BLOG

Glenn Tells Head of Libertarian Party What Floored Him About Gary Johnson

Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the Libertarian Party joined Glenn in studio Thursday to discuss the contentious 2016 election and the future of his party. Does Sarwark see 2016 as a missed opportunity for the Libertarian Party?

"Absolutely not," Sarwark said.

"You don't?" Glenn responded in surprise.

Glenn and Sarwark continued a lively discussion about the 2016 candidates, Gary Johnson's distrust of religion more than government, and how Libertarians can shape their message of individual freedom to appeal to a larger swath of voters.

"He made a point every time he came on this program to mention that he distrusted religion more than he distrusted the United States government, and we were floored by that," Glenn said. "Now, I have a healthy distrust of religion as well. Religion gets us into problems just like government does. It depends on who is running those things."

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: We've invited the chairman of the Libertarian Party on, Nicholas Sarwark. He's 37 years old. He took over the head of the Libertarian Party when he was 34. He's a former public defender and -- and wants to grow the Libertarian Party. Welcome to the program. How are you?

NICHOLAS: I'm fabulous. Thank you so much for having me on, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. When you look back at 2016, do you see that as a missed opportunity for the Libertarian Party?

NICHOLAS: Absolutely not.

GLENN: You don't?

NICHOLAS: We -- we took advantage of the opportunities that were given.

We had been doing work -- as you probably know, the Libertarian Party has been around for 45 years now, and it's been small, and it's been growing slowly and steadily over time. 2016 was a huge opportunity. The old parties decided they wanted to nominate the worst people they could find, and they did.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ROBERT: We nominated two very experienced former governors who were very popular Republican governors in Democratic states. So we had kind of the perfect storm.

GLENN: But were they? And I hate this test because no one ever passes the Libertarian test. You can talk to any Libertarian, and they will convince you that you're not Libertarian enough. So it doesn't -- so I hate this test. But these guys were for a lot of big government policies, when they were government -- when they were in government. And they also, you know, didn't meet basic fundamental principles of freedom of religion, et cetera, et cetera.

And we felt at least -- and, you know, I don't know who the Libertarian Party is trying to appeal to. But we felt at least -- and still do -- we belong in the Libertarian Party because we're strict constitutionalists.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: But we don't feel welcome there. And we certainly didn't feel welcome with Gary Johnson.

NICHOLAS: Really? And who made you feel unwelcome, Glenn?

STU: You. It was you.

GLENN: Gary Johnson.

NICHOLAS: It's usually me.

GLENN: No, it was Gary Johnson.

NICHOLAS: Really?

GLENN: Yeah, he was on our show a couple of times.

STU: And we liked him.

GLENN: And we liked him.

STU: We had good conversation with him.

NICHOLAS: Okay.

STU: But, for example -- quick example to back this up, he mentioned a lot to a lot of different media sources the percentage of issues he agreed with Bernie Sanders on. That was a big talking point for him, and I think to a lot of people in this audience, even though I can't imagine the percentage he was quoting, which was like 80 percent or something like that, was actually true, because he was using that as such a kind of an outward talking point, to many media sources and mentioned it even here on the show, I think that that scared a lot of the audience away.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: Also, he made a point every time he came on this program to mention that he distrusted religion more than he distrusted the United States -- the government. And we.

NICHOLAS: That's --

GLENN: And we were floored by that. Now, I have a healthy distrust of religion as well. Religion gets us into problems just like government does.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: It depends on who is running those things.

So we just -- we just felt like -- and this is why I wanted to have you on.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Like Austin Petersen, we loved. We loved.

NICHOLAS: Okay.

GLENN: Where are you guys headed -- because I know America, especially the youth, is headed towards this -- you know, this idea of a new kind of Marxism. And big government. Are you guys constitutionalists, or a hybrid of things? What is it?

STU: Wow. That was a long question.

NICHOLAS: Yeah, that's a huge question. It's double-teaming, which is perfectly fair.

I'm used to it.

So starting with the Sanders thing, yeah, Gary Johnson agreed with Bernie Sanders 80 percent of the things.

GLENN: May I just say, you're not in a hostile room.

NICHOLAS: I don't feel like I'm in a hostile room. I feel like I'm in a friendly room. I'm smiling.

GLENN: All right.

NICHOLAS: He agreed with Bernie Sanders on a lot of stuff. I agree with Bernie Sanders on a lot of stuff.

GLENN: I agree with Bernie Sanders on the problems, not necessarily the solutions.

NICHOLAS: I agree with a lot of conservatives on a lot of stuff. Libertarianism is something fundamentally different, and there are a lot of conservatives who feel not welcome, as you feel. That's a -- that's a normal feeling. There are a lot of liberals who feel not welcome.

GLENN: Right.

NICHOLAS: And the reason is the same: We kind of deny the validity of the paradigm of left and right. Left and right is not important. What is important is freedom and government control. So if you're pro-freedom on an issue, you're for empowering individuals over empowering government, we're with you, whether the issue with you on is from the left or from the right. And the thing that makes people feel uncomfortable is, if you've been in this left/right paradigm, hearing somebody say nice things about a freedom issue that's on the left makes your skin kind of crawl. And if you talk to liberals, it's the same thing. If I say something nice about what a conservative did because it was pro-freedom on that issue, but it's from the right, they're like, "Well, you guys are just bad Republicans."

STU: Right.

GLENN: I would agree with you in most cases. With this audience -- not all of this audience, but a large share of this audience, we are -- here's the problem with Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson came in and he said -- or was on, and he said twice -- and then the running mate Weld said the same thing that -- we said, "How can you have a law that a photographer has to take a picture or wedding cake -- it doesn't make any sense. You can't be for ultimate freedom and maximum personal responsibility and also say, "Oh, and the government should regulate that." As Penn Jillette and I talked about --

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: -- you know, you should be able to have your business do anything that you want, and I have a reason to go, "I'm never going to go there."

NICHOLAS: I love Penn Jillette. So this is going to be hard for him to watch or listen to.

That's right to a point. There's a -- I can get into a long discussion of Anglo-American contract law and stuff like that. But that's probably boring for your listeners. The point is that there's this tradition of something being open to the public. A movie theater is open to the public. A drugstore is open to the public. And open to the public means if you're a person who is not belligerent and you come in, I sell you the stuff off of my shelves.

I don't get to say, "Hey, you can't buy the candy bar because you're white. Sorry. Leave." That runs through our legal history. There's also a long tradition, in America, which is really different, of a strong and vibrant First Amendment, both the free exercise clause and the free speech clauses, that say, I get to say whatever I want. The government can't stop me. Other people can disagree. And I get to exercise my religion, as I choose, as long as I don't violate laws of general applicability. And there can be no compelled speech. That's big. You can't make me say something I don't want to say, as the government.

