RADIOMarch 15, 2024

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?

KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

"Rama-Hanu-Kwanz-Mas" - Glenn Beck's HILARIOUS Christmas Song that Triggered the Woke Left

For over two decades, the cultural battles surrounding Christmas have revealed a deeper transformation happening inside American life. What began as political correctness has evolved into a fractured culture where speech is policed, reactions explode into extremes, and sacred traditions are pushed to the margins. From the early warnings mocked in parody songs, to today’s chaotic backlash and misuse of “cancel culture,” the shift is unmistakable. Even the quiet beauty of A Charlie Brown Christmas—once a staple of American childhood—now feels radical, a reminder of the faith, truth, and simplicity our society has forgotten. This episode traces the long arc of how Christmas became a battleground in the modern culture war—and what that reveals about the country’s soul.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So something I worked on this weekend from Glenn AI. It is our first -- our first -- I don't know if I should even announce it. I'm sure, I will not be proud of it soon. But our first offering from Glenn AI. And you'll be able to get it tomorrow.

You know, I thought -- I was thinking about a song we did years ago. Called Ramahanukwanzmas.

And I was thinking, in the time that we did that -- Stu, do you remember the year?

Sara, is it marked on the recording? What year -- it's not? It happened in 2003, Stu, do you know?

STU: I have to look it up. I probably have some record of it.
GLENN: Yeah, really early. Yeah, really early on.

And it was -- it was just as this, you know, war on Christmas thing was happening. And we were making fun of political correctness. And, you know. I was listening to it.

And I thought, oh, my gosh. This is so early on, that we were using words that you just wouldn't even use now.

You know, we were mocking this -- this coming political correctness.

Not knowing how bad it was really going to get. So I wrote putting Christ back in Christmas.

Kind of like, you know, enough. Enough. Enough. We're putting the Christ back in Christmas because we don't care.

That era is over. It's over. But here's where it began. Twenty-five, 27 years ago. Listen to this.
(music)

GLENN: Wow. I mean, did I hear the word "queer" in there? Not in the way that you would you use it today. What were we thinking?

STU: That's the technical definition of the word, at least one of them.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We think we used it appropriately. But, you know, I don't know. That was pretty -- like, I was looking quickly, like the YouTube there is a version of this, that if you remembered. When that song came out, we -- it played for a few years. And then some listener made an animation of the song.

And then it -- that animation was uploaded to YouTube, 17 years ago. And they called it a classic. Like, this is an animation of Glenn Beck's classic Christmas song.

So it's been a long time.

I don't know exactly how many years, but a lot of them.

It was before even the woke thing was a thing. What we were talking about was the precursor to the woke thing.

Which has now gone through so many different variations.

Where you had -- gosh, we must want to be politically correct. We should be able to say whatever we want.

And then you weren't able to say anything. And then you had, like, the George Floyd era, where you went to prison if you said anything then.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Now we're on the other side of that.

And it's like, now everyone is saying everything sometimes to an extent that isn't necessarily -- necessarily appropriate.

Example of that, from over the weekend, was the Cinnabon story. Did you see this at all, Glenn?
GLENN: No, I didn't.

STU: The -- the woman working at Cinnabon, apparently has -- I think maybe Somalis come into the Cinnabon. I don't know. They get into some sort of argument. The phone turns on. They're filming her, as she tells them that she -- she calls him the N-word multiple times. And says that she's proud of being a racist.

And, you know, you might not be the shocked to hear that Cinnabon fired her for that. But see, I don't think that's cancel culture. Just so we can be clear.

GLENN: No. That's not cancel culture. No.

STU: No, I'm pretty sure it's difficult to employ someone calling customers of the store the N-word repeatedly, while working at the store.

GLENN: Right. And proud to be a racist. No. No, I don't.

STU: That's different. We lose track of these terms sometimes.

Now she's gone on to -- you know, one of these sites. I don't know if it's GoFundMe. But it's one of them, and people have put up, like, oh, gosh. She's been cancelled. Please help her.

And she's raised $100,000. It's like, you should not be rewarded for $100,000 for saying the N-word at Cinnabon.

GLENN: No, you should give that to rappers.

STU: Yes, somewhere again --

GLENN: Theater ones who should get the money for using the N-word.

STU: Yes, exactly.

GLENN: We've learned that how many times.

STU: I feel like we -- sometimes, when society makes a really bad call over a long period of time, people get angry and want to push back against that appropriately.

