Serious About Fixing the Country? You MUST Know This.

John Marini with The Claremont Institute wrote a brilliant article titled Donald Trump and the American Crisis. The piece explains exactly what is happening in America and to her citizens.

"I think this writer is actually a fan of Donald Trump --- I'm not sure --- but he explains Donald Trump and what's happening," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program. "This explains so much of what I have felt in my gut, but I haven't been able to articulate."

RELATED: Donald Trump and the American Crisis

Glenn read portions of the article, highlighting key points:

• The government is no longer legitimized by the consent of the governed.

• People must understand themselves to be citizens or things will never change.

• Political parties no longer establish a meaningful link between the people and the government.

• Political campaigns have made a science of dividing the electorate into groups and voting blocs.

• Behavior based on traditional virtues has become indefensible based on what our schools teach.

• Post-modern intellectuals have pronounced their historical and moral judgment on America's past.

• Our culture has been transformed --- and we had nothing to do with it.

Understanding and naming the problem is the first step in fixing it. If generations of Americans no longer see the value in traditional virtues or the noble history of America, then we must reintroduce them to these concepts in new and unique ways.

"We've got to stop talking about guys in powdered wigs. We've got to find a new way to present history," Glenn said. "Again, this guy likes Donald Trump . . . but he's explaining why [Trump] is doing so well and why we're not, if you believe in the Constitution."

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: One of the greatest articles I have read in I don't know how long, explaining what exactly is happening to us. And I think this writer is actually a fan of Donald Trump. I'm not sure.

But he explains Donald Trump and what's happening. I think personally he's giving him far too much credit for his intellectual prowess. But I want you to hear this. Because this explains so much of what I have felt in my gut, but I haven't been able to articulate why. I didn't know why. I didn't know exactly why. This guy does. And I'm going to give you the highlights of this.

This is called Donald Trump and the American Crisis by John Marini. This is not a hatchet piece. In fact, in some ways, it's a love letter to Donald Trump. But I want you to listen to this.

Every conservative should read this article. Because this is absolutely true and what we're facing.

Let's see. Bureaucratic rule has become so pervasive that it is no longer clear that the government is legitimized by the consent of the governed. Do you agree with that?

PAT: Definitely.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what we're feeling. We don't have anything to do with it. And our vote doesn't matter because bureaucrats are doing everything. The Congress has given their power away to the EPA and everybody else and you have nothing to do with it. Rather, it is the consent of the various national, often international, social, economic, political, and culture interest groups that determine the outcome of the elections. Absolutely true.

You see that it is these -- these groups -- how many times have we said, "I just wish -- is there some sort of group that can represent us, just the American people, not the dogs and cats of America and whatever it is." Everybody who has a political agenda, these groups, they're controlling things.

It is possible only when people understand themselves as citizens and when the regime recognizes them as citizens that things will change. But this requires distinguishing American citizens from all others and identifying them as one people.

So you can't make any difference if you don't recognize that we're a unique place, and so is Germany and so is Mexico and everything else. And you as a citizen are the one that is supposed to make the decisions that then lead the government.

But until we can even say that you're a citizen, you'll never be able to do that.

Consequently, political campaigns have made a science of dividing the electorate into groups and reassembling them as voting blocs committed to specific policies and issues dominated by the demographic categories themselves. This strategy requires a systematic mobilization of animosity to ensure participation by identifying and magnifying about what it is that needs to be opposed.

Now, we are doing that on both sides. And this is why I've been saying, "It's not enough to be against her. What are you for?"

Because this is playing into the new system. You're against something, and the system makes you against something. And so we continually go down this path.

Understood this way: What is central to politics and the election is the elevation of the status of personal and group identity to something approaching a new kind of civil religion.

Tell me that's not true. Black Lives Matter. Global warming. Constitutionalism. It is like our religion.

And if you defy our religion, you're the devil himself. You're Satan. You have to be destroyed. You're evil.

