RADIOOctober 04, 2023

Pelosi’s Head of Security Likely PERJURED Himself With Jan 6 LIE | Blaze Media EXCLUSIVE

How much of the January 6th "evidence" that our justice system used to convict Americans has been a lie? Investigative reporter Steve Baker has done a year-long deep dive into the CCTV footage and REAL facts of Jan. 6 and has released his first report with Blaze Media. Baker joins Glenn to reveal the evidence that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's head of security, U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, gave false testimony about his whereabouts during a key encounter with members of the Oath Keepers. If this false testimony led to the imprisonment of Americans, what else have we been lied to about?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve baker has been on the program, a few times. And he is a -- an investigative reporter, that has been doing some work and it's now exposed on TheBlaze.com.

He has been working on the January 6th puzzle for a while now. And his efforts had been frustrated, over and over again, by the politics in Washington when he's just trying to find the truth.

The story that has just been released this morning.

Did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial? Has wide, wide consequences.

Welcome, Steve. How are you?

STEVE: Glenn, I am living proof, that a man can live on coffee alone.

GLENN: You started this a year ago, today.

STEVE: It was one year ago, yesterday.

October 3rd. During the oath keeper's trial. Was the first cent that there was something wrong.

Something happened in the trial. First thing that morning. When the lead prosecuting attorney, Jeffrey Nessler, assistant U.S. attorney, approached the lectern and the bench. And said to Judge Mehta, we have a problem. He said, we have a rogue attorney that is about to release some FBI 302s. These are interviews of one of the characters in this story, that we release this morning. And that if he does that, this is going to -- these are sealed documents, that are not publicly available, and we can't have that. And Judge Mehta did something, that I've never seen before.

And I don't know anyone in the media room where I was sitting in, had ever seen this before.

He actually directed the media pool, to put out a tweet, and threaten this particular attorney and let him know, that if he released those sealed documents, we would have him held in contempt of court.

And right then, I went, what are in those documents?

GLENN: So what was in those documents?

STEVE: They're still sealed. But I will tell you, the documents themselves were actually the FBI interviews of one of these Capitol police officers. And the primary problem that the government has with those documents, is that the testimony was changed. His testimony about his interaction with the Oath Keepers. Which in the first testimony, he revealed to be a positive interaction. That the Oath Keepers were lined up between him. And the more agitated protesters.

And assisted him in keeping them off of him.

And helping him de-escalate.

That was in May of '21, that interview.

In August of '21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated, contentious event with the Oath Keepers.

And as well as the creation of a second event, to explain the first FBI interview that never happened.

GLENN: So it is amazing to me.

Reading your story, it is so well laid out. However, what makes this different. It's not he said/she said. Or he said/he said.

It's because you had permission to go into the 14,000 hours, of videotape. You knew what you were looking for.

Right?

And in the story, you knew what time it even happened. Because the testimony was gunshots. You know, gunfire.

And so that marked it, at a certain time, when they -- they shot an innocent.

So tell me about what you found.

What the story was in the -- the testimony. And then what you found in the tape.

STEVE: Well, the story in the testimony from special agent. Now, this is Capitol Police special agent David Lazarus.

Is that when he heard the gunshots, at 243, 244, broadcasted over the radio, that shots had been fired.

That he was down in the tunnels, escorting senators from the Rayburn Building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber, where allegedly these shots were fired. He said, at that moment, at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Well, because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards.

And we found him in the tunnels, at that time.

The problem with it, is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels, and the subway system below the Capitol.

And, by the way, Glenn, these were videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial.

GLENN: If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted, with any of the testimony, in -- revolving around these guys, they would be released. Any other time in American history, they would be released.

Because this is perjury. And somebody set this up. Somebody.

STEVE: And we're working on that trail as well.

GLENN: Good.

STEVE: But going back to Lazarus, so he emerges. And comes back into camera frames, on the Capitol TVs with absolute proof of the exact time, down to the second, of when he emerged back in the camera.

He even passes under an analogue clock in the subway, at exactly this moment.

And it's at 2:48 p.m.

When he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings. And when that happens, the oath keeper Officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then.

He's nowhere near it. And he still has a long way to go. And then we were able to triangulate. Because he will go out of camera frame for a while. Then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera.

