RADIOOctober 26, 2022

The possible DARK ORIGIN behind THESE far-left policies

Stacey Abrams recently said during an interview that the burden of inflation is directly linked to the burden placed on women who are unable to receive an abortion: ‘Having children is WHY you’re worried about your price for gas.’ In this clip, Glenn reveals Democrats’ DARK history with efforts to control population numbers. And he shows why Abrams’ statement — or even Biden’s recent statement on climate change — may have more to do with that dark history than it seems…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So it's almost as if the Democrats have a different goal. Isn't it?

STU: I almost spit out my drink as you said that. Yes, it's almost that way. I don't know what it could be.

GLENN: It almost feels that way. Right. Well, let me tie a couple of things together. Do you remember when Stacey Abrams, a couple of weeks ago, said something incredible about inflation. Listen.

VOICE: I would assume, maybe incorrectly, but while abortion is an issue, it nowhere reaches the level of interest of voters, in terms of the cost of gas, food, milk, things like that. What could a governor, what could you do as governor, to alleviate the concerns of Georgia voters about those livability daily, hourly issues that they're confronted with.

VOICE: Let's be clear, having children is why you're worried about your price for gas. It's why you're concerned about how much food costs. For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can't divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, from the economic realities of having a child.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, maybe I'm old-fashioned. But I never thought I would ever hear an American political party say, the answer to inflation, is to kill your kids.

I mean, isn't that what she's saying?

STU: Abort your way to prosperity.

GLENN: Right. Now you want to understand that. I want to play something that was said this weekend, from President Biden.

Cut three.

BIDEN: The biggest thing though is that we have to change what we are -- those things that are affecting the environment.

GLENN: Okay. I barely understood that. But he was saying, the main priority here, is the environment.

And climate change.

Okay? Now, how does that explain, what Stacey Abrams said?

About to give you a decoder ring. So Jason, lead researcher on my staff. When he heard Stacey Abrams say that, he decided to Google, two words. Inflation. And abortion.

Just roll that out. See what's happening. You wouldn't believe what Google pumped out.

Activities relevant to the study of population policy for the United States.

You see, long before the cult of climate change. And before there was the -- the global warming. There was global cooling. But before there was global cooling. There was the population bomb. Okay. This is about early 1960s. Progressives were all on board with the cult of population control.

This is American eugenicists. Okay.

They were respected by progressives and tyrants all over the world. These were the guys. Back in those days, in the early '60s. These were the same guys that had come from Germany, that were doing all kinds of experiments. And they were expected for their knowledge.

So we started to read the memo. And I think it reads like a script from a horror movie. But it reveals what the left truly stands for. Whether they remember their origins or not, I'm going to just give you this memo. And I -- the first part is directly from the first page. And I want to quote it exactly. This memorandum is responsive to your letter, January 4th, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities, relevant to the formation of population policy. Defined as legislative measures. Administrative programs. And other governmental actions, that are designed to alter population trends. So right off the bat, kind of makes you wonder. Wait a minute.

Was the abortion thing, was that about women's rights?

Or was it about some post apocalyptic strategy to control population?

Well, it appears, that at the time, they blamed American families. But not all families.

Just families they wanted control of.

Okay. Listen to this quote.

Justify an explicit US policy, new of encouraging a specific universal limit, on family sized.

As distinguished from proposals aimed selectively at welfare recipients and racial groups.

Wow. Now, listen to this.

The minorities. The poor.

That's who they were targeting. The people on the left, claimed to care about the poor.

And minorities. Kind of makes you wonder about LBJ's great society, right?

And his War On Poverty. Makes you wonder why the real effects of ensuing massive welfare state, ended up making people poorer, and breaking up families. And those families, those mothers, being single, now having to have abortions. Wow.

The memo goes on to mention, a mass wave of contraceptive handouts was the preferred method. But, this is the part I found interesting. Effective contraception is officially distributed to all those who want it. And if abortion is available on demand, as a backup measure.

So abortion on demand was not even their main plan. It was the backup plan. But I thought it was about women's rights.

Now, here's where we get to the Stacey Abrams weird comment about inflation and abortion.

It references inflation.

As something that goes hand in hand, of full employment, and thus to accept relatively high or at least not preventable unemployment levels as necessary. Yet more women enter the labor market under conditions of full employment. And the relationship between employment of women and lower fertility seems well established. An examination is needed of, in effect, the question of, how much inflation could or should we risk to achieve lower fertility.

Let me unpack that here.

For one, they wanted women in the work. Not for equal opportunity.

But because, as it says in this study.

Women tend not to have so many babies. So fertility goes down. And they thought that all of the women getting jobs might spike inflation. Which it did.

The price of housing doubled. You had two incomes now. So everything doubled.

So they figured, we have to measure this. The party of virtue. The memo comes up with an attachment, that listed other proposed measures by population control experts. Now, it never said that these were actual plans by Planned Parenthood.

These are other proposals that they included.

Restructure the family. Postpone or avoid marriage. Alter the image of the ideal family. Compulse other education of children.