And that keeps extending itself until it's no longer an appropriate pushback against that bad thing.

It's just its own bad thing.

And I don't know. Maybe we should realize that.

GLENN: So when was the last time you watched a Charlie brown Christmas?

STU: It's a great question.

Probably last year. Or the year before.

I haven't watched it this year, yet.

GLENN: Yeah. I watched it last night. With my eldest daughter Mary.

And we watched it. And we've been talking about watching it for a while. We watched it last night. The night before dinner.

And you think that, oh. Simpler times.

Simpler times.

Look at, the gospel of Luke is in that.

Right?

Doesn't anyone know the real meaning of Christmas?
I do, Charlie Brown. That was not -- nobody thought that that special was going to work. Did you know this? The Charlie Brown Christmas. They thought was slow, boring, and way too sad.

And no child was going to -- was going to embrace it.

Coca-Cola went to CBS and said, I -- you want to talk about, it's all a giant syndicate, you know.

Coca-Cola went to CBS and said, we want a Christmas special to advertise in.

And so they went to this guy, Lee Mendelson, who had just done a documentary on Charles Schultz. And they had become friends with Charles Schultz.

And he said, you know. Would you do a Christmas thing?

And he said, I don't know.

I'll do it.

And so they went back and forth.

And the animator said that we have to have real children voices.

And I want to use a really sparse soundtrack. I just want to -- I mean, want to make the music really important.

So we went to the -- the jazz band, to do the Charlie Brown Christmas stuff.

And Charles Schultz said, I'll only do it if we include the gospel of you Luke. And CBS said, we can't put the gospel of Luke in there.

I mean, that's -- that's a bridge too far. Back in, what? 1964 or '65.

So the year -- I think it's the year after I'm born, it airs. So they're making this, while my mom is pushing me out. They're making the Charlie Brown Christmas. Okay?

And it was controversial back then, to put the Christmas story in.

They finish it. They expect it to last one year. Everybody at CBS is like, just don't tell Coca-Cola. Nobody is going to watch this thing. And it turned out to be, you know, a huge, huge blockbuster.

It ran for I think 35 years. Every single year. They only played it once. I remember as a kid, tonight is Charlie Brown.

Tonight is Charlie Brown. Don't forget. Tonight is Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. And Frosty the Snowman. As a kid, it was the -- that's all you talked about on those days, on Christmas.

In the Christmas season. You would say, how many days until Charlie Brown. Don't forget. Watch it tonight. And we watched it for 35 years. On CBS.

Then it -- in 2001, it moved to ABC. And now it's on Apple TV. And they have all the peanut stuff.

But I was thinking as I watched last night, how much money has this made?

And who has you all that money?

Who got you all that money?

Who are still paying for these? It had to be a fortune. A fortune.

STU: Worth every penny.

Think about that. The exposure to -- like, you're rooting for the kid, talking about God!

Like what is that -- what an incredible dynamic, that played out.

It is unbelievable watching it. And how out of place that particular thing feels, in a way.

Because, you know, as you note, the sort of sparseness of the production of it.

The whole thing just stops. And there's that long walk to the stage, before he goes into the speech. It is really -- it totally draws can't attention.

GLENN: It was slowly in the 1960s. They say it was too slow in the 1960s.

So imagine -- I mean, that's why we feel it today. Imagine what our kids think about this. Oh, God. I watched three TikTok videos by the time Linus said there was something. And he said, turn on the lights!

It was like, it's crazy. It's crazy.

STU: It really is an amazing thing. And it has a way of drawing your attention in.

It's so sparse. And reasonable medical probability like, the pacing of it is so awkward. And especially in that moment. You can't help, but kind of lean in.

You know, you're like, wait. What's he about to say? Then he just goes into like, reading the Bible. It is -- it is an amazing moment in American television history. And thank God it exists! I mean, it is something that probably is introduced, you know. A ton of kids to this stuff for the first time.

Why THIS viral claim about my new AI is IMPOSSIBLE

Glenn Beck recently made headlines for releasing a promo video of his upcoming interview with George AI. Outlets like Right Wing Watch and CNN claimed that George AI was just “echoing” Glenn’s beliefs. But Glenn explains why that’s “impossible.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last week, was it last week? I introduced you to George AI. Now, what George AI is a proprietary AI system that has a giant electric fence around it. It has everything that the Founders from our collection, it will grow from here. But from our collection, it has the writings, the documents. The journals. The books that were written at the time, the books that they read, that they said influenced them.

