6/6/17 - When our government betrays our protectors (Jay Dobyns Joins The Program)

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hello, my name is Mike Broomhead in for Glenn today.

I'll also be in for Glenn tomorrow.

A lot to talk about, of course.

The identity of the London bombers, London attackers has been named.

All three of these, one of them born in Pakistan.

The other two claim Moroccan descent.

Citizens, two of them citizens of England,

27, 30, and 22 years old.

And Karam

Sajad Butt is one of their names.

Rashid Roudani and Yusuf Zaghda.

Now, these guys are the attackers in London.

We've learned more about them in the last 24 hours.

Big questions with the London authorities as to how at least one of these people was slipped through the cracks.

So a lot of this with their identities and what we do know about them and how much we know about them, a big part of the first hour of the show.

The identity of the Orlando shooter from yesterday, John Robert Newman, a 45-year-old man, disgruntled former employee, told some employees to leave and gunned down five people before turning the gun on himself.

So more about the Orlando shooter, but wondering what, as we'll find out, I'm sure, why he targeted these people, why they were targeted and others were told to leave the building.

It's a compelling story.

Also,

there has been an arrest made, the White House leaker, a private contractor.

Her name is Reality Winner.

Now, Twitter loves this, by the way.

Social media loves that her name is Reality Winner.

She is a political activist.

She is a Bernie Sanders supporter, has been part of the standing up or the resistance against Donald Trump and has been arrested.

Now, obviously, no conviction, but has now been identified as the White House leaker, or at least one of them, giving some of the documents with NSA reports.

Anxious to see how quickly the left is going to compare her to Snowden.

This was obviously politically motivated.

This was a subversive act against an administration.

I think that for what she has done,

we'll see if she gets convicted of this.

But this should be one of the biggest stories of the year if this were to be confirmed.

So we'll find out how the media handles it.

But we'll tell you more about her as well this morning.

I've got an interview coming up today.

I mentioned yesterday, almost in passing, as some of the things we're talking about being hidden in executive orders.

And by the way, President Trump is not going to use an executive privilege to stop James Comey from testifying.

And yet no one seemed to be talking about the fact that

with Operation Fast and Furious and the executive order, executive privilege that was invoked by President Obama to hide those documents, Jason Chaffetz is still leading an investigation into Fast and Furious.

And tomorrow he will hold a hearing as to Fast and Furious, who was behind it, and what the problems were.

Will there ever be any arrests made?

I've mentioned him before, but I have a friend back in Arizona named Jay Dobbins.

Jay Dobbins was an an ATF agent.

This was much before Fast and Furious.

And he went into the ATF, went undercover, was the first federal agent to become a full-patch member of the Hells Angels.

And Jay Dobbins has written a book called No Angel about his experience.

And then after this, his new book that's coming out is called Catching Hell.

And Jay talks about how the ATF and the federal government railroaded him and trainwrecked his career.

His house was burned down when he was outed as the infiltrator into the Hells Angels.

There was a half a million dollar bounty on his head.

His house was burned to the ground.

The federal government accused him of burning his own house down.

A federal judge years later, after Fast and Furious, this is the point where Jay is involved with Fast and Furious.

After the Fast and Furious investigation broke, people began to realize that Jay may not have just been a disgruntled employee, that he may have had some merit to what he was saying because the leadership of the ATF was so horrible.

Well, those leaders from ATF, none of which were ever held accountable for what they did, all of those those leaders either had lateral moves or were promoted and sent to other

points across the country to work and finish out their careers and save their pensions, which begged the question, why did these people not face any kind of repercussions for what they did?

And the answer would be, I wonder how far up the chain of the Justice Department that operation went.

Well, Jay is going to be a part of the show later on this morning to talk about Fast and Furious and this investigation by Jason Chaffetz.

This should be one of the biggest stories of the last decade.

The fact that over 2,000 rifles were sent into Mexico by our government.

They knew these guys were doing this.

They were told to pull off the surveillance.

Over 2,000 rifles trucked into Mexico.

And then when they were lost to the Mexican cartels, when the surveillance was lost, so to speak, we never told the Mexican government.

We never told our own government.

According to Janet Napolitano, who was the head of the Homeland Security at the time, she was never told about this operation, nor was she ever told about the loss of the rifles.

And it wasn't discovered until the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

And one of those guns was found there at the scene.

And ATF agents on the ground said, I don't care if it ruins my career.

I'm talking.

So now Jason Chaffetz is doing an investigation into the death of Brian Terry and the role that Fast and Furious may have played in it.

So we'll talk to Jay later on in the show, who I think is a compelling guest in his own right.

So we'll hear what he has to say.

When we talk about this White House leaker, and I want to to go back for a moment, just keep your eye on, and I think one of the points I've made on my show most often in Arizona is

I'm going to be a lot more critical of how the media handles things.

I want to try to be as fair as I can.

When the president does something that I think is worthwhile and good, I want to make sure we talk about it.

If the president makes a mistake and does something that I think is the wrong thing, I've been critical of him in the past as a candidate and as the president.

And I'm an opinion person.

There's a difference between myself and a journalist.

I am not a journalist.

A journalist is supposed to report news, ask difficult questions of everybody.

Are they doing that?

Does anybody believe that there is not a media bias?

We know what they say about Fox News being far right, MSNBC being far left.

CNN has just completely jumped the shark with their coverage of President Trump.

As a matter of fact, we've mocked, I'm sure everybody around here has mocked the same headlines.

They had a headline up on their website a few weeks ago that said

that President Trump gets two scoops of ice cream and everybody else only gets one.

And that was just, that was a headline on CNN.com.

So there was another story this morning where they went out and interviewed people where he went to Sunday school as a child.

What was he like in Sunday school 50 years ago?

He's 70.

He was 65 years ago.

So they have people, they're going back to his Sunday school classes and asking what he was like.

It's just getting to be that kind of coverage of everything that happens.

When it comes to this White House leaker, if there is somebody that has a top secret clearance working inside the White House and they're removing documents and sending them out, she got arrested.

But here's an interesting point about this.

How is this any different from what Hillary Clinton did with her emails?

And there's a point here that we all have to realize.

Hillary Clinton did it digitally, but it's no different.

I've told this story 20 times.

There is a room, a top-secret document room called a SCIF.

And that is where people, when there is something top-secret for someone with a clearance to read, they are notified that there are documents for you in the SCIF.

You then go in, you leave all of your electronic devices outside.

There's no recording devices, no cell phones, no anything.

You sign into the room, you read your documents.

You can't take pictures, you can't make copies, you can't do anything.

And you certainly can't remove those documents from that room.

Well, then, if you do that, you're violating the law.

Well, what was the difference with what Hillary Clinton did with her emails?

She took what were classified documents on an unsecure server and sent them to other people.

How is it any different?

Except this girl had an agenda.

This girl was politically motivated to leak information.

But there's no difference in walking out of a room, walking out of the skiff with a hard piece of paper, or digitally sending something on an unsecure server that shouldn't be sent on an unsecure server.

And so the difference here being, here's a low-level person without political clout.

I believe she deserves to be punched.

I believe she deserves to be punished for what she did.

But how is it any different?

I hope that there's a legal expert that can explain to me the difference of exposing those documents as someone who pulled them out of the skiff and walked down the hallway with them and set them on a desk or someone that digitally transfers those very same kind of documents to people on an unsecure server.

Whose hands it ends up in doesn't matter as much as the danger you put national security security interests in.

Coming up in a moment, we're going to talk about the London attackers.

The identities of these three people, a little bit that we know about their backgrounds as the three have been identified, and how about the police?

What should they have known?

Is this one that slipped through the cracks that they should have known more about this guy?

Had a barbecue at his house a week before to say goodbye to people.

All that's coming up here in the next segment of the show.

It's the Glenn Beck program.

My name is Mike Broomhead.

I'll be back.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

The Glenn Beck Program.

I will beat my drum.

I have made my choice.

It will overcome.

Cause we have one.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

So much information

starting to roll in about the London attackers and who they are and

who they were and what happened.

There's some video, obviously, cell phone video of the shootout.

And

this

Butt is his last name, you know, appropriately named.

He is a British citizen born in Pakistan, according to London's Metropolitan Police.

Both the police and MI5

were familiar with him, but there was no intelligence to suggest that the attack was going to happen this weekend.

He appeared

in a 2016 documentary called The Jihadist Next Door.

He's seen unfurling an ISIS flag.

He has made ISIS statements.

He has tried to radicalize kids in the park.

They knew a lot about this guy.

And

this is the battle that we would face in America, I would think more so than anywhere else, is the idea of free speech.

Because if there was somebody here in America espousing radical ideas, it would be protected as long as it was just speech.

You're not motivating people to crimes.

You can't convict someone or arrest somebody for a crime they didn't commit.

But here is somebody on a terror watch list talking about radicalization, talking to kids in the park, apparently through a barbecue the week before to say goodbye to everybody.

I'm wondering why there weren't any, there wasn't anyone who came forward if they knew what he was planning.

Now, he was known to police.

People had talked about this guy, but why is it that he was, or how is it that he was able to be as open about doing some of the things without people making statements or complaints about it, especially after the Manchester bombing.

When someone set off a bomb at an Ariana Grande concert, knowing that they were going to injure or kill largely young people, especially young girls, but young people,

you know, teenagers at the oldest.

There was an eight-year-old girl that was killed at that scene.

How that doesn't change the hearts and minds of people in London with the rhetoric and the things that you say, it works in reverse.

It's got to work this way.

Where we stand right now, and it was such a silly story.

It was part of the show prep stuff when I was going through a stack of stories to talk about today.

TNT showed the movie Back to the Future.

And I guess there's a scene in Back to the Future.

I've only seen the movie a couple of times,

where Doc

was killed in Libya because he wouldn't build them a nuclear bomb.

So he's killed by terrorists.

Well, what, and there's a letter written by the Michael J.

Fox character where he's trying to write a letter to warn him ahead of time so he doesn't get killed in this attack.

And he writes the word terrorist in the letter.

Not only

did they remove the word terrorist from the audio, like they bleeped it out like they would a four-letter word, they changed the camera angle so that you don't see him writing the word terrorist on a piece of paper.