Encourage increased homosexuality, educate for family limitation. Fertility control agents in the water supply, encourage women to work.

Now, these are a few. And they get nuttier and nuttier.

Now, I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood had planned to do any of this. But it shows, to what lengths the academics were willing to go. Fertility control agents, in the water.

How many Democratic issues can you find in this memo? Compulsory education of children?

How many of us have wondered, why they are claiming, their kids as -- or our kids, as their kids?

And they will -- they do not want -- and we -- excuse it saying. Well, they don't want to. Well, because the unions. The unions are blocking it. Because they'll lose the jobs. Is it? Is it that?

Why are they ramming sexually explicit comprehensive sexuality education, into our school.

Is it encourage increase -- encouraged increase homosexuality?

Because that's what it seems like, the LGBTQ2+I lobby is fighting.

They want more homosexuals. It's not, you want rights. Okay. You have rights.

You won that. Why are -- why are the hyper sexualizing of kids. And exposing them to drag queens in schools and libraries.

Why?

Educate for family limitation. Who has wondered why they've advice. They've shouted, destroy the nuclear family. Encourage women to work. Isn't workplace gender discrimination illegal?

So what's the fight really about there?

Regarding the education, they keep referencing both kids and families, check out this quote from the full memo. Quote, in this area. It seems particularly important to distinguish between education and indoctrination.

Whatever may be the merits and effectiveness of truly, a truly educational effort, an indoctrination campaign, may well have the only negligible effects on fertility values. But may provide unintended support, in building public opinion, which seeks legalized compulsory fertility control for selected groups. And I'm quoting. Particularly welfare recipients.
The admission here is insane.

Indoctrination. They admit, has its bonuses. Especially on poor people.

Google the words, until they change the algorithm. Google the words abortion and inflation. You'll find the whole memo.

So when I played cut three from Biden. Play it again, please.

BIDEN: The biggest thing though is that we have to change what we are -- those things that are -- affect the environment.

GLENN: Okay. Have you noticed that the policies that they are pushing put the environment over people?

Right now, common sense would say, we're about to go to war. With Russia. We must have oil.

We've got to open up oil fields. And pumping. And gas lines.

You've got people that are going to freeze to death. In Germany, and all over Europe.

And they won't open up and -- full power -- their nuclear power plants. Why?

Why?

It's almost like it's Malthusian. It's anti-human. Yeah. Not a lot has changed. Not a lot has changed. This is Planned Parenthood in the 1970s.

This is what they were saying, behind closed doors.

Are the New Jersey Drones RECREATIONS of Alien Spacecraft?

Everyone is watching the skies in New Jersey after tons of mysterious large drone sightings. But the government either can’t verify them or is refusing to. So, what’s going on here? Glenn’s head researcher & former Dept. of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill joins to explain one theory: These are U.S. military recreations of UFO craft. While countries like Russia have gone “all in” on hypersonic weapons, why has the U.S. not? Is it because we have something better? And does this explain why the Pentagon has confirmed UFO sightings and why experts have testified to Congress that the U.S. government is “reproducing” or reverse-engineering alien spacecraft? Or is this all just a psy-op?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So Jason Buttrill is our head researcher for the show.

And head writer for TV. And -- and also, former military intelligence.

I wanted you to come on, because I wanted you to explain, the reverse engineering, that these drones may be.

Because Stu and I were talking earlier today.

Like in the last five years. The New York Times printed, UFOs are real. And we were like, wait what?

And nobody paid attention to it. Well, UFOs are real, but we're not really sure.

Well, we're not really sure. But we have pieces have UFOs. That are definitely otherworldly.

Huh. And then there was testimony after testimony. And the latest testimony was, they're real.

Well, they may not be real.

But we do have devices that don't come from this world.

And we're trying to reengineer. Because China and Russia and everything else is trying to reverse design these things.

And you're like, my -- my head is going to explode.

So what do you think is -- because all of this could be misdirection.

What -- tell me the reverse engineering thing. And do you believe that?

JASON: Okay. That's a loaded question. It's kind of like when Michael Shellenberger, just testified at the UAP, you know, thing in front of Congress. Where he was like -- he was the one extremely brutally honest person. Said, look, these things are real, I don't know they come from.

I don't know where they come from.

I will say, that the last time, the UFO phenomenon has been brought out so much, especially as kind of a cover for what the government was doing, was the stealth program.

Exactly, the B2. All that tech.

There was story after story after story of the government encouraging UFO talk, because they wanted to mask what was going on.

Now, there's things going on right now.

There's a couple of different technologies in the military-industrial complexes all over the world. One is hypersonic weapons. Russia has gone all in on hypersonic weapons.

China, eh.

Secondary. The US. Eh. Secondary. That's kind of just odd to me. Why would we be like, eh. And kind of look at Russia as they kind of go all out. News today, that the United States and NATO is expecting another hypersonic attack/tests from Russia, their Oreshnik missile, hypersonic missile, is going to be used in the next 24 to 48 hours. That's what they're expecting.

