Best of the Program | Guests: Matt Kibbe & AG Andrew Bailey | 5/30/24

Olivia loves a challenge.

It's why she lifts heavy weights

and likes complicated recipes.

But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia.

She bundled her flight with a hotel to save more.

Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

You were made to take the easy route.

We were made to easily package your trip.

Expedia, made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.

On today's program, I sadly reveal that my on-air executive producer,

almost 20, 20 years,

went to go see a very strange Nazi movie by himself, a documentary, at first, I believe, glorifying

some of the Nazis.

No.

Well, that's his story.

You know, notice he stopped there.

No.

Well, good case, Stu.

But we also get into the Donald Trump case, which is almost the same kind of thing.

But he did that, I think.

Nuh-uh!

Gavel!

You don't want to miss today's extravaganza.

Here it is.

First, you have to declare a lot of things when you're traveling on a plane.

Guns, ammunition, knives.

I swear to you, the sign says swords and fireworks and gasoline.

I usually like, because I never know when I'm going to mow a lawn, and I just like a gallon of gasoline with me as a carry-on all the time.

But anyway, one thing you don't have to declare is your Burna launcher.

Non-lethal alternative to safeguarding your home that will send potential threats running in the opposite direction.

It's legal in all 50 states, no permits or background checks required.

Can be used by all age groups over 18, and you can pack it in your checked luggage without the need to declare it as a firearm, making your airport experience, you know, better than it's

going to be, you know, otherwise.

I mean, it never is good, but the Burna launcher saves you from a lot of headaches.

Right now, visit burna byrna.com/slash glenn.

Get 10% off your Burna launcher.

It's burna.com/slash glenn for 10% off.

Check out the latest news about Burna as well: byrna.com/slash glenn

you're listening to the best of the glenbeck program

welcome to the glenbeck program

i am not an attorney so i don't know but the

The judge in President Trump's hush money trial told the jury that they don't even have to agree on the crime.

They can all think, you know, I think his hair is a crime.

You know, four of them, I think his suntan is a crime.

And four of them can say, I think, you know, he falsified checks, whatever.

Whatever they think the crime is, because it wasn't really defined,

even if they don't agree on the crime,

if 12 of them think

he committed some crime,

well, then he's guilty.

I've never heard that before.

I've served on a jury.

I've served on a jury with multiple counts.

We had to discuss each count,

and we found this person guilty on some counts and not on others.

It would have been the easiest thing ever.

We could have been done in 10 minutes.

If all we had to do was just, hey,

these seven counts on this guy, does everybody agree he did one of them?

Yeah.

Okay, we're out of here.

Is this normal?

Andrew Bailey is here.

He's the Missouri Attorney General, kind of knows the law.

Attorney General Bailey, welcome to the program.

Thanks for having me on.

So,

again, I don't know the law, but this does not seem like the American of

justice in our courts.

Am I wrong?

No, you are absolutely right.

This reeks of desperation by the prosecutor and the judge to obtain a conviction.

If people were not previously convinced that this was an illicit witch hunt prosecution, they should be so now.

This is insane.

Look, since 2020, the United States Supreme Court has said that jury unanimity under

in criminal law is required under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It was not always that way.

There were two states prior to 2020 that did not require jury unanimity under the Sixth Amendment in criminal trials: Louisiana and Oregon for lesser offenses.

And the Supreme Court fixed that in 2020.

And so, for this prosecutor and this judge to say, hey, whatever you think, go ahead and do what you want.

It really violates the Sixth Amendment.

It violates the president's due process rights.

Because how's he supposed to know how to offer a defense if he doesn't even know what

the target crime is that he's

an element of the offense for which he's charged.

But then also, it empowers this jury to become a roving commission.

And again, that reeks of desperation.

They don't care.

They're going to throw everything against the wall, listen to all this evidence, not give the jury written jury instructions, and just convict him of something, whatever you want.

Well, there's, what is it, 32 charges, 32 counts, 34 counts.

So if two of them believe, you know, well, he's guilty on number, you know, 29, and two of them believe something else,

But they don't agree on the same counts.

How is that justice?

No, I think that's absolutely right.

And again, it creates a roving commission, and that violates the basic constitutional tenets that underpin the due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial

that has been incorporated against the state, certainly at least since 2020.

Again, I think it's desperate.