And then he's down another hall. And then he enters another hallway. Then he goes up on the Senate side. Then by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs, that lead up to the rotunda, and it's in a little area, variously called the mini rotunda or the Speaker's lobby. When he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 2:56:45 p.m. and the Oath Keepers are long gone.

GLENN: Okay. So now, let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony in the court case.

Lazarus, the guy you've just been talking about -- explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial testimony, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to. I mean, I had my lanyard on, with my ID on it. And, one, they were videotaping, and one attempted to pull at my ID. And I kind of grabbed it back, and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening.

So there's just kind of like -- I walked fast, to get into the office. And check on the staff again.

He then detailed description of what took place. What Lazarus described, as a very antagonistic in three or four times, that he passed by these Oath Keepers. Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath.

When he was then shown in court, a -- a video clip of four Oath Keepers, standing in front of Dunn, Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed?

Yes. Yes.

At any point in these three or four interactions, in this space, at you observe any sort of anything, but antagonistic conversation?

No that's correct.

Here's the problem: They were already out of the building. At the time we know, them on camera, we have the videotape.

The Oath Keepers had been gone for almost ten minutes.

STEVE: It was not quite ten minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room, viewing this.

We can put multiple cameras on the screen, at the same time. And then we hit one button, and it synced all those cameras to the exact time line. So we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen. Then we can watch when the Oath Keepers leave. So as the Oath Keepers leave, and they're walking out through the Rotunda, about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side.

It wasn't until that moment, that finally Lazarus reaches that area, where in great detail in the trial. And we have the trial transcripts, obviously.

In great detail, he describes what he saw. It just did not happen.

GLENN: So this was a -- an important part of the trial, right?

STEVE: It was a huge part of the trial. Because the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing, was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory. Or anything that pointed the Oath Keepers in a positive light. And this wasn't the only positive interaction that Oath Keepers had with law enforcement that day.

You've interviewed Lieutenant Tarik Johnson. Lieutenant Tarik Johnson, used two Oath Keepers. Literally recruited them to help rescue another 16 officers out of a dangerous situation.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEVE: That was never allowed in the trial.

GLENN: So and I learned something from the article. Let me see if I can find it here.

I had no idea. Oath Keepers. Seditious.

Blah, blah. Federal prosecutors claimed, while they were inside the Capitol, members of the group were involved in contentious interaction.

I don't know where it is now. But you talk about the Oath Keepers. How they've never -- they've never had to hear.

Thirty-five thousand due's paying members, had more than a decade's worth of spotless record, providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events.

They have never once been accused or charged with a crime. In thousands of operations.

I had no idea.

STEVE: One of the things that the government could not do in that trial. They could not counter that little piece of information. And, of course, it didn't matter in front of a DC jury.

The DC jury, it was fait accompli, for day one and in terms of what the outcome of that trial was going to be.

But one of the things that the defense did successfully present is the fact that in years and years and years of disaster relief operations, security details, and all kinds of -- other times when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses, like in Ferguson.

Like in Louisville, Kentucky. And those rights. Where they were recruited by minority businesses. To come help us to protect our businesses.

The defense was rather able to show some of those videos.

But the one thing that the government could not prove. That at any time, since 2009, when the Oath Keepers were founded, that there had ever been a single time where an Oath Keeper had committed violence in any of those operations, or ever had committed a crime. Or any charges had ever been filed.

GLENN: And when you think of the Oath Keepers.

You think, oh, they're just really bad.

Isn't that remarkable? How that has been portrayed and carried by the press?

Okay. So there's obviously some sort of conspiracy here.

Because these guys, they don't -- they're both saying the same story.

But it seems to switch, where one is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

And the other guy is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

They couldn't even get their story right.

STEVE: Yeah. It's inexplicable, that the editor of Harry Dunn's forthcoming book did not check the trial transcripts. Because when Lazarus -- special agent. Nancy Pelosi's head of security. Tells his version of events. He says, when he runs to the top of the stairs, that he sees this large, imposing figure.

Because Dunn is six-seven. Three hundred pounds, plus all the gear he had on. And he sees this large opposing -- imposing figure in a contentious -- yeah. Moment with these Oath Keepers that were giving him the business. All right?

And that's his testimony. In Dunn's book, he explains, that when he ran to the top of that stairs and reached that stairwell landing at the top, that Lazarus was already there.