The tension comes when you get in the middle. Because what are we talking about when we talk about cakes? Because it's a cake issue. And it's a hypothetical. And it's weird. But up in the northwest, it's not hypothetical. Are we talking about, hey, it's a Costco sheet cake. I just want to buy a cake? In which case, yeah, you have to sell that cake to everybody.

GLENN: It's off a shelf.

NICHOLAS: If it's, I want you to write, I want you to express, I want you to put words on to the cake, then it's different. And then photography gets into a weird spot because it's --

GLENN: It's art.

NICHOLAS: Some of it is art. Some of it is documentary. You know, is the artist's message in there? These are hard issues. There isn't one right answer. It's not black and white. A lot of life isn't black and white. And what I've been trying to do is get Libertarians to focus on how many areas do we agree on?

GLENN: It's amazing. Yeah. A lot.

NICHOLAS: If this is a point of contention, where you are a little farther on the free speech side than the Costco sheet side, that's okay. Because we agree on so much else.

GLENN: I agree.

NICHOLAS: Let's have a beer and talk about this. But let's work together on all the other stuff.

GLENN: I agree with you. It just, to me, it seems like a very -- a very easy call, I have -- for instance, you don't have a right to come in -- to me, to come in and say, "Oh, well, I'm just not serving your kind. So you get out." I got to serve you everything. But if you're asking me to do something that is part of a religious ceremony or something that I feel is religious, then that's an easy call.

NICHOLAS: Right. It's coerced expression.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's just so easy, black and white.

STU: It did not seem to be Gary's position, what you're articulating here. I'm totally comfortable. In fact, I agree with you, on what you just articulated. It's just, that's not what he articulated.

NICHOLAS: I got that. And no candidate is perfect. No person is perfect. I love Gary Johnson. He's strong in some areas. He's weak in others.

STU: As we all are.

NICHOLAS: Austin Peterson is strong in some areas, weak in others. And the delegates make those choices.

GLENN: Right.

NICHOLAS: You know, we're -- you want to talk about big differences between the Libertarian Party and the old parties, we had a convention in Orlando, where 1,000 delegates from across the country selected by state Libertarian parties came into a room. Our bylaws explicitly prohibit bound delegates. Every one of those people was totally free to vote for any presidential nominee. They got to meet them. They got to shake their hands. They got to see them in debates. And those delegates in that room made a choice about who they thought would best represent the Libertarian Party. My job as chairman is to empower the choice of those delegates. So I would get these calls where people would say, "Well, what are you going to do about Weld, or what are you going to do about Johnson?" The delegates decide. I don't decide that.

GLENN: No, I agree with that. It's not you. It's not the party. Now, the question is, how does -- because to me, this looks like such an easy place to go and unite the country. Because I -- I really believe -- I can live next to Ben & Jerry for the rest of my life. And they can --

NICHOLAS: They live here? I thought they were up in Vermont.

GLENN: Yeah. But I could live next to them for the rest of my life and we'd never -- we'd be perfectly fine neighbors.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: It's only when I try to affect them or their business or what they believe, or they try to do it to me --

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: -- coercively through government. So -- and I think that's where a vast majority of America is. I could be wrong.

How do you shape that message to cut through and -- and appeal to -- to more people? Because I think that's where people are.

NICHOLAS: I think you start by changing people's premises. The veterans of the culture wars, like many veterans, bear scars from that. Because these were fights that we had during the '90s and the 2000s, between the right and the left, over who gets to have government tell you how to live your life. That's what made them so bitter. That's what made them so angry. Because the stakes of losing were so high.

GLENN: Correct.

NICHOLAS: In a Libertarian society, what we change -- what the party is trying to do in changing America is take that option off the table. No matter how much we disagree --

GLENN: Amen.

NICHOLAS: -- about how you live your life or I live my life, which we may, probably have some disagreements, we agree as a premise that I won't try to use the government to try and control you and you won't use it to try and control me.

GLENN: This is so easy.

NICHOLAS: And it makes -- it makes for better debates and discussions and dialogues because we can get heated and we can get angry. And we can shout or yell or cry or whatever, but we know at the end of the day, it's safe. Because we're exchanging ideas, not fists or guns. That's what we're trying to -- to change about the culture of politics in this country. Libertarian politics is basically -- it's anti-politics. Politics, political economy generally is different groups of people arguing over which one of them gets to take your tax money and give it to their corporate cronies. Theirs. Because theirs are the good ones. Not the other guys. The other guys -- you don't want to give any money to him, but the developer that I know, oh, yeah. No, that's the guy that should get your tax dollars.

GLENN: We're seeing this with Donald Trump.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: The right was against the stimulus package.

NICHOLAS: Until he did it.

GLENN: Until he's got a bigger stimulus package, and they're for it.

NICHOLAS: Right. We're fundamentally different because we're the only political party in the country that's dedicated to the idea that you have a right to pursue happiness any way you choose, as long as you don't hurt other people and you don't take their stuff.

We're fighting to make it so that government stops taking stuff away from you and stops controlling your life.

GLENN: Okay. So let's get into that. When we come back --

NICHOLAS: Sure.

GLENN: And you're going to be with me on TheBlaze, so we'll maybe spend another ten minutes. And then tonight, at 5 o'clock, we'll spend a full hour. And I really want to concentrate on that. Because there's a new study out -- and this is of conservatives -- conservative millennials. Forty -- 51 percent say that the government -- that the First Amendment is sacrosanct, that you have a right to speech and a right to free press. 49 percent say that is sacrosanct. But the government has to decide what speech is okay. I mean, it's crazy. And it's conservatives that are saying that. How do we change that?

[break]

GLENN: Talking to Nicholas Sarwark. He is the chairman of the Libertarian Party. We have to get to this here in a couple of minutes, and we'll probably spend more time on it tonight. Can you just go over -- because I only have two minutes here. Can you just go over and then just tease for tonight to explain this, what you just said to me during the break?

NICHOLAS: Sure. Oh. Oh. You had asked earlier whether or not the Libertarian Party is constitutionalist. But it's not anti-constitutionalist. The Constitution, as written, has good things in it -- free speech, Fourth Amendment, stuff like that -- and it has bad things in it, three-fifths of a person, some anti-Democratic stuff.

We support freedom. Every issue. Every time. If the Constitution supports freedom, we're behind the Constitution. If the Constitution takes away freedom, we're against the Constitution. Our North Star is individual liberty, not a particular document written by a particular set of people in a particular place in time.

Legally, we're bound by the Constitution, but our goals --

GLENN: Is there a better document than the Constitution?

NICHOLAS: Oh, no. It's very much the Churchillian line. It's the worst system, except for all the other ones.

GLENN: Yeah. I'll give you that. I mean, we've had this argument -- I had a progressive on the other day, and we were talking about it.

And I said, "You know, let's just agree on the top ten. The first ten amendments." And I said, "Except for the 13th Amendment and Prohibition, the Constitution, all the other amendments are just like, hey, dummy, this is what we were saying in the first ten."