I think it's throw everything against the wall.

You know, it also reminds me of there was a Roman emperor who used to nail the laws to the highest point on the columns so that the Roman citizens wouldn't be able to read them.

And that's a lot what this is like.

I mean, the judge is saying, Jury,

I'm going to charge you to find a crime, any crime you want, and I'm not going to let you read the jury instructions.

Trust me,

you got to just go back and pick something you want to convict them on.

Okay, so tell me what the jury instructions mean and why would he not print?

Because I understand also that it is clearly printed all the time.

So

I've never tried a case where you didn't give the jury the jury instructions.

And why would you not want to?

Again, that's the law.

Judges determine law.

Juries determine facts.

And it's up to the jury to apply the facts to the law.

And so in closing argument, the prosecutor gets up and says, here's the elements of the offense.

Here's the evidence that proves each of these elements.

And it's like a checklist.

And you tick down it.

And then you show them the verdict form and say, this is how you find them guilty.

And if you're the defense, you stand up and say, the state didn't prove this, they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that.

And it etches in the jury's mind what to look for in that instruction packet when they go back and deliberate.

But how is the jury supposed to apply facts to the law if they can't see the law in front of them?

Also, may I ask,

when when the

oh shoot, he did something.

Oh, in the closing arguments for the prosecution, didn't they introduce new evidence or evidence that wasn't presented and he let it ride?

Completely objectionable.

It should have been stricken from the record, and the jury should have been admonished to ignore that.

It's called facts not in evidence.

It's one of the first objections you learn in any evidence class in law school.

And to have the prosecutor for the state of New York, Matthew Calangelo, Alvin Bragg, having that team stand up and testify as if they're witnesses to facts that had not been introduced is completely impermissible.

It demonstrates an abuse of the judge's discretion.

It should have been stricken from the record.

The jury should have been abolished.

But again, I want to go back to this idea of a roving commission.

Think about our experience under colonial England, where general warrants were issued by magistrates, and the British soldiers could search your home and quarter in your home for no basis whatsoever, just on any level of suspicion.

And you didn't even have to be charged with an actual offense that you would then be able to defend against.

Vague allegations were sufficient to jail you.

And so the founders erected these constitutional barriers to that kind of government intrusion into our individual liberties.

And again, the Sixth Amendment requires jury unanimity, which has been violated here, but it also prevents a, the due process clause also prevents a roving commission where the law is so abstract that the jury can roam freely through the evidence and choose any facts it wants to create liability.

That is not the, that, again, that is not what this country is founded upon.

That violates the president's constitutional rights.

And it once again just demonstrates this was never about a legally valid conviction.

This was never about an actual crime.

There is no crime.

This was always about taking President Trump off the campaign trail, and that ends up violating all of our rights.

Okay, so Andrew,

I'm

thinking about why this guy would do this, because I would imagine this is a slam dunk

overturn.

Wouldn't it be?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

It should have been dismissed at the close of state's evidence for failure to actually prosecute a criminal offense, failure to offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt on some of the elements.

It then should have been dismissed once again at the close of all the evidence.

This should have never even gone to the jury.

And the fact that they've now rigged the jury process to avoid the unanimity requirement and to create this roving commission, just once again, is one more piece of evidence to prove the illicit nature of the witch hunt prosecution.

So, do you believe this was done possibly

would you believe this was done possibly

because they just want the felon name after and then just dispute, well, it was some

conservative court that overturned it.

You know, we know the truth.

That's the only reason I can think of why you would do this.

Why would a judge want to be overturned, especially when it is so clearly going to be overturned?

Glenn, I think you're absolutely right.

I think two other points to make here, again,

the process and the timing.

I mean, this is a crucial period when President Trump needs to be courting the electorate and public, and instead he's tied down in a Manhattan courtroom.

But secondly, think about how long an appeal takes.

That doesn't happen overnight.

I mean, to the extent he is convicted, to the extent they obtain an illegal, illicit conviction this week or next, sentencing will be pushed out 45 to 60 days

at most.

And then an appeal is going to take a year or more.

And so this takes us in, even if President Trump

is elected president, this will haunt him and this will undermine the first few years of his administration.

This is so.

And they've poisoned a well that we'll be drinking from for years from now.

I mean, you want to talk about the end of the Republic.