Individual social behavior. Listen to this. Individual social behavior, once dependent on traditional morality and understood in terms of traditional virtues and vices has become almost indefensible when judged in the light of the authority established by what they're now teaching in our schools.

And he goes on to talk about this a little bit. He says, "What's happened to us is, we have this critical post-modern theory that is being -- that historians have -- and the experts in our universities, have gone back and they have looked at our history. And everything is judged as bad in our history. Everything is against one of these groups."

And so as our groups are becoming more and more important, at the same time our history is being presented as only things that oppress groups. There's no individual aspiration. There's no individual that says, "I'm going to change the world, and look what they did." No, forget about the individual. What that guy did, no matter what his aspiration was, ended up hurting this group or that group. It ended up in slavery, oppression, global warming, smog, globalism -- whatever it is.

There is no individual that is being taught anymore. The moral standing established by group identity is now how everything is judged. Character is almost unrecognizable and no longer serves as the means by which people can determine the qualifications for public office, of those they don't know personally. As a result, it's difficult to establish the kind of public trust that once made it possible to connect public and private behavior or civil society and government.

When coupled with the politicization of civil society and the institutions, the distinction between the public and the private or the personal and the political has almost disappeared.

So because -- because we no longer have anything that revolves around individual character, we can no longer judge because we don't understand principles. We don't understand virtue and vice.

You can no longer judge. And because we can no longer judge, because we're now all about groups, the idea -- the idea of having your thought philosophy have anything to do with the presidency, it doesn't work.

In short, public and private character of American policies and politics has been placed in the hands of academic intellectuals.

Post modernist and intellectuals have pronounced their historical judgment on America's past, finding it to be morally indefensible. Every great human achievement of the past, whether in philosophy, religion, literature, or the humanities, came to be understood as a kind of exploitation of the powerless. Rather than allowing the past to be viewed in terms of its aspirations or its accomplishments, it has been judged by its failure. The living part of the past is understood in terms of slavery, racism, and identity politics.

No public defense of the past greatness can be allowed to live in the present.

That's absolutely true.

PAT: It sure is.

GLENN: In such a time, an appeal to American citizenship is almost a revolutionary act because it requires making the distinction between citizens and all others.

Since local politics and administration came to be centralized within the administrative state, elections have provided the people the only possibility of participation in public life.

It wasn't long before the brightest and most ambitious college faculty and graduates became graduating to Washington, DC, the new center of economic, social, and political decision-making.

In turn, the federal government and bureaucratic apparatus become dependent upon the intellectual elites to provide the expertise of what everything means.

But do these people who participate in politics -- but what do you do with the people who only participate in politics only as citizens?

In terms of elections, the old partisans of both parties, the party pro who have devoted their lives to trying to understand politics in terms of mobilizing the people, were no longer needed once partisan appeals could be marketed just like any other commodity. Both political parties have benefited from the kind of predictability made possible by the incorporation of scientific professionalism in the organizing and shaping of campaigns and elections.

In addition, both parties have enforced political correctness as the ground of understanding civil society, public policy, law, and bureaucracy itself. Before the end of the 20th century, a new kind of iron law of politics happened. There are red states, and there are blue states, and then there are handful of purple or battleground states.

Political conflict can be contained by focusing on the battleground states. Elections were understood in terms of division rather than unification. And it became almost impossible for any candidate to appeal to the electorate on behalf of a common good.

That's not surprising. Because positivism was rejected and -- as was any other understanding of meaning of the common good.

The political parties no longer establish a meaningful link between the people and the government. Party patronage has been replaced with bureaucratic patronage, and a professional elite has established itself as a vital center between the people and the government.

It's all true, right? It's about to get really important.

PAT: And it's already incredibly insightful.

GLENN: Yes, it is. I mean, this guy is brilliant.

PAT: It's deep, but it's --

GLENN: John Marini, he is brilliant.

PAT: It's really insightful.

GLENN: I do not need think tanks, because we need some do tanks.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I avoid think tanks like the plague because I just don't -- I see them churning out papers that are meaningless.