Why?

I guess in the politically correct world we live in, it's inappropriate to use some of those inflammatory words.

Well, if that works that way, if we are supposed to do something different based on what somebody is saying because of the times we live in, where are you in London right now after the Manchester bombing, after what you've seen happen all over Europe, in Paris, in Germany, Brussels?

How is it that you don't see somebody in your own neighborhood espousing the same kind of views and waving that flag, and you have no sense of of responsibility to report it or make sure that people understand the severity if you knew it.

That's a bigger question for me is, was this guy largely ignored because he seemed like he was all talk?

Now, I don't know that.

I wasn't there.

But here's somebody that was in a video called The Jihadist Next Door.

If you've got a documentary with somebody calling themselves a jihadist in this day and age,

how is it that he's not ostracized, number one?

How is it he's got so many friends and people around him?

And then on top of that, how is he not reported, you know, the days and weeks before this attack happened?

The other co-conspirators in this was

this guy Ranchid, Rancid.

I want to say Rancid, but it's Rasid, Rasid.

He used the last name Elkdar as well.

He claimed to be of Moroccan and Libyan descent.

He lived in East London, but he was not known to authorities.

So is this somebody that was radicalized by the first guy?

Did some of this rhetoric work with him?

Now, he said he was radicalized.

The first guy said he was radicalized by YouTube videos.

If that's the case,

then he radicalized this young man.

Well, he's a little bit older, actually, 27, and this one's 30 years old.

And then the youngest of the three,

Yusuf Zaghba is his name, also claims to be of Moroccan descent or is from Morocco

and lives in Italy now.

22 years old.

He's been previously stopped by security forces who suspected him,

was bound for Syria and reportedly notified the UK authorities, according to British police.

He was the last member identified of the trio of jihadists.

They killed seven people Saturday night.

Intelligence operatives notified British and Moroccan authorities after Italian police stopped him in March of 2016 at the Bologna airport.

Bound for Istanbul.

The Italian authorities, and they suspected that he was on his way to Syria, so they stopped stopped him and they made they gave notice that he was on his way there so now here are the questions you look in hindsight and I don't want to second guess the authorities they have a very difficult job I would imagine Great Britain is as difficult here as the FBI has here in America it's tough to second guess but they will be and they should be second guessing themselves they should be asking themselves what did they miss

You've got someone you didn't know anything about.

You've got somebody that was reported by the Italian government trying to sneak into Syria.

You've got another guy that you know is an open jihadist and an open at least agitator in the community where you live.

And what are you able

to do to stop these attacks?

Should they have been surveilling one or all three of these guys?

They will go back and look at this information because I can promise you, if it was the FBI, nobody is more concerned when something like this happens than the people that are hired or charged with preventing them from happening.

And so my concern now is who else is in London?

Does this open the eyes of the Londoners or the people of Great Britain as a whole?

Does this open their eyes to the fact of the people around them that people espousing this kind of rhetoric are deadly serious?

That a guy that will build a bomb that's going to kill teenagers at a concert or three guys that will jump in a car and just indiscriminately run people down on the London Bridge and then to begin just stabbing people in the streets, knowing that the only way they're going to be stopped is when they are gunned down by the police, knowing that these are going to be their final moments and they've chosen their final moments to kill innocent people.

When do the people of London, England as a whole, stand up against the people in their own neighborhoods, number one.

But number two, when do the governments in these European nations understand that vetting people through a refugee program is the right thing to do?

Knowing who is coming into your country, why they're coming in, what their reasoning is.

You're not going to stop things 100% of the time.

But does anybody think these are the last three people?

There was an attack in Australia.

We're now hearing that ISIS is taking,

is claiming responsibility for the attack in Australia.

At what point do we recognize that what we're fighting against is an enemy who hates us to the degree that they will do anything,

do anything to kill our children, to terrorize our neighborhoods.

You can't walk on the London Bridge.

You can't be outside at a cafe or a restaurant.

You can't be anywhere without looking over your shoulder.

I don't know what city you live in, but when was the last time that you can think think of that you walked around wondering what might happen?

It happened to me with my kids and my grandkids at a museum, and it was all families.

It was mostly moms with very young children, but a lot of families, most of the kids were under the age of 10 in this museum.

And walking around this maze of rooms in this museum was the first time I ever thought to myself, Even in a place like I live in where most people are armed most of the time, nobody was armed in this place.

It was a maze of rooms with small children.

And the first time in my life, I thought if somebody were going to do something, this would be where the most damage was done because there's a lot of kids here and there isn't a lot of people in here that would be able to stop anything from happening.

And I've never thought that way.

Do the people of London and other European nations begin to start feeling like they either have to do something or life as they know it is changing.

The police saying, you know, to run, hide, and tell is not going to solve anything.

It means you're going to run and hide, and you're a prisoner in your own country.

Coming up in just a few moments, we'll talk about the Orlando shooter.

They identified him, but of course, as predicted yesterday, the very first thing out of the mouths of people when it was brought out there, now people want to talk about guns.

Let's talk about the gun control debate based on the Orlando shooting that happened yesterday.

It was as predictable as could be.

It happened.

We're going to talk about that coming up next.

My name is Mike Broomhead.

On Twitter, I am at Broomhead Show.

Follow me there.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Walk program.

All right, let's talk about the Orlando shooting yesterday.

Yesterday morning, it came out, news broke.

We talked about it here on the show.

Orlando, a disgruntled employee.

We didn't have details yesterday, but a disgruntled employee, a 45-year-old man, went to a former business, an awning-making company, and former, I think he's an Army veteran had been arrested on a couple of misdemeanor charges possession of marijuana DUI so they fired him and

he went back to the place of business and sent some people out told them to leave and killed five people turned the gun on himself

So immediately after the police, the sheriff there, because they're one week away from the Pulse nightclub shooting anniversary, the sheriff came out very quickly and said, we don't believe this is terrorism.

We don't believe this is a subversive group.

We believe it was an isolated incident.

It was all under control at the time.

The scene had been taken under control.

And then they said, they'll get more details.

Well, as the details began to come out, I predicted yesterday we are going to go down the road of the gun control argument immediately on social media.

Someone named Heather tweets out, six dead, not terrorism, just America at real Donald Trump.

Ready for the gun debate now.

I am.

I'll be honest with you.

I'm always ready for the gun debate.

I'm ready for the gun debate because it's not going to solve the problem.

More so than my right to keep and bear arms, which you can't infringe upon.

I'm not worried about that happening.

More importantly than that is the attitude by the gun control activists that would say that they care more about safety than I do.

I would tell you it's exactly the opposite.

That people that own guns legally, legal gun owners, care a lot more about their own personal safety and the safety of people around them.

They understand the full responsibility of owning and keeping a gun.

That the small number of people that abuse gun ownership are people like this who maybe don't have the right to have guns.

That there's already laws in place that would preclude them from doing what they're doing.

By the way, we have laws against murder.

That didn't stop this guy.

How are more gun laws going to stop him?

How is it making harder because he's not going to get a gun through legal channels if he wants to do this?

I am.

So, how is it making harder for me to get a firearm, firearm, making us any safer?

I'm ready for that debate.

The debate should be had, but let's have it openly and honestly.

Let's start from the place that I don't care less about safety than I do owning a gun.

It is a ridiculous and insulting premise.

I have kids, I have grandkids, I have people in my life that I care about and love, and I don't want any of them injured or hurt by some maniac with a gun.

But stopping me from getting one is not going to prevent that from happening.

Go look at the city of Chicago.

The entire city of Chicago is not a dangerous place, but there are sections of Chicago that are setting records every year for gun violence, shootings, and murders by guns.

They've got the most restrictive gun laws in the country, or some of them.

The reason why this is such a big discussion...

Here's someone else named Tony on Twitter.

Five people were murdered by a disgruntled former employee five miles from me in Orlando with a gun.

Let's have that gun debate, sir.

And they're all tweeting toward the president.

Again, I agree.

We should.

I think this should be a debate.

If there's anybody out there that is an anti-gun person that thinks you can defeat my argument in any way, I would love to hear from you because it's a ridiculous premise to think that the same people that are either so mentally ill or so crazed that they would murder a stranger or murder former coworkers or go to a scene like they did in Tucson, Arizona, where Jared Lofner gunned down Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, gunned down a federal judge and a little girl and indiscriminately shooting into a crowd.

You tell me how taking my rights or limiting my rights or making it more difficult for me to get a gun stops any of that because it won't.

They will get guns by any means necessary.

Do you think the gangs in our streets are going into gun shops and buying their guns that way?

Do you think they're taking legally registered guns of their own and shooting each other in the streets?

No.

They're buying guns guns in the streets.

And many of them convicted felons that are not supposed to have guns.

Tommy on Twitter, Tommy Campbell, multiple deaths in Orlando.

Sources confirm it's not terrorism related and involves guns.

So we won't hear a thing from Donald Trump.

Shannon, right.

Shannon Watts on Twitter, right?

Just another day in America, we're letting the gun lobby and lawmakers bolden to them,

I'm sorry, beholden to them, terrorize us on a daily basis.

Okay,

I want to know how anybody in the gun lobby is terrorizing anyone.

No, it was a 45-year-old guy named John Robert Newman who terrorized those people in Orlando.

John Robert Newman thought that the best course of action to take to solve whatever he problem he had with this company was to take a gun in and kill five former co-workers and then himself.

He could have driven his car through the front window.

We've seen them doing that now on the London Bridge.

Are we going to restrict car making?

Are we going to limit the size of cars?

How about we make the gas tanks smaller so that they can't drive as far to murder people?

It's as stupid as reducing the size of the magazines or clips, as people like to call them, in a firearm.

It doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

Solving the human element of this is how you solve this problem.

Locking up people that are dangerous, locking up people that have committed multiple crimes.

And I don't know of the mental stability of this guy.

Obviously, there was some issues if he's willing to kill five people.

He'd been arrested on a couple of occasions, fired from his job.

He had had an incident at work where he got into a fist fight with a coworker.

So they let him go.

He was a bad employee.

He was a bad employee because there was something wrong with the guy.