GLENN: It's good they're telling us in advance.

JASON: They're telling us, letting us know. But, again, why is this not such a big deal to us?

Why are we -- are we prioritizing some other tech?

Now, I start thinking about that. And I start thinking about this entire UFO phenomenon. You talk about the retro fitting. And reverse engineering.

GLENN: Reverse engineering.

JASON: It came out in that -- in that congressional hearing.

GLENN: It came out a couple of times. But in that congressional hearing where Shellenberger was there with so much credibility.

JASON: They talked about a program. The government program called the immaculate constellation. And they were very honed in on what they called reproduction vehicles. Which, the first thought in my mind was the back of granddad's '57 Chevy. That sounded like a reproduction vehicle.

GLENN: I don't think that's what they meant.

JASON: That's not what they meant.

GLENN: That this was immaculate.

JASON: Exactly right. Now I get the reason for the name. We're connecting dots like only you can.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. They're not making 57 Chevies.
(laughter)
All right.

JASON: But so what they meant, actually meant by that was UFO craft, UPE craft, what they're hinting at, that they have either recovered or reserved. And tried to retrofit it. And tried to make it on their own. Reverse engineering.

And they even go so far as to say, these are actual government reports, that they said, they are observing hostile country off certain waters, that were doing a test of their reproduction vehicle.

Now, to me that sounds like China.

They talk about it in detail, how there was Naval assets.

They were watching to see. It looked like they were scanning, to see if it showed up on their radar. Then after the test, they dispersed and went away, and the vehicle went away.

Now, personally, I think there's huge talk about drone warfare. This is not happening in a New Jersey turnpike vacuum.

Three hours ago, there was a story from Reuters. Over the past couple of weeks. All of these random, what happened to be drones, were appearing over Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. This is happening all over the place. And it's accelerated over the, what? Past two years? Two, three years. This is accelerating. This is not just a New Jersey turnpike phenomenon. This is everywhere. Now, all the attention is right there.

And to me it's very interesting. That after Russia is going all in on hypersonic weapons, and gone to fully using them on the battlefield, in a war that we're actively engaged in.

That now we're talking about this a whole lot more.

GLENN: But how does this not make us look pathetic? Because you wouldn't believe. I mean, if Russia did this.

And also, we cannot track it on our radar.
You would be like, oh, really? Ivan. You can't track it. Wow, I believe you.

I mean, you would have to do it over somebody else that would fool their tracking. Not ours.

Why would you -- I just think that makes us look weak.

Which makes a case, that, yes. The Biden administration is behind it. Because it makes us look weak.

JASON: Right. Remember then, if a lot of these disclosures are true and accurate -- and, again, I'm not saying that they're from outer space. It could be. But I'm not saying that. It could just be --

GLENN: I don't think they are.

JASON: Would you agree that we're on the verge of a technology explosion?

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: Quantum computing and everything. Wouldn't that seem like aliens?

GLENN: Yes. Remember what I said about the Hindenburg last hour. And the war of the worlds. They knew at the time.

The whole country was unsettled. Radio was about the age of the i Phone.

And -- I mean, as far as being masked.

And people were just unsettled. War was in the air.

They knew everything was about change. It was just in the air.

That's where we are.

I mean, that's what I said Zachary Levi.

He's like, Glenn, three years from now. By 2030, no one will recognize anything.

You won't recognize your job.

You won't recognize your life.

You won't -- you won't recognize anything by 2030.

He said, 2030, I think we've got two years.

And I said, maybe. Maybe four.

STU: Those aren't -- those lines aren't that far apart from each other.

It's already 2025. It feels -- 2030 feels like it's way out in the distance.

Really, not that far away.

GLENN: But remember when I said 2030.

STU: It felt like this.

GLENN: Everyone was saying 2050. 2050.

If we ever get there.

And I said, I'm telling you, it's 2030.

And now, others are saying, it's right around. Not just Zachary Levi.

Other people who actually know things. Unlike me. Are saying, it's some place very soon.

Could be next year. Soon. But it's here.

STU: On the quantum computing front.

There's that announcement from Google this week, on the Willow chip. They say that Google claims that Willow was able to complete one particular problem, in five minutes, while the same task would have taken today's supercomputers 10 septillion years to finish.

And septillion is -- that's a lot. Ten, then zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.

GLENN: You could have just said the federal deficit.

STU: Yeah. That's, by the way, longer than the universe existed. Has existed. That's what they say.

So that -- our today's super computers, longer than the universe has existed, and it took the Google chip five minutes.

So you add AI to that.

You're not going to go to the library. And go, I want to do this quantum computing. That is going to be sold for the highest dollar.

You're going to have to bid on the time. You're going to have a really good reason.

And it's only going to be scientist studies. Governments. That have access to these things.

Oh, one more thing. AI will have that.

Now, what do you do when you introduce something, as we talked about last, what? Tuesday, Wednesday show.

When you have something that you -- you think is your friend, but it can think in five minutes, what -- what to you, would take longer than the history of the universe.

Not even you. The supercomputer of today. Longer than the time -- the entire universe has existed.

