Trump’s victory exposes the deep state’s worst fears



Something extraordinary happened in the 2024 election. Conservatives, independents, and even former Democrats rose up and delivered a historic rebuke to the far left. The electoral map didn’t show a mere victory for Donald Trump — it was a political bloodbath. Moreover, for the first time in decades, Republicans are poised to take control of nearly every level of government.

This election was an unmistakable message from voters: America is sick, and we demand a cure.

Institutions meant to safeguard our liberties have become vectors for corruption, collusion, and control.

But before we can tackle the disease, we must diagnose it. What, exactly, is the mandate voters handed to Trump and the GOP? What is the problem that we demand they fix?

The answer is as clear as it is uncomfortable: The United States as we knew it no longer exists. Our freedoms — our sovereignty — have been systematically eroded by forces intent on transforming America into something unrecognizable.

Two of Donald Trump’s first promises as president-elect spoke directly to this. He vowed to eliminate the deep state and end censorship. The fact that these issues even need to be addressed shows how far we’ve strayed.

These proposed changes from the Trump administration are promising, but Trump cannot do this alone. The corruption afflicting this country is systemic. It’s a cancer that has spread through every organ of the body politic, from unelected bureaucrats in Washington to powerful corporations and media conglomerates. This rot has metastasized, just as it did in Europe under Fabian socialism and cultural Marxism. It must be excised.

But how did we get here? The left didn’t stumble into control of our institutions by accident. Its dominance over the media, universities, and culture was the result of a decades-long operation to manufacture consent.

The strategy is laid out plainly in a book by leftist thinker Noam Chomsky: “Manufacturing Consent.” Chomsky wasn’t wrong in his analysis — he was just dead wrong in his prescription. Over the decades, the left co-opted his blueprint to manipulate public opinion, consolidate power, and push its progressive agenda.

The proof is in the state of America today. Look at how the media has been consolidated. In the 1980s, 90% of American media was controlled by over 50 companies. Today, six massive conglomerates control the vast majority of what we read, watch, and hear.

They control the flow of information, shaping narratives to keep the public in the dark. They decide what is “normal” and what is “fringe.” They’ve convinced generations of Americans to accept obvious falsehoods as truth.

This media-industrial complex works hand in glove with the government and elite institutions. It has labeled anyone who questions its authority as a “conspiracy theorist” or “extremist,” all while cozying up to Big Tech and using censorship as a tool to silence dissent.

Donald Trump has promised to sign an executive order on day one banning federal agencies from colluding to censor Americans. He plans to fire bureaucrats who’ve participated in these unconstitutional practices and roll back the protections that allow tech giants to act as unaccountable gatekeepers.

But this is only the beginning.

The cancer runs deeper than just Big Tech or biased news outlets. It extends to the very systems meant to serve and protect us. Government agencies like HHS, NIH, and FDA now prioritize profits for Big Pharma and Big Food over the health of Americans. The military-industrial complex wages endless wars without congressional approval — in our name but without our consent. Institutions meant to safeguard our liberties have become vectors for corruption, collusion, and control.

Every organ of our national body has been infected. And the first step in curing this disease is restoring the free flow of information — our eyes and ears.

Without independent media, without honest debate, the cancer will keep coming back. That’s why I call on this incoming administration to prioritize breaking up media monopolies, ending corporate-government partnerships, and empowering alternative platforms.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. We must act now or risk losing the republic altogether. The American people have made their mandate clear: We demand accountability, transparency, and freedom.

It’s time to clean house.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Mark Zuckerberg’s political enemies still want to ruin him. Is AI his way out?



“I don’t know if we know what’s exactly going to work really well yet, but some things are really promising,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on the company’s latest earnings call. “I have high confidence that over the next several years, this will be one of the important trends and one of the important applications.”

Yes, he’s talking about content churned out by computers. Yes, the feedback is already pretty bad.