But the gun law, the anti-gun lobby, the anti-gun people, it's not so much their opinion because I can agree to disagree with people on passionate topics like gun control or the right to life life versus abortion, I can find common ground and disagree with people and not be disagreeable and scream at each other.

It's the condescending attitude of people that believe that I don't care about public safety.

That somehow I would rather have guns and be dangerous.

Well, it's the exact opposite and there is no hearing it from anyone on that side of the argument.

The argument that I would rather keep a gun and not care about safety or if I had to make the two choices

You you know, more kids are going to die like Sandy Hook Elementary, or we're going to restrict gun ownership, you choose.

First of all, you can't present any data that any of these gun laws ever work to begin with because they don't.

They never have and they never will.

We have speed limit laws.

I'm a big violator.

I drive pretty fast.

So I get caught, I get a ticket.

There's laws in place.

So what do we do?

You can up the fines.

Maybe that'll slow somebody down.

But what do you do when someone isn't going to obey the law?

They get punished when they commit a crime.

But you don't change society because somebody else breaks the law.

We've got very restrictive DUI laws where I live.

And I don't know what reasoning behind it.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, there was an uptick in DUI arrests.

Was the DPS just better at their job this year?

Were there more people out partying this Memorial Day weekend?

I don't know the answer to that.

but we have very restrictive DUI laws, but they're not blaming the vehicles.

I could go into a grocery store today here in Texas with a hand truck, buy eight cases of beer, seven bags of ice, and four bottles of tequila.

And when I went out of the store, somebody would say, where's the party?

Nobody's going to say, all that alcohol, someone's going to die or cause a DUI.

No one's going to blame the car.

No one's going to blame the amount of alcohol.

I take a a hand truck.

I go into a gun store.

I buy five guns and a case of ammunition.

People are going to start asking me questions.

Want to know who I'm out to kill.

What are you so afraid of?

I'm not afraid of anything.

I'm well armed.

So this battle, this debate needs to be had.

I don't like to report on these stories any more than anyone else does.

When children are killed in a crossfire of a gang fight, when kids get, innocent kids get shot, when there was, you know, in my hometown, there was a freeway shooter, some guy that was just shooting at cars early in the morning.

I hate that as much as anybody else does.

But there is no one out there that can make a reasonable argument that restricting my rights or my ability to get a firearm and people like me, I'm no different than any other gun owner.

Restricting my rights does nothing to make us safer.

I would even make the argument that it makes us less safe.

So if we stop focusing on the tool that's used, and and the reason why nobody talks about the cars or even knives to any to that degree is that a knife has another purpose.

The gun has one purpose, self-defense or aggression.

It's an aggressive, it's a weapon.

Now, target shooters, I get it.

I'm not talking about target shooting.

Hunters, but that's what guns are used for.

And so there is this hatred for guns.

And people just are so blind about it, they can't see that if you were to enact the laws you wanted to, it wouldn't solve the problem.

It would make my life more difficult, and we'd still be in the same boat because the criminals would have the upper hand.

That's just how it would be.

Before we get out of this hour, I want to point out some of the fun things that are going on.

Bernie Sanders is in the news.

Bernie Sanders wrote a book and has a financial disclosure statement.

Bernie Sanders isn't quite the poor guy people thought he was.

Bernie Sanders is a millionaire.

I think he made almost a million bucks.

We'll talk about Bernie Sanders and the hypocrisy of the socialism, socialist movement here in America coming up in a few moments.

Again, if you're a Twitter user on Twitter, I am at Broomhead Show.

That's the best way to reach out to me.

I'd love to interact with you during some of these commercial breaks.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I'm Mike Broomhead.

I'll be back.

Glenn Beck Program.

888727 back.

Mercury.

The Glenn Beck Program.

So just looking up at the call screener, so far no callers on the gun control argument.

You know, it's easy on Twitter, you know, 140 characters, pretty easy to espouse a bunch of nonsense about guns.

And I think that's the bigger problem.

I don't mind anyone who disagrees with me and even passionately disagrees with me.

But to say that I care less bothers me.

That bothers me more than anything.

I love my country.

I love my community.

I love where I live.

I don't want to see innocent people injured or killed.

I don't want damage done any more than you do to the environment with guns.

Any more of that.

I don't.

I don't disrespect women because of my views on abortion.

It's not like I want to make laws about women's bodies.

It's just a difference.

And if we can come to an agreement that we may passionately disagree, but we're not disrespectful, maybe we get somewhere.

But, you know, it's one of the reasons why I like social media, but it's the downside of it as well.

I love the snarky, sarcastic, funny stuff

online.

It really is funny.

All the Kofe tweets made me laugh.

I just, I laugh at those things when I read them.

People are very clever.

But at the same time, the anonymity of social media gives people the right to say the most ignorant things and yet get away with it without being called out as personally because, you know, your Twitter handle is slappy62 or something.

It's not your real name.

Nobody knows who you really are.

So you can say the most horrible things to or about people without being called out for it.

But this is an important conversation that we were having.

You know, five people were murdered by a lunatic in Orlando.

how do you prevent those things from happening as often as you can prevent them it you no one's gonna present prevent something like that 100% of the time

but what steps can we take to limit them we we do that with all of our other laws and the things that we do is how do we limit the damage and so I want I put that what was serious when I put it out there anybody wants to talk about it I would love to hear it because it's impossible for you to defeat to to say that limiting good people's rights from getting firearms makes anybody safer because the criminals are going to get the guns anyway they're going to steal them they're going to buy them on the black market they're going to get them illegally they don't want anything connected to them anyway or before we get out before we get out of this hour bernie sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist got 795 000

795 000 for his book deal that's nice i mean and i'm happy for him here's something i can agree on there's one way now i want to be like bernie Sanders.

I want to make $800,000 for writing a book.

And that would be terrific.

I would love it.

But he's a capitalist.

Michael Moore makes a career out of bashing the right and bashing capitalism

with his SICCO documentary and complete lie about health care in general, but especially about Cuba.

is

ridiculous.

But man, is he good at what he does?

There's a guy that's made millions of dollars with that rhetoric, but the guy's a multi-millionaire.

Bernie Sanders publishes for his book according to his 2016 annual financial filings.

He also received $63,750 in royalty payments that year.

In addition to the book deal, he brings in over $200,000 in his salary.

Now, he's in the lower quarter of,

I guess, wealth of the other senators, but the guy still does all right.

He still pulls in $420,000 a year from his various things that he does.

He owns five houses, which I really applaud that.

That's the American dream.

That's success.

That's what America used to aspire to.

When I was young growing up where I did, people used to point to successful people and say, if you work hard, you can achieve that.

The old saying is, chase the dream, not the money.

And that's actually the way it is.

That's the way it should be.

That's all I've ever done.

And it's been the best experience of my life is chasing the dream.

You know, I love it.

I absolutely love it.

But at the same time, I'm not going to apologize if I gain some level of wealth.

Bernie Sanders does.

As a matter of fact, in a tweet that he put out on April 20th of this year, how many yachts do billionaires need?

How many cars do they need?

Give us a break.

You can't have it all.

And the funny thing about that argument is many people would agree with it.

my question to my question to bernie sanders would be

how much do i need isn't the question why are you entitled to it just because i don't need it

why is it that the government gets to take it just because they deem that i don't need it

So Bernie Sanders, the self-confirmed socialist, is richer than most of the people that ever followed him.

Next hour, we're going to talk about the contractor who has been arrested for being the NSA leaker.

We'll talk about her and what the uproar she has caused.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

I will beat my drum.

I have made my choice.

We will overcome.

Cause we are one.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hello, I'm Mike Broomhead in for Glenn.

In today and tomorrow as well, I want to thank you for being a part of the show.

However, you're listening, however you're watching.

We appreciate you spending some time with us.

Do our best to keep you informed and entertained throughout the morning.

Here is the anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Normandy,

the biggest sea invasion, amphibious invasion in history.

And it is a time where we reflect, we call the World War II generation the greatest generation.

And I've had the privilege of meeting so many men and women that have served in our armed armed forces.

And it is,

to say it's humbling is a,

it doesn't do it justice.

When my brother was killed in Iraq, I thought I was going to go out and tell and share a heroic story of my brother giving his life for his country and for the men he fought with.

And it is a heroic story in itself.

But meeting the men and women who just in this country go back to their daily lives without a concern for any repayment for their heroism, there are people people around you that are veterans.

And I would encourage any veteran of any of America's conflict or not, even if you weren't in combat, tell some of your stories because the stories of heroism from our veterans is something that should be shared.

You'd be amazed at your friends and neighbors who have

done miraculous things, who have done amazing things and sacrificed for their country.

And on D-Day, we think about what we call the greatest generation.

In World War II, the entire country was involved and things were were rationed and women went to work in factories while the men went off and fought.

And

the full nation was involved in that war.

We're at a place in the world now where we could literally go days if we didn't pay attention to the news of what's happening with our men and women that are in harm's way.

And there was a very heartwarming story this morning that Paul Ryan and George W.

Bush here in Dallas went to visit some wounded warriors and the pictures taken with the former president and those warriors was really something to behold.

I've had the privilege of meeting the president on a few different occasions and he is, in my estimation,

the military loved him and he loved them back, that he is somebody that has given his life to this cause.

And it's terrible to see the naysayers that say horrible things about him.

And he has just got a heart for the men and women that have served.

And it was such a nice thing for him to do to visit with those wounded warriors.

But we could go days, weeks, and not pay attention to the war unless somebody we know is killed or there's something big in the news that's happened.

And yet we still have men and women in Afghanistan.

We have people in Iraq.

We have people in Syria.

We have people in Somalia.

We have people all over the world in harm's way every single day risking their lives.

And whether it's these currents OEF, OIF, or you go backward all the way to the World War II generation who still have some members alive,

we have made great sacrifices in this country and none of them bigger than what we saw on D-Day and the loss of life but also the willingness to give their lives.

The men that charged that beach that day is something in American, in world history that will never be forgotten.

It changed the course of the world and

we are privileged to be able to talk about it now freely because of the sacrifice of the people on that day and then the conflicts that followed that finally won on the Western Front.

So a thank you to any of the World War II generation that is still listening, as you're listening or watching the show, or family members.