PAT: Besides think tanks avoid us as well.

GLENN: Yes. This is -- this is -- this is from Claremont.

And this is -- this has to be understood if we're going to take our country back.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So listen to this. You know, let me take a quick break because the next section -- the next section talks about why constitutionalists, conservatives, those -- basically it says, basically, Glenn, everything you've done in the last ten years, worthless.

PAT: Oh, good.

GLENN: And it explains why my gut has been saying for how long, would he give you to stop using the word "conservative." We've got to stop talking about guys in powdered wigs. We got to find a new way to present history. Would he give you to stop talking about, "Hey, we need another Reagan." And why Donald Trump's slogan, "Make America great again," appeals to the older generation, but there are zero people who are millennials who are voting for him.

PAT: Very few.

GLENN: Very few. So we'll get into that here in a second.

And, again, this guy likes Donald Trump. I think likes Donald Trump. But he's explaining why he's doing so well and why we're not, if you believe in the Constitution.

[break]

GLENN: John Marini, who I think is a Donald Trump fan, in an article from Claremont.org -- Donald Trump and the American Crisis, this is a must-read for everybody who believes in the Constitution because it is why our argument is failing.

In the popular election, arousing rhetorical defense of a political candidate is nearly impossible when those who have held political office as an attained social respectability are unable to praise the candidate. In the attempt to evaluate Donald Trump, liberals have judged him from the perspective of post modern culture, labeling him a reactionary racist, a nationalist, and a xenophobe.

Conservatives have not objected to this post modern characterization of Trump, they have simply tried to add a conservative twist by seeking to revive the old language of character, virtue, and vices, as though this language still has any public or political meaning.

Did you hear that?

As if character, virtue, vices has any public or political meaning. Unable to politicize a language that no longer resonates, even with the Libertarian or economic conservatives, their moral judgments can -- listen to this -- their moral judgments can only be interpreted by the general population in terms of self-interest.

How many times have we heard people say, "Well, you're only doing this because of, whatever our self-interest is." And we look at each other and say, "Are you kidding me? The beating we're getting for this." But that's the popular refrain. He's making the point, the reason why is because people do not connect to character, virtues, or even vices anymore.

This is not -- was not always the case in American politics. A political discourse once existed that understood itself in terms of principles of right, and the stewards of public office were once judged by nonpartisan standards that presupposed virtue such as honesty, integrity, character, and honor. Those are now a thing of the past.

It was an agreement on the need for such virtues that made it possible to entrust those offices to political partisans and to distinguish theoretical and practical reason or prudance. While it was possible to agree on an abstract principle, it was also possible to disagree on the practical way those principles were to be accommodated with respect to contemporary circumstances.

Moreover, a public language still existed that made it possible to agree on what kind of public and private behavior was praiseworthy or blameworthy.

This is what's happening, gang.

But that old language was dependent on a reasonable and objective understanding of virtue and vice. Such language eludes us now, in an age where subjective values have replaced public and private virtue.

Subjective values.

And when principles are merely subjective policy preferences that are defined and defended simply by being non-negotiable.

Let's see. Although it's easy to blame Trump for politicizing the personal by ridiculing those who seek and hold public office, this is his way of connecting with people who would become mere spectators, not citizens, when it comes to Washington politics. Perhaps he did so because there had been no honest evaluation of Washington that originated in Washington. No policy ever really fails. Private corruption never arises to the level of public corruption, let alone is punished. No officeholder of significance has been held personally responsible for their behavior since Watergate.

Ironically, it has taken a reality television star, one who knows the difference between the real and imagined --I think he's giving him too much credit there -- to make reality a political issue with respect to Washington.

Indeed in recent years, Washington has presented itself as a kind of reality show. It is difficult to distinguish what is real from the way it is spun. Benghazi is one example of the unwillingness of the Washington establishment to announce deception in a political matter. In our post Machiavellian age, which is open to every kind of novelty, we are faced with a new kind of incredulity, one that prevents men from believing in the old things which they no longer have any experience of.

