Chris Stewart doubles down, returns to radio after "buzzsaw" interview

Glenn and Chris Stewart have been friends for a while, so when Glenn got home last night after a contentious interview with the congressman he called him to clear the air. To Chris's credit, he agreed to come back onto the show today and talk through the issues again and defend the job being done by the Republicans in Congress. Glenn's never had a guest come back after walking into a buzzsaw of an interview like that, so regardless of Chris's views, he gets big points for guts.

GLENN: Well, it feels a little bit "Groundhog Day," the movie, because at this time yesterday that a friend of ours, Chris Stewart, called in and received -- was on the receiving end of a pretty bad battering. I felt fine while we were doing it because I know our intent. We love Chris Stewart. He is a good friend. And a long-time friend and a guy I've wanted to work with for a long, long time. Tried to hire him here. But we have felt that we were -- we were concerned about the direction he was going, as along with people that we really respect in Congress.

PAT: Brenner went that way, Jim Jordan. Trey Gowdy said he wouldn't vote for Boehner.

GLENN: And we don't understand it. Last night I got home and watched the interview because Chris is my friend and I watched the interview and I felt it's not my best performance. That's not the way I want to -- that's not the way I want to be. But I still had good intent while trying doing it. So I called Chris last night. We haven't spoken. I left a message on the phone last night apologizing. Telling him that you know, I think he walked into a buzzsaw yesterday. However, I don't apologize for the intent and I don't apologize for having my opinions. And I don't apologize for believing he is absolutely dead wrong on John Boehner. And wrong that we have the facts wrong. We double-checked them yesterday. We're correct. With that being said, Chris Stewart is here because I would like to change the tone. Hello, Chris. How are you?

STEWART: I've got on my body armor, I've got on my combat gear. You can start slaying away again.

GLENN: I will tell you, you deserve a lot of extra points for having the balls to come on yesterday and then again today.

PAT: Again, yeah. No one else would have done that, credit is.

GLENN: No one else.

PAT: I don't think anyone else has ever done that.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: Newt Gingrich --

GLENN: Newt Gingrich did it once.

STEWART: It's probably against my better judgment, but Glenn, here I am again. I'm actually glad to be with you.

GLENN: So Chris, here's the thing. We want you to prove us wrong in -- let's say by June. We'd like to have you back on where we can say, you know what, Chris? You were right.

PAT: Great agenda.

GLENN: Great agenda. You guys did it. Because I don't understand. There's nothing you can say. We double-checked all the facts on John Boehner and what he's been for and against. And I'm sorry, you're drinking too much Kool-Aid. I'm sorry. We have the facts right. You can't convince me that John Boehner is a good guy, because a good guy yesterday doesn't do what John Boehner does and get up and start punishing the people who ran against him.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: That's breaks.

STEWART: I appreciate the invitation to come back in June. I look forward to that.

I'd love to come back in February and March and do a month-end recap of what we do. Because I think we may not be perfect, and you may not be entirely satisfied, but I think you and listeners by and large are going to see things begin to move you on. And I told someone the other night, the worst-case scenario over the next two years is far better than anything that we've lived through in the last two years. Because we've had Harry Reid who had jammed every piece of legislation that we've tried to do. And we're going to get past that now. We've got friends in the Senate. And the second thing is to your point about John and retribution, I agree with that. I said to the speaker, and I would say this to others, we're better United than we are when we attack each other. Can I just say quickly, the former military guy, it's in my D.N.A. that you stand by your brothers. You may -- you may not like them. They may be different. You may have different opinions. We're in a war, we're in a fight for the heart and soul of our country. And I don't think --

GLENN: That's --

STEWART: Speaker to divide or to --

(overlapping speakers).

STEWART: Attributing retribution against hem. I certainly don't agree with that.

GLENN: That's the biggest point, Chris, I think people like you may be missing because you're inside the beltway. You don't see the frustration outside the beltway. You know, when Elizabeth Warren who's one of the most rad cam people on the planet runs in the Democratic Party, they celebrate. They want her to run for president. But if you stand by the Constitution, you're a radical that's trying to destroy America. And I can get that from CNN. I can get that from MSNBC. I can get that from Barack Obama. I don't need that from the leadership of the GOP.

STEWART: Glenn, listen, you know my family. And I go home every single weekend. I spend every moment that I can out of D.C.