It is truly an honor to have met so many members of the military, especially from that generation.

So I apologize.

We didn't talk about D-Day in the first hour.

We should have.

We're talking now about a different kind of warfare that we're in in the world.

The London attackers have been identified, three men, 27, 30, and 22 years old.

So relatively young men.

Two of them Moroccan, one of them from Pakistan originally, two of them citizens of England, the other one an Italian citizen, but one radicalized, according to him, YouTube videos.

But

this, his last name is Butt, which is appropriate.

He has been radicalized for a while, was known to have been trying to radicalize kids in a park, had been very outspoken.

It was part of a documentary last year called The Jihadist Next Door.

And how he was on their radar, but not being being surveilled because he wasn't an immediate or imminent threat is the question you will now be heard asked all over Europe, but especially in the UK, is how did this guy not make the watch list?

If he didn't get on the watch list, if he wasn't someone that they were surveilling, who is?

Who is more dangerous or more outspoken than this guy that he didn't make the priority list?

I'm not saying that as a source of criticism, but it's an honest question that they'll be asking within the agencies in the UK, the American intelligence agencies, and the other groups.

The Italians, it's funny, the Italian security agencies notified that the guy from Italy, Yusuf Zagba,

he was 22 years old.

He was trying to get into Istanbul.

He was stopped there.

They thought he was trying to sneak into Syria.

They notified everybody about him because of what he was trying to do.

So it is.

This is a different kind of war we're fighting now.

This isn't uniformed soldiers attacking uniformed soldiers where both sides protect civilians as much as they can.

Hospitals are off limits.

None of that applies.

These are people that aren't in a uniform.

They are fighting for a cause that they don't care if they live or die.

They just want to kill as many of us as they possibly can.

And it may not be a holy war to us, nor maybe it guess it shouldn't be, but it is to them.

And they have taken their faith.

These Islamists have taken

the book that Muslims worship from all over the world and have turned it around and turned it into something that mandates that they murder everyone.

And I think the Muslim world needs to stand up.

We know that the Saudis and the other Middle Eastern nations are standing up against Qatar and some of the things that they've done and the finances.

We will see now if the Muslim world will stand up and say, during the month of Ramadan, these Islamists have killed over 150 people.

Now they're saying that the death toll just in the Kabul car bombing a few days ago was over 150 now.

So if there's over 150 dead there, then you add in the members of society in Iraq and Baghdad that were blown up in that car bomb outside of an ice cream shop.

Then you put into, take into account the people on the London Bridge.

There's close to 200 people that have been killed.

How many of them were Muslim?

How many of them were Muslim members of that community?

And yet you have the Islamists who believe that they're doing the right thing.

It is kind of a mind-boggling thing to think about.

We're going to talk about the White House leaker.

Her name is Reality Winner.

So we're going to do that here in the first part of the hour.

Who is she?

What do you need to know?

Some of the tweets that she has sent out.

I don't know how she has a top-secret clearance.

And I don't know how those work.

She is espousing such radical beliefs and ideas.

If the Twitter account attributed to her is the same person, I don't know how she maintains that level of clearance

because of some of the radical ideas that she espoused.

Not saying she should be thrown in jail, but how is it that she's able to maintain a high-level security clearance?

We're also planning to talk to Jay Dobbins, and I mentioned this in the first hour.

We're trying to get Jay set up for this hour.

If it doesn't work, I'm going to try to get him in in the third hour of the show because he's got a busy schedule.

We're trying to get him in here.

Jason Chaffetz is going to have a hearing into the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

They are still looking into Fast and Furious, and they are trying to uncover as much as they can about the federal government's involvement.

Jay Dobbins was an ATF agent long before Fast and Furious, the first federal agent to ever infiltrate the Hells Angels, became a full-patch member of the Hells Angels.

His book, his first book was called No Angel, and it is a phenomenal read of how he was able to pull this off and how his life was at stake so many times.

The fallout from all of that was after he was outed as the infiltrator.

They put a bounty on his head.

He had his house burned to the ground.

But then his, the backs, his, the government turned their back on Jay Dobbins.

And so now Jay Dobbins is

written another book called Catching Hell.

This is a lot more to do with his experience with our own government and the people he used to work for in light of this.

Well, the Fast and Furious connection is that it was after Fast and Furious broke.

And the same leadership,

the same in the Phoenix region of the ATF, the same leaders in that state that authorized and bungled Fast and Furious and then tried to lie about it, definitely cover it up, are the same leaders that were involved with the operation of Jay Dobbins and with him then being ostracized by the agency.

By the way, a federal judge completely exonerating Jay Dobbins and excoriating the ATF and the federal government and they're handling in the investigation into the burning down of his house and others.

So I'm trying to set it up for the second half of the hour to have Jay Dobbins in here with us.

We'll talk about the London, we'll talk about the White House leaker.

We'll get Jay Dobbins on the show as well.

There's a lot more coming up.

Thanks for the social media outreach.

We, some of the fun tweets you guys are sending in are great.

We'll talk about some of those in a few moments.

I am at Broomhead Show on Twitter, by the way.

And I will be back here in a few moments.

It's the Glenn Beck program.

I'm Mike Broomhead.

Stick around.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

The Glenn Vet Program.

Hey, thanks for being here.

Mike Broomhead in again for Glenn.

Thanks for the social media outreach.

We do have somebody that wants to debate the

gun idea of controlling gun control.

We're going to get to that.

I think we're going to try to get to that in this hour.

I would like, if that caller can hold on, I will.

I want to talk about this NSA leaker first.

I want to talk about the identity of the woman who has now been charged with being the NSA leaker.

Her name is Lee.

I'm sorry.

Her name is Reality Lee Winner.

Reality winner.

Now that has to be made up, right?

She goes by apparently Sarah Winners on Twitter.

If it's the same girl, it looks to be the same girl.

And some of the things that she has tweeted out, just kind of give you an idea before we get into what she has leaked, because the documents themselves are very important, but she's got a top secret clearance.

She works for a company called the Pluribus International Corporation in Georgia.

So

we have got one of the tweets that was out from the Iranians.

There was a tweet, we will never use our weapons against anyone except in self-defense.

Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement.

That was an Iranian statement pointed at the Americans when everybody was complaining about the Iranians and the deal we made with them.

To this,

she replied to that tweet on February 7th.

There are many Americans protesting U.S.

government aggressions toward Iran.

If our tangerine-in-chief declares war, we stand with you.

This is a woman that's got top secret clearance at the White House.

I'm just, I mean, I am dumbfounded that if she, if this is the same person, it looks to be the same account.

This is the one attributed to her.

By the way, Wikileaks is trying to, they got a reward posted posted for information out about her as well.

But some of the things that she has said and done, 25-year-old stole top secret documents.

Now, these are the documents in NSA, they have certified that these were classified documents.

And it was the leaks that the Russian government

had tried to hack into election systems that they had sent out phishing into some.

They had tried to get into others.

They weren't able to.

They weren't successful.

There's no evidence that any votes were changed or anything like that happened.

But this was evidence that the NSA had that they were trying, which is nothing new.

They've been trying this for decades.

Not the cyber part of it, but they have been messing with our elections for years.

And so

her leaking this document, and the reason why it matters, And I talked about this in the first hour as well, is those documents, when they are named, when they are listed as classified, cannot leave that room that they are in.

And many times it's called the SCIF.

That room is where they keep top secret documents.

Then if you have a clearance and there's information on a case you're working or something that you're doing where there is top secret documents that you need to read, you will be notified by an email that there are documents in the SCIF for you to read.

You go into that room without any recording devices.

You can't take pictures of the documents on your phone.

You can't write and record things that are there.

You go in, you read your documents, you commit to memory what you need to know from the documents, you leave the documents in that room, and you walk away.

If you take the documents out of that room, just leaving that room with those documents is a violation of the law.

You certainly couldn't put them on someone's desk down the hall or give them to somebody else that's not, even if they have a clearance, you don't give them to someone that's not working on that particular case or doesn't need to know any of that information.

That's what she did or what she's being charged with.

And her motives, and the reason why I'm talking about her motives are because she's a Bernie Sanders supporter.

She was one of the people that's part of the resistance of Donald Trump.

She's made different comments about the president and her disdain for him.

And motive is important here because they're going to try to make her out to be Snowden.

They're going to try to make her out to be someone that was trying to do what was best for the country.

What she is trying to do is subvert the president of the United States.

And it would be no different if she had done the same thing directly to Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

The leaks were a direct attack at the presidency itself.

So will she be convicted of that?

We'll see.

But I ask this question, and it bears asking again.

What about Hillary?

How is it any different?

Just because Hillary didn't take physical pieces of paper like this and walk them out, that she's any less guilty of the same crime?

Hillary Clinton digitally did the exact same thing.

She removed documents that were classified or that she should have known they were classified or that she should have classified.

Don't ever lose sight of that.

Hillary Clinton cannot hide behind the fact that some of those documents were not listed as classified when they were sent to her because she's the classifier.

It's her job to tell everybody else that this stuff is classified.

And what she did digitally was take documents of national security interest and email them to people,

A, that may not have needed to know it, B, for sure, on an unsecure server that was easily hacked by foreign nationals.

She used a Blackberry in China and in Russia and on trips that she was, they were told her, don't use those devices.

They're so easy to hack.

You can't get on a Wi-Fi signal there.

They're going to hack into your system.

They're going to be able to read what you're doing.

And she did that on multiple occasions.

So how is it?

And this girl should be arrested.

She should be made an example of and she should be punished.

And you know who's going to be behind that?

100%?

The intelligence community.

And the reason why they're going to be so much behind it is because people in that world are apolitical.

They have their own opinions, but they don't do things for political reasons.

If you work for the White House, your job with national security is to provide the White House or provide the Department of Defense or to provide the Joint Chiefs or whoever you're reporting to.

information that could be critical to decisions they have to make about national security.

That's your job.

And they take that job very seriously.

Surveilling the people or monitoring the phone calls or doing what's necessary, gathering intelligence data, putting it all together and turning it over to the proper agencies is what they are charged with.

And largely, 99% of the time, they do a fantastic job of helping the people on the ground keep us safe.