And as legacy media organizations — like establishment institutions across the board — continue to lose trust and loyalty, millions will default to AI content without even actively choosing against the dwindling supply of human journalists trying to keep them in line.

“I think we’re going to add a whole new category of content which is AI-generated or AI-summarized content, or existing content pulled together by AI in some way,” he insisted. “And I think that that’s gonna be very exciting for Facebook and Instagram and maybe Threads, or other kinds of feed experiences over time.”

Very exciting — but for whom? The kind of outlets likely to blame Zuck for Trump didn’t skip a beat. “The AI Slop Will Continue Until Morale Improves,” reported 404 Media. “Mark Zuckerberg Pledges to Fill Facebook With Even More AI Slop,” Futurism blared. One Bloomberg columnist went with “Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Feed You More AI Slop.” You get the picture.

And if you’ve followed the disturbing trends of older Facebook users thinking the outlandish AI-made images they’re engaging with are real photographs, you might be inclined to agree.

But as is so often the case in cyberspace, all is not as it seems.

Start with Zuckerberg. The long-embattled tech titan may have spent most of the Biden years in the doghouse with conservatives bummed out by his willingness to drop big “Zuckerbucks” on the 2020 election.

But Zuck found himself in survival mode after Democrats resolved to punish him for Facebook’s friendly treatment of Trump in the run-up to 2016. In the blink of an eye, the Frances Haugen “whistleblower” op was concocted and deployed, the platform all but iced political news content, Zuck hard-pivoted into the metaverse, and, yes, the Zuckerbucks began to flow. And behind the scenes, Zuck rebuilt and bided his time.

Now, thanks to some canny PR, he’s rebranded as a libertarian and made the leap to the AI era. This, it’s apparent, is how Zuck reasons he’ll at last break free of the partisan net woven for him by a vindictive regime and its big-media collaborators.

After all, predictable slop of a different kind flooded the social media zone under the state-sponsored outlets that took over Twitter before Elon came along. It seems like the only content fire hose powerful enough to outblast the censor-sanitized media apparatus is cranked out by computers, not human beings typing away as if they may as well be computers themselves.

That seems to be Zuck’s wager, anyway. If millions still pine for the naive old days of social media when real friends hung out online, maybe the future of social media looks more like using AI content for reference and real life for socialization. At a time when people are starved for authorities they can trust, many will probably prefer AIs to human indoctrinators.

And as legacy media organizations — like establishment institutions across the board — continue to lose trust and loyalty, millions will default to AI content without even actively choosing against the dwindling supply of human journalists trying to keep them in line.

The probable downside is already plain enough — the same one Americans experienced for generations back when cable was king and the internet was something that squealed at you from a tabletop box plugged into your phone line. Four hundred channels and nothing on …

Ultimately, it won’t be easy to trust AI content unless you trust the people behind the AI. Right now, on one side of the politics of social media, you’ve got the left selling themselves as a borg or blob, a collective consciousness of enlightened elites. On the other, you’ve got a handful of famous tech lords selling themselves as can-do visionaries who might not have all the answers but at least can get us out of the current rut.

Those aren’t the choices you’d want when trying to select a source of spiritual wisdom, but as they stand at the close of 2024, it’s easy to see how the momentum of public sentiment could point away from the crew that’s ruled our headspace for the past four years — and toward the tech titans who aren’t trying to take down Trump.

How tech beat woke and elected Trump



As an orange sun rises over a deeply reddened nation, the woke left isn’t out, but it most certainly is down.

And while millions of Americans played a part, responsibility for the death of the woke regime rests in a small set of hands.

Neither conservatism, libertarianism, nor any other -ism killed the woke vibe.

Tech did.

As the woke regime intended to permanently transform America and the American people by spiritually commanding and controlling tech, this fact bears close examination.

If we’re going to move as fast as we need to to make America great again, that means looking, like all the other digital powers in the world must look, toward our deepest spiritual foundations. That’s still Christianity.

