Best of the Program | Guests: Bill Whittle, Jamie Kilstein & David Steinberg | 7/18/19

I don't know, Stu.

Welcome to the podcast.

I don't know.

Is I mean is today's

I mean should we start with the spooky stuff on the podcast today?

I think so.

We started on the show and it was kind of a spooky first hour for the show about Musk's new Neuralink and what this means.

Also, Bill Whittle joins us and what we saw, the Apollo 11 documentary, it's this weekend, that that anniversary is happening 50 years since man landed on the moon.

Seems a lot longer than that, doesn't it?

Also, what Russia might be doing to us.

Jamie Kilstein joins us.

Leaving the social justice cult.

An amazing documentary and breaking news today from David Steinberg, the latest on Elon Omar.

He says he has proof now, and it's been published, that she married her brother.

And don't forget, well, we have the, I guess it's next week or two weeks from from now, we have the debates coming up.

The election's been largely about health care, which is fascinating considering the left already got their health care plan.

I don't know if anyone followed this Obamacare debate over the past 10 years.

That was the left's idea.

Yeah.

So we go back and look at the biggest seven lies and what's coming in the future as far as healthcare from the Democrats.

The first two episodes you can find on Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

The first two episodes are devastating on what those lies did to the American people in the healthcare.

Part three, which airs tonight, talks about the same Trojan horses being ridden in today.

Yeah, and it's all available on demand.

Check it out: Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Use the promo code GLEN.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenn Beck program.

I have been following something for two reasons.

One is personal, and the other is because I am a

freak about new technology.

I am fascinated by new technology and the brave new world.

It is both terrifying and

exhilarating.

Man will be either more free than he has ever been at any time in human history,

or, I used to say, the biggest slave in human history, but he may wipe himself out.

I've been fascinated by what is called AI, AGI, and ASI.

AI we already have, artificial intelligence.

We already have it.

AGI is artificial general intelligence.

We are a general intelligence

being.

We have general intelligence about a lot of different things.

Artificial intelligence is really only one thing.

So

Watson can play, what is it?

Big Blue can play chess.

Watson can

do trivia on Jeopardy.

I think that's the way they work.

They can't do the opposite.

So if it's Watson that can answer all of the trivia questions, it cannot also play chess.

It's AI, artificial intelligence on chess or artificial intelligence on trivia.

Artificial general intelligence will be able to do both and many other things as well, just like you can, except they master it.

They'll be the best at it.

When that happens, you start to approach what's called the singularity, which is a time when the machine, you won't be able to tell the machine from a man.

You will cross a Rubicon of what is life.

And

they don't know how long it will take to go from AGI to ASI.

And ASI is super intelligence.

We will be flies in comparison to ASI.

So this is the thing that Bill Gates has warned about, Stephen Hawking has warned about, Elon Musk is warning about, is this AGI, ASI conundrum that if we hit it and we hit the point of singularity,

we don't know if it's going to be benevolent.

Now the other reason why I have been fascinated by this is because I have a daughter who was born with cerebral palsy.

On the flip side of AGI and ASI

is miracles, miracles, things that you never would think are possible.

For instance, you want to learn French?

Okay, just download it into your brain.

You want to repair the

actual brain pathways

in your head after a stroke?

Not a problem.

We'll just insert some, you know, some sort of electrode into your head and it will repair the brain.

It will just build bridges to repair that pathway, so you won't be affected.

I mean, the things that are on the horizon are amazing.

Most people have said this can't be done.

My daughter has been going through about a year of testing to see if she can have brain surgery because she had several strokes when she was born, and she

has both sides of her brain affected.

But now she is having epileptic seizures.

She's been having them for, she had them when she was a kid, and then when she turned about 18, she started having them again, and she's

now 30.

And it has totally disrupted her life.

And she can't drive, she can't do a lot of things because you never know if she's going to have a seizure, and they're hard to watch.

So we've been looking into this technology where they can actually implant electrodes into your brain.

She's tried every kind of medicine.

It doesn't work.

But

it is amazing what modern medicine can do.

And she's at the final testing point now to find out if they can actually implant these, like these, these little, and I'm sorry for anybody who actually knows all the scientific, you know, jargon around this for butchering this so badly, but they can put like little

probes, little bars, little little

strands

into your head and thread that through all your capillaries and thread that all into exactly the right place.

They map the brain in 3D digital, and then they have to put it right in the right place, and then that sends out a signal and it it maps the brain wave, if you will.

And when it starts to see the tremors start,

it sends out, like a pacemaker, a signal to stop that and to regulate it.

It's amazing.

Well, Elon Musk

has just announced something that makes that look like child's play.

He is, he

just announced,

with neuroscientists at his side,

something

that is called Neurolink.

Now, he says at the beginning of

his talk that

he's doing this because he believes, and so does DARPA, that no one is working on benevolent AI.

They're all just trying to get to AGI first, because whoever gets to AGI first is going to rule the world.

But he has been warning, and others have been warning, and DARPA has been warning and working on benevolent AGI.

We need to make sure that whatever it is we're creating doesn't look at us like rodents and decides to exterminate us.

We won't be able to understand it because it will be thinking so fast.

So what he's been trying to do is how do we

bond

with AGI?

How do we fuse?

This is transhumanism.

It's another thing that

Stephen Hawking warned about and was misunderstood by the end of his life, where he said there won't be any Homo sapiens left by 2050.

What he was talking about is humans as we know it will be over because we will be so augmented with technology that you won't be able to survive if you're just a natural human.

So he introduces the neurolink.