But when you have someone who takes information and gives it away for political reasons, what's the punishment?

I mean, how big could this possibly be?

So keep your eye on Reality Winner.

And it's the name is mind-boggling, but the tweets are even more so.

Some of the other things that she's done, Reality Winner, arrested alleged crimes, according to somebody on here.

She was a former U.S.

Air Force linguist who speaks different languages, Pashto, Farsi, and Dari, according to what one person on Twitter reported about her mother.

And it says, there's just so many of the tweets that she has put out that seem to be anti-Donald Trump.

Why is it that she, I don't understand how she keeps that job or that clearance?

I'm sure the investigation into this, and maybe that's where it started, was when they saw somebody that seemed to be so much of an activist against President Trump that maybe that's what clued them in to doing more.

I don't know.

What we're going to do, I think what we're going to do coming up here in a few moments, I put the call out for anybody

that wanted to talk with me about why we should prevent guns and how preventing or controlling guns, getting rid of them here in our country, would make us safer.

So, I put the call out about an hour ago, and there's one person that wants to do it.

So, we're going to try to do that in the next hour, in the next part of the show.

We'll see how that goes over.

Is this going to be a fun conversation, a respectful conversation, or is this going to be a train wreck?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I'm looking forward to seeing how it is.

We'll do that coming up here pretty quick.

My name is Mike Broomhead in for Glen Beck.

I'll be back.

The Glen Beck Program.

And thanks for being here this morning.

So earlier we were talking about the shooting in Orlando and how a disgruntled employee murdered five people and then took his own life.

And immediately the tweet started going out about gun control and how we need to have the gun control debate.

So I stated my case.

I put it out there to anybody who would want to debate about gun control, have a reasonable debate on how limiting my access to firearms would make us safer.

And we got one response that we wanted to try to use.

And he's from Florida.

His name is Scott.

So Scott, first of all, welcome to the program.

Hello.

Hello, Scott.

You're on the air.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay, first of all, thanks for calling in.

You've heard me state my case about guns, and you say you believe we'd be safer if we didn't have guns.

If nobody had guns, nobody'd get shot.

It's my point.

Okay, fair enough.

If nobody had guns, nobody'd get shot.

You're right, but that's an impossibility.

So what do we do with the way it is?

It's impossible that nobody has guns, but you could make it to where almost nobody would, where it would be drastically.

I work in the trucking industry.

I have a small trucking company.

I used to work in construction.

Both very highly regulated.

Both have many ridiculous laws.

I agree.

And

they force people to comply by making the consequences so terrible that if you don't comply, you'll get put out of business.

And so if you would make the consequences bad enough, people would not take that.

I pay my taxes for one simple reason, because I'm scared of the IRS.

And

you could use the same concept with guns, I would think.

But why would you?

That's my question.

Why do you think we would be safer limiting access to firearms?

We wouldn't be safer limiting your access to firearms, but we would be safer if criminals could not get their hands on firearms.

I agree with that.

People would still get murdered.

People would still murder other people.

But the majority of our murders are committed by guns.

And so if you could make so that there's 95% less guns in the United States, there would be much less people getting murdered by guns.

So limiting my access to guns doesn't make us any less safe.

So, we agree on that.

But, how do you limit the access to firearms by criminals?

There are already very severe, strict laws against gun possession by convicted felons.

They're not allowed to possess firearms.

If they're on parole, they go back to prison immediately if they have a gun in their possession.

So, you explain to me how you make more laws that criminals don't obey anyway.

How do you make more laws that are going to affect a criminal when it's not affecting them the way it is now?

You would have to make guns inaccessible to everybody.

They would have to be just completely banned altogether.

Law-abiding or not-law-abiding citizens, neither one would be allowed to have any guns at all.

All right, so then, and let me be devil's advocate with you, Scott.

I'm trying to be fair.

Look what happened with the Charlie Ebdo

shooting

in Europe.

Now, the police weren't really armed there.

There's only segments of the police department that are armed, and yet the criminals were, and they murdered police officers in the streets.

They gunned people down.

What happened, just what happened in this, the London Bridge attack, where these guys used a vehicle, not guns, but used a vehicle to run people down.

And then they began to indiscriminately stab people in the streets.

There was no one armed around.

It took eight minutes before these guys were gunned down by police with firearms.

So you don't think that an armed citizen could have helped in that situation?

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

So then why would you...

Why is it a good idea to take guns away from everyone?

Well, now, I never said it's a good idea.

You said you wanted to have the debate.

That's my point, is you can do it.

I believe you could make so that there would be very few murders committed by guns.

I'm not saying it's ideal.

I'm not saying it would be the right thing to do.

I'm saying you can make the argument that by eliminating access to guns by criminals and legal citizens alike and keeping the police force armed, I would not be for taking guns away from police.

But you could make access so limited that people could not have it, make the consequences dire enough that they'd not be willing to take the chance.

And if they would get caught, in my business, I get pulled over by a DOT officer for absolutely no reason, and he can keep me there all day inspecting my truck.

And you could do the same thing with anybody else and inspect them.

If you find guns, they go to prison or whatever the consequence would be and make it dire enough that people would not be willing to take the chance to own a gun.

All right, Scott.

Listen, I appreciate the call.

I appreciate you wanting to step in with this part of the debate.

So thanks for the call, Scott.

A couple of things that I will say in rebuttal of this is

the idea of an armed government against an unarmed citizenry is what we fled from.

If you remember, the reason for the Second Amendment had nothing to do really with self-protection in the streets of America against criminals.

I'm not calling for taking up arms against the government.

That's not what I'm saying whatsoever.

But we realized that the right to keep and bear arms at its foundation was so that the citizens were armed and that there was not an unarmed sitting duck citizenry, number one.

have, there is not a person that I know of that is more active and more respectful of law enforcement.

This is not a knock against law enforcement, but they are a government agency.

And that, and most of the people I know, interestingly enough, Scott, if you're still listening, the people that I know in law enforcement that I've become very close friends with, including family members, I have a brother that's a cop, and I don't want to speak for him, but for other police officers that I know, they are not concerned about a citizen that's armed.

If If you're a law-abiding citizen, they don't care.

It's the criminals they're concerned with.

I understand living in an idealistic society that if nobody had guns, nobody would get shot.

That doesn't mean we wouldn't kill each other.

Historically, take a look at wars.

Read about the wars that happened before guns were around and the clever ways they had of killing each other.

We now are dealing with terrorists who are as hell-bent on killing us as they ever have been.

They realize using guns, a lot of times times access to them puts them on a list.

So what are they doing?

Something as innocuous as getting behind the wheel of an automobile and just running people over in the streets.

Then they're using blades.

They're using knives and swords to do as much damage as they can until they are gunned down.

I'm not, and I hope Scott's still listening.

I never want to be a hero.

I'm not somebody that wants to brandish a firearm.

When I carry a firearm with me, I don't carry it on my hip.

I'm not flashy about it.

I'm not any of those things.

But I do believe I don't only have the right to self-protection.

I have a responsibility to the people I care about, to myself and to the people around me to do that.

Not to mention that I've given two examples yesterday of law enforcement.

As you said, the citizens shouldn't be armed, but the police should be.

That two police officers, one in Lee County, Florida, and the other in Maricopa County, Arizona, police officers were in dire situations where their lives were being taken by a perpetrator that got in the upper hand on them.

And it was an armed citizen in both cases that gunned down the perpetrator and saved the lives of the cops.

As many times as we hear in the media of people doing horrible things with guns, there are plenty of stories out about men and women who have protected themselves, who have protected people around them, and have saved the lives of innocent people by being armed.

I'm not saying we should look for gunfights in the street.

It's just the opposite.

We should try to stay as far away from them as we can, but we prevent them by letting the criminals know we are equally armed.

You want to talk about consequences.

There's your consequences.

I guarantee you, it's not a good idea to break into my house.

And if you do, you're going to find out the consequences are not worth the risk.

I don't have that much stuff.

Certainly not worth your life.

That's not saying to be a hero.

I'm saying you're going to want to break into my neighbor's house who thinks like Scott does that we shouldn't have guns

and So the the core of this debate started with the Orlando killing and we can take it from any of these mass killings that we know of whether it was by the mentally deranged or somebody who was some jealous boyfriend or by this guy a disgruntled employee

The core of all of this is it's not as much about the tool they used because if he didn't have access to guns if this guy hated these people this much He'd blow the building up We know that the Boston bombers used pressure cookers to make bombs to kill people at the Boston Marathon.

When people have evil intent, they will find a way.

And you're not going to stop the evil by taking a tool away from them.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

It's just common sense.

I want a reasonable solution.

If I could find a way to stop these things from happening, every one of us would look into doing it.

But gun control has never worked.

It's never going to work.

The criminals that commit these crimes don't care about the murder laws.

Why do they care about the gun laws?

And to say they shouldn't have access to guns, well, that's impossible.

It's impossible to say that we're going to take everybody's gun away.

Not going to happen.

So then the reality is what do we do to ensure safety as best we can, protect the rights of people under the Second Amendment, and have a peaceful society as best we can.

And I think the debate has to start with the dangerously mentally ill and what can be done.

And what, because constitutionally there's rights there for people.

Forcibly medicating somebody, forcibly institutionalize somebody against their will.

I mean, there's a lot of arguments there.

But the guns should not be.

I think the guns are more of a distraction than they are anything else.

In a moment, I want to finish up this hour.

Yesterday, I criticized education in America by bringing up the point that in California, 75% of the young black men in schools cannot read at grade level.

They are not able to read and write.

And one of my complaints was: we are not turning out critical thinkers, that we are turning out machines.

Someone either was listening or just by, it was serendipitous that I have a story about the colleges in America and the lack of critical thinking coming out of universities.

So we'll talk about that here in just a few moments.

I'm Mike Broomhead, and this is the Glenn Beck program.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

Still hopeful to get my friend Jay Dobbins on in the next hour of the show.

We'll get to that.

Thanks to the Twitter outreach.

At Tanker KC tweets out, Caller said the majority of murders committed by guns.

That's false.

Guns don't commit murders.

You're right.

You know, again, it's a semantical thing, but you're right.

It's not the gun.