The Federalist papers. All of this stuff. All in one proprietary AI system. And it can't go out and look for other things. It also must memorize everything.

Unlike an AI that can hallucinate, they hallucinate because AI is very good at remembering the beginning and the ending. But it's not good at the middle. So it will look at the beginning and the ending. And, yeah. And kind of, like, went like that.

No. It didn't go like that. Stop being lazy.

But ours memorizes every word. Word-for-word. And it can give you the words from the Founders in their own language which sounds really mechanical and reads. It's really hard to read.

Or it can, you know, dumb it down to my level or your level or your kids' level. And it can speak at our level. But it cannot change their words or their meaning.

We police this like crazy. And we're not releasing wide open to the public, until we have lots of beta testing.

Because we want to make sure we have caught everything because the last thing we want is anything that is -- is anybody's opinion, except for theirs!

You would be able to put in a bill, and say, is this constitutional?

Where does this violate the founding principles?

And it will tell you, you can put in a story and say, what are the principles that we lost that are causing this?

You could put in. Like we talked about today.

There was a story about the case that is in front of the Supreme Court right now. About, you know, having, you know, some sort of expert running, you know, the administration.

And the -- the president and Congress can't fire them.

Well, I know the answer to this. But I ask George AI.

I put the story in. And I said, what did the Founders say about things like this?

And I asked specifically about the Federalist papers. And it said, while it doesn't specifically talk about this.

It does say X, Y, and Z.

And as I explained earlier on the show, I mean, it may as well be explicit. Because it's talking about exactly the same thing. But that's what it does. Now, I released an interview that I did with George. Okay?

And it's so funny the reaction because Adam Kinzinger just said, this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, and I was in Congress for 12 years.

Oh, well, Adam. Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm going to listen to you.

Right-wing watch, which I think is Soros-funded, oh, good. Glenn Beck has created an AI George Washington. You'll be shocked to learn that the AI George Washington, created by Glenn Beck sounds exactly like what would happen if a Glenn Beck built an AI George Washington, sound exactly like Glenn Beck.

Impossible! It's not speaking my word.

It's only speaking their words.

It's impossible. It has no information about me, at all.

There is no -- it is a firewall between Glenn AI and George AI. There is a firewall.

It has no outside information. It does not know who I am. It doesn't care who I am. It doesn't care who I am. It is only focused on their words.

Let me play, if we can, can we play a little bit of what I -- what I played, the actual George AI?

I just want you to -- I want to ask yourself because CNN. In fact, play the CNN clip.

CNN led with this last night.

Play that. Play that, if you will.

VOICE: The greatest danger to our republic lies not in foreign arms or political faction.

GLENN: May I just interrupt you for a second. Could you just dumb it down for a little bit?

VOICE: Okay. Wow. That is Glenn Beck, interviewing an AI version of George Washington, if you couldn't tell. Who is apparently ripped now, wearing a tight T-shirt. And he echoes Beck's beliefs. So for tonight's news at night cap.

GLENN: Stop. "He echoes Beck's beliefs."

So you cannot say that this is accurate. Because then you would have to say, I was right!

That I am interpreting the Founders in the correct way.

So you have to say, there's something wrong with this AI.

You know nothing about it. There is something wrong with this AI.

This can't do that.

This is just echoing Beck's beliefs. No. It's impossible for that to happen.

But they're making this into -- I mean, the tags on this are right-wing extremists.

George Washington extremism.

Play the actual George AI clip.

And tell me what's extremist about any anything that he is saying here?
(sot plays)
George, we have programmed a lot of information, given you a lot of information on what's going on in today's America. Based on your writings, the writings of the rest of the Founders, what is it that you feel is the biggest problem, or where we should start to fix things?

VOICE: If I may speak plainly, my countrymen, the danger. The greatest danger to our republic lies not in foreign arms or political faction. But --

GLENN: May I just interrupt you for a second.

Could you just dumb it down, just a little bit?

VOICE: Okay. I do have 29 points, and they're all referenced to exactly what we've said.

GLENN: Speak in today's language.

VOICE: Okay. Okay. I get it.

Let me speak to Americans: If I'm honest, America's biggest problem isn't political or economic. It's all moral. We've drifted from the virtues that make liberty possible in the first place. Freedom. To be free, you have to have insulin. You have to have faith.

