE: Thank you so much. Doing well.

GLENN: Really powerful interview. What did she say was her turning point? What woke he her up?

ALLIE: Wow. There were so many moments across her journey. Kind of started on the campaign trail with RFK.

She shared something that she had never shared before. That she was pregnant surprisingly on the campaign trail. And that she had a long-term miscarriage at 20 weeks. And it was life-threatening for her. She lost the sweet baby. And she almost lost her life. And she said that as she felt her life being pulled from her, she almost made this kind of exchange with God.

Like, okay. God. You have my life.

You know, I will do anything, basically.

I'm paraphrasing. People can watch the interview for her actual verbiage.

But she felt all of a sudden, this kind of peace of God.

That there's been a lot of moments until then, that had led her to that realization.

That he is real.

That the gospel of Jesus real.

And all of this. And something interesting she talks about on the campaign trail.

And she and I talks about this privately too. And it's okay for me to share. That she really saw the reality of evil. The reality of hell. When she was deep into politics. And that that kind of started to shift her perspective on, who were the bad guys here?

What's going on?

All this evil is being done under the guise of really good intention.

Especially in Silicon Valley.

And I don't want to be a part of that anymore.

GLENN: She said a couple of things. First of all, you kind of just said, the interview gets into much deeper of her losing the baby.

She lost over 4 liters of blood. You really only have about four liters of blood in you.

ALLIE: Exactly.

GLENN: And she was bleeding out.

So it was a really traumatic moment of her tying, as well as her child, dying, at the same time.

She said, at one point to you, you know, when I started to realize all of this stuff. It's a little difficult, when you're married to the guy who started Google.

ALLIE: Yeah. So that kind of goes back further in her journey during COVID.

She shared that her daughter was diagnosed with autism. And like any good mom. She's trying to figure out, wait. How did we get here? How can I help her? What's going on in her little brain, to help me understand how to best support her?

And as she was digging into the research, she found some things that have kind of been dubbed right-wing conspiracies, about environmental factors, even pharmaceutical factors, that could possibly cause some symptoms of autism. But she had a hard time researching, because the search engine that almost everyone uses censors that kind of information. And while she was married to the cofounded of Google, who was playing a part in censoring that information. Not only inhibiting her research for her daughter, but research for the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

And she shared that caused understandably a lot of conflict in her life, and still does.

GLENN: I wonder what the conversations were like. You know what I mean? If you're looking at these things. Then all of a sudden, Google, your husband's company is censoring and saying, this is bad.

I mean, can you imagine that?

It would be really, very bizarre, to have that conversation at dinner that night.

Hey. I'm trying to do some research.

And you guys are shutting me down. And I have to tell you, I don't think this is crazy stuff.

I wonder what those conversations were like.

ALLIE: Yeah. I don't know.

It's crazy to think about.

GLENN: What was the biggest thing you took from her. I really, really like her.

Is this the first time you met her?

ALLIE: The first time I've met her in person. I'm just struck by how genuine, vulnerable she is. It was not easy to admit. Especially when you're someone who has been prominent in that space. Has donated a ton of money to entities like Planned Parenthood, George Gascon, other progressive causes, to admit that you were wrong, that you didn't see things as they were, and now you see things differently.

At one point, she said, I helped all these women get abortions, and I suddenly realized, I never helped a woman keep her baby. How dare I!

Not many people, especially in that space, have the humility to admit something like that. And I just praise God for that. Because that transparency will help a lot of people.

GLENN: How has her friend circle changed? I can't imagine she's got a lot of friends that were in that original circle.

ALLIE: You know, she still has friends. Maybe I don't know about in the tech-wide Mafia. But she still has friends who are very progressive.

I can see how she's a good person and a good friend, but she's having bold conversations with them. I know that for sure.

GLENN: Well, it's great.

You did a great job. I'm so happy for your success, Allie. I really am.

You deserve it.

Talk about your Shared Arrows. Get your Shared Arrows pitch here.

ALLIE: Yeah. Yeah. Shared Arrows. It is our women's Christian event. October 11th, Dallas, Texas. We are going to have Francesca Battistelli leading worship.

We're having Alice Childress. We're having Jinger Vuolo. Katie South. So many amazing speakers that are just rallying for women, to be courageous in our homes and whatever spaces God has placed us, to share the arrows of fellow believers that we face a common enemy.

So super excited about it. People can go to sharedarrows.com for more information.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Allie. Appreciate it, God bless.

ALLIE: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Allie Beth can be heard on Blaze TV.