Looking for revenge, the left will be tempted to turn on tech instead of trying to take it back over. This is a deadly mistake: Neither our tools nor those who know how to make them are Americans’ enemy.

But some on the right will now be tempted to build a civil religion to the god of tech. This too is a fatal error. Our tools and tool-makers must not become worshiped idols.

Finding the harmonious middle way begins with a look at just how tech beat woke.

Consider one illuminating post-election post from venture capitalist Katherine Boyle. “Silicon Valley doesn’t trust experts,” she says, “because the game changes too fast to weight experience over other factors. In accelerating realignments, ‘the gold standard’ experts and OGs often don’t have an advantage.”

Grasp this, and the events of the past five years snap into focus.

Back when the most powerful technology was the TV, the organized left seized the commanding heights of the culture with an intellectual revolution.

It was easy to do. The academic old guard, which all but worshiped the technology of old books, couldn’t beat back the postmodern swarm that proclaimed the death of the world the printing press made. And the people, who had long since stopped kneeling at the altar of the book, were now, as David Bowie sang, “hooked to the silver screen,” seeing in televisual tech proof that other peoples’ fantasies were more true than their own reality.

Then digital seized the commanding heights of technology — disenchanting the cult of the book as well as the cult of the video.

That sea of change didn’t just put the established experts on the back foot. Instead of simply forcing them to play catch-up, it transformed the psychological and social environment that they thought they had mastered.

Suddenly, the value of intellectual expertise itself began to plummet. The awesome sweep and scope of digital returned humanity to the ultimate questions about who we are and why.

Questions that demanded a return to our deepest memories about the ultimate answers and from whence they came.

Even the heights of expert intellectual experience couldn’t speak to these matters with authority people could trust. Suddenly, people thirsted for expert spiritual experience — not the fun and fantastic simulation thereof that poured forth in gross excess from the likes of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Walt Disney.

The civilizational game had changed.

Yet the ruling left wasn’t stupid. Already at the elite level, those on the left had had the chance to react first, and their gambit to shift the ground of the legitimacy of their power from intellectual to spiritual authority unfolded swiftly. Enter “wokeness,” which rebranded intellectual authorities as spiritual ones.

This grand switch-up responded to the thirst for spiritual authority unleashed by digital tech by enforcing a new vision where the smartest didn’t deserve to rule because of their mental merit but because of their purity of heart. The priestly caste of the woke church had a good four years to execute on this crash program.

But instead of soaring, on election night, it crashed. And while the nationwide groundswell of support for Trump obviously played a huge role, the decisive factor was the decision of a handful of technologists led by Elon Musk to bet everything they had against the woke regime. Without them, it’s all too easy to see how Trump and his supporters wouldn’t have been able to defeat the entrenched Borg using Kamala Harris as its latest skin suit.

That’s true going forward, too. The regime still has many lawfare options to derail Trump before the Inauguration, and the main obstacle to their success is Musk’s willingness to spend on flooding the zone with maximally aggressive legal defenses of the popular majority that swept Trump back to power.

That’s why so many on the right — especially given how many notional conservatives have proven so wimpy and ineffectual over the past four-plus years — will be so tempted to make tech their god-emperor in all but name (and perhaps in name, too!).

Yet that, as the neckbeards like to say, ain’t it, chief. An innovation-forward culture may feel like a huge acceleration today, but it’s actually a return to the moral norm of Americans being and feeling comfortable, competent, and confident taking charge of their tools and toolmaking. Long ago, Alexis de Tocqueville taught that the key to Americans ranging so freely and fruitfully across the frontier of human endeavor was the firm anchor of their hearts in humble devotion to God: the fixed, secure point that enabled us to survive and thrive in a world where all was in motion. That’s us today — except now more than ever, we need to restore that fixed point.

That requires spiritual authorities Americans both recognize and can trust — not false priests of an HR-hoe goddess or of some inscrutable cyber deity.