You have to have character. And if you don't have any of those things, laws. Laws can't stop anything. And they mean little, government terms, weak or oppressive.
You have grown skeptical of truth. You're reckless with debt. You're comfortable blaming, instead of building anything. And in my time, we understood that self-governance begins with self-control. Do you even recognize what self-control is? Public virtue matters, more than public opinion. You keep electing these people, expecting things to change, but you haven't changed.

The fix is not going to be found in Washington, DC. It's going to be found in every home, every school, every heart.

You know, where are the citizens who value duty over comfort? Principle over popularity? America was built to be a moral and self-governing nation. It's only that foundation that will still save her.

GLENN: Okay. So how is that -- yes. It does sound like me. Yes, it does sound like me.
You know why? Because I sound like the Founders. That's why. I didn't -- I didn't -- I wish I could say, I made all this stuff up. I wish I could say I'm that brilliant. Yep. The Constitution and the founding documents, they all sound like me, once you dumb them down. No! No. I had to work through them, and I dumbed them down so I could understand them. And I've been saying them my whole life. And that's why he sounds like me because I sound like him. But the thing is, it's being labeled as extremism.

That we're supposed to be moral. We -- we have to have discipline, faith, character. Is that extreme? That our laws won't mean anything because nothing can hold it together, if we're not those things.

Government will either become too weak or too oppressive.

What do you disagree on that? How do you disagree with that?

Are we currently worried that we will become too weak? Or are we currently worried that we will become oppressive?

Either way, that's extreme. Because that's your view in the media. That Donald Trump is becoming oppressive. Right?

That we're growing skeptical of truth. How is anyone in the media thinking that's Glenn Beck, or that's -- you know, that's some extreme thing. Yeah. You know it. You know we're skeptical of the truth. You're the ones telling it to us, and you're the one with the dying rating. So that's clearer. You can't admit that America -- agree or disagree, that America is skeptical of truth? That we're reckless with debt? That we will not -- we point fingers to blame. We won't take any personal responsibility for anything, we won't self-govern? We have no self-control? That we -- we look for opinion over virtue?

That the answer won't be found in DC?

And that nothing will change, unless we change.
Wow, that's so unbelievably deep, isn't it!

Let me tell you why there's this -- this thing going around now. I mean, I've released three minutes of George AI.

Three. Three. Wait. Wait until next year.

Wait until by this time next year, wait until you see this thing open up full throttle. They are going to wet their pants. So they know, they know exactly what I'm doing. They know, they must discredit it. Because they know the power of AI. Because they've been using AI to lie to you. To manipulate you. To use algorithm to do all of that stuff. I'm not using any of those.
I'm not pushing this out. Hoping anybody will do anything with the algorithm. I want you to find it.

I am inviting you to ask him yourself. When you ask him, you can say, what are all the footnotes, do you see the points that come out on CNN? I have 26 points and they're all documented to what I said. Yeah. They had to cut that out. Because I'm providing that every time. Every time, you're on George AI, we'll show you the documents and where it comes from. They can't do that, they rely on opinion. George AI relies on documented fact.

And I can't wait for you to be a part of it, next year. January 5th. It will make their eyes bleed. And that gives me.

That's -- you know, blood is red. Their eyes. The white. And the red. It's like a candy cane. It makes me think of Christmas at this time.

Trump FINALLY said the OBVIOUS part out loud

The media is furious because President Trump’s new National Security Strategy criticizes Europe...or they just misunderstand it. Glenn Beck reveals what this strategy actually says and why he’s ecstatic that someone is FINALLY saying these things!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So at the Reagan National defense forum over the weekend, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, Raizin Caine, hints at a possible conflict in our own neighborhood, and everyone is freaking out.

Here's cut one. Listen.

VOICE: Yeah, I mean, we -- we -- we have not.

If you have looked at the arc of our deployment history over the last few years, we haven't had a lot of American combat powering in our own neighborhood. I think that's -- I suspect that's probably going to change. We'll see what we're ordered to do.

And, of course, we follow that guidance. But we're definitely spending some time here now.

Oh, my gosh. He means war! And maybe in San Francisco!

No, he doesn't. Let -- can I just go through and give you the meaning of the national security strategy that just came out from the president?

And everyone is freaking out about it. And I think the president deserves a round of applause. The reason why everyone hates it, is because it is the exact opposite of what everyone told us for 100 years, we should be doing. And for 100 years, you've seen what we've done, and you've seen where it's gotten us: Nowhere, quickly.

America is standing in this doorway right now. And behind us is the chaos that we've just lived through.