And again, his goal is to

be able to interface with AI

so we are not left behind.

But what the first phase is, is an upgrade of what my daughter has been going through.

And what he introduced was 10,000 times better

than the latest technology.

10,000 times.

He says that it will be ready for humans in a year.

And it is, it's, what's amazing is it's like a sewing machine.

It has to be done by a robot because the probes are the size of a human hair.

And they have to be threaded in between everything and put exactly into the right place of the brain.

And he has built this machine that is a robotic, looks like a robotic sewing machine.

And it implants these.

But so you know,

this surgery is a really delicate thing to do today.

He believes, and he says that this machine will do it within a year, and he showed the machine,

it will be like LASIK surgery.

You'll be able to go in and have these implants put into your head in an hour and then walk out.

Now, that's phase one.

Phase two is to help people walk, remember, do different things that for some reason, whether it's a stroke or Alzheimer's or whatever, it will repair the brain.

It will not repair the brain.

It will just be the bridge.

For instance, it will record.

So, if you're driving to work every day, you see certain things, and that helps you remember where you are.

So, it will record all of those things that you're seeing.

And when you are lost and you can't figure out, it automatically pushes those things out.

Now this is remarkable.

You can't move your arm, you can't move your leg, it will push you, and it will remap the brain for anything that is broken.

Phase 3,

which he says is around the corner,

phase 3 is a neural link.

You want to learn how to speak Russian?

Download it.

And you don't have to go get chips or anything else.

You will think it.

And Google Translate or whatever the translate system is that's online will be a part of you.

So you'll be able to understand.

You'll be able to read.

You'll be able to speak.

You want to learn something.

It will just be downloaded into you.

More importantly,

it will record all of the things that you have done.

It will map your brain and it will be a two-way street.

So you want to send messages, you want to whatever, you will be able to think it and it will be done because you will be part of the internet.

Now the real problem with this is

who's controlling this?

Because you won't be able to compete.

For instance, let's say we go to socialized medicine.

This technology will continue.

But if we have socialized medicine, this, I guarantee you, will only be done by the rich.

If it's only been done by the rich at the very beginning,

are those people that are uplinked, you're not going to be able to compete with them.

What do they do with this until all of us get it?

And if all of us get it,

who's controlling it?

And can they just shut you off?

They don't like your...

You're becoming dangerous, you are saying the wrong things, so we're going to deperson you.

We're already seeing this happen with tech now, they're building ghettos.

But if everyone is super, super, super smart

and they can just cut you off from that and turn your system off, and you become a monkey.

What

is coming our way?

Both miracles

and madness.

I believe in miracles.

I believe the best is in front of us,

but not if we continue to act like monkeys.

You can read all about this.

Elon Musk tested his brain microchip on monkeys.

It enabled one to control a computer with its mind.

We're already seeing this.

You'll see people who say this is doomed to fail.

I don't believe they're accurate, and neither did Stephen Hawking, neither does Bill Gates, neither does Elon Musk, and a lot of others.

This has been on the horizon for a while, and this is what people are doing now

because they truly believe this is the future.

Madness or miracles.

I have a couple of other updates for you on technology that I want to get out of the way while we're here, but I'll do that in one minute.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Hey, I have some other good new I have some other good news for you on the technology front.

It's

it's now happening in Sweden

They are implanting microchips under their skin.

I want you to know this is definitely not the mark of the beast.

More than 4,000 people in Sweden have had the chips about the size of a grain of rice inserted into their hands.

I believe that's exactly where the Bible says.

It's either in your hand or your forehead.

So about 4,000 people have inserted this into their hands with pioneers predicting millions will soon join them or else.

It's like a glorified smartwatch.

It helps the Swedes monitor their health and replace key cards, allow them to enter office buildings.

That's so convenient.

Who wouldn't want that?

You go to the snack, you know, the snack deal.

You never have to look for quarters or dollars.

You just...

Wow.

So you get like all the funions you want without bringing change?

Yeah.

This is a dream come true.

You no longer have to have a credit card even.

You just walk in and it just

takes your number.

Here's the best thing about it.

It's new technology that no one ever predicted before.

Well,

this is something that's never been written about.

Well, it's never been discussed before.

A little bit.

It has been.

Yeah.

It's definitely not the mark of the beast.

Yeah.

This is crazy.

So the other thing that is happening is, what is it, Libra?

Yeah, the...

It's not really a cryptocurrency, but no, it's not.

The kind of cryptocurrency that Facebook is talking about.

Okay, so somebody is going to do this.

Now, imagine if you have Libra and Facebook will not say one way or another what they're planning on doing about this.

Let's say you have Libra, okay, and Libra becomes the currency.

Let's say it's especially like on Amazon, okay?

And in the future, we're all going to be buying everything probably from something like Amazon, if not Amazon.

But they have their own currency and

you've been depersoned because of your opinion or things that you've posted.

Can you buy anything with Libra?

I saw this episode of Black Mirror.

You're right.

Yes,

exactly.

Exactly right.

It's here, America.

It's here.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's it's Glenn, and I want to tell you about something that you should either end your day with or start your morning with, and that is the news and why it matters.

If you like this show, you're going to love the news and why it matters.

It's a bunch of us that all get together at the end of the day and just talk about the stories that matter to you and your life.

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Bill Whittle

joins us now.

He is

done a documentary on Apollo 11

and he's done it on the Daily Wire's YouTube and it is really, really good.

Welcome to the program, Bill.

Good morning, Glenn.

How in the blazes are you?

I'm very good.