And that's my point to all of this, is that it's it's about the evil in the hearts of men, so to speak.

It's our ability to find new ways to torture and kill each other.

It is a human defect.

And listen, I am no stranger to controversy, especially when I'm driving.

And so I have no problem with confrontation.

But the idea of wanting to pummel somebody to death or the idea of wanting to shoot another human being over an argument has honestly has never entered my mind.

I've fired firearms many times.

The idea of aiming that at a person

scares the hell out of me.

I don't want to shoot a human being,

but I certainly don't want to be unarmed and unable to protect myself.

I just don't want that to happen.

So I appreciate it.

And one of my friends in Arizona, Ryan Spradling, shout out to Broomhead.

He says, I'm crushing it.

So thanks, Ryan.

I'm glad you're listening.

All the social media outreach, I appreciate it.

Try to answer as many things as I can during the breaks.

I wanted to talk about this today, this data, test data.

Many colleges fail to improve critical thinking skills.

The goal I would think of an education is to become a critical thinker.

The idea of being able to read is a liberating thing because now you can gather information for yourself.

You're not beholden to somebody else, which is one of the reasons why I encourage people, don't just take my word for things.

Don't listen to me as your only source.

If you saw the sources that I go to every single day for information, many of them on the same topic, where I know I'm going to get differing opinions, even if they may not call it opinions, different points of view, to try to get a well-rounded look at something or a topic.

It's important to ask questions of people that I disagree with.

I have some very close friends that are as liberal as could possibly be.

And

I still respect them.

I still love them.

We just don't talk a lot about politics because we end up fighting.

But I love them.

And so when there is a social issue topic or there's something that happens, I like to hear their opinions because at times hearing what they think is the solution can be very helpful.

even if it doesn't help me with my end of it it's helpful me helpful for me to form my solution to an issue so this data that was collected from this from this test data freshmen and seniors about 200 colleges across the u.s take a little known test every year to measure how much better they get at learning to think the results are discouraging more than half of the schools at least one-third of seniors were unable to make a cohesive argument assess the quality of evidence in a document or interpret data in a table.

This is according to the Wall Street Journal.

So imagine being given something to read and not being able to comprehend and then base, create an argument on the information you've been given.

That's why we are cranking out robots.

That's why the level of discourse has really, it's not social media.

I mean, social media is a tool.

It's like we said we're not going to blame the gun.

I'm not going to blame Twitter.

I mean, it's the inability to have a rational argument.

I would rather call you stupid than have a conversation about why I disagree with you.

And that's what we have devolved into.

We've got all the anecdotal evidence of the liberal professor that had the kids in San Diego wipe the pro-life things off the sidewalk.

And that's kind of a symptom of what's going on.

The reality of what's going on is somebody that says, I don't agree with that, but they're entitled to their opinion.

I am as adamantly pro-life a person

that there is.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to try to silence pro-choice people.

That doesn't mean that I don't think they have a right to their opinion.

And I have to admit, I acquiesce every time in the conversation.

It's legal in America.

So I'm not going to go after people for breaking the law.

I'm not going to call women baby killers.

I'm not going to be insulting.

I'll state my case of why I believe it's the wrong thing, but I can do it in a, I can make a cohesive argument.

And I barely have a high school diploma.

I mean, I barely have a a high school diploma.

And, but the idea to create critical thinkers is what we should do in everybody.

Young people.

I speak in high schools across the state where I live.

And you'd be amazed at some of the critical thinkers that there are, that there are young people that are concerned about terrorism and the economy and the things that you and I worry about.

And they're able to ask things in a very intelligent way when they're taught to be critical thinkers.

Next hour.

We are going to talk more about the London attackers.

We'll talk more about those three men, more of the things that we know know about them and what happens next.

So we'll do that in the next hour of the show.

And I'm going to try to solidify my buddy.

If I can get Jay Dobbins, I want to get him on the show today.

If not, I'll get him for tomorrow.

Glenn Bank

Mercury.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

I will make a stand, I will raise my voice, I will hold your hand.

Cause we have won.

I will beat my drum.

I have made my choice.

We will overcome.

Cause we are one.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, thanks for being here.

Mike Broomhead in for Glenn.

Reports of an incident outside of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

Police officers shot and injured an attacker out there.

Really, that's all the details that we have right now.

This just happened.

It's breaking news.

We'll find out more as the morning goes on.

As we go on with this hour, we'll get more information on this attack.

As it comes in, we'll let you know what's happening there.

But the police have asked people to stay away from a certain area around the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

So we'll find.

Apparently, the attacker attacked an officer with a hammer is one of the reports that we're hearing.

And then he was shot.

and injured by police.

So we're waiting to hear more details

as it progresses, as it comes out.

The London attackers have been identified.

It's one of the headlines that we've been talking about all morning.

Three men, they range in age from 22 and as old as 30 years old.

Two of them were of Moroccan descent.

One of them is from Pakistan.

Now Pakistan, but a British citizen.

Another one Moroccan descent, but a British citizen, also claimed to be from Libya as well.

And the third person was of Moroccan descent, but a citizen of Italy.

And that he was 22 years old.

The 22-year-old suspect.

whose last name is Zagba.

He was seen, Yosef Zagba, was caught traveling, trying to get into Istanbul.

The fear was, or the thought was he was going into Syria.

The Italian authorities alerted the European authorities about these, about his travel, and he was on a list.

So was the primary in all of this.

And his name is Akaram, but is his last name.

He's 27 years old.

Radicalized, very open about being radicalized, waved a jihadi flag, was part of a jihadi documentary called the Jihadi Next Door.

And last year in Great Britain, was trying to radicalize some of his neighbors and the neighbor kids in a park.

And so was pretty well known for being outspoken.

So the questions now are, why wasn't he being surveilled?

Why was he able to do this?

And what's interesting is if he wasn't one of the keys that they were looking at, now that we know this about him, who's more of a threat?

That would be the question I was asking.

If I were part of the

European press or the British press, I would want to know who is a bigger threat than this guy because he seems to be pretty ominous.

And then the third of the three suspects was not known to 30 years old, born in Morocco, but also a British citizen, was not known to police at all.

So it would seem that here was a young guy, and he's actually the oldest of the three, but here's a man that was radicalized by probably

Karam Butt and probably was the one that was the leader of this trio.

We know that they ran over all those people on the London Bridge.

We know about the stabbings.

And now here we have a situation in Paris.

Someone attacked with a hammer.

We have no idea about the attacker, why, what the mental state is, what the goal was.

There was an attack in Australia, I believe, earlier today or yesterday in which ISIS is claiming responsibility for that.

So the laundry list goes on.

I was just during the break talking with some of the guys here, with Doc Thompson and with Michael Pelka, and we were rattling off to each other what we know of just during the month of Ramadan, the attacks that have happened.

And, you know, they've been like we did yesterday, chronicling that how is this, this can't be every day.

And I don't know.

I mean, there are people that have been tweeting me.

I don't know

the religion of Islam.

I don't know the Muslim faith enough to defend it or attack it.

But it doesn't, I know that, you know, you can misconstrue when people do verses in the Bible.

You've got the Westboro Baptist Church, who has never killed anyone as far as I know, by by the way.

But they are a group of people that espouse evil, and they make the claim that they read and worship and get their

course of actions from the same book that I've read, that I teach, that I try to model as best I can.

They would say that they're Christians.

So would I.

There's nothing about the Westboro Baptist Church that I agree with.

Nothing.

You know, they were, I mentioned earlier the protest or the shooting in Tucson, Arizona.

We were talking about mass shooters.

And I mentioned Jared Lofner and the shooting in which it took the

life of a federal judge.

It severely injured Gabrielle Gifford, a former congresswoman, and it killed a small girl named Christina Taylor Greene.

And she was eight years old, I believe, at the time.

And the Westboro Baptist Church threatened to come to Arizona and boycott or protest her funeral.

This again was their motto their idea of God hates gay people so much and America is so sympathetic to gay people that

they are that God is allowing these horrible things to happen to good people as a punishment to us for how nice we are to gay people.

If that isn't a warped theology, I don't know what is.

Anybody who presumes to know the mind of God is a fool to begin with.

But to presume that God would take the life of an eight-year-old because the American government is,

I don't know what word they would use,

about gay people is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.

But they would say they're Christians the same as I am.

I taught at a Baptist church.

They claim to be a Baptist church.

So I'm not going to lump the Muslim faith.

And the billion people that are a part of that religion in with the radical Islamists who are saying that their religious books tell them, by the way, to kill mostly Muslims.

Let's be honest.

That attack in Baghdad in front of an ice cream shop where they killed all those kids, those were Muslim kids.

The Manchester attacker killed kids.

Didn't matter what faith they were.

They were just looking to kill kids.

But outside of that ice cream shop in Baghdad, that bombing a few days ago,

that was children.

It's just, how do,

I don't know what motivates people to any of these things.

The Orlando shooter, which was not a terrorist attack, it was a disgruntled former employee at an awning manufacturing company named John Newman, 45 years old, went back to his old place of business.

Now, he's a former member of the United States Army, so he's a veteran.

He had some run-ins with the law.

He'd been arrested for possession of marijuana, a DUI, and he also had a confrontation, a physical confrontation with a coworker a couple of years ago or a year or so ago and was fired.

He's been fired from his job.

Went back to his place of business with a gun, told some people to leave and shot five other people before taking his own life.

And so again, different than a terrorist attack because of motive.

It doesn't mean loss of life.

It's not a death toll, but the loss of life and the motivation behind it.

He wasn't trying to terrorize people.

I guarantee you, these three people are a part of that movement.

The three London attackers are a part of the movement that you're not safe anywhere.

Walking on the London Bridge, having coffee or a drink outside at a cafe, it doesn't matter.

You're not safe.

An Ariana Grande concert, your kids are going to go just hear music.

Children being children.

There was one video that I played on my show back home, and it was of two girls on a cell phone videotaping, like a Facebook live video or something.

And

all of a sudden, you hear the bomb go off in the distance.

And then the two girls realize something's happening and their goofing around just turns into terror.

It's only about a 10 or a 12-second video, but it is harrowing to think about that's the society that we're now living in is fighting this kind of evil.