So you can't -- you -- you don't believe in anything anymore because you haven't seen it for so long. And it's been destroyed by academia. It has become far easier for modern man to accept change as something normal, almost natural. What has become difficult to understood, let alone preserve are things that are unchanging or eternal.

History understood in terms of the ideal of progress and politics, economic, science, and technology, has made change or the new, seem almost inevitable. As a result, the desire for the newest has become almost irresistible.

He then goes into how Lincoln brought together, at the Cooper Union speech, where he said, "What is a conservative? What does it mean to be a conservative? Are we conservatives, or are we revolutionaries?" And he made the point that we're both, that you have to go back and reject what the fathers did, while weighing what they did as good and what parts are bad.

So, yes, we want to conserve what our Founders did. But we also are revolutionaries because we have to now go back and say, "This part of it is bad."

So he was asking, "You can't be -- he was saying, you cannot be a conservative and -- and -- and serve the future, unless you're using reason to be able to go back and look through the eyes of reason and virtue, to see, this is good. This is bad. I love this. Let's conserve or preserve this. And let's take this out."

In contemporary politics, both liberals and conservatives are necessarily now open to the new. But in many of the most important ways, they have rejected the old policies of the Fathers. True, conservatives have not yet seen fit to denounce the Fathers. But how much of the legacy of the Fathers do they still find defensible because of academia?

Lincoln was aware that the only proper defense of the tried and the true of tradition was a defense of the unchanging principles of political right understood in terms of an unchanging human nature.

This presupposed distinction between theoretical and practical reason, which made it possible to distinguish unchanging principles from policies that must change.

This understanding assumed the benevolence of nature and nature's God, as well as the capacity of human reason to comprehend and impose those rational limits on human freedom that are necessary to ensure human happiness. It is only if the old can also be defended as the good that conservatism or the tried-and-true can remain a living thing.

The historous understanding of freedom purports to reveal that nature itself is tyrannical and has attempted the self-destruction of philosophic reason by liberating the creative individual from the chains imposed by nature, nature's God, nature's law, and nature's reason.

Identity is something that must be freely chosen and self-created by the individual alone. And it must be defended by a government and a law in civil society. Social institutions dependent on the old morality have become intellectually indefensible. In terms of contrary, social, and political thought, it is good -- it is the good understood as the old that is no longer defensible. And its political defense has therefore become unattainable.

The most controversial aspect of Trump's campaign is his slogan, "Make America great again," because it goes to the heart of the problem. Trump's view presupposes that the old America was good and establishes the conditions for greatness. But is it true, or is America something to be ashamed of as the protesters against Trump have insisted, having accepted all of the teachings of the post modern cultural intellectuals?

Trump's defense of the old America goes unrecognized by conservatives, either because they have succumbed to the post modern narrative, or because Trump is unable to make an intellectual case for the old America.

It is possible that the Trump phenomena cannot be understood merely by trying to make sense of Trump himself, but rather, it is the seriousness of the need for Trump that must be understood in order to make sense of his candidacy. Those most likely to be receptive of Trump are those who believe America is in the midst of a great crisis in terms of its economy, it's chaotic civil society, its political corruption, and the ability to defend any kind of tradition or way of life derived from that tradition, because of the transformation of its culture by the intellectual elites.

This sweeping cultural transformation occurred almost completely outside of the political process of mobilizing public opinion and political majority.

Understand what he's saying? Our culture was transformed, and you had nothing to do with it. And that's what people are feeling.

I have nothing -- I don't agree with that. America is good. But you can't defend it anymore.

We haven't even learned how to defend it with new language. The American people themselves did not participate or consent to the wholesale undermining of their way of life which the government and bureaucracy helped to facilitate by undermining those institutions of civil society that were dependent upon a public defense of the old morality.

To be clear, the seriousness of the need does not mean that the need can be satisfied perhaps even by Lincoln, let alone a Trump.

That's frightening. That is frightening.