So tell me the story because this is already, I don't know if you've seen what they're saying now that this is the white patriarchy and everything else.

And we're not supposed to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, but it is a remarkable thing that happened 50 years ago.

I'm so glad you brought that up

because as you well know, if you ever saw the footage,

the kind of

the highlight of the moon landing was when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted that giant foam we're number one finger in the

soil and started chanting USA, USA, we're number one.

Well, you will notice that they were wearing white suits, and while their hats weren't pointed, they were still white.

Here's why I want to bring that up.

What they said when they got off the ladder and they went to the plaque

on the leg of the lamb, they read a plaque that's still there.

It'll be there forever.

And here's what it said.

It said, Here men from planet Earth first set foot upon the moon, July 1969.

We came in peace for all mankind.

Now, if that is not the most gracious, generous,

deeply, deeply humble and

kind of magnificent thing to do.

Ah, Bill, they use the word man twice.

Oh, well, there you go, I guess.

They didn't say him,

they didn't say him, her, or they, them.

And that's the real issue here.

Bill, tell me, because I think this is really fascinating, that the world, as they watched, more people saw this than anything else.

We watched it simultaneously all around the world in every country.

And

what's amazing about the way this was done is

the rest of the world did not look at this as an American thing they looked at it as humans actually being able to pull this off precisely right 600 million people watched this back in 1969 which means that every single person on the planet who had access to a television set watched at the same time.

If they didn't have a TV set, they'd go and look in through store windows where they were selling TV sets.

I was lucky enough to have watched the Moon Landing at age 10 from the Plaza Hotel, and there were tens of thousands of people in Central Park watching it on projection screens down there.

And you're absolutely right.

No one thought of it as an American moment.

Everybody thought of it as a human moment.

And

I think that's what makes some people just so...

virulently opposed to this whole idea.

Because it wasn't just a great technological achievement.

It was a great technological achievement accomplished by the United States of America, but done

in such a generous and noble fashion that everybody on Earth felt like this was their achievement.

Right.

It was never phrased as...

I mean, there was the competition with the Soviet Union, and that is one of the reasons Kennedy knew we've got to get our crap together because we have to be in space.

But that was never

the spirit of it.

Not with any of the astronauts, not with the people of NASA.

They were just looking to do something that mankind had never done before.

Precisely right.

And on a later mission, when they left a plaque for the dead astronauts and cosmonauts who had died in the attempt, they included the Soviet cosmonauts on that plaque as well.

It was

it was the only way for us to fight a war that we've been in for 50 years.

And by the way, we used all of our what otherwise would have been destructive methods of war.

We used missiles and rocket technology.

We had test pilots.

We had aircraft carriers recovering the vehicles.

We had our radar stations tracking them, which were originally designed, of course, to track incoming missiles.

All of this military hardware got channeled into the only place where we could actually compete with that hardware and not face the fact that each side had 25,000 nuclear weapons pointed at you.

And people,

you know, before the Soviet Union collapsed, people don't don't understand that basically in the early to mid-60s, towards late 60s, this entire thing was basically a sales pitch, Glenn.

You know, the world consisted of the free countries and then the First World, the Second World World, the Socialist Nations, and then the huge, uncommitted third world.

We were basically in an ad campaign against those Soviets, trying to convince them that our system was better.

And I might point out that by the middle of 1958,

the Russians had launched the first two satellites for a combined weight of 1,300 pounds, and we'd launched the second two for a combined weight of 33 pounds.

So we're down 40 to 1 in 1958.

And when Kennedy became president, he understood that we could not as a nation survive with forget the technological edge, we couldn't as a nation survive thinking that we were second best.

And so he proposed the hardest thing that's ever been done.

And frankly, Glenn, he got it all in the first seven words.

He said, we choose to go to the moon.

And that was the hard part, making the choice.

Everything after that was just an engineering challenge.

It's amazing to me, and I wonder whether this could happen again.

I've had several conversations with the historian Arthur Herman

about the concept in one of his books, which is the Freedom's Forge and how we won World War II.

I'm not sure that we could do that today.

I mean, we have Google working with the Chinese and not with the Americans.

I'm not sure we could get everybody on board today like we did then.

Well, I have to tell you, up until about two years ago, I mean, I was an Apollo kid.

I was an astronaut at five.

It was just paperwork that had to be completed.

Yeah, right.

But up until about two years ago, I thought, man, we really may have lost this edge.

And then when I saw

SpaceX land the Falcon Heavy boosters simultaneously, and I heard the cheer that went up from the SpaceX millennials, who were in large part the engineers for this.

I realized they hadn't heard that sound in 49 years, and that was not since that night on July 20th, 1969.

Any company whose official recovery vehicle is named, Of Course I Still Love You, that company is going to Mars.

They're going to do things and have already done things that the Russians can't do, the Chinese can't do, the Europeans can't do, and NASA can't do.

because that company

is under the vision of a person, one individual who decides, hey, you know what?

It might be kind of fun to launch a Tesla into space, and we'll play David Bowie music, and we'll have Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on the navigation screen.

Inconceivable that Boeing would do such a thing, right?

But they're having fun.

That's the difference.

This time they're having fun.

This is much more like what we're going through now is much more

like the

turn of the last century, where the inventors were rebels.

Right.

And just, it was the wild west of invention.

Yes.

If you think about all the names, some of the names I just mentioned,

Boeing, Grumman, Northrop, Hughes, Cessna, Lear, these are all named for individual people.

And what it meant was, if you had a vision, you could take a risk because the company belonged to you.