NICHOLAS: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: And that's really where we have to get to.

NICHOLAS: Bill of Rights is solid. Bill of Rights is solid. We're totally behind the Bill of Rights.

GLENN: Rock solid. Yeah.

NICHOLAS: Other parts of the Constitution get a little bit muddy.

GLENN: Yeah. But the Bill of Rights -- I think when people talk about the Constitution, I think, you know, they're not talking necessarily about all the inner workings of how the government works and the three-fifths clause, which was in there for a reason that nobody even knows about anymore. But looking at that Bill of Rights, there is a huge connection across all categories.

NICHOLAS: Absolutely.

GLENN: All categories.

I'm really looking forward to our conversation later today. 5 o'clock on TheBlaze.com. The Libertarian Party.

What is it? What do they believe? And where are they going in 2018 and 2020? You want to be a part of change? Join us tonight. 5 o'clock. Only on TheBlaze TV. TheBlaze.com/TV. Join us tonight at 5:00.

RADIO

New Task Force Could Expose The Government's DARKEST Secrets

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has been tapped to lead the House Oversight Committee's "Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets." This task force will look into declassifying information on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, UAPs/UFOs, the Jeffrey Epstein client list, the origins of COVID-19, 9/11, and more. But Glenn has a few questions, including whether getting Congress involved will slow the process down. Rep. Luna clears up the confusion and says that Trump appointees, like AG Pam Bondi and, hopefully, FBI Director Kash Patel, will still make the big decisions. Plus, she addresses criticism of her promise to subpoena witnesses related to the JFK assassination.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anna Paulina Luna is with me now from Congress.

She's just been appointed to lead the task force on declassification of federal secrets. Anna, welcome. How are you?

ANNA: Hey, Glenn. Happy to be back on. Thank you!

GLENN: Okay. Now, I just have to say, yesterday, unbeknownst to me before you are appointed, I was on a show with Patrick Bet-David.

And I said, within 15 days, they are going to release the client list for Jeffrey Epstein. No way! That can't be true. And I said, I'm telling you, Kash Patel, I talked to him over the summer. He is for radical transparency. It's in the hands of the director of the FBI.

I think he does it day number one. Let's give him a few days to settle in. They didn't believe me. They said, we're going to track this.

So, Anna, you're going to make me look bad.
And I don't care if lives are destroyed or whatever. But you can't make me look bad.

VOICE: No! You know, we actually also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice. As you know, Pam Bondi is heading up that organization, and we also asked for it there. But I also -- I'm in the same belief, that Kash will get confirmed.

I think he will absolutely be pushing for radical transformation. I also too like to point out, you know, at the same time, that we're basically announcing our press conference at the declassification passports, we actually also found out that the SPI just so happened to locate thousands of pages of previously undiscovered JFK files.

So, look, I know a lot of people are like, well, the American people need to see the information first, and you actually will see it.

It will be declassified. But the reason why we're doing the task force is, A, just because President Trump signed an executive order doesn't mean that bureaucrats and even Intelligence agencies won't attempt to block it.

So we want to make sure that's followed through. We do have punitive authority to hold them accountable, if they don't, A.

And then, B, I think it's incredibly important to look at the evidence that we know now. Which is sure as heck a lot different than what they had even 60 years ago, and what we're finding. What we're finding, and from what I have looked at.

To stuff that's already out there. Also, too, taking into account, many of the doctors that were actually at that initial responding -- or at that initial hospital. I do think that there were two shooters.

And I think the whole Magic Bully theory that the Warren commission pushed, I think that was faulty.
I know another president at the time, also believed that that was a faulty theory.

And so, you know, I'm eager to accommodate this. I know that there's many Democrats and Republicans that also want to get to the bottom of this.

And I am simply asking the questions that every American has been asking for decades.

GLENN: So I have a very good friend, Paul Biets (phonetic), who has the museum of the American soldier in Texas. And he had -- he spent a long time to get the exact right gun, the way it was modified. A scope and everything else, and he just had it redone. And I have to tell you, I've held it.

I will take it out to the range next week. I've held the gun, looked through the scope.

I just don't think you could do it. I mean, it's just so difficult!

ANNA: There were reports from doctors at the time, some of which were first and second-year med students who were at the hospital, in the room where Kennedy was brought. And they reported an entry wound in the neck. From some of the footage that you can see.

Video of Kennedy being shot.

But also the doctors that ran the autopsies at Bethesda, Maryland, had reported seeing an entry wound in the back. And so we're talking about multiple shots here.

I think the whole idea that they would try to just ignore the evidence, or at least try to bury that, and not even answer the question. Is suspect to me. And so I think the whole idea of wanting to push against declassification or even trying to pooh-pooh the evidence that has now been brought to the forefront.

Look, the obligation of the US government to release this to the American people -- Kennedy was arguably one of the most popular presidents, and he was assassinated.

So why did they try so hard to push back against any questioning?

And that's where I come in.

And where the task force comes in.

You know, I'm also telling people, if you're seeing people with large -- especially, pushing against declassification or attempting to discredit. And I thought, immediately after my press conference, try to discredit the efforts of Congress to actually follow through and get this done.

In my opinion, bad actors are just on both sides. If you really have nothing to hide, then you should not be afraid of the questioning.

You shouldn't be afraid of information getting out to the American people.

GLENN: Let me push back on a couple of things, just from, you know, playing devil's advocate.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would you start with the JFK? Why is that even important?

It happened a year before I was born. Yesterday was my 61st birthday. How is this relevant? How is this relevant?

ANNA: I think -- so when we chose to kind of go through the timelines. It's the MLK files and the JFK files that are going to be released first.

So we wanted to help go through that information. And then also clip some of the historical narratives that were painted on these assassinations.

Obviously, confirming -- or holding hearings to actually present you evidence, I think is important for knowing and fully understanding the story, right?

So that's the first thing.

GLENN: Are these going to be open hearings?

ANNA: Yeah. These are all open. And the reason I want them open. Is because I think the American people will go through the evidence. I am also going to be doing something similar to what I did, to the UAP hearings, which allowed people to ask questions. We're also bringing in experts.

There's a few individuals that I want to bring in. From the previous investigations. That actually were pointing out some pretty incredible evidence, that pointed potentially second shooter.

And they were pooh-poohed. And I think those people deserve a platform.

And if we find anything, it's -- you know, having Kash confirmed is incredibly important. He's also going to bring forward -- I would argue, that have been hidden from the American people.

So this is obviously a big effort. We're not perfect. But we do know that the American people deserve this.

And what we're fighting for is total and complete transparency.

GLENN: The other pushback question I have. And this one is actually pretty sincere from me.

And that is, once we get Congress involved. Then we're re-litigating everything.

The more Congress gets involved, the slower it will happen.

And the higher the percentage is.

It's just not going to come out. We will just get pages and pages of redacted crap.