I'm anything but an inside the beltway guy. But believe me, when you say that I don't see that or I don't hear that, I mean, believe me, Glenn, I do. I hear it. I see it from my own wife, I hear from it my children, I hear from it my brothers, my sisters, and I hear it from every person that I meet back in the district. I hear it all the time. And I agree with it all the time.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the plan is, because I don't understand this vote. So what is -- what is it that they said yesterday that made everybody fall in behind John Boehner? What is the great change that has coming that John Boehner --

STEWART: It was nothing that was said yesterday. This this is a battle that's been going on for months. It's an ongoing battle. Just like every two years I know I'm going to be challenged. I know this seat is not a guaranteed to me. I'm going to be challenged and expect to be challenged every two years. I think the speaker expects to be challenged and they should be challenged. I support that.

GLENN: No, he doesn't expect to be challenged. Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people. But let's not focus on that STEWART: I think any speaker would. They know there's some people that are going to be unhappy with the way regardless of who they are and there were some viable alternative candidates. But none of them stepped forward. Trey Gowdy, for example, he's one of those who nominated speaker in November. And I tried to make this point yesterday. Louie Gohmert is a friend of mine. And I have tremendous respect for him. He's one of the most clever and one of the most articulate members of the House, but he is not the person to unite the House. And I think we saw that in the vote yesterday. He only got two votes and --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: That's fine. That's fine. You could have voted for a cat. Let's please -- let's not concentrate on this. Let's concentrate, please, on what is the plan now?

STEWART: And I'm glad you asked that, because that is the primary thing that I think we should be talking about. And that's what are we going to do moving forward. I could talk to you -- I'm developing -- we're in the process of merging with other people. We call it 12 and 12 plan. 12 weeks, 12 major pieces of legislation. We start with Keystone, which is very important in energy independence and also job creation. But we can't go to our summit or move anywhere else beyond next week without coming back to border security and looking at what we did with defunding amnesty, what the president did is clearly unconstitutional. That's not a partisan opinion. It's clearly unconstitutional what he did with amnesty. We have to find a way to defund that and we have to do it early. Can't wait wait till February or even -- even late January. I want to move that legislation --

GLENN: But you -- you left on the table the defunding of Homeland Security and you gave him everything else. Do you really think that president doesn't want to have that fight? Doesn't want to get on television say, they defunded Homeland Security.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You immediately lose. Because the American people see the threat of terror and -- and he will spin it. You've taken away all other tools except for Homeland Security.

STEWART: Well, he will spin it. There's no question and the press will back him up on that. And our intention isn't to defund all of Homeland Security. Our intention is to defund every part that deals with his executive amnesty and to fund every other part of Homeland Security, including attaching to that the border security bill that I helped right that is for the first time in a generation truly committed to securing borders. But I don't think the question is not defunding the entire program or Homeland Security. Clearly we want to fund those parts that are important as you said, Glenn. People understand that terrorism is a real threat. But we have to in my opinion defund the amnesty part to that.

GLENN: Can you just sequester that money?

STEWART: Yes.

GLENN: You can just do it, just taking away this line.

STEWART: It's part of the appropriation process. Now that we have united House and Senate, for the first time in Barack Obama's presidency, we have an appropriation process that will work where you can specifically identify pieces of legislation for funding and not fund both.

GLENN: All right. Now, let me ask you this. John Boehner is, you know, best buddies, tongue down each other's throat with Jeb Bush kind of people and Jeb Bush does not -- will not agree on the amnesty thing. He just started the, you know, reach for the stars no matter where you're from, hey, everybody can be equal here in America kind of crap yesterday. Do you really think the progressive Republicans are going to be on board for actual border security?

STEWART: Yes, I do. I do. And by the way, Jeb Bush is not our nominee, thankfully.

GLENN: Yet.

STEWART: And I think his stand on immigration and Corpus Christi and other things will probably preclude him from ever being our nominee, thankfully, because I disagree with him on those issues. But he's not the leader of the party and there are others who have a strong voice in this that you know and that I know. But yes, I think we can have some progress on that. And it's not -- it's not up to the speaker. It's not up to leadership. It's up to the Conservatives in Congress and there are enough of us that we can push that legislation.

STU: Isn't the issue that you have a lot of conservatives who are really about border security. You obviously have another portion of the Republican party that is not so aligned with your views on that. And when you have a person like Boehner as you kind of described, his job is to unite the party and that's what frustrate people like us because you see people -- you want a strong border bill and then the effort is to unite the party with the people who don't want a strong border bill and then what you get is crap.

GLENN: Ted Cruz said it best. It's always next time. Well, next time is now.

STEWART: Yeah. I agree with that, Glenn. And I've been saying that for months now. I've been saying next time is now, since before the election. That is the reason we needed the election, to make it now. And coming back to the border security, because I really think that's an important point you're making, and that is, things have fundamentally changed on the border security bill over the last two years, in the two years I've been in Congress. And part of it was what we saw with unaccompanied minors last summer. The tragedy that happened and the atrocity where because of Obama's policies that encourage this idea, that if you're an unaccompanied minor, many of who were not truly minors anyway, but you would get across the border and find sanctuary. And there are other elements of that where the opinion of the Congress has significantly shifted to the right on border security.