And all the innovations came out of that, but even some of the big failures, like Hughes's Hercules, which everybody called the Spruce Goose.

He said, I want to build the largest airplane in the world.

Everybody said he was nuts.

But since it was his company, he could do it.

It turned out that that particular experiment failed, but somebody said it, absolutely got it perfectly once.

They said, if there had been an FAA in the golden age of aviation in the 1930s, then today we would be traveling from New York to Los Angeles in a propeller-powered airplane with wooden wings at 4,000 feet.

It would take 40 hours and cost $9,000.

And that's what happens when you let people compete against each other and drive for the top instead of for the bottom.

Is there still a, because

I'm about your age, Bill, and I remember I saw something

just the other day that there's one of those robotic hands that you just you you have a grip and just an extension and it can get things off of shelves.

And I thought, oh my gosh, I haven't seen one of these since I was a kid and that was a toy.

You know, it was like, that's the robotic hand from space and that's what the, that's what they, you know, they're using on the moon.

And it's now it's just a, you know, something that you use, you know, to get things off of a, of a higher shelf.

Is there that moment of imagination

like we used to have when we were kids with the, with the moon shot?

It's funny you mentioned that because in the first episode of this, after I lay out what's going on with the actual landing, I say you can't understand how we landed on the moon unless you understand the idea of a cap gun.

Because in the 50s and 60s, nobody was talking about space yet.

Sputnik hadn't happened, so it was Cowboys and Indians landing in America.

But here you are, and you want to sell a toy gun to kids, and what you want is you want that kid to be able to pull the trigger, have it go bang, and if you can have smoke come out of it, even better.

So this isn't Red Dead Redemption, and we're not going to do it in the Unreal 4 engine, and we don't have particle effects, and we're not going to have sound effects.

We have to physically make this thing work in the real world.

So they decided, I know, let's make a little red strip of paper and we'll put little blobs of actual gunpowder there.

And when you pull the trigger, it'll pop that little thing of gunpowder and it'll go bang and there's a smoke.

Now that's an actual engineering challenge.

And you couldn't do that in a computer.

You had to make it work in the real world.

And that practicality was what allowed us to get to the moon.

That and the fact that you and I had fathers that would let their sons go out with rolls of caps and actual claw hammers and smash them all at the same time and make a big old noise.

And if you lose an eye in the process, well, that's the price of going to the moon, Palestine.

That's right.

That's exactly right.

Bill,

thank you for this great salute to Apollo 11 and to the moonshot and reminding us how good it felt.

How good it felt.

Thank you.

The thing I'm most proud about this story is there are so many backstage human elements, so many weird things.

Boz Aldrin said held communion on the moon.

The first fluid poured on another planet was wine.

There's so many interesting human stories behind the technology, and I'm just extremely honored to have had a chance to speak for those men, of whom I think four remain who actually walked on the moon.

It's a tremendous honor for me.

Thanks, Bill.

Bill Whittle, billwhidd.com.

You can find this documentary that he has done.

It is fantastic.

It's Apollo 11, What We Saw.

It comes from our friends of the Daily Wire.

You can find it Daily Wire's YouTube, Apollo 11, What We Saw.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

So last night I was watching this little mini doc.

It was about 10 minutes long.

It's about the planned U.S.

nuclear attack against the former Soviet Union.

And our plan was to wipe the Soviet Union off the map.

Now, I'm always fascinated by these things because they're plans for everything.

You know,

that's what the Pentagon is supposed to do, is plan for everything.

And the plans for the Soviet Union coming across and killing all of us and taking over the United States, those are just as diabolical and evil.

And they didn't happen.

but they were planned just in case.

You have to have that plan.

I hope the United States has a plan for any scenario.

That's their job.

But I was interested in seeing this because it was a plan that was developed in 1945, right after the Second World War, and it was dated September 15th.

I want you to listen to this and tell me if anything sticks out.

Listen to a bit of this.

Western media has largely focused its attention on the Cold War US-USSR confrontation.

The plan to annihilate the Soviet Union, dating back to World War II and the infamous Manhattan Project, are not mentioned.

Washington's Cold War nuclear plans are invariably presented as a response to so-called Soviet threats, when in fact it was the US September 1945 plan to wipe out the Soviet Union, which motivated Moscow to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities.

Had the U.S.

decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place.

Neither the Soviet Union nor the People's Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.

Right, right.

The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.

The USSR developed its own atomic bomb in 1949 in response to the 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.

Now, listen to this.

I'm quoting from the rest of this.

The document outlining this diabolical military agenda was released in September 1945.

It's worth noting that Stalin was first informed through official channels by Harry Truman of the infamous Manhattan Project at the Potsdam Conference in July 24th, 1949, barely two weeks before the attack on Hiroshima.

But the Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan Project as early as 1942.

Were the 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the Pentagon to evaluate the viability of a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 bombs?

So they're making the case that the only reason why we bombed Japan was so we could test it out to see what would it take to really wipe out the Soviet Union.

Then, towards the end, it says, in the post-Cold War era, under Donald Trump's fire and fury, nuclear war directed against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran is on the table.

Today's president, Donald Trump, does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war.

Communication between the White House and the Kremlin is at an all-time low.

In fact, in 1962, the leaders on both sides, John F.

Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, were acutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation.

They collaborated with a view to avoid the unthinkable.

The nuclear doctrine was entirely different than the Cold War.

Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction.

The

1 trillion plus plus nuclear weapons program was first launched under Obama, and it is ongoing.