LINDY: Well, so the whole purpose and objective of this task force is to actually ensure, with President Trump's executive order. That the agencies and the bureaucrats in those agencies, do exactly what that executive order says, which is to declassify it.

So we're not going to be siloing or holding any information, that won't be available to the American people.

So this is all going to be out there.

You will be able to go through it yourself. It will be online from what I gather.

Similar to how they've declassified previous documents from the FBI and the CIA.

So, again, we are simply, reopening the investigation with new evidence. Also, bringing in credible witnesses that will be verified and confirmed via House Oversight, the committee itself.

And we are going to be opening this up to the American people.

So you will access to the same documents that we are looking at.

We are simply ensuring, we will not get blockaded. Or this information is not siloed.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

And when do we get to the things?

By the way, the answer for me, the answer to my first question to you, was, it's relevant. Because I think they've been doing this kind of stuff forever.

And it shows a pattern. If they were doing it in 63. What are they doing now?

I just don't think -- go ahead.

ANNA: You know what is interesting is, if you ask those questions. There are some people.

And to be clear, these people largely exist in the media. And they're largely bad actors.

When you have someone, instead of answering the question, and having a respectful dialogue. To discredit something as a conspiracy theory or try to gaslight into you thinking, you should not be asking the question. That's when you know they are hiding something.

GLENN: Right.

ANNA: So I've talked to many Democrats. Many well-known Democrats. That are just like, we want in on this task force. Because we have questions.

And it just doesn't sit right. Look, this -- this entire task force. I don't believe that this would be possible. Had President Trump not gotten into office.

Had our CIA director not been confirmed. Had there not been people placed in positions of power, that are true ideologues like you and I.

You know, to be clear, I think that also Marco Rubio played a part at -- the Secretary of State's office.

I think that, you know, there are going to be many people. And some of these investigations that will at least give us access to whatever information.

Look, we've asked to declassify everything I've list in that press conference.

COVID-19 origin. 9/11 files. Look what just came out yesterday.

We find out that the FBI was basically ordering lunch for someone that was working with the pilots that crashed the plane into the twin towers. I mean, that's ridiculous. And that's all coming out now.

And that's why we ask these questions on the 9/11 files.

How could it have been prevented? How much did the government truly know?

I mean, look, I could care less if people think I'm crazy for doing this.

I can tell you, I am joined by many high-profile people in Congress, Democrats who have the same questions. And so we are not going to stop.

GLENN: Jeffrey Epstein. When is that coming out?

ANNA: Well, I have the letter out to Pam Bondi. I know Kash Patel has been supportive of it.

So hopefully, once they're confirmed, previously they said that the Epstein list could not be released. This is mind you, under Biden's Department of Justice because there was an open case.

Right? That's what they kept pointing to.

You hear that Pam Bondi. Before she was confirmed.

She called for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein client list. So we're pushing for it. Go ahead.

GLENN: So will Pam and Kash be the ones to make the decision, we're going to release it? They will be the ones.

ANNA: Yes, they will be the ones.

Again, I'm going off what we were told as the previous administrations. But what they were saying, that there was an open investigation.

So I believe that Pam has the authority to release that. And, look, I don't believe that any of that should have been classified.

If there are people that were doing bad things. We should know about it.

GLENN: It's unbelievable.

I mean, radical transparency.

It is the only thing that will heal our nation.

Is if we deal with all of the corruption that we have been dealing with. That we know has happened.

And if we can get an honest look.

You know, maybe. Maybe the Warren commission was right.

I don't know.

CAROL: We should be able to know that, and look at the evidence for ourselves. Yes.

GLENN: Yes. All of the evidence. All of the evidence. Without protecting anybody.
Anna, thank you.

It's got to be -- what was it like to be -- did you get the call from the president?

How did this work?

ANNA: Initially, in full transparency, this was actually supposed to -- the task force looked a little bit different. And I chose to expand it. Because even our investigators said, there's a lot here. If we're truly -- our absolute objective is to begin restoring trust in the relationship with the American people.

We have to go into these, you know, different theories. Going to these cases. And investigate. And actually find the truth. And let the American people decide.

I agree with them.

Also, Glenn. There were two other members that were potentially going to be taking over the initial task force.

And they turned it downed, because there was a climate of fear, that it was considered dangerous territory.

And what I will tell you, I do not believe that it's dangerous territory. Because we have, you know, the 800-pound gorilla in the White House, and our allies in the Intelligence Agencies. That are pushing for this.

So it's not just one person. I think where you had, you know, previous historical -- it was one person that was leading up the charge.

But when it's a group effort pushing for this, it's -- it's a systematic change that occurred.

And so in my opinion, I think I'm going to be okay.

But, you know, a lot of people. I had a reporter that called me actually, a very well-known reporter from Fox News yesterday said, it's interesting.

One of the initial reporters that had reported that there were three shots heard at the JFK assassination. One that was -- one of the prizes for writing. And he actually committed suicide several years later.

Stuff like that has happened in the past. And I just -- I'm in the perspective and belief, that right now, we have a very small window of time. To bring true change. You see everything happening with USAID.

Mike Benz has been uncovering a lot. Elon Musk has been uncovering a lot.

But there are a lot of good people that are really cleaning the system. You saw 40,000 federal employees resigned. Or not resigned, but chose to leave the workforce.

So you're seeing a big change happen, and I'm not saying that this is a complete fix. But it definitely is going to change I think our country long-term and historically.

I'll also tell you this, Glenn. Yesterday, after we made the announcement, I felt a massive orchestrated campaign, specifically coming from a lot of other people that had typically been political on social media. That were trying to discredit what I was saying about potential witnesses, and trying to spin it.

And the reason why they were doing it, is because the Warren Commission presented a faulty theory on the bullet. The magic bullet theory.

To think that that was how Kennedy was taken out. And the Texas governor --

GLENN: But they were -- they were saying, nobody is alive. So who were you going to --

ANNA: Yeah, that's not true. First of all, I was using the Warren commission, as an example of the commissions that have been set up. The hearings that have been set up. But who we are actually looking to subpoena. I don't want to say their names yet.

GLENN: No. No. No.

ANNA: Are individuals that, A, were -- are at Bethesda, in the room during the 8:00 p.m. autopsy that the military did. Individuals that were on the assassination board, that that did not agree with the findings initially with the new evidence coming out. I think that they will -- it will reflect their government employees, that should pass backgrounds. And then there's another individual who is going to be very key, in I think resetting the narrative upon Kennedy.

GLENN: Interesting. Anna, thank you so much. Interesting.

And you sound like you are. You know exactly what you're walking into. There's a new stat out this morning.

Over three times more people in DC are Googling criminal defense lawyer than anywhere else in the US right now.

So you've got a lot of people who are freaking out.

Keep up the good work.

God bless you.

Thank you.