If we’re going to move as fast as we need to to make America great again, that means looking, like all the other digital powers in the world must look, toward our deepest spiritual foundations. That’s still Christianity — not for the sake of establishing an unconstitutional theocracy, but for ensuring our country keeps its head among our its achievements by doing the humble work of the heart.

Game on.

YouTube Won’t List The Full Trump Podcast With Joe Rogan In Its Search Results

Former President Donald Trump sat down with podcast host Joe Rogan on Friday for what is now one of Rogan’s most-viewed podcast episodes ever. But good luck finding the full version of the interview on YouTube without some internet sleuthing because YouTube won’t list the full episode in its search results. Users who search “Joe […]

Guest on Joe Rogan’s podcast has three questions for voters who care about America’s health crisis



On a recent episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Rogan met with New York Times bestselling author and founder of TrueMed Payments Calley Means.

Means’ mission is to expose the medical industrial complex that profits from keeping people sick and insist that more health care dollars be spent on preventive measures, such as exercise, healthy food, sleep, and stress management.

Dave Rubin plays the clip of Means explaining to Rogan why Trump is the only choice for voters who care to avoid a public health crisis of cataclysmic proportions.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

“I used to be a never-Trumper,” Means told Rogan. But that all changed once Trump made America’s health crisis a defining issue of his campaign and joined forces with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

When it comes to voting in the election, Means says we need to ask ourselves three questions.

One: “Who sees this corruption and institutional capture that’s going to destroy our country to an existential level?”

Two: “Who is going to go up against the military industrial complex, the health care industrial complex, the education industrial complex?”

And three: “Who do we believe is going to appoint people like RFK, people like Elon Musk, to stir stuff up?”

“I do consider this the most important election of my lifetime,” Means said, adding that when he looks at Trump now, he sees a “genuine desire” to “prevent nuclear war and dramatically reverse our health crisis.”

“Trump has said that his one big mistake last time was personnel ... Pharma and Ag slithered in and gave him the list of names,” he explained. “Everybody should ask: Do you think RFK [Jr] is going to have an influence on those names?”

“I think he is, and I think people like Elon are going to be involved. I think there’s this coalition of people who are coming together,” he told Rogan, reiterating that “we will be on the verge of a health population collapse — a society-destabilizing event — unless true executive leadership sees this corruption and this issue for what it is and says we need a radical transformation.”

“It also seems like if this isn't done now, [Democrats] will take steps to make sure it can never be done in the future,” Rogan added.

“It's not just that they disagree with him; they attack him ... in unison. They do it so coordinated that you realize there is a machine behind this in that they repeat the same talking points. It's like they're given a script, and there's no repercussions for lies. ... No one gets in trouble, and the same people are still disseminating the news,” he explained.

However, on a positive note, “More people are aware of that than ever before,” according to Rogan.

To hear Dave’s commentary, watch the clip above.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Democrat Senators Demand Big Tech Censor Americans Ahead Of Election

The group of Democrat senators want Big Tech platforms to 'de-amplify and/or remove' what they deem to be 'disinformation.'

RFK Jr. tells Glenn Beck why he endorsed Trump in NEW interview



Last week, RFK Jr. dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and endorsed Donald Trump. In a powerful speech during which he announced his withdrawal from the race, he reflected on leaving the Democratic Party to run as an independent, as the party his family had long been part of “had departed so dramatically from the core values” it once believed in.

With evident pain, Kennedy painted an accurate picture of what the Democratic Party has become — “the party of war, censorship, corruption, Big Pharma, Big Tech, big [agriculture], and big money.”

Believing he no longer had a “realistic path to electoral victory in the face of this relentless, systematic censorship and media control,” the independent candidate suspended his campaign.

“Our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats with whom I disagree on the most existential issues — censorship, war, and chronic disease,” he announced before “[throwing his] support to President Trump.”