And he was being confronted by protesters.

GLENN: Okay. So the questions that we need to ask, and what this actually means. I'm afraid. Stu was talking about it this morning. That at any other time. Any other time, in American history, this case would be thrown out now.

They would -- they would file a charge. Got to throw this case out.

And it would be done. And people would care.

I'm not sure people care. I mean, that's where our justice system is.

It only moves because somebody says something. Somebody -- the American people just won't take it.

I wonder what the -- I wonder what the real fallout of this will be. And you probably have a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. What is next in this?

And I know you talked to people in Congress. But is this going to move anything in DC?

STEVE: I can tell you, that not only working with weaponization committee investigators on this story, as well as the high-ranking staffers, I can't get into specific on the record details.

That there will be talks about hearings. And we know what hearings result in. Far too often.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: But there has to be something next.

Because, Glenn, this is -- this is literally an existential threat to our republic. What is taking place, in our courts right now. In DC.

GLENN: This is our government not getting it wrong.

This is our government setting American citizens up. Withholding evidence, that is exculpatory.

Sentencing them to long sentences.

And apparently, several people are involved in this.

This is -- this is as bad as it gets.

STEVE: Even in one of the specific Oath Keeper's cases, during his sentencing hearing. This is the Oath Keeper, Ken Harrelson, who you can see in video, holding the crowd back from Officer Dunn. He literally has his hands extended, and he's holding them back. As they were agitating and trying to get it done.

And there's four Oath Keepers lined up, with their backs turned to Dunn. He's at the top of the stairwell, holding an M4 rifle. And these guys are holding them back.

And -- and his case, particularly, Judge Mehta and his sentencing hearing, actually said these words.

Mr. Harrelson, I do not believe you're the man that the government has made you out to be. If I could speak to Mehta right now -- Judge Mehta, I would tell them, now we know that he is not the man who the government made him out to be. And you need to send him home.

GLENN: Have you talked to their attorneys yet? The Oath Keepers?

STEVE: I talk to them every day.

GLENN: And now that this is out and you're able to prove this, are they going to move?

STEVE: Obviously, they're in transition from their trial representation to their different legal teams. That will be representing them in appeal.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But these guys are -- are --

GLENN: Hot.

STEVE: They're hot. And, of course, they -- they -- they all know how this was set up. And this is where the next part of this story is going. Is that, look, we know -- we know that there was the equivalent of a star chamber set up, like, how will we get these guys?

And we see the process and the pattern of events of how they led to that, as well as here. Absolute proof of the creation and manipulation of testimony. And of something that never happened. And presented in that trial.

GLENN: This story, is a year's worth of a man's life.

You must read it by Steve Baker. Did Pelosi's Security Chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial. It's only part one of a series, that Steve is working on.

And you'll find it from Blaze Media, at TheBlaze.com.

How Glenn Beck's "AI George Washington" went VIRAL and Caused a Leftist MELTDOWN

The Left is erupting over Glenn Beck’s new “George AI,” a completely fenced-off system trained only on Founding-era writings, the Federalist Papers, and the documents that shaped the United States. Critics insist it “sounds like Glenn,” but the AI doesn’t even know who Glenn is—and it doesn’t know any modern figures, media outlets, or political movements. What George AI does know is the worldview of the Founders, and that’s exactly what seems to be triggering its opponents. When the tool is asked about today’s issues, it responds entirely through the lens of 18th-century principles, often echoing truths that modern politics can’t seem to handle. This video breaks down why the backlash is so intense, how the AI works, and what it reveals about the widening ideological gap in America.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, the left is losing their ever-loving mind on this George AI thing. There's more. I think it was trending again today. On one of the -- I mean, what -- I don't understand it.

I don't understand it.

STU: They are fired you up, and I don't know -- it's a fascinating thing, and you talked a little bit about this yesterday. I don't know if you're able to run the test. One of the fascinating parts of this.

Not only is it not echoing you.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: It is unaware of who you are.

Which, again, I wish I was.

GLENN: It is fenced off.

A lot of America is saying, right on, brother.

I'm with you, preach.
The -- the -- the way it's built, is it is only built on these specific documents.

It's only their writings.

What influenced them at the time.

The founding documents. The Federalist Papers. Et cetera, et cetera.

They keep saying, say what Glenn Beck should say.