RADIO

The REAL Reason Democrats are TERRIFIED of Elon Musk & DOGE

Democrats are mad that President Trump is trusting Elon Musk with so much. Glenn explains why it’s dumb for them to whine about Elon being an “unelected billionaire” and getting rid of USAID – which isn’t even an “aid” agency. Plus, Glenn reviews how Democrats tried to force a security guard to let them into the Department of Education: “It’s quite amazing how these people are so freaked out. They’ve got to cover their tracks!”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Bret Baier asked Donald Trump if he trusts Elon Musk. Cut nine.

DONALD: I don't know if it's kickbacks, or what's going on.

Look, I ran on it, and the people want me to find it, and I've had a great help with Elon Musk, who has been terrific.

VOICE: You say you trust him?

DONALD: Trustee Elon, oh, he's not gaining anything.

In fact, I wonder how he can devote the time into it, he's so into it.

But I told him to do that. Then I will tell him, very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He will find the same thing.

Then I will go to the military. Let's check the military. We will find billions. Hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse. And, you know, the people elected me on that.

GLENN: He's absolutely right about this. I don't know how everybody is squealing.

First of all, you know, he's an unelected bureaucrat. Well, almost all bureaucrats are.

I don't know if you --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If you follow that. But, you know, the Treasury Secretary, is also somebody who, you know, wasn't voted in.

Unelected bureaucrat.

He was appointed by the president to do this.

And we're going to -- we're going to find out about what's happening with this judge. See if it's overruled. Did you hear about what happened with the judge over the weekend, with the Treasury Department?

PAT: Yeah. Where they blocked going into the treasury books. Which --

GLENN: It was so -- it was so poorly written, that they didn't even differentiate between Elon Musk's people, and the Treasury secretary.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: So as it's written, the Treasury secretary can't even look at any of the data.

PAT: It's incredible.

He also, the judge who did the block.

Also didn't mention what law they're violating. He just said, it's violating the law. What law is being violated here?

GLENN: What law? What law?

PAT: This is a person appointed by the president to look into this.

So I don't see how that could violate any laws.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, and who is not for looking into all of this stuff?

Honestly, I mean, you know, I can't wait until he gets to the Pentagon. Because how are the Democrats going to say, that we somehow or another, are, you know -- we don't care about national defense? We care about national defense!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I also care about fraud. You know, it's -- the same thing with all of this stuff about aid.

First of all, aid, USAID, it's not aid. It's AID. Okay? It is for international development. That's what that's for.

It's not an aid program. Or an aid agency.

We have aid agencies. That's not one of them.

This is soft power.

And, quite honestly, it is from the beginning, been a CIA operation.

So how are -- I'm not against aid.

I'm against corruption. And I'm also against a lot of this soft power being done, that nobody knows about.

Why are we just finding out about this stuff?

And what we going to find in the Pentagon, oh, my gosh. We're going to find really bad stuff in the Pentagon. Really bad.

PAT: And none of us is against aid. It's just the aid that is being dispersed to people that you mentioned isn't aid.

And the other thing, it's not government agencies, that should be doing this.

It's individuals who are tasked with charity.

GLENN: No!

PAT: And helping others.

We're the ones, individual choice. To -- we shouldn't be forced!

Once you're forced into it, it's not charity anyway.

GLENN: No. It's not.

PAT: So I don't understand how all of the responsibility for aid worldwide is now on the US government.

That's not the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

And I don't know if you saw this.

But the NIH. They're going crazy now.

Because the NIH. When Trump's people first came in.

They said, we're going to cut the maximum indirect cost rate for research institutions.

Now, most people read that. And they don't even understand what that is. That means, how much of this is going?

How much of 1 dollar is going actually to the program, of research, and how much is going for overhead?

Again, we told you before, any charity that is 85 cents on the dollar. Is one that you start to look at.

If it's 80, 75 cents. You're getting a bad rating for that.

This is 60 cents on the dollar, goes to the management.

Goes to overhead costs.

I want 40 cents on every dollar? You think that's wise?

This is going to save us billions. They're predicting now $9 billion for this project alone. $9 billion.

So go ahead and play cut two, here.

If members of Congress -- peoples cut 12.

This is members of Congress, trying to get into the Department of Education over the weekend.

VOICE: Do they know that --

VOICE: Ask the question again. That's important.

VOICE: Were you told. Are you making the decision to stand in front of the store, on your own behalf. On behalf of the Department of Education.

GLENN: This is the security guard.

VOICE: So everybody is --

VOICE: We're doing our jobs.

GLENN: Okay. So here they are, members of Congress trying to get in, trying to break into the Department of Education. It's closed for the weekend. And they say, they're doing their job. And they're questioning the security guard. Why aren't you letting us in. And all he said, it's not going to happen. Not today. It's not going to happen. You're not going in.

It's quite amazing how these people are so freaked out, they've got to cover their tracks.

I'm convinced that's what it is.

Here's Donald Trump responding to this. Cut 13.

VOICE: Democratic lawmakers trying to get into the Department of Education earlier today.

VOICE: Oh. I see the same ones.

I see Maxine Waters.

A low-life. I see all these people. They don't love our country. They don't love our country.

We want great education. So they ranked 40 countries in education, we're ranked dead last. Dead last.

But the good news is, we're number one in one category. You know what that is? Cost per pupil. We spend more per pupil than any other country in the world.

You look at Norway, Denmark, Sweden, various countries all up and down, Finland. China does very well in education, and then you look at us.

We spend much more money than they do per pupil than any other way. But we spend much more money than they do, and yet we're ranked this year, Biden's last year -- congratulations, Joe. We're ranked dead last. So what I want to see is education -- number one, I like choice. We all like choice.

But beyond choice, long beyond choice, I want to see it go back to the states, where great states who do so well, have no debt, they-re operated brilliantly. They'll be as good as Norway or Denmark or Sweden or any of the other highly ranked countries. They will -- I figure 35 to 38 states will be right at the top.

And the rest will come along. They'll have to come along, competitively. And, by the way, we will be spending --

GLENN: I will tell you -- I will tell you that it feels a little like when the allies marched into Germany, and the Germans were burning all of their documents to hide all the crimes.

It kind of feels a little like that.

RADIO

Why Did Qualcomm FREAK OUT Over This Glenn Beck Interview?

Why is the big tech giant Qualcomm so nervous about ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker appearing on The Glenn Beck Program? After Parker’s last appearance on Glenn’s show, Qualcomm filed a motion to shut him up and named Glenn over a dozen times. Parker joins Glenn again to give updates on the case and refute some of Qualcomm’s accusations against him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So a couple of weeks ago, we had a guy on named Jeff Parker. He's the CEO and chairman of ParkerVision. He was making allegations that Qualcomm was in bed with the government, and -- and had screwed ParkerVision. Because what ParkerVision had done is come up with a chip that allows all of our phones and everything else to connect. To Bluetooth. They went into negotiation with Qualcomm.