Today's thermonuclear bombs are more than 100 times more powerful and destructive than the Hiroshima bomb, and both the U.S.

and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons already deployed.

But moreover, and more importantly, an all-out war against China is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon, as outlined by the RAND Corporation, commissioned by the U.S.

Army.

This is insane.

It ends with: the U.S.

has a long

history of political insanity geared towards providing a human face to U.S.

crimes against humanity.

So I'm watching this and it just slowly starts to go awry.

It goes from a documentary to a

propaganda piece.

And so I did a little bit of research.

It is coming from a guy in Canada who is a huge supporter of the Soviet Union, has been for a very long time, conspiracy theorist, et cetera, et cetera.

The thing is,

this is what Russia is doing to us.

We are not awake at all to see the manipulation that is going on by enemies.

enemies of ours russia

the palestinians i'm sorry but the Palestinian

government

is not a friend of the United States.

Iran, not a friend of the United States.

I was listening to NPR this morning because I like to hear what the other side is saying.

The way they phrased what's happening with Turkey was unbelievable.

Turkey was in NATO, and the United States needs to have Turkey in NATO.

No, I don't think so.

A lot of people think that that was a mistake.

And Turkey Turkey is buddying up with Russia.

In fact, they just decided to buy a Russian air defense system.

We told Turkey, well, then you're not buying any of our planes because you can't be double dealing on both sides.

You'll have the planes and the Russians over there with their anti-missile system.

No, you're not getting both technology.

NPR was spinning this as, look at Donald Trump.

He just wants war.

We've got to have Turkey.

We have to have Turkey as an ally.

Turkey hasn't been a real ally in a very long time.

I mean, geez, I can get more accurate information by driving in a cab in New York City than listening to some of these buffoons on the radio.

I was just up in New York, and there was a guy.

He was from Turkey.

He had been here for 10 years.

I said, so what do you think of Turkey?

What's happening over there?

Him not knowing that I know what's happening in Turkey.

And he said, you know,

15 years ago, we thought maybe it would go all right.

He said, it started to go awry, and the government became very totalitarian.

He said, and I was just beginning to see it.

And he said, so I decided to move over here to the United States for educational purposes.

He said, now, I would never go back there.

He said, it is a totalitarian state, and it is very, very scary what's happening in Turkey.

Where is that analysis from NPR

yeah nowhere nowhere and I will say too

a related topic here I don't know this guy's exact situation but that's the exact type of immigrant you want it's exactly the type of immigrant person who looks at and sees you know a totalitarian or a socialist government starting to crack down and and comes here because they're celebrating the things that we have the opportunity

here with with the hope of someday returning but he came over here because he knew the education that he could get.

He came over here, then saw, oh man, I've got it free and easy here compared to back home.

I am not going back there.

And then he spoke to me about how much he loved America,

how all of the opportunities that we have and how Americans just don't see it.

Right.

And there's no one with that story,

no one's chanting send them back to that person, no matter what color they are.

Nope.

No matter what they look like.

Nope.

This is the best of the Glenn beck program

jamie kilstein he is a comedian he is a podcaster he is a a

a former social justice warrior that uh that did a lot of destruction.

He

destroyed his life or his life was destroyed for him.

He was a guy who was suicidal.

He's a human,

and he seems to be an honest human that is looking to

anybody who will say, enough is enough.

Can't we just talk about things?

Welcome to the program, Jamie Kilstein.

Thank you so much for having me.

Your intro was so nice.

And as you were doing it, I was like, wow, I've said terrible things about you.

That was so, yeah, that was so kind.

I mean,

that means a lot.

And

I mean, I literally, I don't know if you remember this.

I was

so bad years ago at one point.

I have you on my resume because at one point, my old very lefty podcast essentially just was trolling you and did an episode called like the F you Glenn Beck episode and had like Bill Ayers was on, was like our guest.

And oh man, I would have loved to hear.

I'd love to, you have to send it to me.

I'd love to hear it.

I'd love to hear it.

Yeah, and then I think you talked about it on your show and you called me a doofus.

Like we were both so ridiculous.

You called me a doofus.

And then I put it on my resume.

So when I would like go to clubs and stuff, my resume was like, I had a blurb from like Robin Williams.

I had a really nice newspaper blurb.

And then the last one said, Jamie Kilstein is a doofus.

Glenn Beck.

I love that.

Very funny.

But like, you

at the time, I would rather have promoted myself off of something negative and something crappy like that than actually, you know, talent.

Anyway, long story short, thank you for having me on.

You're welcome.

I'm having you on because you are, you have an incredible story.

You are somebody who admits, holy cow, was I going down the wrong path?

And

you enjoyed the darkness of it.

I had kind of a different story.

I didn't really enjoy the darkness of it.

I just was filled with certitude that I knew who

other people were, and everybody was in a group.

And

that's not...

true.

And when you're being attacked, as you know and I know, you're being attacked, you attack back.

Because it felt like it was life and death.

It really did.

Yeah, and I mean, I have that certitude too, for sure.

That's what's so scary about the internet and tribalism and echo chambers, where when you get your following and you start talking to people offline less and online more and you attack someone, those likes go up and those retweets go up.

And if, like me, you were drinking and you were depressed and you were in a failing marriage and you didn't really like your friends in New York, but if I opened my computer and I went online and I attacked whoever the left was attacking that day, and then I started just to get, you know, validation, validation, validation, that made me feel good.

And you know, the thing on the left is I never liked when people said the extreme left was the same as the extreme right because I was like, in my head, you know, the right started wars and nobody was like dropping into Iraq being like, free health care.