Yeah. We're going to be able to put that back into a bottle.

It's not going to outsmart us.

DUNCAN: Yeah. I think we are on the verge of a wildly transformative time, in military hardware.

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: And I think there is a lot of posturing, as far as what is about to get exposed and used accurately.

That's personally what I think is going on right now.

I don't think every single sighting that's happening everywhere.

It's probably hobbyists. If you listen to what John Kirby actually said.

He said that most of us or some of.

He didn't say all of everything that's being observed out there, is something that they can't explain.

SABOTAGE: The Organized Resistance to Trump’s Second Term | Ep 399

Donald Trump may have won the battle for the presidency, but a fight against a resistance more powerful than the Democrat Party has begun. In this episode of Glenn TV, Glenn Beck reveals the deep-state blueprints and the players working to oppose the mandate voters handed Trump in November. It’s a shadow cabinet comprised of federal judges, state governments, the ACLU, the Tides Foundation, Soros, and Democracy Alliance. This new resistance even has origins linked to the U.K. While Trump’s impeachment over Ukraine tipped us off to a rogue state during his first term, Glenn explains how the Hunter Biden saga exposed just how deep the corruption really goes — and why the deep state will do anything to stop Trump.

THEORY: Did the Pentagon LIE About the New Jersey Drones?

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew recently claimed that the mysterious drones hovering over New Jersey are being launched from an Iranian “mothership” off the U.S. coast. Is there any truth to this or the Pentagon’s denial that the U.S. military is involved? Glenn speaks with New Jersey Assemblyman Brian Bergen, who recently attended a “mind boggling” meeting with the Department of Homeland Security. DHS, he says, claimed to have no information at all on the drones, except that they’re untrackable. Something doesn’t add up here, Glenn says. So, he runs his own theory by Assemblyman Bergen: what if the military is lying to us?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So yesterday, Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew told Fox news this about the drones in New Jersey.

VOICE: You know, I'm also on the transportation committee, on the aviation subcommittee, and I've gotten to know people.

And from very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources, I'm going to tell you the real deal.

Iran launched a mothership. Probably about a month ago.

That contains these drones. That mothership is off -- I'm going to tell you the deal.

It's off east coast of the United States of America.

They've launched drones. It's everything that we can see or hear. And, again, these are from high sources. I don't say this lightly.

Now, you know, we know there was a probability. It could have been our own government. You know it wasn't our own government, because they would have let us know.

It could have been some really glorified hobbyist that we're doing something unbelievable. They don't have the technology. But let's pretend that's possible.

A third possibility was somebody, an adversarial country doing this.

Know that Iran made a deal with China, to purchase drones, motherships, and technology.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

Now, the Pentagon came out and said, that's not true.

There's a state senator, you might have seen this, on X. Last night.

Here's what Doug Steinhardt said, on these drones.

Cut 13.
(music)

VOICE: The best information that we have available to us, at this point, suggest that these drones are coming from offshore. That when we try to make contact with them. They become evasive and elusive. You know, from my perspective, if they're American assets. If they're American military. If they're American drones, and I think we owe the American people answers or explanations.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, Brian Bergen is another New Jersey assemblyman. He drove two hours for a private meeting with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security. And everybody else. This was going around last night.

And he left the meeting.

He said, it was the biggest bunch of bullcrap he's ever heard.

He's former military. He said, we don't know what it is. Of course we know what it is. And they gave us no information. He was really angry.

He's joining me here in about four minutes. So stand by.

I think I know what these are. I think -- but I'm not ruling out, the Iran thing.

I mean, that -- that -- I mean, a strike right now, would put the world at war.

I don't think so. The Pentagon said had to. But do you trust the pentagon?

The problem is here. We don't trust anybody.

Because they've all betrayed our trust.

That's why people voted on both sides, for Donald Trump.

Because we have to know the truth.

GLENN: I want to bring in Brian Bergen. I saw Brian on I think it was X yesterday.

He's a New Jersey assemblyman, that drove a couple of hours, for this meeting with, you know, the DHS and the FAA, and everybody that should know, what the heck is going on with these drones. And he walked out early. He was so flaming angry. And I wanted to get him on today. Brian, how are you?

BRIAN: I'm doing great, Glenn. Thanks for having me, man.

GLENN: You bet.

So why did you walk out yesterday? What happened?

BRIAN: Well, so we got called down there. We being all 120 members of the state legislature of New Jersey.

And the assembly and the Senate, got invited to come down to the special legislator-only briefing down in the state police headquarters. And the state police was there, and the Department of Homeland Security was there. And they were supposed to tell us what was going on.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on just a second. So they didn't even come to you?

BRIAN: No.

GLENN: They said to all the legislators. Instead of, how many guys were speaking? Ten?

BRIAN: Less.

GLENN: Less than ten. Okay. All right. That's good. All right.

BRIAN: Yeah. Yeah. So we all went there.

And the first thing they say, this is not a classified briefing.

In fact, we could have probably let the press in.