Had all kinds of NDAs with them. And had to show them the technology. And suddenly, the deal fell apart. And then just a couple years later, Qualcomm comes out with this new amazing technology that can connect everybody's phones and other things to Bluetooth. Huh.

The story only gets more twisted and turned when you run into Eric Holder, and the DOJ. And a jury that says, Qualcomm took this technology and a judge who says, I'm going to sentence Qualcomm and talk about the -- the penalties. And a month later, the judge overturns the jury, and -- and says, no. Qualcomm didn't do anything wrong.

There's some weird stuff going on. Now, here's the update. Qualcomm freaked out about his appearance on this program.

And they filed a cease and desist against Jeff Parker and told him, not to speak out again!

And we called him.

And he said, I'll tell you what, why don't you book me for the show. I'll show you how much ceasing and desisting I'll be doing.

All right. Jeff Parker is with us.

Jeff, how are you, sir?

JEFF: Good morning, Glenn. I'm fine.

GLENN: So let's go over the part just quickly about you sign a cease and desist. All of a sudden, two years later, your technology is introduced by Qualcomm. They pretend, no. What are you talking about? That's not your technology. That's our technology. You take them to court. The jury rules in your favor, unanimous. The judge says, I'm going to apply penalties. Then a couple of weeks after that, Qualcomm has a fundraiser for Barack Obama. The head of Qualcomm has it at his house. Obama shows up. Then a couple of days after that, the DOJ under Eric Holder starts to probe your website. Finish that story.

JEFF: Sure. So thanks for having me back again.

GLENN: You bet.

JEFF: Yeah. So we win a unanimous jury verdict. We come back to the courthouse, after that jury verdict, and the judge hears the parties argue about what should happen next. And after listening to the arguments, the judge says, you know what, there is certainly going to be an ongoing royalty here, which is what Qualcomm would have to pay us for the continued use of our patents and technology.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: And we are all excited. We leave the courthouse. A few days after that, we have a visit to our website by the White House.
The executive office of the president of the White House.

GLENN: Hmm.

JEFF: Just a few days before that visit, there's a fundraiser at the head of Qualcomm's home. One of the cofounder's homes. Raising money for the DNC.

And after that fundraiser, a few days later, there's this visit from the executive office of the president.

And about a month after that, is when the judge issued his final order, after having indicating before that his final order was going to include royalties. He not only didn't include royalties.

He reversed the jury verdict. And threw the case out.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So Eric Holder was at the DOJ at the time.

You start getting visits at your website, and you can track all of this. You have all of this. Eric Holder and the DOJ start to visit your website, that's only about this litigation. That's the only part they do.

And lo and behold, we find out that Eric Holder before he went to the DOJ, he worked for Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. When he left the DOJ, guess where he went?

Back to Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. So you're on the program, you lay all this out.

And now what has happened?

JEFF: Correct. So we're on your program about two weeks ago.

And literally, Glenn, the next day, Qualcomm contacts our attorneys, and they say, if your client doesn't remove his social media, and furthermore agree not to do anymore social media, we will file a motion with the court to gag him, to have this court take down the social media and prevent further conversation.

And, of course, I -- my attorneys are handling a patent case. So they say to me, we're not really experts in First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech rights. Could you please find an attorney who could help you with this?

So I ended up reaching out. And we engaged Marc Kasowitz of his firm. And the Kasowitz firm is a very fine law firm that handles these types of areas and many other areas of law. But Mark --

GLENN: Yeah. He's done a lot of work for Trump, has he not?

JEFF: He has. He has. Mark has handled a lot of president Trump's legal issues over the years. And I approach Mark.

And he heard this request from Qualcomm. And he said, outrageous. He said, this is -- this is ridiculous.

They can't gag you. So a couple days later, Qualcomm, in fact, filed a formal motion with the court that said, take down your social media and stop adding additional social media. And we were actually getting ready to file our opposition, but we first wanted to wait and see what the court was going to do.

And a few days later, the court finding this motion, frankly merit-less. And without any basis for what they're asking for, ruled at the end of last week, just this last Friday.

No. No Qualcomm. You don't get that request. So --

GLENN: Absolutely.

JEFF: So that was good to hear.

GLENN: That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

By the way, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this.

But I -- I will bet you that our new director of the FBI and our new head of the DOJ saw that Blaze article, that lays all of this out. I'm just saying, that might have happened.

PAT: Well, Glenn, I hope so. Look, what Qualcomm has accused us of, is trying to taint a jury pool. We don't even have a trial date yet, set for this case.

So how are we going to taint a jury pool. But the thing that is really frustrating is the way they characterized our social media. And what we're saying. It's just completely false.

I'll give you an example. So an example of their -- of their characterization is they say, ParkerVision disparages the judicial process in the middle district of Florida and maligns the fairness of the forum.

Namely, ParkerVision impugns Judge Dalton's ruling, in the prior ParkerVision trial, falsely claiming that he improperly reversed the jury's verdict as a result of collusion between Qualcomm and the administration of then president Barack Obama.

Well, let me tell you, that's not true. What ParkerVision is doing is bringing public just facts. We're simply bringing facts. Here's the facts.

The facts are, the Department of Justice has been on our website 37 times.

We discovered shortly before our first trial, all the way until 2022 when I filed a freedom of information act request, asking, hey, Department of Justice. What are you doing on our website? Why are you on our website, so many days at the same time, looking at the same pages as Qualcomm.

Hey. What's this White House visit we had? Why were you only looking at litigation on Qualcomm on our patents? What's that about?

We've never had that fulfilled. So I'm not drawing any conclusions what this means. I'm simply stating the facts. The facts are that these visits happened. And we think we have a right to know, what they're about.

That's what they're asking for.

GLENN: Yeah. They're very suspicious. But that doesn't mean anything happened.

But, you know, there's enough there, not beyond a reasonable doubt. There's enough there, that, you know, we should probably ask some questions here.

JEFF: Yes. Exactly.

GLENN: There was a short seller. Can you tell me about the short seller? Whats his name? Farmwald. What's their name?

JEFF: Yeah, so when Qualcomm accuses us of trying to influence a jury. Again, a date hasn't even been set for a trial. It's pretty rich, Glenn.

Because back in our first trial. There was this persistent short seller. Who had been out posting on the financial message boards. Again and again and again. Trying to drive our stock price down. Our patents are no good. We don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me tell you, from the time we filed this case against Qualcomm in 2011, until we won the jury verdict in 2013, over two years, he posted 200 times. Every business day he posted. And he posted predictions. The patents would fall.

They didn't.

The -- the patent case wouldn't go forward.

It did. Oh, even if we won. We would only win ten or $11 million.

He was only off by a factor of 20.

I mean, it went on and on and on.

Here's the real punch line. We got to depose this guy. And subpoena his emails, because after Qualcomm lost the case. He filed challenges to our patents. Which we found kind of suspicious.