It's this kind of stuff that ends the republic.

You don't win and because it's not just about him this goes back to what stalin created what the king king george created find me the man i'll find you the crime uh you know it it there there is no justice if things like this happen one last question um

i i served on a jury once and it you know it was a serious case but not a you know not a murder or anything else um but it was it was you know uh

abuse of a wife.

And

we had, I don't know how many charges, and we kept calling the judge in because we thought the judge was, you know, our friend and fair.

And we'd ask him, and he'd say, I can't tell you that.

I can't tell you that.

Here are the instructions.

You have to go.

And we'd call him back in.

I can't tell you that.

Here are the instructions.

And we couldn't agree on

all of the counts.

And so we ended up on, I think, on maybe two counts out of eight or something like that because we were split.

If we would have been able to say, oh, you four want this and you four think that case and that four think this, we would have been out of there by now.

Does it say anything that they have such a wide berth?

to agree on anything and it it takes them a while to

get through this.

I mean, I would have been done.

We would honestly, if we had those instructions, we would have been done the first day.

Yeah, I mean, that's right.

And again, that's why jury unanimity is so important to our institutional structure and to our individual rights, you know, and also the due process clause to prevent that kind of roving commission.

I mean, the prosecution's case here is best summed up as there is no crime, so let's see how much garbage we can throw on a wall, see if any of it sticks, and try to convince someone that it's criminal behavior.

And the judge is going to collude with us, not allow the jury to see the law, and then agree that, yeah, you are a roving commission.

Anything you want to find that's criminal, it's a grab bag.

You pick it, you choose it, you don't have to agree.

Let's get out of here with a conviction as fast as we can.

It undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system.

I also think it's dripping with irony that this is happening in a state like New York where they're not prosecuting actual criminals.

I know.

I mean, this is a state that prides itself on criminal justice reform and, and, you know, bail for everyone with a cashless bail for everyone.

And one standard of justice is Alvin Bragg's monster on his website.

I mean, how can he even look at himself in the mirror and keep a straight face with that kind of nonsense going on?

I'm sorry.

No, I promised one last question, but again, one last question.

The jury just sent the judge a note.

They want to

reread the instructions, beginning with how they should consider facts and what inferences can be drawn.

What do you take from that?

I think that's problematic.

It means that they know that they don't have direct evidence to prove some of the elements of the offense.

But remember,

there are two attorneys on that jury.

And those attorneys are telling them: look, we don't need direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, which includes reasonable inferences, is sufficient to obtain a conviction.

So it means they're stretching.

And

I think it's a reasonable inference for us as outsiders to draw that those attorneys are inviting that jury to stretch and use circumstantial evidence to try to find any crime.

Jeez.

Thank you so much, Andrew.

I appreciate it.

Andrew Bailey is the Missouri Attorney General.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Appreciate you having me on.

Thank you.

God bless.

What is the thing you're missing out on today because of pain?

Whatever that thing is, what would you give to be able to do it again?

And what if I told you, you might be able to?

You could.

I want you to give Relief Factor a try.

it's a hundred percent drug-free it's a daily supplement that helps your body fight pain naturally developed by doctors relief factor uses a unique formula of natural ingredients and addresses the inflammation in your body which is where almost all of our pain starts and it doesn't just mask the pain for a short time you don't take it when you're in pain you take it every day okay and it helps to remove or reduce or eliminate your pain all day, every day, wherever you're hurting.

In about three weeks or less, you'll see a difference and rediscover what it's like to feel better and live better every day.

Over a million people have tried Relief Factor.

70% of them go on to order more because it works for them.

Try it for yourself, please.

ReliefFactor.com.

That's relief factor.com.

Call 800, the number four relief.

800, the number four

relief.

Now, back to the podcast.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

A SARS-like virus now reached the United States.

It really came from a market that sold seafood and put the mask back on.

I want to tell you a little something about trust.

It may be the most important thing you can have in this life.

Can I not clearly explain the circle of trust to you, Greg?

No trust, no healthy relationships.

No trust, you're paranoid at work.

No trust in God, no faith, no trust, and every institution will crumble.

We've lost trust, all of it.

And not just in America, throughout the entire damn world.

And it's really no mystery why.

They lied to us over and over and over and over and over again.

The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research.

We didn't give them this much power.

They took it with all those lies and they still are.