Then they went on and they said, that they know nothing. And they have no understanding what's going on.

They don't know where they're coming from. Where they're going to.

Or who is responsible for it.

And so I was just -- I was just pissed, that we're there to listen to such a Bush-league amateur hour presentation, that they could have given us via text message.

And what really got me upset, was the primary reason why I left early.

Was two things.

The colonel or the state police said he had a helicopter of his, hovering directly above one of these drones, which is called a six-foot drone.

But he felt unsafe for his pilots. And had them land. Ten minutes later, he says, hey. It would be really nice to know, where these things are going or coming from.

I'm like, why did you follow him? When you had it in your sites.

I mean, I have no idea why --

GLENN: Now, I just -- I want the audience to know, you were -- you were an Apache helicopter pilot in Iraq. You have a bronze star, combat action badge. Several honors.

You graduated at West Point. You're not a nobody on what happens in the sky.

BRIAN: Right. Right. That's exactly right.

First of all, what he said, people were hovering above it. I said, well, that's stupid.

Who hovers above a target? You know, you want to get a standoff distance and follow it. You know, so you can use your assistance to track it.

Yes. I'm speaking from some level of experience here.

But more importantly, it was just common sense.

You have this thing in your sites. That you know is potentially a threat.

Because we don't know where it's coming. Where it's going. And who is controlling it.

And it's 6 feet big in the sky.

And you just let it go.

I mean, it was mind-boggling to me.

The second thing that they said, that really sent me through the moon.

Was the Department of Homeland Security. Has some device. That they will give to the state police, that will help them identify drones in the sky.

And it's supposed to be pretty cool technology.

It filters out birds and stuff like that.

It's supposed to be really good.

Anyway, one of my colleagues said, well, when are you going to get it?

And the colonel of the state police said, it should be here in a couple of days.

And I was like, in my head, should be here in a couple of days? What the hell are you doing?

Somebody go get in a van. Drive it to freaking New Jersey, right now. You know, Glenn. This is the level of stupidity, that we're dealing with here.

And that's why I was so frustrated. And continue to be frustrated.

GLENN: Okay. So let me run a couple of things by you.

First, a Congressman came out yesterday. And said, I have it on good authority, that it's Iran.

And I have to ship off -- if that were true, would we not have followed these things back to the ship?

Why aren't we -- if they're going back over the water, and they're not ours, why wouldn't we be blowing them up, over the water?

BRIAN: Well, so that's a great question, and it was Congressman Van Drew who said that. And I think very highly of Congressman Van Drew. And he's not someone who normally says something outlandish like that. But in this case -- I rag on our state government all the time. And in this case, Homeland Security.

But our US Navy is a force to be reckoned with. Now, I'm a West Point grad.

We beat the hell out of the Navy this weekend.

But I have to give them some respect.

Because they would not allow an Iranian ship of any kind to get close to us.

So I find that to be pretty unusual, that that happened.

GLENN: Correct.

So the next thing is, if we couldn't track these things.

I've been in the new jersey and New York area.

There's a lot of airplanes in the sky.

If you can't track these. And you don't know where they are, you would ground all of the planes. Because you don't know if they're hostile to planes.

You don't know if someone of them just gets into the flight path of another.

There are planes everywhere in the sky.

So, again, that leads me to believe, you can track these. And you know where they're coming from.

BRIAN: Yeah. I don't know all the technology available to them.

What I do know. We're the United States of America. I live in a state. New Jersey, which has a 56 billion-dollar budget.

The fact we don't have the resources to figure this out. Is ludicrous.

You're right. There's a lot of -- the concerns are piling up now.

That you mentioned. What if they go dark, as the governor said. You know, that's a danger to other aircraft that operate in visual flight rules at night.

You know, there's a lot of potential issues here. You know, some lawmakers are calling for a -- a shutdown of drone activity in the sky. But, you know, we don't even know who these people are. What they're doing. They certainly won't live listen if we shut down activity.

GLENN: Right. What if we take all the guns from the good guys?

BRIAN: Right.

But what we do need to do is common sense. It just needs to be an all hands on deck approach.

The state police, the National Guard, which can be mobilized by the governor.

The Department of Homeland Security. And they need to follow one of these suckers to wherever it goes, and let's figure who is responsible.

GLENN: So here's what baffles me, Brian. You get one guy with a laser pointer in his backyard, and he points it at an airplane and a pilot, and the FAA tackles that guy, they -- they grapple down from helicopters and make sure that never happens again. How do we -- if this is some private citizen or citizens doing it. How would we not know that?

BRIAN: You're 100 percent right. And that's why, in an interview I had yesterday, I said, it's a lack of effort.

It has to be a lack of effort.

You know, the FBI is an amazing organization. That takes down people, all the time, before they do all kinds of crazy stuff.

They have a litany of successes that they can point to, of stopping things before they happen. Because of the counter terrorism effort. And the intelligence efforts. Why the hell they can't find anybody responsible for this. Or pick up any chatter is crazy.

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you my theory.

And please, if you think it's nonsense. Shoot it full of holes.