Maybe that should tell you something. It doesn't know who I am.

I said that, and yesterday afternoon. You called me and said, does it really not know you?

We were just having a conversation. Does it really not know you. So I called Jason, who was on a plane.

And said, hey, Jason, can you have access to George AI?

What happened?

JASON: I had really crappy Wi-Fi, first thing I plugged in and said, who is Glenn Beck? And it's -- I won't give all the details for how this all works right now. But basically, what it spit out immediately is I can't even generate content on that, because I don't have data, Glenn.

GLENN: Doesn't know who I am. Has no data on me. So I asked him. Ask, does it know CNN? Does it know Anderson Cooper?

Does it know Donald Trump? Does it know the United Nations? The WEF? Does it know any of these people or any of these organizations? What happened?

VOICE: Same exact answer for every single one of them. It was actually so crazy. Well, does it know who anyone is? So I'll just pick a random person from George's era.

I just picked John Adams. Okay. So who is John Adams? And George AI spit out this amazing.

GLENN: Amazing. You sent it to me.

VOICE: Did you read this first paragraph? This is George AI.

He's saying, let me tell you about the reluctant architect of a republic. He goes, let me take you back the time before powdered wigs were considered cool before independence was in, before anyone had the audacity to name a country after ideals.

There was this man from Massachusetts. He didn't care much for fame. Didn't sparkle in debates and couldn't charm a crowd to save his life.

But give him a quill and a cause, and he would change history.

That's who John was. He goes on.

GLENN: I saw another -- I saw another piece of that, that was just -- it was just all the facts on him.

I mean, I'm reading it like I didn't know that. I didn't know that. I didn't know that.

JASON: So good.

GLENN: George AI, which begins January 5th in its own way.

I mean, we are being very careful with all of our AI. We -- it's going to be beta testing for quite some time.

And you will have access to the -- the -- the products.

As of January 5th. But you won't recognize it a year from now. But we just want to make sure that everything is safe.

And Stu asked me earlier, well, then how do you ask it. If it doesn't know anything. How do you ask it, you know, things like, what about this story? What about this story?

What about this story?

You have to put that story in. You have to say, here's a story, according to, you know, the Founders and the founding documents, what would you guys say is the problem here. Or how would you fix this, if this was happening in your society?

That's -- that's how we could compare things. You could you put in. You know, new laws, bills, anything else.

I put something in the other day. Was it yesterday or day before. Where we were talking about, oh, whether the president could fire somebody from his administration.

And the answer, I said, if there's anything in the Federalist papers, and it came back. Like, there's nothing in the Federalist Papers, per se.

However, Hamilton said, and -- and it went on. And it was like, I don't know what context he said that in, in the Federalist Papers.

I would have to look, thank you for showing all of this.

But it was exactly the answer that we're looking for. It's really a remarkable tool.

And it doesn't know who I am. So all of you lefties that are so freaked out, that it sounds like me, maybe -- maybe -- just maybe, that's something you should ponder.

Because it only has access. This is not a large language model.

This is a -- a fenced off server, that only has founding era you documents. Founding era information.

Ow, things that influence them. Things that came from them.

That's all it can relate to.

So if you're saying, it sounds like Glenn Beck. Maybe you should say, why do I hate Glenn Beck so much? If I claim to love the founding of our country?

If I claim to care about our Constitution.

JASON: One of the ways you can use this as you describe. A recent story of Donald Trump's new national security policy.

And I was running through tests with George. And just seeing what it would think about it.

GLENN: What did it say?

JASON: I won't go through the entire thing. It's pretty long. But just, from the very opening paragraph. You know, it's interesting. I'm trying to figure out, so many words of saying, when did the obvious, or stating the obvious become controversial?

GLENN: That's exactly what -- oh, my gosh. That's exactly what I said about this on the air. I read the policy on the air two days ago.

And I said, when is -- when did it become the obvious, it's like so revolutionary?

So controversial.

That is amazing.

JASON: Crazy.

GLENN: That is amazing.