Yesterday, RFK Jr. spoke with Glenn Beck to explain his decision to support Trump in the election.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

“What scares you about the Kamala Harris victory that would move you to endorse Donald Trump?” Glenn asked.

“Our polling consistently showed that about 57% to 60% of our voters would vote for Trump if I left,” he said, adding that it was “odd that President Trump and the Republican Party never really attacked [him].”

Kennedy went on to explain that unlike the Democratic Party from which he came, the GOP didn’t try to keep him off the ballots; it didn’t hire private investigators to “dig up every piece of dirt” in his past; and it didn’t orchestrate a smear campaign against him.

“Democrats had this entire organization that was designed to destroy me, to character-assassinate me, and to keep me off the ballot,” he told Glenn.

When it became clear to him that he would be barred from the debate stage and that mainstream media outlets, which he called “Democratic Party organs” in his withdrawal speech, would continue to stonewall him, he knew that he “did not have a clear path to the White House,” as he literally “could not talk to most Americans.”

Further, following the assassination attempt, he and Donald Trump began meeting to discuss a number of issues.

RFK Jr. claimed he was “surprised” to find that he and Trump had a lot in common.

“He wants to end the Ukraine war immediately; he wants to protect children's health; he wants to end the censorship, and those are the three principal reasons that I got in the race,” Kennedy explained.

To hear his thoughts on stepping into a potential role in Trump’s administration, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How the J6 witch hunt escalated Big Tech's control over speech



The federal digital crusade against anybody who entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, launched a new era of intense weaponization of Big Tech that’s still accelerating.

While many Americans look at the modern-day U.K. and thank their lucky stars that free speech hasn’t plunged quite as low here as it has across the pond, the truth is that being hunted down, arrested, put in solitary confinement, or even killed for what you post or non-violent protest actions is very much a reality in Biden-Harris America. In fact, as this article will explain, even "doing journalism while not progressive” has become a crime in modern-day America.

The response to January 6 unleashed a tripartite nexus of freedom-destruction aimed at noncompliant citizens: massive federal budgets and access to top technology combined with enthusiastic private citizens and private companies willing to actively aid government efforts to maximally punish a group guilty, primarily, of wrongthink.

The latest excesses of digital nanny-state tyranny can be traced back to the fanatical federal response following January 6, which resulted in the biggest FBI operation in history and led to more than 1,200 arrests and 700 convictions. An estimated 3,000 individuals entered the Capitol, the majority without engaging in violent action. But the dragnet put in place thereafter was like nothing America has ever seen, pinpointing each step of the “insurrectionists” and destroying their lives and futures as much as humanly and extrajudicially possible.

The “laser-like” search for anyone who entered the Capitol was made with a variety of tools. These tools included tracking geolocational phone data, accessing private banking information, extensive combing of social media profiles, state-of-the-art facial recognition technology, and ample use of enthusiastic citizen informants. The liberal media lionized these sleuths as “sedition hunters.” They spent many days of unpaid labor tracking down those men and women who had entered the Capitol on January 6 and the small number of individuals who engaged in violent actions on that day. They even developed their own J6 tracking app. Over 200,000 tips came into the FBI in the first few days after the official investigation launched.

One of those whom the J6 witch hunt has snagged is Blaze News investigative reporter and correspondent Steve Baker. On January 6, Baker was working as a freelancer covering the protests and was one of over five dozen members of the media documenting the day’s events.

As Baker explains, “I didn’t submit my story to the right kind of publication, so I got arrested.”

Video footage shows Baker comporting himself calmly without violence or provocation and leaving when directed to by law enforcement. Later that evening, however, Baker called Nancy Pelosi a “bitch” on camera, which the authorities have used to retroactively impute his time inside the Capitol as participation in the actions of “the mob.” They have subsequently charged him with four misdemeanors.

“We can point to literally hundreds of protests and riotous events that did far more damage, with people killed, and the perpetrators have not been prosecuted, had their cases dropped, or were not charged to begin with,” Baker notes.