My uncle used to be in military intelligence, back in the '60s and '70s. And he did all of the nuclear stuff. And when the stealth B1 bomber came out. The wing. He said, old technology. And I said, what?

And had he's -- because remember, it was first spotted. And they were like, what is that?

It's a UFO. And he's like, that's been available for a while.

They'll announce it to the country.

And they'll fly it around. And people will speculate.

Oh, yeah. We have a B1 bomber.

It's new.

I think a good chance is, we are sending someone a message. Or we're doing something with the -- I mean, Russia just launched, you know, a hypersonic missile.

It doesn't make sense that our government doesn't know what this is. And can't stop it. And doesn't see it as a danger.

What makes sense, is they're lying to us.

They know what this is.

And it's not extra terrestrial. And it's not any of that crap.

What do you think?

BRIAN: Well, so I don't disagree with the premise here. One of the things I will say is unique to this area, and where all this is happening.

We have a military inflation called Picatinny Arsenal.

And it's very important, to Picatinny Arsenal, that there's good community relations. Because, you know, we want to maintain that here.

And it's a huge resource for the army where it's at. Any uncertainty about what's going on military-wise around here, is bad. Bad for them. And bad for the future of Picatinny.

So they have an incentive to overcommunicate when things are happening. And they often do that, when they're giving testing. They overcommunicate. So in this area here. It's probably unlikely, that there will be anything that government would want to do, that would cause, you know, public concern.

GLENN: So then what is your -- what are you left with, that makes sense to you, the most?

BRIAN: You know, to be honest. I'm not left with much.

Before this briefing, I would have told you, it's FedEx. Or UPS. Or Amazon testing out delivery capabilities of aircrafts.

You know, and they want to do it at night. So as not to freak people out. But then by this point, it's blown up so much.

You would think somebody would say something.

They would say, oh, yeah. It's us. Chill out.

So I really -- I really don't know.

I am legitimately concerned. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not one that jumps to conclusions.

But the -- the fact that nobody knows. And the people that are supposed to know, they give us no confidence.

GLENN: And you believe they don't know. You believe they don't know.

BRIAN: Yeah, I do. Could the CIA know? Maybe I was briefed by them.

But I believe the State Police, and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon do not know. I really do. And that's scary.

It's equally scary if I'm wrong. And they do know, and they're doing this to us.

GLENN: That's the world we live in today.

You know, it's always like, it could be this. Which would mean that Jesus is coming. But it could mean this. Which means Jesus is copping.

BRIAN: Yeah. That's right Glenn. In this situation, this is the part that frustrates me. They can figure it out.

A couple of Apache helicopters. We'll follow these freaking things.

And we will figure it out for you. Someone can get this done. They're just choosing not to do it.

GLENN: I know somebody with an Apache. A private individual with an Apache helicopter.

BRIAN: Well, let's get it over here.

A little rusty probably. But I think I can probably figure it out.

GLENN: They're probably listening right now. If you want to check in, we'll maybe line that up. Thank you so much, appreciate it.

God bless you, Brian. You bet.

Glenn GOES BALLISTIC Over the Media's Love Affair with CEO Murderer

The legacy media should be ashamed of how it’s covering the United Healthcare CEO’s suspected killer, Glenn says. CNN recently removed its own on-screen banner to show off the murderer’s abs. And left-wing activists, including sitting Senator Elizabeth Warren, are excusing his actions because they don’t like the healthcare industry. “This is the absence of all truth,” Glenn says. Glenn and Stu review some other ridiculous media takes, like the suggestion that back pain caused the killer to go crazy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, I'm going to do my best.

To not take all of the nice stuff, that I just said in the last half-hour, and flush it down the toilet.

Because I'm a little irritated.

I'm a little irritated at the love we are showing for this killer.

The United Health Care killer. First of all, CNN -- and I am not making this up.

One of the anchors on CNN said, do we have it. Play this. Play this.

Watch this, if you happen to be watching.

And I'll describe it after. Go ahead.

VOICE: Yeah, the clips we were watching at the top of the segment, are driven by the fact that this is an attractive --

VOICE: We have to drop the banner to show why.

VOICE: And it's deeply troubling.

STU: And they actually do it.

GLENN: Okay. They actually do it!

This -- this banner, at the bottom of the screen, that's on all the time, they're saying that this guy is getting -- wait.

Charlie Manson could have been, you know, I don't know. The guy who can't believe it's butter. And nobody would have said, yeah, I know.

But look at him.

STU: Fabio?

GLENN: Boy, have you seen him? He's let himself go.

STU: Has he really?

GLENN: Anyway. I'm one to talk.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But we never say that.

I don't care how good-looking you are!

STU: Hmm. I don't think we never say it. Like, for example, I saw the -- did you see -- was it a Mexican assassin?

A drug cartel assassin. Did you see her the other day?

Sara saw it. She was attractive, and that was the only thing people were talking about.

So that does happen. I think it does happen from time to time.

That being said, it's not supposed to happen on CNN.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Right.