The AI Jobs Crash is COMING... And We're Not Even CLOSE to Ready

AI is NOT the bubble... the real bubble is jobs. Entire industries are on the verge of disappearing, and college degrees are rapidly losing real-world value as automation accelerates. The next decade is set to erase millions of careers far faster than most Americans are prepared for. Manufacturing continues to collapse, robotics and AI are replacing workers at an unprecedented speed, and a widening disconnect between higher education and economic reality leaves younger generations feeling cut off from the American dream. A deepening generational divide, rising economic hopelessness, and the uncertain future of both white-collar and blue-collar work reveal a reshaped workforce where even trade skills are only temporarily secure. This is the new landscape facing the next generation—and it is arriving much sooner than anyone expected.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So we are -- we're just talking about how jobs and AI. That's the bubble that everybody should be talking about. Not the AI bubble. Everybody should be talking about the yobs bubble.

And I think in some ways, everyone in America is. I mean, why?

Honestly, why -- why would you go to college?

I mean, anybody who is sending their kids to college, unless it's for something very specific or you just want, you know, your kid to find themselves. And to, you know, whatever. That is.

Why?

Why are you doing it?

I'm -- I'm begging my kids, trade school. Trade school. Trade school. Trade school. Because that -- that is the job -- those are the jobs of the future. Trade schools. You know, you can be a plumber. I don't know how long that will last. Maybe ten or 15 queers. But that will last longer than let's say truck driver. That will last a lot longer than attorney. Physician's assistant. Well, maybe a physician's assistant. A PA will probably last a while. Nursing will probably last a while.

But doctors -- I mean, it's -- it's -- you don't need as many as we have, right now.

In the future. Because it will be able to be done, robotically.

And I know this sounds crazy, but it's coming! It is come!

Now, we need doctors. So, yes. Go to school for a doctor. But what else?

Why are you going to school? Accounting? Business?

Really? You need that degree.

JASON: I had the same conversation with my son. Exact same.

Doesn't like it. Doesn't even want to talk about it.

STU: It is depressing.
JASON: Yeah, it is depressing, but they completely shut down over anything.

I told him -- I even offered him, I said, I will go to an electrician school with you.

We will do it at night. I was going to do it just to learn another skill.

GLENN: He was confident in the show? No, the sports thing is going to work out, Glenn. The electrician.

JASON: I was actually trying to get around my life screaming at me, the next time I blow the entire circuit in the house. It happened a few times.

GLENN: Sure. Sure. I got it. I got it. You know something I don't know.

JASON: They don't even want to talk about it. These are issues that I'm scared about. It's a complete crazy circle catch-22 situation going on right now. On one hand, the youth are not able to basically survive in the economy right now.

GLENN: They're not able to survive in anything.
JASON: No.

GLENN: In anything. If it's not cooked in a microwave, how many of our kids know how to cook? Even know where food comes from?
JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, they're not able to survive. You know, I read something about Teddy Roosevelt.

STU: Robotics can definitely do that. Right?

You think, if all this stuff is going away, these jobs are going away, who will need to know how to cook?

This becomes a really depressing conversation. I'm not surprised your son was like, gosh, this sucks. And shuts down. You know what, my -- I have a relative who owns a plumbing business, and he does great. He does awesome.

And it's been incredible for him and his awesome family.

GLENN: Awesome.

STU: That being said, not everybody wants to be a plumber or an legacy. So if what you're --

GLENN: No, I know that.

STU: You're the bad parent in the after school specials. Like, just screw your dreams. Go be a plumber. Who wants to be that guy?

GLENN: Not true. Not true.

My daughter wants to do the absolute impossible. She wants to be an actress. I would love to say, screw your dreams, you're not doing that.

And she talked about going to school, you know. I could go up to, you know, some university up in New York. And I'm like, that's not happening. You want me to pay for it.

Not paying for that. Have a good time. You want to earn it yourself. Go ahead. But I'm not sending you up into that viper's nest.

But I said to her, let's design a school for you. Instead of paying all of this money, let me get private acting classes.

Let me get, you know, private dance classes. It's less than a university. And what you know really got her? Was you then don't have to study all the stuff that you're never, of going to use.

You don't -- you don't -- you don't need to take advanced calculus or anything. Because you're not going to use that. You're never going to use that. You're never going to use that.

Now, my son, he likes math. That's fine with him.

You know, but there are things, when they are driven for something, you don't have to say, be a plumber. You can say, let's find ways for you to learn this in a better way.

STU: Yeah. If you're making a point against the university system, you do not need to sell -- it's like trying to sell me on the Jasmine Crockett candidacy. You have to do no work on that one.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: But I do think, it's interesting. I think you're right. I think a lot of these jobs are going to go away. In fact, there are already signs of this.