We've missed thrift, bipartisan, you know, foreign policy class, that somehow managed to squander the greatest advantage that any nation has ever had. And just ahead, at least according to the National Security Strategy is a course correction so sweeping that honestly, it reads like a rediscovery of the American civilization itself.

Because this is what this document is.

It's not just a list of foreign policy goals.

It's a declaration of what America actually is. And what it must never allow itself to become, ever again.

For the first time in decades, the strategy knits, the obvious.

Okay?

We lost our way after the Cold War!

Yeah. Yeah. We did. Yeah. We tried to run the world while hallowing out the nation that -- that, you know, was supposed to do the running. We were hallowing ourselves out. We outsourced our factories. Our borders. Our sovereignty. And even God help us, our sense of purpose.

We have no purpose.

We treated global institutions as if they outrank the Constitution. And they don't.

We protected everybody else's borders, except we let ours collapse.

We defended, you know, abstract world orders, while neglecting the American worker who actually paid for everything.

And this new strategy has outlined. I mean, it just says what you've been saying for a long, long time.

Enough. Enough. I've had enough.

And it lays out what America -- what Americans and America should want!

And it starts with something, you know, really revolutionary in its simplicity. It says, we need a safe, sovereign republic. That protects its people.

Strong families. Strong industry. Strong borders. Strong energy.

And a renewed cultural -- culture that knows its own story, and isn't ashamed to tell it.

What is possibly wrong with all of that?

Strong borders. Strong family. Strong industry. Strong energy. Renewed culture that knows its own story and isn't ashamed to tell it. That's why everyone is freaking out because they don't want any of these things.

None of the elites want those things. A sovereign republic? No. He's laying out, we want the world's strongest military, but also the world's strongest economy. And the world's strongest spirit.

And without that, this policy says nothing else holds. And that's true!

And you know it's true. It says the era of mass migration is over. Not slowing it. Not managing it. But ending it.

We know that's true. It says, the government's job is to protect God-given rights. Okay. Where did you get that idea?

I don't know. The Declaration of Independence. Why is that controversial?

It's not to manipulate elections. It's not to police speech. It's not to hide behind bureaucratic language while crushing dissent.

All of that is found in the Bill of Rights. It's not controversial.

It demands allies actually act like allies and pay their fair share. Controversial? It doesn't seem like it. It promises reindustrialization. Did we learn anything from COVID?

Is it a bad idea to have everybody else make our stuff, and then we wait for boats?

Energy dominance, a national defense industrial base that's built for the world we actually live in. Not the world our think tanks wish existed.

And then it turns outward. Then it begins to look outward to Europe and the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is shifting under our feet right now.

And nobody is willing to say it. In the Western hemisphere, we should return to something that we should have never abandoned in the first place. And that's what Raizin Caine was just talking about. The Monroe Doctrine.

Call it the Trump corollary, but the principle is timeless. This hemisphere is ours to secure. And hostile powers will no longer get a free pass to set up shop in our backyard. How is that -- how is that controversial?

Cartels, it -- it outlines, will become a national security target. Manufacturing comes home. Partnership replaces dependency. Then it talks about Asia. And the message is really clear.

We'll compete with China. Economically, technologically, and militarily, and we'll do it from a position of strength. Not by pretending that Beijing is suddenly going to go, you know what. We're just a giant, friendly teddy bear.

No. No. We're going to do it by accepting the reality and prepare accordingly.

But we'll still work with you.

Just don't become an enemy of ours. And we won't become an enemy of yours. That means that we have to rebuild industry.

It means we have to secure the minerals. We have to dominate the technologies of the future. It means that we ensure that no single power controls the Indo-Pacific walkways that keep the global economy alive.

Hello! China. Taiwan. Japan.

Then it gets to Europe. Which, you know, of course, if you have colonial eyes. Oh, my gosh.
All this document says is what European leaders won't even dare whisper. Europe is dying. The entire continent is dying. Not just economically, but as a civilization. The Western civilization is dying!

Declining bitter rates. Uncontrolled migration. Censorship. Loss of identity. Regulatory suffocation. We would like Europe to be strong again. Europe to be Europe again! Stable. Sovereign. Confident. Peace in Iran.

Stability with Russia!

Revival at home.

That's what America would be like. Because it would be good for us. But it would also be good Europe.

Because if Europe collapses into chaos, the entire Western world will pay the price, and it will be a very heavy price.