And are people saying, you know what, maybe her hits were okay?

STU: No. No.

But I will say, looking at the picture, I totally assumed, there will be a movie made about her, in the future.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

STU: That will seem to maybe glorify the stuff she did. Which was terrible.

GLENN: We are glorifying what this guy -- listen to this one. Listen to this one.

I'm not going to give his name.

STU: Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for that.

You're the only person I've seen do that. Everybody else --

GLENN: This guy has been made into a hero.

STU: It's worse than the typical mass shooter. Typically the media, while they have all their gun points. Aren't trying to make him into a hero. They're trying to make him into a hero.

Giving his name over and over again isn't a good idea.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I haven't heard anyone saying anything about pulling guns off the streets either. Have you heard?

STU: No. Especially, and it was a ghost gun. It's like Joe Biden's favorite topic.

GLENN: I know. I guess all you have to be is good-looking.

STU: You know why? And on the left. On the left. Are you an anti-capitalist? Then fine. Good job with the 3D printer.

GLENN: So this guy went. He killed somebody in cold blood, and everyone is excusing him.
Everyone on the left and everybody in the media, excusing him.

Well, look at his abs. I mean, really.

What does that have to -- you know what, you know what that ties into? His back problems.

STU: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Don't even begin to talk to me about back problems, you wuss.

My gosh. I've got back problems. You're 20. And you have those abs.

They aren't that bad, attitude.

STU: If you can do that many situps, I'm sorry. Your back problems can't be that bad.

GLENN: Shut up. Shut up.

And if you're in your 20s, and you had back surgery, you're a moron, unless you absolutely had no other choice, but then you're still a moron, if you thought it was going to work! Back surgery hardly ever works.

Honestly, how many people do you know, that had back surgery. And they went, you know.

I mean, I feel like I'm 20 again.

I don't know anybody that says that!

I know back doctors, surgeons, who are like, don't come to me yet.

Don't come.

Until you -- this is a quote from my surgeon. Until you beg me to cut you open. And I have begged him. And he's like, not quite yet.

I mean, how do you -- oh. Your back hurts. Oh, boo-boos.

STU: I think there was at least rumors, or indications from his online writings that he had spinal fusion surgery.

GLENN: Well, fine! Lots of people.

STU: It's serious.

GLENN: Yeah, but lots of people have had it.

STU: No, that doesn't justify murder. But I really don't understand if you have spinal --

GLENN: How self-absorbed are you?

We were just talking off the air. Went to a Christmas party. Went to the studio's Christmas party. And I was there for what? Like three or four hours. Okay. Standing on hard concrete floors.

I stand about 45 minutes. And I -- that -- that is like -- that's a miracle, if I'm standing 45 minutes. And not in in agonizing pain, in my lower back and legs.

I stood there for four hours. Did you know I was in pain, Sara?

Did you know I was in pain, Stu? Okay. You know why?

Because I know Pat, who is in worse pain than I am. And he never says anything.

What the -- you are so self-absorbed, that you think your problems, what happened to me. What they did to me. What they didn't do for me.

I'm going to speak for humanity. And shoot a dad who has kids. Are you -- and then you glorify this guy?

This is the absence of all truth. This is the deception I talked about 15 minutes ago.

STU: Yeah. And, you know, it feels like it's a new moment in a way.

Like it feels like that.

But what exactly separates this from the way we handled George Floyd? What exactly -- like, when you're burning town cities, and everyone is saying, well, yeah.

But they -- but racism.

This is the exact same thing.

With the exception of 81 percent of the American public, don't approve of racism, like they do their own health care.

Health care -- health care is actually generally pretty well-received in this country.

GLENN: Well, better received before Obamacare.

STU: Yeah.

Obamacare is the worst approval rating of all of the insurance.

That is true.

But generally speaking, we don't hate our health care as much as everyone is portraying it right now --

GLENN: You want to go to health care. Go to Canada. Could I change it?

You know what this is?

What was the doctor?

What was the guy who shot the abortion doctor, that Bill O'Reilly was blamed for?

STU: Yes. I don't know his name thankfully.

Because he's a murderer.

GLENN: Right. What was the doctor's name.

STU: It was Tiller. George Tiller.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

And remember that? All we talked about, was how Bill O'Reilly, who did nothing. Was responsible for the shooting, of a guy who was killing babies every day.

Okay? And no one -- no one was on TV saying, you know, he was killed.

STU: Violence is never the answer. But!

Let me give you my rant on why abortion is bad. And this is a good opportunity for us to discuss the -- no, it's not.

No. A murder is not a good opportunity.

It's important, of course, to discuss health care and abortion. There's nothing to do.

There's no new justification to discuss them because there's a murder. You're totally right.

I would love to hear what Bill O'Reilly is --

GLENN: Let's call him. Have them call.

STU: We should.

GLENN: If I have time today, otherwise tomorrow.

STU: Yeah. Because he was blamed for that murder.

Blamed for it.

He did not commit it.

He was blamed for it.

GLENN: You know what, I'm so mad about murder. I'm going to murder someone.