GLENN: I believe it when I see it, okay, so that's one of your 12 points. Okay, so Chris, give me just -- I've only got about a minute left. Give me the 12 topics that you want to -- that you say you're putting together with a group of people that you're going to be able to get through in 12 weeks or you hope to get through in 12 weeks. Give he the 12 points.

STEWART: Let me go through them quickly. Keystone Pipeline, border security, Reins Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies and who have become the most powerful force in Washington. Tax reform. I want to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Lois Lerner and others -

GLENN: Boehner was against it.

STEWART: We'll continue to work to repeal ObamaCare and also have a replacement for that expecting and hoping the Supreme Court actually finds the exchanges are unconstitutional, that they're not within the language of the law. Unborn Child Act which is prohibits abortion for those children unborn children who actually can feel pain. And we know now scientifically that they do. Audit the Fed. Some reforms in the EPA. And finally, the Antiquities Act which deals with federal land out here in the west and the president's ability to use a law that have nothing to do with that in order to claim for federal land.

GLENN: So you -- if you get all that done, I will throw a parade for you.

STEWART: Will all right, gets let some confetti.

GLENN: Yeah. You'll get more than confetti. You get all that done and -- are you working on the Senate with that, too?

STEWART: Yeah. And we have this historic opportunity and I wish I could just help people understand that. And it really is historic --

GLENN: No --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Chris, Chris.

PAT: People understand that. They just don't believe it because they've seen it before.

GLENN: We saw it under Bush.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: And we saw it with the same people, the same promises, the same bull crap. We're done.

STEWART: I agree. We did see it under Bush. I agree. I understand that. But what I was saying is that there's this opportunity with the House and the Senate we're having a summit next week for the first time, I don't know that we've ever done that, where we have the House and the Senate together for two days to do one thing and that's to define this agenda. How do we move this legislation in the first 12 weeks, maybe four months, of our term in power and I'm so confident that when we've done this and the American people see what we're trying to do and what we're able to do, it's going to eliminate some of the frustration of so many --

GLENN: I will promise you that as you get these done, we will check them off and 12 weeks -- we'll check them off week by week or however -- you tell us what it is. But you give us the date, we'll check them off and we will make sure that everybody knows, at least in our audience, that these things are being done. I have to tell you, between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, I think you are in some sort of an acid trip that you think you can get this done. But I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

STEWART: Well, Glenn, we're going to try. We're going to try and I think we're going to have success. I really do, maybe not a all of it, but we're going to try and get as much done as we can and I want to go for all 12.

GLENN: Chris, thanks a lot. God bless you. Thank you, bye-bye. He's a good guy.

Featured image courtesy of the AP.

How Trump is WINNING at the Panama Canal

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite the doubts of the nay-sayers, Trump's Panamanian plans have already borne fruit.

Shortly before his inauguration, President Trump drew national attention to the Panama Canal. He reminded Americans of just how important the canal is for the U.S. and highlighted the Chinese influence that has been slowly taking control of the vital passage ever since America handed it over to Panama.

President Trump was immediately mocked and ridiculed by the Left, who called him delusional and an imperialist. However, earlier this week, Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made a trip to Panama and spoke with the Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, and Rubio made some serious headway. As Glenn has explained, Trump's boisterous talk is part of his strategy. Invading Panama was never the goal, just one of several options to get what America needed, and after Rubio's visit, it seems like America's needs will be met.

Here are the TOP THREE takeaways from Marco Rubio's visit to Panama:

1. Marco Rubio makes headway

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

On February 2nd, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha and President José Raúl Mulino where they discussed critical regional and global challenges, including the canal. Rubio drew attention to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal in which the U.S. promised Panama ownership of the canal on the condition of its guaranteed neutrality. Rubio argued that China's growing influence qualified as a breach of the treaty and that it gives the U.S. the power to take necessary measures to rectify the faults, given Panama doesn't act. As of this week, reports say Panama agreed and promised to take immediate action to purge Chinese influence from canal operations.

2. Panama is ditching China's Belt Road

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

After his meeting with Rubio, Panamanian President Mulino agreed that Panama would step away from China's "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI). The BRI is a Chinese effort to establish China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. In 2017, Panama signed on to this initiative, and China's influence in the small nation has exponentially grown. However, after Rubio's visit, President Mulino has not only stated that Panama will not renew its agreement with China, but moreover, the country will also look for ways to back out of the agreement early. This is a massive win for the Trump Administration and the American people.