According to Baker, the difference is that the non-left has only had one big slip-up.

“The massive difference was that January 6 was our one event. They have racked up hundreds of them over decades. We finally did one and they lost their minds, and they activated the largest investigation — the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice — dragnet in the history of the country because our people screwed up one time.”

A digital war on dissent

Dragnet is far from an overstatement. Court filings prove Google responded to thousands of location requests by the government, essentially issuing a “mass warrant” against those in and around the Capitol on the argument that they may have been committing a crime or “witnessed” a crime and were thus not subject to privacy protections in their data and location. To cut a long story short, Stasi-like tactics and reasoning are very much par for the course among the upper echelons of the U.S. security establishment.

As Rachel Weiner and Drew Harwell note: “Since 2016, law enforcement has used geofence warrants to pull information from smartphone owners who use ‘Google location history,’ which regularly records a person’s location through a combination of cell tower, internet protocol, wireless, GPS, and Bluetooth data.”

The response to January 6 unleashed a tripartite nexus of freedom-destruction aimed at non-compliant citizens: massive federal budgets and access to top technology combined with enthusiastic private citizens and private companies willing to actively aid government efforts to maximally punish a group guilty, primarily, of wrongthink.

This multipronged witch hunt helped the government track down many of the “domestic terrorists,” as Biden referred to them, along with aid in boosting numerous false stories by the mainstream corporate media. This included breathless media platforming of serial perjurers such as Harry Dunn and David Lazarus, who told a version of events in line with the story of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic establishment.

“We’ve actually seen in trial demonstrations the FBI bragging about their prowess of following somebody all the way from Texas, all the way through Arkansas, all the way to the Capitol,” Baker recounts.

“Spending the night in Virginia. Going over across the river the next day. You can see this is where they went literally inside the Capitol. Very precise, especially considering we couldn’t get cell phone signals that day.”

As for technology used on the ground, it’s clear that this was significant as well.

“We know there were — and this is typical of any crowd — it’s not related just to January 6. But the various federal agencies had gathered surveillance teams in the crowd, and they are using very specific technologies in that,” Baker explains.

“We have no doubt whatsoever that they were utilizing real-time facial recognition technology to identify threats. This is not a ‘bad’ thing or nefarious thing in and of itself. But we also know that they were tracking innocent people.”

When it comes to tech used in the crowd, investigations are also still under way.

“We also believe that there were assets in the crowd with jamming technology. There are portable units that are used by our special forces and IC that are very effective in jamming very large distances from either backpack-sized or smaller.”

Baker points to “the highest-profile trials and some of the unknown and really tragic, sad cases,” adding that “these people are being lied about, they’re having their lives destroyed, and this does not happen to the other side. It never does. It just doesn’t.”

While Kathy Griffin was holding up a bloodied mannequin of Donald Trump’s head in a widely shared post with zero legal consequences and violent rioters spurred by a false narrative were burning down cities during the Summer of Love, conservatives were facing an entirely different reality. Leftist celebrities and anti-Trump activists routinely issue death threats with little fanfare and few consequences (not to mention street-level violence), but when conservatives go off the reservation, they tend to get jailed or killed very quickly. Just ask Craig Robertson.

Journalists in the crosshairs

Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker in cuffs

Baker highlights the horrific abuse of justice against journalist J.D. Rivera of Florida.

“He behaved himself 100% professionally. He did not chant, he did not join in any of the singing. He wasn’t wearing political paraphernalia. He had all the professional photographic and video gear. … He was SWATTED by over 20 agents. What’s crazy is that the warrant was only for the four basic misdemeanors, and they SWATTED him. They put the red lights on his wife, his children, him, at 6:30 in the morning.”

Refusing to lie and accept a plea offer admitting guilt, Rivera went to trial, got convicted on all four counts, and was sentenced to eight months in prison with his first 60 days in solitary confinement.