STU: Huh. By the way, Glenn. You know, bits and pieces of his manifesto have leaked out.

They are quote after quote after quote of what left-leaning people say about our health care system.

GLENN: No, Stu. It was both left and right.

STU: Oh, yes. I'm sure.

Well, he didn't like wokeness. Did he kill anybody over wokeness?

I'm sorry. Did I miss that part of the story?

Was he too afraid that United Health Care was too woke, was that his criticism?

I missed that. His criticism was every left-wing criticism of health care.

Anything you want to say about, well, we spent this much. And we're only in 40-second place in life expectancy.

All that stuff, that you've been hearing forever.

From Michael Moore documentaries, was this -- this guy's manifesto.

And if we were consistent at all, all we would be doing is looking around for left-wing people to blame this murder on. Now, I don't think that's the right way to approach things.

I think people with the guns should be the ones to get the blame for the murders. That's what I think.

And I don't think you should be --

GLENN: I'm very tempted. I'm very tempted.

If I were just a political person, that just wanted to have our side win.

I would be very, very tempted.

STU: Yeah. And I can understand the temptation.

I feel like it's not the right thing to do. Because it's not true.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: Beyond that. I get it.

And here is -- they went after. I mean, they absolutely tried to destroy Bill O'Reilly over that.

They tried to destroy him. They tried to rip him off the air. They tried to destroy his life and his career. As if he was the one -- they also, here's another person they've done this to.

Glenn freaking Beck. Go back to the times when -- I don't remember the exact story.

But it was related to the Tides Foundation.

A guy who -- who went out and tried to do some terrible crime.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

STU: And there was no evidence, he even watched your show, but because you brought up the Tides Foundation a bunch of times.

And he at one point, tried to criticize the Tides Foundation, they tried to ruin your life over that.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I had forgotten about that one, I was thinking about the Gabby Giffords shooting.

STU: Yes, there we go again.

GLENN: And then I remembered the guy who hung himself, the IRS agent who said -- who I was blamed for wanting him to be hung. First, it was Glenn Beck had him strung up.

Then it was, suicide.

Well, Glenn Beck made him want to hang himself. I mean, this is so ridiculous.

So ridiculous.

STU: Yeah. I mean, Glenn. Today, Elizabeth Warren. A US senator, came out and said, violence is never the answer, but you can only push people so far. A US senator said that!

GLENN: You know, with everything that's going on, with communism and North Korea.

The only ones that were eaten, were North Koreans by Jeffrey Dahmer. I mean, yes, he ate people. But all the heads in his refrigerator were North Koreans. So I kind of understand, you know.

I don't condone cannibalism.

But you can see why he had a deal against North Koreans.

That's how insane this argument is!

STU: Yeah. It's not. It's not a well-reasoned argument, as you point out.

And I don't care how many situps, the guy did.

I don't care that he had nice abs, that he really enjoyed. I don't care that you thought his smile was nice in the video that identified him.

You are a legitimately horrible human being, if you're cheering this guy on. You are a terrible human being.

You know, my -- I have a relative, Glenn.

GLENN: May I change that? In the spirit of Christmas.

STU: I wanted to say five other things. And, yes.

GLENN: You are so lost in darkness.

STU: Okay. Fine. Fine. Fine --

GLENN: I'm trying.

Stu, I try to be a better person. And you drag me down every day.

Lord, it is his fault.

STU: Strike him down!

GLENN: There's a lot of smote coming. At some point.

STU: I have a relative who works for a company, that is associated with -- with United Health Care.

And to the point, that like she's had Zoom calls with Brian Thompson. You know, group calls.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And she's like, I -- he's like the nicest guy in the world.

Everybody in the company loved this guy.

He spent all this time.

GLENN: Of course, they're all -- they're all sheaving the average person. In the back.

STU: I don't think that's true. You know, people -- he was known in the company, as one of the good guys, who was trying to reform the problems in this -- in the industry.

He was a guy who was constantly encouraging low level employees to be able to have new opportunities, and make their lives better.

This was a good man!

A good man!

A good man, who came up. Whose dad, by the way, worked in a grain elevator.

He came up from nothing!

And was a massive success, and was -- was loved by the people around him. And these mother -- people. Are -- are cheering on his cold-blooded murder in the streets of Manhattan.

GLENN: Let me tell you the part that really makes me want to sound like you. If just a minute.

Glad you're here.

You know, the -- the thing that really makes me angry, is -- sorry.

I have to use "Les Miserables" as an example. God, I'm such a weirdo.

That's why I have no friends.

STU: Better than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

That's usually where you go in this moment.

GLENN: So you know the revolution is started by all of these, you know, socialists. They're all rich kids. They're all rich, privileged kids that start the revolution. This is who this guy is.

He has absolutely nothing to whine about. Nothing to whine about.

His family seems to be a really gracious family. I don't know.

But it's these rich, spoiled white kids, that just think they know better than everyone else. They grow up to be rich little white liberals, and they are so screwed up, and nobody even seems to mention that. Here's 1 percent!