Trump has established his candidacy on the basis of an implicit understanding that America is in the midst of a crisis. Those who oppose him deny the seriousness of the crisis and see Trump himself as the greatest danger.

Well, I know there's five -- there's four in this room right now that understand this. And I think there's a great number of people in our audience that understand this.

Here again, this is why -- the Trump people have to understand. This is what -- we are with you on a lot of it.

We are concerned because I don't think Donald Trump has the intellectual firepower to even understand what this is saying.

PAT: Yeah. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

GLENN: They're not.

PAT: You can believe we're in crisis and just believe he's not the guy to fix it.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

Here, again, Trump's success will depend on his ability to articulate the ground of the common good that is still rooted in the past, a common good established by a government that protects the rights of its citizens in a constitutional matter.

I don't think he's going to be able to do that.

Trump may or may not succeed in becoming president of the United States. And all those who have a stake in preserving Washington as it now exists are his enemies, and the public that is drawn to him is fickle. Much will depend upon the ability of the established order, which has authority and respectability on its side to erode the trust that Trump has built with the constituency that he has created.

In any case, the need that brought Trump to the fore will not disappear with a possible Trump demise.

He has addressed this issue when no one else would. And it is the need for political rule to be reanimated in a way that allows public opinion, understood to arise in the creation of constitutional majorities to establish the legitimacy of politics, policy, and laws, in a matter compatible with the rule of law and the common good. That requires revitalizing the meaning of citizenship and reaffirming the sovereignty of the people and the nation.

It also requires the restoration of the link between the people and the political branches of the government so both can become defenders of the Constitution and the country.

That's from the Claremont Institute. There is a lot to digest. Anybody who is serious about fixing the country and helping the country needs to read that.

STU: It's a hearty meal right there.

JEFFY: Darn right it is.

GLENN: There's days of stuff to feast on in that. John Marini is the name.

STU: Yeah. I was looking back at his archives at the Claremont. And he wrote an article in 2012: America has a problem, not because of our Constitution, but because constitutionalism as a theoretical doctrine is no longer meaningful in our politics.

That's in 2012.

GLENN: How did I not know this guy? Can you reach out to him and find out if he listens or hates us or likes us? I would like to talk to him.

STU: I start at the hate.

JEFFY: Start at the hate. I know. That's a good place to start.

STU: And then be pleasantly surprised.

GLENN: So reach out to him. I'd like to talk to him.

STU: Sure.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump looks on during a campaign rally at the Prescott Valley Event Center, October 4, 2016 in Prescott Valley, Arizona. (Photo Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details:

Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, 8 p.m. CT, Glenn Beck goes straight to the source of the biggest story in the country with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who takes us directly into Hunter Biden's alleged laptop.

Despite Big Tech's attempts to squash this story, there should be a mad scramble in the media to get to the bottom of major corruption allegations, but they're willfully ignoring it. However, this is not just a story about Hunter Biden. This is all about Joe Biden. It's a story Glenn has been investigating for over a year that traces back to Ukraine and China. It goes directly to the root of corruption within our political system: How politicians use their family members to enrich the entire clan and sell out their country. While the media looks the other way, Glenn asks Mayor Giuliani to show us the evidence. Giuliani details the chain of possession of the laptop and reveals news that he only had possession of the laptop days before the New York Post story broke. He says, "I reported this the day after I saw it."

He also drops a major bombshell on the show and says Big Tech doesn't want you to see evidence that "establishes with texts, documents, contracts" that "Joe Biden was a 10% partner with a Chinese communist … and there are witnesses that will come forward and testify to it."

Big Tech censorship is out of control. So to watch tonight's explosive episode of Glenn TV, you must be a BlazeTV subscriber. Because Big Tech is doing whatever it can to limit free speech, we're offering our most important discount on BlazeTV ever. Use promo code GLENN to get $30 off a one-year subscription, so you'll have 24/7 access to news and entertainment completely free of biased "fact-checks" and censorship.