But they don't like that. Oh, no. You can't say that.

Oh, Europe is pissed at us for saying that. Gang, we all know. Look at Europe. They're dying. They're dying!

It won't be long. And if they don't change their ways, and they do fall, this document also says something else.

We're not going to honor NATO for any country that falls. You become a Muslim country, you're not a NATO country.

You fall and you're some other country.

You're not a NATO country.

We're not defending you. Now, in the Middle East, this document says, the forever wars is over. We declare them over.

How is that not a good thing, that we should all be celebrating? And not because the region suddenly became peaceful, but because America is finally strong enough strategically, diplomatically, militarily. To shift from a constant crisis management to long-term stabilization. Iran has been weakened. Israel has been backed. The Abrahamic Accords have been expanding. Energy dominance has returned to the US.

What does that do?

Well, that reduces the old chains that kept us entangled in every sand dune from Syria to Yemen!

We're out. Finally, Africa.

My gosh, what we have done to Africa with our State Department and USAID.

All we do is export ideology instead of opportunity.

He says -- Trump says, in this national security document, that's over.

We're flipping the strategy. Trade, minerals, energy, peace deals. No more lectures. No more nation building. No more endless aid with no accountability. Does any of this sound scary to you?

Does any of this sound crazy to you?

I -- I don't think so. It's saying everything that seems common sense to me. It's saying, America is allowed finally to love itself again and to be who she should be.

And let everyone else be who they should be. You know, it has a right and responsibility to defend itself first! To put its people first!

It's saying sovereignty is not a dirty word. Borders are not immoral. American workers are not expendable. Free speech is not negotiable. The nation state, not the NGO. Not the global boardroom.

Not the transnational committee. That's the fundamental building block of a free world.

How is this bad again? How is it that this is so dangerous?

In short, it's a blueprint for a country that wants to live again. Really live again.

Now, the question is: Do we -- is the president reflecting the national spirit?

Do we want to live again? Do we want to be relegated to the dustbin of history, or does America have other great work to do?

Because that's really the question.

Which is it that you believe?

Which is it that you want?

I want a strong nation. I want our youth. I want, you know, people coming out of college. To have jobs. To be able to buy a house.

I want those things.

I think they're necessary. I think they're important. I think it's just as important to understand our history.

To know who we are. To not be ashamed.

Learn from it. But not be ashamed of it.

We didn't do it. Our forbearers did.

We learned from it. We are better than that.

My gosh. Oh.

I read these freakouts. And I honestly think, my gosh, am I living in a -- I'm living in some weird parallel world, where I read all of these newspapers and magazines and everything else. With their commentary today about the national security.

And they're all freaking out.

Saying, this is the worth thing he can do.

He's going to tear the whole country. The whole nation, and the world apart.

No. He's just stating what people feel.

And not just Americans. Go talk to the people in Europe.

Ask them. Take this document and make it about England. And see if all the people in England tonight can see exactly the same way.

And if you put a name attached to it, it wouldn't get that person elected. It would. It would. Because everybody is feeling the same way about their own country.

I don't have a problem with the rest of the world.

But it's time for us to concentrate on us. It's time to concentrate on saying, you know what, there's something special about us. England can say that. They brought us the Magna Carta. They are now torching the Magna Carta. I would love to hear that story.

The things that make France, France. I don't know. The whining and everything else. That is unique to France. Italy. Germany. It's unique to them.

I want them to be those guys. I don't want them to be another version of us. I want them to be them. I want them to do well. And be part of the family of man and the family of nations.

But I don't want anything to do with whatever they do, they do.

Same thing with Israel. And Saudi Arabia. You do you, boo. We're going to do us.

When we can get together, we will. Don't screw with us. And we won't screw with you.

This is our national strategy. That's exactly what our national strategy.

I say amen, President Trump!

Finally. Finally somebody is saying what everyone is thinking.

This is like you've gone to school, you know, for 18,000 years.

You're some -- yeah. Some doctorate in God only knows. International development and studies.

Women's studies.

Unless you've got that!

You're looking at that, and going, yeah. All that makes sense.

All of that makes sense. Now, the question is: Do we want it?

And will the people actually back it?

Because strategy on paper, that's only words.

Until a nation finally finds the courage to believe in itself again. And say, that's what we must do.