And I thought that was like a garbage analogy.

But now I see what people are talking about.

And I think what they mean when they say that it's the rhetoric of the extreme right and the extreme left and what you were talking about in your intro, which is just not being willing to have conversations.

So I had that certitude.

I thought I was doing the right thing.

Also, take in mind, I dropped out of high school.

I'm a white straight dude.

I have so many insecurities

that whenever someone did tell me I was wrong or I wasn't being progressive enough, I just thought that meant I was a bad person.

So my certitude almost came from like a self-hatred point of view.

But a lot of it did have to do with getting the validation that I wasn't getting in my real life.

And to be honest, I think a lot of people are going through that.

I think anytime somebody tweets you and they don't know you and they're attacking you, the proper response is like, hey, man, are are you okay with your dad?

Like, do you need to call your mom?

Like, what's going on in your personal life to make you spend all day yelling at strangers on the internet?

That is exactly the lesson I learned because I was very against Donald Trump.

And

I was,

you know, I worried about my own audience.

How have we been together this long?

And you don't see what I see or how I see it.

And I've always felt like I've loved my audience.

And I really do.

This This audience is amazing, just an amazing audience.

And I was so confused and angry, all coming from me, none of it coming from them.

And I realized about, I don't know, six months after the election, you hypocrite.

You say you love the audience, but you don't.

Because if somebody was acting like that in your real life, you would say to them, what's happening in your life?

Because this is out of step.

So what's happening?

And what I missed was the tremendous pain and fear that people are feeling.

And that's everywhere now.

Everywhere.

People are in this

pain and the fear of, look how bad things are getting, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

Yeah, if we talked to people in real life, like we talk to people online, America it would look like the purge.

Like we would all just be attacking each other all day.

And once you

step back like you did, like I'm trying to do, and talk to people as humans and talk to people face to face and realize that, like you said, like we're all scared.

We're all insecure.

We're all trying to be better.

We're all trying to provide for our family.

It doesn't matter if you're on the left, on the right, we all want to pet the stranger's dog before making eye contact with them.

Like these are all things we want to do.

But what's happening when you go online is you're like, well, I guess everyone on the left is like a milkshake throwing Nazi anarchist and everyone on the right is a Nazi.

And we're not having conversations because we are so determined to defend our team blindly.

I mean, here's the thing.

If I on the left call every Trump voter a racist, when Trump does something racist, do you think that the people that I've been demonizing are going to want to

they're going to want to defend him or not say anything because they feel like they've been put in a corner by the left.

That is exactly, Jamie, that is the, that is, I called everybody I knew in media and said, listen, here's what I've learned.

I

said these things.

I still believe these things.

But the way I said them put everybody into a posture of, I got to defend him.

I got to defend Obama because he's been attacked all the time.

And I said, you will only make things much worse if that's what you do.

You have to reach out and say, what is it you're saying?

What are you hearing?

And

they don't get it.

Yeah, 100%.

And I, you know, it's the saddest part about it is

the audience you've built, the audience I'm building is amazing, and I'm very proud of it.

However, I know when I, when I went to my agent in LA under Donald Trump, and I, you know, I used to be rich when I was just screaming liberal and would just attack people all day.

And now I'm not.

And when I went to him and I was like, hey, I know everybody's being political and we're the most divided we've ever been.

How about I do a podcast about nuance and dialogue?

Like the disappointment on his face was palpitable.

And the problem is, the sad part is when you spoke out, you you probably got crap from both sides.

When I spoke out, I got crap on both sides.

I actually, even though I'm still pretty liberal on most things, I'm very well aware that if I wanted to be like a millionaire, I mean, this is when I was sleeping on a couch after having like a pretty great life financially, at least in New York, I was getting offers to kind of be like the left-wing guy who goes right-wing.

Like, I could have written that book that was, you know, why I left the left.

And I'd be hosting my own show on Fox News in like a couple years.

And I would have had money and I would have done like mental jiu-jitsu to convince myself I wasn't selling out.

But I'm not that.

And I'm much slower building this show

about kind of what you're doing.

The sad thing for me is, and I don't know if you experienced it in the opposite way, but the sad thing for me is I am getting booked far more on conservative shows.

And they know I'm still liberal.

Like I'm not suddenly, you know, changing my stances on a ton of things.

I have on a couple.

And I'm not getting booked on left-wing shows.

Yeah.

So, Jamie,

that in some ways happened with me to where, but I was looking to go on to the other side because I was trying to find somebody who would have real dialogue.

They would, they always approached it with me that Glenn Beck has changed his, he's had a change of heart and he's had a change of view.

And I'm like, no, I still believe everything that I used to believe.

There's just one big difference here.

And in your case, you still believe in policies, but you're not the social justice warrior that is taking everybody down.

And you literally were, you were one of the guys who were like the first on the bandwagon to get people fired.

Oh, yeah, 100%.

And it's,

again, I think that social media, I think that social media, it dehumanizes people, where they're not a person with a family.

They're a Twitter avatar

that is expendable.

Or cartoon characters.

Yeah.

And people, myself included, you get this rush.

And we're so desperate for it.

I think the Kevin Hart one's a really great example where you had a bunch of people on the left trying to take down a young black entrepreneur who i mean i remember seeing him at open mics who has built himself up to being this megastar and it wasn't like he said something the day before he hosted the oscars it wasn't like he was like giving a speech and was like man i hope there aren't gay people at the oscars tomorrow

somebody had to dig somebody had to dig 10 years in the future they saw someone succeeding i mean we're doing the opposite of self-help.