The White House leaker has been identified and she has been charged.

Her name is Reality Lee Winner.

And looking at some of her profiles, her Twitter profile, which they're attributing to her, I'm pretty sure by now it's been verified to be here.

If it's her, making statements, anti-Trump statements, said that

she would, we Americans, there are those of us in America that stand with the Iranians if there were a war to break out against the Iranians.

How does a woman, and I mean, I mean this sincerely because I don't know, I've never had a top secret clearance.

I wouldn't be dumb enough to have tried, but I've never had a top secret clearance.

But how does someone that goes on social media and says if the sitting president, who you work for,

decides through Congress that we're going to go to war, because she accused him of that in there, not the Congress declaring war, if Trump declares war, which she knows can't happen,

then there are people like her that will side with Iran.

How does she keep a top-secret clearance?

Isn't there a violation there that she may not go to jail for her views, but she's certainly not going to get her hands on top secret

documents.

And she did, and she released them to the public.

What we're going to do coming up in a moment is more about these London attackers, what we know about these three men, what we're learning.

And of course, if we can get more information on this attack in Paris and what happened at the Notre Dame Cathedral, we'll bring that to you in a moment as well.

On again, social media, I'm having a great time talking to people on social media.

On Twitter, I am at Broomhead Show.

So feel free to reach out there if you like.

My name is Mike Broomhead, and this is the Glenn Beck program.

We are one:

the Glenn Beck Program,

Mercury.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck Program.

All right.

So here we have it.

The three attackers in London.

What we know about these guys, if you're just joining the show, the three attackers were identified yesterday, the third of which was identified later, a young man.

It's funny, two of the three were known to police.

One definitely was known to authorities.

The second had been reported through the Italian authorities because he's an Italian citizen.

But the third of these, the oldest of the three, was not known to police at all.

So the suspicion is, of course,

how was he radicalized?

Was he one of the people, was he radicalized by the leader of this group who he says was he was radicalized by watching YouTube?

I don't necessarily believe that either.

By the way, I've just been back and forth with my friend Jay Dobbins.

It looks like we're going to try to get him on this hour in the next segment of the show.

And my apologies to Jay and everybody else with the scheduling mix-up.

But we're going going to try to get him on to talk about Operation Fast and Furious.

But

the Orlando shooter was not a terrorist attack, although there were people dead.

And I've had people email me that I know saying terrorism, define terrorism.

Well, in my mind, what we're talking about is what the intent is.

The Orlando shooter had no intention of terrorizing the Orlando community.

He was after those five people or that company specifically for specific reasons.

The terrorists, and if you think about the gangs in America, if you think, if you live in a big city where gangs are a big thing,

you realize the tactics they use in the neighborhoods they live in.

They don't expect everybody to join them, but everybody in the neighborhood better fear them.

You better stay away from them.

You better not rat them out.

You better not tell anybody about what they're up to.

So they use fear, the fear of death and injury, to you, if you say something, or your family members, or both.

They use that fear to take over neighborhoods.

It's not about respect.

It's not about anything else but self-indulgence.

So if it's drugs, they want to scare off other gangs, whatever it is.

And it's the same thing with the Islamists.

They are using fear in normally safe places.

You know, tourist attractions like the London Bridge.

They attack Parliament.

If you remember that.

Now,

they are using these to

tell society, you're not safe anywhere.

They're not attacking the police necessarily.

They're certainly not attacking the military necessarily.

What they're doing is attacking the citizenry and saying, you're not safe.

That's terrorism.

We used to watch, when I was younger, you would see the fight between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And you would see in Israel, you'd see a report that a Palestinian got onto a bus loaded with people and blew themselves up.

Or there was the video of that bombing in a nightclub or in a restaurant.

And there was a reality of living in Israel at the time of knowing that you had to kind of watch over your shoulder.

But they were well armed and they also had a great military that protected their people.

In Great Britain, the police are telling their citizens to run, hide, and tell someone.

I mean, honestly, how in the world is that helping anyone?

Three guys

conjure up a plan to jump in a car,

run people over,

jump out at the end of the ride, and stab as many people as they can until the police kill them.

How do you, if you're not surveilling that person, if that person's not on a watch list,

How do you prevent something like that from happening?

What drastic measures changing society?

Do you not allow foot traffic on London Bridge?

Do you limit where people can drive cars?

How do you stop what you do is you try to eradicate the threat,

not the tools they use to carry out their destruction?

It's a sad commentary.

When you go down the laundry list of things that have happened in recent weeks, you think about the holy month of Ramadan and you think about the observances.

How about the hypocrisy in all of this?

There was one of the shootings here, it happened actually in Texas where I am now.

They had a Muhammad drawing contest or something and a couple of guys from Arizona jumped in a car and decided they were going to shoot up the place.

They didn't make it through the front door.

They were gunned down in the streets because they were trying to murder people.

But for a group of people that say if you even insult Islam or insult the Prophet Muhammad, insult the Quran, if you insult our book, you insult insult our,

who we hold up in the highest regards, the staples of our religion,

if you even insult them, we'll murder you.

And then who hasn't seen the videos of ISIS in Iraq going into those religious places and those museums where there are religious relics dating back thousands of years

and just destroying them, just breaking them on the ground.

It's the utter hypocrisy.

No different than you see the gangs in America where they, on one hand, claim to love each other, and on the other hand, it's all about murder and mayhem.

It's unbelievable.

So here's three, one very young guy, 22 years old, one 27, 130,

dead,

and taking the lives and changing the lives of so many people around them.

For what good?

And what are we doing, societally, America, what are we doing to make sure it doesn't happen here here more often than it does because we've had San Bernardino next week I guess is the anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando Florida so we've seen incidents here but not to the degree that we're seeing in Europe and in Great Britain so it is it is troubling to think about what they're doing in these nations.

Looking through some of the paperwork and what we know about them, the London Bridge attackers revealed with Arsenal shirted jihadi ringleader.

When I say Arsenal jersey, that's the soccer team.

I just want to make sure everybody knows that.

This is America.

We don't know a whole lot about soccer here.

Just so you know that when I say arsenal, he wasn't wearing like arm, you know, arms.

He wasn't wearing guns.

It was an Arsenal jersey.

And the second terrorist identified this as a Moroccan pastry chef.

So these are guys that had regular jobs that lived in that town.

One of them, though, was talking, espousing very radical ideas.

What then do you do about that?

That's my question.

At what point are you able to intervene?

Here in America, we monitor each other just on what we can say, but that's only if you care if people, you're not going to be arrested for what you say, but you may lose your job.

Bill Maher had to apologize for what he said, and he should have.

Should he have lost his job?

Well, that's at the discretion of the people he works for.

Other people have for using that word, just using the word.

So we change how we address people, what we say about people.

We do all of that.

So then, what is it

on that side of things, when does the rhetoric become an offense, an arrestable offense?

Is that something that they should be looking into?

So here's what I've got set up.

I've got my friend Jay Dobbins.

Jay Dobbins is going to join the show in a few minutes.

Tomorrow, Jason Chaffetz, during the show tomorrow, in the morning, Jason Chaffetz is having a hearing on Fast and Furious and the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

What I think is one of the biggest crimes of the last 10 years for sure was what happened with Operation Fast and Furious.

And the reason why Jay Dobbins is such an authority on all of this is the same ATF leadership, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms leadership that railroaded Jay Dobbins are the same leaders that remained in place and had this ridiculous plan of something called Operation Fast and Furious.

To date, none of the leadership at the ATF has been punished.

There's only been one person that's lost their job because of Fast and Furious, and he quit.

It was the U.S.

Attorney for the state of Arizona, and he quit.

Some of the details about this case, but now we're talking about the death of a law enforcement agent where a gun from Fast and Furious was found at the scene of the crime.

So Jay Dobbins, former ATF agent, first federal agent ever to become a full-patch member of the Hells Angels as an undercover officer.

author, very well-accomplished author, speaking tours across the country, and somebody that is so motivational.

He's going to join us here in the next segment of the show.

So you're going to want to stick around to hear Jay Dobbins and what he has to say.

If you're watching on the TV, compelling.

The guy is just a compelling interview.

So Jay Dobbins joins me in just a couple of moments.

I'm Mike Broomhead.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

The Glenn Beck Program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

All right, if you've listened to me any length of time, whether it's in my show in Arizona or anytime I've been on this show, it's come up very often.

It's Operation Fast and Furious.

I've talked about it because it happened in Arizona, but it affected the entire country.

Jay Dobbins is a special agent or was a former special agent agent with ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, New York Times best-selling author, book called No Angel, the first federal agent to become a full patch member of the Hells Angels, infiltrated that organization, responsible for a lot of arrests, and then it went completely sideways.

And the connection between the two, Fast and Furious, and what happened to Jay Dobbins, is ATF leadership.

The people that were in charge of the Fast and Furious operation were the same people that were the bosses over Jay Dobbins when he was railroaded.

So I welcome welcome him to the show.

Jay, thanks for joining me.

Good morning.

Good morning to you and your audience, and thanks for having me.

You know, Jay, you and I have talked about a lot of things.

I met you at the Benefit for the Families of Border Patrick Agent Brian Terry, and I know that this is a subject that is very near to you.

With this hearing coming up tomorrow, what are you expecting Chaffetz to do in this hearing?

What are you expecting him to find out?

Well, they're promising to finally get to the bottom of what happened and all the cover-up and the executive privilege that was extended over the case to protect the White House and the Department of Justice and Eric Holder.

Whether they'll get there or not, you know, I don't know.

Josephine Terry, Brian's mother, is set to testify before the Oversight Committee.

And I expect her words and her passion and emotion over the death of her son to be powerful.

When this happened to you, when the leadership at the ATF did what they did to you, can you explain a little bit of what happened to your career and then the fallout?

Didn't they actually accuse you of burning down your own house?

Well, when my Hells Angels infiltration case ended and my true identity was exposed, I received a myriad of death and violence threats.

I had murder contracts on me.

There were threats to gang rape my wife.

There were threats to kidnap and torture my kids.

And the leadership in ATF in Phoenix ignored all those and buried them.

They went beyond that.

They exposed the location of my residence in open source information.

Three months later, my house was burned to the ground.