We did fight back.

We may not agree with them but the rules are the rules.

And we still are.

FDNY personnel who oppose the mandate are making their feelings known.

But they have so much control with blackmail, lies, manipulation, money.

Their slimy, evil tentacles

are wrapped around every institution, every avenue that could possibly lead us to truth.

Every avenue, but this one.

We're just one of the few that refuse to submit, refuse to bend the knee, refuse to let this COVID catastrophe go unanswered.

Because without trust, this nation fails.

And the only way to restore trust is with a little bit of truth.

It makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says.

Thank you.

History will figure that out on its own.

Truth is the only way to restore this nation and to restore every fiber of freedom that runs through.

So tonight, we expose the truth of what happened.

Not only the origin, the moves, the players involved in this entire pandemic narrative that is destroying us, but we'll show you the cover-up of all of it as well.

Tonight,

crimes or cover-up?

exposing the world's most dangerous lie.

Now, that was 2001.

And let me give you 60 seconds of what we talked about in 2001, what we knew by piecing things together without

really anyone releasing documents.

Listen.

And this is why it's a cover-up.

We know that U.S.

taxpayer dollars were going to Wuhan, China through EcoHealth.

So here we have a virology expert that claimed the consensus among their peers was that COVID was not natural.

Part of his research was done via funding from the U.S.

government to Peter Dasek and EcoHealth Alliance directly to Dr.

Xi in China.

He responds with, quote, I spent New Year's Eve talking with our China contacts.

I've got a lot more information, but it's all off the record.

All find the genome inconsistent with expectations from an evolutionary theory.

That means this was lab-made.

Two days prior, he said COVID looked like it was manipulated in a lab.

These are the conversations people like Fauci were having in private.

Meanwhile, in public, they were denying everything and diverting attention.

The dangerous sentences that were redacted, and that quote, there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted.

Wait, what?

If scientists and journalists spoke out about any of this, they were silenced immediately.

We were demonetized for a very long time because this network would not play the game.

There was too many things wrong.

In 2021,

I did a special just connecting the the dots.

There's one man, and I think he deserves an awful lot of credit, Rand Paul, who was like a dog with a bone, being a doctor and a senator.

He didn't have to play those games.

And he knew Fauci was lying.

Now, with Matt Kibbe,

some people are going to pay.

Matt Kibbe is a Blaze TV host of Kibbe on Liberty.

He's also the the president of Free the People, who we have partnered with to air tonight's documentary

all about the cover-up as it comes crumbling down.

My friend, Matt Kibbe, how are you?

I feel like we've been working up to this moment for years now.

We have.

And people,

nobody thinks anybody's going to pay, but I actually believe because of what you're going to start showing tonight

and with Rand Paul, there's no, it's going to happen.

You know, you were right to

your special in 2021 was one of the triggers that my wife would tell you that you've made her life insufferable because

I'm just obsessed about this stuff.

I know, right?

And I've been obsessed now for four plus years.

And I started off just having sort of a libertarian instinct that these authoritarian measures just didn't make sense and they were going to create so much collateral damage.

But when you start going down the rabbit hole, you peel away the layers of the onion and it's something so much bigger than me as a cynical libertarian that always expects government to screw up.

Oh, no, this is.

But now

I'm seeing this big thing, and I don't have a chalkboard, but I have one of those crazy quilt things where you use yarn to draw one line to another.

And that was really

a lot of inspirations for the series, a lot of conversations I've had both on camera and off with Rand Paul, who also was a dog with a bone that just wouldn't let Fauci get away with it.

I mean, he's a doctor, so he instinctually

could understand some of the claims just didn't make sense.

Me as an economist, I'm way outside of my lane now, but we all had to become

epidemiologists, right?

Well, we all, we,

the one thing we had in common, you and I, at least, you know, because you're in a comm is, I'm just an alcoholic DJ that just found himself here.

But the one thing we had in common was it doesn't make sense.

And when it doesn't make sense, you can either sit in your little hole and dream up, you know, conspiracies, or you can start digging and looking for the facts.

And Matt, I had, at the time, you know this because you watched it, at the time, I had just enough of their conversations

and enough of, wait a minute, this guy went into the meeting, these two went into the meeting and

they changed their mind and they were hardcore.

Why did they change their mind?