Watch a preview of the show below:

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.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on subpoenas to compel Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on alleged censorship and bias across their platforms. But that all changed when Republican committee members "expressed reservation about the maneuver," Politico reports.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, was definitely not one of the committee members with cold feet. On the radio program Tuesday, he told Glenn Beck that he's fighting "vociferously" to ensure Dorsey and others testify before the November 3rd election.

"Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are both going to testify. They're are going to testify in person. They're going to testify before Election Day. That's what I think should happen," Cruz said. "That's what I'm fighting vociferously to happen. Right now, the companies are negotiating with the chairman's office to discuss terms to come voluntarily. I don't give a damn whether they come voluntarily or under subpoena. They need to testify in person and answer questions for the American people about why they are trying to steal this election, to suppress the free speech, and to censor the press."

The subpoenas would require Big Tech leaders to testify on the alleged "suppression and/or censorship" of two consecutive blockbuster stories from the New York Post. The first story was about emails that allegedly came from Hunter Biden's computer which are currently being investigated by the FBI, and the second was based on additional emails that allegedly showed communist China directly offering millions of dollars to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

"Big Tech stepped in, and they've done something they've never done before," Cruz explained. "We know that Big Tech has been censoring individual conservatives, trying to suppress conservative speech. But the step they took here is, they blocked if any individual user tried to share either of the New York Post stories, [they] were blocked ... Sharing a news story, from a major media outlet is part of democracy, part of free speech. And not only that, they blocked the New York Post itself. Right now, today, the New York Post is not being allowed to post its own damn stories on corruption. This is ridiculous. It's a threshold that's never been crossed before, of Silicon Valley oligarchs declaring the authority to determine what the press is allowed to report, and who is allowed to see it."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

If we learned nothing from the media over the past 4 years it's that colluding with a foreign entity to either win an election or for personal gain is absolutely grotesque. Well, that depends on whether you have a (D) or (R) before your name anyway. President Trump was impeached on rumor and innuendo yet Joe Biden has all but skated on his corruption up to this point.

Below is a timeline that shows the level of corruption and the lengths the Biden's went to in order to build that family's wealth and influence internationally.

2009

In 2009, Joe Biden was the brand-new Vice President and John Kerry was a U.S. Senator. Just five months after Joe was sworn in, his son Hunter, and Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz, formed an international private equity firm called Rosemont Capital. It had several different branches, including one called Rosemont Seneca Partners.

2010

Just nine months after Rosemont Seneca opened its doors, Hunter Biden went to China for meetings with executives from China's biggest banks, and its sovereign wealth and social security funds. That's unheard-of access for a brand-new firm. Was it just coincidence that at the same time Hunter was meeting these Chinese bigwigs, his dad was meeting with China's then-president Hu Jintao in Washington DC at a nuclear security summit?

2011

In May 2011, Joe Biden met with Chinese officials for the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue conference in Washington. Just two weeks later, Hunter Biden went to Taiwan for meetings with the same Chinese financial giants he'd met in China in 2010, plus some new ones.

2013

By December 2013, Joe Biden was enjoying his second term as VP, and John Kerry was now Secretary of State. That's when Joe traveled to Beijing on an extended official trip and Hunter traveled with him on Air Force Two.

During their stay, Vice President Biden met with President Xi and Hunter was mostly out of sight. We don't know exactly what he was up to, but the deal finalized between Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China just ten days after the Bidens' trip pretty much gives it away. The most powerful financial institution in China formed a joint venture with tiny Rosemont Seneca to create a giant new investment firm called Bohai Harvest RST – the "RS" stands for Rosemont Seneca.

The firm is often called "BHR" for short.

Hunter Biden was a member of the Board. Remember, the Bank of China is government-owned, which means its business is completely intertwined with the goals of the Chinese Communist Party. BHR also got the freedom to operate in the newly created Shanghai Free-Trade Zone where, over the next six years, it would use $2.5 billion of Chinese government money to invest in China, as well as in other countries, including the U.S.

During their Beijing trip, Hunter also introduced Jonathan Li to his dad. Li is Hunter's business partner – he's CEO and Director of BHR.