“It turns out J.D.’s crime was not what he did that day. It was the fact that he was an activist for the Latinos for Trump movement.”

In Baker’s instance of facing potential jail time for not being a leftist and covering January 6, a plea deal is still possible, but he wants to know why other journalists are exempt from scrutiny, if so.

“This process is very disruptive to me in my life and my job. If I were to get a plea offer, obviously we would negotiate. I would negotiate it to the point that I didn’t have to tell a lie. If I were to be offered a plea deal that said I trespassed and entered a restricted space, OK. I did do that.

"But so did 60 other journalists as well. So this is selective prosecution. So I can say ‘yes I am guilty of entering a restricted space.’ But I also have to ask why aren’t all 60 journalists — the guy from the New Yorker, the guy from the New York Times, the guy from BuzzFeed … right down the line? Why aren’t they being charged? French television, British television. They’re not being charged. It is selective prosecution.”

Baker’s case is currently in a holding pattern, but he’s not giving up, nor is he giving in to fear. His lawyer will also file a selective prosecution motion in the next several months.

As for his journalistic work, despite warnings from individuals in the special forces community and intelligence community, Baker is moving ahead with an investigation of classified technology potentially used on January 6, which he has been urged not to continue digging into. But Baker isn’t stopping.

“I have multiple dead-man switches set up in the event of anything happening to me,” Baker emphasizes.

“I’ve been very public about that.”

REVEALED: The Democrats' chilling plan to control the internet



Independent reporter Matt Orfalea has blown the lid wide open on the manipulation of American voters by the Biden-Harris campaign during the 2020 election.

Orfalea discovered a Zoom meeting from right after the election in which the Biden-Harris team reveal "how they manipulated voters to think Biden’s mental decline was ‘disinformation.’”

In the call, it was revealed that the Democratic National Committee created a program to protect, track, and have social media platforms flag misinformation narratives — which included conversation online about corruption.

The team had bragged that this campaign, which involved Big Tech collusion and the “targeting” of internet users in real time, resulted in 200,000 votes for Biden.

“This is your federal government and your Democratic National Committee putting a program together to target you,” Glenn Beck says, outraged.

Rob Flaherty, who was the 2020 Biden-Harris campaign digital director, called the program “one of the smartest things orchestrated by the Democratic Party.”

Then, Biden for President's director of rapid response, who later became the Biden administration’s White House deputy director of digital strategy, said on the same Zoom call that “there was a massive amount of disinformation relating to Biden’s mental fortitude.”

“She explained that people were making posts related to topics deemed disinformation, and they were targeted in real time online, based on their online behavioral cues, building out personas based on the kind of content that you were consuming and were searching for, and the kind of websites you were visiting,” Glenn explains.

“They are monitoring every keystroke you make. If you say something out of line with what the state wants you to say — this is KGB stuff,” he continues.

One of the most infuriating aspects of this entire campaign is that those who saw through it were all called conspiracy theorists.

“Remember how we were all told that it is a conspiracy theory?” Glenn asks. “As they’re telling us that they have to police us for mis-, dis-, and mal-information, they told us that he was fine, that he was top of his game.”

Then after his disastrous debate, it became impossible to keep up the charade.

“All of a sudden, it was okay to question his mental acuity, and so they did, to the point where they operated a coup on him,” he adds.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How Google's newest Orwellian censorship tool will destroy democracy



Google really cares about your safety, or that’s the narrative we are being sold.

Its latest initiative,Altitude, marks a significant step in the fight against online “extremism.” Developed by its subsidiary Jigsaw, in partnership with Tech Against Terrorism and the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, Altitude is promoted as a cutting-edge solution for monitoring and removing violent extremist content from the internet. While Altitude is presented as a neutral and comprehensive tool for addressing online threats, the reality of this initiative raises significant concerns.