We're doing the opposite of positive affirmations, of lifting people up, of showing gratitude.

We are going online every day and searching.

That guy's successful.

Instead of how do I emulate him?

How do I learn from him?

I want to take him down.

And if we spent as much time trying to take other people down as we did, like building ourselves and other people up, all of us would be successful and we would be far less miserable.

But we are searching out people to destroy.

And for me, when I was doing it, yeah, it was like the bullies, the popular kids in high school, where suddenly Justine Sacco is on a plane and she made this tweet that's offensive.

And when she lands, she's going to be fired.

And we would all gleefully be trying to come up with the most clever joke or what, you know, we would at the people so they knew they were being talked about or gossiped about.

And I still get that online.

And the

kind of addiction, like that, it was that same feeling of an alcoholic, of a drug addict, addict of like i know i shouldn't do this but i'm gonna do this and then and then it takes over your life i mean i remember one day where i was freaking out and i was i was fighting with this liberal journalist because the left loves nothing more uh than to fight with their own i was fighting with this guy josh marshall uh he runs like uh or he ran at least at the time talking points memo and i was ignoring my family And I was yelling at him.

And he was with his kids on the beach.

And he's fighting with me.

And like at one point, he wrote F you Freedom Fighter to me.

And I like took a screenshot and I posted it.

And it's like both of us should have been with our families at that time.

And then I remember I was like, all right, I'm going to close my computer.

I'm going to stop fighting with him.

And I went, I lived on Prospect Park.

So I was like, I'm going to go walk through the park.

And before I even knew it.

It's like blacking out and showing up at another bar.

I was in the park on my cell phone fighting with someone else on Twitter.

And that becomes your reality because people forget,

there's no way I would have made it as a teenager with social media because it follows you around.

It does.

Yeah, you're sitting on the toilet and a stranger's calling you a cuck.

Jamie, I am sorry.

I have to cut this short because we have breaking news that I have to get to.

May I ask you to come in and do a podcast with me?

I would honestly, I would love to.

I would love to apologize in person, grab coffee a hundred percent.

I appreciate it.

God bless, or or not, whichever it is with you, with God.

So thank you for being on the program.

The best of the Glen Bank program.

There is some very very timely breaking news today.

Yesterday, Donald Trump said, you know,

there's a question of Elon Omar and her relationship with her family and her taxes.

And we pretty much have the Minneapolis Tribune Star to

verify that, yeah, the tax thing is definitely weird and it looks fraudulent.

She filed income tax saying she was married to someone else when she was actually married to another guy and they were all three living together.

It was a weird, weird story.

But David Steinberg has been working on this story for a long, long time with a couple of other people working together.

And it has been hard to tie up all of the loose ends on this story.

Was she married to her brother?

And if so, why?

David Steinberg has just broken with a news story on powerlineblog.com.

And I have looked at the evidence and it's pretty strong.

There's some things that I question.

I'm not sure.

And I'm not sure I understand the story yet, David, because it's very complex.

But give me the gist of this news story.

Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me on.

You bet.

So

what I published this morning, I've had for several months.

Essentially, we've been holding on to this information that altogether does compile

what I would consider a smoking gun here.

There just simply aren't any other possibilities at this point

for this to not have been her brother, I'll put it that way.

But what I published today

connects her to the brother to this individual in England as her sibling.

That's something that hasn't been published yet.

We had these charges of fraud before.

We had some other

evidence published that showed she might have committed

that she was married to two men at the same time.

This is the first time any information has been published that directly ties her to this person in a sibling relationship.

Okay, now

there's two Ahmads in her life, if I'm not mistaken.

There is the Ahmad that she was married to here in the United States and has two children.

Then she supposedly got a divorce, but not an official divorce, a spiritual divorce or something.

And then she married this other Ahmad.

And this is the one that you claim is the brother.

And is this an actual blood brother or is this a

somebody that

she

was kind of adopted into this family?

What I'm hearing from sources, multiple sources within the Minnesota Minneapolis Somali community.

First of all, we're talking about what is in open secrets among the Somali community there.

And to be honest, secret is not the appropriate word.

It's simply open.

If you have a decent understanding of Somali, for example, and you poke around a bit, you're going to find all of this online openly yourself.

That's just to start with.

Second, I do believe we are talking about a blood brother here.

And

what happened is,

according to these sources, back in Somalia, 1995,

the father had five children and he did not have a means of getting them out of this refugee camp.

I'm sorry, in the refugee camp in Kenya.

So another family, a second family, the Omars,

offered him the opportunity to fraudulently take himself and two of his children into their family, which was being granted asylum.

Okay.

So

let's just give this the benefit of the doubt.

We're all in a refugee camp.

I have no chance of getting out.

And you are a good friend, and you say,

look, Glenn, I take two of your family members and you and I can get you into Great Britain.

you just have to be part of my family.

You're now Omar.

That's what's being charged here.

Correct.

Okay.

It was a common transaction

in those days in those refugee camps.

People would sell their extra spots or sell

the willingness to fraudulently add someone to their family.

And

this was rampant.

As far as several people I've spoken to, it's rampant.

There was

also a DNA testing done by the U.S.

government about a decade later, mostly on Somali immigrants.

I mentioned this in the article.

And they concluded that up to 87% of applicants for this priority three family reunification program for refugees, up to 87% of applicants

were applying fraudulently.

They were not members of the family they claimed to be.

Okay.

But there's no, there's no, I'm just, I just want to make sure that we are looking and giving the benefit of the doubt all the way along.