And guess what we figured out in deposition of this guy?

Guess who he had been working against when we filed this lawsuit against Qualcomm.

GLENN: Qualcomm.

JEFF: Qualcomm.

GLENN: Do we have payments? And how do you mean working?

JEFF: Well, it turns out that Qualcomm was paying some of his lawyer's bills. Because he was worried apparently, about us suing him for something. I mean, if you're not doing something wrong, what are you worried about?

But he was worried about that. So he went to Qualcomm and he said, look, I'm not looking for you to pay me directly. But pay my legal bills. And our attorney said to him, you don't consider that to be some compensation?

No. I don't consider that to be any compensation. The point though --

GLENN: Why would --

JEFF: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would he meet his legal bills? If I'm not mistaken, this is years before -- three years before you knew that they were infringing, right?

JEFF: Yes. So we believe that he actually started communicating with them. Even before we filed our lawsuit.

So there's a lot of fishy things here.

But to keep it to the point of Qualcomm's motion to try to get us to be gagged, it's pretty interesting. That they would be so willing to work with a party, whose only mission was to put out mischaracterizations and falsehoods about ParkerVision. Its patents. Its technology. Et cetera.

But they be they turn around and accuse us of what they were supporting. Back during the time trial.

GLENN: All right. More in just a second. I have a new video, and I want to show you something from the judge in just a second.

First, let tell you about American Financing for just a moment.

What would it look like to be out of debt, especially all of our your high-interest debt? All of the stuff you have to put on your credit card. Even though, that interest rate is 20, 25, 30 percent?

It's not a fantasy to be out of debt. It could be your reality. If you're a homeowner, and you want to get out from under high-interest debt. Give American Financing a call today.

Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of $800 a month.

Now, imagine giving yourself a $10,000 raise. That's exactly what they can do for you today, if you start today. You might even be able to delay up to two mortgage payments, which could help you get out even further from that debt.

Don't take my word for it. I want you to do your own homework, as always. Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Let me see this full screen here, if I can.

So tell me what this is, Jeff. This full screen, that we have up on the monitors.

This is from the judge, is it not?

VOICE: Oh, hold on. Yes. Yes.

GLENN: That's the ruling.

VOICE: Yes. This is the ruling from the judge, correct.

GLENN: My gosh, they are freaked out about you being on this program.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

PAT: You seem to be all over that document.

Wow!

VOICE: I know.

JEFF: You know, Glenn, the sad thing about it is, he does dismiss their motion, which we're very happy about.

And we thought it was meritless when they filed it. But he does go on, and he talks a little about some of his unhappiness with the things that we say.

And I've already had people call me up and say, what do you think about that?

I said, look, he only has that side of the story. He rules so fast, which we appreciate.

That we didn't even have time to file a reply. So he is simply looking at Qualcomm's reply, and assuming they are telling him the truth, which they're not telling him the truth.

Look, they say, I have no basis for thinking that Qualcomm has taken our technology to China. I mean, you're kidding. Here's an article, Glenn, I found. 2017, New York Times. How this US tech giant is backing China's tech ambitions. Interesting article. People should go read it. 2019. Jenwa Net (phonetic) of Asia. Interview: Qualcomm president says China to lead the world in 5G scale.

Look, I understand why Qualcomm wants to be a big player in China.

It's a big market. But we have to do this smartly.

We can't just put engineering facilities there.

Teach the Chinese how to develop their own products.

And then expect for the long hall, that we're going to be anything other than from the outside looking in.

I mean, their Belt and Road Initiative is being helped by big tech companies right here in the United States.

It's insane.

GLENN: So when do you suppose -- are you going to file and go to court again?

I know you've been waiting for 11 years.

JEFF: Well, we have a case. It is -- it is -- by the way one of the things Qualcomm mischaracterized is in our first video, they say, oh, Jeff Parker says, we've been waiting ten years for our case, I show you indicating that there's something I feel is nefarious.

No, I didn't say anything was nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: What I said was it's been a long -- let me tell you why it's in ten years. Qualcomm filed challenges to the validity of our patents. That ate up four years.
Then they had a couple other ridiculous motions, which took the judge a year or two to sort through.

Now we're up to six years. Then we had the pandemic. That's another two years. The point is, it's been a long time. And all we're asking for is our day in court with the jury who can hear our case. And make a decision.

We think we have a compelling case to the jury.

And the judge right now is considering when to set the trial date. We're hoping it's going to be early, early to middle. Maybe this fall, of this year.

But soon. Very soon.

GLENN: Well, we will continue to follow the case. Are you releasing another video?

JEFF: We just released another video this morning.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And that video talks about the benefit of the technology.

Our interaction with Qualcomm. How we took this technology to them.

I hope people will go to against giants. And watch the video.

I think you'll find it highly informative.

GLENN: You'll find it on Twitter. At against underscore giants.

At against underscore giants.

Make sure you check that out. And share it with a friend. Share it with the DOJ.

With the FBI. With anybody that you feel would have interest in this.

I think this is something that should be looked into. And if there was corruption, it needs to be routed out.

People need to go to jail, if they did wrong.

And the -- the patents need to be set right.

If we can't count on our patents as small-business people, which Jeff Parker is and ParkerVision is.

If we can't count that those patents can be held by small people, against these giants!

We've got nothing in America.

We have nothing.

JEFF: Totally.

GLENN: This is David versus Goliath.

And they deserve their fair shake in a courtroom.

Jeffrey, thank you so much.

JEFF: Glenn, thank you for having me back.

GLENN: You bet. ParkerVision.com.

ParkerVision.com.

RADIO

Did USAID Really Fund Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding? Here's the FACTS

As DOGE continues to expose the many, many ways our government has wasted taxpayer dollars, Glenn gives a warning: “You have to be really careful [what you believe] because we don’t want to wreck our credibility.” While the things DOGE has uncovered have been true, there are also a lot of rumors and misinformation spreading online. Glenn addresses some of those rumors, like the seemingly-unfounded claim that USAID helped fund Chelsea Clinton’s wedding through the Clinton Foundation. We must ask questions, but we can’t jump to conclusions without being sure that we have the real facts. Glenn also addresses some provably true stories of government waste, like how the Pentagon overpays for things and why Glenn supports Trump’s decision to stop minting pennies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Looking at the DOGE stuff, and I want to talk about this next hour.

We have to be really, really careful. Because I don't know about you, but when I heard that we possibly paid for Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

PAT: Yeah. Do we have that substantiated though?

GLENN: We don't. We don't.

And that's why I want to bring that up.

PAT: You have to be careful with that stuff. A ton.

STU: A lot of stuff coming out online.

And you can't quote this stuff. You have to be really, really careful.

Because we just don't want to, A, wreck our credibility.

And, you know, when we find out that it is absolutely true, that's when we can go and say, round them up!