Hunter arranged for Joe to meet Li in the lobby of the hotel where they stayed during their Beijing trip.

2014

In 2014, one of BHR's first major investments was in the China General Nuclear Power Corporation.

CGN is a Chinese government-owned nuclear power company that sold off a stake of the company to outside investors. Problem is, CGN was under FBI investigation for paying informants in the U.S. to steal nuclear secrets.

In 2016, the FBI arrested the ringleader of this nuclear espionage, a man named Allen Ho.

When they arrested Ho, he was using a random code generator to access funds being provided to him from – where else? – the Bank of China.

Yet while this FBI probe was going on, the son of the Vice President owned a stake in the company being investigated. And even after arrests were made, Rosemont Seneca did not alter its relationship with BHR, nor did it divest from CGN, even though it was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets.

2015

In 2015, BHR partnered with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) to buy an American company called Henniges for $600 million.

AVIC is a gigantic military contractor in China – think Lockheed Martin – that makes fighter jets, bombers and drones. BHR bought 49% of Henniges and AVIC bought 51%.

Henniges is a precision parts manufacturer specializing in anti-vibration technology. The stuff they make is known as "dual use" by the U.S. State Department, which means the technology can also have a military application.

Because of that, the deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) since it could have national security implications. The thing is, the American side of BHR – meaning Hunter Biden and his pals – had to know there were serious national security implications with AVIC.

The year before they formed a partnership with AVIC, the Wall Street Journal reported how AVIC stole technology related to the U.S. Air Force's F-35 stealth fighter and used it in its own stealth fighter for the Chinese.

How the Committee on Foreign Investment approved that deal remains a mystery. CFIUS does not publicly disclose any information regarding its decisions. Their findings are not publicly announced.

Interesting that China accounted for the largest share – with 74 transactions – approved by CFIUS during Obama's second term (2013-2015).

Under the umbrella of Rosemont Capital was a real estate company called Rosemont Realty. In 2015, a Chinese company called Gemini Investments bought a 75% stake in Rosemont Realty. The company was renamed Gemini Rosemont

Gemini brought $3 billion to the partnership with Rosemont, with the aim of buying "Class A institutional-quality commercial office properties in U.S. markets."

Red flag (literally) – Gemini Investments is a subsidiary of the China Ocean Shipping Company, a.k.a., "COSCO."

COSCO is a Chinese government-owned company. Its headquarters in Beijing is actually next to the headquarters of the Bank of China. COSCO is well-known for its close military ties. It's essentially a branch of the Chinese Navy.

2017

In 2017, BHR invested in Face++. That's the facial recognition phone app built by a Chinese company that is incorporated in a separate app built by the Chinese government. Police in the Xinjiang [Sin-jong] region of China use that app to keep tabs on citizens, and track and detain Uiguhr [Wee-ger] Muslims.

The app allows police easy access to data about Chinese Muslims including things like religious activity, blood type, and even the amount of electricity they use.

2018

In March 2018, a spokesman (Chris Bastardi) for Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's stepson) emailed The Hill to say that Heinz had "no operating role" in Rosemont Seneca, and that he was not involved in any of Rosemont's deals in China (which contradicts Schweizer's report in his book Secret Empires).

Chris Heinz was involved in Rosemont Capital. Rosemont Seneca was established under the same GP as Rosemont Capital, but Chris Heinz had no operating role in it. Chris and his family have no financial interest or investment in Bohai Harvest RST, he has never traveled to China, and he has never met with the firm's Chinese management team or investors.

2019

In October 2019, Hunter Biden's lawyer, George Mesires, said Hunter did not conduct any business on that 2013 trip to Beijing with his Dad.

Mesires said the timing of BHR's business license getting approved was purely coincidental because the paperwork had been submitted months before the Bidens' China trip.

According to Hunter's lawyer, the approval " was not related in any way, shape or form to Hunter's visit."

Hunter Biden finally stepped down from the BHR board last October (2019), but he DID NOT give up his 10% stake in the company.