There's nothing, I mean, it's illegal and it's fraud, but it wasn't a terrorist thing or anything.

This was how do I get out of a refugee camp?

So, correct?

Okay.

I stressed that in the article, that they were fleeing from a hellish situation in Somalia.

Correct.

So we look to what happened back in 1995 as a way to find answers for what she might have done in 2000 and in 2009 once she was a U.S.

citizen.

She became a U.S.

citizen in 2000.

So the excuse that

it was a horrific situation they were fleeing from, that was no longer active.

She'd been a U.S.

citizen for nine years when she entered this marriage with the man who certainly now appears to be her brother.

Why would she do that?

She was married, had two kids.

She says she was married

in her religious tradition, but not legally.

Had two kids.

Why would she then say that she's leaving her husband?

But as you find out later, they're all living in the same house.

What is she gaining by marrying this guy?

We have several different

possibilities.

The most obvious one is speeding up the immigration case for her brother.

Okay.

So he was not an American citizen.

He was a British citizen.

He had been a British citizen for several years.

Correct.

Okay.

Now that's the first issue.

The second issue is that this entire marriage to this second individual occurred while both he and Ilhan were attending North Dakota State University.

So they get married

summer of 2009.

They go to North Dakota State University.

Ilhan enrolls in the fall.

She graduates in the spring of 2011.

And that is when she tells people their marriage, their relationship ends, and she never sees them again.

Now, he was also enrolled at North Dakota State University at the time, too.

So the other likelihood here is student loan fraud.

Being married, the two of them were much more likely to get a better deal,

considering they would no longer be dependents of their parents, that income would not be included.

So, FASTA fraud is definitely a possibility, which is also punished very severely.

Five years, I believe, for each instance of fraud on a federal FASTA form is the maximum.

And one of the other things that is bizarre is that they claim on, I think it's tax documents, that

they're living, they're all kind of living together, right?

The old husband and quote, the new husband living in the same house.

These didn't show up on tax documents.

I did a deep search into old address records, and I found them all living in the same house for that first year in North Dakota State

in Fargo.

They moved, they all three of them moved to a second location for their second year at the university.

And

I was also able to confirm that through articles.

Ilhan has stated in the past that she was with Ahmed Hersey and her two kids in North Dakota.

She stated that long before she was involved in politics.

I think that was in 2014 or 2015.

So we have quite a bit of evidence that she never separated from the man she had the two kids with.

Meanwhile, she had married this new individual, and all three of them were at the same address while they were attending college.

And then she has to go and testify for the divorce, correct?

In the divorce, that is in 2017.

And she has to testify that she doesn't know where

her legal husband, possibly her brother,

she has no idea.

She hadn't seen him since 2011.

Correct.

She testifies she has not seen him since June 2011.

And now, unfortunately,

because she was applying for for

a default divorce where one of the spouses cannot be found to be legally served.

So she answers eight questions on this nine-question form

that are

there is a very strong possibility that all eight questions are perjury because we have solid proof that she was in touch with this person from 2011 until 2016 online on both of their confirmed accounts.

We have photographs of them visiting each other in London in 2015.

This is the perjury case, the perjury element of all this is

the most open and shut part of the whole story.

So,

what do people do with this?

I mean, because if

you're what's what's going to be said is, well, you don't know for sure.

She's not answering any questions.

The people who would prosecute this, I don't think, are motivated to prosecute this or to even look at it.

You can't even get the

Minneapolis paper.

I mean, they basically said your early report is all right.

However,

nothing happened.

Nothing happened.

Well, nothing happened because they

they were not able to get the additional evidence that I did publish today.

And the additional evidence is they are the pictures and the the Facebook posts back and forth, correct?

Correct.

I can't what we could not do before was connect her in a sibling relationship.

We had plenty of evidence that they were in touch all these years and appeared to be conversing with each other as siblings.

For example, he referred to her children as his nieces and nephews.

Now, what we did not have, though, was any solid evidence besides that of them being siblings prior to the marriage.

And that's what I published today.

And so tell me about those pictures quickly, because we're about out of time.

Tell me about the other pictures and the other things that you have found.

Well, quick summary.

What I published today

is that Ilhan

has,

her father's name is Nurs Said.

I was able to confirm that she has called him by that name.

There is a sister named Layla Nursaeed Elmi who lives in England,

and I was able to confirm via her marriage records that she also calls her father Nurs Saeed Elmi.

And then what I found was these photographs which show Ilhan and Layla Nursayed Elmi together with their father, Nurs Said, on a family trip.

And

talking about him as their wonderful father.

Talking about him as their wonderful father.

I posted a second photograph of Ilhan with her arm around Layla, and Ilhan puts the caption on the photograph, I heart my sister.

Now, I also,

along with the official marriage document from the UK of Layla testifying that her father's name is Nurs Aid Elmi,

we have a very strong connection that this woman is Ilhan's sister.

And this is what we did not have before.

We didn't have this connection to London.

Now, this sister, Layla,

I have found through sources, was the guardian of Ahmed Nursaid Elmi during his teenage years

in London.

She essentially raised him.

She was his older sister.

She was 23.

He was 12 when they first arrived.

And she was his guardian in London until he was 18 years old.

Now, I have some other evidence showing that in the article, some address records showing where they lived.

The school he attended was just around the block from Lara's address.

And

there are...

Just to top it off, there are some posts I found where he is referring to her as mom and she is referring to him as son.

So this is what we weren't able to do in the past was connect all of them together as family members and that's what I posted today.