Wait a minute, this email redacted looks as though Fauci and

Dasik are colluding to change the narrative and they know what's going on.

Now you have the goods.

Tell me what you have found and what is now available.

So, I mean, and it's been a pretty banner couple weeks on this stuff because a lot of Fauci's deputies are

starting to talk.

I think they know there is trouble coming.

Right.

They know that trouble's coming.

So we now, we had a former NIH director announce

in testimony that, of course we were doing gain of function research.

So pretty much a smoking gun where Fauci is constantly calling Senator Paul

the oversight, the responsibility, the constitutional responsibility, you have a mid-level bureaucrat calling him a liar.

I'm like, okay, there's something there.

So you just start to unweave these things.

And the scary thing about this, this series is really trying to be open-minded about how far we're going to go.

But I think this is a story much bigger than simply rogue bureaucrats chasing money and power.

It's much bigger than even sort of arrogant scientists saying, I can redesign

these viruses and not cause anything else.

It's more powerful than God or nature.

You're just peeling it back.

And this is what Jay Bhattacharya tells me in the first episode.

This wasn't a public health response.

It certainly wasn't a scientific response.

It probably is a national security response.

And why are they even involved?

And that's to me.

Wait, wait, what do you mean by that?

It's a national security response.

I mean that the actors, and we still don't know who they all are,

don't work at NIH.

They don't work at the CDC.

They work in the alphabet agencies, starting with Homeland Security.

Fill me in on that because I didn't see that coming.

I thought we were going to go to the Pentagon.

Tell me about Homeland Security.

Well, Homeland Security, FBI,

maybe the CIA, but

they use words that don't explicitly say CIA.

But it's funny, you...

Really?

The CIA wouldn't be clear on something?

You slipped up earlier and said 2001 instead of 2021,

which was a Freudian slip, because I think this story goes back to the response to

anthrax and the response to the war on terror and a bipartisan obsession with bioterrorism.

Both Cheney in the Bush White House,

Joe Biden, a guy you may have heard of before, who was...

And he occasionally has heard that name before.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I know that name for some reason.

I don't know if you would recognize that.

I know.

But we're discovering, I believe, and uncovering a mad science experiment driven by the security agencies to come up with this grandiose mad science experiment where we're going to imagine what our enemies might do to us.

We're going going to go harvest those viruses.

We're going to manipulate them.

And then we're going to come up with a solution to everything.

Okay, so wait, but

you know, people don't understand.

Congress got to do something.

No, that's the

Constitution is meant to slow people down because there's something happens and you're like, we've got to act now.

No.

But can you give anyone at that time, if that's where you believe this starts, the benefit of the doubt that they honestly thought maybe they were doing the right thing?

Oh,

I think we should still assume that

arrogant and misguided people with too much power and too much belief that they're smart enough to do such wild, crazy things

were explicitly trying to come up with a response to some biosecurity threat.

Remember, anthrax was a scare.

and we didn't know who did it or why they did it, and we probably still don't know who or why.

But they were saying, we need a response.

What if our worst enemies come up with a deadly virus and destroy us?

You have to ask how we ended up in China building dangerous viruses.

But I think, and I think Jay Bhattacharya, who I talked to in this first episode, he believes that it was a well-meaning but catastrophically dangerous and stupid policy.

And I think

if

Fauci would have come out right away and said,

we were involved, we were doing this.

It's probably at least a chance of that, but we were well-meaning.

He would have paid a big price for it because it was against the law.

But people would have kind of understood.

But the minute he started being draconian and making us pay for his life, he was doomed.

Yeah.

Doomed.

Yeah.

So I think there's two pieces of that.

He's obviously being a consummate apparatchic.

He's a bureaucrat.

He's a climber.

He's politically savvy on TV.

He knows how to lie well.

But I also think there was this

philosophical,

ideological bent.

that all of these central planners had.

They actually believe that they can rationally redesign civil society from the top down, giving scientists and other experts all the power.

This is the whole basic.

Civil society 2.0.

Yeah.

That's the whole color revolution thing.

They can redesign.

It's the Fabian socialists.

It goes all the way back.

I mean, the entire progressive movement was this arrogance, right?

But it goes back before that.