And those leaders failed to respond to the fire scene and then tried to frame me as the arsonist.

And those leaders in Phoenix, namely Bill Newell, George Gillette and Charles Higman, were in the middle of Operation Fast and Furious.

I reported what had happened.

The Office of Special Counsel and the Office of the Inspector General did an investigation and wrote a report that was delivered to President Obama.

It was delivered to Eric Holder.

It was delivered to Congress.

It was delivered to the director of ATF.

And no one did anything.

They just stood down on it.

Well, they stood down on it because they had something to protect.

These guys were running fast and furious.

They did not want them exposed.

They did not want attention on these guys.

So two years after my house gets burned down, after these guys have been pointed out to the leadership of the government that this leadership in ATF is corrupt, it's criminal, Brian Terry's murdered.

Wow.

I remember when you and I had talked about this.

Your connection because of the leadership.

What were your thoughts when Fast and Furious was exposed?

when

the agents on the ground after Brian Terry was killed finally said, enough is enough.

I don't care if my career is ruined.

I've got to speak out.

What were your thoughts when you first heard about the leadership and that mission or that operation that they were in control of?

You know, my initial thoughts when I heard of what had happened, that

thousands of assault white rifles had been like voluntarily allowed to get into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico.

I didn't believe it.

As much as I knew that the leadership in ATF in Phoenix was corrupt and criminal, I still didn't believe it.

I said, there's no way these guys would try to pull this off.

And sure enough, man, they were even dirtier than I thought they were.

They were even dirtier than what they had done to me by trying to frame an innocent agent that worked for them for attempted murder of his family by a fire.

They were even dirtier than that.

When the leadership, then, because the punchline to a lot of this that I wish would have been reported more on the national level is that those same leaders you're talking about never lost their jobs.

Weren't they either laterally transferred or promoted to other positions, protected their career and their pensions, right?

You know, internally and externally, ATF determined that these guys were criminal.

They had

a proposal, an internal proposal to terminate them and prosecute them.

And they all got free passes.

They either were reassigned to a job that allowed them to keep their employment or they were allowed to retire

with full benefits and full pensions.

And every day that you pay taxes, that I pay taxes, that your audience pays taxes, we are funding the comfort and

the well-being and the lifestyle of those criminals who

are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens, and Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata.

They all got a pass, they all got taken care of, they all got soft landings.

Do you think with the turnover in the administration now that some of those documents can be exposed, that that executive order can be lifted, that some of the pieces of the evidence that were covered up by executive order can now be viewed in the light of day?

Well, I believe that's one of the points that Josephine Terry intends to make before the Oversight Committee tomorrow is that on the campaign trail, President Trump promised the Terry family that he would open those files up and that we would get to see what was being hidden, what was being concealed.

And I think that Josephine is going to ask the Oversight Committee, please press for that.

Please, please open this up so we can know the truth.

so that that family can get some closure and that

America can get the answers that they deserve as to why their government was arming the enemy, arming narco-trafficking.

Your book, No Angel.

You're a New York Times best-selling author, and now you've got a new book coming out called Catching Hell.

Tell me about the new book.

Catching Hell

actually has a fairly significant portion of the book dedicated to

this corruption at ATF and corruption within Phoenix and and corruption at ATF's headquarters, and how that came about and was validated through Fast and Furious, and the fact that I had exposed these criminal executives in the midst of Fast and Furious, and how no one wanted to pay attention, and everyone wanted to believe these guys, and they were left in place to continue to run that operation that resulted in all this carnage.

When you talk about the leadership at ATF, how did it affect the agents on the ground, the agents in the field, when this operation like Fast and Furious was going on?

How did they feel about what they were being told by leadership?

Oh, man, it's demoralizing.

The leadership, the executives, are going to continue to tell the public how they've changed everything, how everything's great again.

That's not the attitude with people with boots on the ground.

And not every boss at ATF is a criminal.

Not every one of them is corrupt.

The vast, vast majority of them are good employees trying to do their jobs, trying to

investigate America's violent crime on behalf of the good and innocent people that are out there.

But there's a handful of them that are dominant in leadership positions that are just maintaining the status quo.

Yeah, and I think that was what was most frustrating to me was when this case broke, and you and I both being in Arizona know the players and the names that the U.S.

attorney that left his post, the only person to lose his job was the U.S.

attorney, and he quit.

He wasn't fired.

He used to be the chief of staff for the former governor, Janet Napolitano, who at the time was Homeland Security Director.

So the idea that he didn't call her and let her know this was going on seems absurd to me.

But the fact that when all of this broke, that a couple of thousand rifles were trucked into Mexico, nothing was said and nothing was done, and it was covered up, shocks me to a certain degree.

But the worst part about it is good people like you and other agents who

Fast and Furious, lost their careers or had them damaged because they dared to speak out.

Well,

if you spoke up, if you blew the whistle, if you came forward with factual, truthful information that you had regarding this operation, the agency made it a point to bury you, to humiliate you, to publicly try to disgrace you.

That was their defense.

That was how they decided they were going to defend this corrupt operation was by slandering and libeling the people who came forward and told the truth.

Well,

I appreciate the time as always, Jay.

It's good to talk with you, even for a few minutes.

If people want to either get No Angel or pre-order the new book, how can they find you?

They can go to my website.

It's jaydobbins.com, J-A-Y-D-O-B-Y-N-S dot com.

And there's a couple tabs on that page, and both books are available.

Yeah, Jay, it's always a pleasure.

And everybody listening or watching, if you want to read, No Angel is a great book, and I can't wait to get a copy of Catching Hell.

Jay, I appreciate the time as always, and I hope to see you soon.

Thanks for having me, and thank you for continuing to pay attention to this.

And it's important that it gets further exposed and more attention on it.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

All right, that's Jay Dobbins joining us for a few moments.

Again,

truly an American, in my estimation, an American hero.

Jay Dobbins out of college, dedicated his life to public service, working as a federal agent.

How dangerous could you, how more dangerous could it be as a federal agent in America than to infiltrate and become a member of the Hells Angels?

And then for the government to turn their back on him the way they did and just expose him to the very elements of danger that he was trying to protect society from just shows you not everybody in the government is corrupt.

But when the corruption happens, how hard it is to get rid of it because those three leaders are still employed by the ATF as far as we know, and they got to live out their days and get their pensions.

It's just a sad, sad story of how it is.

Got one more segment left here in the show.

85% drop in food stamp subscriptions.

That happened in Alabama.

I'm going to tell you how and why.

I'll do that in just a few moments.

I'm Mike Broomhead, and this is the Glenn Beck program.

This is

the Glen Beck program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

All right, before we close it out today, police in Paris shot and injured a man who attacked officers with a hammer at the Notre Dame Cathedral

in the center of the city of Paris.

They opened up an anti-terror probe into all of this.

There's no details about the identity of the attacker yet, what the motives were behind all of this.

There were some pictures, kind of harrowing pictures.

You go to Notre Dame, you go to the cathedral.

There are people sitting inside the cathedral in the church.

Police came in and asked everybody to raise their hands.

So they're sitting in the pews of the church with their hands in the air.

And it just got to be a harrowing scene when you're there as a tourist on vacation, I'm sure.

so we'll find out what the motives were seems to be a single attacker there was no detonation of a bomb there was no shooting he attacked an officer with a hammer so we have no details if this is motivated by terrorism if ISIS is going to claim responsibility but so far that's the information we have coming out of Paris but if you look what's happened And now we've got Great Britain.

We've got now Paris, this happens.

Australia was another attack ISIS is claiming responsibility for.

Look what happened in Kabul with the bombing, Baghdad with the bombing.

All over the world, we're finding these attacks.

And it's about time to start asking, well, the Ariana Grande situation, what happened at that concert was so harrowing because it was kids.

To me, I thought that would be the game changer.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I don't know the minds of the Europeans.

I think in America...

After 9-11, America kind of galvanized.

It was the mistake of the terrorists to believe that we were kind of a loosely knit, I mean, they kind of saw us as kind of the Kardashians.

You know, we were just kind of shallow, and I don't even know if they are, but you know, the impression they give people, but that we were going to be this group of people that fought like we do, that if they attacked us like they did on September 11th, we'd fall apart.

But what it did was galvanize America.

People flooding back to churches.

You remember, it was Rudy Giuliani that said it was the worst of humanity met by the best of humanity in the humanitarian efforts that happened in the fallout.

From the rescue efforts to the recovery efforts, to the people that volunteered their vacation time to serve food to those that were working for recovery.

It was just a nationwide

mourning and kind of coming together.

And if you attack our children, I believe America would do the same thing now.

I don't know the mindset of what happened there in the U.K., but I would have thought that no matter what was going on in the local governments there, that when children were attacked with a bomb at a concert, that it would have changed the hearts and minds of the adults as to what they were really dealing with.

And hopefully that's the case.

And if this, we'll find out more about this attack in Paris, if it was related to to the same kind of violence or if it was just a madman that attacked a police officer, but attacked an officer with a hammer, was then shot.

A witness said they heard two shots.

The man is not dead.

The attacker is not dead.

They took the attacker to a local hospital, and we'll find out information whether he perishes from his wounds or not.

We'll find out in the coming hours, I'm sure.

Before we get out of here, very quickly, this kind of struck me as I saw this

story.

13 previously exempted Alabama counties

that had participants in their food stamp program had people canceling food stamps because they now have a work requirement attached to getting food assistance.

You know,

the old biblical reference that

the man that will not work shall not eat is the, I guess, the way they're thinking about it.

They're 85% drop in people when a job requirement was attached to it.

Just for the record,

I grew up with nothing myself, so it's not like I'm a silver spoon person pointing fingers at people in poverty.

But I also would say that my mom worked very hard to make sure we could eat.

And there are a lot of people that do that.

And if you're somebody that's just going to milk society,

there should be repercussions.

I'm not heartless, but I'm also not mindless.

Tomorrow on the program, I will be back tomorrow with an update on everything that we've been hearing about today.

We'll talk about the hearing with Jason Schaffetz because that hearing will be going on during this show.

Have a great day, everyone.

My name is Mike Briffin.

I'll back tomorrow.

God bless.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.