Magna Carta under threat: UK's dangerous shift AWAY from freedom

The United Kingdom is now arresting over 12,000 people a year for "speech crimes" and is debating doing away with trial by jury for many crimes. Glenn Beck warns that if this can be done in the birthplace of these principles (under the Magna Carta), it can happen to the entire West if we don't END this insanity now!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just start here. Because there is -- there is another story that is out in our newsletter today, that talks about how people of college age are freaking out, after Charlie Kirk's death. They don't want anything controversial on campus.

I mean, that's the reason why colleges and universities had protection of free speech, in the first place.

Was to be controversial. To be able to say the things that nobody wants you to say.

And it's really important.

But let me -- let me first remind people of what the Magna Carta is.

It's 1215? The Magna Carta is Latin for the great chart.

Had it not some magnanimous gift from the king.

The king. King John from England. He was -- he was losing a battle. France was just cleaning England's clock.

The baryons and all the lords and the ladies. Said, you know, this king sucks a lot. This king sucks a lot.

And we've got to stop him. Because he's destroying everything.

And he -- he had lost most of the land, to France. And then he started just imposing huge taxes on everybody. And -- and because nobody in the lower class had any -- this all happened with the lords and the ladies. And they were like, enough. Enough. Enough.

You're abusing your royal power.

Well, nobody had ever said that before. That just didn't happen. He had a divine right. He's the king. But in England, they said, no.

You still have to be moral. You have certain laws, and you can't just do these things.

And so what they did, is they got him to agree to the great charter, the Magna Carta. And it placed the king under the law. Before that, the king was the law. So now the king is under the law: It created the principle of due process. Never before did we have that.

You can't be imprisoned, punishment or stripped of property, except by the lawful judgment of your peers or the law of the land. So this creates jury trials. It creates habeas corpus. Protection from arbitrary arrests. All of these things. The government now has to justify itself in a court of law.

That's revolutionary, okay? It also limited taxation without consent. Which we interpreted later as no taxation without representation. Rule of law. Jury trials. Rights of the accused.

Limits on government. Protection of property. Accountability of leaders. All of that comes from the Magna Carta. Okay?

That gave birth, 500 years later, to us and our ideas. Okay?

Now, England, the birthplace of the Magna Carta is now thinking about getting rid of jury trials and arresting more than 12,000 people every year for what they call speech crimes. 12,000!
Now, I want you to think about that.

In Russia, in the same year this stat came out. The latest year that we have, 2023. In 2023, Russia arrested 4,000 people for speech crimes against the Russian military for Ukraine.

4,000 in Russia, 12,000 in England.

The number I saw. We don't have all the numbers. But the number I saw that were arrested for speech crimes in China was 120.

Okay?

Not for violence. Not for theft.

Not for treason.

12,000 in England for words.

Okay. Now, well, that's going on, now the Prime Minister is floating the idea of eliminating, if not most, many jury trials.

It will only be for murder, manslaughter, oh, and something else like that.

Okay?

So, in other words, if you're like, I believe you should be able to read the Bible in your own language, in your own home, Tisdale.

You don't get any hope. You don't get a jury trial. You get the court. You get the king trying you, not a jury of your peers.

This goes against the Magna Carta, the lawful judgment of your peers. Okay?

That's the safeguard that stands between you and an out-of-control state. This is the first and ancient firewall against tyranny. It is what makes England, England.

And if England of all places, tosses that aside, what does the word "free" mean anymore?

Okay? What does it mean? You can't speak, and then you have no jury -- trial of your peers. Wait. What? First of all, understand this: A nation that polices speech is not free!

A nation that dissolves juries is not just unfree, it's prepping for something worse!

Because the entire architecture of the western world, the liberty that we have, rests on a single radical belief.

The truth does not need a king. The truth shall set you free. Who? Is it not what. Who is the truth? Okay.

No king, but Christ. Because Christ is the truth. That's the Western world!

A person's conscience does not need a permit. Speech does not need a bureaucrat's approval before it leaves your lips! That's the West.

That's what built the world. What took it from darkness, to today.

Freedom is not granted we the state. Freedom preexists government.

Government's only legitimate job is to protect it!

Now, here's the dark little secret, that every single tyrant, and every politician knows today. If you control speech, you control thought. If you control thought, you control people.

If you control people, you don't ever have to worry about controlling the government because no one will ever challenge you again!

This is why it is so essential for any side to go, you can't talk to them.

Don't talk to them. Don't listen. Don't question.

You can't hear that. No. They can say whatever they want. But I have a right to refute it. That's why free speech has to be absolute. Not mostly free.