The guy that founded socialism, a French aristocrat, he actually had this vision where where he would replace civil society with with a council of scientists correct and they would just rearrange the the dominoes and and we're just uh molecules i guess in this scenario

you're streaming the best of the glenn beck podcast to hear more of this interview find the full episode wherever you get podcasts okay this is so

out

of control.

We're going to start with what they're trying to do to the Supreme Court now.

Everything, if you watched last night and you're a Blaze TV subscriber, thank you.

This, I said it a couple of times in the show.

We do not save the Republic if we don't know what's being done.

You cannot walk blindly into the next six months.

And I don't know anybody that is really laying it out like we're laying it out.

But once you understand the Rosetta Stone of what is happening to us,

all of these stories make sense.

Now,

why are they going after the Supreme Court justices right now?

They're going after Thomas.

They're going after Alito.

They're going after now Amy Coney Barrett.

Why?

Well, you would say to get them to recuse themselves on anything Donald Trump, and that's what they're saying.

But that's not it.

They are destroying that institution because all institutions need to be destroyed, discredited, and made to look fascistic.

You'll notice if you're somebody who is honest and you haven't been, you know,

co-opted by one party or another, our republic is in real danger.

Either way we go, we're in real danger.

And I don't mean because of Donald Trump.

I mean,

will Donald Trump surround himself, and so far I think so,

surround himself and listen to enough constitutional people to hold the line on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

He did last time.

He talks again.

He is an entertainer.

Can anyone understand that?

He uses hyperbole and he's an entertainer.

He's actually quite funny.

If you understand,

you don't take his words seriously, or I'm sorry, literally, you take him seriously.

How many times did he say last time, you know what, I should just get rid of the, we should just abolish the license for the press?

Well, there is no license for the press in the first place.

And

conservatives, I would hope, would be against that.

So they try to make him into Hitler while they are making us into a semi-autocratic state.

We are very close to becoming autocratic, meaning a dictatorship.

All you have to do is either pack the court or attack the court.

This is all part of a, what's called a color revolution, something that we did with our tax dollars through the CIA

all the way through the Cold War.

And we all thought it was okay because we were fighting communism.

But they never stopped.

In fact, they found a better way to do it.

They went through the State Department and then all of these NGOs.

I lay this all out last night.

All of these NGOs that can do the work for the CIA and the State Department, but they work together and they have overthrown the Middle East.

I didn't realize it at the time, but it wasn't, it was a few hours in

when we heard that the White House had called Zuckerberg and everybody else and said, don't stop the social media, don't.

because social media was part of it.

That's how you have a color revolution.

You have to to co-opt the media.

You have to then have a semi-autocratic, not fully, a semi-autocratic government where you can say

this is fascistic.

Then you have to have elections.

Once you have all of the pieces, and I laid them out, there's seven.

There's seven pieces of this.

I'll explain it later if we have time.

But watch the show.

It comes out on YouTube today.

Good luck with that.

Comes out on YouTube today at 6 p.m.

On my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Glenn Beck.

But I lay it all out.

There's seven steps.

We have all seven of them now.

So what are they doing to, let's start with Alito?

Well, let's start at the beginning.

What did they do just a few months ago with Clarence Thomas?

Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a friend and rode on his jet.

And that friend, now this is going to come as a surprise to you, Clarence Thomas went on vacation with somebody who is conservative.

He didn't go with a deep, deep progressive.

You know, he's never taken a vacation with George Soros.

Who would have thunk?

So they go after him.

Then they go after Samuel Alito.

Now, this one is getting worse and worse and worse.

What was it?

First, we know that his wife just on January 6th flew the flag upside down.

Well, that would be appropriate no matter which side you were on.

And I think at least everybody I know in my circle of friends, and I don't have George Soros fans in my circle of friends.

We were all horrified and thought our country is in real peril on January 6th.

It would be appropriate for either side to have flown that on January 6th.

Okay, that's the argument we have been having.

Okay?

But I've got some new facts that have just come out, and it's quite interesting.

Then we find out that she flew the Appeal to Heaven flag, which of course just means Christian nationalism.

Well, it also was the ship, was the

flag for all of the ships in Massachusetts.

George Washington came up with a flag and it was all really kind of about the lumber to make the sails and the masts of buildings and to be of

ships so they could build ships and have these giant masts because we had giant trees.

But

let me tell you now what we do know on the Samuel Alito thing.

What we just found out

is that it's really not about the flags.