GLENN: They are.

STU: To the extent of, the back and forth about, you know, tariffs and all this other stuff.

We've seen a decline in manufacturing jobs in this country, this year. A decline. Like, and I don't think that's because tariffs, you know, are shutting down manufacturing anymore than they would have previously.

You know, there's gotten harder arguments about that. But I think more than anything else, people are just taking these jobs offline.

And automating them. All these big companies are replacing thousands of jobs. These announcements are in the news every day.

And it's going to be tough to -- to figure out what the next thing is.

I think you're right. Plumbing and electricians and all these things are going to be very valuable. Particularly in the short to medium term.

It's tough to message that to a kid. Hey. Find this job, that you don't really like. And just do it. It's the only job that exists. It's not exactly an inspiring message.

GLENN: So let me just ask you a question. Because maybe it's me, and what I do.

But I don't think it is.

You know, I'm married into the idea of AI. I have wrestled with it hard. I mean, you know Stu, I've been talking about this since the 1990s. And I've been wrestling with this. Because it is a nuclear weapon, in the hands of every single person.

It's the most dangerous thing man has ever created, and the greatest thing man has ever created, okay?

And so you have to really be careful with it, and have to know how to use it. But, you know, I told -- who was it? Sara, I think I told you yesterday. I said, I am -- I mean, I cried at Kleenex commercials. So, you know, this doesn't mean anything.

But I've gotten emotional using it recently, because there's been stuff inside of me, since I was ten. Things, dreams, ideas that I've always wanted to do. And I'm now being able to not only do those things, but do those things in a way that would have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, that would have taken me months to are do.

It was -- just, I couldn't do it. And I'm realizing now, as I'm scratching the surface. I'm learning more about history right now. Because I can grab the resources so fast. I can look into stuff and go, well, that doesn't seem right. And I can go deeper.

What is the difference between doing that, as long as you're using -- you're directing it, and you're using it and checking the sources et cetera, et cetera.

What's that -- what's the difference between that and almost like a book that was written for all the questions that you have?

And because it -- all it's doing, it's taking what you have inside of you.

And following that, is mining for things that will make that stronger.

I've -- I've learned so much history in the last year.

I've learned so much about not just technology, but -- but by -- about my own nature on how I work. What I believe is right. What I believe is wrong.

I mean, I've had this explosion, because I'm using AI every day.
And I don't understand why that's not considered like a university in its own way.

JASON: Can I give you? So you have a perspective of that as a creative.

Think of the amazing things you can do with it. Can I view the perspective of, like, my son's generation?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

JASON: This is what they're thinking. While this sucks, the economy is so screwed, I will never be able to own anything my entire life.

Now, this is what they're telling us, speaking from my son's perspective, but everyone is telling us, don't worry about it, we're going to build, build, build, and we're betting everything on AI. Okay. Great. So it is going to get better, right?

Oh, how many jobs are going to be destroyed? So I can't do that one thing that I wanted to do because of AI? So the solution to why I can't ever take part of the American dream is what's going to eventually take the job that I want to get, so I can some day get the American dream. They're in that circle. And they're like, I'm screwed.

And then you look at the people like Elon Musk, that says, don't worry about it. Because automation, I'm going to be building all these robots. It's going to completely solve world hunger. But wait a minute. I won't have a job.

So none of the math adds up. They're like, wait a minute. And, no. It does. Remember, Stu. We've been talking about this problem for how many years. And I could not get anybody to listen.

I couldn't get anybody to listen.

The Charlie Kirk Effect: Why His Impact Has Only JUST Begun to Be Felt

Charlie Kirk’s passing became the defining story of 2025, and not simply because of the tragedy, but because of the extraordinary spiritual and cultural awakening that followed. Glenn Beck, Steve Deace, Liz Wheeler, and Jason Buttrill reflect on how Charlie’s life, integrity, and leadership transformed young conservatives, reshaped the American Right, and ignited a nationwide revival unlike anything seen in decades. From the shock felt across the country to the outpouring of renewed faith, unity, and purpose, Charlie’s legacy continues to move hearts and inspire millions. This episode honors the man who built a generational movement, awakened a nation, and left a light that refuses to be extinguished.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.