Let's put them court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. There's -- there's a viral chart going around that shows Chelsea Clinton got, I don't know. Something like $84 million from the foundation from the Clinton foundation.

And that 3 million of that went to her wedding.

GLENN: Okay. So I think -- I think they did get $84 million.

PAT: I think that went to the foundation, right?

GLENN: Yeah. It went to the foundation.

Got it for the whole run. For Haiti or whatever.

And, you know, we know they spent $84 million in Haiti.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because look at the place now.

Oh, it's beautiful he has not it's beautiful.

PAT: Well, we were there, how many years after the earthquake.

And it still looked the same. As if the earthquake had just happened. You remember that?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. And the people from Haiti were saying to us, where is the money?

PAT: Where is the $10 billion? Yeah. Because that could have rebuilt. That could have rebuilt the entire country. 10 billion.

GLENN: About four times. About four times over, I think.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- Haiti is just -- it's a sad, sad situation.

It's been ripped off by everybody in the world over and over again.

And I think the Clintons are, you know, they kind of lead the way on the -- on the charity for Haiti graft.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But we don't know anything about that. We do know the Clinton initiative got $84 million.

But we don't know any more than that.

And, you know, honestly, if you're spending your tax dollars, I mean, that's what people have to realize.

Even if it is, you know -- even if it is -- it didn't go to Chelsea's wedding.

Which I would be surprised.

I would be shocked, if they were that bold!

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But, you know, this isn't an effective use of your money.

And people who are looking at it, and saying, well, it was only $5 million.

How much money have you paid your entire life in taxes?

Because I guarantee you, it's not going to be $5 million.

It's not! Very few people to have pay $5 million in their lifetime of taxes.

So that means, that everything that you paid. Everything that you worked for. When you work four months a year, to pay your income tax.

All of that has been wasted, your entire life.

I don't know!

I'm kind of pissed about that.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, what could you have done with all of that money?

And I -- I just don't -- I don't get people who are, you know, again, like we said, I'm for aid.

I'm absolutely for aid. I'm absolutely for looking at countries, and saying, how can we help you, if it's in our interest, and that's not aid.

That would be development. But I'm not for most of the development that has been happening. I'm not interested in nation building!

You know, so, you know, even if you're for that, are you cool with it going 60 cents on every dollar? To the government officials?

Or to the charitable officials. And only 40 cents of that dollar?

I mean, I'm not happy with that. We've gotten so used to corruption, in our government, on, you know, the Pentagon spent $400 on, you know -- on a toilet seat.

We're so used to that. That we just expect it.

This is not that.

The corruption that we're finding now, is beyond imagination.

It's going to be hard for people to get their arms around, what you're actually looking at.

Because we expect a certain amount of -- unfortunately, a certain amount of corruption.

But nothing like this!

And if you're -- you know, if you are a Democrat and you're inclined, not to believe it.

Okay!

I can understand that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for a while.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And say, I probably would have been skeptical, if Joe Biden -- I would have been skeptical if Joe Biden would have come in and said, we will route out all of the corruption.

I would have thought, well, no.

They're getting rid of anybody who is conservative on corruption.

That's why I'm so excited about the Pentagon because that's going to be a lot of conservative love.

You know what I mean?

So called conservative love. It's just graft and greed and cronyism.

But still, it -- it's -- we're supposed to be in love.

The left is supposed to be in love with aid.

We're supposed to be in love with death. I'm not -- I -- I am not blind to either one of those things.

But go into the Pentagon. I would love to see them take.

At you see the congressman or the senator last week, that held up a bag of bolts, and said, this is about $10 at the store?

It's $10,000, if the Pentagon buys it!

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Where is that money going?

PAT: Incredible.

GLENN: Who is getting that money?
And, you know, you would say, well, they're charging ten thousands of individuals dollars a bolt, because, you know, the aircrafts that they're building.

They're so expensive.

And they can't actually charge the price of what it takes.

No, they're charging us the price with all of the overruns.

All of the hundreds of billions of dollars in overruns.

They're charging us that as well.

So my question is: Where do those billions of dollars end up?

In just the pockets of, what? McDonnell-Douglas?

PAT: Raytheon?

GLENN: Raytheon.

PAT: Congress people?

GLENN: Right!

PAT: You know, a lot. A lot of it -- you know it's winding up in their pocketbooks. Has to be.

GLENN: And you know what really bothers me is, these people are taking our tax dollars. And then they're giving that money, through lobbying. To our politicians. Who are allowing the corruption to happen.

So it's just this giant circular -- I'm just going to leave it at that.

This giant circular, something.

I don't -- I don't know what happens in circles.

But there it is.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: By the way, the other thing that Trump said, first of all, he's getting rid of pennies.

Did you hear that?

Executive order. Thank you!

I mean, you know, takes 3 cents to create 1 cent. What are we doing?

That's the dims thing I've ever, ever seen.

PAT: Yes. Especially when nobody wants pennies. Nobody uses them.

If you ever use cash. And you get pennies back.

You just put it in their take a penny jar, usually.

And don't even want it messing up your pocket.

GLENN: Right. I mean, it's absolutely worthless to the American people.

And it's costing our government 3 cents to make 1 cent.

Finally, the president is -- I mean, all of this stuff is so common sense. That's what's so frustrating about all of this.

Should had it should have been done long ago.

But for some reason, we just couldn't. We've known about the penny thing.

I've known about the penny thing, when it was a cent and a half to make a penny.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That long ago.

PAT: He's -- he's leaving no stone unturned right now.

You've got the penny thing.

And then he just did the straw situation.

Did you see that?

We're going back to plastic straws.

He signed an executive order, or he is going to. Ending the ridiculous Biden push for paper straws, which don't work. Back to plastic, he tweeted out! Or truthed out.

GLENN: I love that.

PAT: It's just -- it's amazing the things that he's covering, at a breathtaking speed.

GLENN: I love that.

Do we have the CBS anchor trying to explain how Trump's approval ratings are going through the roof? Listen to this. Cut ten.

VOICE: What's driving this?

VOICE: I will keep it simple, Margaret. He's doing what he said he would do in the campaign. There's political value in that. In fact, 70 percent of people say he's doing what he's promised. That's whether they approve of him or not.

Now, there's another part of this that continues over from the campaign. There are words he was described as being tough. Being energetic.

And he still is today, in big majority numbers.

So as people take a look in these first few weeks, there's been a lot of activity. They're getting that general sense of governance. And that's being reflected in these early numbers.

VOICE: So that's perception. What about the actual policies?

VOICE: Well, let's start with the ones that are popular.

Again, these echo the ones we see in the campaign. The idea of deporting those in the country illegally continues to be popular. We saw that in the campaign.

GLENN: 59 percent.

VOICE: Sending troops to the US-Mexico border. Again, majority --

GLENN: 64 percent.

PAT: Wow! Wow.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- and they're just baffled by it. I don't understand. No. Really.