3. The Chinese may lose their ports on the canal

MARTIN BERNETTI / Contributor | Getty Images

Shortly after Rubio left Panama City, two lawyers spearheaded the effort to kick out a Chinese company that controls two major ports on the Panama Canal. The Chinese company—CK Hutchison Holdings—has operated one port on both ends of the canal since 1997, which could potentially give China a massive degree of control over traffic. After analyzing the contract, the Panamanian lawyers argue that the contract is potentially in violation of the Panamanian constitution and should be revoked. It is unclear if the constitutional issues relate to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, but even on its own merit, this is a huge victory for America.

Top 15 jobs AI is TAKING OVER

CFOTO / Contributor, VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

The AI takeover has begun.

Last week, Glenn delved into the World Economic Forum's 2025 summit in Davos, where our malevolent overlords focused especially on AI and how it can replace millions of workers worldwide. We are at the precipice of a monumental change in how the world is run—WEF founder Klaus Schwab called it "The Fourth Industrial Revolution"—and in time, AI will augment every one of our lives.

Already, AI is taking jobs. Thousands, if not millions, of tasks are slowly being delegated to it. The affected fields are largely data entry, admin tasks, and clerical work, along with graphic design and some customer support roles. However, as AI becomes more sophisticated, the scope of its abilities will only grow. The WEF is all for it, and last month they released a shocking chart

that revealed what jobs were already feeling the pain. Check out the top 15 jobs that are already disappearing:

1. Postal service clerks

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

2. Bank tellers

JOHANNES EISELE / Staff | Getty Images

3. Data entry clerks

AFP / Staff | Getty Images

4. Cashiers and ticket clerks

Andreas Rentz / Staff | Getty Images

5. Administrative assistants and executive secretaries

6. Printing workers

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

7. Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll clerks

8. Material-recording and stock-keeping clerks

9. Transportation attendants and conductors

10. Door-to-door salesmen

11. Graphic designers

12. Claims adjusters, examiners and investigators

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

13. Legal officials

14. Legal secretaries

15. Telemarketers

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

3 stories that prove USAID is a criminal organization

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has one mission—to eliminate government waste—and it's starting with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a federal agency that, on paper, is responsible for distributing foreign aid to conflict-ridden zones across the world. However, for years, Glenn has revealed that the USAID acts more like a second CIA, but without the regulation or oversight under the State Department. Elon Musk concurred, describing the federal agency as not merely "an apple with a worm in it" but rather "just a ball of worms."

Don't fall for the left's narrative calling USAID a "humanitarian" organization. Here are the top three stories that reveal just how corrupt the USAID really is:

1. USAID has funded terrorist organizations and Osama bin Laden

Ahmad Khateib / Stringer | Getty Images

In 2023, USAID provided "assistance" to nearly 130 countries, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria (which is currently run by a terrorist that received aid from the Obama-era CIA). Under Obama, USAID gave funds to an organization known as the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), which was known at the time to help finance Jihadist groups and had been labeled by the U.S. Treasury Department as a "terror-financing organization."

The ISRA also funded and gave shelter to the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden—U.S. taxpayer dollars sent straight to the perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in history and the most lethal attack on U.S. soil.

2. USAID "loses" funds that happen to end up in individuals' pockets

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) revealed that in 2016, Chemonics International colluded with a USAID subcontractor to massively overcharge a USAID project to pocket extra funds from the project's bottom line. Moreover, the USAID project used "self-reported" performance metrics, which made it impossible to verify the actual progress of the project and how the funds were being used.

Even the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has USAID's sticky fingerprints all over it. In 2014, USAID provided $38 million to an EcoHealth Alliance project called "Predict-2." One of the subcontractors, Ben Hu, headed the Wuhan Institute of Virology's gain-of-function research and was one of the first three people infected with COVID-19 in late 2019. That means U.S. taxpayer dollars were likely used to fund the very research that gave rise to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. USAID operates as a second "CIA" with no accountability

Andrew Burton / Staff | Getty Images

The CIA isn't the only agency that meddles in the political inner workings of foreign powers. USAID has conducted similar operations since the 1950s. USAID notoriously sowed dissent in Cuba to grow U.S. influence, and they even taught South American police forces Nazi torture methods. In the late 1990s, 300,000 Peruvian women were forcibly sterilized in a "poverty reduction strategy" that received $35 million in funding from USAID.

More recently, USAID's foreign influence has grown significantly under former Obama adviser, Samantha Power, called USAID America's "soft power arsenal." Under her leadership, the organization meddled in the political affairs of several nations, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, and, Bolivia. Several domestic, left-leaning influence groups, such as the Tides Center, received several grants and aid.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.