It's not about January 6th.

There's some neighbors of Justice Alito.

Now, I know what this is like to have neighbors who love you

and who hate you and will do everything they can to destroy you.

I know I lived in New York City.

There was a woman that moved in.

She's 35 years old.

She moved into her mom's house just a few doors down from the Alitos.

She is a BLM activist, also

a retired PBS executive.

Okay?

She decides to move into her mom's house with her boyfriend and their pandemic puppy.

They needed a pandemic puppy because the masks, of course.

So she decided that she was going to start picketing the Alito's house

abort

SCOTUS,

fascist Alito.

Alito was at January 6th.

So she's picketing

the Alito's house.

This is is before the flag.

She then plasters her mother's front yard near a school with political signs that say F.

Trump.

Trump is a fascist.

You are complicit.

And then

her daughter or her boyfriend called Mrs.

Alito the C word.

She was a little upset.

You know, especially your 70s, you're in your 70s, you're not living in Britain.

The C word is really

probably the worst thing you can call a woman in America.

That is when she hoisted the upside-down flag.

Their house had been picketed.

They had now somebody in the neighborhood across the street with absolutely no reason

for children, no concern.

And then, when she brings it up, her or her boyfriend calls her the C-word.

Yeah,

I think that would be somebody that would say, you know what, our country has gone to hell.

What the hell?

What is this?

We can't be civil.

Because she went, after she took the signs out about Donald Trump and everything in the school, that's when she went to this woman,

Mrs.

Alito, and said, said,

graciously, thank you for removing those signs.

That's when she was called the C-word.

Okay.

All right.

So it had nothing to do with Stop the Steal.

But

did the New York Times until today even allude to that?

No.

No.

No, we just heard about how the upside-down flag was flown on January or right after January 6th

because she was a big supporter of riots right across the street from where her husband works.

Makes a lot of sense.

Now, what else did we find out?

Well, we also found out that...

Remember when we, Stu, we tried to tell you the story of the appeal to heaven flag?

The first place i went was wikipedia and then i went to other sites to verify but i quoted wikipedia by saying it was a sign of of distress that was used in the 60s do you remember that paragraph okay used in the 60s and then i said

and

also now blah blah blah and i questioned that we both questioned that i knew it from the 60s i have never seen it anyplace else.

Do you remember?

Okay.

Well, now we know why.

Wikipedia

had edited the pine tree flag page, and it's still

happening.

On Wednesday, it was just a normal flag.

By Friday, it was a symbol of Christian nationalism and right-wing extremism.

Now, guess who used to run Wikipedia and set all the people in place?

Who is the CEO of Wikipedia?

The woman who is now running NPR

that we've been talking about in conservative circles that is

so far left, remember, the guy from NPR said, we're completely out of control.

And do you know where she worked before Wikipedia?

She was at the State Department

where she was working in countries we were doing a color revolution.

Do you see what's happening here?

Now

we have Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland.

He's arguing that the Department of Justice could force Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and now

Amy Comey Barrett off of any election case, anything about Donald Trump.

He says, you know, the time has come where we just can't trust these judges to do it, do the right thing.

Okay, so what are they accusing now Amy Coney Barrett of doing?

Well, nothing.

However, her

husband is now representing a local Fox News station, okay, in some court case.

So would that be like

Judge Juan Merchin, the one that is in New York on this Stormy Daniels case,

where his conflict is his daughter is raising tens of millions of dollars on behalf of the Democratic Party?

I mean,

Because he's just doing what John Adams did.

If you want to look at Fox News as something horrible, a local Fox News station, oh, it's just the most evil thing ever.

John Adams represented the British

when we were fighting the British.

So he's just doing what he's supposed to do.

A conflict of interest?

Well,

maybe.

I don't think so.

Could you have any more?

Like, I don't know, what he does will help Amy become a bigger judge someplace else.

Where we have the judge in New York playing all kinds of games just to make sure that he gets a conviction and making his daughter very, very famous.

and able to raise tens of millions of dollars for the Democrats.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.

Or not.

Americans, do not

sit

down.

Don't riot.

I don't have to tell you these things.

You just appeal to heaven and stand your ground.

Do not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

You are on the right side of history.

May God save the Republic.

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments.

It's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right.

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows.

Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost.

Rules and restrictions apply.