As Google’s influence continues to grow, so does the potential for misuse of its technologies. The company's track record of privacy invasions, data exploitation, and narrative suppression highlights a troubling trend: the control of information is becoming increasingly centralized and biased.

After all, this is Google we are talking about, a company that is as problematic as it is powerful. In fact, it could be argued that Google is the most powerful force on the planet. Its pervasive presence shapes not only how we access information but also how we perceive and understand it. A U.S. judge recently ruled that Google breached antitrust laws by investing billions of dollars to establish an illegal monopoly. Ultimately, it has become the world's default search engine. This is rather alarming, especially if you happen to lean right on the political spectrum.

Speaking of dangerous extremism, Google's AI chatbot Gemini evenavoids answering questions about the shooting of former President Donald Trump, citing its policy on election-related issues. When asked to give details on the assassination attempt, Gemini responded, "I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now." One wonders what it might have said if the target had been President Biden. One needn’t wonder very hard, of course.

These issues are emblematic of a broader trend within Google. The company's approach to content moderation and news dissemination has repeatedly come under scrutiny for its lack of transparency and potential for manipulation. For instance, in 2020, at the height of the pandemic-related pandemonium, Google was reported to have removed several conservative news outlets from its search results and YouTube recommendations. This was not merely a technical oversight but a deliberate act of censorship that distorted the flow of information. Similarly, Google has faced criticism for altering its search algorithms in a way that promotes certain left-leaning viewpoints while suppressing others. These actions underscore an ongoing pattern of selective information management that reflects a broader ideological bias.

Which brings us back to the aforementioned Altitude, which centralizes the power to flag and remove content deemed too extreme. While the tool is being sold as a means of enhancing online safety, it also opens the door to potential abuse. The criteria for what constitutes extremist content are not transparent, perhaps by design, thus creating opportunities for political and ideological enforcement. Given Google's demonstrated biases, there is a very real risk that Altitude could reinforce existing prejudices rather than address extremism impartially. This centralization of power could easily be repurposed to suppress dissenting voices and control public discourse, exacerbating the very issues it aims to address.

Google’s history of collusion with governments further amplifies these concerns. The company has faced criticism for cooperating with state censorship requests, particularly in authoritarian regimes. Moreover, Google’s removal of the “Don’t Be Evil” clause from its code of conduct — swapping in the motto “Organizing the World’s Information” — only adds to the skepticism surrounding its commitment to ethical practices.

By centralizing content moderation under the Altitude umbrella, Google is amplifying its role as a gatekeeper of information, suppressing viewpoints that challenge prevailing narratives. This centralization could transform tools designed to combat extremism into instruments for enforcing political and ideological conformity. Also, it’s important to remember that the word “extremist” no longer applies to crazed Islamic terrorists. It now applies to respectable individuals who dare question the overarching, pre-approved narrative. Extremism has never looked so bland.

The broader implications of these developments are profound. As Google’s influence continues to grow, so does the potential for misuse of its technologies. The company's track record of privacy invasions, data exploitation, and narrative suppression highlights a troubling trend: The control of information is becoming increasingly centralized and biased. The stakes for privacy and free expression are high, and the need for transparency and accountability is critical.

Maintaining democratic values and safeguarding individual freedoms requires vigilance and a commitment to transparency. As powerful technologies continue to shape public discourse and influence societal beliefs, advocating for a more balanced and accountable approach to information control is paramount. But advocacy can only go so far. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to take real action. Specifically, lawmakers with a conscience.

If Kamala Harris, adarling of Silicon Valley, were to become president, the consolidation of power within tech giants like Google would only deepen. Don’t forget that its parent company, Alphabet, is anavid supporter of Democrats and regularly pumps tens of millions of dollars into the political party. As November draws closer, Americans on both sides of the political divide would do well to remember that Google is not your friend. Its desire to paint itself as an unbiased teller of truth is little more than a pernicious lie. Altitude will harm us, not help us.