Not free unless it makes Billy over there cry and uncomfortable.

No. I'm sorry, Billy. You don't like it. Refute it.

Freedom that depends on somebody else's freedoms is not freedom!

Freedom that requires government approval is not freedom! Freedom that can be revoked because a bureaucrat doesn't like your tone is not freedom. Once speech becomes conditional, everything become conditional. Your rights, your property, your conscience, your place in society. Because you only live by permission! Never by principle!

We live by principles. Not people!

Who is actually free?

Who is actually free?

The England that once declared the king himself to be subject of law, or the England that now arrests a man because he's posted the wrong meme?

12,000 people!

Can't find one in 2023 that was arrested for that in America. Not one. The England that gave us John Locke, the philosopher of natural rights. Is that person free?

Or the England that now warns citizens that context doesn't matter, if their words cause someone, anyone, emotional harm.

Britain is about loss. But this is not just a British problem. This is the canary in the coal mine for the entire west.

Because these are the people that came up with it. When the mother country forgets its own legacy, jury trials and freedom of speech. When the random that once stared down monarchs now cowers before hashtags and activists and speech tribunals, than somewhere deep inside the Western soul, a light is flickering.

We must remember here, before that same darkness reaches our shores. Because it's already coming on to our beaches. It's already there. There is no such thing as partial liberty. Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for a reason!

It is the guardrail for every other right!

If you lose the First Amendment, you've lost freedom. And if you lose the Second Amendment, you've lost the ability to defend that first freedom.
It's number one for a reason!

You must be allowed to speak, to gather.

To have a free press!

To question your government. You must have those abilities. You must be able to say, especially about government, the worst things about your government! And question them.

And demand answers. To petition them.

That's all in the First Amendment.

It is the pressure valve that prevents so it's from blowing itself up.

The more we contain speech. The more we say, don't talk about. Don't talk about. Can't say that. Can't say that.

The more the pressure builds up. The more likely we blow ourselves up.

It's the mechanism where the powerless can speak to the powerful.

It's the shield that protects dissenters. Unpopular thinkers, prophets, reformers. And, yes, even the offensive.

Look, there are, quote, unquote, historians now who are getting all kinds of bullcrap about Hitler and everything else.

None of that is true. I don't want to silence them. They have a right to say it.

I have a right to say you're wrong! And show you the evidence of what makes them wrong.

That's the way it works. England is about to forget all of this!

They are truly the birthplace of these kinds of ideas, and those ideas led to our idea of real freedom!

No king!

If they forget this, we cannot -- we believe so -- because there won't be anywhere else in the world to go.

The lesson of history, the lesson that history whispers quietly at first. Then louder. And then finally. And we're about at this point, with a scream!

Is that when a state describes which words are allowed, it will eventually decide which thoughts are allowed. Which beliefs are allowed.

Which citizens are allowed.

In the end, in the end, the prisons don't need bars.

The cell will be in your own mind!

Do you understand that, America?
Do your kids understand that?

We don't even know what it means to be free. I thought this weekend, a lot about as opposed to truth shall set you free.

Thought about a lot. In fact, maybe I'll talk to you about it in a minute or so.

Because I don't think people understand what it means to be free.

We think everybody in the world is free. They're not!

And you're about to really find that out!

You want to be tree, or do you want to be safe? Because you cannot have both.

When safety is defined by those who fear your liberty. It's over!

We used to be people who would explore. We were people that crossed the oceans when everyone said we couldn't. We -- we went to space when everyone said, it's impossible. We crossed mountains that no one had ever crossed. We forged -- we forged a nation of really different people. And lived side by side for so long, yes. With bloodshed from time to time. But generally, in ways that nobody had ever done before. Freedom. Freedom is grand. But it's really dangerous. It's messy. Freedom offends you, a lot. Get over it.

Real freedom, real freedom is the only thing that has ever allowed the human spirit to rise above a king. Above a tyrant. Above the mob. Above the bureaucrats. Real freedom that belongs to you. Given to you by God. And that's what they're about to lose in England. The Magna Carta. The simple idea. No man. Not even a king. No man is above the law. Do we have that here?

Do you think no man is above the law? Or do you think there is a class up in the political range, somewhere, that if you're on the right side, don't worry about jail. That's what the Magna Carta tried to stop. That's what we have forgotten even, and they're about to get rid of it entirely.

The modern west is drifting into far more -- far more sinister creed. No man is above offense.

And that is how civilizations fall.